Space Modernization for the 21st Century

Issuing agencies

Abstract

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or we) adopts a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that seeks comment on and/or proposes additional reforms.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 205 (Monday, October 26, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 205 (Monday, October 26, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67225-67239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21818]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 5 and 100

[SB Docket No. 25-306; FCC 26-47, FR ID 373984]


Space Modernization for the 21st Century

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or we) adopts a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(FNPRM) that seeks comment on and/or proposes additional reforms.

DATES: Comments are due November 25, 2026. Reply Comments are due 
December 28, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Mahoney, Acting Division 
Chief, Satellite Programs and Policy Division, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82e1e3f0edeefbecacefe3eaedece7fbc2e4e1e1ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="640705160b081d0a4a09050c0b0a011d240207074a030b12">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or 202-418-7168 or Brandon Padgett, Acting 
Associate Division Chief, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#482a3a29262c27266638292c2f2d3c3c082e2b2b662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127060737c767d7c3c62737675776666527471713c757d64">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or 202-418-1377.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), in SB Docket No. 25-306; 
FCC 26-47, adopted July 22, 2026, and released July 23, 2026. The full 
text of this document is available for public inspection online at 
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-47A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-47A1.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#10565353252024507673733e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="581e1b1b6d686c183e3b3b763f372e">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy 
change proposals on small entities in the FNPRM. The IRFA is set forth 
in Appendix D of the document. The Commission invites the general 
public, in particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. 
Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM 
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 Analysis

    The FNPRM 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 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

    The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act requires each 
agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief 
plain-

[[Page 67226]]

language summary of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission will 
publish the required summary of the FNPRM on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. Achieving American space superiority is critical to our nation's 
future. As explained by Executive Order 14369 in December 2025, 
``[s]uperiority in space is a measure of national vision and willpower, 
and the technologies Americans develop to achieve it contribute 
substantially to the Nation's strength, security, and prosperity.'' 
While the United States is already the world leader in commercial 
space, the industry is rapidly moving to build the space infrastructure 
of the future. Therefore, as part of our Build America Agenda, the 
Commission is aggressively moving to support commercial deployment of 
space infrastructure which promises enormous downstream benefits to 
American prosperity and security.
    2. In pursuit of this goal, the Commission must ensure the United 
States is the best place for the space industry to build, operate, and 
license. Today's commercial space industry is rapidly innovating, 
requiring a regulatory framework which provides speed, predictability, 
and flexibility. Therefore, in this Order, the Commission moves forward 
with modernizing our rules to build a space ``licensing assembly line'' 
and adopting a new part 100. Like a physical assembly line, our new 
processes will move licensing requests in standard and predictable ways 
and result in increased efficiency and a higher quality of Commission 
review. By reforming our licensing and operating rules, the Commission 
complements its other ongoing activities to boost the space economy.

II. Background and Overview

    3. Background. In the accompanying Order, the Commission generally 
adopts the framework proposed in the NPRM, albeit with some changes. As 
provided in Appendix A of the document, the Commission adopts a new 
part 100. Within part 100, we clearly distinguish the rules for the 
application and review process (subpart B), for operations under an 
authorization (subpart C), and for enforcing compliance (subpart D). 
Subpart A generally applies across part 100. Whereas part 25 is a 
confusing tangle of application and operational rules, with the new 
part 100 organization, we enable operators to easily understand the 
application process and the standards under which they must operate. 
Such organization will also allow the Commission to make orderly 
changes to part 100 over time as necessary.
    4. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. With part 100 
establishing the comprehensive framework, we seek further comment on 
several areas the Commission may consider to further refine these rules 
in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM).

III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    5. Part 100, as adopted, provides a set of rules governing the 
licensing and operation of space and earth stations. With this 
framework in place, we now look to additional areas in which we can 
further modernize the Commission's rules to promote American space 
dominance in the FNPRM.
    6. In particular, we seek to refine the operational rules in 
subpart C to build ``operational envelopes'' in which licensees have 
greater flexibility. Rather than requiring applicants to specify exact 
technical or operational parameters in their applications which may 
require multiple modifications or amendments as operations change, 
operational envelopes would allow applicants to request broader 
authority and change operations within that envelope without further 
permission from the Commission. This approach could have considerable 
benefits by allowing applicants more flexibility in designing and 
operating their systems without the need for additional authorization 
from the Commission. Therefore, in addition to other topics, we seek 
comment in the FNPRM on how we might create such operational envelopes. 
While we primarily seek specific comment on certain specific questions 
and proposals, we also seek general comment on revising our operational 
rules to promote flexibility and ``operational envelopes.''

A. Space-Based Experimental Licensing

    7. We propose to create a new type of space and earth station 
license for developing or experimental technologies. This experimental 
license would provide companies a clear and predictable pathway to a 
short-term license for the purpose of testing new technology or 
providing proof of concept before moving to commercial operations. We 
believe that this would be beneficial for the American space industry 
because it would provide a distinct set of rules tailored for space 
companies from the developmental stage through the commercial and 
operational stage. It would also increase the Commission's 
administrative efficiency by applying a consistent licensing framework 
to all space and earth station licenses. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    8. The Commission currently bifurcates the application process for 
certain space station and earth station applications between part 5 and 
part 25. Part 5 of the Commission's rules contains the regulations 
pertaining to filing for applications in the experimental radio 
service. It is limited to stations conducting experiments, technical 
demonstrations, product development, and market trials. Part 5 is also 
applicable to all experimental stations, including terrestrial, 
aeronautical, and nautical, not just space and earth stations. This 
dual structure often creates confusion for applicants as to whether 
they should apply under the part 5 or part 25 rules. For example, 
operations do not always fit neatly within the parameters of a part 5 
license because an applicant may be testing a new satellite with new 
capabilities for a service within which it already has a license to 
provide commercial service. This often leads to back and forth between 
the applicant and the Commission to determine the appropriate 
application filing procedures--part 5 or part 25. By creating a unified 
application process under a singular set of rules, we believe we can 
provide clarity to the applicants, alleviate delays, and reduce the 
administrative burden on limited FCC staff resources.
    9. Specifically, we propose to consolidate all space-related 
experimental applications under a single licensing process. We envision 
these applications, currently filed in the Experimental Licensing 
System (ELS) under the part 5 rules, would instead be filed pursuant to 
part 100. We seek comment on this proposal. Would this application 
process be beneficial for space companies? We believe that keeping this 
proposed application pathway relatively broad--i.e., experimental 
licensing would encompass both true experiments of new technology as 
well as testing technology upgrades and features further along in the 
developmental process--is a better path to applicants with the freedom 
to organize their license applications in a way that is most beneficial 
to their specific needs and priorities. We seek comment on creating a 
single process for all earth and space station licensing.
    10. To implement this new licensing framework, we propose to create 
a new subpart J in the existing part 5

[[Page 67227]]

