The President's Executive Order 14219 of February 19, 2025, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative, 90 FR 10583, and subsequent implementing memorandum directed all agency heads to review regulations within their purview and rescind those that are, among other things, unlawful or unnecessary. FCIC has undertaken such a review and is accordingly rescinding the following provisions from title 7.

This document does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action as specified by Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This action also has no federalism or tribal implications and will not impose substantial unreimbursed compliance costs on States, local governments, or Indian Tribal governments. Therefore, impact statements are not required under E.O. 13132 or 13175.

This rule will have no significant effect on the human environment; therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor impact statement is required.

This rule does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

There are 7 obsolete crop insurance regulations within the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457). These obsolete crop insurance regulations have been replaced by alternate policies, approved under 7 U.S.C. 1508(h) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, available on the RMA website. The existence of these obsolete regulations in the CFR burdens farmers and insurance personnel with rules that are no longer in effect. Specifically, the following regulations are removed:

• Texas citrus tree crop insurance provisions in 7 CFR 457.106;

• Sugarcane crop insurance provisions in 7 CFR 457.116;

• Macadamia tree crop insurance provisions in 7 CFR 457.130;

• Peanut crop insurance provisions in 7 CFR 457.134;

• Nursery crop insurance provisions in 7 CFR 457.162;

• Nursery peak inventory endorsement in 7 CFR 457.163; and

• Nursery rehabilitation endorsement in 7 CFR 457.164.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 457 as follows:

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 906 as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Part 906 (referred to as “the Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of oranges and grapefruit operating within the area of production.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” which requires Federal agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this final rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” Under the Order now in effect, Texas orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable Texas citrus for the 2024-2025 fiscal period, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608(c)(15)(A)), any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule increases the assessment rate for Texas oranges and grapefruit handled under the Order from $0.03 to $0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent for the 2024-2025 and subsequent fiscal periods.

Sections 906.33 and 906.34 of the Order authorize the Committee, with the approval of AMS, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and can formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting, and all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2022-23 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and AMS approved, an assessment rate of $0.03 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus within the production area. That rate continues in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period until modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to AMS.

The Committee met on June 18, 2024, and unanimously recommended 2024-2025 fiscal period expenditures of $134,970 and an increased assessment rate of $0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas oranges and grapefruit handled for the 2024-2025 and subsequent fiscal periods. The budgeted expenditures remain unchanged compared to last year's recommended expenditures. The new assessment rate of $0.04 is $0.01 higher than the previous rate. The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to cover expenses for the current fiscal year and replenish reserves. The Committee estimates shipments for the 2024-2025 fiscal period to be around 4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents, similar to the 3,976,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents handled in the 2023-2024 fiscal period.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2024-2025 fiscal period include $66,220 for management expenses, $50,000 for compliance, and $18,750 for general administrative expenses, the same as budgeted for these items during the 2023-2024 fiscal period.

At the previous assessment rate of $0.03, the expected 4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents would generate $120,000 in assessment revenue (4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents multiplied by $0.03 assessment rate), which would not have covered budgeted expenses. Further, shipments from the 2023-2024 fiscal period were approximately 4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents of citrus, which was well below the estimated crop of 5,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents. The smaller crop forced the Committee to use the remainder of their reserves to help cover 2023-2024 fiscal period expenses. Consequently, the Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to meet necessary expenses and restore reserves. By increasing the assessment rate from $0.03 to $0.04, assessment income will generate $160,000 in assessment revenue (4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents multiplied by $0.04 assessment rate). This amount should be appropriate to ensure the Committee has sufficient revenue to fully fund its recommended 2024-2025 budgeted expenditures and replenish the Committee's reserve funds.

The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by reviewing anticipated expenses, the estimated volume of assessable Texas citrus, and the level of funds available in the financial reserve. Income generated from handler assessments should be sufficient to meet the Committee's estimated program expenditures of $134,970. Funds available in the financial reserve (currently about $0) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as authorized in § 906.35).

This assessment rate established herein will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information. Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or AMS. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. AMS will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2024-2025 fiscal period budget, and those for subsequent fiscal periods, will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by AMS.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are 17 handlers of Texas oranges and grapefruit subject to regulation under the Order and approximately 75 orange and grapefruit producers in the regulated area. At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defined small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $4 million for orange producers (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111310), and $4.25 million for other citrus producers (including grapefruit) (NAICS code 111320). Small agricultural service firms, including handlers, are defined as those whose annual receipts are equal to or less than $34 million (NAICS code 115114) (13 CFR 121.201).

According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the producer prices for U.S. fresh oranges and grapefruit were $11.63 and $15.63 per carton, respectively. The prices for U.S. fresh oranges and grapefruit are used for this RFA because NASS does not publish fresh citrus prices for Texas. Based on data provided by the Committee, the number of orange and grapefruit 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents shipped in the 2023-2024 season were 1,462,800 and 2,513,258, respectively.

Using the producer prices, shipment data, and the total number of Texas orange and grapefruit producers, the majority of producers have estimated average annual receipts of significantly less than the SBA threshold of $4 million ($11.63 multiplied by 1,462,800 cartons plus $15.63 multiplied by 2,513,258 cartons equals $112,564,041, divided by 75 producers equals $750,594 per producer).

In addition, based on the NASS data, the average prices of fresh U.S. oranges and grapefruit handled for 2023-2024 were $18.40 and $23.05, respectively. Using the same shipment data from the Committee, the number of orange and grapefruit cartons shipped in the 2023-2024 season, the majority of Texas orange and grapefruit handlers have average annual receipts of less than $34 million ($18.40 multiplied by 1,462,800 cartons plus $23.05 multiplied by 2,513,258 cartons equals $84,846,117, divided by 17 handlers equals $4,990,948 per handler). Thus, the majority of Texas orange and grapefruit producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This final rule increases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2024-2025 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.03 to $0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas oranges and grapefruit. The Committee unanimously recommended 2024-2025 expenditures of $134,970 and an assessment rate of $0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.04 is $0.01 higher than the previous rate. The 2024-2025 crop year is estimated to be 4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents. The $0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent assessment rate should provide $160,000 in assessment income (4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents multiplied by $0.04 assessment rate). Income derived from handler assessments should be sufficient to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2024-25 fiscal period include $66,220 for management expenses, $50,000 for compliance, and $18,750 for general administrative expenses. This is the same as budgeted for these items during the 2023-2024 fiscal period.

The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to meet necessary expenses and restore reserves. The reserves were depleted when shipments from the 2023-2024 fiscal period were approximately 4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents, which was well below the estimated crop of 5,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents. The Committee estimates shipments for the 2024-2025 season to be around 4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents. Given the estimated number of shipments, the previous assessment rate of $0.03 would generate $120,000 in assessment income (4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents multiplied by $0.03 assessment rate), which would not cover budgeted expenses. By increasing the assessment rate from $0.03 to $0.04, assessment income will be approximately $160,000 (4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalents multiplied by $0.04 assessment rate). This amount should provide sufficient funds to meet anticipated 2024-2025 expenses, while adding money to the financial reserve.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate recommendation, the Committee considered alternatives from the Committee staff during a discussion at the June 18, 2024, meeting. Staff prepared fifteen different proposed budgets with different combinations of assessment rates, estimated shipments, and alternate expenditure levels. The Committee determined maintaining expenses and estimated shipments of 4,000,000 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit were representative of the 2024-2025 fiscal period, and an assessment rate of $0.04 should cover expenditures and add funds to the financial reserve. Consequently, the other alternatives were rejected.

A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the 2024-2025 fiscal period indicates the average producer price for Texas oranges and grapefruit for the 2024-2025 season should be approximately $14.15 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent. Therefore, utilizing the recommended assessment rate of $0.04 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent, assessment revenue for the 2024 fiscal period as a percentage of total producer revenue should be approximately 0.3 percent ($0.04 divided by $14.15 times 100).

This final rule increases the assessment obligation imposed on Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order.

The Committee's meetings are widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons are invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 18, 2024, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit comments on this rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary because of this final rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas citrus handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2025 (90 FR 3720). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via email to all Texas citrus handlers. The proposal was also made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register via https://www.regulations.gov. A 30-day comment period ending February 14, 2025, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. AMS received one comment supporting the proposed change. Accordingly, AMS made no changes to the rule based on the comment received, as proposed.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Antoinette Carter at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, AMS has determined that this rulemaking is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 906 as follows:

On June 30, 2020, Gulfstream applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00021AT to include the new Model GVII-G400 airplane. The Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane, which is a derivative of the Model GVII-G500 airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00021AT, is a twin-engine, transport-category, business jet, with a maximum seating for 19 passengers, and a maximum take-off weight of 73,500 pounds.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G400 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00021AT, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane must comply with the exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

The Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

The GVII-G400 is equipped with a high-speed protection system that limits nose down pilot authority at speeds above V C /M C and prevents the airplane from actually performing the maneuver required under § 25.335(b)(1). Gulfstream proposes to reduce the margin between V C and V D required by § 25.335(b) based on the incorporation of this high-speed protection system in the Gulfstream GVII-G400 flight control laws.

Section 25.335(b)(1) is an analytical envelope condition which was originally adopted in part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations in order to provide an acceptable speed margin between design cruise speed and design dive speed. Flutter clearance design speeds and airframe design loads are impacted by the design dive speed. While the initial condition for the upset specified in the rule is 1g level flight, protection is afforded for other inadvertent overspeed conditions as well. Section 25.335(b)(1) is intended as a conservative enveloping condition for potential overspeed conditions, including non-symmetric ones. To establish that potential overspeed conditions are enveloped, the applicant must demonstrate that any reduced speed margin based on the high-speed protection system will not be exceeded in inadvertent or gust induced upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes; or that the airplane is protected by the flight control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The applicant must conduct a demonstration that includes a comprehensive set of conditions as described below.

A special condition in lieu of § 25.335(b)(1). Section 25.335(b)(2), which also addresses the design dive speed, will be applied for separately. Advisory Circular 25.335-1A, “Design Dive Speed,” dated September 29, 2000, provides an acceptable means of compliance to § 25.335(b)(2).

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

The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-24-06-SC for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane, which was published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2025 (90 FR 8912).

The FAA received a response from one individual commenter in the form of a question. The comment was outside the scope of these special conditions.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

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

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane.

(1) In lieu of compliance with § 25.335(b)(1), if the flight control system includes functions that act automatically to initiate recovery before the end of the 20 second period specified in § 25.335(b)(1), V D /M D must be determined from the greater of the speeds resulting from conditions (a) and (b) below. The speed increase occurring in these maneuvers may be calculated if the analysis method and the data used are shown to be reliable. If any non-overridable automatic feature is included in the high-speed protection system ( e.g., automatic power reduction or automatic application of drag devices), normal operation of these features may be assumed in the maneuvers of (a) and (b).

(a) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at V C /M C , the airplane is upset so as to take up a new flight path 7.5 degrees below the initial path. Pilot pitch control application, up to full authority, is made to try to achieve and maintain this new flight path. Twenty seconds after achieving the new flight path at or above V C /M C or twenty seconds after reaching full control input at or above V C /M C , whichever occurs first, manual recovery is made at a load factor of 1.5 g (0.5 g acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Initial power setting, as specified in § 25.175(b)(1)(iv), is assumed. Pilot reduction of power and/or use of drag devices must be delayed until recovery is initiated.

