Home/Federal/Federal Register/2025-22019

Proposed Rule2025-22019

Space Modernization for the 21st Century

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

December 5, 2025

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or we) proposes to overhaul and modernize the Commission's space and earth station licensing process to help "ensure that new space-based industries, space exploration capabilities, and cutting-edge defense systems are pioneered in America rather than by our adversaries." In particular, the NPRM proposes to develop a "licensing assembly line" designed so applications can be routed along different paths and segmented for review based on specific aspects of a request. This new process would set the stage for ongoing efficiency gains and would provide greater predictability and flexibility for applicants. In this way, we expect--like actual assembly lines--that the space review processes can be dramatically accelerated while improving the quality of the Commission's space licensing work.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 232 (Friday, December 5, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 232 (Friday, December 5, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56338-56435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-22019]

[[Page 56337]]

Vol. 90

Friday,

No. 232

December 5, 2025

Part III

Federal Communications Commission

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

47 CFR Part 25

Space Modernization for the 21st Century; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 232 / Friday, December 5, 2025 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 56338]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[SB Docket No. 25-306; FCC 25-69; FR ID 319249]

Space Modernization for the 21st Century

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission or we) proposes to overhaul and
modernize the Commission's space and earth station licensing process to
help ``ensure that new space-based industries, space exploration
capabilities, and cutting-edge defense systems are pioneered in America
rather than by our adversaries.'' In particular, the NPRM proposes to
develop a ``licensing assembly line'' designed so applications can be
routed along different paths and segmented for review based on specific
aspects of a request. This new process would set the stage for ongoing
efficiency gains and would provide greater predictability and
flexibility for applicants. In this way, we expect--like actual
assembly lines--that the space review processes can be dramatically
accelerated while improving the quality of the Commission's space
licensing work.

DATES: Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are due
January 20, 2026. Reply Comments are due February 18, 2026.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by SB Docket No. 25-306,
by any of the following methods:
[ballot] FCC Website: <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
[ballot] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e282d2d5b5e5a2e080d0d40090118">[email&#160;protected]</a> or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Mahoney, 202-418-7168,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#efac8e9d80839681c1a28e8780818a96af898c8cc1888099">[email&#160;protected]</a> or Brandon Padgett, 202-418-1377,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb89b9aaa5afa4a5e59baaafacaebfbf8bada8a8e5aca4bd">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM,
FCC 25-69, adopted October 28, 2025, and released October 29, 2025. The
document is available for public inspection online at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-69A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-69A1.pdf</a>. The document is also
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca8c8989fffafe8aaca9a9e4ada5bc">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Procedural Matters

Comment Filing Requirements

Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
<bullet> Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express, must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d4b4e4e181d196d4b4e4e034a425b">[email&#160;protected]</a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice)
or TTY: 202-418-0432.
<bullet> Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS.
Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.

Ex Parte Presentations

Pursuant to Sec. 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and
comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

[[Page 56339]]

concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained
in the NPRM on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of
the Commission document, <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-69A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-69A1.pdf</a>. The Commission invites the general public, in particular
small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the
deadlines for comments indicated on the first page of this document and
must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
to the IRFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The NPRM may contain new or proposed modified information
collections. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collections
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek
specific comment on how we might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.

OPEN Government Data Act

The OPEN Government Data Act requires agencies to make ``public
data assets'' available under an open license and as ``open Government
data assets,'' i.e., in machine readable, open format, unencumbered by
use restrictions other than intellectual property rights, and based on
an open standard that is maintained by a standards organization. This
requirement is to be implemented ``in accordance with guidance by the
Director'' of the OMB. The term ``public data asset'' means ``a data
asset, or part thereof, maintained by the federal government that has
been, or may be, released to the public, including any data asset, or
part thereof, subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).'' A ``data asset'' is ``a collection of data elements or
data sets that may be grouped together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded
information, regardless of form or the media on which the data is
recorded.''

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency
Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

1. Across the United States, the space economy is booming and
American companies are building to ensure our nation leads into the
final frontier. To assure our nation's continued space leadership, the
United States must be the place where the world's space industry
builds, operates, and licenses. In a recent Executive Order, the
President set our nation on a course ``to ensure that new space-based
industries, space exploration capabilities, and cutting-edge defense
systems are pioneered in America rather than by our adversaries.'' And
the Administration has called for investments in space as a key
priority to ``assure America's continued space dominance.''
2. To achieve these goals and to be the nation of choice for space
excellence, the United States must also have a modern, efficient space
licensing system that enables innovation and exploration. That is why
with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) we are launching a
proceeding to modernize the Commission's space and earth station
licensing rules to meet the needs of the space economy for today and
tomorrow. We expect that modernizing our rules will support the vibrant
space economy so that the United States can achieve what the President
called for in his 2025 Address to Joint Session of Congress when he
said, ``We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we
are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on
the planet Mars and even far beyond. And through it all, we are going
to rediscover the unstoppable power of the American spirit, and we are
going to renew unlimited promise of the American dream.''
3. With these goals in view, our proposal in the NPRM designs a
``licensing assembly line'' to process space and earth station
applications with great efficiency and at the speed and scale required
by the 21st century space economy. Like a physical assembly line, we
seek to move standardized application materials in direct paths from
one stage of the review process to the next in a highly predictable
way. Given the nature of our licensing duties, our assembly line will
be designed so applications can be routed along different paths and
segmented for review based on specific aspects of a request. By
modernizing processes in our rules, we aim to set the stage for
increasing automation over time. In this way, we expect--like actual
assembly lines--that the space review processes can become more
efficient and dramatically accelerated while improving the quality of
the Commission's licensing work for the American people.

II. Background and Objectives

4. In the early years of the Commission's work licensing space-
based communications, the industry encompassed a small number of
entities, many of which were quasi-governmental and largely focused on
geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) deployments. In the 1990s and 2000s,
there were cycles of investment and excitement, including increased
interest in non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) systems, but many of these
proposals met financial or technical challenges. The idea of a
satellite broadband service that could fully connect rural areas and
even compete with terrestrial offerings seemed impossible. However, in
the last decade, the number of satellites launched into orbit,
particularly by private companies, has increased dramatically, seeing a
more than 10-fold increase in a decade. As a result of this increased
launch cadence and growth in satellite technology, the Commission found
that last year, the ``. . . availability data indicate that satellite
service offering 100/20 Mbps speeds is available to almost 100% of the
U.S. population.'' And beyond delivering high-speed internet service,
the commercial space industry now includes a varied array of companies
providing direct-to-device cell service, resilient enterprise and
military connectivity, Earth observation services, and novel space
activities. Innovators and explorers are embarking on lunar and
interplanetary missions and considering how to use the resources of
outer space for the good of humanity. This change and rapid growth in
the space industry has created new demands on the Commission's
resources and raised new questions about how to apply the existing
licensing framework to new satellite and earth station technologies.
5. The expansion of the space economy has resulted in significantly
more licensing activity at the Commission. The Commission received 295
space station applications and 2,684 earth station applications in
2024. In contrast, the Commission received only 124 space station
applications and 974 earth station applications in 2016. During this
time, the complexity, size, and variety of license applications has
also changed. Such rapid change in the space economy--and the resulting
demands on the Commission's existing licensing system--means our rules
and operations must be modernized to

[[Page 56340]]

match the realities of the space economy. In the face of greater
application volume and highly complex, non-traditional systems, the
Commission's framework has resulted in slow decision timelines and
unpredictable outcomes. Therefore, the time has come for the Commission
to overhaul its space licensing processes. While the Commission has
updated some of its licensing rules in recent years in response to
these changes, today we initiate the NPRM to avoid piecemeal reforms
going forward and to make the licensing process of the future fast,
predictable, and flexible.

A. Rationale for Modernizing Space Licensing

6. As we modernize the Commission's space and earth station
licensing process, we aim to align our rules with the pace, growth, and
innovation in the space economy while upholding our statutory duties.
Unnecessary regulatory burden imposed on a dynamic, early growth
industry can have substantial costs. Inefficient, slow, and costly
license processing thwarts innovation and reduces competition. Complex
and prescriptive regulation can support incumbents' lobbying against
new innovators, and highly discretionary regulation can enable
regulators to arrogate their power at the expense of the public. If
regulation prevents deployment of new space systems, consumers and
businesses must wait to realize the tangible benefits of new
innovations and services flowing from the space economy. Many satellite
systems also combine commercial and national security components, and
the costs of inefficient regulation may hinder America's defenses or
put us at a strategic disadvantage with our adversaries.
7. With the NPRM, we have four main goals: (1) to increase license
processing speed; (2) to provide more predictability to applicants and
licensees; (3) to provide more flexibility for innovation and for
licensees' operations; and (4) to faithfully meet our responsibilities.
Pursuit of these goals guides each element of our proposal as we aim to
design a system which can efficiently scale with the space economy.
These goals flow directly from the mandates in the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (Act), directing the Commission ``to make
available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States . . .
. world-wide wire and radio communications service'' and to ``encourage
the provision of new technologies and services to the public.''
Additionally, the Act provides for the regulation and licensing of
radio communications, including satellite communications, for the
purpose of national defense and in service of the ``public convenience,
interest, or necessity.'' We believe these statutory mandates strongly
support our goals of greater speed, predictability, and flexibility in
the space and earth station licensing process to promote the wide
availability and proliferation of communications and new technologies
for the public.
8. Therefore, we direct our space licensing review toward a clear
and limited set of concerns when determining if granting a license will
serve the ``public convenience, interest, or necessity.'' In
particular, these areas are (1) harmful interference, (2) spectrum
efficiency, (3) space safety, and (4) foreign ownership. As we re-
design the Commission's space licensing processes to increase speed,
predictability, and flexibility we must do so in a way that guides our
determination as to whether a license for space-based communications is
in the public interest based on evaluation in these areas. We recognize
that a process which efficiently and effectively reviews license
applications for these factors will promote the wide availability of
communications delivered by a thriving space economy employing new
technologies. In addition, it is our intention that by simplifying and
modernizing our space licensing procedures we will ensure that the use
of part 5 experimental licenses will again be for the testing and
development of truly novel space concepts.
9. Increasing Processing Speed. The Commission must increase the
speed of application processing to ensure that space innovation is not
limited by unnecessary delay, which entails more quickly licensing
qualified applicants and dismissing unqualified requests. In burgeoning
sectors like space, progress stems from a chain of iterative
innovations. This means that seemingly small delays in authorizing
beneficial new services--such as a few months extra to process an
application--could result in a cascading chain of delays over time.
Delay in innovation today means delay in the next step, and then the
next, and so on in the iterative innovation process. Over time there
will be less advancement, slower economic gains, and a weaker national
defense. The Commission's licensing process should foster and support
innovation and not be an additional source of delay and uncertainty.
The volume and variety of space and earth station applications have
been increasing and will continue to do so. Large amounts of staff
resources go to sifting through non-standardized application materials
to determine whether an application is complete and is in alignment
with the Commission's rules. Application review frequently entails
excessive, time-consuming back-and-forth between the Commission and
applicants, with the Commission having to make a large number of non-
routine decisions, which can cause delays. The application process
should incentivize applicants to submit clear, high-quality, and
complete applications so that Commission staff can focus on whether
applicants are technically and financially qualified to deploy their
systems rather than manage administrative hurdles unrelated to the
quality of the application. Applicants should also have clarity as to
the timing under which their applications will be processed so they can
plan accordingly when designing and implementing their systems.
10. Providing More Predictability. Our goal is for both applicants
and the public to be able to generally understand how a request will be
handled in terms of process, timeframes, and requirements based on the
Commission's rules. In a dynamic, capital-intensive sector like space
where funding sources often depend on quick execution and demonstrated
progress, it is critical that applicants know what to expect when
seeking Commission authorizations. Applicants must be able to plan.
Engineers need to know what requirements their systems must meet.
Additionally, it is important for licensees to know the rules they must
follow after receiving a grant and the consequences for rule violations
or non-compliance. Furthermore, in a situation where an entity's
actions can have considerable impact on others--for example, one
satellite operator causing another harmful interference--it is
important that there is predictability in how the regulator will
approach a request so that parties can find private agreements with
mutually beneficial outcomes. Unfortunately, part 25 of the
Commission's rules does not always afford a high level of
predictability for applicants. Timelines for acting on some license
applications can be years. The sometimes-subjective nature of certain
application requirements means that applications receive unpredictable
levels of review. The Commission's proposals in the NPRM seek to remedy
these issues by providing applicants with predictability in how
applications will be processed.
11. Expanding Flexibility for Operations. The satellite industry is
developing systems, services, and operations that were not envisioned

[[Page 56341]]

when the Commission adopted its current rules. The industry has evolved
from GSO systems operating within a clear set of parameters to large
NGSO constellations and multi-orbit systems. Recently, the Commission
has received applications for a highly varied set of operations,
including ISAM and lunar missions, without specification on exactly
what activities these spacecrafts may undertake in the future. At the
same time, existing licensees are looking to upgrade and modify their
systems as technology develops. Allowing satellite operators the
freedom to find the best and most efficient ways to operate and build
complex systems of space-based operations, while upholding the
Commission's responsibilities, is critical to the long-term economic
development of the industry and our nation's ability to compete with
global operators. However, the Commission's existing licensing process
was not designed with the scope of the current satellite industry in
mind. Certain activities that are unobjectionable and beneficial still
require potentially slow review by the Commission. Many requirements
can be replaced and made more efficient with the use of modern
technology rather than paperwork. Over-regulation not only creates a
burden on industry and the Commission but can make operations less
efficient. While in the past the Commission noted that broad, somewhat
subjective rules could provide flexibility for innovation, experience
has shown that they sometimes leave applicants and staff struggling to
figure out how a proposal should be evaluated, leading to extended
back-and-forth between applicants and staff. Through this modernization
effort, the Commission seeks to provide more certainty for applicants
to avoid unnecessary delays and allow operators the ability to innovate
and provide Americans with the best satellite services technology can
offer.
12. Lastly, in addition to our key goals, we also take this as an
opportunity to propose clearing out regulatory underbrush. In crafting
the proposals in the NPRM, we heavily incorporate suggestions from the
Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding and seek comment on additional
reforms that should be undertaken in light of these proposals to
overhaul our approach to regulation. We see our proposals in the NPRM
as aligning with the President's Executive Order Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation to remove ``. . . unnecessary regulatory
burdens.''

