The FCC has adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to overhaul the rules governing satellite space and earth stations. The intent of these changes is broadly deregulatory, proposing to shift these rules from Part 25, located in a larger section of the regulations with rules pertaining to highly regulated common carrier services, to a new Part 100, which is in a section of the rules relating to more lightly regulated wireless services. Comments on these proposals will be due on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 with Reply Comments due on Wednesday, February 18, 2026.
The Commission notes that with increasing “application volume and highly complex, non-traditional systems, the Commission’s framework has resulted in slow decision timelines and unpredictable outcomes.” The NPRM sets forth among its key goals increasing processing speed, providing more predictability to applicants, and offering more flexibility for innovation. The FCC seeks to focus its licensing review on analysis of four key considerations: (1) harmful interference, (2) spectrum efficiency, (3) space safety, and (4) foreign ownership. It anticipates changing the application process largely to a modular, self-certification approach, allowing FCC staff to employ what it calls a “licensing assembly line,” aiming “to set the stage for increasing automation over time,” ultimately including the use of artificial intelligence.
Updated Application Forms
All facilities applications would be restructured into a modular format, allowing applicants to certify compliance with the rules while minimizing the need for lengthy explanatory narratives. In addition, entities would be able to complete the FCC Form 312, Main Form, with basic contact and ownership information without immediately seeking any authorization. Multiple applications could then be associated with a single Form 312 completed by the applicant. The Main Form would remain largely the same, but the Commission proposes to expand current ownership disclosures by requiring every applicant, including all earth station applicants, to disclose information about individuals or entities holding a 10% or greater ownership interest in the entity, as well as information concerning officers and directors. Given these enhanced disclosures, the Commission asks whether it should require a certification by an officer “to better ensure that the information is complete, consistent, and accurate.”
Space Station Applications
Schedule S of the application for space networks would be replaced by separate schedules for Orbital Elements (Schedule O) and Frequency Elements (Schedule F). These same forms would be used not only for geostationary (GSO) and non-geostationary (NGSO) satellite networks and multi-orbit combinations of these types of systems (MOSS) but also for a new class of “Variable Trajectory Spacecraft Systems” (VTSS), a grouping that includes in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing operations, orbit transfer vehicles, lunar missions, and other missions beyond geosynchronous orbit or to other celestial bodies. VTSS would be defined as one or more spacecraft operating under a single call sign either “beyond the geosynchronous orbit or operating without fixed or predictable orbital patterns over the course of its lifetime.” In addition, the definition of a GSO satellite system would be clarified to include under a single call sign “one or more geostationary-orbit satellites operating together at a single location” (emphasis added).
Given the overall streamlining of the application process, the Commission proposes to eliminate the current separate rules for small spacecraft and small satellite systems. Alternatively, it seeks comment on whether it should continue to distinguish a small satellite system from an NGSO satellite system, potentially revising the definition to apply to any NGSO system of ten or fewer satellites under a certain mass limit, and it asks whether it would then make sense to retain the current, shorter six-year license term for such systems.
In Schedule O requiring orbital information, applicants would provide either: (1) affirmative certifications of compliance with FCC rules serving the public interest, including orbital debris criteria such as acceptable collision risk, human casualty risk and end-of-life disposal, or (2) an acknowledgement of the need for a waiver of certain FCC requirements. Each type of network would involve certification of adherence to requirements specific to it.
VTSS applicants would need to submit information about the number of spacecraft for which they seek authority, the range of altitudes at which they will operate, and the anticipated amount of time the space station(s) are expected to operate in any particular phase of a mission. Applicants planning to conduct servicing missions or otherwise interact with other on-orbit spacecraft would be required to certify that proposed operations have the consent of the client and would need to submit a list of FCC file numbers or call signs related to the operations or, alternatively, a list of ITU filings or United Nations registration information for any space stations not authorized by the FCC. Applicants would also have to provide a statement disclosing planned proximity operations and addressing any potential for in-service debris generation and compliance with the relevant end-of-life disposal rules for the orbit at which they will terminate operations.