(b) From any likely level cruise speed up to V C /M C , with the longitudinal trim and power set to maintain stabilized level flight at this speed, the airplane is upset so as to accelerate through V C /M C at a flight path 15 degrees below the initial path (or at the steepest nose down attitude that the system will permit with full pitch control input if less than 15 degrees). The pilot's controls may be in the neutral position after reaching V C /M C and before recovery is initiated. Recovery may be initiated three seconds after operation of the high-speed warning device or immediately upon reaching V C /M C (whichever is higher) by application of a load factor of 1.5 g (0.5 g acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral; power may be reduced simultaneously if not already automatically reduced by the high-speed protection system. All other means of decelerating the airplane, the use of which are authorized up to the highest speed reached in the maneuver, may be used. The interval between successive pilot actions must not be less than one second.

(2) Any failure of the high-speed protection system that would affect the speed margin determined by paragraph (1) must be improbable (occur at a rate less than 10-5 per flight hour).

(3) Failures of the system must be annunciated to the pilots, and flight manual instructions must be provided to reduce the maximum operating speeds, V MO /M MO . The operating speed must be reduced to a value that maintains a speed margin between the reduced V MO /M MO and the lesser of V DF /M DF or V D /M D that is consistent with the margin determined from paragraph (1)(a) and § 25.335(b)(2) without the benefit of the high-speed protection system.

(4) Master minimum equipment list (MMEL) relief for the high-speed protection system may be considered by the FAA Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB) provided that the flight manual instructions indicate reduced maximum operating speeds as described in paragraph (3), and that no additional hazards are introduced with the high-speed protection system inoperative. In addition, the cockpit display of the reduced operating speeds, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, must be equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high-speed protection system operative.

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-2267; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00819-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to John A. Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7320; email: 9-AVS-AIR-BACO-COS@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0103, dated May 5, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0103) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A airplanes with the new avionics suite (glass flightdeck) installed by modification 05948. The MCAI states that a review of the MMEL identified that, under the provisions of MMEL item 29-11-01 for dispatch with a failed main hydraulic (HYD) pump, specifically the GREEN HYD Pump, a failure of the DC EMER BUS could lead to multiple system losses, including loss of control of the BLUE HYD Pump (electrically controlled by the DC EMER BUS), loss of nose wheel steering (powered by the DC EMER BUS), and complete loss of control of the rudder travel limitation unit (TLU) in both auto and manual modes. These failures could result in reduced airplane controllability on the ground during landing.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-2267.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0103, which specifies procedures for revising the existing MEL by providing instructions to ensure appropriate actions are taken when the airplane is dispatched with an inoperative main hydraulic pump. 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.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0103 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

EASA AD 2025-0103 requires operators to “inform all flight crews” of revisions to the MEL, and thereafter to “operate the aeroplane accordingly.” However, this AD does not specifically require those actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations. FAA regulations (14 CFR 121.628(a)(2)) require operators to provide pilots with access to all the information contained in the operator's MEL. Furthermore, § 121.628(a)(5) requires airplanes to be operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the operator's MEL. Therefore, including a requirement in this AD to operate the airplane according to the revised MEL would be redundant and unnecessary.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2025-0103 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2025-0103 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0103 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0103. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0103 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-2267 after this AD is published.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because dispatch with an inoperative main hydraulic pump (GREEN HYD Pump (A)), in combination with a failed emergency bus, could lead to complete loss of control of the only remaining hydraulic pump (BLUE HYD Pump (B)), nose wheel steering, and rudder TLU, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane on the ground during landing. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 22 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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 to supersede AD 2022-18-01, Amendment 39-22152 (87 FR 54355, September 6, 2022) (AD 2022-18-01). AD 2022-18-01 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes, A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, A330-300 series airplanes, A330-800 series airplanes, and A330-900 series airplanes. AD 2022-18-01 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2022-18-01 to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2025 (90 FR 25163). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0213, dated November 14, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0213) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0213. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life-limited parts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0925.

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

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. 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 EASA AD 2024-0213. This material specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2021-0246, dated November 17, 2021, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of October 11, 2022 (87 FR 54355, September 6, 2022).

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

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2022-18-01 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -253NY, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2025 (90 FR 19157). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0208, dated October 25, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0208) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that new airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0208. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0748.

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

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. 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 EASA AD 2024-0208, which specifies new airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,924 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-14-14, Amendment 39-18958 (82 FR 33002, July 19, 2017) (AD 2017-14-14). AD 2017-14-14 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-14-14 required repetitive inspections for cracking in the cabin floor beam junction at certain fuselage frame locations and repair if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2017-14-14 to detect and correct cracking in the cabin floor beam junction at certain fuselage frame locations, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2025 (90 FR 10801). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0128, dated July 3, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0128) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that the manufacturer developed a modification that restores the fatigue potential at each location (junction) by doing cold-working at the cabin floor beam and fitting junction for airplanes with a pre-mod 155607 configuration. The manufacturer also developed optional modification instructions for airplanes with a post-mod 155607 configuration. These modifications can be used to extend the compliance time for an inspection cycle. In addition, further analysis determined that the compliance times for the inspections must also be based on flight hours.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2017-14-14 and to revise compliance times and add a provision for optional modifications, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0128. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0213.

The FAA received comments from an individual who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from an anonymous commenter and ProTech Aero Services Limited (ProTech). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

ProTech requested the FAA confirm that the proposed AD would allow the use of later-approved revisions of the material specified in EASA AD 2024-0128, as acceptable for compliance with the AD requirements.

This AD does allow the use of later-approved revisions of the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0128 as acceptable for compliance with the required actions. This AD adopts the “Ref. Publications” section of EASA AD 2024-0128, which includes the current version of the referenced material as well as later approved revisions.

The anonymous commenter suggested that the FAA should explore the feasibility of design modifications or reinforcements to eliminate the need for repetitive inspections. The commenter stated design improvements can provide long-term solutions to structural issues.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. The FAA evaluated the available information and determined that the actions required by this AD are sufficient to address the unsafe condition. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, any person may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), including design improvements or other alternatives, if the proposal provides an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter requested that the FAA reduce the inspection intervals proposed in the NPRM. The commenter reasoned that frequent inspections have been shown to identify structural issues before they escalate.

The FAA does not agree to reduce the inspection intervals. A full-scale fatigue test campaign was performed on a Model A321 airframe, and the test results were used to determine an appropriate inspection interval. The FAA also considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the repetitive inspections. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the affected cabin floor beam junctions can be inspected in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. If additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, the FAA may consider further rulemaking. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter asked whether the FAA has considered mandating advanced NDT methods such as ultrasonic or eddy current inspections. The commenter asserted that advanced NDT methods would enhance detection of subsurface cracks.

The FAA is aware of those NDT inspections and requires such inspections where appropriate or necessary for detecting cracks. It was determined that detailed inspections are sufficient for addressing the unsafe condition of this AD. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, any person may request approval of an AMOC to use other types of inspections if the proposal provides an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter stated that operators should be required to report all findings of cracks to the FAA to facilitate data collection and trend analysis. The commenter reasoned that reports aid in identifying patterns and prevent issues.

The FAA does not agree to require reporting. In certain cases, the FAA might determine that additional information ( i.e., data collection) is needed to understand the problem and develop appropriate mitigation for an unsafe condition. In this case, because the safety concern was found during a full-scale fatigue test campaign, the unsafe condition was identified and a corrective action was developed without the need to require additional operator reports. However, an operator may still choose to send relevant inspection information to the FAA. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The anonymous commenter asked the FAA what measures will be taken to mitigate the economic impact of the proposed inspections on small operators. The commenter stated that small operators may face financial challenges in complying with frequent inspections.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern and recognizes that this AD imposes certain operational costs on operators. Under certain circumstances, the airplane manufacturer might provide financial relief, but the FAA does not provide economic mitigation to small operators. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. 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 this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0128, which specifies procedures for inspections for cracking on the frame to cabin floor beam junction at certain fuselage frame locations (frames 35.1 and 35.2, left- and right-hand sides), repairs, and optional modifications to extend an inspection interval. 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 494 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 actions 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 these on-condition actions:

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:

In FR Doc. 2025-15493, appearing on page 39112 in the Federal Register of August 14, 2025, the following corrections are made:

To comply with the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-188, 122 Stat. 635, codified at 15 U.S.C. 6152) (“Act”), the Commission is amending the TSR, which is contained in 16 CFR part 310, by updating the fees entities are charged for accessing the Registry. Specifically, the revised rule increases (1) the annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data from $80 to $82 per area code, and (2) the maximum amount that will be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data from $22,038 to $22,626. Entities may add area codes during the second six months of their annual subscription period, and the fee for those additional area codes increases from $40 to $41.

These increases are in accordance with the Act, which specifies that beginning after fiscal year 2009, the dollar amounts charged shall be increased by an amount equal to the amounts specified in the Act, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the average of the monthly consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor) (“CPI”) for the most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds the CPI for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008. The Act also states that any increase shall be rounded to the nearest dollar and that there shall be no increase in the dollar amounts if the change in the CPI since the last fee increase is less than one percent. For fiscal year 2009, the Act specified that the original annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data was $54 per area code, or $27 per area code of data during the second six months of an entity's annual subscription period, and that the maximum amount that would be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data would be $14,850.

The determination of whether a fee change is required and the amount of the fee changes involves a two-step process. First, to determine whether a fee change is required, we measure the change in the CPI from the time of the previous increase in fees. There was an increase in the fees for fiscal year 2025. Accordingly, we calculated the change in the CPI since last year, and the increase was 2.7 percent. Because this change is over the one percent threshold, the fees will change for fiscal year 2026.

Second, to determine how much the fees should increase this fiscal year, we use the calculation specified by the Act set forth above: the percentage change in the baseline CPI applied to the original fees for fiscal year 2009. The average value of the CPI for July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008, was 211.702; the average value for July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, was 322.561, an increase of 52.37 percent. Applying the 52.37 percent increase to the base amount from fiscal year 2009, leads to a $82 fee for access to a single area code of data for a full year for fiscal year 2026, an increase of $2 from last year. The actual amount is $82.28 but when rounded, pursuant to the Act, $82 is the appropriate fee. The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year increases by one dollar to $41 (rounded from $41.14. The maximum amount charged increases to $22,626 (rounded from $22,626.29).

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The fee adjustments set forth in this final rule are mandated by the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. Accordingly, the amendments to the TSR are merely technical in nature, making notice and comment unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). For this reason, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act also do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 603, 604.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approved the information collection requirements in the TSR and assigned the following existing OMB Control Number: 3084-0169. The amendments outlined in this final rule pertain only to the fee provision (§ 310.8) of the TSR and will not establish or alter any record keeping, reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements elsewhere in the TSR.

Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission amends part 310 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) administers the ITAR (22 CFR parts 120 through 130) to, among other things, regulate the export, reexport, retransfer, and temporary import of defense articles and defense services described on the USML at ITAR § 121.1. Items not subject to the ITAR or to the exclusive licensing jurisdiction of any other department or agency of the U.S. Government are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR; 15 CFR parts 730 through 774), which include the Commerce Control List (CCL) in Supplement No. 1 to part 774. The EAR is administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), U.S. Department of Commerce. This rule does not modify the list of defense articles and defense services controlled for purposes of permanent import by the Attorney General, as enumerated on the U.S. Munitions Import List (USMIL) at 27 CFR 447.21.

