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 final rule is issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (the Act), amending Marketing Order No. 987 (7 CFR part 987; the Order), regulating the handling of domestic dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California. The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of dates operating within the area of production.

This final action is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process required by Executive Order 12866. This final rule would amend existing Marketing Order No. 987, as amended (7 CFR part 987), “Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside Country, California,” and is necessary for the continued operation of Marketing Order No. 987. Additionally, this final action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” pursuant to section 5(c).

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. The Agricultural Marketing Service (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, California date 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 dates for the 2024-2025 crop year, 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 608c(15)(A) of the Act, 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 decreases the assessment rate for California dates handled under the Order from $0.15 to $0.05 per hundredweight for the 2024-2025 crop year and subsequent crop years.

Sections 987.71 and 987.72 of the Order authorize the Committee, with AMS approval, 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 are able to 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 2023-2024 crop year and subsequent crop years, the Committee recommended, and AMS approved, an assessment rate of $0.15 per hundredweight of California dates. That rate continues in effect from crop year to crop year 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 27, 2024, and unanimously recommended, with a vote of six in favor and none opposed, 2024-2025 crop year expenditures of $89,410 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per hundredweight of California dates handled for the 2024-2025 crop year and subsequent crop years. In comparison, the 2023-2024 crop year's budgeted expenditures were $75,800. The $0.05 per hundredweight assessment rate is $0.10 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce its reserve funds to within a level authorized under the Order. The Committee projects 300,000 hundredweight of assessable California dates for the 2024-2025 crop year, down from the 426,000 hundredweight that the Committee initially projected for the 2023-2024 crop year.

The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated crop year expenses, an expected 300,000 hundredweight of assessable dates, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. The expected 300,000 hundredweight of assessable California dates would generate $15,000 in assessment revenue at the assessment rate (300,000 hundredweight multiplied by $0.05 assessment rate). The Committee believes income generated from handler assessments, along with approximately $68,310 in reserve funds and $6,100 of surplus allocation income from the date cull program will be sufficient to meet the Committee's estimated program expenditures of $89,410 for the 2024-2025 crop year. Funds available in the financial reserve (currently about $129,000) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (not to exceed the average of annual expenses for the preceding five years, as authorized in § 987.72).

The assessment rate will continue in effect indefinitely until 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 crop year 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 would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2024-2025 crop year budget, and those for subsequent crop years, 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 final 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 are unique regulations in that they are brought about through group action of typically small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 70 producers of California dates in the production area and 11 handlers of California dates subject to regulation under the Order. At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Association (SBA) defined small agricultural producers of California dates as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3,500,000 (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111339, Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming) and small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $34,000,000 (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).

According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), data for the most-recently completed crop year (2023) shows that the average price producers received for California dates was $2,630 per ton, with an estimated production of 35,300 tons. Using the average price producers received, production information, and the number of producers, the majority of producers have estimated annual receipts of less than $3,500,000 ($2,630 multiplied by 35,300 tons equals $92,839,000, divided by 70 producers equals $1,326,271 per producer). Thus, the majority of California date producers may be classified as small entities, according to the SBA definition.

In addition, AMS Market News reported an average terminal market price of $43.09 per 11-pound carton for the 2023 calendar year (California origin, Medjool variety, non-organic, all terminal markets, all grades and sizes). With approximately 70,600,000 pounds handled, the industry would have shipped an estimated 6,418,182, 11-pound cartons (70,600,000 pounds divided by 11 pounds) of packaged dates for a total value of $276,559,462 (6,418,182 multiplied by $43.09). With 11 date handlers within the production area, the 2023 average revenue per handler is estimated to be $25,141,769 ($276,559,462 divided by 11), which is below the $34,000,000 SBA size threshold for handlers. Thus, assuming a normal distribution, most California date handlers may be classified as small entities.

This final rule decreases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2024-2025 and subsequent crop years from $0.15 to $0.05 per hundredweight of assessable California dates. The Committee unanimously recommended 2024-2025 crop year expenditures of $89,410 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per hundredweight of California dates. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.10 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee expects the industry to handle 300,000 hundredweight of assessable California dates during the 2024-2025 crop year. Thus, the $0.05 per hundredweight rate should provide $15,000 in assessment income (300,000 hundredweight multiplied by $0.05 per hundredweight). The Committee expects income derived from handler assessments, along with reserve funds and surplus allocation income from the date cull program, should be sufficient to meet budgeted expenditures for the 2024-2025 crop year.

The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to utilize funds from its reserve to meet necessary expenses for the 2024-2025 crop year, and ensure the reserve is maintained at a level in compliance with order requirements.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate recommendation, the Committee discussed various alternatives, including reducing the assessment rate more and/or less than the rate herein. However, the Committee determined that the recommended assessment rate would achieve its goals of both adequately funding Committee operations and reducing the reserve to an appropriate level. Consequently, those alternatives were rejected.

A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates the average producer price for the 2024-2025 crop year should be approximately $2,847 per ton ($142.35 per hundredweight) of California dates. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2024-2025 crop year as a percentage of total producer revenue would be about 0.04 percent ($0.05 per hundredweight assessment rate divided by $142.35 multiplied by 100).

This final rule decreases the assessment obligation imposed on 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.

Committee meetings are widely publicized throughout the production area. The California date 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 27, 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. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California date 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 final rule.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on September 12, 2025 (90 FR 44151). Copies of the proposed rule were provided to all California date handlers. In addition, the proposal was made available through the internet by AMS and the Office of the Federal Register via https://www.regulations.gov. A 30-day comment period ending October 14, 2025, was provided to all interested persons to respond to the proposal. AMS received no comments during the comment period. Accordingly, AMS made no changes to the rule as proposed.

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 rule is consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is amended 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 The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2026 (91 FR 6798). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracks found in the fuselage skin underneath the aft drain mast. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections of the fuselage skin and structure common to the aft drain mast for any crack or corrosion and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking or corrosion in the fuselage skin and structure common to the aft drain mast. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of the principal structural element (PSE) to sustain limit loads, which may result in rapid decompression of the fuselage and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from Aviation Partners Boeing and Boeing who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1409, Revision 1, dated October 27, 2023. This material specifies procedures for repetitive internal detailed inspections around the fastener holes, cutout, channel, and fillers of the structure common to the aft drain mast (also referred to as the “aft waste water drain mast”) for any crack or corrosion; repetitive external detailed inspections and external surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections around the fastener holes and cutout on the fuselage skin common to the aft drain mast for any crack or corrosion; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include obtaining and following repair instructions. 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 123 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Leonardo S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2026 (91 FR 2504). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0101, dated May 15, 2023, issued by EASA, which is Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0101) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that there have been reports of a damaged spare inflation system of life raft kit part number (P/N) 3G9560F00111, P/N 3G9560F00112, and P/N 4G2560F00811. The MCAI further states that subsequent investigation results revealed the damage was caused by the inappropriate shipment of the parts.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing certain life raft inflation systems and prohibit installing an affected life raft inflation system on any helicopter.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address a damaged life raft inflation system. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to the inability to inflate a life raft and possibly affect the safe evacuation of occupants in the case of ditching over water.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-0017.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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 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 2023-0101, which specifies procedures for replacing life raft inflation system P/N 202402A and P/N 202256A that have a certain cylinder and valve serial number. EASA AD 2023-0101 also prohibits installing an affected life raft inflation system part on any helicopter. 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 161 helicopters of U.S. registry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-22-10, Amendment 39-22594 (88 FR 80567, November 20, 2023) (AD 2023-22-10). AD 2023-22-10 applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes. AD 2023-22-10 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-22-10 to address, among other things, fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2026 (91 FR 5375). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0124, dated May 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0124) (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 or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require certain actions in AD 2023-22-10 and to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0124. 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-2026-0737.

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

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 2025-0124, which specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2023-0059, dated March 16, 2023, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 26, 2023 (88 FR 80567, November 20, 2023).

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 32 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 2023-22-10 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 to supersede AD 2021-23-04, Amendment 39-21802 (86 FR 68892, December 6, 2021) (AD 2021-23-04), which applied to Leonardo S.p.A. Model A109E helicopters. AD 2021-23-04 required repetitive inspections of the intersection of the lateral pylon and floor spar at STA 1815 for cracking and, depending on the findings, repair. The FAA issued AD 2021-23-04 to address cracking in the intersection of the lateral pylon and floor spar at STA 1815 on the left- and right-hand sides, which, if not addressed, could affect the structural integrity of the helicopter. Since the FAA issued AD 2021-23-04, it was determined that additional helicopter models are affected by the unsafe condition.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2025 (90 FR 46768). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0004, dated January 5, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0004) (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 Leonardo developed a modification to prevent cracking in the intersection of the lateral pylon and floor spar at STA 1815 on the left- and right-hand sides.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections of the affected area for cracking and add additional helicopter models to the applicability. The NPRM also proposed to require modification of the affected area, which would be terminating action for the repetitive inspections. 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-2025-2556.

The FAA received comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either convert this action to an NPRM or provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, reopen the comment period for at least 60 days, and commit to promptly superseding the AD with an NPRM while suspending enforcement of non-time-critical provisions pending comment. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption to bypass notice and comment and the 30-day delayed effective date.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and consider less burdensome alternatives for small operators. The commenter stated that the FAA should also reopen the comment period for at least 60 days to allow comment on that analysis.

The FAA has considered the AD's impact on small businesses and provides the following factual basis for its RFA certification.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the RFA defines “small business” to have the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by issuing regulations.

The SBA (2023) has established size standards for various types of economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These size standards generally define small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts. The following table provides the SBA size standards for all industries with at least 1 entity impacted by this AD. Note that the SBA definition of a small business applies to the parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.

To identify small entities, the FAA first identified the primary NAICS of the entity or parent company, and then used data from different sources ( e.g., company annual reports, Bureau of Transportation Statistics) to determine whether the entity meets the applicable size standard. The FAA provides the estimated number of small entities affected by this AD:

The FAA estimates operators will incur either an inspection cost of $1,394 annually or a one-time modification cost of $25,860 per helicopter. Once an operator incurs the one-time modification cost, the operator will no longer incur annual inspection costs. The FAA cannot estimate when each operator will incur this modification cost. In addition, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA analyzes the cost of each compliance method relative to the annual revenue of each small entity. The following table shows the estimated compliance costs by each NAICS industry.

The FAA evaluated the alternative of not promulgating this AD but ultimately deemed that this alternative would create a significant safety hazard. Since the issuance of AD 2021-23-04, which affected certain Leonardo S.p.A. Model A109E helicopters, it has been determined that the risk of structural cracking at the intersection of the lateral pylon and floor spar extends to additional helicopter models. Relying on the existing requirements would leave these additional models unmonitored. By expanding the applicability and requiring the modification, this AD addresses the unsafe condition and prevents potential structural failure, ensuring a level of safety that the alternative of no action could not provide.

Based on average compliance costs, the FAA has determined that the financial impacts of this AD are not disproportionate to small entities. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or make any reporting provisions voluntary until PRA requirements are satisfied.

The FAA notes that paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter called on the FAA to guarantee that all IBR materials are easily and freely accessible to the public and affected parties for the duration of the comment period and to reopen the comment period for at least 60 days to accommodate this access.

The FAA's practices comply with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act and 1 CFR part 51. The FAA makes IBR materials available in the AD docket when the final rule is published in the Federal Register , following formal approval of the IBR by the Office of the Federal Register. Materials may only be posted before the final rule's publication if they are already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of the IBR material. All relevant materials incorporated by reference will be accessible in the AD docket on Regulations.gov , which the public can access without registration or fees.

The FAA also provides summaries and access details in the preamble and regulatory text, makes materials available for inspection at FAA and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) offices, offers publisher contact information, and obtains formal IBR approval from the Office of the Federal Register. These efforts are intended to ensure that all IBR materials meet the “reasonably available” standard required by 1 CFR part 51. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the regulatory evaluation of the proposed AD and reopen the comment period for at least 60 days to allow for public input on the additional cost information.

The FAA's practice is to add the regulatory evaluation of the proposed AD in the NPRM, not as a separate document in the AD docket.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM, the FAA disclosed the estimated number of work hours, the number of helicopters affected on the U.S. registry (which has been updated in this final rule), estimated parts cost, and the aggregate costs for the U.S. fleet. The FAA has revised the Costs of Compliance section to clarify costs of this AD. Since the FAA provided the regulatory evaluation in the NPRM, and the commenter did not provide additional information for the FAA to consider in its analysis, it is not necessary to reopen the comment period or provide additional information in the AD docket.

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 2024-0004, which specifies procedures for repetitive inspections of STA 1815 for cracking; fluorescent liquid penetrant inspections of any cracking to determine the extent of the cracking, or other damage, such as deformation or corrosion; and modifying the affected area by reinforcing the fuselage, which provides terminating action for the repetitive inspections. 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 81 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators will incur an annual inspection cost of $1,394 ($510 per inspection cycle) until they make the modification, and then they will incur a one-time modification cost of $25,860 per helicopter ($12,930 per fuselage side). Once an operator incurs a one-time modification cost, the operator will no longer incur inspection costs. The FAA does not estimate when operators would need to modify their helicopter.

The FAA recognizes that operators might incur additional costs, such as helicopter downtime. However, the FAA cannot quantify these costs. According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2026 (91 FR 3092). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0188, dated September 1, 2025, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2025-0188) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that the standard MS18027 hook part number (P/N) 42305-283 installed on the large hook damper assembly, P/N 44307-480, may be subject to localized yielding in the mating threads when assembled to higher assembly torques.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying and re-identifying the affected part or replacing the affected part with a serviceable part. The FAA also proposed to prohibit installing an affected part on any helicopter unless certain requirements are met.

The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the hook. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the large hook damper assembly, which could result in loss of the hoist load and injury to persons.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2026-0730.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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 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 2025-0188, which specifies procedures for modifying the large hook damper assembly having P/N 44307-480 by replacing the standard MS18027 hook P/N 42305-283 with D-Lok hook P/N 42315-488 and reidentifying the large hook damper assembly to P/N 44307-480-1.

EASA AD 2025-0188 also specifies procedures for replacing large hook damper assembly P/N 44307-480 with large hook damper assembly P/N 44307-480-1 (modification already accomplished) as an alternative to the initial modification requirement. EASA AD 2025-0188 also prohibits installing an affected large hook damper assembly having P/N 44307-480 on any helicopter unless certain requirements are met within 12 months of the effective date of this AD and prohibits installing the affected part on any helicopter.

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 183 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following cost to do any replacement that would be an alternative method of compliance. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might choose this replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ) (CPIA), which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)) (the Convention), allows for the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and another party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological material. Under the CPIA and the applicable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, found in § 12.104 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 12.104), the restrictions are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which an agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (19 U.S.C. 2602(b)). This period may be extended for additional periods, each extension not to exceed five years, if it is determined that the factors justifying the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists (19 U.S.C. 2602(e); 19 CFR 12.104g(a)).

On January 19, 2021, the United States and the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding entitled, “Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Turkey Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Turkey”  1 (the 2021 MOU). The 2021 MOU entered into force upon the exchange of diplomatic notes, on March 24, 2021, and reflects an agreement to impose import restrictions on categories of archaeological material, ranging in date from approximately 1,200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1770, and ethnological material, ranging in date from the 1st century A.D. to A.D. 1923, representing Türkiye's cultural heritage.

On June 16, 2021, CBP published a final rule (CBP Decision (Dec.) Number 21-09) in the Federal Register (86 FR 31910), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the imposition of these restrictions, including a list designating the types of archaeological and ethological material covered by the restrictions, for a five-year period ending on March 24, 2026. On August 7, 2025, the United States Department of State proposed in the Federal Register (90 FR 38194) to extend the 2021 MOU. On January 6, 2026, after considering the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, United States Department of State, made the necessary determinations to extend the MOU for an additional five years. Pursuant to an exchange of diplomatic notes, which entered into force on May 5, 2026, the United States and Türkiye have agreed to extend the 2021 MOU for an additional five-year period, through March 24, 2031. However, in the absence of a final rule extending enforcement of the restrictions, enforcement of these restrictions ended on March 24, 2026. Enforcement of the extension will begin upon publication of this document in the Federal Register .

Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of the import restrictions. The restrictions on the importation of categories of archaeological and ethnological material of Türkiye will continue in effect until March 24, 2031. Importation of such material from Türkiye continues to be restricted until that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.

