AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends its rules to facilitate the deployment of earth stations in motion (ESIMs) communicating with geostationary (GSO) and non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) fixed-satellite service (FSS) satellite systems.

DATES:

This rule is effective: July 24, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cindy Spiers, 202-418-1593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, IB Docket Nos. 17-95 and 18-315, FCC 20-66, adopted on May 13, 2020, and released on May 14, 2020. The full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/​public/​attachments/​FCC-20-66A1.pdf. The full text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, 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).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

In this Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 17-95 and Report and Order in IB Docket No. 18-315 (Report and Order) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), the Commission continues to facilitate the deployment of, and reduce the regulatory burdens on, Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs).^[1] First, we allow ESIMs to communicate in additional frequency bands with geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) satellites operating in bands allocated to the fixed-satellite service (FSS). Second, we adopt rules for ESIMs to communicate with non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellites in specific frequency bands allocated to the FSS. Finally, we seek to further develop the record regarding potential interference from out-of-band emissions of ESIMs in the 28.35-28.6 GHz band into the adjacent 27.5-28.35 GHz band used by Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS). These actions will promote innovative and flexible use of satellite technology, as well as provide regulatory equity between GSO and NGSO FSS systems.

Report and Order

Because of the interrelated nature of the two proceedings, we address both proceedings in here. In the discussion below, we first address the addition of frequency bands in which ESIMs can communicate with GSO FSS satellites. Specifically, we adopt our proposal to allow ESIMs to operate in all of the frequency bands in which earth stations at fixed locations operating with GSO FSS satellite networks can be blanket-licensed, and to allow ESIMs to receive signals from GSO FSS satellite space stations in the Ka-band, with some restrictions. We then address the issues raised in the NGSO ESIMs NPRM, and adopt a regulatory framework for ESIMs communications with NGSO FSS systems that is analogous to that which currently exists for ESIMs communicating with GSO FSS systems, with the exception of the frequency bands 18.6-18.8 GHz, 28.35-28.4 GHz, and 29.25-29.5 GHz. We also extend blanket earth station licensing to ESIMs communicating with NGSO FSS systems. We defer consideration of our proposal to allow ESIMs to operate in the 28.35-28.4 GHz band while we study the potential interference from out-of-band emissions of ESIMs into the adjacent 27.5-28.35 GHz band.

ESIMs Communications With GSO Satellites in Additional Frequency Bands (IB Docket No. 17-95)

In the GSO ESIMs FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on allowing ESIMs to operate in all of the frequency bands in which earth stations at fixed locations operating in GSO FSS satellite networks can be blanket-licensed. The Commission believed in this situation operation of earth stations in motion should not introduce a material change to the interference environment created or to the protection required.^[2] Many commenters support these changes and no commenters opposed.^[3] Boeing points out that among other benefits, the use of many of these frequencies by ESIMs will help to align the FSS frequencies that are available for use by ESIMs in different regions of the world, and that this alignment is important because many ESIMs—including those on airplanes and ships—do not limit their operations to single continents.^[4] SES, O3b, and Intelsat note that expanding the frequencies available for GSO ESIM networks will allow more intensive spectrum use and is fully consistent with other authorized operations in these frequency bands.^[5]

We agree that, for the reasons stated by commenters, the public interest is served by the addition of frequency bands in which ESIMs are allowed to communicate with GSO FSS satellites. We address the individual frequency bands in turn below. We then address general issues that are not specific to any particular frequency band.

The Extended Ku-Band

The Commission sought comment on expanding the Ku-band frequency ranges in which ESIMs can be authorized to receive transmissions from GSO FSS satellites ^[6] to include the 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz bands.^[7] These frequency bands are allocated on a co-primary basis to the fixed service and FSS (space-to-Earth), but GSO FSS use of both bands is limited to international systems (that is, to communications that do not originate and terminate within the United States).^[8] The Commission noted, however, that in the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands, communications of ESIMs with GSO satellites is allowed subject to the condition that these earth stations may not claim protection from transmissions of non-Federal fixed service stations.^[9] The Commission requested comment on whether communications in the 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands could also be allowed on an unprotected basis with respect to other services.^[10]

Satellite operators overwhelmingly support allowing ESIMs to receive transmissions from GSO FSS satellites on an unprotected basis in these bands.^[11] Commenters state that, because ESIMs operations are receive-only in the 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz bands, allowing ESIMs to operate in these frequency bands does “not increase the potential for harmful interference” to other spectrum users.^[12] In addition, they state that because ESIMs operate on mobile platforms (that is, in aeronautical, maritime and land-mobility applications) and often far from other co-frequency systems and services (for example, aircraft in flight or vessels in international waters), there is no need to protect ESIMs reception in these bands.^[13] Commenters also assert that access to additional ESIM receive spectrum would enhance flexibility, data rates, and aggregate capacity for ESIM operators and consumers.^[14]

Based on the record, including the lack of opposition to this proposal, we will allow communications from GSO FSS satellites to ESIMs in the 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands on an unprotected basis vis-à-vis fixed service stations. We agree that ESIMs can receive transmissions from GSO FSS satellites in the 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz bands without requiring protection from fixed service stations that have primary status in these bands.^[15] The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) asks the Commission to clarify that fixed service will not be required to protect ESIMs in the 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands from interference.^[16] We so clarify. Accordingly, we amend footnote NG527A to include 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth) in the frequency bands in which ESIMs may be authorized to communicate with GSO satellites, subject to the condition that ESIMs may not claim protection from transmissions of non-Federal fixed service stations.^[17] In addition, CORF notes that radio astronomers make important observations in the 10.6-10.7 GHz band,^[18] and that the U.S. Table requires operators to protect radio astronomy service from satellite downlinks emissions into the 10.68-10.70 GHz portion of the band.^[19] Footnotes to the U.S. Table already provide such protections,^[20] and satellite licenses and grants of U.S. market access are issued by the Commission subject to such footnotes. Accordingly, no additional action is necessary.