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA; 22 U.S.C. 2778), the authority from which the ITAR is derived, requires periodic review to determine what articles and services, if any, no longer warrant designation on the USML at ITAR § 121.1. In maintaining the USML, DDTC's Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy (DTCP) identifies articles and services for review for addition to or removal from the USML, or for clarification on how they are described on the USML, through a variety of methods, including public feedback and interagency consultations, commodity jurisdiction reviews, advisory opinions, and technology monitoring. The Department maintains the USML such that it comprises those defense articles or defense services that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage or, in the case of weapons, have an inherently military function. The Department, informed by consultations with its interagency partners, determined that the additional items this rule designates on the USML warrant ITAR control and those articles it removes from the USML no longer do. This rule also amends certain language that describes items on the USML to provide additional clarity to the regulatory text. Although it is not seeking public comment in this final rule, the Department nonetheless welcomes submissions from members of the public identifying specific descriptions of items that, in their view, the Department should consider revising, removing, or adding to the USML in future rulemaking. As members of the public are often uniquely positioned to provide information that can assist the Department in its review of the USML, including technology developments, commercial use of defense technology, and industry interpretation and application of particular terminology, the Department accepts the submission of such views to help inform its monitoring of the technology frontier via DDTCPublicComments@state.gov.

On January 17, 2025, the Department published an interim final rule (the IFR) in the Federal Register at 90 FR 5594 amending the ITAR to remove from the USML items that no longer warrant inclusion, add to the USML items that warrant inclusion, and clarify certain entries. That rule included a request for comments on the revisions therein and was scheduled to go into effect on September 15, 2025. Having reviewed and considered the comments submitted in response to the IFR, and having separately considered other changes to the USML based on its ongoing assessments and periodic review of the USML, the Department is publishing this final rule, which revises the ITAR and the IFR.

In summary, in response to feedback the Department received from the IFR, and based on other assessments and the discretion afforded it, the Department is making some alterations to the changes implemented therein and making certain additional changes to the ITAR with explanations provided in the section of this preamble titled “Responses to Comments Received.” Those changes include removing lead-free birdshot, Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) anti-spoofing and GNSS anti-jam systems, and certain anti-jam antennas from the USML. They also include adding a new exemption for some of the underwater vessels the IFR added to USML Category XX(a)(10) that, although they provide a critical military or intelligence advantage such that they warrant description on the USML, the Department assesses are also highly suitable for scientific research and specific commercial operations.

The Department is, with this final rule, superseding and replacing the amendments to § 121.1 that were scheduled to be made on September 15, 2025 by the IFR. For administrative purposes and to conform to procedures of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), the desired replacements made by this rule are procedurally accomplished by withdrawing the IFR's amendatory instructions for § 121.1 ( i.e., the IFR's amendatory instruction number three) in the preceding “Date” section heading of this rule, and having the amendatory instructions for § 121.1 made by this rule ( i.e., this final rule's amendatory instruction number three) take effect on the same date, September 15, 2025. Because the changes to the list of definitions in the updated § 121.0 are implemented by providing new regulatory language in amendatory instruction number two, in both the IFR and this final rule, and both sets of regulatory language are scheduled to take effect on the same effective date, the corresponding revisions made by this final rule will take effect on September 15, 2025. More specifically, OFR will implement both revision instructions on the effective date in the order in which they were originally published in the Federal Register . Thus, the amendatory instructions in this final rule reflect all relevant amendatory instructions from both this final rule and the IFR that will be implemented on the September 15, 2025 effective date. In summary, all of this is done so that the reader does not have to combine two separate sets of sequential amendments and instead can more easily view the changes made in one place and in one rule.

In response to the IFR, one commenter raised concerns that having an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is insufficient to distinguish an advanced aircraft from other less sensitive military aircraft within the definition of “foreign advanced military aircraft” in § 121.0. The Department notes both the IFR and this final rule specify that having an AESA fire control radar is an advanced military capability meeting the definition's criteria. Aircraft that only have AESA radar not associated with a fire control system do not meet the AESA fire control radar criterion in this definition. Additionally, in response to informal feedback, the Department is amending the definition's criteria to clarify that “integrated” applies to both “electronic warfare (EW) systems” and “signature management” systems. Integrated signature management is included in the overall design of the aircraft, while integrated EW systems do not include federated ( i.e., standalone) EW systems. The Department is also reformatting the foreign advanced military aircraft definition for clarity and ease of use and adding the definite article “the” to certain definitions for clarity.

A portion of the IFR's amendatory instruction that this rule withdraws was included in the IFR to correct a typographical error in Note 2 to paragraph (d) of Category II. As that error has since been corrected through separate administrative action, State is not reissuing that portion of the amendatory instruction in this rule.

Separate from the IFR, the Department is taking this opportunity to revise paragraph (d)(6) of USML Category III to exclude common lead-free birdshot ammunition, even if it is made from tungsten or steel and thus has a core produced from tungsten or steel. The Department does so consistent with its assessment that such projectiles do not provide a critical military or intelligence advantage and do not have an inherently military function. The Department of Commerce's Export Administration Regulations classify such ammunition as EAR99. Consistent with the Department's assertion of the military or foreign affairs function exception to the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (see the “Regulatory Analyses” section of this preamble), the Department did not publish a rule proposing this change but still welcomes relevant views at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov.

One commenter observed that the Department's addition of a separate paragraph (c)(2) in USML Category IV implies improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are not described in paragraph (a) or (b). As the commenter notes, IEDs may be produced from articles described on the USML or articles not described on the USML. Consequently, some IEDs contain defense articles and some do not. The Department affirms that IEDs are not described on the USML solely because they are IEDs. Defense articles used as IED components remain defense articles subject to ITAR § 120.11(c).

The same commenter suggested the Department add IEDs to paragraph (a)(9), which currently describes mines. The Department declines to enumerate IEDs here, or elsewhere on the USML, for the same reasons they are not described in paragraph (a)(6), which describes bombs. Although some efforts to regulate the export of common IED precursor materials to high-risk areas have been temporarily implemented by other agencies in the past, by definition, IEDs are improvised from available materials and the manufacture, production, and use of IEDs is regulated via other legal authorities, including title 18 of the U.S. Code (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 842, 2332, and 2339). The same commenter suggested that paragraph ML4.a. of the 2024 Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List (WAML) explicitly controls “explosive devices,” including IEDs. However, the Department notes the explosive devices described in that paragraph are any of the following that are “specially designed for military use”: “Bombs, torpedoes, grenades, smoke canisters, rockets, mines, missiles, depth charges, demolition-charges, demolition-devices, demolition-kits, ‘pyrotechnic’ devices, cartridges, submunitions therefor and simulators.”

Additionally, the commenter recommended the Department not describe IED and mine disposal and protection equipment on the USML. To this end, the commenter recommended adding a note to paragraph (c) to state that remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and disruptors specially designed or modified for the disposal of IEDs, and specially designed components and accessories therefor, are subject to the EAR under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1A006 on the CCL. The Department affirms that some ROVs and disruptors for IEDs are not described in the new paragraph (c)(1) or (2) created by the IFR. For example, an IED disruptor that disables IEDs by use of a water lance ( i.e., a high-velocity water stream that can rapidly disrupt or damage the target electronics) is not specially designed for the handling, control, activation, monitoring, detection, protection, discharge, or detonation of IEDs. As these items are not currently described in paragraph (c), the Department declines to add language removing them.

The Department is updating paragraph (c)(2) of USML Category V to add a second Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number for pentaborane, consistent with those provided on the WAML. The Department notes CAS numbers indicated on the USML may not cover all substances and mixtures described in the associated USML entries. As explained in Note 2 to Category V, CAS numbers are only provided as examples.

One commenter stated the inclusion of the AESA fire control radar criterion in the definition of foreign advanced military aircraft will result in the “inadvertent inclusion of thousands of minor parts and components” in USML Category VIII(h)(1) that the commenter believes should remain on the CCL. The Department assesses the scenario described is a misinterpretation of the changes to paragraph (h)(1), as that paragraph does not include a catch-all control for parts used exclusively in foreign advanced military aircraft. Instead, by adding paragraph (h)(1)(iii), the Department is reinforcing the existing catch-all control for aircraft described in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (ii). This supports U.S. industry participation in foreign advanced military aircraft programs by ensuring the reuse of current paragraph (h)(1) parts does not release those parts from the USML, which helps enable more favorable licensing adjudications for such repurposing of existing U.S. parts.

In alignment with the President's announcement, on March 22, 2025, that the U.S. Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance Platform has been designated as the F-47, the Department is adding the F-47 to the list of aircraft in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of USML Category VIII. While the F-47 is currently enumerated in paragraphs (a)(2) and (f) of USML Category VIII, the catch-all control for its specially designed parts, components, accessories, and attachments is currently in paragraph (f), based on the aircraft's developmental status. Adding the F-47 to the list of aircraft in (h)(1)(i) ensures those items remain described on the USML after the F-47 enters production. The F-47 will be the most advanced, lethal, and adaptable fighter aircraft ever developed, and the Department assesses the specially designed items this change adds to paragraph (h)(1) will continue to provide a critical military or intelligence advantage after the F-47 enters production.

Additionally, the Department is clarifying that, while it considered removing articles specially designed for parts, components, accessories, and attachments used exclusively in U.S. Government technology demonstrators from paragraph (h)(29) in the IFR, it elects not to do so at this time. The Department is also removing an extraneous use of the word “this” from paragraph (h)(29).

Furthermore, consistent with the regulatory text presented in the IFR, the Department notes it expanded paragraph (h)(29) in the IFR to also describe articles specially designed for foreign advanced military aircraft described in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) or developmental aircraft described in paragraph (f). This expansion does not extend to articles specially designed only for parts, components, accessories, and attachments not described in paragraph (h)(1). For example, a scale test model of a complete foreign advanced military aircraft described in paragraph (a)(2) is described in paragraph (h)(29)(i); however, a scale test model of a component of that aircraft is not described in paragraph (h)(29)(i). Similarly, a full-scale iron bird rig specially designed for a foreign advanced military aircraft described in paragraph (a)(2) is described in paragraph (h)(29)(ii); however, a part used exclusively in a foreign advanced military aircraft is not described in paragraph (h)(1), and a jig specially designed for that part is not described in paragraph (h)(29)(iii).

Separate from the IFR, the Department assesses the broad description of counter-jamming equipment in USML Category XI(a)(4)(iii) may impede the Department's intent to improve civil navigation resiliency when it removed certain Controlled Reception Pattern Antennas (CRPAs) from paragraph (c)(10) in the IFR. To address this, the Department is modifying paragraph (a)(4)(iii) to exclude Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) anti-jam and GNSS anti-spoofing systems from that entry. Meanwhile, USML Category XII(d)(3) already describes certain GNSS anti-jam systems that continue to provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. To improve the clarity of paragraph (a)(4)(iii), the Department is also restructuring it by splitting its two clauses into subparagraphs (A) and (B), moving the parenthetical list of examples into a note, and adding a hyphen to “counter-jamming.”

One commenter additionally noted that, unlike paragraphs (c)(10)(i) and (ii) in the IFR, paragraph (c)(10)(iv) does not exclude CRPAs that may be used for civil navigation resiliency by identifying the angle of arrival of a valid or spoofed GNSS signal. The Department agrees and is thus excluding specific CRPAs from this entry and adding a new entry, paragraph (c)(10)(vii), to continue to describe CRPAs specially designed for functions other than Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) that meet the technical parameters of the former paragraph (c)(10)(iv). Additionally, the Department is relocating the content of the note to paragraph (c)(10) into the introductory text of that paragraph and is updating it to reference the appropriate versions of FAA Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) and Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) regulations, as the previous references are outdated. In response to a separate query, the Department further notes that paragraph (c)(10)(iv) was not intended to describe antennas developed exclusively for civil airborne weather radar. Views on specific examples of why certain antennas developed for this purpose may currently be described therein are requested via email to DDTCPublicComments@state.gov and may be used to inform future rulemakings.