The Designated List, which includes archaeological material from Türkiye ranging in date from approximately 1,200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1770, and ethnological material from Türkiye from the 1st century A.D. to the end of the Ottoman Empire with the foundation of the Republic of Türkiye in A.D. 1923, covered by these import restrictions is set forth in CBP Dec. 21-09. The Designated List and additional information may also be found at the following website address: https://www.state.gov/current-agreements-and-import-restrictions by selecting the materials for the appropriate country.

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the 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). CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

In accordance with Treasury Order 100-20, the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority related to the customs revenue functions vested in the Secretary of the Treasury as set forth in 6 U.S.C. 212 and 215, subject to certain exceptions. This regulation is being issued in accordance with Department of Homeland Security Delegation 07010.3, Revision 03.2, which delegates to the Commissioner of CBP the authority to prescribe and approve regulations related to cultural property import restrictions.

Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division of CBP, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:

In this final rule, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) permanently places CUMYL-PEGACLONE and its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The United States is a party to the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971 Convention), Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175, as amended. Procedures respecting changes in drug schedules under the 1971 Convention are governed domestically by 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(2)-(4). When the United States receives notification of a scheduling decision pursuant to Article 2 of the 1971 Convention indicating that a drug or other substance has been added to a schedule specified in the notification, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), 1 after consultation with the Attorney General, shall first determine whether existing legal controls under subchapter I of the CSA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act meet the requirements of the schedule specified in the notification with respect to the specific drug or substance. 2 In the event that the Secretary did not consult with the Attorney General, and the Attorney General did not issue a temporary order, as provided under 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(4), the procedures for permanent scheduling set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b) control.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) and (2), the Attorney General (as delegated to the Administrator of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) may, by rule, and upon the recommendation of the Secretary, add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance, if she finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by 21 U.S.C. 812(b) for the schedule in which such drug or other substance is to be placed.

The neurochemical effects of CUMYL-PEGACLONE occur primarily through cannabinoid receptor systems in the brain. CUMYL-PEGACLONE binds to cannabinoid subtype 1 (CB1) receptors, functions as a full agonist, and has a binding affinity and functional activity profile that is similar to that of other schedule I cannabinoids, including Δ9-THC, JWH-018, XLR11, and AKB-48. On June 10, 2021, the Secretary-General of the United Nations advised the Secretary of State of the United States that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs voted to place CUMYL-PEGACLONE in Schedule II of the 1971 Convention during its 64th Session held on April 14, 2021.

As a signatory to this international treaty, the United States is required, by scheduling under the CSA, to place appropriate controls on CUMYL-PEGACLONE to meet the minimum requirements of the treaty. Because the procedures in 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(3) and (4) for consultation and issuance of a temporary order, discussed in the above legal authority section, were not followed for CUMYL-PEGACLONE, DEA is utilizing the procedures for permanent scheduling set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b) to control CUMYL-PEGACLONE. Such scheduling would satisfy the United States' international obligations.

To meet the minimum requirements of this treaty and to confront this emerging substance, DEA published an order in the Federal Register on December 12, 2023, temporarily placing CUMYL-PEGACLONE in schedule I of the CSA based upon a finding that this substance poses an imminent hazard to the public safety under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). 3 That temporary order was effective upon the date of publication. On December 11, 2025, DEA published a temporary scheduling order to extend the temporary schedule I status of CUMYL-PEGACLONE for one year, or until the permanent scheduling action for this substance is completed, whichever occurs first. 4

In a letter dated December 11, 2024, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b), and in response to DEA's June 12, 2023 request, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided to DEA a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for CUMYL-PEGACLONE. DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for schedule I placement provided by HHS, and all other relevant data, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c), and conducted its own analysis under the eight factors stipulated in 21 U.S.C. 811(c). DEA found, under 21 U.S.C. 811(b)(1), that CUMYL-PEGACLONE warrants control in schedule I. Both the DEA and HHS's Eight-Factor Analyses are available in their entirety under the tab Supporting Documents of the public docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number DEA-1356.

On December 11, 2025, DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to permanently control CUMYL-PEGACLONE in schedule I. 5 Specifically, DEA proposed to add CUMYL-PEGACLONE to the list of hallucinogenic substances under 21 CFR 1308.11(d). The NPRM provided an opportunity for interested persons to file a request for hearing in accordance with DEA regulations on or before January 12, 2026. DEA did not receive any requests for a hearing. The NPRM also provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments on or before January 12, 2026.

DEA received one comment in response to the NPRM in support of the rulemaking for the placement of CUMYL-PEGACLONE into schedule I of the CSA.

Comment in support of the rulemaking: One comment was in support of the rulemaking. The response specifically noted the serious adverse effects following the ingestion of CUMYL-PEGACLONE and described how this rule will help to decrease the availability of CUMYL-PEGACLONE to the general public to decrease dependence and addiction to this substance.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates the comment in support of this rulemaking.

After consideration of the public comment, scientific and medical evaluation and accompanying scheduling recommendation from HHS, and after its own eight-factor evaluation, DEA finds that these facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse of CUMYL-PEGACLONE. As such, DEA is permanently scheduling CUMYL-PEGACLONE as a controlled substance under schedule I of the CSA. The permanent scheduling of CUMYL-PEGACLONE fulfills the United States' obligations as a party to the 1971 Convention.

The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, II, IV, and V. The CSA also specifies the findings requires to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule, 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the then Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS and review of all other available data, the Administrator of DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:

(1) CUMYL-PEGACLONE has a high potential for abuse that is comparable to other scheduled synthetic cannabinoids, such as JWH-018, XLR11, and ABKB-48. In vitro studies demonstrate that CUMYL-PEGACLONE binds to CB1 receptors and functions as a full agonist. In drug discrimination studies conducted in animals to evaluate its discriminative stimulus effects, CUMYL-PEGACLONE was shown to fully substitute for the discriminative stimulus effects produced by delta 9-THC. The ingestion of CUMYL-PEGACLONE has been documented to result in serious adverse effects including seizures, sudden collapse of the user, and death.

(2) CUMYL-PEGACLONE has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. In HHS's 2024 recommendation to control CUMYL-PEGACLONE, it was noted there are no approved New Drug Applications for CUMYL-PEGACLONE and no known therapeutic applications for CUMYL-PEGACLONE in the United States. DEA is not aware of any other evidence suggesting that CUMYL-PEGACLONE has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. 6

(3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of CUMYL-PEGACLONE under medical supervision. Because CUMYL-PEGACLONE has no approved medical use and has not been investigated as a new drug, its safety for use under medical supervision has not been determined.

Based on these findings, the Administrator of DEA concludes that CUMYL-PEGACLONE, as well as its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, warrants control in schedule I of the CSA.

CUMYL-PEGACLONE is subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, import, export, engagement in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, and possession of schedule I controlled substances, including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses), or who desires to handle, CUMYL-PEGACLONE must register with DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

Any person who currently handles CUMYL-PEGACLONE and is not registered with DEA to conduct research with a schedule I controlled substance must submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle CUMYL-PEGACLONE as of May 13, 2026, unless DEA has approved that application for registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(h), if, on May 13, 2026, a person is conducting research on CUMYL-PEGACLONE and is already registered to conduct research with another controlled substance in schedule I, the person may continue to conduct research on CUMYL-PEGACLONE if they submit a completed application for registration or modification of existing registration, as applicable, to conduct research with CUMYL-PEGACLONE not later than 90 calendar days after May 13, 2026. The person may continue to conduct such research until the person withdraws the application or the Administrator serves on the person an order to show cause proposing denial of the application pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(c) and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.37. If the Administrator serves an order to show cause proposing denial of the application or modification, the person may not continue to conduct research with CUMYL-PEGACLONE and may not receive or otherwise obtain additional CUMYL-PEGACLONE. If an order to show cause is served and the person requests a hearing in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.37(d), the hearing shall be held in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.41-1301.46 on an expedited basis and not later than 45 calendar days after the request is made, except that the hearing may be held at a later time if so requested by the person. If the person sends a copy of the application to a manufacturer or distributor of CUMYL-PEGACLONE, receipt of the copy by the manufacturer or distributor constitutes sufficient evidence that the person is authorized to receive CUMYL-PEGACLONE pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(h)(4). Continuation of research under 21 U.S.C. 822(h) does not authorize any other handling ( e.g., distribution) of CUMYL-PEGACLONE. Retail sales of schedule I controlled substances to the general public are not allowed under the CSA. Possession of any quantity in a manner not authorized by the CSA is unlawful and those in possession of any quantity may be subject to prosecution pursuant to the CSA.

2. Disposal of stocks. Any person unwilling or unable to obtain a schedule I registration must surrender or transfer all quantities of currently held CUMYL-PEGACLONE to a person registered with DEA before the effective date of the final scheduling action in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws. CUMYL-PEGACLONE must be disposed of in accordance with 21 CFR part 1317, in addition to all other applicable Federal, State, local, and Tribal laws

3. Security. CUMYL-PEGACLONE is subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.76. Non-practitioners handling CUMYL-PEGACLONE must comply with the employee screening requirements of 21 CFR 1301.90 through 1301.93.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of CUMYL-PEGACLONE must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

5. Quota. Generally, only registered manufacturers are permitted to manufacture CUMYL-PEGACLONE in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

6. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of CUMYL-PEGACLONE must take an inventory of CUMYL-PEGACLONE on hand, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (d).

Any person who registers with DEA must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including CUMYL-PEGACLONE) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (b).

After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take an inventory of all controlled substances (including CUMYL-PEGACLONE) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

7. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant must maintain records and submit reports for CUMYL-PEGACLONE, or products containing CUMYL-PEGACLONE, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c), 1301.76(b), and parts 1304, 1312 and 1317. Manufacturers and distributors must submit reports regarding CUMYL-PEGACLONE to the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

8. Order Forms. Every DEA registrant who distributes CUMYL-PEGACLONE must comply with the order form requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828 and 21 CFR part 1305.

9. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of CUMYL-PEGACLONE must comply with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

10. Liability. Any activity involving CUMYL-PEGACLONE not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this final scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the procedures and criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563. DEA scheduling actions are not subject to either E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, or E.O. 14294, Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not 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 action does not impose a new collection or modify an existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 7 Also, this rule does not impose new or modify existing recordkeeping or reporting requirements on state or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. However, this rule would require compliance with the following existing OMB collections: 1117-0003, 1117-0004, 1117-0006, 1117-0008, 1117-0009, 1117-0010, 1117-0012, 1117-0014, 1117-0021, 1117-0023, 1117-0029, and 1117-0056. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Administrator of DEA, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this final rule, and by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

DEA is placing the substance CUMYL-PEGACLONE (chemical name: methyl 3,3-dimethyl-2-(1-(pent-4-en-1-yl)-1 H -indazole-3-carboxamido)butanoate), including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, in schedule I of the CSA to enable the United States to meet its obligations under the 1971 Convention. This action imposes the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possess) or propose to handle CUMYL-PEGACLONE.

Based on the review of HHS's scientific and medical evaluation and all other relevant data, DEA determined that CUMYL-PEGACLONE has high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. There appear to be no legitimate sources for CUMYL-PEGACLONE as a marketed drug in the United States, but DEA notes that this substance is available for purchase from legitimate suppliers for scientific research. There is no evidence of significant diversion of CUMYL-PEGACLONE from legitimate suppliers. Therefore, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, DEA has determined that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year. . . .” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that rules enacted in accordance with the procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553 to be effective not less than 30 days after publication of the proposed rule. 8 However, the APA provides three exceptions for when an agency may make a rule effective sooner than 30 days after publication, including if the agency finds for good cause why the rule should be effective sooner and publishes those reasons with the rule. 9

DEA finds that there is good cause for this scheduling action to be immediately effective upon publication because a delay in the effective date is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. First, it is unnecessary because CUMYL-PEGACLONE is currently listed in schedule I of the CSA under 21 U.S.C. 811(h). 10 Second, as discussed in the temporary scheduling order and NPRM, CUMYL-PEGACLONE poses imminent hazard to public safety. Therefore, DEA believes it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay the effectiveness of this final rule by 30 days. 11

For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on May 6, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The Coast Guard has received a request, under 33 CFR 100.15, for a Marine Event Permit to host a high-speed, power boat demonstration event in Piney Point, MD on June 06, 2026 and June 07, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on both days.

The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) is issuing this Special Local Regulation (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the vintage and historic racing powerboat demonstrations will be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event and for vessels that operate within waters of the St. Mary's River covered by this rule. If normal vessel traffic were allowed to interfere with the event, potential hazards would include the risk of injury or death resulting from near or actual contact among participant vessels, spectator vessels, or non-participant waterway users. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable to do so. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on March 18, 2026, but we must establish this SLR by June 06, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we have do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a temporary SLR from 8:30 a.m. on June 06, 2026, through 5 p.m. on June 07, 2026. It will only be subject to enforcement, however, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on each of those two days. The regulated area covers all navigable waters of St. George Creek. This area starts at Cedar Point, follows the western shoreline south to Coade Bar, then cuts southeast across the creek to Dodson Point. From there, it continues north along the eastern shoreline, including the area near the St. George Island Bridge (SR-249), all the way up to Long Bar at the entrance to St. George Harbor. The boundary then wraps northeast across the creek back to Cedar Point, terminating at the point of origin.

The regulated area is approximately 1,750 yards in length and 940 yards in width. The duration of the special local regulation and size of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the high-speed power boat event scheduled to take place from June 06, 2026, and June 07, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on each day. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

On April 09, 2026, the Coast Guard received a request under 33 CFR 100.15 from the Smith Island Crab Skiff Association for a Marine Event Permit to host Historic Smith Island crab skiff races. The event will be held from 1 p.m. through 2:30 p.m. on June 6, 2026, in and around Kent Island, MD. The power boat race will consist of three heats with approximately 7 22-foot-long boats in each race, competing on a designated, marked course.

The Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region is issuing this Special Local Regulation (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat race, such as the risk of collisions, would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event and for vessels that operate within the specified waters of Prospect Bay. The purpose of this rule is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable to publish an NPRM, consider and respond to comments, and publish a final rule within the time since we received the Marine Event Permit application on April 9, if we are to establish this SLR by June 6, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a temporary SLR which will be subject to enforcement from 12:30 p.m. through 3 p.m. on June 6, 2026. Alternatively, and in the event of inclement weather, the SLR will only be subject to enforcement from 12:30 p.m. through 3 p.m. on June 7. The SLR will cover certain waters of Prospect Bay near Kent Island Narrows, Maryland. The coordinates of these waters are provided in the rule text, at the end of this document. No vessel or person other than those that are registered with the event host as participants will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge on the Laguna Madre near South Padre Island, TX. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Corpus Christi has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 800 feet of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the Coast Guard was notified of this event on April 28, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by May 16, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. until midnight on May 16, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 800 feet of the fireworks barge in the Laguna Madre at 26°06′02.1″ N, 097°10′17.7″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) enhanced the Commission's role in overseeing how the Postal Service reports information. 1 The PAEA requires the Commission to prescribe the content and form of the public reports that the Postal Service files with the Commission under section 3652. 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(1). The Commission may initiate proceedings to improve the quality, accuracy, or completeness of Postal Service reporting whenever the Commission determines that service performance data have become significantly inadequate, could be significantly improved, or otherwise requires revision as necessitated by the public interest. 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(2). The PAEA introduced new requirements that led to the Postal Service developing service standards (a delivery day range and business rules), service performance goals (on-time percent targets), and service performance measurement systems. Following a multi-year evaluation process, on July 5, 2018, the Commission approved the use of the Internal Service Performance Measurement (SPM) System. 2 In doing so, the Commission found the applicable standard for use of an internal service performance measurement system to be whether the system is capable of reporting accurate, reliable, and representative service performance data. Id. at 15.

From a design perspective, SPM is significantly more complex than the measurement systems that preceded it. In recent months, the Postal Service has three times given the Commission notice of substantial planned changes to the SPM system. 3

The recent enactment of the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 (PSRA) codified a requirement for the Postal Service to set reasonable performance targets for each product and to provide those targets to the Commission for the Commission to evaluate compliance each year. 4

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 503, 3652, 3653, 3691, and 3692, the Commission revises the service performance reporting rules at 39 CFR part 3055, subpart A.