B. Three Pivots Towards Modernization

13. To modernize our licensing process so it can scale to meet the
needs of the space economy, we propose three pivots away from the
current framework in our part 25 rules. First, we propose a review
process to facilitate permissionless innovation. Second, we propose an
overhaul of the application materials for more efficient processing.
Third, we propose expanding the freedom applicants and licensees have
for designing and operating their systems. We believe these pivots are
the conceptual path to achieving greater speed, predictability, and
flexibility in space and earth station licensing.
14. Presumed Acceptable Criteria. The core of our proposal is an
approach to facilitate permissionless innovation which sets forth a set
of system features which the Commission generally presumes to be
acceptable. Our proposed framework looks to the outcomes and
performance of a proposed space system rather than trying to
prescriptively regulate how a system must be designed to obtain
authorization. The notion behind our proposed framework is that the
Commission should set bright-line performance measures and
characteristics of systems that it finds are presumed to be in the
public interest. That is, the Commission will default toward allowing
proposals that fall within these bright-line standards and
characteristics. In its review, the Commission can then compare a
particular applicant's proposal against such bright-line criteria. This
change should allow applicants greater freedom to design systems that
meet performance standards rather than the Commission providing
detailed direction on how to reach a performance standard. While we
recognize some applicants may find it difficult to not have
prescriptive rules around how to design their system, we believe this
can be mitigated by defining a clear set of boundaries as a kind of
safe harbor that companies can build within.
15. Our aim is for this approach to support expedited review of any
portions of an application that meet bright-line rules. Doing so then
allows for targeted review of any elements which do not meet the
bright-line criteria, essentially allowing the Commission to make
decisions about systems once in a rulemaking (for all applicants) and
taking a posture of defaulting toward permitting any requests meeting
the criteria. Space companies will then be incentivized to design their
systems to meet these standards that the Commission has found are in
the public interest while still allowing for deviation as necessary.
16. One key element of this approach that we propose is an
expedited processing pathway. We propose that an application will be
placed on public notice for seven days and then be granted quickly in
most circumstances if it: (1) meets certain presumed acceptable
criteria that the Commission has found to be in the public interest;
(2) does not request waivers; and (3) is not subject to certain limited
``exceptions'' to expedited processing. Our expectation is that
operators will see expedited processing as a highly desirable way to
obtain a license and will design their systems and organize their
licensing requests to take advantage of this path. Such an approach
with expedited processing delivers by providing faster processing
speeds, more predictability as to what features of a system are
unobjectionable, and greater flexibility to design systems within the
performance parameters presumed to be in the public interest.
17. For applications that do not qualify for expedited processing,
our proposal still postures toward granting a license application. We
recognize that many applications may not meet all the bright-line
standards or that may seek a waiver of the Commission's rules. There
also are situations where the Commission will need to consider issues
beyond the performance of a particular proposed system, such as how
that proposed system will impact other operators' ability to use
spectrum. To handle these situations, we propose to adopt a limited set
of ``exceptions'' to the expedited processing pathway. We envision
using these exceptions as a clear way to identify specific aspects of
applications that require targeted review, like off-shoots from an
assembly line.
18. Identified exceptions for a given application would serve as
the basis for targeted review. That is, the Commission will focus on
review and consideration of any identified exceptions in determining
whether granting an application is in the public interest. However,
existence of an exception should not necessarily mean an extensive or
delayed process. For most applications with an identified exception, we
propose to place complete applications on public notice for 15 days.
After the public comment period ends, we expect the Commission will
work quickly through the areas needing focused review. To facilitate
timely review and to increase transparency, we also propose the
Commission will notify applicants of any or all exceptions still
undergoing

[[Page 56342]]

Commission review if full action has not been taken within 60 days
after the close of the public comment window. This notification will
inform the applicant and the public of any areas which still stand as
barriers to grant and promote quicker resolution of any outstanding
issues. Our expectation is that applications can be granted well before
the 60-day window closes if we implement an overhauled process designed
to focus attention on the areas that cannot be presumed to be in the
public interest. Lastly, to provide transparency and accountability we
also propose that the Space Bureau release regular updates tracking the
efficiency of the modernized application framework.
19. Enhanced Application Design. Our proposed framework also seeks
to dramatically increase processing speeds and lower burdens on
applicants by using modularity, standardization, and certifications.
With such reforms we seek to reduce unnecessary burden on applicants
while also facilitating application routing as part of the licensing
assembly line. Our vision is that the application itself will be
designed so that the Commission can easily determine completeness and
then appropriately route the request to expedited processing or for
focused review of one or more elements. Further, a modular design will
also support future changes to application requirements.
20. Over time, we expect that our standardized and modular
application design will allow for increasing automation of licensing.
We envision applicants being able to submit requests into an FCC system
where, based on responses, the application form dynamically adjusts.
Applicants would be able to quickly see which rules apply to their
proposal and make certifications alongside such information. The system
would also then be able to conduct validation checks, identify
incomplete elements, and then route the application to Commission staff
with any exceptions already identified. With standardized, machine-
readable application materials organized by design, an FCC system could
automatically generate public notices and draft grant materials. During
the public notice period, commenters could respond to particular
elements of a proposal in a system, so that when the comment period
closes, all application materials and public comments are already
organized by issue so that staff does not have to do such sorting. With
time, artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be used to assist,
automating parts of the review so that staff can focus on more complex
policy questions. While our proposal does not take these steps, our
enhanced application design anticipates such developments. Further,
section 8(a) of the Communications Act mandates that the Commission
assess and collect application fees based on the Commission's costs to
process applications. Section 8(c) also requires the Commission to
amend the application fee schedule if the Commission determines that
the schedule requires amendment to ensure that: (1) such fees reflect
increases or decreases in the costs of processing applications at the
Commission or (2) such schedule reflects the consolidation or addition
of new categories of applications. Thus, as we make changes to our
application process, we will also consider as necessary, any changes to
the Commission's schedule of application fees that result from a more
standardized and modular application design.
21. Under our proposal, applicants would be able to flexibly select
the application modules relevant to the system's frequency bands,
orbital characteristics (e.g., GSO, NGSO) and services (e.g., fixed-
satellite service (FSS); mobile-satellite service (MSS); telemetry,
tracking, and command (TT&C)). Applicants would only need to complete
the application materials needed for their request and could even
choose to segment requests for more efficient processing. This modular
approach de-couples in the application the orbital characteristics from
the frequency and service elements so there is flexibility in how
systems can be licensed. Over time, licensees could use these
``licensing building blocks'' to add to their systems with additional
satellites or frequencies or make changes to improve efficiency.
22. One particular example of the flexibility and reduced burden
afforded by the modular license approach that we propose is that
entities be able to complete the FCC Form 312--Main Form with basic
contact and ownership information without immediately seeking an
authorization request. Then, all future license requests from one
applicant could be associated with the single FCC Form 312--Main Form
so applicants only need to submit this information once (and keep one
form updated) and so all requests and licenses associated with an
entity can easily be identified. We also propose to eliminate
unnecessary narratives as these impose burden on applicants and can
require significant unpacking by staff when reviewing a proposal.
23. Perhaps most important to enhancing the application process,
our proposal introduces a series of certifications concerning the
bright-line elements that carry a public interest presumption. These
certifications are specific to the type of proposed system, such as GSO
or NGSO, and applicants will certify affirmatively or negatively as to
whether their proposed system meets these prespecified elements. Not
only do these certifications allow us to relieve applicants of certain
showings, but these certifications can be used to quickly identify
specific areas where targeted review is needed. Applicants who provide
a negative certification--that is, applicants who certify that their
system will not meet a bright-line standard that the Commission has
determined to be in the public interest--will be required to submit
additional information so the Commission may make a determination as to
whether the application is in the public interest. But in the case of
an affirmative certification, applicants generally will only need to
submit system design information collected in non-narrative form.
24. Increased Freedom for Applicants and Licensees. Our proposals
also seek to increase licensees' freedom to design, build, and operate
systems. Our view is that licensees should be able to easily create and
authorize systems and then continuously upgrade these systems for
greater capability and efficiency. It is economically inefficient for
the Commission to require approvals for activities which create no harm
or to over-prescribe system design features. To allow operators to have
the flexibility to operate and compete in the market, our proposals
would both remove the burdens of handling requests for unobjectionable
activity and allow operators to improve systems over time.
25. Our proposal allows for freedom and flexibility in numerous
respects so that applicants can seek authorizations that work best for
their operations and so that licensees can operate as necessary. As a
general matter, we follow the principle that if a request or activity
does not trigger one of the specific exceptions then it is presumed to
be in the public interest and requires minimal review. We also seek to
allow entities, in some instances, to evaluate tradeoffs within the
licensing process and then choose how to proceed with an application.
Here, we note key elements of our proposal intended to offer
flexibility to applicants and licensees. First, we propose to expand
the set of modifications to a license which would be permitted through
only a simple notification and/or certification. This means that
licensees will be able to operate more freely and only have to

[[Page 56343]]

seek additional authorization when requesting a change which falls
outside prespecified boundaries set by the Commission. Second, we
propose to update our rules to provide the opportunity for applicants
to request conditional grants in situations where such flexibility will
fit better with the applicant's planning and design process. For
example, we are proposing to grant authorizations conditioned on the
applicant submitting a future satisfactory orbital debris showing prior
to launch. This change would provide applicants more flexibility as to
when they can submit their application to the Commission while still
finalizing their system design. Third, our modularized application
proposal means applicants can choose to segment their requests. If
desired, an applicant could send some requests that will not trigger an
exception through expedited processing while segmenting others that
will take longer into a different request. In addition, over time,
licensees could add satellites or frequencies to their systems
incrementally at the pace needed. Fourth, we propose that applicants
can request any license term shorter than the default term. Fifth, we
propose to allow applicants that are not automatically subject to
processing rounds to opt-in to a new processing round approach for
certain bands to receive priority if needed. In exchange, the applicant
would be required to maintain a surety bond on file with the
Commission. This allows entities to decide whether to take on a bond in
exchange for priority or whether to operate without priority and not
have a bonding requirement. Lastly, for licensees with a bonding
requirement, we propose a deescalating surety bond formula that
declines with deployment so that licensees can control how quickly and
granularly to reduce the bond.
26. A final important element of flexibility in our proposal
considers new areas of space and satellite innovation that do not fit
neatly into the traditional GSO or NGSO categories. In particular, we
propose to create a new category of Variable Trajectory Spacecraft
System (VTSS). This proposed category would provide a new licensing
pathway for applicants seeking to operate space stations on spacecraft
that may not follow predictable trajectories. For example, we believe
that the VTSS category would include certain ISAM operations, as well
as lunar missions, or missions to other celestial bodies. We recognize
these systems need greater flexibility in their operations and
therefore propose to update our licensing process and rules to
accommodate these operations. One particular way we do this is by
proposing to allow VTSS licensees to file propagated ephemeris and
engage in collision avoidance rather than having to generally
prespecify all activities over the license term.

III. Discussion

27. The NPRM seeks comment on all aspects of the proposal and
alternative possibilities. We have organized the discussion in the NPRM
around four main threads: (1) the licensing assembly line in which we
describe our proposals related to the application process for space and
earth stations, including application materials, handling, and decision
processing; (2) additional reforms for licensing efficiency where we
describe proposals related to space and earth station licenses, such as
milestones and surety bonds, and the transition to part 100; (3)
operational and technical requirements where we describe our proposals
related to operational and technical rules for licensees; and (4)
compliance where we describe our proposals for rules addressing
violations. In each, we seek to explain how our proposals support the
overall goals of the modernization process.
28. We propose to adopt a new part 100 of the Commission's rules
that would replace the existing part 25 rules. We believe that creating
a new rule part altogether would provide a better organized and
improved framework for applicants and industry stakeholders, rather
than extensively revising the current rules and potentially creating
unnecessary confusion. We therefore propose to create part 100 and
sunset part 25. Part 100, which is Reserved, is contained in 47 CFR
Subchapter D--Safety and Special Radio Services which is preferrable to
the current placement of part 25 in Subchapter B--Common Carrier
Services. We make this proposal because, while not all our licensees or
market access grantees provide common carrier services, all use radio
services. We also propose titling part 100 as ``Space and Earth Station
Services'' rather than the current part 25 title, ``Satellite
Communications.'' Satellite communications is a subset that does not
include communications with earth stations or spacecraft that are not
satellites, and as such is limited. The new proposed title encompasses
a broader set of communications operations that reflect the current
space industry. We seek comment on implementing the new part 100 and on
the overall structure of the proposed modernized rules. Are there
benefits to retaining part 25, or are there alternative solutions that
the Commission should consider in restructuring the rules?
29. Appendix A to the NPRM contains the largely complete proposed
part 100. By providing a largely complete text of proposed rules, we
aim to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on
the overall framework and detailed, specific rule sections. There are
instances where we do not propose specific regulatory text and instead
describe a proposal in the text of the NPRM and seek comment on
appropriate additional regulatory text. We also propose alternatives to
the proposed rule text and seek comment on both the proposed rules in
Appendix A and any alternative proposals in the NPRM. In addition,
other parts of the Commission's rules contain cross-references to part
25, or specific sections within it, that would need to be updated if
part 100 replaces part 25. We also seek comment on the necessary
revision of these cross-references, including whether any would involve
substantive changes to those rule parts.
30. We propose to organize the new part 100 into four subparts:
Subpart A--General. This would include the legal basis for the
rules, authorization requirements, definitions, ownership, references,
and preemption of local zoning.
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses. This would include
application materials and application processing for space and earth
station licenses.
Subpart C--Operational Rules. This would include rules general to
all licensees and specific to operations, services, or frequencies.
Subpart D--Compliance. This would include consequences for rule
violations.
31. Two of the main goals of this modernization effort are to make
the Commission's space and earth station licensing rules easier to
understand and to make the application process easier for incumbent and
new operators alike. In this regard, an overhaul of certain aspects of
our rules could bring more clarity to regulated entities, such as
removing redundant portions and separating application requirements
from operational rules to clarify for applicants what is required in
the application process versus after grant. We believe that the
proposed organization of part 100 will help applicants and licensees to
more easily understand the application requirements, the application
process, the rules applicable to a licensee, and the consequences for
non-compliance of the rules and requirements. We seek

[[Page 56344]]

comment on this proposed organization of the new part 100.
Additionally, we seek comment on whether certain proposed rule sections
should be moved to a different subpart.
32. Another fundamental way in which we seek to provide greater
clarity as part of our modernization efforts concerns the Commission's
use of terms regarding the physical objects in space to which our rules
and regulations apply. In the past, the Commission has at times used
the terms ``space station,'' ``satellite,'' and ``spacecraft''
interchangeably despite the different definition of each term in the
rules. However, such ambiguity does not support a predictable
regulatory environment where defined terms carry precise meaning so
that the public can understand the rules. Therefore, throughout our
proposed revisions, we aim to more carefully apply and delineate these
terms. The Commission's statutory authority is rooted in regulating the
``apparatus,'' which in this context includes the ``space station,'' or
antenna, as a radiocommunication transmitting device. The space
stations in a satellite system that the Commission licenses and
regulates are often combined with a ``satellite'' or ``spacecraft''
such that interchangeability of these two terms is not a problem.
However, as the Commission anticipates that it will continue to receive
more new and novel licensing requests, it is important to clearly
distinguish these terms to promote clarity in our rules and in matters
of statutory authority. Therefore, we propose to incorporate the
definitions of ``space station,'' ``satellite,'' and ``spacecraft''
from parts 2 and 25 into part 100, and use these proposed definitions
throughout the NPRM. We broadly seek comment on these definitions and
these concepts. We also seek comment on the use of each term throughout
the proposed rules and ask whether there are instances where a
different term or definition may be more appropriate.

A. Licensing Assembly Line

33. Our proposed ``licensing assembly line'' is designed so
applicants can efficiently prepare applications which can be routed so
that applications are identified for quick review (i.e., expedited
processing) or targeted review (i.e., exceptions to expedited
processing). Like an assembly line, the proposed approach aims to
standardize the review process and route the review of each application
on a predictable and ever-moving track. We seek comment on this
proposed approach.
34. The licensing assembly line proposes three key phases. First,
the modular application phase where applicants submit applications or
other requests to the Commission. Second, the application processing
phase where the request is prepared for a decision in a timely fashion
by establishing completeness, seeking public comment, and requesting or
receiving any additional information or amendments. Third, the
application decision phase in which the Commission applies a structured
review process to decide on the request in accordance with the rules.
The particulars of these three phases are embodied by the rules
proposed in Appendix A and are discussed below.
35. Within the proposed part 100, ``Subpart B--Applications and
Licenses'' is where we propose rules for accepting and processing
applications. In subpart B, we propose to organize the rule sections
covering the space and earth station application requirements as well
as rules for application review. Our expectation is that subpart B
would be the primary portion of our rules that the public and regulated
entities would reference to understand how to apply for a space station
or earth station license and the application review process. We seek
comment on the general organization of part 100 proposed below and in
Appendix A, as well as on the specific proposals for each section.
1. Application Modularity; Required Forms
36. We propose to require applicants to submit their space and
earth station applications by completing one or more application pieces
depending on the nature of the request. Relying on modularity will mean
applicants only need to complete relevant portions of the application
and the Commission can efficiently design and update internal review
processes for applications. We intend for this approach to apply to any
type of application, including initial space and earth stations
applications, petitions for market access, amendments, modifications,
requests for special temporary authority (STA), and any other
applications. The key modular pieces of the application materials under
our proposal for space station applications include General and
Ownership Information on FCC Form 312--Main Form, Orbital Elements on
Schedule O to the FCC Form 312, and Frequency Elements on Schedule F to
the FCC Form 312. Earth station applicants would file FCC Form 312--
Main Form and Schedule B to FCC Form 312. Additional information would
be required for applications to provide Supplemental Coverage from
Space (SCS) and petitions for U.S. market access.
37. We propose to modularize the information that space station
applicants must provide in the new part 100. Specifically, we propose
to condense the information required for space station applications
into three rule sections in part 100: one section for general applicant
information; one section that contains the orbital information for a
proposed system; and one section that contains the frequency
information for a proposed system. Many of the information requirements
that we propose in these sections are similar to the current part 25
rules, though we have sought to significantly reduce what is required.
We also propose in many of these information requirements to shift away
from requiring narratives and demonstrations and shift to requiring
more straightforward pieces of information. In making these changes we
propose to replace the current Schedule S and much of the narrative
required for space station applicants with two new schedules to the FCC
Form 312: Schedule O and Schedule F. Schedule O would contain the
orbital information and Schedule F would contain the frequency
information related to the space station application. We propose to
still require earth station applicants to submit Schedule B but propose
streamlined revisions.
38. Applicants would only need to complete the portions of the
forms that pertain to their requested operations. We propose to still
require a description of the proposed system in the application but
seek to substantially reduce the narratives required. Experience with
part 25 application requirements shows that lengthy narratives and non-
standard submissions can slow the review process as the Commission must
spend time parsing the narrative and reconciling inconsistencies with
other parts of the application. Additionally, we believe that this
approach could facilitate intake of application data in standardized
formats for improved review over time. By modularizing the orbital and
frequency information, we seek to provide a wide range of flexibility
for applicants. For instance, we envision this modularity facilitating
simpler approval of hosted space stations and space-as-a-service
systems by only requiring the information needed for their proposal. We
seek comment on how our proposed application design could support such
flexibility. Are there any changes we should make to our proposal for
these