Schedule F will consolidate all information related to frequency use, including certifications of compliance with all applicable technical rules, ITU coordination procedures and agreements, and the capability immediately to cease transmissions to eliminate harmful interference.
To obtain U.S. market access, a petition by the space segment operator would be required as the Commission proposes to eliminate market access requests via earth station licensing. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether to prohibit applicants who seek registration by the United States under the international Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space from obtaining or maintaining a U.S. market access authorization and instead requiring those entities to hold an FCC space station license.
Earth Station Applications
The biggest change in earth station licensing would be a shift from predominantly site-by-site licensing to a system allowing authorizations for a “Nationwide, Non-Site License” covering a new class of “Immovable Earth Stations” for operations that require no waivers or other exceptions. Once such a license is granted, a licensee would be required to register individual sites, and to coordinate with other federal and/or non-federal spectrum users where required. Prior to operation, the licensee would be required to certify and/or demonstrate compliance with any location- or frequency- specific rules that might apply. All applications requiring a waiver or an exception, other than for federal coordination, would still be required to file a site-specific license earth station application. Site-specific license applications would continue to be required to show completion of all required coordination.
The Commission also seeks comment on alternative approaches to coordination compliance for nationwide licensees. It asks whether it should instead allow licensees to commence operation at registered sites on an unprotected/non-interference basis while coordination is occurring but then require the filing of either a coordination report or a certification upon completion of coordination. It also asks whether it might adopt this self-certification approach only for certain frequency bands (for example, excluding bands shared with federal government users). Alternatively, the Commission could require only that certifying applicants provide evidence of coordination in response to an FCC request. The FCC also inquires whether, if shared federal bands are included in conditional authority (as further explained below), the FCC should provide a point of contact at NTIA as part of the conditional grant, and if federal coordination should then be eliminated as an exception to expedited processing.
Earth station applicants would continue to file FCC Form 312 Schedule B, with applicants providing transmitting power, out-of-band emissions, and other power information, and certifying that they will operate within the FCC’s rules. However, the Commission also asks whether it should instead require only a compliance certification. Rather than applying radiofrequency exposure requirements to all earth station applicants, the Commission proposes to require this information only for user terminal and Earth Stations in Motion applications.
Improved Processing Timelines
The Commission proposes several changes to increase processing speed for space station and earth station applications. It establishes an initial 30-day review period during which it will determine whether each application is “complete” and whether it is subject to expedited or standard processing. An application will be considered “complete” “if, under the relevant rule section(s), all required information, forms, certifications, and showings are included in the application.”
To facilitate speedy review, the FCC would require that application fees be paid immediately upon filing, eliminating the grace period that has previously applied. At the end of this 30-day period, the Commission would be required either to place the application on public notice or, if the application is incomplete, send the applicant a single request for all information needed to complete the filing.
Complete applications would be eligible for expedited processing if they: (1) meet the applicable certification criteria; (2) do not request waivers; and (3) are not subject to one of the proposed “exceptions” to expedited processing (these exceptions are identified below), which includes applications for facilities in the broadcasting or common carrier services. Once the initial review is complete, an application eligible for expedited processing would be placed on public notice for seven days.
The Commission proposes that applications placed on a seven-day public notice would be given conditional authority to operate on a non-interference, unprotected basis either: (1) upon placement on public notice, if the operations require no coordination with other users or, in shared frequency bands, have already been coordinated, or (2) once the public notice period has expired, if no petitions or adverse comments are received. The Commission notes that conditional authority would likely significantly reduce the number of requests for special temporary authority (STA). Operations under a conditional grant would be at the operator’s risk and would not guarantee a final grant, though in most instances a grant would be expected soon after the end of the notice period. For space segment operations, operators would be permitted to launch under a conditional grant only with express Commission authorization.