experimental licensing rules. These rules would be specific to space-
related experimental licensing. Under this framework, all experimental 
license applications would continue to be filed under the provisions of 
part 5, but initial processing of space and earth station applications 
would be conducted by the Space Bureau, where staff have specific earth 
and space station-specific engineering and licensing knowledge. We 
believe that this approach would ensure that the rules for space-
related experimental licenses reside under the Commission's larger 
experimental radio service framework, but would be sufficiently 
distinct to meet our goal of providing a unified process for space-
related experimental applications to receive streamlined processing and 
expeditious review. Further, we propose that specific space-related 
rules would only reside in part 100 with cross-references to those 
rules in the new part 5, subpart J. For example, the current part 5 
rules contain special provisions for satellite licenses. We believe 
licensees would benefit from a single consolidated rule part for all 
space-related provisions so that all such licensees have consistent 
guidelines while also keeping the Commission's overall experimental 
framework consistent. We seek comment on this approach. Are there 
alternative placements for space-related experimental rules, such as in 
the new part 100? If the new space-related experimental licensing rules 
are placed in part 100, should applicants have a choice of filing under 
the new part 100 rules or the existing part 5 rules? If a proposed 
experiment incorporates both space operations and terrestrial or 
aeronautical operations, would an applicant need to obtain experimental 
licenses under both part 5 and part 100? Or would applicants be 
required to obtain two experimental licenses--one for space-related 
operations and one for all other operations? If the new space 
experimental licensing rules are placed in part 5, should we cross-
reference in part 100 to the experimental rules in part 5? If we create 
a new subpart in part 5, are there any modifications to other portions 
of part 5 that we would need to make? Are there any other changes we 
should make to part 5 to accommodate these new space experimental 
licenses?
    11. Related to this proposal to maintain the space-related 
experimental licensing rules under part 5, we also propose that such 
licenses would fall under the general part 5 rule provisions applicable 
to all experimental licensing. This includes Sec.  5.71, which provides 
for a two-year license term, but allows up to five years with 
sufficient justification. Similarly, space-related experimental 
operations would also be subject to Sec.  5.84, which permits 
experimental operation to only be conducted on an unprotected and non-
interference basis. If applicants seek interference protection for 
their operations, they would need to file a part 100 application. We 
seek comment on this proposal. In keeping with this approach, we 
propose that space-related experimental applications and operations 
comply generally with the application and licensing provisions in part 
5, subpart B. In addition to the provisions already noted, this 
includes, inter alia, requirements to notify the National Radio 
Astronomy Observatory when operating in certain locations, cancellation 
provisions, and procedures for informal objections. Are there portions 
of subpart B that should not apply to space-related experimental 
operations? Do certain provisions in subpart B need to be specifically 
modified for space-related operations? We similarly propose to update 
other rules in part 5 to either reference part 100 rules or incorporate 
provisions specific to space-related experimental operations. 
Specifically, commenters should review part 5, subparts A (General), B 
(Application and Licensing), and C (Technical Standards and Operating 
Requirements), as well as subpart H (Product Development and Market 
Trials), and provide their view on the applicability or changes needed 
for each of those rules. Are there additional provisions or 
restrictions that we should incorporate into the new rules?
    12. Because experimental licenses are issued on an unprotected and 
non-interference basis and for limited duration, they are not placed on 
public notice for comment prior to grant. Consistent with this 
practice, we propose to not place space-based experimental license 
applications on public notice, although these license applications will 
be publicly accessible for review. We seek comment on this proposal. Is 
there a need for some sort of public notice for these proposed types of 
applications? We also propose to require applicants to submit all 
information required to adequately describe the specific type of system 
they seek to operate, i.e., an earth station, an NGSO satellite system, 
a GSO satellite system, or a VTSS. Again, this is similar to the 
current process for a part 5 application where applicants must provide 
location, frequencies, power, and emissions information, as well as, 
for space stations, additional satellite specific information regarding 
orbital debris mitigation. We seek comment on this proposal. Is there 
additional information that applicants should be required to submit? 
Should applicants only be required to submit a subset of information 
required for a regular part 100 license because their operations would 
be for a short duration and on an unprotected and non-interference 
basis?
    13. We propose to require applicants to certify that the operations 
under the license will only be for the purpose of testing, 
experimentation, demonstration, or validation consistent with the part 
5 rules, including the provisions permitting product development and 
market trials. We seek comment on this proposed criteria for qualifying 
for a license. We seek comment on whether the provisions for 
development and market trials need to be modified to accommodate space-
based experimental operations. Specifically, we note that those rules 
require that ``trial devices are either rendered inoperable or 
retrieved by them from trial participants at the conclusion of the 
trial. Licensees are required to notify trial participants in advance 
that operation of the trial device is subject to this condition.'' Is 
this practical for a satellite or an earth station? Are there other 
criteria that would better accommodate the needs of space-based 
experiments? Often, space and earth station applicants under part 5 are 
under contract with the federal government. Should we specifically 
include experiments under contract with the U.S. government as within 
the new license type?
    14. We also propose to create a process by which an experimental 
license may be converted to a regular part 100 license upon request by 
the licensee and action by the Commission. We believe that this would 
solve the problem that currently exists where a part 5 space station 
licensee desires to provide commercial service under part 25 rules and 
either must file a completely new license application or the Commission 
must incorporate the part 5 licensed satellites into a part 25 license. 
Licensees who test and validate their satellites or earth stations and 
wish to operate longer than the initial limited license term would be 
able to submit a request to the Commission to convert to a part 100 
authorization. We anticipate treating these requests as an application 
for major modification and placing them on public notice so that 
interested parties can comment. The application would then proceed 
along the same review process as we will use for regular part 100 
applications. We expect that applications to convert an experimental

[[Page 67228]]

license to a regular part 100 license that do not seek additional 
interference protection could be granted quickly, based on successful 
operations under the existing experimental license. We seek comment on 
this proposal. Should we create a specific process for converting an 
existing experimental license into a regular part 100 license? Or 
should we treat it as a major modification? Are there other conversion-
related considerations for which we should account?
    15. We seek comment on our proposals generally and also seek 
comment on whether alternate approaches would better suit space-based 
experimental licenses. Parties should address the relative costs and 
benefits of any particular approach for where and how we codify the new 
rules.
    16. We tentatively conclude that the proposal to have the Space 
Bureau conduct initial processing of experimental space and earth 
stations would save approximately $66,000 per year in review costs for 
Commission staff by offering substantial administrative and operational 
efficiencies that would allow us to streamline the licensing process 
for space and earth stations. We seek comment on this estimate. 
Additionally, we believe that adopting a consolidated application 
pathway that expedites Space Bureau review would provide a more easily 
understandable process for applicants that minimizes processing-related 
delays, thereby lowering the administrative burden. We seek comment on 
this assessment and on additional benefits and costs that may be 
associated with this proposal.

B. NGSO Call Sign Merging

    17. The NPRM proposed to allow NGSO satellite system operators to 
combine authorized satellites currently operating under multiple call 
signs into one NGSO satellite system under one call sign. Commenters 
broadly supported this proposal. We believe that this could help 
applicants decrease the number of licenses that must be maintained, 
providing greater flexibility and modularization. We seek further 
comment on this proposal. What are the benefits to applicants of 
maintaining fewer licenses? We encourage commenters to provide specific 
examples, as well as any estimates of potential administrative time 
savings due to improved flexibility or reduced burdens. Additionally, 
should we require applicants to submit a request with the Commission 
asking that multiple current NGSO satellite systems under separate call 
signs be merged into a single NGSO satellite system with a single call 
sign? We seek comment on this.
    18. Some commenters were concerned that a single call sign per NGSO 
satellite system could cause confusion with existing license holders. 
In the Order, we adopt a new definition of NGSO satellite system that 
is applicable on a prospective basis. Current licenses that contain 
multiple call signs for a single NGSO satellite system would not be 
affected. But in the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether we should give 
licensees the option to request that the Commission consolidate the 
call signs so that there is only one call sign for the NGSO satellite 
system. This would give current license holders the assurance that 
their license terms would not be affected unless they requested a 
change but also would give them the flexibility to consolidate under a 
single call sign. We seek comment on this proposal and these 
assumptions. Are there any potential costs or other harms from allowing 
applicants to consolidate call signs? In addition to pre-existing 
licenses prior to the adoption of part 100, should we allow licensees 
that receive licenses after the adoption of part 100 to consolidate 
call signs in the future? Should we adopt a standard process for NGSO 
satellite system licensees to consolidate multiple NGSO satellite 
systems under a single call sign? If so, is it sufficient to allow 
applicants to request a merger and let the Space Bureau decide whether 
the separate NGSO satellite systems should qualify as a single NGSO 
satellite system?

B. Earth Stations

    19. In the NPRM, we sought comment on various changes to the way 
the Commission licenses earth stations. Commenters provided an 
extensive record. Based on that record, we seek further comment on ways 
in which we can update and revise the licensing process for earth 
stations. In particular, we seek to further identify whether to define 
operational envelopes in which operators can have greater flexibility 
without requiring additional permissions or modifications. We generally 
seek comment on this issue.
    20. Currently, the Commission's rules do not include a specific 
definition for ``site'' as it relates to earth stations. Although we 
anticipate that sites will be registered on an antenna-by-antenna basis 
for Immovable Earth Stations, the rules vary in how a site can be 
defined. Accordingly, should we establish a single uniform definition 
of ``site'' as it relates to earth stations? If so, how would that 
impact coordination with other users of spectrum? Should this 
definition also apply to blanket licensed earth stations such as ESIMs 
or User Terminals and if so, how?
    21. Further, as discussed in the Order, the Commission's part 100 
rules do not change the classification or definition of various 
consumer apparatus that we have traditionally regulated as ``earth 
stations.'' For example, our part 100 rules do not define user 
terminals, and they continue to classify user terminals and SCS 
handsets as a ``earth stations.'' We seek comment on all potential rule 
changes to that end. Should we establish a formal definition of user 
terminals that codifies the one provided in the Order? More 
fundamentally, are user terminals or handsets properly considered 
``earth stations,'' a category which traditionally referred to fixed 
infrastructure requiring professional installation and operation by 
telecommunications providers? Alternatively, should we adopt a new 
category of lightweight consumer-facing equipment to be authorized in 
bulk through our equipment authorization processes, without 
retrofitting our definition of ``earth station'' or requiring part 100? 
Because we are now regulating ESIMs and user terminals under the same 
rule part, should we create a new class of earth station that 
encompasses them both under a single definition? We seek comment, for 
example, on a ``Nomadic Terminals'' definition that could include 
ESIMs, along with user terminals, consumer handsets, IoT devices, and 
other portable, non-industrial equipment, and the terminals under this 
definition would be regulated based on how they are used. For instance, 
should there be different requirements for terminals continuously in 
motion or on a plane or on a vessel, as opposed to those that are 
normally fixed but theoretically capable of being relocated? Should we 
adopt this two-tier approach? Would combining ESIMs and user terminals 
under a single definition reduce the confusion and the redundancy that 
applicants face when applying for licenses?
    22. At the same time, we think that the definitions related to 
ESIMs warrant a more robust change to reflect the new technology that 
did not exist when the ESIM rules were established. For instance, the 
definition of an ESIM could be read to include cellular phones 
operating on FSS to communicate with a satellite if used from an Earth 
Station on Vessel (ESV), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Station (VMES), or ESAA. 
Alternatively, the definition of VMES is tied to a motor, which could 
imply that persons who require the use of a motorized wheelchair must 
comply with the VMES specific rules if they choose to operate