[[Page 56345]]

kinds of requests? We also want the application process to be flexible
enough to accommodate novel proposals. For instance, how can the
application process accommodate an operator who seeks to transfer a
hosted space station from one spacecraft to another? We seek comment on
the types of systems that need flexibility and how our application
materials can support such requests in line with our goals.
39. We also propose to continue to require electronic submission of
applications via ICFS or another successor system and propose
delegating to the Space Bureau the ability to designate the specific
application filing system. In addition, we propose to codify that
waiver requests are not necessary for submission of supplements or
exhibits filed contemporaneously with applications due to technical
limitations of the designated forms. We also propose that, consistent
with Commission precedent and practice, applicants would not be
entitled to refund of application filing fees once an application is
reviewed. We seek comment on these proposed changes and generally on
whether any changes related to the application fee rules in part 1,
subpart G, or the ICFS rules in part 1, subpart Y would be required as
a result of the proposals in the NPRM.
40. While the proposed rules set forth the requirements for
application materials, we expect the form and format will need to be
carefully designed to support our goals. Furthermore, we anticipate the
need for the form and format of applications to evolve over time.
Therefore, we plan to delegate authority to the Space Bureau to
determine and revise the form and format for filing application
materials and for designating the system for the intake of those
materials. In particular, we plan to delegate to the Space Bureau the
authority to announce through public notice any changes to the form and
format of required application materials. This delegated authority
would allow the Space Bureau to modernize and streamline the
application process as necessary through improved technology and other
process design improvements. We also propose to delegate authority to
the Space Bureau to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking in making
these changes if the Space Bureau deems required or advisable.
Delegating authority to the Space Bureau as set forth above will allow
it to effectuate improvements as quickly as possible. Since these
delegations of authority, if made, might be of a continuing nature, we
seek comment on whether corresponding rule changes should be made to
Section 0.51 or other parts of our regulations. We seek comment on this
approach.
a. FCC Form 312--Main Form
41. Section 25.114(a) directs applicants for NGSO and GSO space
station authorizations to submit applications via FCC Form 312--Main
Form, with the required exhibits attached. The FCC Form 312--Main Form
also prompts applicants to respond to a number of questions relating to
the applicant's compliance with the Commission's environmental policy
rules, basic qualifications, and ownership, and requires certifications
to the accuracy of the information provided therein. We propose to
create a new rule section entitled ``Application Requirements of the
FCC Form 312--Main Form'' that aggregates the required information for
space or earth station license applications with the FCC Form 312--Main
Form. Specifically, this section would continue to require applicants
to submit contact information, management and ownership information,
and attest to certifications that are included in the existing
application forms. We propose to connect the requirements with the FCC
Form 312--Main Form in the rules so that it is clear what information
applicants must provide in applications. We seek comment on these
proposals. Does this proposal provide predictability for applicants? Is
there additional information that should be included in this form?
42. We propose to retain the FCC Form 312--Main Form existing
requirement that the applicant include an attestation, made under
penalty of perjury, that all information submitted on FCC Form 312--
Main Form and any associated forms has been verified for accuracy and
is believed to be complete and accurate at the time of submission
similar to what is currently required by our forms. The Commission
often receives applications with incomplete, inconsistent, and
inaccurate information, and staff have generally engaged in a time-
consuming process of guiding applicants on how to correct and amend
applications so that they are acceptable for filing. Should an
additional requirement be added so that the attestation be made by an
officer of the applicant filing the FCC Form 312--Main Form to better
ensure that the information is complete, consistent, and accurate since
the submission might be taken more seriously by leadership of the
entity filing the authorization if an officer has to attest? Currently,
all applications are subject to the requirements outlined in part 1 of
the Commission's rules to maintain the ongoing accuracy of its
materials.
43. We also seek to reduce the need for applicants to fill out the
same form multiple times with identical information when applying for
additional space or earth station authorizations. Under the current
rules, applicants must re-file the same information required by FCC
Form 312, Main Form for every request. We propose to allow applicants
to certify that no information has changed from a previously filed FCC
Form 312--Main Form rather than requiring them to submit a new FCC Form
312--Main Form with each request. We seek comment on this proposal
generally and invite suggestions on how to operationalize this
requirement. Specifically, should the Commission allow applicants to
certify that no information has changed from a previously submitted FCC
Form 312--Main Form and provide the corresponding file number? Would
this proposal relieve any significant burdens on applicants such that
it would justify the operational changes that may need to be made to
ICFS?
44. We also propose an avenue that would bifurcate the FCC Form
312--Main Form from the associated application schedules so that
applicants could elect to file the FCC Form 312--Main Form independent
of an application for space or earth station authorization. We believe
that independent filing of the FCC Form 312--Main Form would allow the
Commission to make a preliminary determination as to whether an
applicant is qualified to hold a space station or earth station license
before they actually apply for a license. Since the FCC Form 312--Main
Form collects ownership information, we propose to allow entities to
seek preliminary-clearance to hold a license which could facilitate
accelerated review for transfers of control or assignments.
Specifically, this would allow an applicant seeking to obtain a space
station or earth station authorization to submit an FCC Form 312--Main
Form in advance of a transfer of control or assignment and have the
Commission review the ownership and legal qualifications of the
applicant in advance of any transfer or assignment. It could also be a
way for entities who do not typically operate space or earth stations
to be pre-cleared to hold a license if that would facilitate a
contractual arrangement. We seek comment on this proposal and any
potential alternatives. Would this proposal facilitate a more efficient
review of basic licensee qualifications

[[Page 56346]]

and promote investment and capital formation in the space sector? If we
were to adopt this proposal, should the Commission adopt a new
application fee for reviewing an FCC Form 312--Main Form application
that is not associated with an underlying application, consistent with
section 8 of the Act? We believe the Act provides authority for
creating a process that bifurcates preliminary review of applicant
qualifications from the final review of all elements of an application
to achieve permissible policy objectives, such as facilitating
efficient capital formation to promote investment in communications
facilities. What rules, if any, need to be added to carry out this
proposal? Are there any legal barriers to the Commission providing
preliminary review of applicant qualifications, subject to review of
any new information that may be provided in connection with a complete
application for authorization?
b. Ownership Information
45. The Commission also proposes to codify in part 100 the long-
standing requirement that space station applicants include a disclosure
of certain management and ownership information in FCC Form 312--Main
Form, and to expand this requirement to every applicant filing an FCC
Form 312--Main Form, including all earth station applicants. This
information has been required to ensure that applicants meet the basic
qualifications to hold satellite licenses and grants of market access.
While this information is already required by the current FCC Form
312--Main Form for space station applicants, we propose to include a
reportable ownership requirement in part 100 that all applicants
disclose information about individuals or entities holding a 10% or
more direct or indirect (equity and/or voting interest) in the
applicant or a controlling interest, as well as the names, citizenship,
and address of each officer and director in the applicant. These
requirements would also allow the Commission to identify domestic and
foreign persons, governments, or entities that hold 10% or more
interest, consistent with current practice. We believe that such
information allows the Commission to assess whether grant of an
application will serve the public interest, including consideration of
any national security concerns and a determination of whether to refer
an application to the Executive Branch for review to assess any
national security or law enforcement issues presented by foreign
ownership. We seek comment on how these proposed regulations interact
with 47 CFR 1.5000 et. seq., which apply to satellite or earth station
common carriers, and how to enable a single set of ownership rules with
a uniform 10% reportable ownership threshold that apply to all
satellite and earth station licensees and recipients of market access
grants.
46. The Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in May
2025 proposing foreign adversary ownership certification and
information collection requirements for all entities holding covered
Commission licenses or authorizations (Foreign Adversary NPRM).
Specifically, the Foreign Adversary NPRM proposes to require such
entities to affirmatively certify whether the entity is or is not
directly or indirectly owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary, and if so, to submit
any additional information on foreign adversary control including
identities, citizenships, and descriptions of any held control. The
Foreign Adversary NPRM proposes to require foreign adversary
certification and reporting for satellite networks, specifically
seeking comment on whether to modify FCC Form 312--Main Form, along
with other categories of satellite licensing, to include a
certification on an applicant's foreign adversary ownership. We propose
to align our final rules in this proceeding with the final rules
established in the Foreign Adversary NPRM, including the final decision
on whether those requirements should be incorporated into existing
licensing rules or whether the Commission should create a single set of
new rules that apply to all regulated entities and whether the
requirements should be reflected in FCC Form 312--Main Form.
47. Finally, we propose to incorporate the current requirement that
applicants submit an ownership diagram that illustrates the applicant's
vertical ownership structure, including the direct and indirect
ownership interests with 10% or more ownership interest or controlling
interest. This chart should clearly indicate the non-U.S. citizenship
entities. As ownership and control structure of companies in the space
industry have become increasingly complex, Commission staff have
routinely requested that applicants provide information in this format
to facilitate their analysis. We propose requiring this submission with
the FCC Form 312--Main Form at the initial stage of the application
process to avoid delays. We seek comment on whether this proposal
should be included in final rules and any alternative methods for
collecting ownership information.
c. General Space Station Application Requirements
48. We propose to create a rule section that would aggregate many
of the space station application requirements currently found in
separate sections of part 25 and that apply to all space station
applicants. This rule section would consolidate certain part 25 rules
into one rule section requiring applicants to provide the type of
authorization requested, contact information for the applicant, a
comprehensive description describing the satellite system, a brief
public interest statement, and ITU filings and cost recovery materials.
These proposed requirements are similar to the current requirements
found in part 25, but we seek comment on whether certain information
should be added, eliminated, or modified.
49. The FCC Form 312--Main Form requires space station applicants
to submit contact information for the applicant and a point of contact
if different from the applicant. We propose to retain this information
and include contact information for the person or entity capable of and
responsible for ceasing transmissions directly on the FCC Form 312--
Main Form, which applicants are already required to submit to the
Commission under the Sec. 25.271 point of contact filing requirement.
This section would also require applicants to submit a comprehensive
statement that includes a description of the satellite system,
detailing its services, orbits, and planned operations. While we
propose to require applicants to submit most technical elements of
their applications on one or more schedules to the FCC Form 312, we
view the comprehensive statement as the portion of the application that
describes in relatively plain language the overall design and
operations of the proposed system. We see this as a valuable element
that puts the rest of the information in the application into context
and makes it easier for the public to understand and comment on
applications when they are placed on public notice. However, we would
also like to reduce the burden of unnecessary requirements.
Accordingly, we propose that applicants provide a comprehensive
statement rather than the currently required ``comprehensive proposal''
in Sec. 25.114, which refers to the application in its entirety. We
tentatively conclude that a statement will result in a reduced burden
on applicants while still giving the public and the Commission an
opportunity to scrutinize any planned operations. Should we issue
additional guidance

[[Page 56347]]

regarding what entails a comprehensive statement to ensure that
applications contain sufficient information for Commission review while
preventing applicants from having to expend resources on unnecessary
showings? Are there more effective or efficient ways to collect the
required information within the overall application? We seek comment on
whether the comprehensive statement element of an application is
necessary for public review of applications. Is the statement at all
redundant to any other proposed requirement?
50. We also propose in Appendix A to retain the required public
interest statement supporting grant of the proposed operations.
However, we seek comment on whether a public interest statement is
necessary. Our proposed modified application process is designed to
identify parts of an application where either a public interest
presumption cannot be made ex ante or where a more focused review of
the merits is needed. In those situations, the applicant would provide
information to support a grant of authorization. Therefore, is it
necessary to require a separate public interest statement? If we do
retain this requirement in the new proposed rules, are there ways to
limit the burden on applicants in preparing public interest statements?
51. We also propose to codify that an operator may file an
application requesting authority for multiple GSO satellites under a
single call sign as long as the necessary information is provided for
each specific GSO satellite listed in the application. Historically,
the Commission has licensed single GSO satellites for a single location
on the geostationary arc. This is largely due to the distance from
Earth, which requires high power and large GSO satellites that are
expensive to construct, launch, and operate. But that is beginning to
change. As satellite systems are becoming more advanced with increased
technical capabilities, we anticipate that applicants may seek to
operate multiple satellites at one location on the geostationary arc.
We therefore propose to modify our rules to allow applicants to file
for and receive a GSO space station license for multiple GSO
satellites. We seek comment on this proposal. Should applicants only be
allowed to file a single application for multiple GSO satellites if
those satellites will be located at the same location on the GSO arc?
Should there be a maximum number of GSO satellites allowed to operate
under one license? Should existing operators be allowed to combine
multiple GSO satellites under one license?
52. Finally, are there any additional requirements that generally
pertain to space station applicants that should be included here? Are
there elements we propose which should be removed or changed?
d. Space Station Orbital Requirements; Schedule O
53. We propose to create a new schedule to the FCC Form 312,
Schedule O, as part of the application requirements for space station
applicants to submit the corresponding orbital information for proposed
systems. Applicants seeking license authorizations for GSO satellite
systems, NGSO satellite systems, VTSS, and Multi-Orbit Satellite
Systems (MOSS) would be required to submit Schedule O as part of their
initial application.
54. In the proposed Schedule O, applicants would provide the
system's orbital information, such as the number of satellites and
orbital planes. Applicants would also certify whether a proposed system
would meet a set of bright-line orbital criteria. These certification
criteria, including collision risk and human casualty risk, would
define the contours of the orbital criteria that the Commission
presumes to be in the public interest. We want the part 100 application
materials to clearly define what applicants must submit and we believe
that the proposed Schedule O will help to reduce uncertainty on the
orbital information required. Certain current part 25 rules require
statements or technical disclosures demonstrating how the applicant
meets the orbital criteria. Under our proposal, we seek to allow
applicants to certify affirmatively or negatively that their system
will meet the criteria, instead of preparing statements describing in
detail how their system will meet a certain standard, and the
Commission can verify this certification via the technical information
included in the submitted orbital debris mitigation plan. In the case
of a negative certification, the applicant would then submit additional
information to justify why the request is in the public interest. We
have largely transferred from part 25 to part 100 the same required
orbital showings, but have sought to revise these showings into bright-
line standards to support our certification approach where possible. In
this way, applicants can have clarity on what exactly the Commission
will consider and then need only submit a public interest justification
for a request outside of the presumed acceptable orbital debris
criteria.
55. The proposed Schedule O would aggregate some of the
requirements located in part 100 to help applicants easily determine
and certify whether the orbital components of their proposed system are
in compliance with the Commission's rules. Additionally, Commission
staff would be able to review an applicant's Schedule O to quickly
determine whether the application meets the orbital requirements or
requires further review. With this proposed Schedule O, we seek to
clearly organize the information required under the proposed rules and
provide Commission staff with an easy way to identify applications that
require closer review, thereby making the licensing process more
efficient. In cases where the applicant cannot certify compliance in
the affirmative, then the applicant would be permitted to submit a
justification for Commission review to determine if granting the
license is in the public interest. In this way, the application
materials would, by design, assist with routing an application along
the licensing assembly line. We seek comment on this as well as the
general proposal outlined here. Are the proposed Schedule O and orbital
certifications therein sufficient for the Commission and the public to
analyze space station applications?
56. As part of providing the orbital information for a system,
under our proposal applicants will need to identify their proposal as a
GSO satellite system, an NGSO satellite system, a VTSS, or a MOSS.
Depending on the type of request, we propose specific application
requirements. The proposed definitions and application requirements for
each type of system are discussed below.
e. GSO Satellite Systems
57. The Commission's rules currently define a ``Geostationary-orbit
satellite'' as ``[a] geosynchronous satellite whose circular and direct
orbit lies in the plane of the Earth's equator and which thus remains
fixed relative to the Earth; by extension, a geosynchronous satellite
which remains approximately fixed relative to the Earth.'' This
definition is included in both parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's
rules, and we therefore propose to forgo its inclusion in part 100 as
unnecessary and retain the definition in part 2. We do, however,
propose to adopt a definition of ``GSO satellite system'' to help
applicants and operators determine when a defined GSO satellite would
be classified as part of a larger GSO system in the context of the
Commission's regulations. We propose to define a ``GSO satellite
system'' as, ``a system composed of one