The Ka-Band

The Commission sought comment on allowing ESIMs to receive signals from GSO FSS satellites on a secondary basis in the 17.8-18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) band and on a primary basis in the 19.3-19.4 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands.^[21] The Commission also requested comment on whether to allow ESIMs to communicate with GSO FSS satellites in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands on an unprotected, non-interference basis with respect to NGSO FSS satellite systems.^[22] It sought comment on any possible effects these proposals may have on existing or future services in these frequency bands or adjacent frequency bands and on any necessary changes to our rules that may be appropriate to accommodate them.^[23]

We address each of these frequency bands in turn below. Specifically, we will allow ESIMs to receive signals from GSO FSS space stations on a secondary basis in the 17.8-18.3 GHz band and on a primary basis in the 19.3-19.4 and 19.6-19.7 GHz band. We will also allow ESIMs to operate with GSO FSS satellite networks in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands on an unprotected, non-interference basis with respect to NGSO FSS satellite systems.

17.8-18.3 GHz, 19.3-19.4 GHz, and 19.6-19.7 GHz.—Commenters observe that satellite space-to-Earth transmissions in the 17.8-18.3 GHz, 19.3-19.4 GHz, and 19.6-19.7 GHz bands are already subject to power flux density limits designed to protect terrestrial systems,^[24] and reception of satellite signals by ESIMs has no effect on these power flux density levels set forth in the Commission's rules.^[25] Satellite operators therefore state that ESIMs can co-exist with terrestrial fixed service operations in these bands.^[26] Commenters also point out that the authorization of ESIMs to receive signals from GSO networks in the 17.8-18.3 GHz band will help to align the frequencies available to ESIMs in the United States with those that are available in the rest of the world.^[27] In addition, ESIMs communications with GSO FSS satellites in these bands will be required to be coordinated with Federal FSS systems pursuant to the U.S. Table.^[28] No commenters disagree with allowing ESIMs to receive signals from GSO FSS satellites in these bands.

We proposed allowing ESIMs to receive signals from GSO FSS satellites in the 17.8-18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) band on a secondary basis. FSS is allocated in the space-to-Earth direction on a secondary basis to the fixed service in the 17.8-18.3 GHz band and no parties objected to our proposal. Thus, we add NG527A(d) in the U.S. Table of Allocations to allow ESIMs to receive signals from GSO FSS satellites in the 17.8-18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) band on a secondary basis.

Further, we proposed allowing ESIMs to receive signals from GSO FSS satellites in the 19.3-19.4 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands on a co-primary basis with fixed service and Federal FSS. However, given the difficulties with coordinating ESIM operations with terrestrial stations, we conclude here, as proposed by FWCC,^[29] that in the 19.3-19.4 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands, ESIMs should be allowed to operate on an unprotected basis with regard to fixed service and Federal FSS. Allowing such ESIM operations will not change the existing interference environment in these bands. FSS is already allocated in the space-to-Earth direction on a co-primary basis with fixed service in the 19.3-19.4 GHz and 19.6-19.7 GHz bands subject to power flux density limits designed to protect terrestrial systems. Accordingly, we revise NG527A(a) in the U.S. Table of Allocations to allow ESIMs to receive signals from GSO FSS satellites in the 19.3-19.4 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands on an unprotected basis.

18.8-19.3 GHz and 28.6-29.1 GHz.—The record supports a finding that allowing ESIMs to communicate with GSO FSS satellites in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands serves the public interest. Viasat asserts that such a change can expedite consumer access to mobile applications of satellite broadband services technologies.^[30] Boeing believes that ESIMs communicating with GSO and NGSO satellites in these bands could complement each other by providing very robust coverage and throughput to end users using a combination of NGSO and GSO satellites.^[31]

We find that it is possible with a high degree of coordination among operators for ESIMs to communicate with GSO FSS satellites in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands without causing interference to NGSO FSS systems. Inmarsat, for example, states that “[t]echniques for managing interference between FSS systems are well understood” and the “introduction of ESIMs into FSS spectrum does not materially change these interference scenarios.” ^[32] ViaSat concurs, asserting that “[i]t is well-established that ESIMs can perform within the same technical envelope as fixed earth stations through highly accurate antenna pointing mechanisms and compliance with appropriate power limits” and “[t]herefore, in the 18.8-19.3 GHz and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands, where the Commission has determined that the GSO FSS successfully can operate on a secondary basis to the NGSO FSS, adding ESIMs would not change this conclusion.” ^[33]

We agree with these commenters that it is technically feasible for ESIMs to communicate with GSO FSS space stations in these bands without causing interference to NGSO FSS systems provided the operators coordinate their operations. GSO earth stations transmitting to a GSO space station would have to stop transmissions whenever an NGSO space station using the same frequency band is within the earth station transmitting beam. Similarly, during transmissions from GSO space stations, GSO space station operators will need to take into account the presence of a beam through which an earth station is receiving co-frequency signals from an NGSO space stations. Such co-existence will necessitate a high degree of coordination between the GSO and NGSO systems to ensure interference does not result to NGSO FSS operations and, when authorizing ESIMs to communicate with GSO FSS satellites in these bands, the secondary nature of such communications will need to be fully taken into account.^[34]

We agree with Boeing that the priority of NGSO FSS systems in these frequencies is critical to their growth and operation.^[35] As explained by Telesat, the demand for “mobile aeronautical, maritime and land services is one of the key drivers of the burgeoning NGSO demand for this spectrum.” ^[36] While recognizing that it would be inequitable to alter the regulatory status between NGSO and GSO FSS systems in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands, allowing communications between ESIMs and GSO FSS satellites in these frequency bands on an unprotected, non-interference basis with respect to NGSO FSS satellite systems leads to more efficient use of spectrum without imposing a burden on NGSO FSS operations in this band.^[37] The GSO system, operating on a non-interference, non-protected basis, is expected to show, to the NGSO system satisfaction, that it is capable of protecting the NGSO's operation. The only burden on the NGSO system is to examine the GSO showing in good faith to determine its acceptability.