[[Page 67229]]

a cell phone that communicates with a satellite or a terminal providing 
service to a laptop that they are using while moving. Accordingly, we 
think the time is ripe to revisit ESIMs generally. Therefore, we seek 
comment on how we should revise the ESIM definitions to better account 
for today's technologies. Does the adoption of a new ``nomadic 
terminals'' definition solve much of the issues around ESIMs? If so, 
how should we account for things like ESAAs or ESVs that are also 
subject to international treaties? Would establishing envelopes for 
technical rules, similar to what we propose for off-axis EIRP and 
antenna gain be necessary if we update these definitions? Are there 
specific treaty or international factors that must be accounted in 
relation to ESIMs? For instance, vessels and airplanes are subject to 
international treaties. How might that interact with ESIMs revisions?
    23. We seek specific comment on changes that would provide 
regulatory clarity for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones). We 
confirm that a drone may qualify as an ESIM and utilize eligible 
spectrum under our part 25 and 100 rules to the extent that it sends or 
receives radiofrequency (RF) signals to or from an authorized FSS 
satellite system. At the same time, our past decisions have not 
specifically considered UAS as a discrete species of ESIM, whether an 
ESAA or VMES or some other category, given the nascency of the drone 
industry. Should we now do so? We seek comment on updating our 
definitions to accommodate UAS connectivity from satellite systems and 
related issues. Are the prescriptive technical requirements we 
previously adopted for ESAA use, largely designed for the commercial 
and private aviation context, appropriate for UAS? Given their lower 
operating altitude and proximity to the ground, are drones better 
regulated or classified as VMES? Does UAS present different or fewer 
interference considerations than those we previously considered for 
ESAA or VMES? Given its ubiquity and lower cost, is UAS more akin to or 
better regulated as consumer-facing equipment, such as user terminals 
or SCS handsets? What, if any, licensing requirements should govern UAS 
above and beyond those that apply to user terminals? Absent formal rule 
changes, should the Commission provide further clarity about the 
treatment of UAS under part 100? To the extent necessary, we delegate 
such authority to the Space Bureau. To foster a competitive drone 
connectivity market with multiple providers and minimal barriers to 
entry, it is the Commission's overarching goal to provide spectrum 
access to a diverse array of UAS operators using all eligible 
frequencies, without the need for individualized licensing or a 
heavyweight technical envelope. We therefore seek comment on any and 
all changes to meet that objective, including to our definitions, to 
give UAS a pathway toward spectrum abundance.
    24. We also seek comment on if the technical rules and limitations 
that apply to ESIMs warrant revisions. Are the rules currently 
applicable to ESIMs too restrictive? How can we revise them to make 
them more permissive and adaptable to new technologies? Should we 
revise them at all?
    25. We also recognize that the number of different types of earth 
stations in the Commission's rules can create confusion as to which 
earth station type applies to a specific application. This in turn 
creates confusion as to which technical rules apply. As earth station 
types continue to converge, such as in the direct to device context or 
the User Terminal and ESIM context, we foresee this issue amplifying. 
Therefore, we seek general comment on if there are ways in which we can 
condense and streamline the number of different types of earth stations 
that exist in our rules. If so, which definitions could be combined or 
removed? Any proposal to combine or remove definitions should provide 
an explanation of how the Commission should address associated 
technical rules. In addition, we seek comment on whether the 
definitions in the Commission's rules cause confusion with how certain 
terms are used internationally? Does this cause confusion among 
regulatees as to what we are regulating when we classify earth stations 
in a more specific manner than the international community? We seek 
comment on these questions and welcome proposals for other suggestions 
where we can streamline or condense the Commission's rules and 
definitions as it relates to earth station subgroups.
    26. As it relates to earth station radiofrequency exposure reports 
and associated technical showings, SpaceX suggests that we align the 
Commission's rules for earth stations with the part 2 rules. We do not 
make that change in the Order because it would require changes to part 
1 of the rules and because the record on this issue is not sufficiently 
developed. We now seek comment on SpaceX's suggestion. Should we align 
the coordination rules and the associated technical showings with the 
part 2 rules and only require that an applicant certify to compliance 
with the part 2 limits in the application but require that technical 
showings be provided upon request by the Commission? If so, why should 
we adopt this approach? If not, what are the issues with adopting this 
approach and the impact it has on giving the public sufficient 
information about an earth station? Is providing this information 
redundant with other processes that earth station applicants already 
do? We seek comment on these questions and welcome other comments 
related to this proposal.
    27. In the Order, we eliminate the ability for applicants to 
receive U.S. market access via earth station, although we allow STAs 
for certain categories of short-term uses including brief, non-
recurring activities such as LEOP, in-orbit testing, and orbit changes. 
Some commenters suggested that there be an expedited mechanism for a 
grant of market access via earth station for specific operations, 
including for communications that would involve TT&C only, earth 
stations aboard aircraft that do not have a U.S. space station license, 
or data-only downlinks, generally or for earth observation. Other 
commenters suggested we establish streamlined market access entry to 
enable the ground station as a service business, in order to promote 
U.S. leadership in this new business model. We seek comment on these 
proposals, specifically on an expedited mechanism or other streamlined 
process for market access via earth station. We ask for comment on how 
such processes might work, what classes of communications should be 
included, and how to ensure that any such framework would not 
compromise national security or otherwise affect the interference and 
orbital environment. We also seek comment on whether a specific 
streamlined process or exemption is needed for satellites or space 
stations that do not communicate with the Contiguous United States 
(CONUS) but with a limited subset of teleports, for example, in the 
Pacific Islands, including Hawaii or Guam. Is a streamlined process 
needed for earth stations communicating with non-U.S. space agency 
satellites? Commenters are encouraged to include examples from other 
administrations, and whether reciprocity from the satellite licensing 
administration should be a condition of receiving U.S. market access 
via this regime.
    28. Further, we revisit the discussion from the NPRM and again ask 
whether we should retain the rules relating to receive-only earth 
stations. We elect not to remove the rules in the Order, largely due to 
the ongoing C-band auction

[[Page 67230]]

proceeding. In light of the C-band auction likely coming to a close in 
the near future, we seek comment on whether we should remove the 
receive-only rules from our part 100 rules. Specifically, given that 
the Commission determined that it was unnecessary to license receive-
only earth stations communicating with U.S.-authorized space stations, 
and instead only register them if requested, is this rule part 
necessary? Should the rule be kept for operations with non-U.S.-
licensed space stations that either do or do not have market access? If 
so, we invite commenters to provide details as to how and why. In 
addition, we invite comment on how we should treat existing rule parts 
that limit the receive-only protections available to those already 
registered, such as in C-band. To avoid confusion, we do not invite 
comment on the requirement that a receive-only earth station receive a 
license before receiving from a non-U.S. licensed space station.
    29. Finally, regarding the Nationwide, Non-Site license we adopt in 
the Order, many commenters proposed that we allow for Nationwide, Non-
Site licenses in cases where a waiver is requested. We elected not to 
do so broadly in the Order--limiting only to allowing waivers of the 
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations--as we believe that a determination 
of what other waivers should be allowed for this license requires 
further discussion. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should 
allow applicants who request a waiver, other than for the Table of 
Frequency Allocations, to apply for a Nationwide, Non-Site license and 
if so, which waivers should we allow? For instance, are there waivers 
that pose little risk that could be applied across the nation without 
special review being necessary? We note that some commenters suggested 
that routine waivers be permitted. What would constitute a routine 
waiver given that waivers are meant to be reviewed on a case-by-case 
basis? What are the costs and benefits of adopting this approach? We 
seek comment on these questions generally. We ask that commenters 
provide specific examples of waivers we have granted in the past that 
could fit within the scope of the questions we ask here.

D. Modifications

    30. We seek comment on whether we should allow space station 
licensees to change or add RF sensing capabilities through a minor 
modification or notification process instead of requiring a major 
modification application. HawkEye 360 requested that the Commission 
include adding or changing RF sensing capabilities as a modification 
that could be made via notification only, arguing that there is no 
possibility of interference from these activities. We elected not to 
adopt this proposal in the Order because we believe it requires a more 
extensive record given the possibility of these sensors experiencing 
interference and accordingly seek comment on this idea. Are there any 
concerns with adopting this approach given the claim that there is no 
chance of interference from these activities, recognizing that these 
sensors could be interfered with? What are the benefits or drawbacks of 
adopting this proposal? We seek comment on these questions. Commenters 
are encouraged to provide recommended rule text in response to these 
questions
    31. We also seek comment more broadly on the list of major and 
minor modifications that we adopt in the Order. Could the list of major 
modifications be streamlined to give more flexibility to operators? If 
so, which specific major modifications should be removed? Are there 
ways to move one or more categories of major modifications to the minor 
modifications, such that the changes could be made either after 
notifying the Commission or prior to notifying the Commission? Are 
there other general types of modifications that the Commission should 
specify may be made without prior authorization? Commenters are 
encouraged to provide possible regulatory text in response to these 
questions.