[[Page 56348]]

or more geostationary-orbit satellites operating together at a single
location and under a single call sign.'' We seek comment on this
proposed definition. Should we expand this definition to include
multiple GSO satellites operating at different locations as part of the
same call sign? Are there other defining traits of a GSO satellite
system that should be included in this definition? Should the
definition require that the multiple GSO satellites be controlled by a
single network control center?
58. We propose to significantly reduce the amount of information
required for applicants for GSO space stations and satellite systems.
Specifically, we propose to require the requested orbital location,
certifications as to whether the satellite(s) will comply with the two-
degree spacing requirements on the U.S. arc and the orbital debris
mitigation rules we propose in subpart C. We also propose to require
materials be provided to explain orbital debris mitigation plans and
end-of-life disposal plans in support of the certification. We seek
comment on this proposal. Is there any additional information the
Commission should include in this section? Are the rules proposed in
Appendix A clear so that applicants understand what is required?
f. NGSO Satellite Systems
59. We propose to codify a definition of ``NGSO satellite system.''
We think that this will make it easier for Commission staff and
applicants to refer to applications and discrete satellite systems,
particularly if certain applicants apply for multiple satellite
systems. Specifically, we propose to define ``NGSO satellite system''
as ``[a] system of one or more non-geostationary orbit satellites
operating together under one space station call sign.'' We seek comment
on the proposed definition and whether it will facilitate flexibility
for operators over time. Does this definition support flexibility and
efficiency in how operators organize their systems? As operators build
and modify their systems through the licensing process, there may be
value in allowing an operator to consolidate multiple call signs so
that changes to the operator's deployed system only require a change to
one call sign. Should we limit the proposed ``NGSO satellite system''
definition or make clear that licensees cannot consolidate satellites
that would otherwise be viewed as separate systems into a single system
with a single call sign? How should we determine whether satellites are
``operating together''? Should we allow applicants to define the limits
of their own satellite systems for purposes of deciding whether a
separate license and/or call sign is necessary?
60. We propose to divide the information that NGSO space station
applicants must provide into three parts: technical information,
certifications, and additional information. The technical information
that we propose to require is similar to current part 25 requirements.
We propose rules in Appendix A that include information such as the
number of satellites in a constellation, the requested orbital planes,
inclinations, and apogee and perigee, among others. We seek comment on
this proposal. Does the information we propose to require provide
enough flexibility for modern systems to be described?
61. Is there any additional information that the Commission should
require for both the Commission and the public to better evaluate
applications, or information we do not need to require? For NGSO
satellite systems, are there different aspects of a system design we
should collect, or aspects we should collect differently, to ensure
applicants can request the type of flexibility needed for their
proposed operations? For example, do the requirements afford the
opportunity for requests involving flexibility in adjusting systems
across orbits or shells? Do we need to specify that the information
provided only needs to reflect an applicant's initial deployment but
that the system can operate flexibly as long as it is done within our
rules and subject to any license conditions? Are there other areas we
can build in flexibility so that applicants may request to operate
within certain envelopes? If so, how would we incorporate this into our
application requirements and the forms?
62. The list of proposed certifications for NGSO satellite system
applicants is set forth in Appendix A. These proposed certifications
include bright-line criteria that applicants must certify whether or
not their requested system will meet. Many of these criteria are taken
from the current streamlined small space station authorization process
in part 25. For example, we propose to require applicants to certify
whether their satellite(s) will be 10 cm or larger in the smallest
dimension. We believe that these bright-line criteria, drawn largely
from current information requirements in part 25, will make the
application review process more efficient because it will remove
subjective elements from the review. We seek comment on this proposal,
including on the specifics of each certification we propose. Are the
certifications clear enough so that applicants can make accurate
certifications? Is the way we propose to rely on the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Debris Assessment Software
appropriate? Do we need to provide additional guidance as to how
collision probabilities should be calculated? Do we need to provide
guidance on what it means for a satellite to be able to be ``maneuvered
effectively'' under proposed rule Sec. 100.111(c)(2)(vi)? Are there
additional certifications that should be added, or proposed
certifications that should be deleted? Are there other proposed rules
or requirements that could be turned into certifications?
63. Similar to our current application process, we propose to
require that applicants submit an orbital debris mitigation plan that
details their end-of-life disposal plan and demonstrates how the
applicant will comply with the orbital debris rules and required
certifications in subpart C of the proposed new part 100. Additionally,
for applicants who may request a waiver of any orbital debris rules or
certify that they will not comply with one of the bright-line rules we
propose that they would provide the necessary technical information to
supporting the specific waiver request. We seek comment on this
proposal. Would it be helpful for the Commission to release guidance
documents with examples for newer applicants to use as a model? Our
goal is for the orbital debris mitigation plans to create as little
burden as possible while supporting the certifications made in the
application. Therefore, what steps can the Commission take to reduce
the burden of these plans? Given that ensuring compliance with the
orbital debris certifications will require running orbital debris
models, is requiring submission of the report any more burdensome?
64. We also propose to require NGSO satellite system applicants
whose requested operations trigger certain information requirements to
submit additional information. We believe that these situations will
arise in two cases. First, when an applicant certifies that it will not
meet one of the proposed bright-line criteria, that applicant would
need to provide additional justification to support a grant by the
Commission. For example, an application for an NGSO satellite system
with a human casualty risk that is greater than 1 in 10,000 would not
fit within the criteria that the Commission presumes ex ante to be in
the public interest. Accordingly, the applicant would need to justify
why it is in the public interest for the Commission to grant the
application despite having a higher casualty risk.

[[Page 56349]]

The second case is when an applicant proposes specific system
operations where the Commission has identified that such operations
require additional information. For example, we propose to require
applicants whose space stations will transit through orbits used by
inhabitable spacecraft to provide a description of the design and
operational strategies they would employ to minimize the risk of
collision with any inhabitable spacecraft. An applicant who falls
within this category would then provide additional information to the
Commission when they submit their application so that the Commission
can determine whether granting the application is in the public
interest. Under this proposal, applicants would submit additional
information where necessary either in a text box on Schedule O or by
filing a supplement to Schedule O. We believe including specific
circumstances that require applicants to submit additional information
in the ``Additional Information'' section will make it easier for
applicants to identify whether they need to submit the required
information. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there other
information requirements that would pertain to many NGSO satellite
systems--but not all--that should be included in this section? Should
we place any limits on the information or its form or format to reduce
burden or promote efficient review?
g. Variable Trajectory Spacecraft Systems
65. Increasingly, the Commission is receiving applications for
systems that do not fit neatly into the construct of a traditional NGSO
or GSO system. These applications instead seek authority for operating
space stations on spacecraft with variable orbital parameters in order
to conduct novel space activities. Additionally, the Commission has
already issued licenses and continues to receive numerous applications
for lunar landers and operations. In line with the Commission's
modernization goals, we propose to add a new type of license for space
stations on a ``Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System'' or VTSS.
Specifically, we propose to define VTSS as, ``[o]ne or more spacecraft
either operating beyond the geosynchronous orbit or operating without
fixed or predictable orbital patterns over the course of its lifetime
and operating under one space station call sign.'' We intend for this
defined category of operations to capture applications for systems that
do not fit within the traditional idea of an NGSO or GSO satellite
system which have generally predictable and stable orbits.
Specifically, under our proposal we expect VTSS would encompass
applications for many ISAM systems, orbital transfer vehicles, lunar
operations, other novel space activities and operations beyond
geosynchronous orbit to asteroids and other planets, and applications
for space stations that do not fit neatly within the traditional idea
of an NGSO or GSO satellite or satellite system. These operations are
often unique in their orbital parameters because satellites or
spacecraft may move around to service different spacecraft in orbit, or
they may move between NGSO and GSO orbits, or because they transit to
or orbit around the moon or other celestial bodies. Our expectation is
that VTSS license requests will be distinct from GSO or NGSO requests
because of the variability in the orbital parameters of the spacecraft
over the course of the license term. We seek comment on this definition
and whether it will provide the clarity and distinction needed so that
applicants are able to clearly determine whether they need to file an
application for a VTSS or a different system type.
66. We seek comment on the proposed definition of VTSS and on the
category more broadly. We believe there is a need to have a definition
and licensing category for space stations that encompasses the wide
range of applications the Commission has received and will continue to
receive as companies innovate and seek authorizations for
radiocommunications to support novel space activities. Does our
proposal for the VTSS definition and licensing category adequately
encompass the types of novel operations at the forefront of the
industry? Is it sufficiently future-looking and distinct from our
proposed definitions of GSO satellite system and NGSO satellite system?
Would it make more sense to separate the definition so that space
stations traveling beyond the geosynchronous orbit are separate from
space stations operating in NGSO or GSO with variable orbits? While we
propose to define VTSS (and NGSO and GSO) with respect to the orbital
parameters of the system containing the space station(s) being
licensed, would it make more sense to define this category based on
spectrum use, with a focus on space stations that seek authority for
communications not to provide services directly to consumers on Earth,
but to operate spacecraft that will provide services in or beyond
Earth's orbit? To provide modularity and flexibility, our proposal
seeks to separate in the application process the orbital parameters of
a system from the frequencies and spectrum use but we welcome
suggestions for other approaches. Should we permit operators to file
separate Schedule O and Schedule F for propulsion, sensor, or
communications payloads that evolve over time? Furthermore, are there
alternative names that would fit this definition better? Would Dynamic
Satellite (or Spacecraft) System, Non-Standard Orbital Operations,
Flexible Space Activities, Non-Conventional Satellite (or Spacecraft)
System, or Mission Infrastructure Support Communications (MISC) be
better names? Or should the Commission select a more colloquial name
like Weird Space Stuff (WSS) to describe this class of applications?
67. We propose to separately specify the information that VTSS
applicants must submit when filing an application under the proposed
part 100 to make it easier for applicants to know which information is
required of them and as a recognition that review of VTSS applications
will differ from review of NGSO or GSO applications due to the unique
nature of the system. Specifically, we propose to require VTSS
applicants to submit information about the number of spacecraft they
seek authority for as part of the system, the range of altitudes at
which those space stations will operate, and the anticipated amount of
time the space station(s) are expected to operate in any particular
phase of a mission. These proposed requirements are similar to the
proposed requirements for NGSO satellite systems, but differ slightly
because we believe they will give operators flexibility in designing
systems that do not follow traditional NGSO or GSO operations, while
allowing the Commission to collect the information necessary to
evaluate a system's potential to cause interference to other operators.
We seek comment on these proposed requirements. Are there additional
information requirements that should be included? Should they be
further subdivided so that certain requirements only apply to certain
sub-categories of VTSS, like lunar missions?
68. We also propose to include certifications for VTSS applicants
similar to the certifications we propose for GSO and NGSO applicants.
We propose fewer certifications for VTSS applicants than NGSO
applicants to account for the added flexibility that we seek to provide
these operators. Some certifications are unique to the types of
operations anticipated under a VTSS application. Specifically, we
propose to require applicants who plan to conduct

[[Page 56350]]

servicing missions to certify that operations will only happen with the
consent of the client and that the applicant will consult with other
relevant federal agencies. Additionally, we propose to require
operators to certify that they will comply with the relevant end-of-
life disposal rules for the orbit at which they will terminate
operations. For example, an operator that plans to conduct servicing in
medium Earth orbit (MEO) and then move to service a satellite in GEO
would have to certify that they will comply with the end-of-life
disposal rules for GSO satellites. We seek comment on these proposals.
Additionally, is there anything specific the Commission should require
from applicants seeking to provide servicing as evidence of client
consent? Will the proposed information requirements for VTSS applicants
provide operators with flexibility to design and operate novel space
stations for novel services?
69. We currently propose adding a rule that requires all space
station licensees to share ephemeris data more broadly, which is
discussed further below. Is that proposed rule sufficient for VTSS
applicants who will be moving spacecraft around more variably and
interacting with other satellites on orbit? Should the rule be modified
or changed to effectuate the goals outlined above for VTSS applicants
and licensees? Should the Commission encourage or require standardized
telemetry formats for conjunction assessment and covariance data? What
sources might be used to set such standards?
70. In addition to the rule requiring space station licensees to
share ephemeris data, we propose to require VTSS applicants to certify
whether they will share propagated ephemeris and covariance data prior
to and during any planned maneuvers or rendezvous and proximity
operations. We believe that for operators planning to move their
spacecraft over the course of their lifetime and perform RPO maneuvers,
sharing propagated ephemeris and covariance data is in the public
interest so the Commission and public may have information on the
location of the licensed space station(s) attached to the spacecraft.
Having VTSS operators share propagated ephemeris could allow licensees
the flexibility to move between orbits while maintaining transparency
as to where a licensed space station is. Additionally, this will
support space safety and help other operators protect their satellites
as well. We therefore propose adding this certification to encourage
applicants to file ephemeris and to assist the Commission in quickly
identifying VTSS applications that need further review if the applicant
is not willing or able to share ephemeris information. We seek comment
on this proposal.
71. We also seek comment on whether we should allow VTSS operators
who decline to share their propagated ephemeris and covariance data to
instead submit a completed agreement with another government agency
approving the applicant's space safety plan. Given that some operators
work closely with federal agencies, would it be feasible to rely on
another federal agency to review and coordinate a VTSS applicant's
plans consistent with our obligations under the statute? Could allowing
applicants to work with other government agencies for operations that
are unique like those we envision under the VTSS framework and submit a
coordinated agreement for consideration by the Commission be a
substitute for sharing propagated ephemeris and covariance data? Are
there other possible ways that operators could meet the needs we
identify as in the public interest if they cannot or will not certify
to submitting their ephemeris data? Should operators ever be allowed to
refuse to submit this data if they are planning on performing maneuvers
and RPO? Should we let VTSS applicants submit an orbital debris
mitigation plan and certifications to the requirements for NGSO
satellite systems or GSO satellite systems, depending on the proposed
operations?
72. We also propose to require that VTSS applicants submit certain
additional information depending on the specific requested operations.
In this section for additional information, we propose to require VTSS
applicants whose space stations will travel beyond the geosynchronous
orbit to submit a description of any instruments or rovers onboard that
will engage in radiofrequency communications with the spacecraft as
well as a description of coordination with government entities such as
the National Science Foundation We seek comment on this proposal. These
information requirements come from the Commission's experience with
lunar applications. Are there additional information requirements that
the Commission should seek for these missions? We also propose to
require applicants who plan to engage in servicing or otherwise
interact with other spacecraft on-orbit to submit the following
information: a list of FCC file numbers or call signs for applications
or grants related to the operations, including for client space
stations; a list of ITU filings or United Nations (U.N.) registration
information, or the expected State of Registry with the U.N., for any
space stations not licensed by the FCC or without market access that
will be client spacecraft or related to the proposed operations; and a
statement disclosing planned proximity operations and addressing any
debris generation. Since many VTSS operators may not likely know at the
application stage the particulars of this information, should we
instead set this as a notification requirement unless the information
is already known? Could the Commission, working with others in the
United States government, create pre-cleared lists of nations for which
operations need not be specifically disclosed? Or potentially a list of
only spacecraft overseen by certain administrations? We seek comment on
these proposals. Is there any additional information that the
Commission should request?
h. Space Station Frequency Requirements; Schedule F
73. We propose to adopt a new Schedule F to the FCC Form 312--Main
Form on Space Station Frequency Information Requirements as the other
main schedule for information that applicants must provide to the
Commission. Schedule F would replace the current Schedule S but contain
much of the same required frequency information. We believe that
including all required frequency information in one section will make
it easier in the future for the Commission to update both the Schedule
F and the Commission's rules as industry and technologies evolve. In
addition, we seek to reduce the number of technical showings that
applicants must submit. For example, if the Commission were to use an
electronic filing system that auto-populated information based on an
applicant's requested services, orbital locations, and frequencies, we
would not need to change the rules to accommodate that system. We seek
comment on this proposal.
74. Similar to the space station orbital information requirements
in the proposed Schedule O, we also propose to include certifications
in the space station frequency information requirements section.
Specifically, we propose to include the following certifications in
Schedule F: the space station(s) will comply with all applicable
technical rules; the space station(s) will operate under ITU
coordinated procedures and agreements; and the space station(s) can be
commanded to immediately cease transmissions to eliminate harmful
interference. We believe that these certifications will help the
Commission quickly identify applications that are in