Accordingly, we will allow ESIMs to communicate with GSO FSS satellites in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands on an unprotected, non-interference basis with respect to NGSO FSS satellite systems.^[38] Both these bands are allocated to FSS on a primary basis, but GSO FSS operations are conducted on an unprotected, non-interference basis with respect to NGSO FSS.^[39] We find that the record supports allowing ESIMs to communicate with GSO FSS satellites in these bands, consistent with the existing status of GSO FSS vis-à-vis NGSO FSS.

General Issues

The Commission sought comment on any possible effects that expanding the frequencies available to ESIMs communicating with GSO FSS satellite networks may have on other services in these frequency bands or adjacent frequency bands in the United States.^[40] National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) expresses concern about other services and adjacent bands.^[41] In addition, Boeing proposes that consideration be given to opening the 19.4-19.6 GHz band to both GSO and NGSO FSS systems, including those operating with ESIMs.^[42]

CORF expresses concerns regarding potential interference to protected passive scientific observations caused by GSO FSS downlink transmissions to ESIMs.^[43] Specifically, CORF is concerned that the reception of GSO FSS satellite signals by ESIMs in the 10.7-10.95 GHz, 17.8-18.3 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands, which, CORF asserts, could result in additional interference to Earth exploration-satellite service systems and radio astronomy service operating in adjacent frequencies. CORF advocates for more stringent out-of-band emissions limits for GSO FSS satellite signals that would be received by ESIMs using the 10.7-10.95 GHz band.^[44] CORF also suggests that the Commission prohibit the reception of satellite signals by ESIMs in the bottom 25 megahertz portion of the 10.7-10.95 GHz band in order to create a guard band to further protect scientific monitoring by Earth exploration-satellite service systems.^[45]

We decline to adopt new limits on out-of-band emissions or prohibitions on GSO FSS downlink use in this proceeding. References to ESIMs communications with GSO FSS satellites as “ESIM downlinks” are inaccurate, and concerns regarding the difficulty of addressing interference from “moving targets” are misplaced, because the only transmissions in the frequency ranges discussed by CORF will be from GSO satellites, not from ESIM terminals.^[46] Accordingly, CORF concerns are not with ESIMs, which solely receive in the frequency bands that CORF identified as being of concern, but rather with the space-to-Earth transmissions of GSO FSS satellites, which are not the subject of this rulemaking. In this respect, we note that the Commission's rules already impose specific limits on out of band emissions in the frequency bands and services at issue here.^[47] Possible revisions to these limits are the subject of a separate rulemaking.^[48] In addition, as mentioned above, protection of radio astronomy service observations is also ensured through specific footnotes to the U.S. Table of Allocations.^[49]

Additionally, CORF expresses concern about the use of the 18.6-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth) band, which was not proposed as an additional frequency band for communications of ESIMs with NGSO FSS satellites.^[50] This band is allocated for passive scientific observation use on a co-primary basis with GSO FSS in the space-to-Earth direction, with GSO FSS downlinks subject to power flux density limits designed to protect other authorized spectrum users.^[51] Specifically, CORF states that any new use by ESIMs in these frequency bands should be mindful of the need to preserve the extensive existing scientific use of the 18.6-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth) band.^[52] The Commission has previously concurred with this need,^[53] and no further action is appropriate because the 18.6-18.8 GHz band is not one of the additional frequency bands included in this proceeding.^[54]

Boeing proposes to open the 19.4-19.6 GHz band to both GSO and NGSO FSS systems, including those operating with ESIMs, on a secondary basis with respect to feeder links to NGSO MSS space stations operating in these frequencies.^[55] Boeing argues that GSO and NGSO FSS systems are already permitted to operate below 19.4 GHz and above 19.6 GHz, so the reception of these transmissions by ESIMs will not alter the spectrum sharing conditions.^[56] We disagree. As Iridium accurately notes, the Ka-band plan and U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations prohibit any earth station—fixed, in motion, individually-licensed, or blanket-licensed—from communicating with an FSS space station in this frequency band.^[57] Further, Iridium points out that this proposal is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking.^[58] We agree with Iridium, and find that this proceeding is not the appropriate forum to address Boeing's proposal.

Regulatory Framework for Communications of ESIMs With NGSO Satellites (IB Docket No. 18-315)

In the ESIMs NGSO NPRM, the Commission sought comment on allowing ESIMs to communicate with NGSO FSS satellites in the 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth); 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space); 18.3-18.6 GHz (space-to-Earth); 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth); 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space); and 29.5-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands, as well as the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth), and the 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands, the 10.7-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands, the 17.8-18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) band, and the 19.3-19.4 GHz and 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands,^[59] which encompass most of the same conventional Ku-band, extended Ku-band, and Ka-band frequencies that were allowed or proposed for communications of ESIMs with GSO FSS satellites.^[60] Second, the Commission sought comment on extending blanket earth station licensing, which is available to ESIMs communicating with GSO FSS satellites, to ESIMs communicating with NGSO FSS satellites in frequency bands in which NGSO FSS systems have a primary status, or have been found to be able to operate on a secondary or non-conforming basis, without causing interference to primary users of the bands.^[61] Finally, the Commission sought comment on revisions to specific rule provisions to implement these changes.^[62]

As a general matter, we conclude that the public interest is served by adopting a regulatory framework for communications of ESIMs with NGSO FSS satellites that is analogous to that which exists for ESIMs communicating with GSO FSS satellites and offers a similar streamlined path to deployment. Given the growing number of NGSO FSS entities that propose to provide service to earth stations at fixed locations as well as to ESIMs,^[63] it is important to have streamlined rules in place for NGSO ESIMs operations, both for parity among ESIM operators and regulatory certainty for potential operators.^[64] Doing so will facilitate the spread of accessible, broadband mobility services; ^[65] promote global spectrum harmonization, allow customers to take advantage of seamless connectivity; ^[66] increase investment in NGSO FSS capacity that can serve remote and rural areas and provide restoration if terrestrial networks are damaged due to natural disasters; ^[67] and ensure that antenna manufacturers are able to bring their antennas to the market quickly, enabling a faster return on their investment, and thus making the U.S. a desirable market in which to introduce innovative new equipment.^[68] We agree with many of the public interest benefits expressed in the record of the proceeding and adopt the framework discussed in the NGSO ESIMs NPRM.