E. Hosted Space Stations

    32. In the Order, we adopt changes to the Commission's rules 
related to hosted space stations. The changes are limited to U.S.-
licensed hosted space stations onboard U.S.-licensed host space 
stations and do not extend to non-US licensed hosted space stations. We 
seek comment on whether to extend this framework to non-U.S.-licensed 
hosted and host space stations. Specifically, should we allow U.S. 
space station licensees to add a non-U.S.-licensed hosted space station 
to their authorization via the notification process we adopt in the 
Order? Would this be giving non-U.S.-licensed operators a means to 
avoid the market access process? Or could we allow the equivalent of 
the hosted space station license for market access? Should we allow 
this for non-U.S.-licensed hosted space stations that do not seek to 
communicate with any earth stations located in the United States? 
Should we allow U.S. market access recipients to add a U.S.-licensed 
hosted space station via the notification process? Should we allow U.S. 
space station operators to obtain a hosted space station license for 
operations on a foreign-licensed spacecraft without market access? If 
so, should we require the U.S.-licensed hosted space station applicant 
to show that the foreign-licensed host spacecraft complies with the 
Commission's orbital debris rules? What requirements, if any, that 
differ from what we adopted in the Order would be necessary to allow 
these different license arrangements? We seek comment on these 
questions and any other benefits, concerns, or issues that this 
proposal may present.
    33. We also seek comment on whether the rule we adopt for hosted 
space stations could provide more flexibility to support multiple 
licensing structures and hosting models. For example, should we allow 
for either the host space station or the hosted space station to hold 
the FCC license that includes the Schedule O that its partner applicant 
incorporates? Should we further allow host space station systems to 
file applications on behalf of the hosted space station, in addition to 
allowing hosted space stations to file on their own behalf? 
Additionally, to support situations that differ from the traditional 
hosted space station model, could this rule be used to promote 
software-defined payloads? Specifically, could this rule, or a modified 
version, allow situations enabled by software-defined payloads where 
the FCC-licensee of a spacecraft permits another licensee to operate on 
frequencies using a single antenna on the host's spacecraft? Given 
developments in software-defined radio technology, providing this 
flexibility could allow hosts to facilitate frequency use by one or 
more clients on the same space station equipment. Could the Commission 
issue a license to the underlying operator of the spacecraft with the 
software-defined antenna and then issue a separate license to another 
entity that will be using some of the frequency bands in which the 
antenna is capable of operating? Would it be beneficial for the 
Commission to allow for this arrangement? What information might the 
Commission need to assess potential harmful interference resulting from 
these types of operations? Should the licensee of the space station 
that is in control of the physical operations of the satellite(s) be 
the one ultimately responsible for any harmful interference? Would it 
be better to only issue a single license for the software-defined 
payload, or the satellite system that is comprised of many satellites 
with these antennas, to the satellite

[[Page 67231]]

operator--i.e., the one with physical control of the satellites--and 
then the operator is able to lease capacity or establish whatever 
business arrangements it finds to be in its interest? Because the 
Commission's licensing is apparatus-based, can the Commission issue 
separate licenses for a single space station that cover only certain 
frequencies in which the space station is capable of operating?

F. Ephemeris Data Sharing and Reporting

    34. The need for precise and frequent reporting of ephemeris data 
for satellites operating in LEO is critical to enable more productive 
and safe use of space. In the Order, we take a meaningful step towards 
enhancing space safety by requiring licensees and market access 
grantees to share their ephemeris data. This was based on extensive 
commenter feedback. Commenters were largely supportive of the proposal 
to require operators to share ephemeris data. Commenters also suggested 
or proposed additional requirements regarding ephemeris data sharing, 
including recommended cadence of reporting, required data transmission 
format, and tailoring reporting requirements to specific orbital 
regimes. We seek comment now on potential future requirements for 
ephemeris sharing to enhance space safety. Should we require updated 
information to be shared more frequently than the eight hour timeframe 
we encourage in the Order? If so, how frequently? Should we require 
operators engaged in certain activities, like RPO or servicing, to 
share ephemeris data more frequently than other operators? If so, how 
frequently? Additionally, should we require operators engaged in RPO to 
provide notice to the Commission a specific amount of time prior to 
beginning the RPO? Are there technical limitations that might make it 
more difficult for certain satellite operators to share ephemeris data 
more frequently? Should we phase in more frequent reporting 
requirements over a period of time?
    35. We also seek comment on creating a process whereby the Space 
Bureau could certify qualified, private ephemeris tracking systems as 
sufficient for the purpose of complying with our rules on ephemeris 
sharing. We believe this could allow the space situational awareness 
business to develop independently while ensuring that operators 
licensed by the Commission are sharing ephemeris information in an 
appropriate manner to advance space safety. This would also provide 
flexibility for operators so that they have several options for 
complying with the Commission's rules. They can then choose which of 
the SSA providers or ephemeris tracking systems best serves their needs 
rather than being forced to submit information to one specific provider 
chosen by the Commission. Would this process promote space safety? 
Alternatively, should the Commission specify one single provider or 
site for operators to share their ephemeris data? Would specifying a 
single provider make it easier for new entrants or less sophisticated 
operators? If the Commission delegates authority to the Space Bureau to 
certify qualified ephemeris tracking systems, what criteria should the 
Bureau consider in the certification process? Should the Commission 
require any certified private ephemeris tracking systems to make 
ephemeris information freely available to all satellites operators so 
that there is not an additional technical burden for operators and 
conjunction screening services? We believe this certification process 
could provide clarity for operators so they know how to satisfy the 
requirements in the Commission's rules and would offer an ``official'' 
list of credible tracking systems that operators can rely upon. We seek 
comment on this assumption and these general questions.
    36. We also seek comment on additional information to require as 
part of the space system safety reports. Should these reports include 
information regarding disposal failures, or satellites that are unable 
to maneuver as intended? Should these reports collect information 
related to high-risk events, passivation and end-of-life activities, or 
debris release? Should the information be collected in a more 
standardized format? We seek comment on these questions as well as any 
additional information that should or should not be included in these 
reports.

G. Inter-Satellite Service Links (ISLs) Between U.S.-Licensed and Non-
U.S.-Licensed Satellites

    37. Currently, the Commission does not have rules for the licensing 
of communications via inter-satellite service links between U.S.-
licensed and foreign licensed space stations or spacecraft. We 
recognize that these types of operations could pose security risks. We 
therefore seek comment on the types of issues that the Commission 
should be concerned with and how to address them. We also seek comment 
on the most appropriate mechanism for licensing these inter-satellite 
links. Should we require a market access grant for any foreign licensed 
satellite system that will operate inter-satellite links with a U.S.-
licensed satellite system, even though the foreign licensed system will 
not be communicating with any earth station within the United States? 
Could a light-touch framework for authorizing such communications, 
using certifications, be developed that would still satisfy security 
risk concerns? Alternatively, for U.S.-licensed satellite systems that 
seek to operate inter-satellite links with a foreign licensed satellite 
system, should we require a modification application that outlines the 
ownership and operations of the foreign licensed system? If the U.S.-
licensed satellite system is already authorized to operate in the 
frequency bands with which it seeks to communicate via inter-satellite 
links with a foreign licensed system, should we allow the U.S.-licensed 
system to simply file a notification prior to beginning operations that 
identifies the foreign satellite system? Should there be a restriction 
of systems that U.S.-licensed systems may communicate with based on the 
country where the foreign system is licensed?

H. Frequency Reuse

    38. Section 100.211(d) requires all space stations in the FSS 
operating in any portion of the 3600-4200 MHz, 5091-5250 MHz, 5850-7025 
MHz, 10.7-12.7 GHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.5 GHz, 15.43-15.63 GHz, 
17.3-17.8 GHz, 18.3-20.2 GHz, 24.75-25.25 GHz, or 27.5-30.0 GHz bands, 
including feeder links for other space services, and in the BSS in the 
17.3-17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth), to employ state-of-the-art full 
frequency reuse, either through the use of orthogonal polarizations 
within the same beam and/or the use of spatially independent beams. 
Given the growth in the use of spectrum by the FSS and BSS, we seek 
comment on requiring full frequency reuse for all FSS and BSS 
operations in bands allocated to FSS and BSS as a general rule, instead 
of in the bands listed in Sec.  100.211(d). This also includes feeder 
links for other space services. Are there any frequency bands where the 
technical limitations make this challenging? Are there specific 
benefits to not requiring frequency reuse across all FSS and BSS 
operations?

I. Orbital Debris Mitigation

    39. LEO. Spacecraft monitoring and collision avoidance is important 
for a safe operating environment, not just during mission operation but 
also after end-of-mission. NASA notes that it is preferable for 
spacecraft to retain collision risk reduction capabilities including 
during de-orbit phase. We seek comment on a potential certification or 
requirement for

[[Page 67232]]

spacecraft monitoring and collision avoidance capabilities for each 
spacecraft throughout its orbital lifetime, including end-of-mission, 
until re-entry.
    40. Beyond LEO. Section 100.111(d)(2)(iii) requires NGSO satellites 
to be 10 cm or larger in the smallest dimension in order to be presumed 
trackable. NASA notes that object trackability is a function of many 
factors, but most notably of orbital altitude, and that the 10 cm 
minimum is insufficient to ensure trackability for spacecraft at 
altitudes above LEO, or 2000 km. NASA further notes that for spacecraft 
above LEO, such as in MEO or GEO, a 1 meter minimum measurement should 
be the standard for spacecraft operating at these altitudes to be 
presumed trackable. We propose to adopt a presumption into Sec.  
100.261(a) that for satellites operating in MEO or GEO will be presumed 
trackable if each individual satellite is 1 meter or larger in its 
smallest dimension, excluding deployable components. We seek comment on 
this proposal. Should we require operators whose spacecraft will 
operate in highly elliptical orbit (HEO), cislunar space, or beyond the 
moon to certify that their spacecraft will be trackable? If so, should 
we adopt a different measurement other than 1 meter for a spacecraft to 
be presumed as trackable?
    41. Collision Risk Reduction During De-Orbit. We seek comment on 
potential information requirements or presumed acceptable bright-line 
criteria for satellite operations specifically during the de-orbit 
phase. Should the Commission require satellite operators to provide 
information about whether the system will maintain conjunction 
mitigation capabilities during the de-orbit phase? If so, what 
information should the Commission collect from operators and at which 
point should the Commission assess this data, for example, until the 
satellite(s) reach a specific altitude or at a certain time before 
demise? Alternatively, should the Commission adopt a presumed 
acceptable criteria requiring a certification that satellite operators 
will maintain conjunction mitigation capabilities until a specified 
altitude or time before demise? Should de-orbit requirements or 
criteria apply to all satellite systems or only to satellite 
constellations of a certain size?