First, the Commission revises existing §§ 3055.4 and 3055.5 to more specifically address changes to internal service performance measurement systems. These revisions establish a burden of proof that proposed changes to such systems will be required to meet and prevent the Postal Service from implementing changes without prior Commission approval. They also codify the Commission's existing authority to initiate a proceeding to review such systems at any time, and implement a procedure whereby interested persons can petition the Commission to initiate such a proceeding. The Commission has made one modification to its initial proposal by adding a new paragraph (c) within revised § 3055.4 that establishes a default period of 90 days for the Commission to review notices of proposed changes to internal or hybrid measurement systems, while reserving to the Commission the right to extend that period if the Commission finds it necessary to do so. If the Commission does extend the review period, the Commission shall issue an order explaining why it needs more time to review the notice and providing an expected date for completion of the Commission's review.

Second, the Commission revises existing § 3055.5 to require the Postal Service to begin providing notice of all changes to service standard delivery day ranges and changes to origin/destination ZIP Code pairs that affect the number of days to delivery, at least 7 days prior to implementation. This is a slight modification from the Commission's initial proposal, which would have required notice of such changes to be provided 30 days prior to implementation.

Third, the Commission revises existing §§ 3055.6 and 3055.7 in recognition of the PSRA's requirement that the Postal Service establish and file with the Commission reasonable performance targets, which the Commission must use to evaluate compliance for each product. 39 U.S.C. 3692(a). The Postal Service will be required to provide sufficient information about the criteria used to select the targets for the Commission to be able to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the targets are, in fact, reasonable.

The Commission finds that each of these revisions will improve the quality of service performance data and further the public interest. 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(2)(B)-(C).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission amends 39 CFR part 3055 as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider, among other things, “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-3360 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 13, 2026.

EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings. See “Order Urging Electronic Filing and Service,” dated December 3, 2025, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-12/2025-12-03-order-urging-electronic-filing-and-service.pdf. Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. When submitting documents to the OALJ electronically, a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab/eab-alj_upload.nsf.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you wish to include CBI in your request, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

In the Federal Register of January 28, 2026 (91 FR 3701) (FRL-12474-11-OCSPP), EPA published a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11999) filed by Spring Regulatory Sciences on behalf of Evonik Corporation, 7801 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) (CAS Reg. No 2983072-24-6). That document included a summary of the petition prepared by Spring Regulatory Sciences on behalf of Evonik Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket.

The Agency received one comment from a private citizen expressing concerns regarding the Agency not fully evaluating submitted data, the need for aggregate and cumulative exposure considerations, and application of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor as well as concerns for chemical-resistant pests. The notice EPA published on January 28, 2026, is a procedural action through which the Agency gives notice of the receipt of a petition and solicits public comment prior to completing its scientific evaluation. The statement that the Agency has not fully evaluated the submitted data reflects this statutory design and does not indicate a deficiency in the petition. As outlined in the following sections of this final rule, the Agency has made a safety determination based on the low-risk polymer criteria under 40 CFR 723.250. Additionally, aggregate exposure, cumulative effects, and the need for the FQPA safety factor for infants and children are addressed within this final rule. Since no toxicity endpoints of concern were identified, the FQPA safety factor was not used and aggregate risks were assessed qualitatively. No common mechanisms of toxicity warranting a cumulative assessment were identified. For more details, please see units IV.A. through IV.D. of this document. To the extent the comment raises issues pertaining to other regulatory actions, the Agency is responding herein only as they relate to the action at hand. The commenter is encouraged to submit comments on those separate actions through the appropriate dockets, provided the applicable comment periods remain open.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with oxirane, 2- phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) follows.

In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize. An available biodegradation study supports that oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) is not readily biodegradable (MRID 52502501).

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 Daltons.

7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria: specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e):

• The polymer's number average MW of 1,900 Daltons is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 Daltons.

• The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.

• The polymer contains only reactive functional groups listed in 40 CFR 723.250(e)(1)(ii)(A).

Thus, oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2).

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) is 1,900 Daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines, based on reliable data, that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2), EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2).

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

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

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any information collection activities.

This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to the APA but is subject to FFDCA section 408(d), which does not require notice and comment rulemaking to take this action in response to a petition.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (See Unit VI.A.), and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

However, EPA's 2026 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. This rule finalizes tolerance actions under the FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is documented in the pesticide-specific registration review documents, located in the applicable docket at https://www.regulations.gov.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 26-26, adopted April 30, 2026, and released May 1, 2026. The document is available for public inspection online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-26A1.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). ITU Regulations Article 22, Section II is referenced in the amendatory text of this document and was previously approved for 25.289.

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 contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, other Federal agencies, and the general public are invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained in this document.

In the Order, we have assessed the effects of providing NGSO satellite system applicants an alternative to certifying compliance with EPFD limits in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands for operations in the United States, by instead demonstrating that they will comply with certain GSO satellite network protection criteria. We find that doing so will serve the public interest and is unlikely to directly affect businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

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

1. As satellite broadband rapidly matures into an integral and integrated communications technology, the Commission must aggressively update its rules to ensure Americans reap the abundance of innovation and investment by the space industry. In the Order, we revise the decades-old framework for how GSO and NGSO systems share spectrum. Our legacy rules have significantly limited the ability of operators to deliver high-speed, low-latency broadband services to consumers. Until now, NGSO operators' power levels have been restricted by EPFD limits developed in the late-1990s to protect GSO satellites. Such EPFD limits were based on theoretical designs for NGSO systems of that era, long before modern advancements were developed for the NGSO constellations currently in orbit. The consequence today of applying such EPFD limits in the United States is that operators must overprotect GSO systems. The cost of this government-imposed overprotection is that American households and businesses—most critically in rural and remote areas—do not receive the fastest space-based broadband American innovation has available.

2. The benefits of our changes today may total well over $2 billion, with capacity increases of 100% to 700% possible using the same number of in-orbit NGSO satellites. Allowing for more intensive spectrum use brings satellite broadband providers closer to the milestone of delivering gigabit service from space—a feat unimaginable only a few years ago. Such capability will bring greater competition to the broadband marketplace as space-based connectivity reaches speeds and latency similar to that of terrestrial fiber. And by reducing the number of satellites required to cover an area with a given capacity, our new framework will allow for lower unit costs to serve a geographic area, which in turn can reduce the price of broadband to consumers. In short, by removing an enormous regulatory constraint on NGSO systems, the Commission takes another step to unleash the American space industry to deliver for consumers.

3. Specifically, in the Order, we replace the EPFD framework with modern, performance-based GSO protection criteria that take account of the improved spectrum sharing possibilities that modern satellite technology has brought, including through use of adaptive coding and modulation (ACM). As the cornerstone of our new sharing regime, we extend our time-tested framework for good-faith coordination and allow NGSO and GSO operators to bargain for appropriate interference protections through voluntary, private agreement. We adopt the following technical backstops to protect GSO systems when coordination has not been reached:

• A long-term protection criterion of 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation for GSO satellite links using ACM;

• A short-term protection criterion of 0.1% absolute increase in link unavailability;

• A supplemental protection criterion of −10.5 dB interference-to-noise (I/N) for 80% of the time for GSO satellite links that do not use ACM, such as point-to-multipoint video transmissions; and

• A supplemental protection requirement for NGSO systems to observe a minimum 3-degree avoidance angle of the GSO arc.

4. Having taken a fresh look at today's satellite technology and operations, these new rules will promote more efficient and effective use of the shared spectrum, and support a more competitive market for satellite broadband and other in-demand services.

5. Overview. The American space sector is booming. In the past few years alone, thousands of broadband-capable satellites have been launched into low-Earth orbit (LEO), connecting Americans with low-latency, high-speed services heretofore unavailable in many rural and underserved areas of the United States. By one estimate, the supply of high-throughput satellite capacity tripled between 2021 and 2023, with NGSO satellites accounting for over 90% of the net supply during that period, and projected to account for 97% of the increase in supply from 2023 to 2028. At the same time, GSO satellite operators have continued to deploy powerful, new satellites with enhanced capabilities. The space sector is helping bridge the digital divide.

6. These broadband satellite services rely on shared spectrum. In the most commonly used frequency bands, between 10.7 GHz and 30 GHz, NGSO systems share primary fixed-satellite service (FSS) allocations with GSO networks, and must also operate compatibly with broadcasting-satellite service (BSS) networks and stations in other services, including terrestrial services. NGSO FSS systems must comply with power limits expressed in EPFD to demonstrate that they meet their broader obligation not to cause unacceptable interference to GSO FSS and BSS networks. NGSO FSS systems must also meet separate power limits expressed in power-flux density (PFD) to protect terrestrial services. Within the 10.7-30 GHz range, EPFD downlink limits apply in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands in the United States. Applicants for NGSO FSS space station licenses, and non-U.S.-licensed satellite operators seeking access to the U.S. market, must certify that they will comply with the specified EPFD limits.

7. EPFD History. As reviewed in the NPRM, the current EPFD limits were developed in the late 1990s for the protection of GSO networks from then-proposed NGSO systems. They were adopted by the international community at the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) in 2000, and subsequently incorporated into the Commission's rules. In 2019, the international community again considered sharing criteria among GSO and NGSO FSS systems, this time in the higher Q- and V-bands between 37.5 GHz and 51.4 GHz. WRC-19 did not adopt EPFD limits in these bands. Instead, given the expected use of ACM by GSO networks in these bands, it required NGSO FSS systems to meet certain long-term and short-term GSO protection criteria that incorporate a degraded throughput methodology.

8. Current ITU Work. WRC-23 considered a proposal from the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL) co-signed by ten member states, including the United States, to review the EPFD limits under a future agenda item for WRC-27. While the proposed agenda item was not adopted, WRC-23 invited ITU-R to conduct technical studies on the EPFD limits and to inform WRC-27 of the results of the studies, without any regulatory consequences. These studies are being carried out in ITU-R Working Party (WP) 4A.

9. Waivers. On January 9, 2026, the Space Bureau granted SpaceX a waiver of the EPFD limits in the United States to operate pursuant to its satellite configuration used during real-world testing of an Nco of 8 and a GSO-arc avoidance angle of 4 degrees. On February 20, 2026, the Space Bureau granted Amazon a similar waiver for its NGSO system.

10. NPRM. On April 28, 2025, the Commission launched this proceeding by granting a SpaceX petition for rulemaking to review the decades-old spectrum sharing regime between GSO and NGSO systems in downlink frequency bands between 10.7 GHz and 30 GHz that are subject to EPFD limits, and to amend §§ 25.146 and 25.289 of the Commission's rules. The NPRM sought to develop a substantial technical record concerning modern and efficient spectrum sharing among NGSO FSS systems and GSO FSS and BSS networks in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands, while ensuring that any rule changes do not affect the continued protection of other services. In response to the NPRM, 38 comments, 23 reply comments, and numerous ex parte presentations were filed.

11. The voluminous record in this proceeding includes rarely available, real-world testing data assessing the impact of EPFD exceedances on operational GSO networks, along with technical and economic analyses and other comments. Based on this record, we conclude that technological advancements in the past three decades and the inherent issues in the EPFD limits themselves warrant the establishment of a new, performance-based spectrum sharing framework between GSO and NGSO systems in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. Leveraging the latest satellite technology, the U.S. space industry can make better use of spectrum resources to substantially expand and improve the broadband services available in the United States, thereby furthering “the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public.”

12. As described below, we expect the modernized NGSO-GSO sharing framework to result in substantial benefits for American consumers, by enabling new NGSO systems to use more satellites to serve the same area, at potentially higher power, and over a wider portion of the visible sky. For example, when an NGSO system can employ eight satellites to provide service simultaneously in a given geographic area and frequency band, instead of being effectively limited to one satellite under current EPFD limits, and while continuing to protect GSO networks as supported by real-world testing, it immediately boosts capacity, which translates to faster broadband speeds for American consumers. Increasing the capacity available to any location can improve quality of service or allow competitors to provide the same quality of service with a smaller constellation, which could potentially lower prices to consumers. Expanded, low-latency satellite broadband at lower cost may also increase competition for broadband services in new areas, including some urban areas where prior satellite capacity constraints may have bounded consumers' willingness to switch. This, in turn, results in greater societal welfare benefits, with one study estimating welfare to increase by between $10 billion and $100 billion globally if EPFD limits were widely replaced.

13. We replace the outdated and wooden EPFD limitations with a modern framework that gives NGSO and GSO operators the flexibility to reach protection criteria through good-faith coordination. It is at once a fundamental change in regulatory design, but at the same time consistent with the primacy we place on good-faith coordination across many other contexts. As the Commission has emphasized, private coordination among satellite operators, based on real-world operating parameters, offers the best opportunity for efficient spectrum sharing. The current EPFD limits do not accommodate such coordination because they must be met regardless of any agreements between particular NGSO and GSO satellite operators. Our approach not only encourages good-faith coordination efforts; it requires them. And the new, performance-based protection criteria focus on what matters ( i.e., delivered service), allowing innovation in NGSO system designs which respect the new limits. Whereas EPFD limits categorically restricted an input, the approach we adopt today gives parties the flexibility to negotiate a more efficient outcome.

14. As a backstop to good-faith coordination, we adopt GSO protection criteria that take account of the improved spectrum sharing possibilities that modern satellite technology has brought, including through use of ACM. Specifically, we require NGSO satellites transmitting in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands to protect co-frequency GSO networks using a long-term protection criterion of 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation. We adopt a short-term GSO protection criterion of 0.1% absolute increase in link unavailability. For GSO satellite links that do not use ACM, we adopt a long-term protection criterion of −10.5 dB I/N for 80% of the time. As an additional measure of protection for GSO networks, we require NGSO systems to observe a minimum 3-degree avoidance angle of the GSO arc. We decline to establish aggregate limits or other limits on NGSO systems at this time. These new backstop provisions will ensure that NGSO broadband services can reap the benefits of significantly more efficient spectrum sharing while ensuring that NGSO systems continue not to cause “unacceptable interference” to GSO FSS and BSS networks.

15. Below, we outline the public-interest benefits of our decision, based on the extensive record in this proceeding. We then explain why the purported costs of modernizing our sharing rules are overstated, speculative, and, in any case, mitigated by the suite of additional protections we adopt today. Finally, we resolve assorted issues of implementation and compliance.

16. Dramatically boosting the capacity of NGSO broadband systems serves the public interest. Adding more system capacity is the most impactful way for NGSO operators to address their most acute and recurring technical challenge: providing 5G-quality data rates to a growing number of users during periods of peak congestion, without sacrificing on signal reliability. Enabling that level of performance makes satellite broadband a more compelling alternative for consumers in areas with limited competitive options. And it lowers barriers to entry and potentially stranded investments by reducing the need for new satellite launches and expensive infrastructure builds.

17. The record unambiguously demonstrates that legacy EPFD restrictions present perhaps the largest regulatory constraint on NGSO systems to deliver more capacity to consumers. As discussed below, we find that modernizing our NGSO-GSO sharing framework to boost NGSO capacity and reduce the necessary size of NGSO constellations will bring substantial public-interest benefits. We also note the broader macroeconomic benefits across America. One study, for example, has indicated that increases in NGSO system capacity of 74% to 180% could reduce average costs per unit of capacity of between 43% and 64%. The study further estimated increases in consumer welfare ranging from 11%, given a 10% reduction in price and a 25% increase in capacity, to 113%, assuming a 50% reduction in price and a 250% increase in capacity. And if revisions to the EPFD regime were adopted globally, they could result in welfare benefits to all customers ranging from $10 billion to $100 billion.

18. The ability of surging NGSO satellite deployments to meet the needs of Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide is limited by the design and operational restrictions placed on NGSO systems by the need to comply with EPFD limits. To meet these limits, NGSO operators have three primary strategies. First, NGSO operators limit the number of satellite beams that can serve any given location simultaneously using the same frequencies ( i.e., the number of co-frequency beams or Nco), limiting spectrum reuse and capacity. Second, NGSO operators implement wide “avoidance angles” of the GSO arc, which restrict satellites from transmitting when they are within a certain-degree separation from the transmission path of a GSO satellite. This technique increases the number of satellites NGSO operators need to provide full coverage and causes less efficient rerouting of network paths, which further reduces performance and increases latency. Third, NGSO operators reduce their power levels even outside the GSO-arc avoidance angle to ensure off-axis emissions remain below the EPFD limit, with lower power levels reducing data rates and leading to less robust connectivity for end users. In total, compliance with the current EPFD limits directly degrades the efficiency of spectrum use by NGSO systems.