Ku- and Ka- Frequency Bands

11.7-12.2 GHz, 14.0-14.5 GHz, 18.3-18.6 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.5-30.0 GHz.—The Commission sought comment on allowing, to the extent feasible, ESIMs to communicate with NGSO FSS systems in the Ku- and Ka-bands where the Commission's rules allow ESIM communications with GSO FSS space stations. The Commission proposed to allow ESIMs to communicate with NGSO FSS systems under the existing primary FSS allocation in the following six frequency bands: 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth); 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space); 18.3-18.6 GHz (space-to-Earth); 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth); 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space); and 29.5-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space).^[69] There are no allocations to terrestrial services in any of these bands. Under the Commission's rules, NGSO FSS operations cannot cause interference to, or claim protection from, GSO FSS networks.^[70] Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on adding new paragraphs to footnote NG527A of the Table of Frequency Allocations set forth at 47 CFR 2.106 to indicate that ESIMs can operate with NGSO FSS space stations in these six frequency bands.

We adopt the proposal to add a paragraph to footnote NG527A to specify that ESIMs may be authorized to communicate with NGSO FSS satellites in these six bands, with the exception of the 28.35-28.4 GHz band, under the existing primary FSS allocation. Many commenters agree that the Commission should adopt its proposal to allow ESIMs to communicate with NGSO FSS systems on a primary basis in these frequency bands.^[71] For example, the ESIM Coalition supports adoption of the proposal to add a paragraph to footnote NG527A to indicate that ESIMs can operate with NGSO FSS satellites in these six frequency bands.^[72] This will ensure that the part 25 rules accurately reflect the current NGSO-GSO sharing framework and extend this well accepted framework to NGSO FSS operations with ESIMs.

Some concerns, however, were recently raised about potential interference from out-of-band emissions of ESIMs in the 28.35-28.6 GHz band into the adjacent 27.5-28.35 GHz band used by UMFUS, generated by ESIM transmissions to NGSO FSS space stations in frequencies above 28.35 GHz.^[73] Contrarily, others have argued that the Commission already considered and dismissed similar concerns when it authorized ESIMs to communicate with GSO satellites, and the authorization of ESIM communications with NGSOs does not raise any new concerns.^[74] Given these differences of opinion, we are initiating a Further Notice to further develop the record on these issues. As such, we will not permit ESIM operations with NGSO FSS space stations in the lowest 50 megahertz of the 28.35-28.6 GHz band (28.35-28.4 GHz), subject to further consideration. However, in the interest of avoiding delay in potential ESIMs operations in the remaining 200 megahertz of the 28.35-28.6 GHz band, we will permit the filing and processing of ESIMs applications for use of spectrum between 28.4-28.6 GHz, with any grants conditioned on compliance with any future determinations made in this proceeding. Based on the current record, we do not anticipate that ESIM operations above 28.4 GHz will have a significant out-of-band emissions impact on UMFUS operation below 28.35 GHz.^[75] Additionally, should parties have concerns about specific applications for ESIMs use, they can be addressed as part of the public comment review process for each ESIM application filed before the Commission. Before granting any of these applications, the possible need to require more stringent limits than those in § 25.202(f), even for ESIM operations with NGSO FSS space stations above 28.4 GHz, can be considered and addressed as appropriate.

Several commenters believe that the use of the term “primary” to describe the status of communications of ESIMs with NGSO FSS satellites in these six bands is potentially confusing because of the need of such communications to protect GSO FSS operations.^[76] We clarify here and in the new paragraph (c) to footnote NG527A, that NGSO ESIMs operations in these bands are on an unprotected, non-interference basis only with respect to GSO FSS operations. As Intelsat correctly states, we do not propose to elevate the NGSO protection status vis-à-vis GSO operations.^[77] Rather, communications of ESIMs with NGSO FSS satellites is an application in the FSS,^[78] which has a primary allocation in these bands.^[79] The rules for communications of ESIMs with both NGSO and GSO satellites maintain the existing protection status offered to GSO operations vis-à-vis NGSO operations, which is articulated in the proposed revision to footnote NG527A. In other words, NGSO ESIM operations will be provided the same protections, and have the same obligations, as NGSO FSS already possesses. This includes the obligation for NGSO FSS to protect GSO FSS—including GSO FSS communications to ESIMs—in these frequency bands under part 25 of the Commission's rules.^[80]

Some commenters noted the Commission used the term “harmful interference” in some contexts and “unacceptable interference” in the NPRM.^[81] The specific obligation on NGSO FSS operations is that they do not cause unacceptable interference to GSO FSS networks.^[82] We believe that “unacceptable interference” is the appropriate term to use here.^[83] To the extent that “harmful interference” was used elsewhere in the ESIMs NGSO NPRM, we clarify that there was no intent to alter the “unacceptable interference” obligation.

18.8-19.3 GHz and 28.6-29.1 GHz.—The Commission proposed to allow ESIMs to communicate with NGSO FSS systems on a primary basis in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth), and the 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands. In these bands, there are no terrestrial allocations, and GSO FSS operations are secondary with respect to NGSO FSS. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on adding a new paragraph (e) to footnote NG527A to indicate that ESIMs can operate both with a GSO FSS space station and with NGSO FSS systems in these two frequency bands, but that GSO FSS operations in these bands must not cause unacceptable interference to, or claim protection from, NGSO FSS networks.^[84] We adopt this proposal.