[[Page 56351]]

compliance with the rules and can therefore be processed quickly,
distinguishing from applications that request a waiver and therefore
require further review. We seek comment on these certifications. Are
there additional certifications specific to frequency information that
we should include in Schedule F? We also propose to include a
subsection that points applicants who seek to operate in specific
frequency bands or to provide specific services to the appropriate rule
sections in subpart C where additional application materials can be
found. We believe that this will be more efficient and reduce the
overall length of part 100. We seek comment on this proposal. Does it
give applicants sufficient notice of what information is required of
them? Are there proposed requirements we should not adopt?
75. The specific frequency information we propose to require is set
forth in Appendix A. We seek comment on this proposed rule and the
information and certifications. Are there any frequency information
requirements that are no longer needed or relevant, either because they
are not used in practice by space station operators to assess
interference or because technology has evolved? Are there additional
frequency or technical requirements or data that we should require
applicants to provide? Are there alternative methods for collecting the
relevant frequency information from applicants that the Commission
should consider?
i. Requirements of Supplemental Coverage From Space Applications
76. Because SCS is a developing service, we do not at this time
propose to make any substantive changes to our rules from what is
currently required in part 25. We generally believe that making
substantive changes to the requirements for SCS at this juncture would
be premature and may risk derailing efforts by the industry to build
systems that comply with the current rules, with one exception where we
propose to eliminate a current requirement.
77. As has been pointed out in other proceedings, and as we have
seen in applications before the Commission, although we had endeavored
to create a flexible and low burden approach to licensing devices for
SCS, there may be some areas which can be further improved. We think
this proceeding serves as an opportunity to potentially revise our SCS
equipment rules in a targeted manner. As such, we seek comment on
whether to remove the requirements for equipment authorization
certifications under part 25 and omit them from new part 100 for SCS
earth stations. We tentatively conclude that this requirement is
unnecessary because all devices used for the provision of SCS must be
certified under other rule parts and, the way the rule is structured,
the certification under part 25 mirrors the certifications under other
rule parts without requiring anything new. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. Is there a reason to keep this requirement? If we
do adopt our proposal, would a rule in the new part 100 making all
equipment that meets the equipment authorization requirements of parts
22, 24, or 27, SCS earth stations by default be sufficient to classify
the devices as earth stations for allocation purposes? Alternatively,
is there a way that we can incentivize manufacturers who are
responsible for equipment certifications to certify their equipment to
be SCS compliant? We do not seek comment on any other matters related
to SCS or the other rules previously adopted.
j. U.S. Market Access
78. The Commission permits satellite systems that are licensed by
jurisdictions other than the United States to access the U.S. market.
Our current rules require a demonstration that U.S. licensed space
stations have effective competitive opportunities to provide analogous
services in the country in which the non-U.S. licensed space station is
licensed. The Commission currently allows this access to the U.S.
market via either a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the space
station operator or a request to access the foreign satellite by a
Commission-licensed earth station operator. We propose to continue to
review market access applications to ensure U.S. licensed space
stations have effective competitive opportunities to access other
markets.
79. Additionally, we propose a change to our request for market
access procedures to prohibit U.S. market access via earth station
licensing. We seek comment on whether to prohibit companies that seek
U.S. registration for a space station or system pursuant to the
Registration Convention from receiving an FCC authorization for U.S.
market access.
80. Current Sec. 25.137 allows earth station applicants to request
authority to communicate with a non-U.S. licensed space stations via a
petition for declaratory ruling under requirements that are equivalent
to those currently outlined in Sec. 25.137 which governs access via
satellites. In practice, however, we have found that this process
creates confusion among operators since this rule provision only allows
for communication with the specific earth station for which the
petition for declaratory ruling was made and not broader access to the
U.S. market. The current process also creates unnecessary burdens on
the Commission to process multiple earth station market access
applications rather than a single market access application for a non-
U.S. licensed satellite or satellite system. Therefore, we propose to
eliminate this option in our rules and only permit market access for
non-U.S. licensed satellites pursuant to petitions for declaratory
ruling for satellites and no longer via earth stations. We seek comment
on this proposal.
81. We seek comment on whether to change our market access rules to
prohibit applicants who seek registration by the United States under
the processes defined in the Registration Convention from receiving
authorization to access the U.S. market via a petition for declaratory
ruling and instead require those entities to hold an FCC space station
license. We seek comment on whether to require entities that seek
registration from the United States to hold a U.S. space station
license pursuant to our licensing authority under section 301(f) of the
Act, the stated purpose of which is ``to maintain the control of the
United States over all the channels of radio transmission,'' and
section 303(r) of the Act, which directs the Commission to make such
rules and prescribe such restrictions to carry out the provisions of
the Act and ``any international radio [ ] communications treaty or
convention, or regulations annexed thereto, including any treaty or
convention insofar as it relates to the use of radio, to which the
United States is or may hereafter become a party.'' We seek comment on
whether this change in our licensing process is necessary to fulfill
the statutory objectives expressly stated in section 301, and to assist
the United States as a party to the Outer Space Treaty, pursuant to the
express requirements of section 303(r) of the Act. Under the
Registration Convention, States register space objects in a registry
maintained by each State in order to provide information regarding each
space object to the U.N. We also seek comment on whether there are
other sound reasons to make this change.
82. When entities seek authorization for space stations from non-
U.S. administrations, in many cases, the authorization is of limited
scope. For example, the authorization may only involve ITU filings for
some, but not all,

[[Page 56352]]

of the operational frequencies, or it may be only one of several
authorizations for space activities that the country's national
legislation provides. Given that the non-U.S. authorization may be
incomplete, we seek comment on whether an FCC license should be
required when an applicant seeks to have its satellites registered by
the United States under the processes defined by the Registration
Convention. Is this requirement necessary so that the United States can
maintain ``authorization and continuing supervision'' over the space
object? We therefore seek comment on how the U.S. space station
licensing process can better align with the registration process.
Additionally, we seek comment on how to implement any new rule if
adopted, recognizing the complexity of issues that could arise between
the licensing administration, the ITU filing, and the U.N.
registration. Should any operator that seeks or obtains registration by
the United States under the Registration Convention be required to
obtain a FCC space station license as of the effective date of any new
rule? Should a condition be added on any grant of U.S. market access,
providing that authorization would be automatically terminated without
further action by the Commission if, after grant, the grantee seeks or
receives registration by the United States for any of the authorized
satellites and if so, what effect would that have on existing services?
If any new requirement only applies on a going-forward basis, should
the requirement for a U.S. license attach if current operators who
received market access and were registered by the United States apply
for renewal, if a renewal period is established, or a major
modification and what effect would that have on existing services? We
seek comment on how real-world scenarios should be addressed as well as
any alternative suggestions.
83. Finally, it is our intention to ensure that operators who are
granted authorization to access the U.S. market via a petition for
declaratory ruling do not receive an advantage over entities holding a
U.S. satellite license. Do our proposed rules meet that goal, and if
not, how can they be improved? We note that the European Union (EU)
recently proposed a comprehensive EU Space Law which includes
additional requirements for non-EU entities to gain access to the EU
market, such as appointing an EU legal representative. Under the EU
proposal, some of these requirements may be waived if the European
Commission determines the non-EU jurisdiction's regulatory framework is
sufficiently equivalent to its own. Are there additional requirements,
including requirements like those proposed by the EU, that should be
incorporated into the Commission's rules for market access entities to
establish a level playing field for U.S. operators? For example, there
is no license term for U.S. satellite market access grants, and instead
we rely on the review of the licensing administration, which
establishes the term, if any, on the original license. Therefore, we
propose to establish a 15- or 20-year license term for these
authorizations, as discussed below. Are there additional requirements
that should be imposed on the grantees of market access? For example,
should the Commission require a periodic certification that grantees
continue to hold a license from their authorizing administration, and/
or the ITU and continue to provide service to end-users in the U.S.
market? If so, when should such a certification be required? Commenters
should describe proposals with specificity, including whether the
requirement can be waived upon a showing of sufficiency of the
regulation in the country in which the operator holds its original
license.
k. Small Satellite Systems
84. We believe the Commission's small satellite and small
spacecraft rules in Sec. Sec. 25.122 and 25.123 have generally been
successful despite applicants facing some of the same challenges as
other applicants for part 25 licenses. In addition to the more
straightforward criteria to qualify as a small satellite system (akin
to our proposed approach to prespecify acceptable criteria), the
current rules for small satellite systems afford applicants relaxed
surety bond and milestone requirements. Accordingly, we do not propose
separate rules for small satellite systems. Instead, under the proposed
part 100, we expect that applications for all space stations will be
reviewed against a prespecified set of standards for expedited
processing, as described in the NPRM. Our proposed framework
essentially expands the existing small satellite authorization process
to encompass a broader range of systems eligible for faster processing.
In addition, as proposed herein, small systems would not be required to
post a surety bond. We therefore believe that applications that are
currently eligible for small satellite or small spacecraft processing
will receive the same benefits--no surety bond, exemption from
processing rounds, faster processing--under the proposed part 100
rules. Further, our proposal expands the class of applications that
would receive these benefits. We seek comment on this approach and
alternatives.
85. First, we seek comment on whether we should eliminate the
streamlined small space station and small spacecraft authorization
processes entirely if we adopt the proposed processing rules in the
NPRM. Specifically, because the rules we propose aim to optimize all
application processing and would only require larger systems to post a
surety bond, as discussed below, would these changes effectively negate
the need for a process specific to small satellite systems? We do not
propose to address any regulatory fee issues in the NPRM but seek
comment on any alternatives the Commission should consider as far as
designating certain systems as ``small satellite systems.''
86. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should continue to
distinguish a small satellite system from an NGSO satellite system.
Could we revise the definition to be any NGSO satellite system of ten
or fewer satellites under a certain mass limit? Would it then make
sense to retain the shorter six-year license term? Should we change the
current mass requirement by increasing it? We seek comment on this
proposal and how to define ``small satellite'' or ``small satellite
system'' if we retain these categories. Is there any benefit to having
this specific carve out and definition? What benefits, if any, would a
small satellite system get given our proposed streamlined approach to
application processing and the proposed changes to the surety bond
requirement for applicants and licensees? Is this proposed definition
too restrictive or not restrictive enough? We seek comment on these
questions and proposals generally.
l. Earth Station Licensing Application Requirements
87. We propose to streamline the earth station application
requirements by shifting to a predominately Nationwide, Non-Site
License approach, and modularize the application so that applicants
only provide information that is necessary for the license sought. We
believe that this will be more efficient than the current approach,
where the Commission requires certain information that it typically
does not review. We propose to require additional specific information
be submitted based upon the type of application. For instance, rather
than applying radiofrequency exposure requirements to all applicants,
we propose to only require the information for user terminal and Earth
Stations in

[[Page 56353]]

Motion (ESIMs) applications. We believe that the changes we make to the
requirements for earth station applications will streamline the process
for most applicants and promote more efficient Commission processes.
88. Our current rules regarding earth station application
requirements are overly burdensome and outdated. Experience indicates
our earth station rules often confuse applicants. Much of what the
Commission currently requires an applicant to provide is information
that is redundant or unnecessary to the Commission's review. In
addition, we generally require separate applications for earth stations
with the same operating or technical parameters, requiring multiple and
redundant reviews. The current approach by the Commission to reviewing
earth station applications requires applicants and the Commission to
engage in time-consuming submissions and tedious reviews. In addition,
the current rules do not take into account advances in technology since
the rules were written. To modernize our process, similarly to how we
propose reviewing space station applications, we propose to shift to a
certification-based approach for earth station applications. Under this
approach, applicants who do not operate in accordance with the
certifications that they make in the application will assume the risk
of an enforcement action for falsely certifying, including the
possibility of forfeitures and revocation. So, while the proposed
approach may increase speed and efficiency for applicants, it comes
with more responsibility on the applicants to ensure they are meeting
the Commission's requirements. We seek comment on our proposals. We
note that some of the proposals may impact earth stations that operate
in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS). We do not propose
any substantive changes to the UMFUS regulations in this proceeding and
do not seek comment on changes to the UMFUS rules here, instead leaving
any such substantive discussion to other proceedings.
89. In addition, we also seek comment on a number of specific
questions that may inform the Commission on how our proposed approach
will impact industry and the public. Specifically, if an applicant
provides all of the certifications in the application, is that
sufficient, or does the Commission need to require additional
information or review before placing an application on public notice?
What additional information, if any, should an applicant be required to
provide? For instance, we propose to require applicants to provide
their power levels, out-of-band emissions (OOBE), and other power
information and also to certify that they are operating within the
rules we have established. Is this redundant? Should we instead only
require the certification? If we should require both the technical data
and the certifications, what is the benefit to doing so? What should
the Commission do if an applicant does not certify that they have
completed coordination but states they are in the coordination process?
Should this be deemed an incomplete application? For operations in
shared bands, should we request different or additional information? We
tentatively conclude that an applicant, for operations other than those
for Immovable earth station Nationwide, Non-Site License, will likely
have coordinated applicable operations before submitting an application
with the Commission and that such coordination would be reflected in
the coordination report. We seek comment on this conclusion. Instead of
requiring applicants to provide their coordination reports, should we
require licensees to certify that they will complete coordination prior
to operation but have available at the request of the Commission
evidence of having completed that coordination? Would a coordination
report be appropriate evidence or something else? Is there any
particular benefit to having a coordination report in a license file
instead of simply requiring licensees to produce evidence of
coordination at the request of the Commission? Should applicants
provide a description of their operations? Is that information relevant
for Commission review and licensing? For instance, if an applicant
applies for a user terminal authorization, should they be required to
tell us what the intended use is, or should they be allowed to use the
devices as they see fit so long as they do not violate the Commission's
rules? For an applicant who fails to certify in the affirmative or who
requests a waiver of the Commission's rules, what information should we
require from them? Should we be more specific as to what showings
(e.g., interference analysis) should be included with particular types
of waiver requests? Is any of the information proposed to be requested
unnecessary? Are there sufficient similarities between ESIMs and user
terminals so that an applicant can apply for both ESIM and user
terminal authorization in the same application if the technical
information provided meets applicable requirements specific to each
service? Further, we seek comment generally on any potential impacts
our proposed changes to earth station licensing could have on services
in shared spectrum bands. In addition, should we exclude spectrum bands
that are subject to freezes or other limitations--such as C-band--from
the proposed licensing rules?
m. Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing With Registration for Immovable Earth
Stations
90. We propose to shift our earth station licensing from the
current, burdensome site-by-site approach to a predominately
Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing approach. While the site-by-site
approach will still be available, the dramatic increase in the number
of earth stations required by the space industry necessitates a much
more streamlined approach that can scale licensing earth stations. We
envision a framework involving two steps: first, obtaining a
Nationwide, Non-Site License; and second registering earth station
sites and completing coordination before operations. Under this two-
step process, an operator would only need to go through a full
licensing process once but could then register earth station sites as
needed. Under this proposal, either at the time of registration or
after registration but prior to operation the licensee would certify
and/or demonstrate compliance with any location- or frequency-specific
rules that might apply. Our intention is for the proposed two-step
framework to apply to all frequency bands. However, given that there
are specific rules related to different frequency band usage and that
we do not propose to change them here, we see this approach as setting
the framework for licensing and registering earth stations so we
progressively make registration more efficient in various bands. While
initially some bands or locations may vary in how registration takes
place, it is our goal to progressively move toward simpler, data-based
enabled registration of earth stations under this Nationwide, Non-Site
Licensing model. For example, similar to what the Commission has
adopted for the 70/80/90 GHz band, such an approach could be applied to
other frequency bands used for earth station operations.
91. We propose to adopt a new class of earth station, the Immovable
earth station. We propose to define ``Immovable earth station'' as,
``[a]n earth station licensed under either a Nationwide, Non-Site
License or a single location authorization that is located at a single
fixed location that must be registered and coordinated before
operating.'' We propose this definition to distinguish from the

[[Page 56354]]