J. Two-Degree GSO Spacing Requirements

    42. FSS Earth Station Performance Standards. In the NPRM, we 
proposed to streamline the requirements in Sec.  25.209 regarding earth 
station antenna performance standards. Commenters were broadly opposed 
and noted that it was premature to make substantive changes to the 
earth station antenna performance standards without establishing the 
necessary technical record. We now take the first step towards 
developing that technical record. We seek comment on whether any 
updates to these standards are necessary, including whether the current 
rule covers all current and possible future antenna types, frequency 
bands, and any other pertinent addition or clarification to bring the 
rule up to date. Are these rules overly limiting or out of date? Do 
they sufficiently cover all antenna types and/or operations? We seek 
comment on these questions and on the rule more broadly.
    43. For commenters that suggest new bands or new antenna types to 
be added to the rule, we ask that they provide associated co-
polarization and cross-polarization antenna gain in both the plane 
perpendicular to the GSO arc and the plane tangent to the GSO arc for 
various off-axis angles in the same format in which the rule is 
currently written.
    44. FSS Transmitting Earth Station Off-Axis EIRP. In the NPRM, we 
also proposed to streamline the off-axis EIRP density limits for earth 
stations. Commenters were broadly opposed and noted that it was 
premature to make substantive changes to the off-axis EIRP density 
limits without establishing the necessary technical record. In light of 
these comments, in the FNPRM, we seek comment on whether updates are 
needed to the current rule to accommodate current and future sharing of 
the GSO arc, whether additional bands need to be included, and any 
other pertinent addition or clarification necessary to the rule. The 
responses to these questions will guide the Commission in determining 
whether the Commission should initiate a separate technical dedicated 
rulemaking proceeding to address this and other technical issues.
    45. For any new bands to be included or added to the rule, we 
request that commenters provide the off-axis EIRP density limits in the 
plane tangent to the GSO arc and in the plane perpendicular to the GSO 
arc for co-polarize transmissions and for cross-polarize transmissions 
for the various off-axis angles in the same format in which the rule is 
written.

K. Secondary Markets

    46. In the Order, we adopt a new framework for processing rounds. 
This framework will result in clearly defined status for NGSO satellite 
systems, and that processing round status can have a quantifiable 
impact on operations. Therefore, we seek comment on the possibility of 
licensees or market access holders exchanging processing round status 
via a secondary market. Once a system is licensed in a processing 
round, are there ways that processing round status could be shared or 
exchanged with other systems in processing rounds or systems licensed 
outside of a processing round? While coordination already allows for 
operator-to-operator agreements which may incorporate market activity, 
exchange of a single operator's priority status would mean the status 
of other operators in the same processing round would change with 
respect to a processing round licensee who shares or exchanges their 
status. How might the Commission make such arrangements feasible? Would 
this allow for spectrum to be used more efficiently and put to higher 
and better uses? What might be the benefits or drawbacks to this 
approach? What impact would this have on the processing round framework 
in general? We would expect, in order to prevent spectrum warehousing 
and speculative applications, that any ability to exchange or transfer 
priority would depend on the entity having deployed a system. Would it 
be possible to allow a licensee in a processing round to share or 
exchange their position in that round without requiring the other party 
to the transaction to launch and operate the exact same system so as to 
avoid interference concerns from a major modification? We seek comment 
on these questions generally.

L. Renewal and Replacement Expectancies and Reassignment

    47. In the FNPRM, we seek to build on the record developed in 
response to the proposals in the NPRM regarding renewal and replacement 
expectancies for space stations and earth stations. The NPRM proposed 
to include a definition of ``replacement space station'' within part 
100 and sought comment on whether to establish guidance on how to 
consider renewal expectancy for all types of space and earth stations. 
The NPRM observed that although the vast majority of renewal 
applications are granted, the Commission has generally reviewed 
applications for renewals on a case-by-case basis, which has 
occasionally led to protracted disputes over whether a renewal is 
warranted. In the accompanying Order, we adopt a definition of a 
replacement satellite in part 100 for both GSO and NGSO space stations, 
which largely mirrors the definition of replacement satellite that

[[Page 67233]]

was contained in Sec.  25.165(e). The record in response to the NPRM, 
however, was insufficient to adopt rules or guidance regarding renewal 
and replacement expectancies. Accordingly, we seek further comment on 
whether, and how, the Commission should adopt more structured renewal 
and replacement expectancy frameworks for space and earth station 
authorizations.
    48. There are significant differences between GSO and NGSO space 
stations that affect renewal and replacement expectancies. NGSO space 
stations are most often licensed as part of a constellation of many 
individual space stations under a single call sign. Thus, one or more 
individual satellites may be replaced during the 20-year license term 
for the constellation without negatively affecting the ability of the 
authorized system as a whole to provide service to the public and to 
utilize orbital and spectrum resources. This reality is reflected in 
our rules regarding replacement satellites under part 100, which allow 
for a licensee of an NGSO satellite system to replace individual 
satellites in a constellation without additional approvals, so long as 
the replacements do not constitute a major modification. In contrast, 
GSO space stations have historically only been licensed as single space 
station with authority to utilize spectrum resources at a specific 
location on the GSO arc. Thus, the removal of a GSO space station from 
its assigned orbital location, either through removal from the GSO arc 
as part of an end-of-life disposal or through relocation to another 
location on the GSO arc through a modification of the license, ceases 
use of spectrum by the space station at the assigned orbital location. 
That orbital location and spectrum is effectively ``warehoused'' unless 
the licensed satellite is already replaced with a new satellite prior 
to the disposal or relocation. We seek comment on these differences 
between GSO and NGSO space stations as they may affect replacement 
expectancies.
    49. The differences also extend to renewals of GSO and NGSO space 
stations. Because NGSO space stations are most often licensed as part 
of a constellation, and the 20-year license term is for the 
constellation as a whole, rather than for any particular satellite in 
the constellation, there is logic in renewing the license for the 
constellation as a whole for another full 20 years at the end of 
license term. The constellation may have been refreshed by new 
satellites, given the fact that individual satellites in the 
constellation generally have operational lifetimes much shorter than 20 
years. GSO space stations, on the other hand, have not been operated or 
licensed as constellations, and as a result, a single satellite 
operates for the entirety of the license term. Accordingly, GSO space 
station operators currently do not have a renewal expectancy, but 
rather a replacement expectancy, as well as the ability to extend the 
license term through a modification of the license. We seek comment on 
the differences between GSO and NGSO space stations, particularly as 
they may affect renewal expectancies.
    50. In light of the differences between GSO and NGSO space station 
operations and licenses observed above, we seek additional comment on 
whether it is possible to establish a unified rule for renewals of 
space and earth station licenses. Particularly, does it make sense to 
have a single rule for renewals of NGSO and GSO space station licenses 
and grants of market access? What about VTSS? Although it is not 
currently expected that a GSO satellite is capable of continuing to 
operate for an additional full 20-year license term given existing 
satellite technology, do changes in regulation and technology affect 
this expectation? We note that under the rules adopted in the Order, it 
is now possible for more than one GSO space station to be authorized 
under a single license at an orbital location. Does this licensing 
change make a GSO authorization more akin to an NGSO authorization for 
a constellation? We seek comment on how this change could affect the 
renewal or replacement expectancy for GSO space stations. In addition, 
technology is now available to extend the operational lifetime of GSO 
space stations through servicing spacecraft that provide station 
keeping for the GSO space station beyond its license term. It is also 
foreseeable that in-orbit refueling of GSO space stations will become 
feasible in the near future. Both of these technologies could extend 
the operational lifetime of a single GSO satellite well beyond the 
initial 20-year license term and could make renewal of a GSO satellite 
license feasible. We seek comment whether these technological 
developments support renewals of GSO space station licenses for a full 
additional 20-year license term or for an alternative, shorter term?
    60. To promote simplification and consistency across services, we 
propose to establish rules of general applicability on renewals that 
apply to all satellites and earth stations. A single standard that 
applies to different services would also allow for clear and consistent 
review of requests for renewal of licenses, including more efficient 
review of multi-orbit systems. As part of such single standard, we 
propose that applications for renewals of space and earth station 
licenses include several certifications that the licensee must make, 
including: the licensee is continuing to use the orbital and/spectrum 
resources that it is currently authorized to use; the licensee is 
continuing to comply with the terms of its authorization; and the 
licensee has not operated in a manner that would cause automatic 
termination pursuant to Sec.  100.302. We seek comment on this specific 
proposal and whether it should be expanded to include other criteria. 
Are the proposed certifications sufficient to ensure the most efficient 
use of licensed radiofrequency spectrum? If we allow renewals for GSO 
satellite systems, should we require the same certifications for GSO 
renewals as for NGSO renewals? If not, what different certifications 
should we require? Additionally, should there be different 
certifications for earth station renewals? We also seek comment on 
whether we should extend this standard to grants of U.S. market access 
for non-U.S. licensed space station in light of establishing terms for 
these grants in the Order.
    61. We also seek comment on how to clarify and potentially codify 
our replacement expectancy for GSO space stations. There is currently 
regulatory uncertainty that arises when a GSO space station licensee 
disposes or relocates an in-orbit satellite and does not immediately 
surrender the license or place another satellite into the vacated 
orbital location that uses all the spectrum resources that were 
licensed for use by the satellite that was disposed or relocated. In 
such a situation, it is unclear whether these orbital locations or 
spectrum can immediately be applied for and put to use by another 
entity that wishes to utilize them, or whether the Commission must 
first issue a public notice announcing that the orbital location and 
frequencies are available for reassignment and establishing a future 
time at which the Commission will accept applications for the orbital 
location and frequencies. To remove this uncertainty, we propose a rule 
that would automatically make the orbital and spectrum resources 
available for reassignment unless the licensee has already put into 
place a new replacement satellite at the location, or within a year of 
the date of the disposal or relocation has relocated another in-orbit 
satellite to utilize all frequencies that we authorized for use by the 
disposed or relocated satellite at the orbital location. If neither 
condition is met, we propose that the Space Bureau