Another commenter recommended removing USML Category IX(a)(9) because radar target generators are also described in USML Category XI(a)(3)(xxviii). The Department declines to do so, since USML Category XI(a)(3)(xxviii) describes a subset of radar target generators that are designated as Significant Military Equipment (SME). That SME classification takes precedence in the order of review over the non-SME description in USML Category IX(a)(9) of other radar target generators.

The Department is correcting an inadvertent omission of ρ RHA in USML Category XIII(m)(9) as published in the IFR, deleting an unnecessary comma in the definition of ρ RHA , restoring the unit designations for P o , P r , and AD TARGET , and adding a unit designation for AD RHA . Although the IFR included amendatory instructions modifying paragraph (d), upon further examination, the Department finds it unnecessary to amend that paragraph or its associated notes at this time and is withdrawing the amendatory instructions in the IFR for Category XIII(d) via this rule, by not including them in this final rule's amendatory instructions.

The Department is updating paragraph (j)(3)(iv) for consistent language, with no change in the scope of control.

The Department is correcting an administrative oversight in the USML where, despite being empty, paragraphs (h) through (w) were not marked reserved.

To improve its clarity and readability, the Department is amending Note 1 to USML Category XX(a)(8) to remove the reference to parts, components, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment, noting that paragraph (a)(8) does not currently describe any of those commodity types. Existing USML Category XX(c) describes those commodity types when specially designed for vessels described in paragraph (a)(8).

One commenter stated new paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) describe vessels in commercial use, including those used in surveys of subsea floors for applications such as drilling, laying subsea cables, and marine wind farm installations. The commenter did not identify the specific vessels of concern and therefore the Department was unable to confirm whether any vessels used for such applications include anti-recovery features such as scuttle or self-destruct capabilities, which the Department assesses provide a critical military or intelligence advantage by mitigating the risk of counter-surveillance and exploitation of the vessels and serves no compelling commercial purpose. The Department also assessed that most of the underwater vessels referenced by the commenter are designed to be remotely operated and thus do not meet the threshold in paragraph (a)(10) concerning operation without human interaction for longer than 24 hours or more than 70 nautical miles. The commenter also stated usage of these vessels for commercial applications will also be regulated by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The Department notes this is incorrect, as items described on the USML are not subject to BIS's Export Administration Regulations unless specifically provided for in the ITAR ( e.g., see the note to paragraph (d) in USML Category XIX).

Three other commenters identified vessels, including some models of Kongsberg Discovery's HUGIN UUVs, that would be described on the USML under the new paragraph (a)(10) and are used in civil applications such as oceanographic research or the oil and gas industry. The Department has reviewed these vessels and concluded that though some of them are or may be used for civil purposes, those described by paragraph (a)(10) nevertheless provide a critical military or intelligence advantage and thus it declines to remove or update paragraph (a)(10). The weight-based control concisely and accurately describes the UUVs that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. The size threshold of 3,000 pounds is based on an estimated technology development trajectory and represents the minimum size for a UUV that would enable significant weaponization. This considers both integrated weapons as payloads ( e.g., torpedoes) and non-integrated weapons as cargo ( e.g., naval mines). The Department's intent is to control large UUVs usable for oceanographic research or commercial purposes that could be easily used, post-sale, as an effective weapon, or as a weapons delivery or Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platform. The 24-hour threshold for operation without human interaction represents the typical perishability of information used to task unmanned systems for military or intelligence purposes, and it has the effect of excluding many civilian remotely operated vehicles. Systems capable of operating without human interaction for 24 hours must possess the capability of assessing changes in environment, mission context, and self-health and adapting to such changes. The alternative threshold of 70 nautical miles represents the distance a vessel could travel in 24 hours at an average speed of approximately three knots.

For conciseness and clarity, the Department is also making several revisions to the changes to USML Category XX(a) that the IFR made, that are set to take effect on September 15, 2025. First, the Department is removing the parentheticals “(and vehicles)” from paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) as unnecessary. References to underwater “vessels” in Category XX include underwater “vehicles.” Second, the Department is deleting note 1 to paragraph (a)(10) and relocating the definition of “gross weight rating” into the list of definitions in § 121.0. Third, the Department is revising paragraph (b)(2) for greater clarity, with no change to the scope of control.

In the IFR, the Department included weight and performance criteria in the new USML Category XX(a)(10) paragraph to avoid control of systems it assessed are best suited for scientific research or commercial applications. In response to the IFR, one commenter proposed the Department ensure its regulation of large UUVs only captures conduct related to military operations. The Department considered this request, along with the technological and economic landscape for these vessels and their availability in assessing ways to facilitate U.S. participation and collaboration for civilian tasks such as natural resource exploration, infrastructure inspection, and oceanographic research while continuing to mitigate the risks of their misuse, diversion, and proliferation.

Following research based on this comment, the Department identified there are U.S. companies that provide services using such vessels, as opposed to selling the vessels. DDTC already reviews license applications for contractor-owned contractor-operated (COCO) services for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and airborne mineral surveys using defense articles and would also review COCO licenses for large defense article UUVs.

Further, in response to feedback from this commenter and the commenters described in the section on USML Category XX, and the Department's subsequent assessments, the Department is creating a new license exemption for a subset of the UUVs described in USML Category XX(a)(10) that, although they provide a critical military or intelligence advantage such that they warrant description on the USML, the Department assesses they are also highly suitable for scientific research and specific commercial operations.

This new exemption will authorize the temporary export, reexport, and temporary import of UUVs described in USML Category XX(a)(10) that meet the exemption's size restriction of 8,000 pounds, as well as the provision of defense services in the maintenance, repair, operation, or use of those exempted UUVs, when the controlled activities involve one of the exemption's described civil uses. It will also authorize a similar scope of brokering activities. However, this exemption will not be available if the activities entail the transfer of the vessel's registration, control, or ownership to a foreign person.

While the Department is implementing that license exemption in a new § 126.9(u) in this final rule, it still welcomes relevant views on this new exemption, including recommended improvements. Comments are requested via email to DDTCPublicComments@state.gov, and may be used to inform future rulemakings.

The Department is implementing an effective date for this rule of September 15, 2025, the same implementation date announced in the IFR, in making the revisions described in this final rule. One commenter requested the Department accelerate the effective date of the rule to March 20, 2025. The Department declines to advance or postpone the effective date of the rule, having assessed the current effective date provides necessary and sufficient time for the regulated community to make necessary preparation to implement these changes.

Items removed from a USML paragraph by this rule may still be described in other USML paragraphs or may become subject to the export licensing jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce pursuant to the EAR. Before determining license requirements, it is important to confirm which U.S. Government department or agency has jurisdiction over the items that you are planning to transfer, or broker. In determining licensing jurisdiction, exporters should evaluate the control status of their item using the order of review found at ITAR § 120.11 and may submit a commodity jurisdiction request to DDTC for assistance, if the licensing jurisdiction or USML classification is in doubt. If it is determined that the item is subject to the EAR, exporters should evaluate the CCL classification of their item using the order of review in supplement no. 4 to part 774 of the EAR and may submit a commodity classification request (CCATS) to BIS for assistance, if the CCL classification is in doubt. Neither the BIS classification nor the CCATS number may be relied upon or cited as evidence that the U.S. Government determined that the items described in the commodity classification determination are subject to the EAR (See 15 CFR 734.3). Licensing requirements under the EAR are determined by the reasons for control applicable to the item, the destination, the end use, and the end user. General Order No. 5 in supplement no. 1 to part 736 of the EAR describes the transition process for items moving from the USML to the CCL upon the publication of the pertinent final rules. The general order describes the grandfathering of DDTC licenses and agreements, the use of BIS authorizations, and the submission of disclosures to BIS and DDTC related to the transition of items from the USML to the CCL.

For those wishing to export under the authority of the EAR as soon as possible for items moving from the USML to the CCL, applicants may submit license applications immediately after the publication of the BIS final rule adding such items to the CCL or, in the case of items removed from the USML by this final rule, immediately upon its publication. Thus, applicants may, in effect, pre-position license applications early to facilitate processing of the license application. Such a pre-positioned license application will be processed in accordance with § 750.4 of the EAR, but if BIS completes processing the application prior to the effective date of the applicable final rule removing the item from the USML, BIS will hold the application without action (HWA), until the effective date of that final rule. Applications for transitioned items received after the effective date of the final rule removing them from the USML will be processed as described in § 750.4 of the EAR.

Existing holders of DDTC licenses, agreements, or other approvals, may maintain existing authorizations or obtain new authorizations for items moving from the USML to the CCL.

During the transition period, license applications will be accepted by both DDTC and BIS for items moving from the USML to the CCL. BIS will not issue approved licenses for such items until on or after the effective date of this rule.

DSP-5 Licenses: Licenses for items transitioning to the CCL that are issued prior to the effective date of the final rule and do not include items remaining on the USML will remain valid until expired, returned by the license holder, or for a period of three years from the effective date of the final rule, whichever occurs first, unless otherwise revoked, suspended, or terminated. Licenses containing both transitioning and non-transitioning items (mixed authorizations) will remain valid until expired or returned by the license holder, unless otherwise revoked, suspended, or terminated. Any limitation, proviso, or other requirement required by the DDTC authorization remains in effect if the DDTC authorization is relied upon for export, re-export, or re-transfer. License amendment requests received by DDTC prior to the effective date of the rule will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis up until the effective date of the rule.

DSP-61 and DSP-73 Licenses: All temporary licenses that are issued in the period prior to the effective date of the rule will remain valid until expired or returned by the license holder, unless otherwise revoked, suspended, or terminated. Any limitation, proviso, or other requirement imposed on the DDTC authorization will remain in effect if the DDTC authorization is relied upon for export. License amendment requests received by DDTC before the effective date of the rule will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis until the effective date of the rule. All license applications, including amendments, received after the effective date for items that are transitioning to the CCL that are not identified in the application using an (x) paragraph will be Returned Without Action (RWA) with instructions to contact the Department of Commerce.

Technical Assistance Agreements, Manufacturing License Agreements, Distribution Agreements, and Related Reporting Requirements: Agreements and amendments containing both USML and CCL items will be adjudicated up to the effective date of the final rule. Agreements containing transitioning and non-transitioning items that are issued prior to the effective date of the final rule will remain valid until expired, unless they require an amendment, or for a period of three years from the effective date of the final rule, whichever occurs first, unless otherwise revoked, suspended, or terminated. In order for an agreement to remain valid beyond three years, an amendment must be submitted to authorize the CCL items using the new (x) paragraph from the relevant USML category. Any activity conducted under an agreement will remain subject to all limitations, provisos, and other requirements stipulated in the agreement.

Agreements containing solely transitioning items issued prior to the effective date of the final rule will remain valid for a period of three years from the effective date of the rule, unless revoked, suspended, or terminated. After the three-year period ends, any ongoing activity must be conducted under the appropriate Department of Commerce authorization. Agreements and agreement amendments solely for items moving to the CCL which are received after the effective date of the rule will be Returned Without Action (RWA) with instructions to contact the Department of Commerce.

All reporting requirements for Manufacturing License Agreements and Distribution Agreements must be complied with and such reports must be submitted to the Department of State while the agreement is relied upon as an export authorization by the exporter.

Foreign persons or U.S. persons abroad that have USML items in their inventory at the effective date of transition should review both the USML and the CCL to determine the proper export jurisdiction of those items. If the item is controlled by the Department of Commerce, any reexport or retransfer must comply with the requirements of the EAR. If doubt exists on the jurisdiction of the items, the foreign person should contact the original exporter or manufacturer. In instances when those parties are unavailable, the foreign person should review the DDTC or BIS website for guidance and support options.