Commission's definition of fixed earth station (which operate in the
FSS) from other types of earth stations. Additionally, we propose to
only allow applicants who do not require any exceptions or waivers to
apply for a Nationwide, Non-Site License for Immovable earth stations
and then register locations. We believe that this new type of earth
station and definition, one that makes clear that an earth station must
be registered at a location, will provide flexibility to applicants and
avoid confusion with the definition for fixed earth stations that
currently exists in our rules. In addition, under the current rules,
the Commission requires, generally, that every new earth station at a
different location goes through the entire licensing process, even
where new earth stations are technically identical. Although currently
the part 25 rules allow for blanket licensing in certain frequency
bands, those bands are limited and do not account for technical
advancements or more efficient use of spectrum in the future.
Accordingly, we believe that creating this new class of Immovable earth
station, and permitting nationwide, non-site licensing with
registration requirements, is a more efficient way to license earth
stations.
92. We do not wish to allow licensees to circumvent coordination or
other requirements that are meant to protect against harmful
interference. We therefore propose that applications requiring a waiver
or an exception, other than for federal coordination, will be required
to file a site-specific license application for the earth station that
requires the exception or waiver. In addition, while we propose
allowing applicants to register their sites instead of needing to go
through a full licensing approach, we still will require proof that
coordination has occurred prior to the earth station operating at the
newly registered site. In this case, we propose to require applicants
to file a certification prior to beginning operations affirming that
all required frequency and site-specific coordination has been
completed. To be clear, what we propose is a two-step process. An
applicant can first be licensed for the use of a specific frequency
without the need to coordinate but would then have to coordinate with
all required commercial and federal entities prior to operating at a
site registered under the Nationwide, Non-Site License. What we propose
still requires that coordination occurs between operators prior to
operations--although registration may occur prior to certifying to
meeting coordination. We envision this approach to be used in all
frequency bands. We tentatively believe that our coordination before
operation but after registration proposal would ensure protection and
that the criteria of any frequency specific rules, such as those for
the UMFUS bands, are met. Although we propose to allow an applicant to
receive a license, this proposal does not allow a licensee to begin
operations prior to both registering their sites and certifying that
coordination has been completed at those sites and completing all
coordination requirements. We believe this two-step approach--licensing
first then site specific registration and coordination prior to
operations--would allow for a streamlined licensing regime wherein
operators would only need to come to the Commission for a license once
and then register sites pursuant to the Nationwide, Non-Site License
and begin operations after certifying to completing all required
coordination without having to seek additional Commission approval.
93. Alternatively, rather than requiring filed coordination reports
prior to operations, would self-coordination amongst operators as the
default approach in all frequency bands achieve the same objectives?
Specifically, should we allow earth station operators to assess the
risk of harmful interference to incumbent users prior to operation and
require them to take steps to proactively prevent harmful interference
to earlier-in-time users? Would this approach better allow for
licensee's to begin their operations quickly while still ensuring that
other users are protected? Are there any drawbacks to this approach?
What benefits are there to this approach over what we propose above?
Alternatively, is there a way to combine the two approaches that would
still allow for quickly deploying and operating while ensuring there is
no harmful interference to incumbent operations? We note that the
proposal above does allow for licensees to register sites prior to
coordination, but must coordinate and certify to meeting all
coordination requirements before operating. Would instead allowing
operations on an unprotected/non-interference basis while coordination
is occurring but still require a coordination report or certification
be filed upon completion of coordination be a suitable alternative to
what we propose? Should we instead adopt this self-certification
approach for certain bands and exclude others? Alternatively, would
allowing licensees at the time of registration to certify that they
will complete coordination prior to beginning operations but rather
than file a coordination report only require that they be able to
provide evidence of completed coordination at the request of the
Commission achieve the same goals with a reduced administrative burden?
94. We are cognizant, however, that a one size fits all approach
for every frequency band is unlikely to be possible in the immediate
future. Many bands have certain restrictions or limitations that likely
need to be addressed in separate rulemakings. However, we tentatively
believe that the new predominately nationwide, non-site licensing
approach we propose here can be applied broadly nonetheless. We invite
comment on whether there are any spectrum bands today that are suitable
for a lighter approach than what is proposed. For instance, are there
any where we can require only to supplement their license file with the
locations at which they seek to operate rather than officially
registering the sites? Are there any other approaches that should be
considered for certain frequency bands that do not have coordination
concerns or use limitations?
95. While we tentatively conclude that adopting a nationwide, non-
site licensing approach would best serve the dual needs of ensuring
growth in the industry while protecting other spectrum users, we
recognize that there are issues that may still need to be addressed.
Accordingly, we seek comment on specific questions and proposals.
First, as part of this approach, should we establish any sort of first
in time right? For instance, if two licensees want to register at the
same location, should the one that files first have protection over the
one that files second? Should it be based on who begins operations
first? Are such rules even necessary, or does the coordination process
coupled with the requirements to only operate within the Commission's
rules without the need for waiver or exceptions resolve most of these
issues? We note that under our current rules, coordination is only
required for operational sites. Does that address these issues? In that
same regard, how should site-specific licenses be treated when
determining priority? Should there be different operational limits for
different frequency bands or do the proposed operational limits in
Appendix A sufficiently protect other spectrum users? Similarly, are
there bands that should be excluded from our proposed Nationwide, Non-
Site License with registration approach? Is there a benefit to allowing
for registration prior to certifying to coordination if it means that
the earth station cannot operate until the certifications are also
filed?

[[Page 56355]]

Could this result in warehousing of locations for a year at a time?
Should we establish a mechanism where multiple parties can register at
a site, so that if the party that registers first is unable to meet the
365 day deadline, the applicant that is next in line will have a chance
to begin operations at the site?
96. Further, should the Commission establish a database for
registering the sites? We note that no database currently exists, but
licensees are currently able to file supplements in their license files
in ICFS. Does the filing of supplements achieve the same purpose as a
database? If so, how would the public be made aware that the
registration has been filed without causing unnecessary burdens on
Commission resources? We also ask whether we should have different
registration systems generally for different frequency bands or if they
should all be uniform? For instance, UMFUS bands have specific
requirements that must be met before a licensee can begin operating,
but S- and X-band frequencies do not have those same requirements. Does
this warrant establishing different registration systems or rules for
registration for specific frequency bands? Could establishing a
database similar to what the Commission has established for the 70/80/
90 GHz bands be a solution that would allow for a single database?
Should the Commission instead delegate to the Space Bureau
responsibility to find the best approach for registering sites at a
later date? Should the Commission establish a new database that is more
easily searchable and tailored specifically to just these proposed
registrations?
97. In addition to the questions above, we seek comment on general
questions related to this approach. Specifically, what possible issues
exist with adopting a Nationwide, Non-Site License approach? Are there
specific bands where this proposal would not work, and if so, why not?
How would this impact coordination between operators or with the
federal government? Is there a benefit to this approach, or will
applicants primarily only seek site specific licenses? Should we permit
applicants that seek a waiver of certain rules, such as the U.S. Table
of Frequency Allocations, to utilize the Nationwide, Non-Site License
approach? Are there any drawbacks or benefits to allowing an applicant
who requests a waiver to utilize the Nationwide, Non-Site License
approach?
2. Application Handling
98. We propose to revise the Commission's rules guiding how a filed
application will be processed prior to a final action by the
Commission. The proposed rules in this portion of subpart B would
establish certain processing timelines, a standard of completeness,
public comment processes and guidelines for information requests to
applicants. As part of the licensing assembly line, application
processing is designed to gather and organize all the information
needed in preparation for the Commission to consider the application.
We believe that these proposed rules will increase processing speed and
reduce burden on applicants and the Commission. Our proposed rules
would function as follows:
<bullet> Within 30 days of filing and confirmation of fee payment,
the Commission must either place an application on public notice or, if
the application is incomplete, ask for all information needed to
establish completeness.
<bullet> Once an incomplete application is supplemented and deemed
complete, the application will be placed on public notice as soon as
practicable.
<bullet> If an application is complete, and the applicant certifies
in the affirmative to meeting all the bright-line criteria for their
system, does not request a waiver, and is not subject to any
``exceptions'' to expedited processing, the application will be placed
on seven-day public notice (i.e., expedited processing).
<bullet> Applications not eligible for expedited processing will be
placed on 15-day public notice.
<bullet> Applications subject to section 309(b) of the Act will be
placed on 30-day public notice.
<bullet> If no action is taken on the space station application
within 60 days following the end of the public notice period, the
Commission will inform the applicant of the reasons preventing a
license grant with specific reference to any exceptions.
We seek comment on the specific revisions to the application
processing phase detailed below and in Appendix A.
a. Completeness
99. Before an application is placed on public notice, the
Commission must determine that the application is complete. It is
longstanding Commission precedent that applications must be
``substantially complete'' before they are accepted for filing, meaning
that ``applications must be complete in substance, and must provide all
the information required in the application form.'' The substantially
complete standard does not refer to a determination on the merits of
the application, nor does it imply that the Commission does not have
further questions for an applicant after an application is placed on
public notice. Rather, it is designed to ensure that an application
includes all of the information required by the Commission's rules and
helps to deter against the filing of speculative applications.
100. The Commission's rules state that an application will be
unacceptable for filing and returned to the applicant if ``the
application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to
questions, informal showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or
other matters of a formal character.'' Further, Sec. 25.112 of the
Commission's rules states, in part, that an application will be
unacceptable for filing and returned to the applicant if the
application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules,
regulations, specific requests for additional information, or other
requirements. In adopting this rule, the Commission clarified that
``[w]hile in some instances it is efficient for staff to help parties
address discrepancies in their pending applications, we require all
applications under part 25 to be substantially complete when they are
filed.'' The current requirements for space station applications
additionally require that an applicant provide a ``comprehensive
proposal.'' The Commission has previously noted that a ``comprehensive
proposal'' must describe ``in detail all pertinent technical,
operational and ownership aspects of the system and its ability to
proceed expeditiously with construction and launch.''
101. Our experience is that these overlapping and subjective
standards have not served to promote expediency in placing applications
on public notice or in making applicants aware of what comprises a
complete application. We believe that establishing a clearer standard
for what determines ``completeness'' as a precursor to the application
review process will be an important and beneficial addition to the
rules if we adopt our proposal to determine whether an application
qualifies for expedited processing prior to the public notice period.
This proposed rule section would codify the existing process for
determining whether an application is complete and the process by which
an applicant will be notified of any deficiencies in the application.
To provide applicants with clarity and a more predictable standard, we
propose to clearly articulate the

[[Page 56356]]

standard for completeness before an application can be accepted for
filing and placed on public notice. Accordingly, we propose to include
a new rule section in part 100 defining the standard for completeness,
stating, ``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.'' We
believe this definition focuses on whether all required materials have
been provided rather than involving a determination on the merits of an
application. In addition, the application certifications and processing
framework to identify exceptions to expedited processing as proposed
herein aim to allow for a more objective determination of whether all
information required has been provided and an application can be deemed
complete. We also clarify that applications with negative
certifications or waiver requests must provide additional information
to be complete, which will assist the Commission as it informs
applicants of any deficiencies in an application within 30 days of
filing. We seek comment on the proposed definition and standard for
completeness. Are there alternative proposals or methods the Commission
should consider in determining that an application is ``complete''?
Does the proposed standard provide the intended benefit and guidance to
applicants in stating a more clear standard on when applications can be
accepted for filing? We believe that 30 days will give the Commission
sufficient time to review space station applications and either place
them on public notice or contact applicants to inform them of any
missing information or other deficiencies. Should the initial timeline
be longer to encourage more intensive review prior to public notice to
identify any missing application requirements or exceptions that might
delay grant so that the Commission can proceed with grant more quickly
following the end of the public notice period?
b. Public Notices and Oppositions to Applications
102. We propose to overhaul our current public notice procedures
for all applications not subject to section 309(b) and (c) of the Act.
For most applications that are determined to be acceptable for filing,
we propose a shortened public notice period of either seven or fifteen
days. Applications that do not have any enumerated exceptions would be
subject to expedited processing and placed on a seven-day public notice
period. All other applications would be placed on a 15-day public
notice period. Applications subject to section 309(b) and (c) of the
Act would continue to be placed on public notice for a 30-day comment
period.
103. We propose that oppositions to applications, including
petitions to deny and other pleadings (collectively ``oppositions''),
would need to be received by the Commission within seven days after
public notice for applications. Any replies responding to oppositions
must be filed within five days after the expiration of the time for
filing oppositions, consistent with the current rules. We note that the
Commission currently accepts informal objections filed outside of the
established public notice window or outside of conformance with Sec.
25.154(a). To encourage timely filings, we propose to include in part
100 the requirement that any commenter, petitioner, or filer request a
waiver of the rules when filing outside of a designated filing window.
Finally, we propose allowing the Commission to shorten or extend a
public notice period on its own motion.
104. We seek comment on these proposals. It is our goal to provide
certainty to process applications quickly while still guaranteeing
opportunity for public comment. Do these comment periods provide enough
time for the public to understand and comment on applications,
particularly given our proposed revisions to the application
requirements so the request may be more quickly understood? Is the rule
language sufficiently clear to inform applicants of the relevant public
notice period? Does this proposed rule section include all pleadings
that are subject to public notice requirements, or should additional
classes of pleadings be added? The proposed rules only allow reply
comments to be filed by the party that filed a petition to deny. Would
a more robust record result if that constraint were eliminated and the
public at large allowed to participate at this stage of the proceeding?
Would expanding the process in such a manner complicate the proceeding
or cause delay in resolution? We seek comment on the full range of
options available for expediting public notice procedures, consistent
with the goals of this proceeding.
c. Processing Timelines for Space Stations
105. We propose to adopt timelines for space station application
processing in order to achieve our goals of speed and predictability.
We propose that if no action is taken on a space station application
within 60 days following the end of the public notice period,
Commission staff will inform the applicant and public of the reasons
preventing a license grant with particular note to any exceptions. We
believe this approach will foster accountability and transparency which
in turn will facilitate resolution of outstanding issues as the
applicant will be better able to understand the Commission's view on
its license request. We seek comment on these proposals. Are these
timelines appropriate? In what manner should the Commission notify the
applicant of any issues or deficiencies? Would a letter filed in ICFS
(or successor system) be sufficient?
d. Processing for Earth Station Applications
106. We also propose to adopt processing timelines for earth
stations that mirror those for space stations. Under our current
policies, earth station license applications are placed on public
notice within 30 days of filing. However, the Commission has not
generally adopted strict timelines for taking action on an earth
station application, other than in the case of renewals. While this
approach has drastically increased the speed of earth station
application processing, it leaves applicants with a lack of clarity on
status once the public notice period ends. Accordingly, we propose to
adopt rules that specify for applicants how their applications will be
processed. We seek comment on our proposals.
107. As a general matter, we acknowledge that while earth station
processing has seen dramatic increases in speed over the last year,
there is still plenty of opportunity for improvement to the process.
With that in mind, we propose to overhaul the processing of earth
station applications to be more streamlined so that applicants can
start providing services faster. Under our current rules, when staff
processes applications, no differentiation is made between applications
that conform to the Commission's rules and those that seek waivers.
This results in all of the applications being processed in the order in
which they are received rather than creating a way for those
applications that comply with Commission rules to move through the
process faster. Accordingly, we propose to create two separate
processes for earth station applications. Specifically, we propose a
process where applications that conform to the Commission's rules can
begin temporary pre-grant operations on a non-interference, unprotected
basis once the application is placed on public notice,

[[Page 56357]]

similar to the current process for STA. Applications that do not
conform with the Commission's rules--for example, if they request a
waiver or do not certify in the affirmative to requested
certifications--will not be afforded this status. We seek comment on
these proposals.
108. While we are cognizant of concerns of harmful interference
when allowing operations to begin before the completion of a public
notice period, we note that what we propose allowing is similar to what
the Commission currently allows via STA, only without the extra step of
submitting another application. Specifically, earth station operators
often file for STA operations while their underlying applications are
being processed so that they may begin operations, even if it is on a
non-interference and unprotected basis. We seek comment on whether our
proposal of permitting operations to commence prior to grant without
requiring the submission of another application would be consistent
with statutory requirements.
109. In addition, we seek comment on whether the industry has
matured to a point where users in shared frequency bands or adjacent
bands are able to coordinate amongst themselves to prevent interference
such that allowing operations while an application is on public notice
would cause little to no harm. Should there be restrictions on specific
bands or operations? For instance, should this approach be limited to
non-Federal bands only? If so, why? And if not, is it because the
coordination and interference protection is band agnostic? Do there
need to be any other restrictions? Given that we only propose to allow
the operations beginning at public notice in specific circumstances, do
the proposed rules offer sufficient protection and afford operators a
sense of predictability? Does the differentiation even matter, or
should the Commission allow operations for all applicants, regardless
of whether they require any waivers or exceptions? What are the
benefits or drawbacks to this approach? Should we allow operations
while an application is on public notice when the applicant requests
waiver of certain rules? Are there common waivers the Commission grants
regularly that we should consider as part of this approach such as
waivers of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations or location
restrictions?
e. Information Requests
110. Applicants need predictability, whether in terms of launch
timing, regulatory requirements, or the kind of questions that can be
expected during the licensing process. At the same time, it is critical
that the Commission receive clear, complete, and factually accurate
applications. Accordingly, we propose specifying the scope of
information the Commission may request from applicants. We propose that
information requests must be targeted at obtaining information directly
material to a determination of whether the requested authorization is
in the public interest, or to resolve inconsistencies, technical
issues, or other matters of concern that have a direct bearing on the
decision. We believe that by requiring the Commission to identify all
issues with an application in the initial information request and
explain why the information is necessary, we will not only increase the
level of predictability for applicants, but also increase the speed at
which applications can be processed. We seek comment on our proposal
generally.
111. We propose that the Commission may request information from
applicants to: (1) determine completeness of the application; (2)
understand the facts of informational showings, inconsistencies,
execution, or other technical matters when the factual issue is
directly material to the review; (3) determine if an exception applies
to the application; (4) resolve matters of concern raised in pleadings,
objections, or comments in response to an application; (5) evaluate
compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations or other
requirements; and (6) consider issues that are directly material and
necessary for the Commission to evaluate the merits of the application
under the Commission's rules. Our objective is to limit information
requests to only those showings that are directly material to the
Commission's review of the application under our rules and regulations.
Do these categories sufficiently cover such areas? Are there any ways
in which the information requests allowed should be narrowed to prevent
unnecessary or tangential inquiry?
112. To be clear, we do not propose to limit the Commission's
ability to speak with applicants to discuss the status of an
application or as part of ex parte presentations outside of a formal
information request to address issues or deficiencies with
applications. We believe that the proposed rule strikes the right
balance of speed and predictability but also provides applicants the
opportunity to engage with Commission staff to address any issues or
concerns within the application that may risk delay in the licensing
process. We seek comment on this proposal. Further, is there value in
expressly outlining guidance by which the Commission may ask for
additional information from an applicant? Do our proposed rules provide
enough flexibility for the Commission to be able to get all the
information necessary to make a final determination on the merits?
3. Review of Applications for Decision
113. We propose to apply a standardized decision framework to
determine whether grant of a space or earth station application would
be in the public interest. We propose rules that would standardize the
Commission's review process by using the information received in the
application materials and through public comment. Our proposal seeks to
focus review of the application primarily on areas where the Commission
needs to consider an issue that is not presumed to be in the public
interest. If there are no issues, then the application will receive
expedited processing. If there is one or more identified ``exception''
to expedited processing, then the Commission will consider the issue(s)
triggering the exception in light of the record. We detail our
proposals and seek comment on each below.
114. Expedited Processing. We propose that an application which
does not trigger one or more specific ``exceptions'' following the
public comment period will generally be presumed to be in the public
interest and thus granted as soon as practicable. For applications
placed on seven-day public notice (based on the Commission's initial
review not identifying any exceptions to expedited processing), we
propose to allow a conditional grant by rule upon completion of the
public notice period if no comments are received. Not only would this
allow operators to more quickly begin operations prior to a license
being issued, but we expect this would reduce the number of requests
for STAs. As discussed in more detail below, operations under a
conditional grant would be at the operator's risk and would not
guarantee a final grant, though we would expect in most instances that
the Commission would issue a license soon after. We seek comment on
this proposal.
115. Exceptions to Expedited Processing for Applications. For
applications where the Commission identifies one or more exceptions to
expedited processing--for example, a waiver request or negative
certification--then the Commission would focus its review on the
element(s)