[[Page 67234]]

will release a public notice making the orbital location and any unused 
frequencies available for reassignment and establishing a date and time 
that new applications will be accepted. We seek comment on this 
proposal in general, as well as on the specific mechanisms and time 
periods proposed. Is a shorter time period, such as two weeks or thirty 
days, more appropriate? Should authorizations terminate immediately 
upon disposal or relocation? Should any orbital location and associated 
spectrum rights that are vacated or terminated automatically become 
available for new applications through ICFS at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time 
on the calendar day immediately following the expiration of the 30-day 
replacement window, without requiring the Space Bureau to issue a 
public notice? We also seek comment on whether and how this proposal 
could be applied to grants of U.S. market access by foreign licensed 
GSO space stations.
    62. This proposal intends to provide clarity to the GSO replacement 
expectancy policy and make it easier and faster for orbital and 
spectrum resources to be used to serve the public. It is also intended 
to prevent orbital and spectrum resources being held to the exclusion 
of others for an extended period of time, while providing flexibility 
for in-fleet redeployments and preserving the continuity of service to 
existing customers served by a satellite operator at a particular 
orbital location. It also takes into account that the ITU filing under 
which a GSO space station operates may be suspended, or even eventually 
suppressed, if spectrum resources are not used at an orbital location 
for a long-period of time. Clarifying that GSO licensees will have no 
longer than one year to bring back into use fallow orbital and spectrum 
resources will provide a clear path to allowing another operator to 
apply for and use those orbital resources in order to preserve the 
status of the ITU filing at the GSO location. We seek comment on these 
intended purposes and whether the balancing of interests of the 
proposed rule is appropriate.
    63. We also seek comment on any alternatives to the definition of 
``replacement satellites'' established in the Order. For example, 
should the Commission adopt a rule that expressly limits the GSO 
replacement to situations where a satellite has unexpectedly failed 
while in-orbit, or the situation where a licensee has been granted a 
license for a replacement satellite at the location or has already 
positioned another in-orbit satellite at a location licensed for use by 
another space station and the in-orbit satellite is capable of 
operating using all the licensed frequencies prior to the disposal or 
relocation of the licensed space station? This alternative would still 
permit operators to use in-orbit satellites to replace satellites that 
are disposed of or relocated, but it would eliminate any period where 
the orbital location and associated spectrum resources would be unused, 
except in exceptional circumstances where a satellite unexpectedly 
fails while in orbit. The alternative could provide even greater 
certainty and speed in making sure that scarce orbital and spectrum 
resources are utilized to provide service to the public. We seek 
comment on this specific alternative, as well as any other 
alternatives.

M. Miscellaneous

    64. U.S.-Based Control Point. We also seek comment on whether we 
should require that all space stations licensed by the Commission 
maintain a U.S.-based control point. We tentatively conclude that we 
should and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We recognize 
that the current rules require that an operator provide the contact 
information for a 24/7 point of contact with the authority and 
capability to cease transmissions, but currently, that point of contact 
does not themselves need to be the control point for the operations of 
the entire satellite system. We believe that by requiring a U.S.-based 
control point, we will enable licensees to be better situated to 
communicate with one another and respond quickly to potentially 
hazardous events. What drawbacks or potential burdens does this 
requirement place on operators? Could those burdens be relieved by 
third-party control points that have agreements with operators? What 
benefits are there to this proposal both in terms of impact on space 
safety and operations, and the impact to the space economy generally? 
Is there any reason why the Commission would not be able to adopt this 
proposal, either because of international agreements or limits found in 
the governing statutes? We tentatively conclude that there are not, but 
seek comment on this conclusion.
    65. Transfers of Control and Assignments. As we continue to create 
efficiencies in our approval processes, we recognize that any market-
based approach must establish clear rules regarding transfers of 
control and assignments of licenses or authorizations. Therefore, we 
seek comment on ways to make this process more efficient while still 
ensuring proper oversight of licensees. We note that the Commission 
already has an immediate approval process for certain wireless licenses 
and a deemed-granted process for certain pro forma transactions 
licensed under part 100. Although the rules include deemed granted 
procedures for certain pro forma applications, should we adopt a 
similar procedure for a broader class of licenses and authorizations, 
and if so, what category or categories should be included? If so, what 
restrictions or limitations should we establish to ensure proper 
oversight? We envision that this process would not be available for any 
transactions with greater than 10% foreign ownership or that request a 
waiver of the rules but seek comment on this. Should the rules be 
modeled after the wireless rules, where specific criteria must be 
satisfied for an immediate grant? We invite comment on any alternatives 
to help ease the burdens associated with Commission approval of 
transfers of control and assignments that would still ensure the 
Commission maintains effective oversight of who holds or controls a 
license or authorization.
    66. Removing Application Cross References. In the Order, we adopt 
rules for application materials which require earth station and space 
station requests in certain circumstances to submit additional 
information. Contained in Sec. Sec.  100.112(d)(3) and 100.120(e), 
these application requirements cross reference in most instances to 
subpart C. And in subpart C, the rules discuss what applicants must do 
or submit as part of the application process. Given that subpart C 
should ideally contain only operational rules and not application 
rules, we seek comment on revising the rules to remove these cross 
references. Given our certification-based approach in which applicants 
must certify whether they will comply with the Commission's rules, we 
propose to convert the application requirements referenced in subpart C 
into operational rules rather than requiring as part of the application 
materials all of the showings in these sections in subpart C. Doing 
this would also allow us to remove all or part of Sec. Sec.  
100.112(d)(3) and 100.120(e) and more fully separate subparts B and C 
as application- and operation-focused, respectively. We seek comment on 
such changes. Are there particular sections where we should not make 
this change? While we may seek comment separately on substantive 
changes to the relevant rules in subpart C, here we only seek comment 
on this organizational question. We specifically request comments on 
the organization of the new part 100 rules so that it is clear to

[[Page 67235]]

seasoned applicants and newcomers alike which rules they must follow 
and what information they must provide as part of an application.
    67. Closing Additional Rulemaking Dockets. Given the sweeping 
overhaul of the Commission's space and earth station licensing rules 
that we adopt in the Order, as well as the broad set of topics on which 
we seek comment in the FNPRM, we tentatively conclude that it would be 
administratively efficient and prudent to close additional dockets 
related to satellite and earth station rulemakings that are moot or 
otherwise unnecessary. Are there additional open dockets related to 
space and earth station licensing that the Commission should close? 
There may be dockets where no further action was proposed, where the 
docket is largely superseded by the Order, or where the issues 
remaining in the docket are better addressed in this proceeding. For 
example, we believe the Commission's docket on orbital debris should be 
closed because those issues are better addressed in the FNPRM, and 
therefore we propose to close it. We also propose, given the overhaul 
of our rules in part 100, to close the various dockets related to 
streamlining the Commission's space and earth station rules. We seek 
comment broadly on any other open Commission dockets that the Space 
Bureau could close. We encourage commenters to identify open Commission 
dockets that they believe should be closed, with specific reasons. We 
also encourage commenters to identify open Commission dockets related 
to space and earth station licensing that they believe should be kept 
open, with specific reasons for doing so.
    68. Processing Rounds. We propose to modify the date on which a 
processing round's priority status begins under the NGSO spectrum 
sharing framework. Specifically, we propose to standardize the priority 
start date so that the ten-year priority period associated with a 
processing round begins on January 1st of the following year. This more 
uniform approach aims to help NGSO satellite systems authorized in 
different processing rounds more clearly understand the time periods 
during which they are protected from later-round systems and must 
protect earlier-round systems. As an example, the priority status for 
all NGSO satellite systems authorized to operate in a 2027 processing 
round would begin on January 1, 2028 and these systems would have 
priority over systems authorized subsequent processing rounds until 
January 1, 2038. We seek comment on this proposal. Does this approach 
provide more clarity on the sunset periods for priority status afforded 
through the processing round procedures? Should we instead begin the 
sunset period on a different date? We seek comment on any alternative 
suggestions to similarly improve and refine the rules within these 
frameworks.
    69. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt 
standardized performance measures for systems authorized in processing 
rounds. For example, should systems authorized in processing rounds be 
required to meet benchmarks of latency, signal to noise ratio (SNR), 
and/or spectral efficiency? Are there other measurements the Commission 
should consider? Would requiring performance measures further the 
Commission's goal of promoting innovation, or would they risk 
regulatory overreach and overburden innovators?
    70. Export Control Compliance. We seek comment on whether and how 
our part 100 rules should expressly address obligations under U.S. 
export control laws, including, as applicable, the Export 
Administration Regulations (EAR) and the International Traffic in Arms 
Regulations (ITAR), in connection with space station and earth station 
licensing. Should we require applicants to certify, as part of their 
applications, that they are aware of and will comply with all 
applicable export control requirements in the design, manufacture, 
launch, operation, and control of their systems and in any transfers of 
hardware, software, technical data, or services to foreign persons? We 
also seek comment on whether we should require licensees to maintain, 
and upon request make available to the Commission, records sufficient 
to demonstrate compliance with applicable export control laws as they 
relate to Commission-authorized operations.
    71. We further seek comment on whether we should adopt specific 
rules governing the interaction between export control requirements and 
the Commission's licensing processes, including for transfers of 
control and assignments of space and earth station authorizations. For 
example, should we require applicants seeking Commission consent to 
assignments or transfers of control that involve foreign ownership to 
disclose whether the proposed transaction will require approval from 
other federal entities with export control or national security 
responsibilities, and if so, the status of any such reviews? Should we 
condition grants of certain authorizations or transfers of control on 
an applicant's representation that it has obtained, or will obtain 
prior to implementation, any necessary export control licenses or other 
governmental approvals?
    72. We also seek comment on whether any additional safeguards are 
needed in light of export control considerations for U.S.-based control 
points and third-party control arrangements discussed above. For 
instance, should we require that entities operating a U.S.-based 
control point or providing third-party control services have policies 
and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable 
export controls when providing access to foreign persons, including 
access to command-and-control systems or related technical data? Would 
such requirements impose significant burdens on operators or control 
service providers, and if so, how might those burdens be minimized 
while still ensuring appropriate oversight? Commenters are invited to 
address any potential overlap with existing statutory or regulatory 
regimes, to identify any risk of duplication or inconsistency, and to 
explain whether explicit Commission rules in this area would improve 
clarity and compliance for licensees, authorized holders of U.S. market 
access and other stakeholders.
    73. GSO Streamlining. We seek comment on modernizing, streamlining, 
and expediting our processing of GSO space station applications. We 
anticipate our GSO application processing frameworks would benefit from 
structural updates and seek comment on ways to promote innovation and 
competition among GSOs and implement faster, more automated processing 
for GSO applications.
    74. Cybersecurity. We seek comment on whether there is a need to 
incorporate cybersecurity requirements in our satellite licensing 
processes, including any benefits and burdens associated with such a 
requirement. Are there national security reasons for the Commission to 
gather information about or make specific requirements related to 
cybersecurity practices of satellite operators? If so, what information 
would be relevant? Observing that other federal agencies already 
collect information related to national security, would such a 
requirement in our license processes complement or duplicate 
requirements that already exist?
    75. Best Practices for Coexistence with Radio Astronomy. We seek 
comment on incorporating into our rules bright-line criteria and best 
practices for coordination with U.S. radio astronomy sites. These 
criteria could include any required protection limits, to the extent