Boeing and other commenters support this proposal.^[85] Boeing asserts that the Commission already appropriately treats ESIMs as a permitted application of FSS, employing the same frequency allocation and protection rights as FSS.^[86] Hughes, on the other hand, supports permitting NGSO ESIM operation in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands, not on a primary basis as the Commission proposes, but “with a status equal to that of any GSO operation that takes place in the frequency band.” ^[87] Hughes notes that, to date, the Commission has authorized use of these bands by GSO FSS on a secondary basis with respect to communications between NGSO systems and fixed earth stations, and that Hughes has successfully entered into coordination agreements with several NGSO system operators to utilize these frequency bands in its GSO satellite networks, with the expectation that coordination would require analysis only of networks with fixed earth stations.^[88] According to Hughes, allowing NGSO ESIMs to operate on a primary basis would complicate the ability of GSO licensees to seek coordination agreements with NGSO systems that will allow these frequency bands to be used with maximum efficiency.^[89] Therefore, Hughes argues the Commission should permit all GSO operations and ESIM NGSO operations to have equal status, with each having secondary status with respect to fixed earth stations communicating with NGSO satellites in these frequency bands.^[90]

We agree with Boeing that Hughes' proposal overreaches with respect to the appropriate regulatory treatment of ESIMs operating in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and the 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands.^[91] As Hughes acknowledges, these frequency bands constitute one of the few FSS allocations where NGSO FSS systems have priority over GSO FSS networks.^[92] Nonetheless, Hughes urges the Commission to treat ESIMs operations with NGSO FSS systems as co-equal with GSO FSS networks in this spectrum.^[93] As the Commission has stated, “limiting the primary designation in these frequency bands to NGSO FSS systems will give operators of these systems greater flexibility in the coordination discussions and ultimate deployment.” ^[94] Further, we agree with Boeing that Hughes' private agreements with certain NGSO FSS operators are immaterial to Commission policy regarding the rights of future NGSO FSS systems.^[95] Accordingly, we decline to lower the status of ESIMs communicating with NGSO FSS satellites below that of other earth stations communicating with NGSO FSS satellites.

Viasat argues that the Commission must ensure that any primary NGSO ESIM operations that may be allowed in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) band segments within the United States do not impact GSO operations outside of the United States, where GSO and NGSO systems are co-primary and are subject to ITU coordination requirements.^[96] Similarly, Hughes requests that the Commission clarify that while GSO operations are secondary to NGSO operations in the United States in these frequency bands, the services are co-primary outside the United States.^[97] As has been the Commission's policy in other situations involving operations outside the United States, ESIM operations in a NGSO FSS system licensed by the United States will: (i) Have higher status than operations in a GSO FSS satellite network licensed by the United States anywhere in the world; (ii) have higher status than operations in a GSO FSS satellite network that holds a grant to access the U.S. market only for communications to or from the U.S. territory; and (iii) be co-primary with a GSO FSS satellite network in all other cases.^[98]

In addition, CORF raises concerns regarding the Earth exploration-satellite service co-primary allocation at 18.6-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth).^[99] Specifically, CORF is concerned that NGSO ESIM operations in 18.3-18.6 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) may contaminate Earth exploration-satellite service observations, as radio interference from moving targets is even more difficult to flag and remove than interference from fixed stations.^[100] CORF also notes that increased usage of the adjacent bands may degrade this band if out-of-band emissions are not severely curtailed.^[101] CORF raised similar arguments against operation in these bands in the context of ESIM operation with GSO FSS satellites. As we noted in addressing their arguments there, CORF's concerns are not with ESIMs, which solely receive in the frequency bands that CORF identified as being of concern, but rather with the space-to-Earth transmissions of NGSO satellites, which are not the subject of this rulemaking.^[102] Therefore, as before, we note that the Commission's rules already impose specific limits on out of band emissions.

Kymeta argues for even further streamlining than the Commission has proposed.^[103] For example, in the case of existing licensees seeking to operate with NGSO satellite systems on a primary basis in the 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) band, Kymeta states that no additional technical information should be required.^[104] Further, Kymeta requests the Commission to find that for existing licensees seeking to operate with NGSO satellite systems on a primary or secondary basis in all other authorized Ku-band and Ka-band frequencies, the only additional technical showing required would be a demonstration that the ESIM complies with the equivalent power flux density up limits referenced in § 25.289. While other commenters do not oppose Kymeta's proposals as a general matter, commenters disagree about the specific technical showing that should be required.^[105] We note that such proposals are well beyond the current rulemaking. Moreover, any showing of the kind proposed by Kymeta would be more appropriately provided by the licensee of the NGSO FSS system since equivalent power flux density limits refer to the aggregate of all emissions within the system. We therefore decline to adopt Kymeta's proposals at this time.

10.7-11.7 GHz.—The Commission sought comment on allowing ESIMs to receive signals from NGSO FSS space stations in the 10.7-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) band, on an unprotected basis, with respect to transmissions from non-Federal fixed service stations. FSS and fixed service are co-primary in these frequency bands, and receive terrestrial stations are protected by existing power flux density limits on space station transmissions.^[106] Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on revising paragraph (a) of footnote NG527A to indicate that ESIMs can operate with NGSO FSS systems on an unprotected basis with regard to non-Federal fixed service in this frequency band. Many commenters support this proposal.^[107] Also, in this frequency band, NGSO FSS operations must not cause unacceptable interference to, or claim protection from, GSO FSS networks.^[108] Boeing states that the downlink transmissions from NGSO FSS satellites to ESIMs will be indistinguishable from existing NGSO FSS downlink transmissions.^[109] We agree with Boeing and find that the operation of ESIMs in this band will be indistinguishable from other NGSO FSS operations. Because the mechanisms the Commission already has in place to protect GSO FSS networks from NGSO FSS will also provide protection against NGSO ESIM operations, we adopt the revisions proposed to paragraph (a) of footnote NG527A, which will allow ESIMs to operate on an unprotected basis with regard to non-Federal fixed service in this frequency band.^[110]