19. The EPFD limits are coupled with the ITU's software and methodology for assessing compliance with those limits, which can further restrict real-world NGSO operations. For example, the ITU software considers a relatively sensitive reference antenna pattern for GSO earth stations, resulting in a greater calculated EPFD into GSO earth stations and therefore greater restrictions on NGSO operations to fall below the EPFD limits as calculated with reference to this antenna pattern. In addition, the ITU software uses a worst-case geometry selection algorithm when choosing among available NGSO satellites to transmit to a given location. This assumes that the NGSO operator will always select the satellite with the worst-case geometry (often, the satellite closest to the GSO arc), although it is unlikely that an operator would rely on such an algorithm to conduct actual operations. Rather, satellite operators rely on a complex, global resource management system for assigning satellite capacity to their customers. In total, according to one study, the assumed EPFD of an NGSO system was substantially below the maximum allowed EPFD in Ka-band at almost all points when using the ITU methodology, and up to 30 dB below the limits for short-term interference in the upper portion of the Ka-band specifically. By restricting EPFD below even the limits themselves, NGSO capacity, coverage, and service are further reduced. Beyond stating that EPFD limits rely on conservative or disputed assumptions, commenters also argue the current ITU process invites “regulatory gamesmanship.”

20. In contrast to legacy EPFD regulations, the record demonstrates substantial potential for enhanced NGSO service offerings under a modernized NGSO-GSO sharing framework. Analyses for current and planned Ku-band and Ka-band NGSO systems indicate that modernized sharing rules could deliver increases in NGSO system capacity of 100% to 700% in a given area in the United States, because NGSO operators would be able to increase the number of satellites operating simultaneously in a given area and a given frequency band from one to as many as eight. At the same time, a reduction in the GSO-arc avoidance angle would increase the number of satellites available to serve an earth station location and thereby increase coverage, potentially reducing the size and cost of NGSO systems.

21. This rulemaking has benefitted from rarely available, real-world measurement campaigns, which assessed the impact of the SpaceX Starlink NGSO system in different operational configurations on typical GSO network mass-market terminals. These real-world test results demonstrate the potential for enhanced NGSO operations, in excess of current EPFD limits, and the resulting impacts on typical GSO service links.

22. In one set of testing, SpaceX operated the Starlink system with GSO-arc avoidance angles resembling typical GSO separation arcs in Ku-band and Ka-band, e.g., 2, 3, 4 and 6 degrees. The test setup included a high-precision spectrum analyzer connected to a mass-market GSO terminal from a major GSO operator. The average de-sense to the GSO link resulting from eight co-frequency beams with an avoidance angle of 4 degrees from the GSO arc was less than 0.1 dB, which translates to a degraded throughput of less than approximately 0.7%. In another set of testing, using a different location and GSO network, SpaceX demonstrated that, for the Starlink system similarly configured to use eight co-frequency beams and a 4-degree GSO-arc avoidance angle, the long-term de-sense of the GSO link was negligible and the increase in short-term link unavailability was approximately 0.05%. In two other sets of testing, with different locations and GSO networks, operating the Starlink system with up to eight co-frequency beams and a 4- or 4.5-degree GSO-arc avoidance angle similarly showed minimal long-term signal de-sense (and associated degraded throughput) to the GSO links. And a fifth set of testing provided similar results. Further, the increase in absolute unavailability in a test using a very small, 35 cm user terminal was 0.0005%. Notably, SpaceX has conducted measurements in Jordan with a GSO-arc avoidance angle of 3 degrees and an Nco of 6 for a 60 cm earth station receiving antenna. The average co-polarized de-sense from this test was approximately 0.17 dB, which corresponds to an I/N of approximately −13.9 dB.

23. The results of these five extensive, months-long test campaigns offer direct, real-world evidence that a currently operating NGSO system could, in comparison with its configuration needed to meet current EPFD limits, increase by 700% its number of satellites ( i.e., from 1 satellite to 8 satellites) operating simultaneously co-frequency in the same area while reducing its GSO-arc avoidance angle by 60%—from 10 degrees to 4 degrees—with resultant effects on typical GSO networks of less than 3% degraded throughput and 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability. While commenters note certain limitations of the SpaceX real-world testing—that it was only conducted in the Ku-band; that it does not reflect year-long rain fade effects; and that tested interference to a GSO earth station located in the center of the GSO beam, where the desired signal is strongest, would be lower than the interference to a GSO earth station located at the edge of the GSO beam, where the desired signal is weakest—no other commenter has presented alternative interference measurements on the record for consideration.

24. Technical studies containing simulations further support the conclusion that NGSO systems could significantly improve capacity and coverage with limited effects on GSO networks. In one scenario analyzed for the Amazon system, for example, the NGSO system could operate at increased power levels, reduce its GSO-arc avoidance angle from 18 degrees to 3 degrees, and operate at an Nco of 4 (quadrupling its capacity in any given area), and the largest increase in unavailability for all ten studied GSO links would be 0.000000073%. The largest decrease in throughput was 1.27% for a customer terminal, with half of the ten links studied showing a decrease of 0.00956% or less. In another scenario analyzed for the Amazon system, the NGSO system could maintain its lower power level, reduce its GSO-arc avoidance angle to 2 degrees, and operate at an Nco of 8 (octupling the capacity), and the largest increase in unavailability would be 0.000001756%. At most, Amazon estimated GSO operators would experience a loss of 2.72% in throughput, with half of the ten links studied showing a throughput decrease of 0.175% or less. For SpaceX's Starlink, simulations of interference from the NGSO system into a 46 cm Ku-band user terminal in Oregon showed an absolute increase in unavailability of 0.0047%, assuming an Nco of 15 and a GSO-arc avoidance angle of 18 degrees, and a 0.0251% increase if the avoidance angle were reduced to 4 degrees. Another simulation attempted to replicate the results of the SpaceX real-world testing in Bogota, Colombia and found compliance with a 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability limit.

25. Simulations on the record assessing the capacity gains of degraded throughput rely on varying assumptions, which we examine later from a GSO coexistence perspective. For present purposes, the simulations presented support the conclusion that the EPFD limits greatly constrain NGSO capacity. We disagree with suggestions that the combined record of rarely available, real-world measurement data and numerous simulations is an insufficient technical basis on which to adopt a degraded throughput methodology aligned with the Commission's NGSO-NGSO sharing framework and the international NGSO-GSO sharing framework in Q- and V-bands. As the studies show, even a simple change of Nco from one to two could double the capacity available in a given area, while meeting GSO protection criteria proposed on the record.

26. Satellite connections have long been a lifeline for Americans in rural and remote areas, where rugged terrain, sparse population, and economic realities have often kept terrestrial networks out of reach. Today, satellites are an increasingly powerful tool in the combined efforts to close the digital divide. The Federal Government has directed billions in funding for broadband deployment and adoption, culminating in the $65 billion investment in the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Yet, in 2024, more than one third of Americans had only one provider of high-speed broadband or lacked access altogether.

27. This rulemaking has benefitted from the views and experiences of Americans living and working in rural and underserved areas, and those who advocate on their behalf, on the impact that modernization of the NGSO-GSO sharing framework could have for Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide. These citizens and non-profits note that in their communities, as in many rural areas, NGSO FSS satellites may offer the only viable broadband solution, enabling access to telehealth services, remote learning, digital job training, remote work opportunities, and emergency communications. These commenters argue that modernizing the NGSO-GSO sharing framework will enable NGSO providers to expand capacity, increase speeds, and improve service reliability, which are “transformational improvements for the communities we serve.” Rural voices on the record uniformly urge us to update the NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing rules, without delay.

28. NGSO satellite operators are investing heavily as uptake grows, and the potential for low-latency, gigabit satellite broadband is on the horizon. High-throughput satellite capacity has been forecast to grow nine-fold between 2023 and 2028, with NGSO constellations driving 97% of the net increase. And new NGSO satellite capacity is already being put to significant use—not only offering high-speed, low-latency broadband in rural areas, but also supporting critical industries, from aviation and shipping to manufacturing and agriculture, and providing network resiliency, delivering robust connectivity capable of supporting life-saving real-time communications. Yet supply constraints remain. It is imperative that we look at new ways to leverage the exploding growth of NGSO systems to aid the combined effort to expand access and competition in broadband and other services in the United States—starting with the most constraining regulatory requirement on NGSO broadband systems today.

29. Modernizing the NGSO-GSO sharing regime would also bring particular benefits for new entrant LEO-satellite systems. With greater operational flexibility under revised sharing rules, new LEO systems would need smaller constellations and still have greater capacity to reach more customers, which would reflect a substantial reduction in launch costs, satellite costs, and costs of a new LEO constellation. For example, one analysis indicates that a constellation that would require 462 LEO satellites under existing EPFD rules to have a certain coverage could obtain the same coverage with updated rules with only 360 satellites. ICLE argues the EPFD limits impose “significant market distortions” that “translate directly into higher costs per unit of capacity delivered to consumers, as operators must deploy more satellites and infrastructure to achieve the same service levels.” Lower costs from a revised NGSO-GSO sharing framework would encourage new entry as well as lower prices for customers. In addition, greater capacity would make LEO broadband more competitive vis-à-vis fixed broadband and bring greater choice to consumers.

30. In modernizing the spectrum sharing framework between GSO and NGSO satellite systems, we seek to achieve abundance and reject technically unnecessary restrictions borne from a zero-sum mindset. We are guided by the Commission's policy statement on spectrum management in doing so. This policy, when applied to the current rulemaking, favors efficiency over absolute protection guarantees. As most pertinent to this rulemaking, the Commission noted that:

• The electromagnetic environment is highly variable, and zero risk of occasional service degradation or interruption cannot be guaranteed.

• Services should plan for the spectrum environment in which they intend to operate, the service they intend to provide, and the characteristics of spectrally and spatially proximate operations. Planning should be ongoing and account for changes in spectrum operating environments.

• Radio transmitter and receiver system operators and equipment manufacturers should plan for and design error tolerant systems, using good engineering practices, to mitigate degradation from interference.

• Quantitative analyses of interactions between services that are fact-and evidence-based, sufficiently robust, transparent, and reproducible are needed to better inform spectrum management decision-making.

31. Our decision making in this proceeding squarely aligns with these principles and is supported by the best-available, real-world data presented in the record as set forth below. Further, when considering more intensive use of spectrum for new and innovative services, we are acutely aware that “[a] uniform or absolute expectation of service availability could preclude the introduction of valuable new services in the RF [radiofrequency] environment and undermine the efficient use of spectrum resources.” And we continue to expect proponents of interference claims “to supply sufficiently complete, transparent, and reproducible quantitative analytical models of the interactions between radio services, with respect to transmitter and receiver performance characteristics and the RF environment.”

32. Even when considered in their own right, the current EPFD limits have raised significant concerns as to whether they constitute an efficient spectrum sharing regime for GSO and NGSO systems in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. Most starkly, the differing treatment of Ka-band frequencies—where the EPFD limit in the upper portion of the band is substantially more restrictive than the EPFD limit in the lower portion of the band—is widely criticized in the record as technically unjustified. In addition, the overall methodology used to derive the current EPFD limits has been called into question, including the use of methodologies designed to address short-term interference to develop long-term EPFD limits, overly conservative modeling of rain attenuation, and the inclusion of a large number of unstable links with negative link margin values in the set of GSO reference links used to derive the EPFD limits.

33. Compliance with the current EPFD limits results in spectrally inefficient, overprotection of modern GSO networks that exceeds the protection GSO operators afford each other. Indeed, the comparison with GSO-GSO protection is illustrative. As GSO satellites operate from fixed locations along the 360-degree GSO arc, a primary strategy for managing potential GSO-GSO interference is through orbital separation. Internationally, the GSO orbital separation provisions in the ITU Radio Regulations presume negligible interference beyond orbital separation of 6 degrees in the Ku-band and 8 degrees in Ka-band. The Commission's own orbital spacing policy for GSO FSS networks in these bands is based on two-degree spacing. Yet, as noted in one U.S. study submitted to ITU WP 4A, maintaining a level of GSO-GSO protection equivalent to the ITU EPFD limits would require significantly larger orbital separations—estimated as at least 25 and 46 degrees in the Ku- and Ka-bands, respectively. Thus, the ITU EPFD limits are 4 to 5 times more restrictive than equivalent GSO-GSO protections that guard against all but negligible levels of interference—and 12 to 23 times more restrictive than the Commission's equivalent separation rules.

34. Analyses on the record further quantify these current protection levels. According to one study modeling an NGSO system operating under current EPFD limits, short-term interference to a set of ten GSO reference links resulted in undetectable increases in absolute unavailability in both the lower and upper Ka-bands, while the maximum decrease in throughput in the lower Ka-band was 0.162%. Five of the other links showed throughput decreases of 0.0011% or less. In the upper Ka-band (where EPFD limits are significantly more restraining) the maximum decrease in throughput was 0.0148% with five of the other links having decreases of 0.000012% or less.

35. Beyond the improvements in technical efficiency of NGSO operations and attendant lower costs for consumers, a modernized NGSO-GSO sharing framework can encourage private negotiations where the current EPFD regime has prevented beneficial bargaining. While ITU Radio Regulations explicitly permit EPFD limits to be exceeded on the territory of an administration that so agrees, coordination between any particular NGSO and GSO operator does not affect the NGSO operator's obligation to demonstrate adherence to the EPFD limits at the ITU. Under revised NGSO-GSO sharing rules, private bargaining among GSO and NGSO operators will have greater relevance. And these benefits will be added to the significant improvements in NGSO system capacity and efficiency, with limited impact on GSO operations, and will combine with the explosive growth of the NGSO satellite industry (which further increases the benefits of efficiency gains) in comparison with the relatively stable, or declining, rate of growth of many GSO operations.

36. Other Commission precedent supports a requirement of good-faith coordination backstopped by performance-based interference metrics in the NGSO-GSO sharing context. Indeed, when recently considering protection requirements between NGSO FSS systems, which universally incorporate ACM, the Commission adopted a long-term protection criterion of 3% degraded throughput, and a short-term protection criterion based on the absolute increase in link unavailability (0.4%), and it declined to create aggregate limits on NGSO interference into other NGSO systems. Importantly, the Commission explained that notwithstanding its newly adopted default protection requirements, coordination among satellite operators in the first instance “offers the best opportunity for efficient spectrum sharing.” Similarly, when the Commission revised its two-degree orbital spacing rules for GSO satellites in 2015 it explicitly acknowledged the value of coordination agreements reached between GSO satellite operators and offered continued protection of coordinated operations even when they did not comply with default, two-degree spacing rules. In addition, there is no conflict between the comprehensive update to the NGSO-GSO sharing framework undertaken in this rulemaking based on a substantial technical record and the previous adoption—in the absence of any well-developed alternative—of ITU EPFD limits, including in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, which reflected prior domestic alignment with ITU rules before a compelling reason to depart from those rules was developed.

37. We re-emphasize this fundamental principle—that private agreements, not heavy-handed regulation, lead to the most efficient satellite spectrum sharing outcomes—and firmly incorporate it into NGSO-GSO sharing in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. Unlike compliance with EPFD limits, which is assessed by the ITU BR and effectively replaces any coordination among GSO and NGSO operators in bands subject to EPFD limits, our default GSO protection criteria and framework will explicitly recognize and require good-faith coordination. This is facilitated by the fact that, while we adopt a default set of GSO reference links below to facilitate technical showings of compliance with the GSO protection criteria by NGSO applicants, the particular reference links are taken from particular satellite networks. We believe interference protections should ultimately be rooted in real-world interference realities. So when an NGSO operator completes coordination with a particular GSO network serving the United States, we will permit the NGSO operator to revise its technical compatibility showing by omitting the links of the GSO network with which coordination was completed. By doing so, we avoid the intractable barriers to coordination under the current regime while offering a transparent means for agreements between NGSO and GSO operators to be reflected in the authorized operating parameters of the NGSO system.

38. Satellite technology has advanced profoundly since EPFD limits were developed in the 1990s. Analog satellite transponders have been replaced by digital systems with onboard processors. Large, fixed beams have given way to smaller, steerable beams using phase array antennas. Adaptive coding and modulation techniques allow satellite links to be maintained despite interference (such as adverse weather) by varying throughput. Operators have incorporated dynamic beam pointing, uplink and downlink power control, and network protocols that provide greater resilience to environmental effects and interference. And on the earth station side, large dishes have given way to very small aperture terminals that allow for widespread, cost-effective connectivity.