[[Page 67236]]

they continue to be necessary, as well as any necessary specified 
operational limits and information sharing requirements for earth and 
space station operators to protect and coordinate with U.S. radio 
astronomy sites. This would facilitate the space and earth station 
application process by having all radio astronomy requirements in one 
section. Specifically, we seek comment on (1) the existing PFD limits 
to be achieved in specific geographic areas around U.S. radio astronomy 
sites, whether those limits are necessary to protect these sites, and 
any detrimental impact of these limits, and (2) to the extent we retain 
PFD limits, using detailed contours in different frequency bands that 
contain the limits. Outside of the locations specified in these 
contours, space station and earth station operators could operate in 
accordance with other relevant technical rules without causing 
interference to radio astronomy sites. If applicants plan to place any 
earth stations inside of the locations specified in these contours, the 
operator would be required to coordinate or demonstrate compliance with 
any adopted or retained protection requirements. Such a bright-line 
approach could streamline coordination with the National Science 
Foundation and U.S. radio astronomy sites by limiting the area where 
coordination is normally required to very small geographic areas and 
help avoid inadvertent, harmful interference. Additionally, we seek 
comment on a list of best practices regarding unwanted radio frequency 
emissions at U.S. radio astronomy sites. Specifically, we seek comment 
on whether to include a recommendation that space station applicants 
include a characterization (via modeling or measurements) of their 
emissions in the 50-200 MHz range from all sources which can impact 
cosmic microwave background radiation, including whether such 
recommendation would have any inadvertent negative effects and whether 
it would help to prevent interference. We also seek comment on whether 
to require applicants to submit a summary of any other mitigation steps 
taken to reduce potential interference from space-to-Earth satellite 
transmissions and whether such summary is necessary to prevent 
interference. We note that there has been an extensive track record of 
successful implementation of mitigation techniques including the use of 
operational data sharing to avoid boresight encounters at radio 
astronomy telescopes, or the provision of high-precision ephemerides 
and other orbital information for radio telescopes to utilize in their 
scheduling algorithms to avoid the satellites. We seek comments on 
these approaches. Is there a technical basis for adopting bright-line 
criteria or information requirements regarding mitigation efforts to 
protect radio astronomy, or any countervailing considerations? Or 
should we consider information requirements for applicants to 
facilitate coordination with radio astronomers? Are there specific 
mitigation techniques that we should adopt as bright-line criteria that 
can receive the public interest presumption?

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has 
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (FNPRM) assessing the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests 
written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
specified on the first page of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a 
copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the 
Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition, 
the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    77. In the Order adopted today, the Commission took steps to 
modernize our part 100 rules to establish a regulatory framework that 
provides a more efficient, predictable and flexible environment for the 
commercial space industry by creating a space ``licensing assembly 
line.'' In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks to identify additional areas 
in which we can further modernize our rules for small and other 
entities operating in this sector. Specifically, we initiate a further 
rulemaking proceeding seeking comment on its proposals to refine the 
operational rules in part 100, subpart C to build ``operational 
envelopes'' within which licensees will have greater flexibility. 
Rather than requiring applicants to specify exact technical or 
operational parameters in their applications, which may require 
multiple modifications or amendments as operations change, operational 
envelopes would allow applicants to request broader authority and 
change operations within that envelope without further permission from 
the Commission. This approach could have considerable benefits by 
allowing applicants more flexibility in designing and operating their 
systems without the need for additional authorization from the 
Commission. Therefore, in addition to other topics discussed below, we 
seek comment in the FNPRM on how we might create such operational 
envelopes. While we primarily seek specific comment on certain specific 
questions and proposals, we also seek general comment on revising our 
operational rules to promote flexibility and ``operational envelopes.''

B. Legal Basis

    78. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 
7(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, and 332 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 
310, 332.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    79. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA 
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to 
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; 
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such 
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing 
so.
    80. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not 
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups 
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In 
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all 
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million 
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit 
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and

[[Page 67237]]

not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the 
number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of 
nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental 
jurisdictions'' are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of 
less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments 
data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government 
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
    81. The rules proposed in the FNPRM will apply to small entities in 
the industries identified in the charts below by their six-digit North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding 
SBA size standard. Where available, we also provide additional 
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in 
the industries identified below.

                               Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulated industry (footnotes
 specify potentially affected                       SBA size                        Total small    Percent small
  entities within a regulated     NAICS code        standard        Total firms        firms           firms
  industry where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications                517111  1,500 employees.           3,403           3,027           88.95
 Carriers.
Wireless Telecommunications             517112  1,500 employees.           1,184           1,081           91.30
 Carriers (except Satellite).
Satellite Telecommunications..          517410  $44 million.....             332             195           58.73
All Other Telecommunications..          517810  $40 million.....           1,673           1,007           60.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, 
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    82. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of 
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, 
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate 
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record.
    83. The FNPRM proposes a strategy to create operational envelopes 
that would allow applicants to request broader authority and change 
operations within that envelope without further permission from the 
Commission. This new approach is expected to reduce administrative work 
requirements and delays, making the licensing process more flexible and 
easier for companies to plan around, which will benefit small entities. 
Cost savings for small entities will result from removing repetitive 
paperwork, simplifying forms, reducing the need for special temporary 
authority (STA) and waiver requests, and also allow for future 
automation. Further, because the proposed process is less cumbersome 
and more straightforward, it is likely that small entity applicants 
will not need to hire lawyers or engineers for routine filings, 
although more complex cases may still require professional assistance.
    84. Part 100 Commercial Experimental. In the FNPRM, the Commission 
also proposes to create a new type of space and earth station license 
under part 100 for developing or experimental technologies. This part 
100 experimental or developmental license would provide companies with 
a clear and predictable pathway to a short-term license for the purpose 
of testing new technology or providing proof of concept before moving 
to commercial operations. We believe that this would increase the 
Commission's administrative efficiency by bringing all space and earth 
station licensing under the purview of the Space Bureau instead of 
sometimes requiring applicants to interface with both the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET) for part 5 applications and the Space 
Bureau for part 25 applications. This organizational simplification 
should lead to efficiency benefits for small entities.
    85. The Commission also proposes to limit the license term for a 
part 100 experimental license to two years. We believe this provides 
licensees with sufficient time to test and validate their technology 
while remaining short enough to require less intensive review. We also 
propose to allow up to one renewal for a length of up to two years. 
Additionally, we propose to require operations under a part 100 
experimental license to be conducted on an unprotected and non-
interference basis, and not to place applications for a part 100 
experimental license on public notice. Further, we propose to require 
applicants for a part 100 experimental license to certify that 
operations under the license will not be for commercial purposes but 
only be for the purpose of testing, experimentation, demonstration, or 
validation. Lastly, we propose to create a process by which a part 100 
experimental license may be converted to a regular part 100 license 
upon request by the licensee and action by the Commission.
    86. NGSO Call Sign Merging. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposes 
to allow Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit (NGSO) satellite system 
operators to combine authorized satellites currently operating under 
multiple call signs into one NGSO satellite system under one call sign. 
We believe that this could help applicants simplify the number of 
licenses that must be maintained and also provide greater flexibility 
and modularization, all of which would create efficiencies that would 
benefit small entities.
    87. Earth Stations. We seek comment on ways in which we can update 
and revise the licensing process for earth stations, specifically on 
establishing a specific definition for ``site'' as it relates to earth 
stations and establishing a definition in our rules for User Terminals 
that matches what we stated in the Order. We also seek comment on how 
we should revise the Earth Station in Motion (ESIM) definitions, 
technical rules, and limitations to better account for today's reality 
and whether there are ways in which we can condense and streamline the 
number of different types of earth stations that exist in our rules. We 
seek comment on whether we should align our rules for earth stations 
with the part 2 rules, whether we should retain our rules relating to 
receive-only earth stations, and whether we should allow applicants who 
require a waiver to apply for a Nationwide, Non-Site license.
    88. Modifications. The Commission seeks comment on whether we 
should allow space station licensees to change or add radiofrequency 
(RF) sensing capabilities through a minor modification notification 
process instead of requiring a major modification application.