[[Page 56358]]

of the application triggering the exception. The logic behind our
proposal is that the portions of an application that do not result in
an exception may generally be considered to be in the public interest
and therefore would not need additional review. Therefore, the
Commission can focus attention on the smaller set of issues needing an
individualized public interest determination. We seek comment on this
proposed approach and on any alternative frameworks.
116. To operationalize this framework, we propose to adopt rules
that clearly identify the instances when an application would be
removed from expedited processing. We propose to refer to these
instances as ``exceptions'' to the expedited processing timeline. We
believe that by including a specified list of scenarios that would
qualify an application for an exception to expedited processing and how
the Commission will process and review such applications, applicants
will be provided more regulatory predictability.
117. We describe the proposed exceptions to expedited processing
below, and seek comment on each:
<bullet> Negative Certification. If an applicant is not able to
affirmatively certify a particular element on the relevant application
materials then we will consider that to be a ``negative
certification,'' requiring review. In some instances, a negative
certification would require a waiver of one or more rules, but it may
simply require a review of additional information supplied by the
applicant. Applicants would be able to provide additional information
to support a public interest finding for negative certifications.
<bullet> Request for Waiver. If an applicant requests a waiver of
any of the Commission's rules, the waiver request would require review
on the merits to determine if it is in the public interest.
<bullet> Foreign Ownership. Reportable foreign ownership above a
threshold and control information, including foreign adversary
ownership or control, will need to be carefully reviewed.
<bullet> Processing Round. Applications requesting to operate in
certain identified frequency bands that have been designated for a
processing round would be considered as part of that processing round
and thus excepted from expedited processing.
<bullet> Spectral Constraints. A proposed system also may require
the use of frequencies which may be subject to limitations prescribed
by rule or that relate to existing users or international arrangements.
The Commission would need to review such proposals.
<bullet> Federal Coordination. Applications involving frequency
bands subject to federal coordination would not be eligible for
expedited processing.
<bullet> Market Access. Requests for market access would need to be
reviewed in light of market access rules addressing whether applicants'
home administrations have opened access to U.S. companies.
118. Our goal is to provide applicants with a high degree of
predictability as to whether an exception to expedited processing would
apply to an application. Relying on our proposed design of the
application materials and required certifications, we believe the
Negative Certification exception can be clearly identified. We also
believe it will generally be clear to applicants whether the Waiver
Request, Foreign Ownership, Federal Coordination, and Market Access
exceptions will apply. Under our proposal for processing rounds, we
also believe clarity can be provided as to whether a processing round
exception would apply. We expect the most ambiguous exception may be
Spectral Constraints, and we seek comment on how we might provide
clarity as to when such an exception would apply. What criteria could
be elaborated upon to make it clear when such an exception is likely to
be applicable? Is there a need for delegation to the Space Bureau to
provide continuing clarity around the Spectral Constraint exception or
any other exceptions? We also seek comment on each of the exceptions
and whether they could be applied in a straightforward and predictable
manner.
119. As part of reviewing exceptions related to an application, we
expect there will be situations where information is needed beyond what
is required by the application sections. For instance, 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 in accordance with our rules while protecting other
operators. Under our proposed application design, we have sought to
limit such showings and technical narratives for all applicants so we
can narrow the scope of situations where such submissions must be made.
To ensure the Commission can request the information needed to review
any of the exceptions, we propose to allow for such information
requests for the purpose of making a decision related to any
exceptions. While supplemental information may need to be requested,
our hope is that, by providing clarity in the rules as to which
exceptions are likely to apply, the Commission can help applicants
predict what will be needed so they can supply that information with
the initial application. We seek comment on this approach. Are there
ways we can provide further clarity so that applicants know what
information will eventually be requested as part of reviewing
exceptions? Will this approach reduce the amount of unnecessary
information requests pertaining to areas of an application which
require more focused review (e.g., exceptions)?
120. Do these exceptions from expedited processing sufficiently
encompass all instances where the Commission may need to conduct a more
thorough review of an application to determine if it is both in
conformance with the rules and in the public interest? As discussed
above, we propose to place applications not triggering any exceptions
and not requiring a thirty-day public notice, on seven-day public
notice with the potential for a conditional grant by rule if no
comments are filed in response to the application. In that context, are
these exceptions appropriate? Are the proposed classes of exceptions
too subjective? Are there any other classes of exception that should be
added? Or should any of the classes be removed? Are there approaches to
federal coordination that we might adopt and which we discuss elsewhere
that would allow us to remove the exception for federal coordination?
We ask commenters to provide examples of possible additional exceptions
to expedited processing with justification as to why an exception
should be added or removed. In particular, we ask that proposed
exceptions be able to function within the framework we have set out
such that whether an exception applies may be quickly and clearly
determined.
121. We also seek comment on the factors the Commission should
consider when determining whether a request is in the public interest
if an application includes one of the listed exceptions. We seek
comment on how we may better operationalize application of these rules
during the review and decision-making periods. In particular, we seek
comment on how decisions around Negative Certifications, Waiver
Requests, Foreign Ownership, and Spectral Constraints should be made.
Given that we expect many applications for new and novel operations
would have one or more negative certifications or waiver requests, how
or should we provide additional guidance on any additional information
that applicants should provide? How can we make sure triggering an
exception would not result in longer review timelines? Given our

[[Page 56359]]

desire and statutory responsibility to promote the proliferation of new
technology, how might we implement decision-making processes that
support innovative and novel technologies? To seek specific comment, we
propose that system designs resulting in negative certifications would
be in the public interest if the expected benefits of the system design
with the negative certification exceed the expected costs to society.
This approach would allow for applicants to submit information
demonstrating the net positive benefits to society and would give the
Commission a basis for making a decision. We would expect such showings
in most instances to be limited to a basic set of calculations with
reasonable assumptions. We seek comment on this proposal, as well as
alternatives, and ways the process could be made as straightforward as
possible. Should this approach be applied to review of other exceptions
besides Negative Certification?
122. Both applicants and the Commission often have struggled to
figure out how a new technology or innovative proposal fits into the
Commission's rules. Since we seek to provide predictability and
flexibility, we seek comment as to how our proposed licensing approach
can address and anticipate new technologies in the Commission's rules.
Our expectation is that the exceptions framework will route the novel
portions of an application for focused review. Within that focused
review, an expectation of grant in situations where the net benefits
are positive can greatly facilitate approval for proposals that fall
outside the bounds of the presumed acceptable framework. In this way,
applicants can have some predictability in seeking a potential license
grant. Is this a workable way to provide for innovation and
technological development over time? We seek comment on this approach
and alternatives that will assist the Commission in making sure the
Commission's space licensing rules are able to continuously accommodate
in a structured and predictable way new innovations which cannot
necessarily be foreseen.
123. In addition, we seek comment on the proposed timelines and the
requirements on the Commission to communicate to applicants why no
action has been taken on an application. Specifically, is the fact that
the Commission must either act on an application within 60 days or
notify applicants and the public of the reasons for not processing an
application sufficient? We seek comment on what impact, if any, that
might have on the proposed process. Regarding applications for shared
Federal bands, would it assist the process if the Commission were to
provide a point of contact at the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) as part of the notice to an applicant
if the reason the application has not been acted upon is due to federal
coordination? Alternatively, in shared terrestrial bands where an
applicant is unable to coordinate with a terrestrial operator and that
is preventing action on the application, should we require the
terrestrial operator to justify why they cannot complete coordination
with the applicant? Ultimately these are issues that may be primarily
outside the Commission's control but that can still prevent action on
an application. How can the Commission ensure transparency for these or
other instances that are outside the Commission's control? We seek
comment on these questions and welcome comment on other situations or
proposals for how the Commission can achieve its goals.
124. To further guide decisions on applications, we propose a
section articulating the standards under which requests will be judged.
A portion of this section is similar to Sec. 25.156(a) and explains
circumstances generally under which a request ``will be granted.''
However, we further propose to make clear in our rules that any request
which demonstrates compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations,
and policies is in the public interest. We believe these clear
statements will provide greater predictability to applicants as they
seek to understand how a request will be reviewed. Furthermore, such a
public interest presumption reinforces our desire to take a permissive
posture toward innovation by allowing flexibility within the rules the
Commission has adopted.
4. Conditional Grants
125. We propose to add an option for a conditional grant of
authority for certain types of applications. We believe that the option
for a conditional grant will help alleviate delays in the application
grant process caused by one or more specific requests in an applicant's
proposal that might prevent the applicant from beginning operations in
other frequency bands or with certain satellites that are not affected
by the issue. Specifically, we propose to allow conditional grants by
rule in the scenarios discussed below.
126. Expedited Processing Conditional Grant. We propose to permit
conditional grants for applications that are eligible for expedited
processing. Specifically, we propose that an application that is not
subject to any of the exceptions described herein, that is deemed
complete and placed on public notice, and that receives no objections,
comments, or other petitions during the public notice period would be
conditionally granted upon the expiration of the seven-day public
notice period. We propose that this conditional grant would apply to
all proposed operations and will authorize operations only on an
unprotected, non-interference basis. Commencement of operations
following a conditional grant would be at the operator's own risk,
including adverse final action on the application or conditions imposed
on the authorization following completion of staff review. We seek
comment on this proposal and whether it provides sufficient oversight
of satellite operations consistent with our rules and treaty
commitments. Should there be a specified process for moving to a full
grant after the conditional grant? If so, what should it be? Should the
Commission adopt a rule that it will issue a final decision within a
certain number of days after the public notice period? If so, how many
days should that be? We specifically believe that conditional grants
would be particularly beneficial in situations where applicants file an
application for a license modification and then file multiple STAs
covering the same request while the modification application is
pending. Under this proposed rule, an applicant who files an
application for license modification that fits within the parameters of
this conditional grant would not need to file for STA during
application review and would instead be able to operate under the
conditional grant.
127. Should conditional grants be allowed for expedited processing
even if comments or petitions to deny or other filings are made on the
underlying application? Would the requirement that all operations be on
a non-interference, unprotected basis be sufficient to protect other
operators? Would the rule that all operations are at the applicant's
own risk--and therefore the Commission could deny the application and
the applicant would be forced to immediately cease operations--be
sufficient to ensure applicants are operating within our rules? Are
there other guardrails that we should put in place to ensure that no
harmful interference results from

[[Page 56360]]

operations under this proposed conditional grant mechanism?
128. Orbital Debris Deferral Conditional Grant. We also propose to
allow a conditional grant for applicants who are not sufficiently
advanced in the critical design review phase to be able to submit the
orbital debris mitigation plan (ODMP) when they submit their space
station license application. In recent years, the Commission has
received requests for waiver of the orbital debris showings which are
handled on an ad hoc basis. We believe our proposal will create a
standard approach so applicants can flexibly plan their system design
and application filing. Applicants could elect when they initially file
their application to receive a conditional grant without providing
certifications and supporting materials related to orbital debris.
Under this proposal, an applicant may file for a conditional grant with
the requirement that at least six months prior to integration with a
launch vehicle, the applicant must submit an ODMP for Commission review
and approval. Additionally, we propose to require applicants who seek
this conditional grant to meet the following requirements: (1) provide
all information required by the space station information requirement
sections in the proposed rules, and any additional information
required; (2) certify that the finished and operational satellite
system will comply with all the requirements in the orbital debris
rules adopted by the Commission as well as all of the showings required
by the proposed ``Space Station Orbital Information'' section; (3) file
an ODMP that demonstrates compliance with all relevant orbital debris
rules and certifications at least six months prior to integration of
any satellites with a launch vehicle. We propose that if an applicant
is unable to follow these requirements, they would be directed to file
an application for license modification and the conditional grant would
be revoked. We believe this approach would incentivize applicants to
provide an ODMP as soon as practicable while still having much more
flexibility during the design process. Additionally, we believe this
would incentivize applicants to design satellite systems that comply
with the bright-line criteria rather than request a modification. We
seek comment on this proposal. Is there additional information that we
should require at the time of the application? Is six months prior to
integration with a launch vehicle sufficient time to allow the
Commission to review the ODMP?
129. Commercial Coordination Conditional Grant. Finally, we propose
allowing applicants to receive a conditional grant in situations where
an applicant is coordinating with other operators in specific frequency
bands. Specifically, we propose to allow a conditional grant for
operations in the frequency bands or portions of the frequency bands
that are not subject to coordination with other commercial operators.
We further propose to condition the operations in shared frequency
bands or bands that require coordination with other operators on the
applicant providing notice to the Commission of successful coordination
with other commercial operators. Does this proposal provide sufficient
flexibility for operators to use frequencies not subject to
coordination? If not, how should this proposal be modified? Would it
instead be more efficient to allow operations in the bands subject to
coordination on a non-interference, unprotected basis to incentivize
coordination? What are the risks and benefits to this approach? What
exactly should the applicant be required to submit to the Commission to
show successful coordination--a coordination report that becomes part
of the grant?
130. In addition, we seek comment on specific questions related to
conditional grants. Specifically, should there be a maximum timeline
for how long a conditional grant can last? Should the Commission update
a conditional grant to reflect that the condition has been met or
should the licensee's notification suffice? Further, we propose to
allow operators to launch while subject to a conditional grant, but
only with an express launch authorization from the Commission. Should
the Commission allow operators to launch new satellites under only a
conditional grant? Or should the conditional grant only be allowed for
modifications or for operators who must satisfy the condition before
launching? What ramifications should there be if an applicant launches
without approval from the Commission while only conditionally licensed?
Similarly, how should the Commission address instances where the
Commission approves launching the satellite while it is conditionally
licensed, but subsequently the licensee does not meet the condition of
the license? We expect that the commercial coordination conditional
grant will be particularly beneficial for earth station operators and
especially those that request multiple frequency bands because it will
allow them to begin operations in bands without coordination issues
while addressing necessary coordination for the other bands.
131. Federal Coordination Conditional Grant. We seek comment on
whether we should allow for conditional grant of a license in a
frequency band that is subject to federal coordination. Specifically,
what are the benefits or drawbacks to allowing conditional grant for
licenses that are subject to federal coordination? If we adopt this
approach, should we allow for conditional grant for all requested
frequencies--including those subject to federal coordination--or only
allow it for the bands not subject to the federal coordination, similar
to what we propose for commercial coordination conditional grants? Do
existing rules and coordination requirements for shared bands mitigate
the risks of allowing for conditional grants in bands subject to
federal coordination requirements? Should applicants be required to
demonstrate that coordination with the federal government is complete?
Or instead, should applicants only be required to certify that they
will complete coordination prior to operating and be able to provide
evidence of completed coordination upon request by the Commission or
any impacted federal agency? What type of certification or
documentation is sufficient to demonstrate this? Alternatively, would a
certification from the applicant be sufficient, or should the
Commission require some other indication that federal coordination is
complete? Further should we instead adopt a framework in our rules that
outlines specific license conditions for operations in shared federal
bands rather than any bespoke license conditions for federal
coordination? Should this framework also establish a mechanism for
licensees to quickly determine what shared frequency bands with federal
operations may be subject to more stringent coordination reviews?
Alternatively, rather than a framework for federal coordination
conditions, would adoption of a conditional grant subject to federal
coordination in our rules, rather than bespoke conditions or a
framework, achieve the same goals? Is there any reason to tailor the
criteria for meeting this federal coordination requirement under a
conditional grant on the basis of which coordinating agencies, or
categories of agencies are involved? If this approach is adopted,
should the Commission be required to provide a point of contact at NTIA
as part of the conditional grant to an applicant? If we condition grant
on