39. These technological developments both allow NGSO systems to better control and limit interference into GSO networks and strengthen GSO operations' ability to adapt to changing interference environments. Fundamentally, they have enabled more intensive, compatible shared use of the spectrum. Indeed, the availability of ACM with expected GSO networks in the Q- and V-bands was a significant factor that led the international community to decline EPFD limits in the Q- and V-bands and instead adopt an NGSO-GSO sharing framework incorporating a long-term GSO protection criterion of 3% degraded throughput.

40. In launching the NPRM in this proceeding, we concluded it was appropriate to begin our domestic review of the NGSO-GSO sharing regime without awaiting the outcome of ongoing deliberations at the ITU. Experience to date has reinforced that judgment. While individual member states, including the United States, have continued to contribute to the ongoing technical studies on the current Article 22 EPFD limits in ITU WP 4A, needless procedural roadblocks and delay tactics have repeatedly ground international technical discussions to a halt. Although some stakeholders have suggested deferring domestic action pending further ITU developments, we believe it is important to move forward in a timely manner to provide regulatory clarity and support connectivity for millions of Americans, even as the ITU process continues toward WRC-27.

41. At the same time, we believe our approach can promote global collaboration toward spectrum harmonization. We anticipate that the record developed in this proceeding, including technical analyses and, over time, real-world implementation outcomes, may serve as a useful reference point for the ITU's ongoing work. We also hope that the Commission's policy framework can contribute constructively to discussions leading up to WRC-27, as the international community explores approaches to NGSO-GSO sharing that enhance broadband performance, expand access in rural and remote areas, promote competition, and ultimately benefit consumers worldwide.

42. As we originally anticipated, this rulemaking has compiled an exceptional technical record—including real-world measurements and additional, detailed technical simulations not submitted to international fora—that enable us to make a forward-looking decision now in the best interests of Americans. While international deliberations may—and should—converge on a similar revision to the EPFD framework in the future, the ITU Radio Regulations explicitly recognize administrations' rights to exceed EPFD limits on their own territory in the meantime. And such exceedances are technically feasible without altering EPFD compliance in neighboring countries with use of narrow, spot beams and other modern NGSO satellite technologies. Our action will promote American leadership at a time of increasing global competition.

43. We consider and ultimately reject countervailing arguments in favor of retaining the current EPFD limits. One argument is that GSO operations are uniquely prone to interference. SES, for example, asserts that the “EPFD framework is necessary because GSO satellites operate at fixed orbital positions in a specific orbital arc and cannot maneuver or switch satellites to mitigate the interference caused by NGSO systems operating in shared frequency bands.” However, the EPFD limits are not the only way to protect GSO networks from unacceptable interference, as shown by the international adoption of the degraded throughput methodology to protect GSO networks in Q- and V-bands. Eutelsat argues that EPFD limits are uniquely suited to protecting GSO operations, because “EPFD limits mitigate [the] risks [of dynamic, time-varying interference caused by NGSO systems] by placing strict bounds on both peak and aggregate interference levels” and “appropriately protect high-value links to support diverse applications by differentiating EPFD limits according to terminal characteristics.” However, the degraded throughput methodology also limits peak and aggregate interference (or short-term and long-term interference, in the terminology of a degraded throughput analysis) and accounts for differing terminal characteristics through a set of GSO reference links.

44. In addition, while Viasat argues that alternatives to EPFD limits are a hinderance to innovation by GSO operators, the degraded throughput methodology will allow continued innovation by protecting GSO operators from actual, unacceptable interference, as demonstrated by the NGSO applicant, while also significantly improving the efficiency of the NGSO system and use of the spectrum overall. Viasat also argues that calls for reform of the NGSO-GSO sharing framework are merely “calls to hobble competition” as they rest on “deeply flawed claims that eliminating the EPFD limits would not expose existing and future GSO operations to unacceptable levels of interference.” While it is unclear what level of interference Viasat would deem “acceptable,” especially considering its support of the extremely restrictive upper Ka-band EPFD limits, the repeated, months-long, real-world measurements submitted by SpaceX have demonstrated that EPFD limits can be exceeded without significant impact to currently operating GSO networks. Viasat further claims that any reforms to the NGSO-GSO sharing framework “would frustrate efforts by GSO operators to introduce innovative service offerings.” To the extent this means the future deployment of earth station terminals particularly susceptible to interference that require the levels of protection offered by the upper Ka-band EPFD limits, the burdens on NGSO systems from such unequal spectrum sharing have not been justified. Viasat and other commenters also argue that the significant recent growth in NGSO systems is proof that EPFD limits are not unduly constraining. But the fact of such growth—spurred by technological advances and the inherent benefits of lower latency and potentially broader coverage derived from NGSO satellite constellations, especially in LEO—does not negate any of the benefits of NGSO-GSO sharing reform.

45. SES argues that eliminating EPFD protections would shift the burden of interference mitigation onto GSO operators and the Commission in administering a new framework. However, NGSO operators would still have a unilateral requirement to protect GSO networks under a degraded throughput framework the Commission is already administering in the NGSO-NGSO sharing context. SES also raises concerns that, without EPFD limits in place, NGSO operators may tilt the competitive landscape in their favor and eventually monopolize shared spectrum bands. Yet as long as NGSO systems have a one-way requirement to protect GSO networks, and not claim protection from them, it is impossible for NGSO systems to monopolize the shared spectrum. SES further argues that moving away from the EPFD regime would devalue GSO service assets potentially to the point of stranding those assets, and discourage future GSO investments and innovation. SES provides no economic evidence in support of this strong claim, nor does it contend that the use of the degraded throughput methodology in Q- and V-bands has foreclosed future GSO use of those bands. We believe that under appropriate protection criteria in a degraded throughput framework GSO networks can continue to grow and provide valuable services.

46. Commenters also present technical simulations showing exceedances of proposed protection criteria. For example, analyses of the Amazon system assuming an Nco of 16 and a GSO-arc avoidance angle as low as 2 degrees indicate exceedances of the proposed threshold limits at certain locations. An analysis of the Starlink system at a GSO network earth station in Lima, Peru, assuming an Nco of 8 and a GSO-arc avoidance angle of 4 degrees, also indicates exceedances of a 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability. Additionally, Eutelsat presents simulations in which the Starlink system, when using an EPFD-compliant configuration of an Nco of 1 and a GSO-arc avoidance angle of 18 degrees, would nonetheless exceed the thresholds of 3% degraded throughput and 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability for the four analyzed GSO links in Ku-band—thus indicating that the current EPFD limits may be less protective than the proposed new protection criteria, a conclusion not suggested by any other commenter and contrary to the real-world testing summarized above. Ultimately, compliance with the GSO protection criteria we are adopting must be demonstrated by the NGSO applicant. If certain NGSO operational parameters are not currently feasible while meeting those criteria for the set of GSO reference links, then they will not be permitted. Thus, simulations showing exceedances for certain NGSO operational parameters at certain locations do not undermine our conclusion that significant capacity and service improvements are possible under performance-based GSO protection criteria, as demonstrated by real-world testing and technical simulations.

47. Commenters also present simulations showing exceedances of proposed protection criteria that demonstrate the interplay between short-term and long-term interference protections. For example, studies of the Starlink system in Ka-band assuming an Nco of 40 and a GSO-arc avoidance angle of either 18 degrees or 4 degrees found less than a 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability at non-ACM GSO network user terminal locations in Oregon (0.016% and 0.03%, respectively), Utah (0.041% and 0.056%, respectively), Oklahoma (0.071% and 0.098%, respectively), Alabama (0.030% and 0.032%, respectively), and New Mexico (0.046% and 0.095%, respectively); and exceedances of the 0.1% limit in New York (0.104% and 0.171%, respectively). For the Amazon system, studies assuming an Nco of 16 and a GSO-arc avoidance angle of either 6 degrees or 2 degrees in Ka-band showed compliance with a 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability limit for user terminals in Oregon (0.025% and 0.038%, respectively) and Alabama (0.01% and 0.035%, respectively); mixed results—compliance with an avoidance angle of 6 degrees and exceedances at 2 degrees—for earth stations in Oklahoma (0.024% and 0.566%, respectively), New York (0.03% and 0.39%, respectively), and New Mexico (0.01% and 1.37%, respectively); and exceedances for an earth station in Utah (0.14% and 1.47%, respectively). However, in all these cases for both the Starlink and Amazon systems, the separate long-term limit proposed for non-ACM GSO links such as these, −10.5 dB I/N for 80% of the time, was exceeded. Because both long-term and short-term limits would need to be met at all locations, the effect of the −10.5 dB I/N long-term limit would further reduce the expected short-term absolute increases in unavailability in all cases, even where a 0.1% short-term limit was met with a wide margin. With ACM networks, analyses for the Amazon Ka-band system, for example, similarly indicate that the proposed long-term protection criteria of 3% throughput degradation is the limiting factor even when a short-term 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability limit is met.

48. Having concluded that existing EPFD limits are needlessly prescriptive, outdated, and overprotective of GSO operations, and that they unreasonably constrain services by innovative new NGSO systems, we turn to their replacement. For FSS systems using ACM, we conclude—again—that the performance-based metrics of throughput degradation and increase in absolute unavailability represent efficient and appropriate protection criteria. Indeed, when recently establishing protection criteria for NGSO-NGSO sharing in bands including the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands, the Commission likewise set long-term and short-term protection thresholds using these metrics. The Commission did so because, for ACM satellite systems, the degraded throughput methodology reflects modern technology, results in efficient spectrum sharing, and is readily administrable. The same reasoning now applies to the NGSO-GSO sharing context. Even the ITU, when more recently establishing protections for GSO networks from NGSO systems in bands between 37.5 GHz and 51.4 GHz, chose a degraded throughput methodology, not EPFD limits. In contrast, pursuing merely different EPFD limits would sacrifice the benefits of performance-based metrics and needlessly delay reform, as parties proposing the development of new EPFD limits do not themselves propose definitive limits for adoption.

49. A degraded throughput methodology does not make enforceability more difficult than the current EPFD regime. As noted below, under our modernized framework, NGSO applicants will be required to submit transparent technical analyses of how they would meet the GSO protection criteria, which will be subject to public and Commission review. In contrast, the current ITU compliance assessments have been noted as “opaque” and encouraging “gamesmanship.” Nor is the degraded throughput analysis unduly complex given its benefits, as it is already used by satellite operators to assess NGSO-GSO interference. Nor would GSO operators lose the ability to control their service quality. As we discussed in response to similar concerns in the NGSO-NGSO sharing context, the interference criteria must be met at all analyzed locations. Since the worst-case locations will drive NGSO operators' determinations of appropriate system parameters and any mitigation measures, the actual degradations in throughput, absolute increases in unavailability, and I/N levels will be less than the protection criteria in many circumstances. And studies on the record confirm these differing impacts. Thus, earth station equipment that is used for high-availability applications, and that is less sensitive to sidelobe interference than the most sensitive user terminals to be protected, will experience real-world effects significantly below the protection criteria. In a similar vein, Eutelsat raises concerns that the degraded throughput methodology inappropriately allows a gateway link to be degraded as much as a user link, although impacts to gateway links can impact service to numerous customers at once. Again, this is a theoretical concern that is unlikely, if ever, to occur in reality, because the NGSO system must be configured to cause no more interference than the most protective criteria for a GSO link, and because larger, gateway earth station antennas are inherently less susceptible to sidelobe interference than smaller user terminals and therefore will receive less, often substantially less, interference than the thresholds.

50. We adopt a 3% time-weighted average degraded throughput threshold as the long-term interference metric that NGSO systems must comply with for the protection of GSO networks using ACM in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands.

51. Consistent with the Commission's decision making in the NGSO-NGSO sharing context for modern satellite systems using ACM, we conclude that adopting this value best furthers our goals of allowing for competitive new and improved services by NGSO operators while providing adequate protection of GSO networks. First, this value has been thoroughly developed, debated, and adopted for the protection of GSO networks using ACM in the Q- and V-bands internationally, as well as for the protection of NGSO systems using ACM in bands including the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. Second, the 3% value is the only degraded throughput value proposed, analyzed, and supported on the record. Third, the 3% throughput-degradation threshold limits the interference allowed at any analyzed GSO network earth station location, not the expected average of interference across all locations. Since the worst-case scenarios will drive the overall NGSO system parameters necessary to guarantee protection of the most sensitive link, actual interference will be less than 3% in many circumstances. Importantly, GSO satellite operators will be able to further reduce this level of throughput degradation for given customers by the use, or continued use, of appropriate earth station equipment that is less sensitive than the most sensitive links to be protected, considering geographic and other factors. And, GSO operators may coordinate directly with NGSO operators regarding accommodation of particular use cases, and we will require good-faith coordination efforts by both GSO and NGSO operators in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. Finally, analysis on the record indicates that a 3% degraded throughput threshold is achievable by current and planned NGSO systems, and could enable significantly greater spectrum use and cost savings by NGSO systems in comparison to the current EPFD limits.

52. We find that objections expressed in the record with respect to the well-established 3% degraded throughput limit for ACM systems are technically unpersuasive. Despite its past support for a 3% threshold for ACM systems in the NGSO-NGSO context, Viasat argues that such a threshold would “leave GSO networks and their end users exposed to significant interference risks.” Viasat's supporting study, however, focuses on the interplay between a roughly 3% degradation in throughput and the impact on non-performance-affecting static “reserve capacity”—a hypothetical concept contemplated in the 1990s that is ill-defined and does not reflect how actual ACM systems operate. The study indicates that ACM systems, which are specifically designed to better handle intermittent interference, will experience substantially more interference and worse performance than non-ACM systems. We believe that months of real-world testing are a better indicator of actual interference impacts than studies relying on the “reserve capacity” concept.

53. Eutelsat expresses concern that, even with a 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation threshold, throughput losses will exceed 3% at times. Eutelsat argues that if “a customer experiences a 13.62% degradation for 1% of a 24-hour period, that means they experience about 15 minutes a day of massively degraded service,” which is “especially problematic for enterprise level or business-to-business customer links.” This worst-case analysis, however, which could not be replicated by one other commenter, assumes that both the GSO and the NGSO customer would need the full capacity of all the spectrum at issue on all available satellites for that full 15 minutes at the same times, and that Eutelsat chooses an earth station antenna that is particularly susceptible to interference for its enterprise customer. As noted above, GSO operators can reliably reduce their expected interference through appropriate earth station antenna choice and network design. We need not devise general interference limits based on a combination of unlikely events and worst-case scenarios. Further, as a long-term protection criterion, the change in time-weighted average throughput has already been adopted internationally for the protection of GSO networks using ACM from NGSO systems in the Q- and V-bands. To the extent that an NGSO system complying with the long-term and short-term protection criteria still presents a realistic risk of such interference spikes to a GSO network, that possibility can be discussed during good-faith coordination between the operators.

54. We adopt a 0.1% absolute increase in link unavailability as the short-term GSO interference metric. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that this 0.1% value, which is more protective than the alternative 0.4% value proposed on the record and adopted in the NGSO-NGSO sharing context, will provide adequate protection of GSO networks while offering substantially improved opportunities for efficient spectrum sharing with NGSO systems. Indeed, we expect the real-world short-term impact to be less than this 0.1% value in many instances given not only varying GSO network antenna performance but also technical studies indicating that it is the long-term protection criteria we are adopting that are the limiting factor, since it is the most restrictive protection criterion that will govern NGSO operational characteristics.

55. As an initial matter, as in the NGSO-NGSO sharing context, we considered both a relative measure of increase in link unavailability and an absolute measure of increase in unavailability. We again conclude that the use of an absolute increase in link unavailability as the short-term interference metric provides a more reliable measure of short-term interference that is not as susceptible to significant fluctuations as a relative increase metric would be. This is because, for satellite links with a high baseline availability, the relative measure of increase can prove incredibly sensitive. For example, if a GSO link with a baseline availability of 99.99% were reduced to 99.98%, this would represent an absolute change of only 0.01% but a relative change of 100%; while the same, relative 100% increase in unavailability for a GSO link with a baseline availability of 99.5% would represent a 50-times larger or 0.5% absolute change. Especially given the lower value of 0.1% increase that we are adopting in the NGSO-GSO sharing context in comparison with the 0.4% increase permitted in the NGSO-NGSO sharing context, we conclude that the absolute measure of unavailability will provide sufficient protection without the volatility and potential for extremely limiting protection requirements under a relative increase in unavailability metric.