Following the effective date of this rule, foreign persons (including end-users, consignees, and intermediate consignees) who receive, via a Department of State authorization, an item they are certain has transitioned to the CCL ( e.g., confirmed in writing by manufacturer or supplier), should treat the item as such and submit requests for post-transition reexports or retransfers to the Department of Commerce, as may be required by the EAR. If reexport or retransfer was previously authorized under an MLA or WDA that continues to provide the export authority or any stand-alone reexport/retransfer authorization received pursuant to ITAR § 123.9, such authorizations remain valid.

For those wishing to export under the authority of the ITAR as soon as possible for items moving onto the USML, applicants may submit license applications as soon as this rule is published in the Federal Register .

In reviewing the clarifications provided by this rule, if you identify a potential violation of the ITAR, you are encouraged to submit a voluntary disclosure to DDTC, consistent with the procedures outlined in ITAR § 127.12. For potential violations of the EAR, persons are encouraged to submit voluntary self-disclosures to BIS, consistent with the procedures outlined in EAR §§ 764.4 and 764.5. For potential violations of both the EAR and the ITAR, persons are encouraged to submit disclosures to both agencies.

This rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to section 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. Although the Department elected to publish an interim final rule prior (IFR) to this final rule, it did so without prejudice to its determination that controlling the export, reexport, retransfer, and temporary import of defense articles and defense services is a military or foreign affairs function. Additionally, relying on the same APA provision and where noted, the Department is including some changes in this final rule that were not presented in the IFR.

Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule does not meet the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563, directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributed impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. After review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this rule has been deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.”

This rule was undertaken pursuant to a statutory directive to periodically review the items on the USML. The Department generally determines which items warrant addition to, or removal from, the USML by assessing whether each provides a critical military or intelligence advantage based on national security and foreign policy considerations. Because the costs and benefits of changing what is controlled focus on the effect or utility of the item or service, rather than its market prevalence or economic value, quantitative analyses cannot be usefully estimated and are not available, particularly since the global prevalence or availability of the item or service are not known. Moreover, the Department does not have useful estimates or models to predict whether or how frequently the items added to the USML by this rule will be applied for export or to which countries, or for temporary import and from which countries. Qualitatively, the rule was assessed for costs and benefits. Because listing individual items or model numbers would necessarily lead to incomplete controls when an item is renamed or slightly modified, the USML contains many descriptive controls that are based on broader characteristics, including form, fit, function, and performance capability. To more accurately describe only what the Department intends to control, and to provide companies and individuals with better certainty, some USML revisions made by this rule are aimed to improve and clarify various entries and to more precisely focus controls. These revisions are also informed by confidential commodity jurisdiction determination and advisory opinion requests, submitted by industry. The Department takes into account common questions and strives to streamline and simplify USML entries based on how it understands industry experience with certain parts of the USML.

Finally, when a complete redundancy is identified, as USML Category IX(e)(2) was in the IFR, the Department is removing it so that exporters, brokers, and temporary importers may better rely on a single entry, which can help to reduce compliance costs and increase the accuracy of relevant metrics. The alternative to this was inaction or delay. The Department could have waited to amend larger parts of the USML at once or continued to gather data to evaluate the controls affected by this rule. These alternatives were rejected. Statutory requirements, including section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)), and section 1345 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, require a periodic review of the USML for edits like those made by this rule. While the Department continuously reviews the entire USML, it aims to focus on particular USML revisions in cycles, as it has done in implementing this rule.

This rule is exempt from Executive Order 14192 as it is a regulation issued with respect to a foreign affairs or national security function of the United States.

The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register to Senior Official Brent T. Christensen, who is performing the duties of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.

For reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State adopts the interim rule amending 22 CFR part 121, the United States Munitions List, which was published at 90 FR 5594 on January 17, 2025, as final with changes, and amends part 126 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order ( Order ), FCC 25-48, adopted August 7, 2025, and released August 8, 2025. The document is available for public inspection online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ attachments/FCC-25-48A1.pdf. The document is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

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) concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the Order on small entities. The FRFA is set forth in Section IV below.

The Order may contain new or substantively modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. All such 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. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

In the document, we have assessed the effects of revising the Commission's earth station licensing rules and adopting streamlined earth station rules and rules related to relocating geostationary orbit (GSO) satellites and certain applicants for special temporary authority (STA) and find that they will have a small impact on small business concerns. Due to the significant costs involved in earth station and space station development and deployment, we anticipate that few entities impacted by this rulemaking would qualify as small businesses.

Additionally, the document may contain non-substantive modifications to approved information collections. Any such modifications will be submitted to OMB for review pursuant to OMB's non-substantive modification process.

The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 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 Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. To support America's booming space economy, the Commission is undertaking a series of reforms to better orient its rules toward permissionless innovation. Through sensible changes, we are eliminating outdated barriers to space industry business models, giving satellite operators more flexibility to deliver new services, and deleting burdensome, unnecessary requirements. Today's action represents another milestone in the Commission's work to streamline, simplify, and modernize the processing of space and earth station applications.

2. The Commission's existing regulatory framework was developed for a space economy of the past. While the space industry has become a pivotal force for America's economy and national security, the Commission's rules have not kept pace. In 2023, the U.S. space economy accounted for $142.5 billion of total U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and $240.9 billion of gross output. Additionally, the global space economy expanded by 4 percent with the satellite ground segment specifically generating $155.3 billion in 2024. The growth in economic output has created new jobs. The Commission, meanwhile, has seen a corresponding surge in licensing activity, as applications to operate space and earth stations have grown in complexity and number. Faced with this uptick, the agency's licensing rules have resulted in inefficiencies and backlog. We are accordingly focused on revising and updating the Commission's part 25 space and earth station license application policies and processing procedures.

3. In the Order, we take the following actions to free operators of unnecessary regulatory hurdles:

• First, we adopt a new process by which earth station operators may receive a baseline license without identifying a specific satellite point of communication, and adopt processes by which earth station applicants can easily add or remove identified points of communication. Under the Commission's prior rules, earth station operators could not receive a license without an identified point of communication and thus could not establish themselves as Ground-Station-as-a-Service (GSaaS) providers until they had already secured a satellite client, causing a classic chicken and egg problem. These changes will support GSaaS business models, which in turn will increase access to the infrastructure needed by space companies small and large.

• Second, we expand the list of license modifications that do not require prior authorization. For earth stations, we remove the overly restrictive “electrically identical” language in the Commission's prior rules. GSO satellites no longer will be required to file for STA for relocation during drift, so long as certain conditions are satisfied. And for NGSO satellites, we no longer require prior authorization for certain minor changes, which previously became effective only once acted upon by the Commission. Such changes now will become effective in most cases upon 60 days notification to the Commission. These actions will free operators to make certain system changes without the burden of regulatory paperwork or waiting for Commission action.

• Third, we eliminate the outdated requirement to retain paper copies of applications. The Commission's prior rules included a requirement that operators print and retain a paper copy of the International Communications Filing System (ICFS) application for their files.

• Fourth, we adopt expanded timeframes to file license renewal applications for earth stations and space stations. The prior rules had two different filing windows for earth station and NGSO space stations, each of which was early in the license term.

• Fifth, we change the default ex parte status of all applications to “permit-but-disclose.” Changing the default ex parte status will eliminate the need to change the status for each individual application where broad public participation is desired.

• Sixth, we provide non-U.S. licensed market access grantees the ability to receive a grant of special temporary access. Under prior rules, which did not allow for STA for market access grantees, such changes were required to be made through a modification.

• Lastly, we adopt a 30-day shot clock for earth station renewal applications. Prior rules had no such deadline for Commission action, resulting in a backlog of earth station renewal applications.

4. Through a bias towards permissionless innovation, we are eliminating barriers to a range of services: broadband connectivity to rural communities, direct-to-device services in remote areas beyond the reach of terrestrial wireless service, Internet of Things applications, and new applications of space-supported technology. Unleashing these new technologies and services will help every community get a fair shot at the opportunities that come from greater connectivity.

5. In September 2023, the Commission adopted the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM ). In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on additional streamlining measures. First, the Commission sought comment on eliminating outdated, unnecessary and burdensome requirements, including the requirement for operators to maintain paper copies of electronically filed applications, and whether to change the default status of space and earth station proceedings to “permit-but-disclose” under the ex parte rules. The Commission also sought comment on several proposals to promote efficiency, including: (1) expanding the list of modifications not requiring prior authorization, (2) allowing market access for operators by permitting applicants to obtain the equivalent of STAs, (3) allowing operators to file STA extensions concurrently with the initial STA application, (4) expanding the window for operators to file renewal applications for existing licenses, and (5) exploring the feasibility of creating a Permitted List for NGSO operations. Additional measures upon which the Commission sought comment include: (1) streamlining the Commission's internal and inter-agency coordination process, (2) eliminating potentially duplicative coordination for space and earth station applications, (3) expanding conditions under which earth station operators may access the streamlined “deemed granted” process for adding points of communications, and (4) limiting timeframes for the Commission to take action on license applications. Finally, the Commission proposed to revise its existing rules to facilitate new modes of business by permitting earth station operators that do not yet have a specified satellite point of communication to apply for a limited license under certain conditions. In response to the FNPRM, the Commission received fourteen comments, twelve reply comments, and multiple ex parte submissions.

6. In the Order, we revise the Commission's part 25 satellite communications rules and take a number of steps to reduce regulatory burdens on applicants and licensees.

7. Under the Commission's rules, applicants seeking authorization to operate an earth station must identify “either the specific satellite(s) with which it plans to operate or the eastern and western boundaries of the arc it plans to coordinate.” In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on its proposal to allow earth station operators to apply for and receive a limited license without first identifying a satellite point of communication under the condition that the license will require modification prior to operations with a specific point of communication, unless the point of communication is on the Permitted List and the operations fit within the parameters specified therein.

8. We revise the Commission's rules to permit applicants seeking authority to operate an earth station to apply for and receive a “baseline license” without first identifying the specific satellite(s) with which it plans to operate. Applicants will now be permitted to either submit their initial application with or without an identified point of communication. Applicants who do not include a point of communication with their initial application, however, will need to add a point of communication prior to communicating with any satellite, following the process we establish here today. Removing this regulatory barrier and permitting a new baseline license should allow GSaaS operators to be more agile, while also potentially lowering barriers to entry for newer entrants in the space economy.

9. To obtain a baseline license, applicants must provide all other information as required by the Commission's rules for applications for authority to operate an earth station, except for listing an identified point of communication. If the application is granted, a license will then be generated with a place-holder for the identified point(s) of communication field, which the applicant must later modify to add one or more identified points of communication prior to operating. Satellite points of communication must be added in accordance with the process described below before an earth station may communicate with a satellite system.

10. In conjunction with allowing applicants to file an application for a baseline license without a specified point of communication, we adopt a modified method for licensees to add a subsequent point of communication. Specifically, earth station operators must provide notice to the Commission by filing in ICFS FCC Form 312 and Schedule B pursuant to § 25.118. By filing notice, earth station operators certify that: (1) the operator has permission from the satellite operator to communicate with the satellite system; (2) the operator is not repointing the earth station's antenna beyond any coordinated range; (3) adding a point of communication does not result in an increased risk of harmful interference; (4) the operator does not request any change to authorized frequencies; and (5) the operator does not request to communicate with a satellite that does not have market access. The licensee will be permitted to begin operations with the new point(s) of communication immediately upon both filing notice of the change pursuant to § 25.118, and payment of the filing fee. Although several parties have requested the Commission exclude bands shared with terrestrial operations or bands subject to specific sharing requirements, we decline to do so. We find that this process affords maximum flexibility, while still ensuring that other operators in shared bands, such as Upper Microwave Flexible Use (UMFUS), Iridium and federal operators, remain protected under the Commission's rules from harmful interference.