For space network licenses, the Commission also proposes to allow applicants to defer filing of their orbital debris showing and receive a conditional authorization subject to filing of a complete orbital debris mitigation plan. Applicants electing this option could file an application without providing certifications or supporting materials related to orbital debris, but with a certification that the operational satellite system will comply with all orbital debris rules and the requirements of Schedule O. The conditionally authorized applicant would then be required to submit a compliant orbital debris mitigation plan no later than six months prior to integration of satellites into a launch vehicle. A conditionally authorized applicant unable to submit a fully compliant proposal would be required to file an application for license modification with the effect that the conditional grant would be rendered null and void.
For most applications with an identified exception, the FCC would place complete applications on public notice for a 15-day period. These are applications for which one or more exceptions from expedited processing apply, including the inability to affirmatively certify to full compliance with all applicable rules, a request for waiver, foreign ownership, participation in an NGSO processing round, constraints on spectrum availability, required federal coordination, or a petition for market access. In most of these cases, the burden will be on the applicant to provide a showing that grant of the authority requested would be in the public interest. For example, under the Spectral Constraint exception, there may be a need for interference analyses from the applicant so that the Commission can determine whether it is technically feasible for a system to operate in certain frequency bands while protecting other operators.
A small number of applicants (direct broadcast satellite providers and other applications in a broadcasting service or designated as common carrier services) would continue to be subject to the 30-day public notice period required for such applications under Section 309(b) of the Communications Act.
To facilitate timely review and to increase transparency, the Commission proposes to notify applicants of any or all exceptions still undergoing Commission review if full action has not been taken within 60 days after the end of the public comment period.
Consistent with the timelines above, the Commission proposes that any petition to deny or other opposition to an application subject to expedited processing would need to be received by the Commission within seven days after public notice (as opposed to 30 days under the current rules). The draft rules make plain that in other instances, such oppositions would be due within 15 or 30 days depending on the public notice period. However, the NPRM then creates some confusion by stating more generally that a reply in response to such an opposition would need to be “filed within five days after the expiration of the time for filing oppositions.” This would differ from the current rules which provide that the original applicant may oppose comments or a petition to deny within ten days, and that the original petitioner commenter then has five days to reply. It is not clear whether the Commission intended to eliminate this reply right, as the NPRM goes on to state that the “proposed rules only allow reply comments to be filed by the party that filed a petition to deny.” The Commission will need to sort out in response to commenters whether it intends to eliminate either the applicant’s or the petitioner’s existing pleading rights or if, as is more likely, it intends for both the applicant to respond and for the petitioner to reply within appropriate time periods based on the initial public notice period. The Commission also proposes to require any party submitting any pleading in opposition after the public notice period to seek leave to file, whereas previously a late-filing party could submit an informal objection at any time without seeking approval to do so.
Changes to Space Station Processing Rounds
Since the inception of the use of space station processing rounds, now applicable only to NGSO space networks, the Commission has left it to potential applicants to file a new application requesting particular frequency bands, which then triggers a “cut-off” notice soliciting other applications to use the same frequencies. In the NPRM, it proposes fundamentally altering this approach. Going forward, the Commission plans to determine in advance of each calendar year whether to open a new processing round in available NGSO frequency bands. The FCC seeks comment on whether the Commission should request public input during the prior year on which bands to open for a processing round for the following year or simply designate bands at its own discretion, and how far in advance of year-end the selected bands should be announced.
For each frequency band designated to have a new processing round, the Commission proposes to open a new round automatically on January 1 at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time and close it ten months later on October 31 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, but it seeks comment on whether a shorter window would be appropriate, such as three or six months. Applications granted during the same band-specific processing round in a given year would have the same priority status. The Commission believes this approach would allow it to process applications “in a way that retains the benefits and intent of processing rounds while mitigating the delays that result from the current processing round framework.” As a general rule, applicants seeking to operate fewer than 200 satellites would not be required to apply during a processing round but could nonetheless seek to be included.