56. We also find that the 0.1% unavailability increase criterion will adequately protect GSO networks. Indeed, it may approximate the maximum short-term interference a GSO satellite operator in Ku-band would expect from another GSO satellite operating 6.5 degrees away on the GSO arc, a distance at which no coordination between the GSO operators would be required under the ITU Radio Regulations because the interference is expected to be negligible. Moreover, like the long-term interference metric adopted above, this short-term interference metric will limit the increase in link unavailability at any analyzed location. Since the worst-case locations will drive NGSO operators' determinations of appropriate system parameters and any mitigation measures, the actual increase in unavailability will be less than 0.1% in many circumstances. And importantly, GSO operators can realistically increase the availability of their links by choosing earth station equipment that is less sensitive to interference than the most sensitive GSO links being protected. In addition, GSO operators may coordinate directly with NGSO operators regarding any particular use cases. We also conclude that adopting a 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability metric will simultaneously support competitive new and expanded NGSO services because analyses on the record indicate it can accommodate current and planned NGSO systems.

57. Further, we note that, while the Commission does not guarantee privately negotiated service levels of GSO operators, we believe that concerns on the record about maintaining high availability GSO links are overstated. First, the 0.1% limit is inherently protective. Even the most sensitive GSO reference link, which typically represents a small, mass-market user terminal rather than an enterprise-level customer demanding high availability, could maintain a link availability near 99.9% in the presence of an operational NGSO system. Second, actual enterprise-level customers or others negotiating for high availability services will experience significantly less—perhaps exponentially less—reduction in unavailability than 0.1%. This is because the operating parameters of the NGSO system will be driven by the need to protect the most vulnerable GSO link, and because the inherent design of GSO links predicated on maintaining high availability renders them less susceptible to interference from NGSO systems, for example by use of earth station antennas with higher main-beam gain and lower sidelobes. Third, as we explained in the NGSO-NGSO context, we expect that any cumulative, real-world effects of two or more NGSO systems will likely be less than a simple multiplication of the 0.1% limit by the number of NGSO interferers—even for the most sensitive GSO link—because doing so fails to account for mitigation techniques or other spectrum-sharing measures that may be applied by the NGSO systems to reduce interference to each other, and accordingly reduce their overall aggregate impact to GSO networks. Accordingly, our adoption of a 0.1% limit on absolute increase in unavailability considers the real-world implications of the limit in order to achieve an efficient and reasonable balance between expanded NGSO services and continued, competitive GSO services, rather than imposing arbitrary constraints on NGSO systems to guarantee a theoretical level of GSO service premised on simple, worst-case interference assumptions. We also consider the interplay of the 0.1% limit with our long-term protection criteria. As indicated in simulations, even NGSO system configurations that result in a 0.01% short-term impact to non-ACM GSO links, or a 0.03% impact to ACM GSO links, could exceed the applicable long-term limits of −10.5 dB for 80% of the time or 3% time-weighted average degraded throughput, and therefore the short-term impact would be reduced even further to comply with the long-term criteria. In this way, our choice of long-term GSO protection criteria, especially a limit of −10.5 dB for 80% of the time for GSO networks not using ACM, further addresses concerns raised about short-term impacts to GSO networks, and in particular to non-ACM networks.

58. As we move towards performance-based protection metrics for NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands, we recognize that there are continuing GSO satellite operations that do not employ ACM because of the nature of the service they are providing—for example, video transmissions to geographically diverse areas of the country that cannot adapt to changing interference environments in particular areas—and for which a degraded throughput limit would be inappropriate. These GSO satellite services are more prominent in Ku-band, especially BSS, but also exist in Ka-band as well. For the protection of non-ACM GSO satellite links we adopt a protection threshold of −10.5 dB I/N for 80% of the time.

59. With an I/N threshold of −10.5 dB, the level of interference that a Ku-band GSO satellite would experience from an NGSO system is approximately equivalent to that of two GSO Ku-band satellites that are separated by approximately 6.5 degrees. As noted above, under the ITU coordination procedures, Ku-band GSO satellite networks that are separated by more than 6 degrees are not required to coordinate with each other because of the presumed negligible interference effects. In addition, a −10.5 dB I/N limit for 80% of the time was assumed to be protective of FSS and BSS networks in the portions of the Ka-band (24.65-25.25 GHz and 27-27.5 GHz) during international studies with International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) systems prior to WRC-19. And, the −10.5 dB I/N limit has been validated through real-world testing.

60. The long-term limit of −10.5 dB I/N for 80% of time will work in tandem with the 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability short-term limit to protect non-ACM GSO operations. While some commenters argue that a short-term metric alone is the most relevant for assessing interference to non-ACM links, we believe that including an additional, long-term interference metric will provide additional protection to GSO video distribution links without being overly constraining on NGSO operators, as it is supported by the largest NGSO operator in Ku-band, where non-ACM links are more prevalent.

61. We will require the −10.5 dB I/N for 80% of time limit to be met for non-ACM links in both Ku-band and Ka-band. While the record indicates the remaining non-ACM GSO networks are generally concentrated in Ku-band, non-ACM GSO networks are also deployed and providing video service to customers using Ka-band and at least for these networks, the choice of not using ACM is a result of the video distribution type of service being provided, not due to the use of older or less advanced earth station equipment alone. Noting that the only specific proposal on the record for the long-term protection of non-ACM GSO links is the −10.5 dB I/N limit, we will, as with our short-term limit and long-term ACM limit described above, apply this equally to GSO operations in the Ku-band and Ka-band.

62. Above, based on an exceptional technical record, we adopted protection criteria for modern GSO networks that will enable substantial improvements in spectrum use by NGSO systems, resulting in higher capacity and lower costs, using performance-based metrics that accommodate the gold standard of efficient satellite spectrum management—coordination. Nonetheless, we recognize that moving towards a modernized, degraded-throughput based spectrum sharing framework is a significant shift from the EPFD protections that GSO operators had been accustomed to receiving in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands in the United States.

63. Therefore, in addition to the specific protection criteria described above, we will require NGSO systems in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands to observe a 3-degree GSO-arc avoidance angle with respect to any operational co-frequency GSO satellite serving the United States. This angle, which was one of the angles used during the SpaceX real-world testing campaign, approximately reflects the widest main-beam width of GSO satellite earth station antennas currently listed and protected under ITU EPFD limits. Since NGSO operations near the GSO arc typically represent the greatest interfering scenario for a GSO network earth station, observing this 3-degree GSO-arc avoidance angle will provide an additional layer of assurance that NGSO satellite transmissions will not fall within the main beam of the receiving victim earth station and therefore the resulting increase in interference will be minimal. At the same time, it will facilitate NGSO deployment.

64. In the NGSO-NGSO sharing context, the Commission adopted protection criteria for NGSO systems authorized through an earlier processing round and required later-round applicants to demonstrate compliance with those limits if coordination agreements with the earlier-round operators had not yet been reached. While those technical demonstrations were pending before the Commission, however, NGSO operators are permitted to begin operating on a non-interference basis. In this instance, a minimum GSO-arc avoidance angle will achieve a similar balance of encouraging immediate services to the public and providing protection of other operators. Thus, we will allow NGSO satellite applicants to submit technical demonstrations of compliance with the GSO protection criteria, and begin operating on an unprotected, non-interference basis even if those technical demonstrations remain pending and not yet acted on by the Commission, provided they operate consistent both with the operational parameters reflected in the technical demonstrations and the 3-degree GSO-arc avoidance angle.

65. We note that the minimum 3-degree GSO-arc avoidance angle represents an additional layer of protection for GSO networks that may restrict NGSO systems more than is strictly necessary. Although an avoidance angle may not sufficiently protect GSO networks on its own, because it does not account for other key variables such as transmit power and the number of co-frequency satellites transmitting to the same location at the same time, it should provide an added level of assurance to GSO network operators should NGSO systems need to begin operating while their technical demonstrations of compliance with the protection criteria remain pending. With greater experience implementing the new NGSO-GSO sharing framework, we may re-visit this requirement.

66. To accompany the protection criteria above, we adopt a set of GSO reference links reflecting typical and widespread GSO operations in the United States, contained in Appendix B to the Order. Reference links are used by an NGSO operator to demonstrate that it will comply with the long-term and short-term interference metrics. Reference links provide transparency and regulatory certainty for both GSO and NGSO operators as to the types of operations that will be protected to the threshold levels.

67. As an initial matter, the GSO reference links we adopt include 328 links provided in the record and drawn from both ITU data and the Commission's licensing databases and filtered according to a filtering methodology. After review, we find these links are reasonably representative of a variety of widespread GSO operations and appropriate as an initial set of links to be tested against. While some commenters urge the Commission to seek further comment on development of GSO reference links, the Commission specifically did so in the NPRM, and those parties criticizing the GSO reference links provided on the record, without offering a set of links of their own, do not provide an alternative for consideration at this time.

68. In addition to the 328 links, Amazon performed an analysis of 3,944 Ka-band GSO links taken from the Commission's licensing database and selected four of the most sensitive links among these, which Amazon states are protectively representative of 97.6% of the links studied. Using a smaller set of the most sensitive links—which drive the interference analysis in any event—could well be a simpler and more efficient means of demonstrating compliance with the protection criteria. However, for our initial set of GSO reference links, we include a broader collection of links that may provide GSO operators greater confidence in the results of the compatibility demonstrations.

69. In adopting these reference links, we recognize the diversity of operating parameters that may inform the protection of small earth station terminals, such as those used in Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs). And we recognize that GSO networks, and NGSO systems, will continue to evolve. Accordingly, we delegate authority to the Space Bureau to revisit the baseline set of links we identify today, and to remove, revise, or add appropriate GSO links in the future, after seeking comment. We direct the Bureau to initiate such a focused proceeding within 15 days after release of the Order, and to adopt a decision within 60 days after close of that comment period. We note that operating NGSO systems may be required to adjust their operations to protect any new GSO reference links added in the future.

70. As we look towards more efficient spectrum sharing between GSO and NGSO systems, we find no technical basis in the record—or compelling justification—to create and adopt aggregate limits on interference from NGSO systems into GSO networks. Indeed, as we noted when recently declining to create aggregate limits on NGSO interference into other NGSO systems, a host of unresolved questions remain, including: as to the need for any aggregate limits given the ongoing and, at times, uncertain deployment of newly authorized NGSO constellations; the derivation of any proposed aggregate limits that avoids simplistic, worst-case assumptions and accounts for mitigation techniques or other spectrum-sharing measures that may be applied by the NGSO systems and reduce their overall aggregate impact; and the implementation of any aggregate limits among operational NGSO systems, an issue that remains unresolved internationally more than 25 years after aggregate EPFD limits were adopted.

71. Limiting new entry while we wait and see which NGSO FSS systems will deploy, out of a fear of future aggregate interference that may never arise, would artificially and unreasonably inhibit competition contrary to the public interest. More fundamentally, as we move towards performance-based metrics based on real-world data and realistic interference concerns, any aggregate limits would run the stark risk of piling worst-case assumptions on top of one another to the detriment of efficiency and real-world costs. Parties advocating aggregate limits have not submitted aggregate interference studies or modeling or otherwise shown that any such limits—and none are proposed on the record—would be justified. Nonetheless, should a demonstrated need arise in the future, we may revisit the question of aggregate limits. And, of course, operators are free to discuss and agree upon ways to account for any aggregate interference effects during their good-faith coordination discussions.

72. Modernizing the NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing framework can be accomplished without affecting the required protection levels of terrestrial operations. Within the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands subject to EPFD limits, NGSO systems must also adhere to PFD limits in the 10.7-11.7 GHz, 12.2-12.7 GHz, and 17.7-18.3 GHz band segments developed for the protection of co-primary fixed services. The EPFD limits and PFD limits address different geometries of the NGSO system's operation—the former addresses interference from NGSO operations near the GSO arc, whereas the latter addresses NGSO operations near the horizon. In addition, NGSO systems must meet PFD limits to protect terrestrial services in the 18.6-19.7 GHz portion of the Ka-band where EPFD limits do not apply.

73. We recognize that several terrestrial commenters propose a comprehensive re-evaluation of the protection afforded by current PFD limits—critiquing the assumptions about both fixed-service (FS) and FSS deployments underlying current limits, including FS deployments considered and the scale of NGSO satellite deployments; noting that, unlike Ka-band PFD limits, Ku-band PFD limits do not scale based on constellation size; seeking new demonstrations that NGSO systems complying with PFD limits will continue to protect terrestrial services from the risk of aggregate interference; and otherwise suggesting that the PFD limits adopted at WRC-2000 are outdated. Such comprehensive studies re-evaluating the Ku-band and Ka-band PFD limits may be warranted. However, the parties calling for such studies have neither begun them, provided necessary characteristics for them, or otherwise provided any technical basis for the conclusion that the current, required protection levels of terrestrial services are in fact inadequate, or that single-entry PFD limits should be newly evaluated based on potential aggregate interference. Accordingly, there is insufficient support in the record to indefinitely delay updating the NGSO-GSO sharing framework in bands overlapping terrestrial allocations and in which PFD limits will continue to apply, especially where the substantial technical record indicates that eliminating the EPFD limits will not result in unacceptable interference to GSO networks as described above.

74. We also note that expanding more efficient and intensive spectrum use in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands is consistent with other Commission priorities, including in the Upper C-band, where the Commission has sought comment on repurposing at least 100 megahertz in the 3.98-4.2 GHz band from FSS use to next-generation wireless services and relocating some GSO FSS operations to other available FSS spectrum. Regarding the potential relocation of some high-availability services from C-band to Ku-band, in which rain fade plays a larger role in link design, we note that the combination of adaptive power control, appropriate earth station selection and link design, and our modest 0.1% absolute increase in unavailability metric will mean GSO satellite operators will face significantly lower than even a 0.1% change in unavailability at earth stations designed to support high availability links. For the protection of video distribution links specifically, we have adopted a limit of −10.5 dB I/N not to be exceeded 80% of the time, which will provide an extra layer of protection for these links in addition to the short-term absolute change in unavailability criterion. Further, at least 20 megahertz of C-band spectrum are proposed to remain for satellite services requiring C-band transmission characteristics under even the broadest repurposing of the band for which comment was sought in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Accordingly, we reject arguments that revising the NGSO-GSO sharing framework will jeopardize any portion of an Upper C-band transition.

75. Modernizing the NGSO-GSO sharing framework will also not affect ongoing obligations of NGSO licensees to successfully coordinate with radio astronomy service (RAS) sites. Indeed, the record details the close coordination and data sharing between RAS and NGSO satellite systems pursuant to Footnote US131 of the Table of Frequency Allocations. Given this successful record of coordination to date, we continue to expect that the obligation on NGSO licensees operating in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band to complete coordination with RAS prior to commencing operation will ensure the continued protection of RAS sites. Furthermore, requirement of coordination for any related fixed infrastructure ( e.g., gateways) within the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) pursuant to § 1.924 accommodates coordination requirements for the federal facilities within the NRQZ. As NGSO licensees have different operating parameters, the general coordination requirement provides flexibility to adapt to specific scenarios. Accordingly, there is no basis in the record to adopt additional, specific technical requirements regarding the operational means NGSO systems may employ to protect RAS sites as agreed in coordination, or to require new studies or aggregate interference analyses at this time, or to simply convert existing single-entry PFD limits to aggregate limits, as some RAS commenters have suggested. It should be noted that for the specific case of NGSO's providing Supplemental Coverage from Space, the FCC Report and Order did note that SCS licenses would be considered on a case-by-case basis and encouraged applicants to conduct outreach and work with appropriate federal agency contacts (NSF for radio astronomy) in advance of submission of license applications to the Commission, including conducting Monte Carlo analyses of potential impacts to radio astronomy systems using their specific configurations, as appropriate. Should any difficulties arise in the future during coordination discussions among NGSO operators and RAS site operators the Commission may assist in finding a solution agreeable to all parties involved.

76. The ITU Radio Regulations provide that EPFD limits may be exceeded on the territory of any country whose administration has authorized such operation, and doing so in the United States, to the benefit of American consumers, is fully consistent with our international and cross-border obligations. From a practical standpoint, modern NGSO systems are capable of keeping the energy from their downlink beams from spilling over into the territory of adjacent countries by using narrow beams with sharp roll-off while continuously monitoring and controlling the amount of power and location of the beams on the ground. The customer terminals associated with these systems also employ narrow beams with suppressed sidelobes that continuously track NGSO satellites at specific elevations, resulting in minimal exposure outside the main beam of the antenna. Thus, modern NGSO satellite systems have the technical capability to exceed the EPFD limits within the territory of the United States while respecting the EPFD limits on the territory of adjacent countries that have not authorized exceedances of the limits. We will continue to require such international compliance from NGSO satellite systems notified by the United States, without requiring any additional measures or specific cross-border agreements to implement the updated NGSO-GSO sharing framework in the United States.