11. Finally, licensees will be subject to a 15-day evaluation period that will permit the Space Bureau (Bureau) to remove a newly added point of communication if the point of communication would violate the conditions discussed herein and set forth in § 25.118(g) of the Commission's rules. In that case, the Bureau will provide notice to the licensee that the newly added point of communication was removed and is no longer authorized for use, and will provide an explanation as to why the point of communication is in violation of the Commission's rules. The licensee must terminate operations using the new point of communication immediately. Any violations of the Commission's rules discovered during or after the expiration of the 15-day evaluation period may be addressed via an enforcement action.

12. The record on the proposal to create a limited license option is mixed. Some commenters support issuing a limited license only if the Commission is able to navigate the various existing licensing requirements, while others argue there are no clear benefits and that permitting such a license would result in additional administrative burdens. But commenters generally agree with permitting expanded access to expedited treatment for adding points of communication. Upon review of the record, we are persuaded that the initial proposal would have created new burdens and would not have solved the regulatory burdens of adding a point of communication. Other proposals suggesting the Commission receive no notice of an update to the point of communication or ability to review the notice for conformance with the Commission's rules would remove necessary oversight. The proposal we adopt strikes the right balance between improving regulatory efficiency and fostering innovation while still affording the Commission and the public notice of the change and preserving the Commission's ability to maintain oversight.

13. Under current Commission rules, an application to modify an earth station license by adding a space station point of communication will be deemed granted 35 days after public notice if it meets certain parameters. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether and how to expand access to the process established in § 25.117(i) to a broader universe of operators, and on whether it would be possible to extend this process in any of the bands that require coordination. Given the expedited process we establish in the Order by permitting earth station operators to add new identified points of communication without prior authorization, we find the procedures established in § 25.117(i) are no longer necessary. Specifically, because the procedures adopted in § 25.118(g) will simultaneously expand access to an expedited process of adding a point of communication while also protecting other spectrum users and ensuring that licensees adding points of communication coordinate with affected users as required by the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we eliminate § 25.117(i) in its entirety and find that the procedures we adopt today in § 25.118(g) better promote efficiency because Commission resources will no longer be spent processing applications that merely seek to add a new point of communication. In addition, this change will eliminate regulatory burdens on applicants, which will no longer need to file an application simply to add points of communication. As a result the § 25.117(i) procedures and the proposed expansion are unnecessary. Therefore, we remove § 25.117(i) and instead adopt the revisions to § 25.118(g) discussed above.

14. Generally, commenters support the approach of including more spectrum bands in the § 25.117(i) process. We agree with this premise but find that permitting earth station operators to add new points of communication under the § 25.118(g) process we establish in the Order is better suited to the goal of eliminating regulatory burdens and promoting efficiency. Specifically, the approach we adopt in § 25.118(g) establishes limits on when and how a licensee can add a point of communication while still requiring that licensees seeking to add a point of communication coordinate with other affected users as needed, the new approach adopted in § 25.118(g) will both ease regulatory burdens and protect other spectrum users.

15. The current rules specify circumstances under which an operator can make modifications to its existing license without prior authorization. Depending on the nature of the modification, the operator may be required to notify the Commission of the change within 30 days after the modification, notify the Commission in advance of making the change, or make the change without notifying the Commission. In the First Report and Order, the Commission sought comment on whether to expand the list of modifications not requiring prior authorization and, if the Commission were to expand the list, what notification process should operators be required to follow.

16. Modifications to Earth Station Equipment Pursuant to § 25.118(b)(1). In § 25.118(b)(1), equipment in an authorized earth station can be replaced without prior authorization and without notifying the Commission “if the new equipment is electrically identical to the existing equipment.” In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to expand upon the list of minor modifications that can be made by operators without prior authorization, including those identified in § 25.118(b). We change the Commission's rules to remove the language requiring equipment to be “electrically identical” and remove § 25.118(b)(1) in its entirety Although undefined in part 25, the term “electrically identical” has been used in part 2 equipment authorization procedures to mean equipment that is marketed under different names but is otherwise identical. This parameter is overly restrictive as applied to part 25. As a practical matter, unless the replacement earth station equipment will increase harmful interference or increase the radiation risk to humans beyond levels permitted by the Commission's rules, prior authorization or notification is unnecessary. Accordingly, we delete § 25.118(b)(1) and revise § 25.118(b)(2) to allow earth station operators to replace equipment without prior authorization and without notifying the Commission provided the replacement equipment does not involve a change enumerated in § 25.118(b)(2) or increase the radiation risk to humans beyond the limits established in § 25.115(p) and the earth station operator does not claim additional interference protections. This revision to § 25.118(b)(2) allows operators the flexibility and predictability to change equipment so long as it is not a change expressly enumerated in the rules as being impermissible without an application. Although some commenters oppose overly broadening § 25.118, this decision agrees with commenters who proposed broadening the scope of modifications not requiring prior authorization, including permitting modifications that will not negatively affect the interference environment. The proposal we adopt will reduce regulatory burdens without creating negative impacts to other users or causing a harmful change in the interference environment.

17. NGSO Modifications, Notification Required. We will allow NGSO space station operators to modify without prior authorization, upon 60 days prior notice to the Commission, the antenna, sensor or microelectronics, provided that the changes do not cause: (1) an increase in the transmit power, effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), EIRP density, out-of-band emissions, or a change in the antenna pattern(s), or a change in the antenna gain characteristics beyond the technical parameters specified in the underlying authorization; (2) a change in the area-to-mass ratio of the satellite; (3) an increase in the in-orbit collision risk; (4) an increase in the re-entry risk; (5) an increase the risk of in harmful interference to other system(s); or (6) an increase in the need for harmful interference protection for the system.

18. The FNPRM sought comment on expanding the list of minor modifications that can be made by NGSO space station operators without prior authorization by the Commission. In response to the Commission's request for comment, one commenter proposed to permit NGSO space station operators to notify the Commission of any changes to the size or mass of the satellite form factor, and changes to equipment and sensors that do not involve: (1) an increased risk of harmful interference to other systems not permitted by coordination agreements, (2) a request for increased interference protection, (3) an increased risk of causing orbital debris, or (4) a change in orbital altitude unless it meets the criteria otherwise provided by § 25.118 of the Commission's rules. Other commenters supported this proposal.

19. We adopt this commenter's proposal with some modifications to further the Commission's goals of providing operators with flexibility and reducing administrative burdens while still ensuring that we retain oversight over important technical details of the satellite system. In addition, the changes we permit here allow an operator to make modifications to their system as newer, more efficient technology is developed. Further, we will require 60-days' notice prior to the change to allow Commission staff the opportunity and time to review the proposed modification, and if needed place the modification on public notice. This 60-day timeframe, as opposed to a shorter timeframe, ensures that if the modification is placed on public notice, there is sufficient time for comment, Commission review, and for the operator to make the change.

20. Removal of Satellite Points of Communication. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a suggestion from commenters to allow earth station operators to remove authorized points of communication without prior authorization.

21. We adopt the proposal to permit earth station operators to remove points of communication without prior authorization via notifying the Commission of the change within 30 days of the modification pursuant to § 25.118 of the Commission's rules. We find that requiring notification of the change within 30 days of the modification is necessary because removing a point of communication requires Commission staff to revise and reissue a license. Accordingly, requiring notification will allow Commission staff to update the license and ensure the license accurately reflects which points of communication an individual earth station is permitted to communicate with.

22. There is general support on the record to permit earth station operators to remove points of communication without prior authorization. We find that providing earth station operators the flexibility to remove points of communication without prior authorization will promote efficiency and reduce regulatory burdens as well as ease administrative burdens on the Commission, allowing it to dedicate staffing resources to other priorities.

23. Modification of Earth Station Antenna Identification. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a suggestion from commenters to permit earth station operators to modify antenna identification without prior authorization. We adopt the proposal to permit earth station operators to modify antenna identification without prior authorization or notification to the Commission. We find that permitting earth station operators to modify antenna identification without notice to the Commission or prior authorization is appropriate because such a change is purely administrative and clerical, and does not require Commission review as there is no standard procedure for antenna identification conventions. We note that if the applicant does require the license be updated to reflect the new antenna identification, then an applicant can seek a modification pursuant to § 25.118(a) of the Commission's rules, or can choose to inform the Commission as part of any other application associated with the license such as renewal or modification. This action will allow Bureau staff to update the license to reflect the changed antenna identification should the applicant wish.

24. Commenters agree with the proposal to permit earth station operators to modify antenna identification without prior authorization. We concur and find that providing earth station operators the flexibility to modify antenna identification without prior authorization or notice to the Commission will promote efficiency and ease administrative burdens, allowing the Commission to dedicate staffing resources to other priorities. Some commenters proposed including all “administrative changes” as modifications not requiring prior authorization or notice to the Commission. We decline to allow for all administrative changes to be included as modifications not requiring prior authorization or notice to the Commission because the Commission's rules do not define “administrative changes” from other types of changes. Instead, we remind applicants that a modification requires prior Commission approval under § 25.117 if it does not fall under one of the provisions in § 25.118 specifying modifications that do not require prior approval.

25. Modification of Space Station Antenna Parameters. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposal from a commenter to permit NGSO space station operators to modify antenna parameters without prior authorization so long as those changes fall within the authorized parameters of the satellite system and the operator provides notice to the Commission after the modification is made. Most commenters support the proposal to permit NGSO space station operators to modify antenna parameters without prior authorization, though some disagree citing the increased potential for interference. Rather than permitting operators to make the change prior to notification to the Commission, we instead allow changes to antennas, sensors, or microelectronics to be made to NGSO systems without authorization, upon 60 days prior notice to the Commission, as outlined herein. We find that other actions we take today to allow NGSO operators to make certain changes without prior authorization and upon notice to the Commission strike an appropriate balance between ensuring efficiency and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on operators, and ensure that operators are protected from harmful interference.

26. GSO Operations During Relocation. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposal from a commenter to permit operations beyond telemetry, tracking and command functions (TT&C) to continue during GSO satellite relocation drifts so long as the operator certifies that the “operations are limited to coordinated transmissions during the relocation and drift transition period.” We adopt the proposal to permit GSO operators to continue operations during relocation and drift subject to certain conditions. Specifically, operations must be on an unprotected, non-harmful inference basis and all operations must be coordinated with any existing GSO space station.

27. Some commenters argue in favor of this approach, while others oppose modifying the existing rules because an STA or a waiver is available to operators seeking to continue satellite operations during GSO relocation. While we recognize an STA or waiver is available to operators seeking to continue satellite operations during relocation, we disagree with commenters that this weighs against modifying the Commission's existing rules. We find that the actions we take today will promote efficiency by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on operators. There is minimal risk of interference in allowing GSO operations beyond TT&C during relocation, given that operations in different locations for a GSO are already authorized by the Commission.

28. Repositioning of NGSO Space Stations. In response to the Commission's request for comment on whether and how to expand the list of modifications not requiring prior authorization, one commenter suggested permitting NGSO space station operators to make modifications to their orbital configuration or to add replacement satellites without prior authorization and subject to a reduced notice requirement. We decline to adopt this proposal at this time absent a more comprehensive record, but note that this concept may be worth exploring further as part of the Commission's future modernization efforts.