Under the proposed annual processing round framework, NGSO system applicants that request to operate in multiple frequency bands would be placed in the corresponding processing round for each frequency band. The remaining frequency bands requested, if any, that are not subject to a designated processing round would be considered under the new expedited processing procedures unless an exception to such processing applies.
Changes to Other Applications
The Commission proposes some changes to the treatment of application amendments and the criteria for designating such amendments as “major,” a classification that requires the application to be treated as if it were newly filed and triggers a new public notice period. In addition to existing revisions considered major (generally a change that could increase the potential for interference to other spectrum users), an amendment would be deemed a major amendment if it would result in the application falling under an exception to expedited processing as outlined above. For non-blanket licensed, site-specific earth stations, an amendment would be classified as “major” if it proposes a change of more than 10 seconds in latitude or longitude from the location requested in the application. The proposal also provides that major amendments may not be filed more than 45 days after the date of filing of an initial application, unless the Commission directs otherwise, and would be automatically dismissed if filed after that date. Alternatively, the Commission asks whether major amendments should simply be limited to the time prior to the application being placed on public notice.
The Commission also proposes changes to the types of license modifications requiring FCC approval, suggesting that it would permissively allow operators to make changes to their authorized system and operations so long as the changes do not explicitly fall into the categories of a major or minor modification. The Commission states that it generally wants operators to be able to increase transmission capacity and improve spectral efficiency with minimal regulatory barriers. Any changes categorized as major, including all involving exceptions to expedited processing identified above, would continue to require prior approval, while specified minor modifications would fall into categories requiring either pre- or post-modification notice. Among the minor modifications that might potentially require only post-change notice are the following:
The Commission also asks whether it would be appropriate to use modifications to handle situations where one spacecraft transfers a hosted space station to another spacecraft, and whether the “offloading” step should require only notice while the “onloading” step might require a major modification.
With the proposed conditional grants and proposed additional license modifications that may be permitted without Commission approval, the Commission believes that operators will have less need for special temporary authorizations (STAs) “beyond actual short-term use or emergency situations.” The proposed rules provide that an application for 60-day earth station STA (no public notice required) that is not subject to federal coordination requirements will be deemed granted on an unprotected, non-interference basis upon filing and fee payment. This change should substantially streamline the process and remove the need for repeated STA filings. At the same time, the rules drafted alter existing FCC practice by providing that STAs will not be considered activity “of a continuing nature” and therefore will not allow continued operations during the pendency of a renewal/extension request, although the conditional authority provisions should largely substitute for the prior approach.
In consideration of these proposed revisions, the Commission also proposes allowing only two types of STAs (60 days and 180 days) and limiting applicants to a single 60-day STA without public notice (although the proposed rules do not fully reflect this change). The NPRM inquires whether the Communications Act places any limits on the Commission with respect to this or other STA changes, and that may be the case with this proposal. While the Act does not expressly require that 30-day STAs be available, Section 309(c)(2)(G) states that an STA of up to 30 days may be granted “where no application for regular operation is contemplated to be filed” and limits STAs of up to 60 days to those filed “pending the filing of an application for … regular operation.” Accordingly, for typical short-term or emergency situations, the Communications Act may necessitate that the FCC maintain the option of granting STAs of 30 days or less.
The Commission proposes that earth station renewal applications that include all required certifications and do not request a waiver will be deemed granted 30 days after filing and fee payment unless the Commission notifies the applicant otherwise prior to the 30th day.
The Commission also proposes to allow prospective applicants greater flexibility to submit ITU filings to the Commission without requiring an underlying space station application. It seeks comment on how long it should maintain such ITU submissions without an underlying application being filed (proposing four years) or whether the filing entity should simply lose the ability to use the ITU filing if it fails to submit an application within that time period. It also seeks comment on whether it should permit pre-grant ITU filings for Part 5 experimental space station licenses, and if this approach should include operations in bands shared with federal operations provided the applicant obtains consent from NTIA.