CORF asserts that there is a significant risk of interference to radio astronomy observations from downlinks in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band.^[111] We agree that protection of these services is important but find that existing protections are sufficient to guard against interference to radio astronomy operations. CORF suggests protection of the primary allocation of Earth exploration-satellite service in the 10.68-10.70 GHz portion of the frequency band either through use of a guard band of 25 megahertz, so that the lowest frequency of this ESIM downlink band would be 10.725 GHz, or through use of a more stringent out-of-band emission standard for ESIM downlinks to protect Earth exploration-satellite service observations in the 10.68-10.70 GHz band.^[112] As CORF notes, however, radio astronomy service observations in the 10.6-10.7 GHz band ^[113] are already entitled to protection under the Commission's rules,^[114] as established by footnote US74, which states that “the radio astronomy service shall be protected from unwanted emissions only to the extent that such radiation exceeds the level which would be present if the offending station were operating in compliance with the technical standards or criteria applicable to the service in which it operates.” ^[115] Since our actions today do not change this balance that the rules strike, and since the question of modifying the current protection of radio astronomy observation is part of an ongoing Commission proceeding regarding out-of-band-emissions,^[116] the appropriate forum to address these requests is that proceeding. Accordingly, we decline to address those requests here. CORF also asks the Commission to include a requirement for NGSO operators transmitting in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band to coordinate with radio astronomy observatories; however, as CORF acknowledges, such a requirement is already included in footnote US131.^[117]

17.8-18.3 GHz.—The Commission sought comment on allowing ESIMs to receive signals from NGSO FSS systems on a secondary basis in the 17.8-18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) band. This frequency band is allocated to the fixed service on a primary basis and, given the FSS secondary status, ESIM receive earth stations are not entitled to protection. Protection of terrestrial operations in this band will be ensured by imposing on space station transmissions the appropriate power flux density limits.^[118] Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on adding a paragraph to footnote NG527A to indicate that ESIMs can operate on a secondary basis with regard to non-Federal fixed service in this frequency band, both with a GSO FSS space station and with NGSO FSS systems.^[119]

The ESIM Coalition and other commenters support the proposal to allow ESIMs to receive signals from NGSO FSS space stations on a secondary basis in the 17.8-18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) band, and no commenter opposed this proposal.^[120] As the Commission explained in the NGSO ESIMs NPRM,^[121] NGSO ESIMs can ensure adequate protection of terrestrial operations via compliance with the existing International Telecommunication Union power flux density limits, currently codified in the Commission's rules.^[122] Accordingly, we adopt the proposed addition of paragraph (d) to footnote NG527A.

19.3-19.4 GHz and 19.6-19.7 GHz.—The Commission sought comment on allowing ESIMs to receive signals from NGSO FSS space stations in the 19.3-19.4 GHz and 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands, on an unprotected basis, with respect to transmissions from non-Federal fixed service stations. FSS and fixed service are co-primary in these frequency bands, and receive terrestrial stations are protected by imposing the appropriate power flux density limits on space station transmissions.^[123] In addition, NGSO FSS operations must not cause unacceptable interference to, or claim protection from, GSO FSS networks.^[124] Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on revising footnote NG527A to indicate that ESIMs can operate with NGSO FSS systems in these two frequency bands on an unprotected basis with regard to non-Federal fixed service. The Commission also proposed revisions to footnote NG527A to indicate that ESIMs can operate with NGSO FSS systems in these two frequency bands, provided that NGSO FSS operations not cause unacceptable interference to, or claim protection from, GSO FSS satellite networks.^[125] Commenters support all of these proposals and raise no concerns.^[126]

Accordingly, we further revise paragraph (a) of footnote NG527(A) to state that NGSO ESIM operations in the 19.3-19.4 GHz and 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) bands may be authorized on an unprotected basis with respect to fixed service and NGSO FSS systems operating with ESIMs may be authorized on an unprotected, non-interference basis with respect to GSO FSS satellite networks.^[127]

Additional Frequency Bands

Several parties filed comments requesting that we consider including frequency bands that were not proposed in the NGSO ESIMs NPRM. Boeing states that the Commission should permit GSO and NGSO ESIMs in every frequency band that is allocated for use by FSS.^[128] SES encourages the Commission to consider NGSO ESIMs matters as part of any future proceeding developing service rules for “V-band” FSS in the 37.5-52.4 GHz range of frequencies.^[129] Other commenters ask that the Commission authorize NGSO systems to support ESIMs in additional space-to-Earth frequency bands including 12.2-12.7 GHz, and throughout the V-band.^[130] While some other parties join these proposals, other commenters oppose them.^[131] For example, Iridium strongly objects to proposals to include the 19.4-19.6 GHz and the 29.1-29.5 GHz bands, arguing that these bands are beyond the scope of this proceeding.^[132] MDS Operations argues that allowing NGSO ESIM links in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band would create insurmountable coordination challenges for incumbent licensees.^[133] The MVDDS 5G Coalition concurs.^[134] Specifically, they assert that ensuring that the 12.2-12.7 GHz band remains free of ESIMs communications with NGSO FSS satellites would protect in-band terrestrial services and preserve the possibility of future two-way mobile 5G services.^[135] CTIA asserts that permitting ESIM operations in the UMFUS bands would be inconsistent with the carefully calibrated framework the Commission adopted in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding,^[136] which allows for limited siting of new earth stations under very specific rules.^[137]

These additional frequency bands were not included in this proceeding, and the record is insufficient for us to consider use of these bands for ESIMs communications with NGSO FSS satellites. Moreover, allowing ESIMs to transmit in the UMFUS bands would be inconsistent with the Commission's decisions adopted in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding. Accordingly, we decline to include these additional frequency bands in the rules adopted in this proceeding.