29. Eliminating Printed Hardcopies Requirement. Under the Commission's current rules, operators must retain an original paper copy of an electronically filed Form 312. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on its proposal to eliminate the requirement for operators to retain an original paper copy of an electronically filed application. We now eliminate this requirement consistent with the reasoning articulated in the FNPRM to maximize efficiency and eliminate regulatory burdens, and with the overwhelming support in the record.

30. Change of Default Ex Parte Status of Space Station and Earth Station Applications. Under the Commission's ex parte rules, space and earth station applications are classified as “restricted” proceedings by default because they are applications for authority under Title III of the Communications Act. In restricted proceedings, ex parte presentations, i.e., written presentations not served on the parties in the proceeding or oral presentations made without advance notice to other parties and an opportunity to be present, are prohibited. In a restricted proceeding with only one party, such as an uncontested application, the sole party may freely make presentations to the Commission because there is no other party to be served or with a right to be present. The Commission may modify applicable ex parte rules in a particular proceeding, such as a change to an application's status, if it is in the public interest to do so. The Commission may also change an application's ex parte status for various reasons, including because the application covers the same subject area as a related rulemaking proceeding or the topic to be discussed in a particular application has applicability across a wide number of applications.

31. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on its proposal to change the status of space and earth station applications, including requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S. licensed space stations, to the list of proceedings that are categorized as “permit-but-disclose” in the Commission's rules, i.e., ex parte presentations are permitted but must be disclosed. We now amend part 1 of the Commission's rules to add “applications for space and earth station authorization, including requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S. licensed space stations” to the list of proceedings that are “permit-but-disclose” under § 1.1206(a) of the Commission's rules. Because of the fast pace of change in the satellite industry and the fact that most spectrum use is shared with other users, many applications contain information important to a broad cross section of services and operations both in space and terrestrially. Thus, designating these applications as permit-but-disclose by default serves the public interest by making it easier for stakeholders to communicate with Commission staff while increasing transparency for the public. As SIA notes, the Commission frequently treats contested application proceedings as “permit-but-disclose” for these reasons. Further, by changing the default status, the Commission will no longer need to devote staff resources to changing individual applications from “restricted” to “permit-but-disclose” status in circumstances warranting broader participation, and stakeholders will no longer need to petition the Commission to make this change. Additionally, this change reduces the risk that new space industry entrants or entrants from other countries will inadvertently submit impermissible ex parte presentations in a restricted proceeding, and minimizes the expenditure of public and private resources associated with addressing inadvertent violations.

32. There is general support from commenters to change the default status of space and earth station applications from “restricted” to “permit-but-disclose.” One commenter recommends the Commission provide guidance on the applicable rules in different proceedings in order to avoid confusion for inexperienced parties. The Commission already publishes its ex parte rules and related information on its website, and the Bureau provides additional guidance as part of its Transparency Initiative, which is published on the Bureau website.

33. Earth Station Renewal Window. Under the Commission's current rules, earth station license holders may seek a renewal of their license no earlier than 90 days and no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the license term. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposal to expand the window for earth station operators to file an application for renewal from no earlier than 180 days and no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the existing license, and on any alternatives to expand the filing window. Additionally, the Commission tentatively declined to expand the renewal application period up to the license expiration date because of the increased administrative burden to Commission staff, which would increase inefficiency.

34. After considering the comments submitted on this issue, we amend § 25.121(e) to expand the filing window for earth station renewal applications to allow applicants to file for renewal no earlier than 12 months, and no later than 30 days, prior to the expiration of the existing license. We agree that expanding the filing window for earth station applications allows more flexibility for operators, and will not negatively impact Commission processing. Moreover, we find that requiring licensees to file a request for renewal no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the existing license—as required under current rules—is necessary to ensure sufficient time for any necessary review and to ensure that if a renewal application requires revisions or changes an applicant will be able to make those changes prior to the expiration of the license.

35. Many commenters support expanding the renewal window for earth station licenses. Some commenters support the proposal to expand the timeframe to allow earth station licensees to file an application for renewal no earlier than 180 days prior to the license expiration date, while other commenters suggest further expansion of the timeframe to 365 days or 12 months prior to the license expiration date. We find that amending § 25.121(e) to expand the opening of the renewal filing window to 12 months before license expiration is a better option because doing so provides an ample application window to support operator flexibility while also being easy to administer. Additionally, SIA proposes we eliminate the existing filing windows for earth station applications for renewal. As provided above, we expand the timeframe in which a renewal application can be filed, but retain the requirement that earth station licensees file an application for renewal at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the license term.

36. NGSO Space Station Replacement Window. We expand the filing window for NGSO space station replacements to allow applicants to file for renewal no earlier than 12 months, and no later than 30 days, prior to the expiration of the existing license. The Commission's current rules require NGSO space station licensees to file applications for replacement no earlier than 90 days and no later than 30 days prior to the end of the 12th year of the existing 15-year license term. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it should consider expanding the filing window within the twelfth year of the existing term for NGSO space station operators as another means of providing flexibility for applicants. We find that a single, expanded timeframe for both earth station and space station renewals provides operators of NGSO systems with a simple and consistent set period in which they can seek renewals. We are also persuaded that having a very early filing window during the twelfth year of a fifteen year license is not necessary for the review of the renewal application, especially given the steps the Bureau continues to take to reduce processing timeframes. A filing window which commences at the start of the final year of the expiration date of the license provides sufficient time for review by the Commission. As we explained in the discussion of the earth station renewal window, we require that the application be filed no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the license to ensure sufficient time for review.

37. All commenters support expanding the filing window for NGSOs, while many propose eliminating the existing window and creating a uniform, year-long window for both earth station and NGSO license renewals during the final year of the license. We recognize commenters' interest in a uniform window for earth station and NGSO operators, we no longer find it appropriate to maintain two distinct renewal filing windows, establish a uniform filing window that maintains the opportunity for Commission review.

38. Market Access and Requests for STA. We adopt the proposal to permit non-U.S. licensed satellite operators that have been granted market access to seek special temporary access pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 25.120 of the Commission's rules. Non-U.S. licensed operators must first receive a grant of U.S. market access by filing a petition for declaratory ruling, including the operating parameters of the proposed system. Under the current framework, U.S. satellite licensees may apply for STA to make certain changes to the operating parameters of their satellites under certain circumstances. If a non-U.S. licensed satellite operator that has been granted market access seeks to make similar changes, however, the Commission's rules do not provide for the filing of an STA request and instead the operator must file the equivalent of a modification application seeking authority to operate under the requested parameters. In practice, due to the inability of market access grantees to obtain STAs, each U.S. earth station licensee operating with the non-U.S. licensed satellite must request an STA to operate using the revised technical parameters while the market access grantee's modification application for approval of the changes to its operating parameters is pending. This process, however, is limited to changes to the operating parameters related to earth station operations.

39. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to permit non-U.S. licensed space station operators that have been granted market access to request and receive an equivalent of an STA to communicate with U.S.-licensed earth stations. There is general support on the record for the proposal to amend the Commission's rules to permit market access applicants to seek and receive grants of special temporary access. We agree with commenters that the existing process imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden on market access grantees as well as an administrative burden on the Commission, as the end result requires each U.S. earth station licensee operating with the non-U.S. licensed space station to file individual applications seeking STA. We find that permitting market access grantees to request special temporary access will promote efficiency by eliminating the need for each U.S. earth station licensee operating with the market access grantee to request operational changes through an earth station STA request, which complicates the process for the market access grantee. Additionally, we find the action we take today will reduce the burden on Commission staff as filings to change operating parameters via earth stations must be done for each individual earth station resulting in multiple filings versus a single special temporary access for the space station. We decline, however, to allow initial market access via the special temporary access request because there are special considerations related to country of origin, competition, and ITU registration that must be considered before permitting a non-U.S. licensed system to access the market. Prior to seeking special temporary access, the non-U.S. licensed operator must first file a petition for declaratory ruling and receive a grant of market access pursuant to the existing procedure to obtain such grants. Once a grant of market access is received, the market access grantee may make changes to its operating parameters using the special temporary access procedures we adopt today.

40. Concurrent STA Requests. Pursuant to the framework set forth in the Commission's rules, the Commission may grant earth and space station operators an STA for up to either 30 or 60 days in certain circumstances without public notice, or for up to 180 days if the request is placed on public notice. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposal raised by commenters to permit operators to request multiple extensions of an initial 60-day STA as part of the same initial STA application. The Bureau has already taken special temporary measures to expedite STA processing to a period of seven days after public notice—rather than 30 days after public notice. These actions have significantly reduced the number of pending STAs, and facilitated faster processing of 180-day STAs—obviating the need for 60 day extensions in many cases. We agree with commenters that the STA process generally is in need of reexamination, and we plan to address the process holistically as part of future modernization efforts.

41. Under the Commission's current rules, earth station operators may specify points of communication with authorized GSO space stations providing fixed-satellite service in certain frequency bands where GSO fixed-satellite service has primary status, under the Permitted List procedure. The Permitted List allows earth stations operators to add space stations on the Permitted List as points of communication to their existing license without requiring an application and approval by the Commission. For space stations that are not on the Permitted List and for operations that fall outside “routine” earth station technical parameters, applications to add satellite points of communication are required. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought further comment on the feasibility of allowing earth station applicants to specify that they will communicate with certain authorized NGSO systems, similar to the existing Permitted List procedures for earth station communications with GSOs.

42. We decline to adopt, at this time, a Permitted List for NGSO space stations as we do not have enough information on the record to determine whether the administrative burdens of establishing and maintaining such a list is warranted. Few commenters address this issue. Some commenters raise concerns about establishing a Permitted List for NGSOs such as increased risk of aggregate interference levels, consuming available spatial look angles, and impacts to competition. However, because the considerations vary based upon spectrum band, we are unable to determine at this time whether such a list is a workable solution for specific bands. There may be merit to further considering this issue as we continue the Commission's modernization initiatives.

43. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought additional comment on implementing timeframes for application review, including whether to impose shot clocks for final action on certain types of space station or earth station applications, and relevant comparisons to other forms of timelines or shot clocks. Although we find that there may be a benefit to establishing either internal or external shot clocks, we decline to pursue broad adoption at this time. We may seek further comment in a future proceeding to explore the implementation of shot clocks as needed. In any event, the actions taken today to permit earth station operators to more easily add and remove satellite points of communication, permit NGSO licensees to make certain modifications without prior authorization, and establish shot clocks for certain earth station renewal applications as discussed below, will reduce administrative burdens and expedite staff review of applications.

44. Although we decline at this time to adopt broad final action shot clocks for space station and earth station applications, we do adopt a 30-day shot clock for earth station renewal applications that meet the criteria set forth here. Earth station renewal applications are typically routine, and we find that establishing shot clocks for final action on these applications will promote efficiency and preserve scarce Commission resources. To this end, if the Bureau does not affirmatively act on a renewal application or place it on public notice within 30 days of the application filing date and filing fee paid, the renewal will be automatically granted without further action. This 30-day shot clock does not apply to earth station renewal applications that: (1) include an application for modification; (2) make any changes to currently authorized operating parameters; or (3) seek to operate in frequency bands subject to a freeze or limitations.

45. The majority of commenters oppose implementing shot clocks for final action on space station or earth station applications. Of the few that support shot clocks, some commenters suggest internal review milestone shot clocks limited to sending applications to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for coordination, or for seeking clarification from applicants after the public notice period. Other commenters suggest final action shot clocks on all types of licenses, while the remainder suggest limited final action shot clocks for “routine” earth station applications or for NGSOs that are outside of processing rounds. As discussed above, while we recognize there may be benefits to establishing either internal or external shot clocks, the practical and technical complexities of space station and earth station licensing coupled with conflicting views from the industry warrant exploration of this proposal in a future proceeding except in the specific case of earth station renewals. The Commission remains committed to speed, efficiency, and eliminating regulatory burdens on applicants, and the steps we take today mark the Commission's initial efforts to streamline and modernize the licensing process.