Licensing Changes
Currently, most space and earth station licenses have 15-year terms, except where shorter durations are requested. The Commission now proposes establishing a standard 20-year license term for these authorizations, applicable to all grants after the effective date of the rules (with the exception of satellite radio and direct broadcast satellite authorizations, which will continue to have shorter terms). For space station licenses, the license term would commence on the grant date rather than requiring notice of commencement of operations, as is currently the case. Existing license terms would not be updated.
The Commission also notes that there is no current term for market access grants and proposes adopting a 15- or 20-year license term for these authorizations. It inquires whether there are additional requirements that should be imposed on market access grantees. For example, the Commission could require a periodic certification that grantees continue to hold a license from their authorizing administration, and/or the ITU, and that they continue to provide service to end-users in the U.S. market.
In addition, the Commission proposes significant changes to its milestone and surety bond requirements. It proposes to eliminate milestones for GSO licenses. For NGSO licenses and market access grants, it proposes to align its milestones with the ITU’s required deployment benchmarks. Authorized NGSO networks would need to deploy at least one satellite no later than seven years after grant, 10% of the authorized satellites no later than nine years after grant, 50% of the authorized satellites within twelve years of grant, and the remainder of the authorized satellites within fourteen years after grant. In cases where the Commission grants more than one space station authorization for the same system in different stages, the earliest of the milestone schedules would be applied to the entire system as is the current practice. The Commission does not propose imposing any milestones on VTSS licenses.
The Commission also proposes reducing its use of surety bonds and establishing different criteria for the required bond amounts, reducing the amount of the bond as system deployment progresses. For NGSO networks, the Commission proposes to limit the surety bond requirement to licensees with 200 or more authorized satellites in one system, excluding replacements. NGSO networks with fewer than 200 satellites would be exempt unless they apply to be considered within a processing round. VTSS applicants would also not be required to post bonds. The Commission sees “little benefit to adding the cost of a bond to systems for which no particular priority is provided and for which there is likely to be no material preclusion of other systems in terms of resources.”
The Commission proposes to shift the approach to the surety bond formula back to a deescalating bond calculation from the escalating approach that has applied since 2016. It proposes two separate bond calculations – one applicable to NGSO space station licensees with 200 or more authorized satellites and one applicable to NGSO space stations authorized within a processing round with fewer than 200 satellites. These formulae are as follows, in which B is the bond amount, D is the number of satellites deployed, and A is the number of satellites authorized –
The Commission also suggests that it could permit NGSO licensees and market access grantees with existing grants to request replacement of their existing milestone schedule and bond obligation with the new schedule and obligation, as it did when changes to these requirements were adopted in 2016.
Improved Space Bureau Accountability and Transparency
The Commission states that, to enhance accountability and transparency, it intends to require the Space Bureau to report once a year, in December, on the status of all pending space station and earth station applications. The Space Bureau would issue a public notice detailing the total number of pending applications, as well as the percentage of applications that have been pending for specific time periods, for example, less than 30 days, 31-60 days, 61-90 days, 91-120 days, 121-150 days, 151-180 days, and more than 180 days.
Operational and Technical Requirements
With respect to operational and technical requirements, the Commission’s proposals are principally directed to reorganizing them into a single subpart of the rules with additional subdivisions for specific service categories. For the most part, the changes are not substantive but instead are intended to improve clarity and ease of use. The revisions focus on modernizing the overall framework with the expectation that additional rulemaking proceedings will seek to further update the rules now being proposed.
To promote flexibility, the Commission proposes authorizing all satellite operators to transmit in connection with orbit-raising maneuvers and to allow NGSO licensees to engage in orbit-raising maneuvers without Commission approval. It also proposes a revision to the requirement for two-degree spacing of GSO space stations so that it applies only to operations to and from the United States. The NPRM states that applying the two-degree spacing requirement more broadly may risk disadvantaging U.S. licensed operators in designing advanced GSO space station systems vis-à-vis non-U.S. licensed operators or may inhibit beneficial coordination outcomes internationally. Instead, it proposes that GSO operations outside the U.S. comply with ITU coordinated parameters rather than be restricted to the two-degree spacing.