Blanket Licensing

In the NGSO ESIMs NPRM, the Commission proposed extending blanket licensing for communications of ESIMs with NGSO FSS systems since such licensing would be limited to frequency bands in which NGSO FSS systems have a primary status or have been found to be able to operate on a secondary or non-conforming basis without causing interference to primary users of those bands. The Commission sought comment on extending blanket licensing to ESIMs operating with NGSO FSS space stations in all the frequency bands being proposed here for ESIM NGSO operation.

Commenters were uniformly supportive of blanket licensing.^[138] Commenters argue that blanket licensing would be more efficient than individually licensing ESIM terminals,^[139] and that individual licensing is only necessary to facilitate site-by-site coordination, which is not needed for terminals in-motion, which employ technical means to operate on a shared basis with other spectrum users.^[140] In the past, the Commission has granted blanket licenses to ESIMs communicating with GSO FSS satellites for each specific type of ESIM-Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft- concluding that blanket licensing would be far more effective and administratively efficient than employing an individual licensing approach for these types of earth stations.^[141] We find that the proposed blanket licensing does not pose any increased risk of harmful interference and that the reasons that blanket licensing is appropriate for communications of these terminals with GSO FSS satellites applies equally to communications of such terminals with NGSO FSS systems. Accordingly, we conclude that blanket licensing is appropriate for communications of ESIMs with NGSO FSS satellites and adopt this proposal.^[142]

Implementing Rule Revisions

In the paragraphs below, we address other changes to our rules, in addition to those discussed above in connection with the frequency bands being proposed for NGSO FSS ESIM operation. The Commission sought comment on these changes, and on any other revisions necessary to implement the ESIM NGSO FSS operations described here.^[143]

Section 25.202. The Commission sought comment on amending the list of frequencies available to ESIMs in § 25.202(a)(8), (a)(10), and (a)(11) to reflect changes made in this Report and Order to frequency bands in which ESIMs can communicate with NGSO FSS satellites.^[144] Other than the objections to the 28.35-28.6 GHz band discussed above, there were no objections to this change, and we amend § 25.202, with the exception of 28.35-28.4 GHz, also taking into account the additional frequencies made available for ESIM operation with GSO FSS satellites, as specified in section III.A of this Report and Order.

Section 25.115. The Commission sought comment on changes to extend the rules adopted for GSO FSS ESIMs to NGSO FSS ESIMs, with the appropriate conforming technical changes. Specifically, comment was sought on excluding NGSO ESIMs from rules that pertain to “two-degree spacing” ^[145] for GSO FSS space stations.^[146] Comment was also sought on adding a new paragraph (o) to § 25.115 to codify these requirements for ESIMs that communicate with NGSO FSS space stations.^[147] The Commission also sought comment on changing the cross-references contained in the information requirements for earth station applications set forth in § 25.115 for earth stations communicating with GSO and NGSO FSS space stations. All commenters who addressed this issue support this approach and agree that the rules should exclude NGSO ESIMs from the application of off-axis Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) density requirements for two-degree spaced GSO FSS earth stations.^[148] We adopt these conforming revisions with a small modification to take into account that § 25.115(e)(2) is limited to GSO FSS earth stations.

Finally, the Commission's Ka-band Plan has a secondary designation for NGSO FSS operations in the 29.5-30.0 GHz band, as described in the NGSO FSS Order.^[149] The licensing provisions in § 25.115(f) adopted in the NGSO FSS Order, however, inadvertently omitted the 29.5-30.0 GHz band.^[150] In the NGSO ESIMS NPRM, the Commission proposed to correct this omission and proposed to extend the provisions of § 25.115(f) to the 29.5-30.0 GHz band. Commenters did not address this specific point. We adopt the revision to correct the omission consistent with the Ka-band Plan as previously adopted by the Commission.

Section 25.228. Section 25.228 contains requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), that codify the two-degree spacing requirements for ESIMs communicating with GSO FSS satellite networks, but the paragraphs are not specifically worded to apply only to such ESIMs. The Commission sought comment on adopting revisions to clarify that these paragraphs apply only to ESIMs communicating with GSO FSS satellite networks.^[151]

Intelsat notes that the proposed changes may have been interpreted differently by different commenters,^[152] and Kepler states that further clarification may be necessary because of the separate purposes these rules address.^[153] Despite this disagreement, commenters are uniformly concerned that the proposed revision eliminates the NGSO ESIM self-monitoring and network monitoring and control requirements,^[154] and many commenters argue against adding language specifying that § 25.228(a), (b), and (c) are GSO-specific. The ESIM Coalition, for example, believes ESIM terminal self-monitoring and network control and monitoring center requirements are essential to ensuring operations are conducted in accordance with applicable license provisions, consistent with the ESIM rules, and without causing interference to other satellite and earth station operations. They argue that there is no basis to treat GSO FSS and NGSO FSS ESIMs differently with respect to these important requirements.^[155] Eutelsat concurs, stating this revision appears to suggest elimination of self-monitoring and network control and monitoring center requirements for NGSO FSS ESIMs.

We agree with these concerns. Therefore, we adopt modified language to ensure that GSO and NGSO FSS ESIM operators comply with the same general monitoring and control requirements, and limit applicability to GSO ESIMs only for § 25.228(a). Specifically, to confirm the applicability of §§ 25.228(b) and 25.228(c) to both GSO and NGSO FSS ESIMs, we do not include the word “GSO” in the initial sentence, and include clauses specifically applicable to GSO and NGSO in the remaining text of the rule.^[156] We agree with commenters that there should be parity between the GSO and NGSO ESIM self-monitoring and network monitoring and control requirements.^[157] We also agree with commenters that self-monitoring and network monitoring and control requirements are necessary to ensure operations are in accordance with the Commission's rules and licensing conditions.^[158]