77. In implementing the modernized NGSO-GSO sharing framework, the Commission's recently adopted degraded throughput framework in the NGSO-NGSO sharing context provides a ready example that we may draw from. Specifically, in 2024, the Commission adopted spectrum sharing requirements for NGSO FSS systems authorized in a later processing round to protect NGSO FSS systems authorized in an earlier processing round. As we are adopting here, the Commission adopted a long-term protection criteria of 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation and short-term protection criterion based on the absolute increase in link unavailability. In the NGSO-NGSO sharing context, prior to commencing operations, an NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient must either certify that it has completed a coordination agreement with any operational NGSO FSS system licensed or granted U.S. market access in an earlier processing round, or submit for Commission approval a compatibility showing which demonstrates by use of a degraded throughput methodology that it will not cause harmful interference to any such system with which coordination has not been completed. Such compatibility showings must contain a demonstration that the later-round system will cause no more than 3% time-weighted average degraded throughput of the link to the earlier-round system, for links with a baseline link availability of 99.0% or higher at a C/N threshold of 0 dB; and a demonstration that the later-round system will cause no more than 0.4% absolute change in link availability to the earlier-round system using a C/N threshold value of 0 dB, for links with a baseline link availability of 99.0% link availability or higher. While a compatibility showing remains pending before the Commission, the submitting NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient may commence operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis with respect to the operations of the system that is the subject of the showing.

78. We believe that carrying over this implementation framework from the NGSO-NGSO context, where it was rigorously debated, will facilitate technical showings in the NGSO-GSO sharing context as well because NGSO operators will be familiar with its application. This implementation framework also includes adopting the same C/N threshold for ACM links and the specific C/(N+I) threshold from the GSO reference link database for non-ACM links, assumptions about additional sources of interference, rain-fade model flexibility using the rainfall rates from the GSO reference link database, ability to use information received through any coordination discussions, a set of parameters and assumptions to facilitate the compatibility analysis, and flexibility for NGSO operators in adopting mitigation techniques to ensure compliance with the protection thresholds. As part of this framework, NGSO applicants and operators would be required to submit a compatibility demonstration which shows that their results and proposed operational configuration (including key parameters such as Nco, GSO-arc avoidance angle, and power levels) will meet the protection criteria for all of the approved GSO reference links. Further, NGSO operators will be required to share relevant technical information, including the compatibility demonstration, as needed by the GSO operators in assessing interference or for performing their own technical analysis that can aid in the coordination. Thus, through coordination, GSO operators would be able to receive the most up-to-date and technically precise details of NGSO system operations for use in their own assessments, without involving Commission resources or incentives towards protracted disputes. The Commission, however, would be available if assistance is needed in coordination or to resolve real-world interference concerns.

79. We note that the latest developments in modeling NGSO and GSO systems may be used in the compatibility analyses. We also note that we will also consider arguments by NGSO satellite applicants and operators that, because of successful coordination with one or more GSO network operators, certain of the GSO reference links included in the set of standard reference links may no longer need to be demonstrated as protected because equivalent links are not used by any remaining GSO operators serving the United States with whom coordination has not yet been reached.

80. An immediate transition to the modernized NGSO-GSO sharing framework will offer immediate benefits without jeopardizing legacy services. Today, as discussed above, NGSO services are unreasonably constrained by EPFD limits based on decades-old proposed systems, assumptions, and methodologies, which results in protection levels for GSO networks significantly higher than the protection they expect from other co-primary GSO networks. Updating this framework to a set of protection criteria based on degraded throughput for ACM networks, absolute increase in unavailability, and an I/N limit for non-ACM networks, will adequately protect ongoing GSO operations while uncapping significant new NGSO capacity. Further delaying the transition to a modernized sharing framework, including for up to 18 years or through grandfathering provisions, would sacrifice the immediate economic and other benefits of the new framework. As supported by real-world testing, the new rules can be implemented without introducing unacceptable interference to GSO networks. Retaining the existing EPFD limits, even temporarily, would have a concrete and substantial impact on NGSO deployment and the ability of NGSO operators to deliver innovative new services to customers within the United States.

81. We will apply all rule changes adopted in the Order to current NGSO licensees and market access grantees, pending applicants and petitioners, as well as future applicants and petitioners. With respect to pending applications, applicants do not gain any vested right merely by filing an application, and the simple act of filing an application is not considered a “transaction already completed” for purposes of this analysis. Applying our new rules and procedures to pending space station applications will not impair the rights any applicant had at the time it filed its application. Nor will doing so increase an applicant's liability for past conduct. Similarly, with respect to current licensees and market access grantees, none of the actions we take here increase liability for past conduct, impair rights a party possessed when he acted, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. Rather, all of these actions take effect in the future, after the rules become effective. Accordingly, applying these rule changes to existing licenses and grants of market access will not upset any grantee's reasonable expectations.

82. While the record provides ample basis to revise the NGSO-GSO sharing framework in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands of focus in this rulemaking, it does not provide a basis for action in other bands. Indeed, no NGSO system proponent advocates changes in additional frequency bands at this time, and commenters addressing other bands either request that we explicitly decline any changes in C-band, or raise issues in other bands that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, we limit our actions to those areas of demonstrated need regarding NGSO operations in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands in the United States.

83. While we are modernizing the NGSO-GSO sharing framework based on the best available data today, we recognize that future revisions may be warranted to further refine this framework and maximize the benefits to American consumers. While some commenters propose to sunset the GSO protection criteria requirements and move towards a framework of coordination only between GSO and NGSO systems, or coordination with a “safe harbor” GSO-arc avoidance angle requirement, we believe that encouraging coordination under the new protection criteria that we are adopting will offer immediate benefits and provide a new record of experience on which we could re-consider GSO-NGSO sharing in the future. Accordingly, we decline to adopt any alternative NGSO-GSO sharing frameworks at this time.

84. We have carefully reviewed the record in this proceeding, including all studies submitted therein. We conclude that the benefits of the changes we adopt today exceed the costs. Our evaluation of costs and benefits are contained in Section V below.

85. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM. The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals in the Further NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

86. The NPRM in this proceeding launched a much needed review of the long-standing spectrum sharing regime between GSO and NGSO satellite systems operating in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. The decades-old spectrum sharing regime constitutes the primary restrictive regulatory requirement on NGSO satellite systems currently deploying at breakneck speed. Innovation in the satellite industry has witnessed new NGSO satellite operators launching thousands of satellites in the short span of a few years, and these operators are beginning to offer high-speed, low-latency broadband services. The NPRM sought to develop a substantial technical record concerning modern and efficient spectrum sharing among NGSO FSS (Fixed Satellite Service) systems, GSO FSS, and BSS (Broadcast Satellite Service) networks in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands, while ensuring that any rule changes continue to safeguard and maintain the protection of co-frequency terrestrial services.

87. In response to the record developed from the NPRM, the Order replaces the outdated framework of EPFD limits on NGSO systems with modern protection criteria that take account of the improved spectrum sharing possibilities that modern satellite technology has brought, including through use of adaptive coding and modulation. Specifically, the Order requires NGSO satellites transmitting in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands to protect co-frequency GSO networks using a long-term protection criteria of 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation as a long-term interference protection criterion. The Order adopts a short-term GSO protection criterion of 0.1% absolute increase in link unavailability. For GSO satellite links that do not use ACM, such as point-to-multipoint video transmissions, we adopt a protection criterion of −10.5 dB interference-to-noise (I/N) for 80% of the time. As an additional measure of protection for GSO networks, we require NGSO systems to observe a minimum 3-degree avoidance angle of the GSO arc. We decline to establish aggregate limits or other limits on NGSO systems at this time. Having taken a fresh look at today's satellite technology and operations, these new spectrum sharing rules will promote more efficient and effective use of the shared spectrum, and support a more competitive market for satellite broadband and other in-demand services while uncapping the potential of satellite constellations that were unthinkable when the current regime was developed, to the ultimate benefit of American consumers.

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

89. 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.

90. 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 adopted rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

91. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

92. The rules adopted in the Order will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the adopted rules may impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the identified industries below.

93. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted 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.

94. The Order defines specific metrics for long-term interference and short-term interference that must be used in compatibility analyses demonstrating that a NGSO FSS system operating in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands in the United States will adequately protect co-frequency GSO networks. The Order adopts a long-term interference metric for GSO networks using ACM of 3% degraded throughput threshold and a 0.1% absolute increase in link unavailability as the short-term interference metric, along with a protection criterion for GSO networks not using ACM of −10.5 dB interference-to-noise (I/N) for 80% of the time and a 3-degree minimum GSO-arc avoidance angle, based on the technical record developed in this proceeding. The Commission concludes that establishing a protection metrics consistent with the technical evidence in the record provides the benefit of a clear standard for new NGSO operators, and a benchmark that parties can use to negotiate any alternative protections mutually agreed to in coordination.

95. The adopted protection criteria will impact information NGSO system applicants are required to report to the Commission, and small NGSO system applicants may incur compliance costs as a result of the Order. Specifically, NGSO system applicants may need to hire professionals or expend staff time on familiarization and implementation of the rules adopted in the Order. However, because of the costs involved in developing and deploying an NGSO satellite constellation in these bands, the Commission anticipates that few, if any, NGSO operators affected by this rulemaking would qualify under the SBA definition of “small entity,” and therefore small entities are not likely to have to hire professionals, or incur any compliance costs as a result of the Order.

96. 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.”

97. The Order amends rules that are applicable to space station operators requesting a license or grant of U.S. market access from the Commission. Specifically, the Order adopts changes to the spectrum sharing requirements among GSO and NGSO satellite systems operating in the United States in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands, and specifies details of the technical demonstration that NGSO space station applicants in these bands must submit to show that they will not cause harmful interference to co-frequency GSO space station licensees and market access grantees. The technical demonstration of compatibility is based on a degraded throughput methodology, assessing absolute increase in link unavailability, and an I/N limit.

98. The Commission specifically considered, and declined, to adopt: a short-term interference criterion of 0.4% absolute increase in unavailability, an alternative of coordination or compliance with a GSO-arc avoidance angle only, or a sunset provision, because such proposals would provide less protection to GSO networks while not being shown to be technically necessary for the expansion of NGSO systems. The Commission also considered, but declined, to create new aggregate interference limits as none were proposed on the record.

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

100. In the Order, the Commission modernizes the spectrum sharing regime between GSO and NGSO satellite systems operating in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. The Order replaces EPFD limits on NGSO systems with performance-based GSO protection criteria. It also requires good-faith coordination efforts by both GSO and NGSO operators in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. We adopt the following technical backstops to protect GSO systems when coordination has not been reached:

• A long-term protection criterion of 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation for GSO satellite links using adaptive coding and modulation (ACM);

• A short-term protection criterion of 0.1% absolute increase in link unavailability;

• A supplemental protection criterion of −10.5 dB interference-to-noise (I/N) for 80% of the time for GSO satellite links that do not use ACM, such as point-to-multipoint video transmissions; and

• A supplemental protection requirement for NGSO systems to observe a minimum 3-degree avoidance angle of the GSO arc.

101. This economically significant regulatory action is submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for interagency review. The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) presents an assessment of the regulatory compliance costs and benefits associated with this action and is consistent with Executive Order 12866. Comparing the performance-based GSO protection criteria with other alternative policy options, Commission Staff concludes that the adoption of these proposed rules will result in significant benefits that outweigh the associated costs. This rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

102. Summary of Benefits and Costs. Based on Staff analysis, the net present value of benefits—after netting out costs of doing business and compliance—over five years would be $1.6 billion to $19.9 billion using a 3% annual discount rate or $1.4 billion to $17.1 billion using a 7% annual discount rate. Given these net benefit estimates, Staff finds that the overall benefits of the regulatory action outweigh the total costs.

103. Wireless telecommunications devices function by transmitting signals over the electromagnetic spectrum, a finite public resource managed by the FCC. To promote efficient use of the spectrum and to minimize harmful interference, the FCC allocates spectrum into various bands. It designates some bands for exclusive, licensed use, while requiring shared use of other bands based on technical and other rules to mitigate harmful interference. In the most commonly used frequency bands used by satellite operators, between 10.7 GHz and 30 GHz, NGSO systems share primary fixed-satellite service (FSS) allocations with GSO networks, and they must also operate compatibly or coordinate with other federal and non-federal users of these bands.

104. NGSO FSS systems must comply with, among other rules, power limits expressed in EPFD to demonstrate that they do not cause unacceptable interference to GSO FSS and Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS) networks. As NGSO operators supply data to a growing number of users, however, the record has shown that EPFD restrictions present a significant and growing regulatory constraint on NGSO systems seeking to meet consumer capacity needs, particularly during periods of peak congestion. Technological advances in the past three decades and the inherent issues in the EPFD limits warrant the establishment of a new, performance-based spectrum sharing framework between GSO and NGSO systems in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. By adopting the rules in the Order, the Commission would enable the U.S. space industry to make better use of spectrum resources. Specifically, the rules would enable NGSO systems to use more satellites to serve the same area, at potentially higher power, and over a wider portion of the visible sky while continuing to protect GSO networks as supported by real-world testing. This would immediately boost capacity, translating to faster broadband speeds for American consumers.

105. Broadband satellite services rely on shared spectrum. In the most commonly used frequency bands, between 10.7 GHz and 30 GHz, NGSO systems share primary fixed-satellite service (FSS) allocations with GSO networks and must also operate compatibly with BSS networks and stations in other services, including terrestrial services. NGSO FSS systems must comply with power limits expressed in EPFD to demonstrate that they meet their broader obligation not to cause unacceptable interference to GSO FSS and BSS networks. NGSO FSS systems must also meet separate power limits expressed in power-flux density (PFD) to protect terrestrial services. Applicants for NGSO FSS space station licenses, and non-U.S.-licensed satellite operators seeking access to the U.S. market, must certify that they will comply with the specified EPFD limits.

106. The current EPFD limits for the protection of GSO networks were developed in the late 1990s, adopted internationally in 2000, and subsequently incorporated into the Commission's rules in 2000 and 2017. In 2019, the international community required NGSO FSS systems operating in the higher Q- and V-bands between 37.5 GHz and 51.4 GHz to meet certain long-term and short-term GSO protection criteria that incorporate a degraded throughput methodology. The World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) 2019 (WRC-19) did not adopt EPFD limits in these bands. WRC-23 considered, but ultimately did not adopt, a proposal to review the EPFD limits under a future agenda item for WRC-27. Instead, ITU-R Working Party 4A is studying EPFD limits and will report findings at WRC-27.

107. On April 28, 2025, the Commission, in response to a petition for rulemaking by SpaceX, released an NPRM that proposed to revise the spectrum sharing regime between GSO and NGSO systems in downlink frequency bands between 10.7 GHz and 30 GHz that are subject to EPFD limits, and to amend §§ 25.146 and 25.289 of the Commission's rules. The NPRM sought to develop a substantial technical record concerning modern and efficient spectrum sharing among NGSO FSS systems and GSO FSS and BSS networks in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands that could increase efficient use of the spectrum while protecting other services.

108. The Order establishes a new, performance-based spectrum sharing framework between GSO and NGSO systems in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. The new GSO protection framework would require good-faith coordination between GSO and NGSO operators. Where good-faith coordination fails, the rule would require NGSO satellites transmitting in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands to protect co-frequency GSO networks using a long-term protection criteria of 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation. The Order adopts a short-term GSO protection criterion of 0.1% absolute increase in link unavailability. For GSO satellite links that do not use ACM, the Order would adopt a protection criterion of −10.5 dB interference-to-noise (I/N) for 80% of the time. As an additional measure of protection for GSO networks, the Order would require NGSO systems to observe a minimum 3-degree avoidance angle of the GSO arc. To accompany these protection criteria, the Order adopts a realistic set of GSO reference links reflecting typical and widespread GSO operations in the United States. These GSO reference links are based on the set of 328 links provided in the record and drawn from both ITU data and the Commission's licensing databases.