[[Page 56361]]

federal coordination, should we remove federal coordination as one of
the listed exceptions to expedited processing?
5. Processing Rounds
132. Processing Rounds for NGSO Applications. The Commission
currently considers applications for NGSO system licenses in groups
based on filing dates under a processing round framework. Under the
current rules, a processing round is initiated when an application for
NGSO-like satellite operation is placed on public notice as a ``lead
application,'' establishing a cut-off date for applications filed in
response, or ``competing applications.'' The Commission then reviews
each application filed in the processing round and any pleadings filed
in response, and grants applications for which the Commission finds
that the applicant is legally, technically, and otherwise qualified,
and that the proposed facilities and operations will comply with all
applicable rules and policies and will serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. The rules also detail the spectrum sharing
procedures for applications granted within a processing round.
133. We propose to revise the processing round framework for NGSO
FSS applications, both in terms of the general structure of processing
rounds and of which applications would be included in a processing
round. Considering the significant evolution in NGSO system technology
and increase in applications in recent years, we seek comment on
whether the traditional processing round framework still provides both
applicants and the Commission with the same functionality or advantages
as originally intended. When an application is designated as a lead
application and a processing round is opened, interested entities have
a limited window of time to prepare and file these competing
applications before the cut-off date. As a result, competing
applications often lack significant technical, operational, or other
fundamental system details to demonstrate a proposal for a viable
system, consequently leading to extended review timelines and leaving
other applicants in the same processing round unable to fully assess
and plan for their own operations and coordination obligations.
Furthermore, the decision to open a processing round is discretionary
based on designation of a lead application and therefore there is
little predictability as to whether an application will initiate a
processing round. As part of our modernization efforts, we aim to
revise the NGSO processing framework to limit regulatory obstacles and
provide a clearer and more reliable path to authorization and
operation.
134. Instead of the existing approach, we propose that the
Commission would pre-determine specific frequency bands (``processing
round-eligible bands'') and applications for authorization in those
bands would accordingly be processed in a processing round. For each of
these designated frequency bands, by rule, a processing round would
automatically open on January 1 at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time and close on
October 31 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time of the same year, eliminating the
cut-off date for applications. This way, the licensing assembly line
would automatically determine when and into which processing round(s) a
license application would be considered. Thus, regardless of the
existence of any actual applications, there would be an annual
processing round open for each of the designated bands (i.e.,
``synthetic processing round'').
135. Under this proposal, applicants would file applications for
inclusion in a processing round at any time, with priority status based
on the date of grant, rather than the date of filing. Applications
granted during the same band-specific processing round in a given year
would have the same priority status. For example, applications granted
for a specific band between January 1, 2027, and October 31, 2027,
would be part of the 2027 processing round. We note that the NPRM does
not propose any changes to the spectrum sharing procedures in part 25
and we propose to incorporate the relevant rule sections into proposed
part 100. With this approach, we intend to allow applicants enough time
to prepare comprehensive applications and request authorization for
realistic NGSO systems, rather than provide applicants and industry
with a limited window of time and opportunity to prepare an application
for a system that may or may not be viable for operation. This would
also negate the need to designate a lead application as the requisite
first step in the framework, allowing applicants to plan and prepare
for a processing round to open annually for specific frequency bands,
rather than file in response to the Commission's determination of a
lead application. Further, the pre-designated annual processing round
window would provide applicants with a significant amount of time to
prepare applications with the necessary level of detail to be
considered ``complete'' under our proposed completeness standard.
Additionally, since processing rounds are band-specific, if a request
to operate in one frequency band could be granted more quickly than a
request for a different frequency band in the same application, then
the earlier-granted band would hold an earlier year priority in one
processing round than a band granted in the following year. We intend
that this revised timeline for review would benefit all applicants by
creating the necessary structure to both encourage complete
applications and provide predictability in timing and spectrum
availability. Overall, we see this proposal as a way to process
applications for certain bands in a way that retains the benefits and
intent of processing rounds while mitigating the delays that result
from the current processing round framework.
136. We seek comment on this proposed processing round structure
for NGSO systems and ask for industry input as to which bands the
Commission should designate for processing rounds and how the
Commission should make these determinations. For example, the
Commission envisions this structure being useful for frequency bands
that are optimal for NGSO FSS operations, including the Ka-, Ku-, V-,
and Q-bands. Should the Commission delegate to the Space Bureau to
announce which frequency bands are subject to a processing round for
the following year, prior to the January 1 opening date or should this
determination be made by the Commission? Should this announcement be
made by a certain date in the prior year to allow possible applicants
enough time to plan? For example, if the Commission were to adopt a
cut-off date of October 31 for the annual processing round, should the
announcement of the following year's frequency band be made by then as
well, to give applicants several months to plan applications? Should
the yearly processing round be established with reference to the fiscal
year running from October 1 to September 30, rather than the calendar
year, to align with the period for assessment of regulatory fees?
Should the Commission seek comment on which bands it should open for a
processing round for the following year, or should the Commission make
this decision without seeking comment? How should the Commission inform
potential applicants as to which bands are subject to the processing
rounds? Does the shift from a 30-day filing window to a full calendar
year processing window provide applicants with the intended benefits of
increased predictability and flexibility? Should the Commission
consider an alternative or additional process to open a

[[Page 56362]]

processing round based on a request or petition to do so? Should the
window for a processing round be three or six months instead of the ten
months currently proposed to minimize the risk that less qualified
applicants submit strategically upon seeing other submissions rather
than because they are ready to submit on their own merits? If
processing round windows are shorter, should there be multiple
processing rounds in a calendar year? Should the annual processing
round end on a date other than October 31st? If processing rounds run
from January 1 to October 31, should the Commission freeze grants for
any pending processing round applications until January 1 of the
following year, so that all applications granted for a single
processing round are granted in the same calendar year? Or should
applications granted between November 1 and December 31 be considered
part of the following year's processing round? What other structures or
methodologies would provide applicants with the best opportunity to
maximize the benefits of processing rounds? Are there potential
consequences or complications that may result from the proposed annual
processing round framework? We also ask for input on whether
applications should be placed into a processing round based on the date
of filing, rather than the date of grant, or by another classification.
What are the benefits or disadvantages of determining processing round
by grant date? Does this provide applicants and earlier-round operators
with enough predictability to successfully coordinate with new or other
operators in the band?
137. Specific to eligibility for inclusion in a processing round,
we propose that an NGSO application would be placed by rule into a
processing round if the application meets two criteria: (1) the
application proposes operations in one or more frequency band(s) that
the Commission has pre-designated as a processing round-eligible band;
and (2) the applicant's system proposed for operation includes 200 or
more satellites. We note that under the revised proposals to the surety
bond rules discussed below, an NGSO satellite system seeking
authorization for 200 or more satellites would be required to post a
surety bond to the U.S. Treasury in the event of a default, in
accordance with the surety bond requirements and calculation proposed
in the NPRM. Our logic behind such a proposal is that applicants
seeking priority in a processing round should be held to a bonding
requirement. We seek comment on these proposals. Do the proposed
criteria justify inclusion in a processing round? Are there other
factors or alternative methods the Commission should consider in
determining whether and how an application should be included in a
processing round? We additionally ask for input on whether a system
with 200 or more satellites would be an effective benchmark for
determining that an application should be considered in a processing
round and therefore required to post a surety bond.
138. We also, however, propose that applicants who do not meet the
surety bond criteria (i.e., fewer than 200 satellites) but seek to
operate in a processing round-eligible band may request for an
application to be included in that processing round to receive priority
status. In that case, the requesting applicant would be required to
comply with the surety bond requirements and post the required bond
within 30 days of the license grant. We see this as a way for operators
to have the flexibility to seek priority in a processing round if that
is worth the cost of taking on the bond. We seek comment on this
approach, proposed eligibility via surety bond, and alternative methods
in greater detail in the section of the NPRM discussing proposed
reforms to surety bonds. Relatedly, we discuss the intersection of the
processing rounds and milestone deployment requirements in the
milestone section below.
139. 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 and the remainder of the frequency bands requested
(i.e., those not subject to a processing round) would be considered
under the expedited processing procedures detailed herein, unless
another exception to expedited processing applies. This could lead to a
scenario where a single operator of a large satellite system that
operates in multiple frequency bands could hold a different priority
status for each band in which it is authorized, depending on when
authority to operate in each requested band is granted. How should we
handle these cases? Would this annual processing round structure
disincentivize satellite operators from upgrading their systems and
instead encourage them to design new systems and file new applications?
Should we grant priority based on when the first communications for the
system are initially authorized? We seek comment on these questions and
any other proposals that could help inform the Commission on how to
address these issues.
140. NGSO FSS Spectrum Sharing. NGSO FSS operators who are granted
authority to operate in certain frequency bands through a processing
round would be still subject to the Commission's spectrum sharing rules
among NGSO FSS systems. For these systems, the Commission has recently
adopted specific protection criteria and other sharing obligations
developed with the benefit of a substantial technical record.
Specifically, NGSO FSS systems authorized in a later processing round
are required to either certify that they have reached a coordination
agreement with any earlier-round, operational NGSO FSS system or
demonstrate that they will satisfy the dual protection criteria of: (1)
causing no more than 3% degraded throughput to the earlier-round
system; and (2) causing no more than 0.4% absolute change in
availability to the earlier-round system. In this proceeding, we do not
propose to make any substantive changes to the NGSO FSS sharing
criteria currently in Sec. 25.261, including the requirement that NGSO
FSS licensees and market access recipients must coordinate in good
faith the use of commonly authorized frequencies regardless of their
processing round status. We also propose to carry over the provision
currently in Sec. 25.157(b)(2) that NGSO FSS space station license
applications granted within a processing round are exempt from the
frequency band segmentation procedures that otherwise apply to
applications for NGSO operations.
141. The Commission currently applies a default spectrum-splitting
procedure for systems approved in the same processing round, absent a
coordination agreement, and requires later round-systems to either
coordinate with or otherwise demonstrate they will protect earlier-
round systems, subject to the sunsetting provision. NGSO FSS systems
authorized in the same processing round share spectrum on an equal
basis under a [Delta]T/T > 6% spectrum-splitting rule, and this equal
treatment is also extended to later-round NGSO FSS systems following a
10-year sunset period. We propose to incorporate these procedures as is
into the new proposed part 100 and do not intend to consider any
substantive revisions to the NGSO FSS sharing requirements, including
the 10-year sunset period, currently in Sec. 25.261 as part of this
rulemaking. Considering the

[[Page 56363]]

proposed processing round framework, we seek comment on any changes
that should be made to better adapt processing rounds to the existing
NGSO FSS spectrum sharing criteria.
142. What are the benefits and costs of each processing round
approach? How does a processing round framework help or harm innovation
for NGSO operators? Do processing rounds place a burden on operators
who are able to launch, deploy, and operate systems quickly while
simultaneously encouraging hastily submitted applications for systems
that may not be viable? Does our proposed approach address these
problems? Alternatively, should we instead maintain the existing
processing round approach and address these issues in a separate
proceeding? What other changes might we consider to improve the
processing round framework?
143. Mutually Exclusive Applications. We propose to delete the
Commission's rule on mutual exclusivity in Sec. 25.155. Given that
satellite and earth station operators share spectrum, this requirement
is no longer needed. In particular, our proposed rules account for the
compatible operations of different licensees through first-come, first-
served application processing, processing rounds, and various technical
requirements on space station and earth station operation. In light of
these, we believe the concept of mutually exclusive applications is
unnecessary in part 100. We seek comment on this proposal and
alternatives, including whether, in light of the proposed yearly
processing rounds for NGSO systems and first-come, first-served
processing for GSO networks we need to include a mechanism for deciding
priority for orbital or spectrum resources between applications
received at exactly the same time, or whether such rare instances, if
they ever occur, could be sufficiently resolved on a case-by-case basis
within the Commission's licensing discretion or potentially through a
prescribed resolution criteria.
144. Compatibility of Systems Authorized Outside of a Processing
Round. For NGSO licensees authorized to operate in frequency bands that
are not granted in a processing round, we propose to require
compatibility with existing or future operations in those bands.
Specifically, we propose that ``the NGSO satellite system must be
compatible with existing operations in the authorized frequency band(s)
and must not materially constrain future space station entrants from
using the authorized frequency band(s).'' This is similar to how small
satellite systems currently operate under Sec. 25.122(c)(9), and we
believe this could be appropriate for a broader range of operations. We
seek comment on this proposal. Is the fact that we are requiring
licensees to not materially constrain future space station entrants
from using the frequency band sufficient to protect future entrants, or
should we require additional information from licensees? Does this
proposal provide enough certainty to licensees and future applicants
that they will be able to design their systems to be sufficiently
flexible to accommodate future users?
6. First-Come, First-Served Processing
145. GSO Systems. We propose to maintain the current first-come,
first-served application processing for GSO FSS and GSO broadcasting-
satellite service (BSS) systems in the new part 100. This process,
currently described in Sec. 25.158, is generally reflected in the
proposed new Sec. 100.142. Similarly, we propose to carry over the
technical requirements for two-degree orbital spacing of GSO FSS
networks in the U.S. arc, the requirements for four-degree spacing of
17/24 GHz BSS networks, and other technical rules underpinning the
first-come, first-served processing of GSO system license applications.
We invite comment, however, on any improvements to our first-come,
first-served procedures as they apply to GSO systems.
146. NGSO Systems. The Commission currently licenses certain NGSO
satellite systems outside of a processing round when they are shown to
be compatible with existing operations and will not materially
constrain future entrants. In the context of NGSO FSS satellite
systems, as described above, the Commission has adopted specific
technical criteria to ensure their compatible operation. These
criteria, applied in the processing round context, could readily be
used to create a first-come, first-served licensing procedure for NGSO
FSS systems. For example, a new applicant could either coordinate with
each earlier-filed NGSO FSS system operating in the same frequency
bands or demonstrate that it will meet the dual protection criteria of
causing no greater than 3% average degraded throughput or 0.4% absolute
change in unavailability for any system with which coordination is
outstanding, in order to be licensed. Additionally, 10 years after
licensing of a new system, we could apply the current sunset period and
afford that system equal spectrum sharing with earlier-filed systems
under the [Delta]T/T > 6% spectrum-splitting rule. We invite comment on
whether to authorize NGSO FSS systems on a first-come, first-served
basis and, if so, how best to adapt our current sharing criteria to
such an approach. We also invite comment on whether, and how, to
authorize any additional NGSO systems on a first-come, first-served
basis, including whether any applications that qualify for such
processing should be considered for expedited processing as outlined
above.

B. Additional Reforms for Licensing Efficiency

147. In addition to the proposed processes discussed above, we also
propose rules to improve the efficiency of the licensing process. We
expect these proposals to further enhance the proposed licensing
process by alleviating burdens on the licensing system and aligning
parties' incentives to act in more efficient ways. For example, in
addition to allowing greater freedom for entities to operate and
upgrade their systems, some of our proposals for modifications will
mean that fewer requests will need to be processed. We also seek
comment on how the Commission can reduce the complexity of requirements
and the cost of licensing in the United States.
1. Dismissal and Return of Applications
148. Sec. 25.112 of the Commission's rules details the procedures
for dismissal and return of applications. To better harmonize the
proposed rules, and in consideration of the proposed completeness
standard discussed above, we propose to clarify the Sec. 25.112
requirements in part 100. The Commission proposes that, unless
otherwise specified, dismissal or return of an application would be
without prejudice. An application would be deemed unacceptable for
filing and may be dismissed with a brief statement if the application
is determined not to meet the standard for complete applications under
proposed Sec. 100.131. Additionally, an application would be dismissed
if an application requests authority for a specific type of system that
does not align with the proposed operations. Applications would also be
subject to dismissal if the application does not comply with relevant
application requirements, is duplicative of a pending application on
file with the Commission, or if there is clear indication that the
application contains materially false information. We also propose to
include a new section clarifying that application fees are due upon
filing and that applications filed without the corresponding
application fee will be dismissed by the Commission. We believe that a
deviation from the existing part 1 rule,

[[Page 56364]]

which allows applicants a 14-day window after filing to pay the
associated application fee, is warranted to effectuate the processing
timelines we propose here. We seek comment on the proposed revisions.
Are there other scenarios the Commission should include in the proposed
rules to provide applicants with a clear framework for dismissal or
return of applications?
149. We also seek comment on how the Commission should address
applications where the applicant does not sufficiently address any
additional questions asked by staff in their review of the application.
Should the Commission establish a default standard of how to address
applications where the applicant does not sufficiently answer
additional information requests? Should the Comm

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 5, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.