Relatedly, we note that the adoption of the § 25.228 rules in the GSO ESIMs Report & Order and FNPRM inadvertently created an inconsistency with regard to network control and monitoring centers for Earth Stations on Vessels.^[159] Specifically, in that decision, the Commission adopted § 25.228(e)(1) which states, in part, that Earth Stations on Vessels operators must control Earth Stations on Vessels by a network control and monitoring center located in the United States, but it fails to include the option of using an equivalent facility, as § 25.228's paragraph (c) does for ESIMs.^[160] Because Earth Stations on Vessels are a type of ESIM, and because § 25.228(c) as adopted in the GSO ESIM R&O already provided that “[e]ach ESIM must be monitored and controlled by a network control and monitoring center (NCMC) or equivalent facility,” the addition of “equivalent facility” to the language in § 25.228(e)(1) simply conforms the two provisions of the rules in accordance with the GSO ESIM Report & Order.^[161] Therefore, we fix that inconsistency here by adding the phrase “or equivalent facility” (which appears in § 25.228(c)) to § 25.228(e)(1), to state that Earth Stations on Vessels operators must control all Earth Stations on Vessels by a network control and monitoring center or equivalent facility located in the United States.^[162]

Kepler argues that further clarification may be required on how various systems should operate their ESIMs, and in particular notes that a satellite network need not be controlled in “real-time” from a network control and monitoring center, but may instead rely either on Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) or predetermined rules in order to mitigate interference as it relates to aggregate EIRP.^[163] Kepler further asserts that while this does not preclude the requirement for a network control and monitoring center, it should be clarified that operations without bent-pipe architecture may implement alternate safety measures, and could use the satellite itself as an “equivalent facility.” ^[164] Although we agree that technology may evolve to such a point in the future, we find that such a discussion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Paragraph (j) of § 25.228 is explicitly limited to ESIMs transmitting to GSO FSS satellites, and the Commission sought comment on revising the language of the rule to apply to Ku-band ESIMs communicating with NGSO FSS space stations as well.^[165] Additionally, in the 14.0-14.2 GHz (Earth-to-space) band, there is a secondary allocation to the Space Research service. In order to ensure compatibility with Space Research operations, the Commission sought comment on modifying § 25.228(j) to extend to NGSO FSS systems conditions that currently apply to ESIM operation with GSO FSS space stations.^[166] CORF asserts that since radio astronomy observatories are just as vulnerable to interference from NGSO uplinks as from GSO uplinks, the Commission should modify the text of § 25.228(j) to apply the same coordination requirement to NGSO operators.^[167] Viasat agrees with the Commission and CORF that such a requirement would be reasonable.^[168] We adopt the revision.

Section 25.103. Consistent with these changes, the Commission proposed to amend the definitions of Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft in § 25.103, which restrict communications to “geostationary-orbit FSS space stations.” ^[169] Pursuant to what was described above, Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft would also be permitted to operate in NGSO FSS systems. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on removing the word “geostationary-orbit” from these definitions. No commenters objected to this change, and we adopt it herein.

Additional conforming changes. Pursuant to changes to part 25 of the Commission's rules in another proceeding,^[170] we take this opportunity to eliminate cross-references to § 25.223, which has been removed and reserved. Specifically, we delete the cross references in §§ 25.103, Routine processing or licensing, 25.115(g)(1)(vii), and 25.209(f).^[171] Further, we add text in § 25.218(a) and (j) to incorporate the 24.75-25.25 GHz band that had been included in the now reserved § 25.138.^[172]

Additionally, we take this opportunity to harmonize the language of the revisions to § 25.115(l)(3)(i)-(n)(3)(i) adopted in the GSO ESIMs Report & Order and FNPRM with the text of that decision.^[173] Specifically, in the GSO ESIMs Report & Order and FNPRM, we stated that § 25.115(l)(3)(i)-(n)(3)(i) would require all applicants to “provide a certification that the ESIM system is capable of detecting and automatically ceasing emissions when an individual ESIM transmitter exceeds the relevant off-axis EIRP spectral density limits specified in § 25.218, or the limits provided to the target satellite operator for operation under § 25.220.”^[174] However, in the text of the rules, we stated that an application would need to certify that “an individual ESIM transmitter ” meets these requirements.^[175] The revisions here conform the text of the rule to the language of the Order regarding “systems,” and therefore they are editorial and non-substantive changes.^[176]

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), the Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) on the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules was addressed in this Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 17-95 and Report and Order in IB Docket No. 18-315,. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 17-95 and Report and Order in IB Docket 18-315, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that these rules are non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 17-95 and Report and Order in IB Docket 18-315 and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ordering Clauses

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 this Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 17-95 and Report and Order in IB Docket No. 18-315 Is Adopted, the policies, rules, and requirements discussed herein Are Adopted, and parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's rules Are Amended as set forth in Appendix B.

It Is Further Ordered that the rules and requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 17-95 and Report and Order in IB Docket No. 18-315 Will Become Effective 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

It Is Further Ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Shall Send a copy of this Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 17-95 and Report and Order in IB Docket No. 18-315 and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

It Is Further Ordered that the Commission, Shall Send a copy of this Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 17-95 and Report and Order in IB Docket No. 18-315 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 2

• Radio
• Table of frequency allocations

47 CFR Part 25

• Administrative practice and procedure
• Earth stations
• Satellites

Final Rules

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

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as follows:

a. Pages 52 and 53 are revised.

b. In the list of Non-Federal Government (NG) footnotes, footnote NG527A is revised.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

PART 25—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

4. Amend § 25.103 by revising the definitions of “Earth Station on Vessel,” “Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft,” “Routine processing or licensing,” and “Vehicle-Mounted Earth Station” to read as follows:

4. Amend § 25.115 by revising paragraphs (f), (g)(1)(vii), (l)(3)(i), (m)(3)(i), and (n)(3)(i), and adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:

5. Amend § 25.202 by revising paragraph (a)(8), adding paragraphs (a)(10)(i) and (ii) and by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(11) as follows:

6. Amend § 25.209 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

7. Amend § 25.218 by revising paragraphs (a) and (j) to read as follows:

8. Amend § 25.228 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e)(1), and paragraph (j) introductory text to read as follows:

Footnotes