109. By modernizing the spectrum sharing framework between GSO and NGSO satellite systems, the rules adopted in the Order should deliver substantial economic benefits to American households, satellite competitors, and other stakeholders. As discussed in detail in the Order, these rules should increase capacity and broadband speeds, foster new competitive entry, and promote U.S. leadership globally. They should also strengthen the ability of NGSOs to serve as a lifeline to Americans in rural and remote areas. The record of this proceeding reflects broad support for modernizing satellite spectrum sharing. Commenters point out that, with greater operational flexibility under revised sharing rules, new NGSO systems would need smaller constellations and still have greater capacity to reach more customers, which would reflect a substantial reduction in launch costs, satellite costs, and costs of a new low-Earth orbit (LEO) constellation. Those lower costs should encourage new entry as well as lower prices for customers. The revised rules are also anticipated to support innovation through the availability of higher-throughput, lower-latency connectivity in rural and underserved areas. Accordingly, Staff is unpersuaded by arguments that the benefits of revising the EFPD limits are uncertain, speculative and overstated.

110. Certain commenters submitted studies concerning the benefits, with one providing quantitative estimates. An analysis by Harold Furchtgott-Roth suggests that the effects of moving away from the outdated EPFD rules would increase NGSO system capacity by 74% to 180%, which could reduce average costs per unit of capacity by 43% to 64%. The study further estimated that this would increase annual global consumer welfare by $1.62 billion to $16.2 billion, translating to a net present value increase in global welfare ranging from $10 billion to $100 billion. A second study submitted by the Phoenix Center posited that a rising relative willingness to pay for NGSO broadband—even without growth in the overall satellite market—implies that today's spectrum sharing- rules are too restrictive and should shift toward greater accommodation of NGSO systems. The intuition of the model presented in the study is that, as NGSO demand has grown far faster than demand for GSO services, an efficient regime must evolve to reflect this higher marginal valuation of NGSO connectivity. While the study did not provide quantitative estimates of benefits, Staff believes that the results of this study align with the steps we are taking today.

111. While Staff generally agrees with the conclusion of the Harold Furchtgott-Roth study, we find that the report does not adequately justify the assumptions underlying the consumer surplus calculations. For example, the report assumes price reductions ranging from 10% to 50% without providing a supporting rationale and provides no estimate of price elasticity of demand or passthrough rate, despite these assumptions being crucial in calculating consumer surplus. Furthermore, even setting aside methodological concerns with the consumer surplus calculations, it would still be necessary to appropriately scale any global consumer surplus estimates to derive a corresponding estimate of the change in domestic consumer surplus. If we assumed that U.S. consumers account for only one-quarter of the global benefits, the estimated annual benefits are reduced to approximately $405 million to $4.05 billion. If we conservatively take the lower bound estimate of $405 million, the corresponding net present value of benefits accruing over the next five years is $1.9 billion when using a discount rate of 3% and $1.7 billion when using a discount rate of 7%. Under these revised assumptions, the overall increase in benefits to U.S. consumers nevertheless remains substantial.

112. Commission Staff conducted a separate internal assessment of benefits. Staff based its analysis on the potential relationship between the increase in supply of satellite capacity discussed in the Order and the projected overall growth in the size of satellite data services market. Based on support in the record, Staff assumed an increase in capacity in the foreseeable future of between 500% and 700%. Staff related these assumed increases in capacity to industry analyst projections of the market value of U.S. satellite data services as well as the supply of satellite capacity using two alternative methodologies. First, we assume that the supply of NGSO high throughput satellite (HTS) capacity is 500-700% greater than it would be in 2030 absent the rule changes and infer that market value will expand proportionally based on the preexisting relationship between satellite market value and capacity. Second, we assume that the industry analyst's projected growth of HTS satellite capacity from 2025 to 2030 is correct, but that some fraction of that capacity growth is due to the 500% to 700% increase in HTS NGSO capacity due to the Order and that the fraction of market value growth due to the Order is also the same. For both methods, Staff then assumes that NGSO operators will earn 58% in profits on the gain in market value, and we use this as our estimate of gains in producer surplus. Staff did not attempt to estimate consumer surplus so that our estimate of benefits, which consists of gains in producer surplus, is conservative. We describe the two methods in detail below.

113. According to January 2025 analyst estimates for the years 2024-2034, the value of U.S. satellite data services will grow from $3.40 billion to $19.53 billion at a CAGR of 19.1%. Based on a separate April 2024 report estimating NGSO and GSO HTS capacity in 2023 and 2028, NGSO and GSO capacity will grow between 2023 and 2028 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 59.1% and 22.2%, respectively, leading to a total HTS CAGR of 56.1%.

114. Method 1: First, Staff assumes that analyst projections do not anticipate the capacity increase that Staff attributes to the revised spectrum sharing rules, such that 2030 capacity would be 500-700% more than the initial projections. Staff then calculates the new CAGR of capacity implied by the new 2030 level of capacity and then use the new CAGR to estimate the increase in the value of U.S. data services for the years 2025-2030. The markets value gains are then converted to gains in producer surplus by multiplying by the profit margin of 58%. Staff treats the net present value (NPV) increase in producer surplus as a public benefit. Total HTS throughput CAGR is 124.2% to 137.5%, which is significantly larger than the original CAGR of 56.1% for every year from 2026 to 2030, resulting in $15.7 to $19.9 billion in NPV at a 3% discount rate or $13.5 billion to $17.1 billion NPV at a 7% discount rate.

115. Method 2: Second, Staff assumes that the industry analysts anticipate some sort of regulatory change to achieve the projected supply increase. In this scenario, Staff assumes that the Order is part of these anticipated regulatory changes, so that a fraction of the increase in capacity supply from 2025 to 2030 is attributable to the Order. Staff assumes that the Order will lead to an increase in NGSO HTS capacity of either 500% or 700% from 2025 to 2030. Based on the 2025 capacity of 60,009 Gbps, this is 300,045 Gbps or 420,063 Gbps, respectively. By comparison, a projection based on analyst reports indicates that total HTS capacity will increase by 560,846 Gbps from 2025 to 2030 (using a CAGR of 56.1%). This implies that either 300,045 Gbps/560,846 Gbps = 53.5% or 420,063/560,846 Gbps = 74.9% of growth is due to the Order. Staff then assumes the Order is responsible for the same fraction (either 53.5% or 74.9%) of the increase in satellite markets value each year between 2025 and 2030 and calculate the PV gain associated with that fraction of the increase in market value. After multiplying by the profit margin of 58%, this leads to a producer surplus gain in present value that is attributed to the Order ranging from $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion in benefits using a 3% discount rate, or $1.4 to $1.8 billion using a 7% discount rate.

116. Combining the results of the two approaches, Staff finds benefits ranging from $1.6 billion to $19.9 billion using a 3% discount rate and ranging from $1.4 billion to $17.1 billion using a 7% discount rate.

117. Staff accepts the findings of the Order that the rules adopted therein, including the long-term and short-term criteria for GSO satellite links using ACM, protection criteria for those that do not use ACM, and the minimum avoidance angle of the GSO arc will continue to provide sufficient protection to GSO operations from substantial interference, and therefore Staff concludes that they will not result in harm or substantial costs to GSO providers. Staff is therefore unpersuaded by arguments raised in a Brattle Group report submitted by Viasat, alleging that abandoning the long-standing EPFD framework would impose unacceptable interference costs on GSO operators, since, as the Order concludes, the performance-based GSO protection criteria that the Order adopts are sufficient to protect incumbent GSO operations and other incumbent users. Staff also is unpersuaded by Brattle's arguments that the new framework would undermine the property rights and market-driven approach of the EPFD framework. In contrast, the new framework would improve these aspects as it makes the use of coordination explicit and allows for mutually beneficial outcomes above and beyond those that would be required by our backstop performance criteria. Rather than reduce innovation and investment through greater regulatory uncertainty and interference risk, as Brattle claims, the new rules will continue to protect existing spectrum users, while encouraging investment through more efficient spectrum use. Staff also finds Brattle concerns about international coordination unfounded because it is legally feasible for an administration to exceed the ITU EFPD limits and technologically feasible for service providers to operate both under and above those limits in adjacent countries.

118. Staff identifies two categories of costs: (1) increases in expenditures needed to serve a larger pool of customers, and (2) costs of complying with the revised rules. The analysis in the benefits section accounts for the category 1 costs— i.e., the costs to serve additional customers by multiplying estimated market value gains by an estimated profit margin. This amounts to subtracting incremental costs of serving new customers from incremental revenue. With respect to category 2, we recognize three kinds of potential costs of complying with the revised rules: familiarization costs, certification costs, and negotiation costs. Familiarization costs result from work that regulatees wishing to take advantage of the revised rules need to perform to familiarize themselves with the rule revisions. Certification costs are the labor costs that any NGSO operator wishing to take advantage of the new rules must incur in order to certify that it is using a degraded throughput methodology to avoid unacceptable interference. In the alternative, NGSO operators wishing to take advantage of the new rules may certify that they have a coordination agreement with any operational co-frequency GSO satellite network. Negotiation costs are costs that NGSO and GSO operators would need to incur to reach a coordination agreement. As there is a lack of information to estimate how frequent or long such negotiations would be, Staff is unable to quantity the costs of such negotiations. However, Staff concludes due to the relatively low number of negotiating partners in the industry coupled with the backstop option of a compatibility showing that associated costs would be relatively small compared to the volume of proposed benefits.

119. Staff estimates familiarization and certification costs by using needed labor hours worked by engineers and attorneys to make sure that NGSO operators understand and comply with the new rules. Staff estimates that telecommunications aerospace engineers are compensated at a rate of $100.26/hour and telecommunications attorneys are compensated at $140.73/hour. Staff estimates that 26 NGSO constellations may be impacted by our rules, and conservatively assume that 26 NGSO regulatees will require familiarization and certification work. For familiarization, Staff assumes reading and understanding the order will take 6 engineer hours of work and 2 lawyer hours of work for each constellation, implying $23,000 of costs for NGSO operators. Because these rules replace existing rules, future entrants into NGSO FSS operators would not be expected to incur additional familiarization costs because they would need to familiarize themselves with only one set of rules prior to entry. For certification, we conservatively assume that each of the 26 NGSO constellations would wish to submit a § 25.146 compatibility showing and therefore incur the certification cost. Additionally, because the § 25.146 compatibility showing is different from what new applicants would need to submit to the ITU to certify compliance with EPFD limits outside the United States, we assume that new applicants would likewise incur the certification cost. In these cases, Staff estimates that 26 operators incur a one-time certification cost and that in future years, 4 new operators would incur the certification cost. For each operator, we assume that certification comprises of 24 hours of engineering work and 8 hours of legal work. Therefore, Staff estimates then that the first year will result in $92,000 in certification costs, and then every subsequent year will result in $14,000 in certification costs. Adding the one-time familiarization costs to the first year certification costs, we have $115,000 of costs in the first year of the new rules, followed by the $14,000 of annual certification costs. Staff then finds that total costs, including familiarization and certification, from 2026 to 2030, sum to $162,000 using a 3% discount rate, and $152,000 using a 7% discount rate, respectively.

120. Under this alternative, the Commission would decline to revise the current sharing framework based on EPFD and PFD limits. The differing treatment of Ka-band frequencies in the current rules—where the EPFD limit in the upper portion of the band is substantially more restrictive than the EPFD limit in the lower portion of the band—was widely criticized in the record as technically unjustified. In addition, the overall methodology used to derive the current EPFD limits has been called into question, including the use of methodologies designed to address short-term interference to develop long-term EPFD limits, overly conservative modeling of rain attenuation, and the inclusion of a large number of unstable links with negative link margin values in the set of GSO reference links used to derive the EPFD limits. For these reasons, as well as others identified in the record, Staff finds that the current limits were overly and unnecessarily restrictive.

121. Modern management practices allow more satellites to serve the same area, at potentially higher power, and over a wider portion of the visible sky. Failure to adopt newer standards would leave satellite spectrum underutilized relative to its potential economic and technological value. Without further action, the Commission would forgo an opportunity to promote more efficient use of spectrum, stimulate innovation, and bridge the digital divide.

122. Under this alternative, the Commission would replace the current sharing framework based on EPFD limits with performance-based GSO network protection requirements. These performance-based requirements would include: (1) a long-term protection criterion of 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation for GSO satellite links using ACM; (2) a short-term protection criterion of 0.1% absolute increase in link unavailability for GSO satellite links; (3) a protection criterion of −10.5 dB interference-to-noise (I/N) for 80% of the time for GSO satellite links that do not use ACM; and (4) an NGSO minimum 3-degree avoidance angle of the GSO arc. Given the overly conservative nature of the current sharing framework, these more modern and permissive requirements are an improvement over Alternative A, as they would result in an increase in satellite capacity, while protecting incumbent GSO providers. As discussed below, however, this alternative is inferior to the rules adopted, because it does not permit parties to negotiate a mutually beneficial coordination agreement that may be superior to what would exist from the mere application of the modern performance-based requirements described above.

123. The Commission has emphasized that private coordination among satellite operators, based on real-world operating parameters, offers the best opportunity for efficient spectrum sharing. The current EPFD limits do not accommodate such coordination because they must be met regardless of any agreements between particular NGSO and GSO satellite operators. Commission precedent also supports a requirement of good-faith coordination backstopped by performance-based interference metrics.

124. If the parties cannot agree on a coordination plan, then the performance-based GSO network protection requirements set forth in Alternative B would apply as a default protection requirement. Alternative C is superior to Alternative B, because it enables parties to negotiate a mutually beneficial coordination agreement if such an agreement is superior to what would result from the application of the performance-based GSO network protection requirements. Given this, the parties must be at least as well off under Alternative C compared to Alternative B.

125. Staff finds that the changes adopted in the Order will generate large broad-based benefits to the public that exceed the relatively low compliance costs. Moving away from restrictive and outdated requirements will enable new uses and capabilities for NGSO satellites. Staff estimates large benefits in the form of increases in producer surplus from expanded economic activities in satellite telecommunications services. These activities will take the form of increased satellite deployment, expanded service and new innovations in technology that will spur economic activity and help close the digital divide. Staff estimates net benefits—after netting out compliance costs—ranging from $1.6 billion to $19.9 billion using a 3% discount rate and $1.4 billion to $17.1 billion using a 7% discount rate.

126. Based on the record and economic analysis, Staff finds that Alternative C—the coordination framework with default performance-based, bright-line rules offers the greatest net benefit among the three alternatives considered. This combination of encouraging coordination among parties buttressed by backstop protection requirements should the parties be unable to agree, generates the most protection of GSO satellite operations without hindering mutually beneficial coordination between GSO and NGSO satellite operators.

127. The rules adopted by the Commission in the Order will benefit many small entities by giving them greater access to satellite-based communication services, while imposing few direct compliance costs on small entities. 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. We divide small entities into two industries—identified in the chart below—that could be directly affected by our actions, satellite telecommunications and other telecommunications.

128. The adopted modern sharing rules replace an outdated, spectrally inefficient sharing framework, and will promote more efficient use of spectrum, stimulate innovation, and bridge the digital divide. Small entities that use or provide input for these services will benefit. Out of the existing small satellite telecommunications providers, few if any are satellite operators, given the high fixed costs of deploying and operating satellites, and thus subject to the rules. We conclude that little to no compliance costs will be imposed on small entities. Additionally, the Commission considered alternative proposals and weighed their benefits against their potential costs to small businesses and other entities. On balance, the adopted rules will result in significant economic benefits for small entities.

129. The new adopted sharing framework should help disadvantaged populations, such as the extremely rural, who lack current access to telecommunications services. More utilization of spectrum stimulated by the new rules is likely to result in expanded coverage by satellites telecommunications services. Coverage might then extend to areas that were economically unprofitable, such as areas with very low population densities. Other disadvantaged groups are likely to face the same benefits as the general population as the benefits are likely broad-based. As for costs, we expect them to entirely take the form compliance costs for satellite service providers and not the general public. As a result, disadvantaged populations are unlikely to incur disproportionate costs.

130. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303, 308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), 316, that the Order is adopted, the policies, rules, and requirements discussed herein are adopted, and part 25 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth in the final rules.

131. It is further ordered that the Order shall be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register , except that §§ 25.146(a)(3) and 25.289(a)(2), which may contain new or modified information collection requirements, will not become effective until the Office of Management and Budget completes review of any information collection requirements that the Space Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission directs the Space Bureau to announce the effective date for §§ 25.146(a)(3) and 25.289(a)(2) by publication of a document in the Federal Register .

132. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Secretary shall send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.

133. It is further ordered that the Commission's 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, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

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