The Commission proposes that all space station operators file their ephemeris data via Space-Track, or with the 18th Space Control Squadron, or with one or more Space Systems Awareness (SSA) service providers that would be identified by the Space Bureau. The Commission asks whether it also might require that ephemeris data specifically be made available to all other satellite operators at shared altitudes, as well as in shared frequency bands, through an appropriate SSA provider. Separately, it asks whether a VTSS applicant that declines to share propagated ephemeris and covariance data in its application should instead be allowed to submit a completed agreement with a government agency approving its space safety plan.
With respect to orbital debris mitigation, the Commission largely relies on incorporating the existing Part 25 rules into Part 100 and imposing affirmative compliance obligations for operators to maintain their systems in accordance with their orbital debris mitigation and end-of-life disposal plans. Applicants would be required to notify the Commission of any significant changes in their orbital debris showings within 30 days of the change.
The NPRM also includes a proposal for the submission of orbital debris-related semi-annual reports by NGSO operators, commencing upon launch of their initial satellites. These reports would detail the number of conjunction events identified, including the number of events resulting in maneuver or coordination with other operators, the number of satellites removed from operation or screened from further deployment, and the number of satellites that re-entered the atmosphere. These semi-annual reports would be filed by January 1 and July 1 of each year, covering the preceding period from June 1 to November 30 and December 1 to May 31, respectively.
Also proposed is more specific language for procedures to be followed in the event of harmful interference, as follows: “An earth station operator experiencing harmful interference must determine that the interference is not a result of equipment fault and that the source of the harmful interference is not from another earth station operating in the same network or from a terrestrial source. The earth station operator shall then contact the satellite system control center and advise the satellite operator of the problem. The control center operator shall observe the interference incident and make reasonable efforts to determine the source of the problem. A record shall be maintained by the control center operator and the earth station operator of all harmful interference incidents and their resolution. These records shall be made available to an FCC representative on request.”
Finally, the Commission proposes to add a definition of “Replacement Satellite” to mean “[a] satellite that is authorized to operate in the same frequency bands and with the same coverage area as the satellite to be replaced, at an orbital location within 0.15° of the assigned location of a GSO satellite to be replaced or in the authorized orbit of an existing NGSO satellite to be replaced, and that is scheduled to be launched so that it will be brought into use at approximately the same time as, but no later than, the existing satellite is retired.”
Compliance
A cornerstone of the Commission’s new application and licensing approach is fostering compliance with the Commission’s rules after a license is granted, considering the increased reliance on applicant certifications as a means of improving processing efficiency. Given the importance of ensuring that licensees adhere to their compliance obligations, the Commission proposes to adopt additional non-monetary enforcement remedies.
The Commission proposes that earth station licenses would be subject to automatic termination for non-compliance with the certifications made in an Immovable Earth Station application or for any failure to meet operational, coordination, or frequency-specific rules. The Commission further suggests that it could address non-compliance through a variety of other means, including license revocation, required cessation of transmissions, placing an “authorization freeze” on the licensee (that is, no additional authorizations may be granted until an issue is resolved), or pausing launch authorization for continued deployment under an existing space network license. It also suggests that an operator with a history of “anomalous events” or other noncompliance could have even its routine applications subjected to a requirement that the applicant affirmatively demonstrate that a grant would be in the public interest.
For more information about the FCC’s proposed overhaul of the rules governing satellite space and earth stations, or if you are interested in filing comments in the proceeding, contact David Keir, Steve Berman, or Jeff Carlisle in Lerman Senter’s Satellite Practice Group.
© 2025 Lerman Senter
Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Website design by Beth Singer Design | Website development by The Modern Firm
Share