46. Radiofrequency spectrum is a limited resource for communications, and many frequency bands are allocated on a shared basis between various types of operators, including federal and non-federal users. To facilitate shared use of frequency bands and to avoid harmful interference between operators, the Commission's bureaus and offices coordinate among each other, and the Commission coordinates with other agencies such as NTIA. Under the current coordination procedures with NTIA, earth stations are identified and coordinated in the satellite application and conditions are placed on the satellite authorization regarding communication parameters with the specified earth stations. Then, as part of the earth station license application, the same earth stations that were previously coordinated at the space station authorization stage are yet again coordinated with NTIA. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on measures to expedite coordination process, including how to make the inter-agency review process in spectrum bands shared with federal operators more efficient, and ways to eliminate duplicative coordination requirements. The Commission also sought comment on how to eliminate duplicative coordination requirements for earth and space station operators, including the possibility of coordinating the earth station sites and frequencies utilized with those earth stations once as part of either the space station or earth station coordination with NTIA. Generally, commenters support efforts to increase processing speed and eliminate inefficiencies in the inter-agency coordination processes, eliminate duplicative coordination requirements, and point to specific frequency bands in which duplicative coordination tends to occur.

47. We agree with commenters that eliminating duplicative coordination will increase efficiency. The Commission will continue to update internal processes, including inter-bureau coordination procedures, to address inefficiencies and eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens. In addition, the Commission will continue to work with NTIA on changes to the existing inter-agency coordination process that will promote speed and efficiency. We will announce additional changes at a later date as these internal processes are finalized.

48. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought further comment to develop the record on additional proposals to streamline the part 25 licensing framework. In response, some commenters advocate for additional rule and policy changes including: (1) limits on the use of “bespoke” conditions and instead issue standardized conditions for satellites; (2) use the call sign and entity name in the point of communication for an earth station license as opposed to using a snapshot of the system's orbital configuration at the time of authorization; (3) publication of application processing data, and (4) revised proposed rules to align with environmental concerns per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. We decline to adopt the proposals submitted by commenters as described above because they are outside the scope of this proceeding. We may explore such suggestions in future modernization efforts. We also note that the Bureau already identifies points of contacts on earth station licenses using the call sign when available. Some authorizations, however, are specific to orbital slots and therefore require identification beyond use of the call sign.

49. We find that the rules we adopt today will promote efficiency in the Commission's processing of space and earth station applications and significantly reduce regulatory compliance costs. Applying conservative assumptions, we estimate that the Commission's actions would result in annual cost savings of approximately $45,000. These costs savings are in addition to more difficult to quantify, but nevertheless important benefits such as enhanced flexibility in regulatory compliance and more efficient application processing.

50. We implement the following proposals in the Order. We offer licensees significantly greater flexibility by adopting a new licensing process for earth station operators, allowing them to receive a license without specifying a satellite point of communication and to more easily remove previously identified points of communication. We take deregulatory steps to allow operators to more freely implement certain system changes by expanding the range of circumstances under which they can modify their existing licenses without prior Commission authorization. We further promote flexibility in the application process by adopting rules that extend the timeframe for license renewal applications, change the default ex parte status of all applications to “permit-but-disclose,” and allow non-U.S.-licensed market access grantees to receive a grant of special temporary access. We reduce regulatory burden by eliminating the procedural requirement to retain paper copies of applications. Finally, we promote regulatory efficiency by adopting a 30-day shot clock for earth station renewal applications.

51. The estimate that the deregulatory steps we take today will result in annual cost savings of approximately $45,000. This reduction will occur in two specific areas. First, we estimate that costs associated with applications to update points of communication, including expenses related to salaries, benefits, and filing fees—will decrease by approximately $34,000 annually. This estimate is based on reduced attorney filing times and savings from application fees across an anticipated 44 filings per year. Second, we estimate a cost reduction of approximately $11,000 annually associated with the elimination of hard copy retention requirements. This figure is based on decreased paralegal time needed for an estimated 3,000 applications per year.

52. As required by the RFA, the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the FNPRM released in September 2023. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. The FRFA conforms to the RFA.

53. In recent years, the Commission has received an unprecedented number of applications for earth and space station licenses. The Order facilitates and expedites the acceptance for filing of earth and space station applications under 47 CFR part 25 and adopts other streamlining measures to keep pace with the growing demand for satellite services and innovative satellite operations. This rulemaking will open new modes of business to further fuel the growth of the space economy, eliminate unnecessary and burdensome requirements on earth and space station operators, and promote efficiency and eliminate administrative burdens.

54. The Order adopts changes to Commission's rules aimed at removing barriers and regulatory burdens on earth and space station operators. Specifically, the Order revises § 1.1206(a) to reclassify the status earth and space station applications as permit-but-disclose pursuant to the Commission's ex parte rules; § 25.115(a)(5)(i) to establish a baseline license for earth station applicants that do not require an identified point of communication prior to receiving a grant of authority to operate; § 25.118(a)(3) allowing earth station operators to remove a point of communication without prior authorization; § 25.118(b)(2) to expand equipment modifications to authorized earth stations that operators can make; § 25.118(e)(4) to enable GSO space station operators to conduct operations beyond telemetry, tracking, and command during relocation without prior authorization; and § 25.121(e) to extend the timeframe for earth and space station licensees to file an application for renewal. Additionally, the Order removes and reserves § 25.110(e), eliminating the requirement that the applicant maintain paper copies of their application; removes § 25.117(i), eliminating a limited procedure for earth station licensees to add identified points of communication; removes and reserves § 25.118(b)(1), eliminating a redundant rule that could cause confusion with § 25.118(b)(2). Finally, the Order adds § 25.118(b)(3) which allows for earth station operators to modify antenna identification without prior authorization and without providing notice to the Commission; § 25.118(g), enabling earth station operators to add a point of communication provided certain criteria are met; § 25.118(h) to permit certain modifications to NGSOs upon 60-days' notice to the Commission; and § 25.137(h), permitting non-U.S. licensed market access grantees to request special temporary access pursuant to the procedures for special temporary authorization typically available to U.S. licensees.

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

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

57. 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 under the Small Business Act. 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 which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

58. 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 $44 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. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2024 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2023, there were 57 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 40 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.

59. 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 $40 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.

60. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

61. The Order amends rules that are applicable to earth and space station operators that request a license or authorization from the Commission, or by entities requesting that the Commission grant a request for U.S. market access. The changes adopted in the Order, as described below, will decrease the burden for small entities and other operators by streamlining or eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens. Specifically, the Order eliminates the rule requiring applicants to maintain paper copies of their application, reclassifies the status of earth and space station applications as permit-but-disclose under the Commission's ex parte rules, and eliminates an outdated, limited process for earth station operators to add or remove identified points of communication. The Order also revises the Commission's rules to expand the timeframe for licensees to file an application for renewal, from the previous timeframe of no earlier than 90 days and no later than 30 days prior to the expiration, to the revised timeframe of 12 months and no later than 30 days prior to expiration.

62. Further, the Order expands certain equipment modifications to authorized earth stations that operators can make without prior authorization, so long as the equipment will not cause an increase in harmful interference or radiation risk to humans. The Order also permits earth station operators to modify antenna identification without prior authorization or notice to the Commission, and allows GSO space station operators to continue operations during relocation. Additionally, the Order permits NGSO space station operators to make certain modifications upon 60 day notice without prior authorization, provided that the changes do not cause an increase in certain power, antenna patterns, area-to-mass ratio of the satellite, in-orbit collision risk, re-entry risk, or harmful interference to other systems. Finally, the Order creates a baseline license for earth station applicants with flexibility to add identified points of communication and a process to obtain special temporary access for non-U.S. licensed market access. In light of these burden-reducing effects of these rule amendments and the elimination of some rules, the Commission does not believe that small entities will have to hire additional professionals to comply with the Order because the new and revised rules eliminate or reduce previous licensing requirements for small and other operators. Further, we utilize existing systems and processes that small operators should be familiar with, and make changes that require the minimum information necessary to achieve the above stated goals.

63. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

64. The Commission considered alternatives to the rule revisions we adopt today and takes steps to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens that will better facilitate the licensing process for new industries, and also minimize potential significant economic impact on small entities. For example, as discussed in section E above, in the Order, we eliminate or reduce filing burdens on small entities by eliminating the rule requiring applicants to maintain paper copies of their application, expand the timeframes for licensees to file an application for renewal, and expand equipment modifications to authorized earth stations that operators can make without prior authorization. The Commission selected these alternatives to the existing rules because they are consistent with the Commission's goals of providing flexibility and reducing regulatory burdens for operators. Further, commenters support many of these changes, such as expanding the filing window for earth station renewal applications to no earlier than 12 months, and no later than 30 days, prior to the expiration of the existing license. However, we declined to adopt other alternatives, such as including all administrative changes as modifications, and instead will rely upon the specific prohibitions enumerated in the revised rules. Other proposals, involving alternatives to permit NGSO space station operators to make modifications to their orbital configuration, establishing a Permitted List for NGSOs, and imposing shot clocks for final action on certain types of applications, were not adopted because there is not enough information on the record to support changes at this time. Finally, some proposals, including such alternatives as imposing limits on the use of “bespoke” conditions, using the call sign and entity name in the point of communication for an earth station license, publishing application processing data, and revising proposed rules to align with environmental concerns, were not adopted because they were outside the scope of this proceeding.

65. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and will publish a copy of the Order and the FRFA (or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register .

66. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 332, that the Order is adopted .

67. It is further ordered that the Order shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , with the exception of revisions to §§ 25.110(e), 25.117(i), 25.118(a)(3), 25.118(b)(1), (2), and (3), and (e)(4), and (h), and 25.137(h), which may contain new or modified information collection requirements and will not be effective until after OMB completes any review the Bureau determines is required under the PRA and provide an effective date by subsequent Public Notice.

68. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the RFA.

69. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of the Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 25 as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 11234, March 5, 2025).

NMFS has determined that as of August 22, 2025, approximately 2,049 metric tons of Pacific cod remain in the 2025 Pacific cod apportionment for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully use the 2025 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod in the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) the current catch of Pacific cod, including by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels participating in this fishery, and (3) the remaining Pacific cod TAC available for harvest in the fishing year.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion, and would delay the opening of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on available TAC for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI only became available as of August 22, 2025.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI to reopen and the Pacific cod TAC to be harvested in an expedient manner. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address (see ADDRESSES ) until September 11, 2025.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to AFA catcher/processor vessels in the BSAI is 2,923 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).

The 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to amendment 80 vessels in the BSAI is 17,027 mt as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that AFA catcher/processor vessels will not be able to harvest 750 mt of the AFA catcher/processor vessels' 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 7 ). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B), NMFS reallocates 750 mt of Pacific cod from AFA catcher/processor vessels to amendment 80 vessels, which has the capability to harvest this reallocated amount of Pacific cod.

The harvest specifications for 2025 Pacific cod included in final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) are revised as follows: 2,173 mt to AFA catcher/processor vessels and 17,777 mt to amendment 80 vessels.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod from AFA catcher/processor vessels to amendment 80 vessels. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on Pacific cod harvest by those sectors harvesting Pacific cod, as well as the potential capability to harvest reallocated Pacific cod this fall, only became available as of August 25, 2025.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.