[[Page 67238]]

    89. Hosted Space Stations. We seek comment on whether to extend the 
framework adopted in the Order for U.S.-licensed hosted space stations 
onboard U.S.-licensed host spacecraft to non-U.S.-licensed hosted and 
host space stations.
    90. Ephemeris Data Sharing and Reporting. In the Order, we take a 
meaningful step towards enhancing space safety by requiring licensees 
and market access grantees to share their ephemeris data. We seek 
comment now on potential future requirements for ephemeris sharing to 
enhance space safety. We also seek comment on creating a process 
whereby the Space Bureau could certify qualified, private ephemeris 
tracking systems as sufficient for the purpose of complying with our 
rules on ephemeris sharing.
    91. Inter-Satellite Service Links (ISLs) Between U.S.-Licensed and 
Non-U.S.-Licensed Satellites. Currently, the Commission does not have 
rules for the licensing of communications via inter-satellite service 
links between U.S.-licensed and non-U.S.-licensed space stations or 
spacecraft. We recognize that these types of operations could pose 
security risks. We therefore seek comment on the types of issues that 
the Commission should be concerned with and how to address them. We 
also seek comment on the most appropriate mechanism for licensing these 
inter-satellite links.
    92. Frequency Reuse. Section 100.211(d) of the Commission rules 
requires all space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) 
operating in any portion of the 3600-4200 MHz, 5091-5250 MHz, 5850-7025 
MHz, 10.7-12.7 GHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.5 GHz, 15.43-15.63 GHz, 
17.3-17.8 GHz, 18.3-20.2 GHz, 24.75-25.25 GHz, or 27.5-30.0 GHz bands, 
including feeder links for other space services, and in the 
Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band (space-
to-Earth), shall employ state-of-the-art full frequency reuse, either 
through the use of orthogonal polarizations within the same beam and/or 
the use of spatially independent beams. Given the growth in the use of 
spectrum by the FSS and BSS, we seek comment on requiring full 
frequency reuse for all FSS and BSS operations in bands allocated to 
FSS and BSS as a general rule instead of just the bands listed above.
    93. Orbital Debris Mitigation. We seek comments on requiring 
spacecraft monitoring and collision avoidance capabilities for each 
spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) throughout its orbital lifetime, 
including end-of-mission, until re-entry. Beyond LEO, section 
100.111(c)(2) requires NGSO satellites to be 10 cm or larger in the 
smallest dimension in order to be trackable. In light of the number of 
spacecraft going beyond LEO and to maintain a safe operating 
environment, we seek comment on requiring spacecraft going, or 
intending to go, beyond LEO to be 1 meter or larger in the smallest 
dimension.
    94. Two-Degree GSO Spacing Requirements. We seek comment on whether 
any updates to the current FSS Earth Station Performance Standards are 
necessary, including whether the current rule covers all current and 
possible future antenna types, frequency bands, and any other pertinent 
addition or clarification to bring the rule up to date. We also seek 
comments on whether updates are needed to the current FSS Transmitting 
Earth Station Off-Axis Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) rule 
to accommodate current and future sharing of the Geosynchronous Orbit 
(GSO) arc, whether additional bands need to be included, and any other 
pertinent addition or clarification necessary to the rule.
    95. Secondary Markets. In the Order, we adopt a framework for 
processing rounds. This framework will result in clearly defined status 
across systems, and it appears that processing round status can have a 
quantifiable impact on operations. Therefore, we seek comment on the 
possibility of licensees or market access holders exchanging processing 
round status, via secondary markets.
    96. Renewal and Replacement Expectancies and Reassignment. In the 
Order, we establish a definition for replacement satellites. In the 
FNPRM, we seek comment on establishing renewal and replacement 
expectancies and explore the differences between NGSO and GSO 
satellites that affect renewal and replacement expectancies. We seek 
additional comment on whether it is possible to establish a unified 
rule for renewals of space and earth station licenses. There is 
currently regulatory uncertainty that arises when a GSO space station 
licensee disposes or relocates an in-orbit satellite and does not 
immediately surrender the license or place another satellite into the 
vacated orbital location that uses all the spectrum resources that were 
licensed for use by the satellite that was disposed or relocated. We 
propose a rule that would automatically make the orbital and spectrum 
resources available for reassignment unless the licensee has already 
put into place a new replacement satellite at the location, or within a 
year of the date of the disposal or relocation has relocated another 
in-orbit satellite to utilize all frequencies that we authorized for 
use by the disposed or relocated satellite at the orbital location. If 
neither condition is met, we propose that the Space Bureau will release 
a public NPRM making the orbital location and any unused frequencies 
available for reassignment and establishing a date and time that new 
applications will be accepted.
    97. Miscellaneous. In addition to the specific proposals in the 
FNPRM, we also seek comment on a number of open questions concerning a 
variety of topics for which the FNPRM contains no specific proposals, 
including revising the licensing process for earth stations and 
whether, and how, the Commission should adopt more structured renewal 
and replacement expectancy frameworks for satellite and earth station 
authorizations. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the 
Commission's attention any proposals they may have on the topics on 
which comments are solicited in the FNPRM.
    98. U.S.-Based Control Point. We seek comment on whether we should 
require that all satellites, spacecraft, or space stations licensed by 
the Commission have a U.S.-based control point. We tentatively conclude 
that we should and seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
    99. Transfers of Control and Assignments. As we continue to create 
efficiencies in our approval processes we recognize that any market-
based approach must establish clear rules regarding transfers of 
control and assignments of licenses. Therefore, we seek comment on ways 
to make this process more efficient while still ensuring proper 
oversight of licensees.

E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    100. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any 
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish 
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any 
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is 
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of 
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''

[[Page 67239]]

    101. If adopted, the new framework proposed in the FNPRM could 
lessen the economic and administrative burdens of the licensing process 
and the operational requirements for space and earth station operators. 
Specifically, the FNPRM proposes to create ``operational envelopes'' 
that would allow applicants to request broader authority and change 
operations within that envelope without further permission from the 
Commission. This proposal is intended to significantly reduce 
repetitive paperwork, decrease the need for STA and waiver requests, 
and allow for future automation. In addition, this proposal is designed 
to continue the Commission's efforts to simplify the overall 
application process for small and other space and earth station 
operator entities. The FNPRM seeks comment on each proposed rule, as 
well as on the operational envelope framework in general, as to whether 
the Commission's proposed revisions would provide the intended 
increased speed, predictability, and clarity for applicants. The 
proposed revisions, if adopted, would ultimately provide benefits for 
space and earth station operators, of all sizes, in the long term.
    102. Small entities also stand to realize economic benefits from 
efficiencies arising from other licensing simplification and 
liberalization proposals in the FNPRM. These include allowing NGSO call 
sign merging, allowing space station licensees to change or add RF 
sensing capabilities through a minor modification notification process, 
extending the framework for U.S.-licensed hosted space stations to non-
U.S.-licensed space stations, creating a process for certification of 
ephemeris tracking systems, creating a framework for licensing 
communications via inter-satellite service links between U.S.-licensed 
and non-U.S.-licensed space stations, permitting licensees or market 
access holders to exchange processing round status via secondary 
markets, reforming the process for transfers of control and assignments 
of licenses, allowing for use of the Nationwide, Non-Site license 
process if certain waivers are present, and proposing revisions to 
streamline many earth station definitions. In addition, our proposed 
rule on GSO orbital slot reassignment may benefit small, newer 
businesses that will be able to apply for and use orbital resources 
that another operator has abandoned.
    103. The FNPRM also contains several proposals to modernize the 
regulatory environment in ways that stand to benefit the entire space 
industry, including small entities, by ensuring safety and stability of 
all operations licensed by the Commission. These include proposals to 
require full frequency reuse for all FSS and BSS operations in bands 
allocated to FSS and BSS, to mitigate orbital debris, to update two-
degree GSO spacing requirements, and to require that all satellites, 
spacecraft, or space stations licensed by the Commission have a U.S.-
based control point.
    104. In determining its proposals in the FNPRM, the Commission 
considered alternative proposals that could minimize significant 
economic impact on small entities. For example, our proposed rules 
tentatively conclude that satellites, spacecraft, or space stations 
licensed by the Commission have a U.S. based control point. 
Alternatively, we considered potential burdens of this proposal's 
requirements on operators and whether those burdens could be relieved 
by third-party control points that have agreements with operators. In 
addition, as discussed above, we propose the creation of a framework 
for licensing communications via inter-satellite service links between 
U.S.-licensed and non-U.S.-licensed space stations. We considered 
alternative proposals such as requiring a modification application that 
outlines the ownership and operations of the non-U.S.-licensed system 
or whether the U.S.-licensed system should simply file a notification 
prior to beginning operations that identifies the foreign satellite 
system. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's 
attention any specific concerns that they may have with the proposals 
outlined in the FNPRM.
    105. In addition, small entities are encouraged to bring to the 
Commission's attention any alternative proposals they may have on the 
topics for which the FNPRM contains no specific proposals so that the 
Commission may benefit from their insight into the impact on small 
entities as this proceeding progresses. These include such areas as 
revising the licensing process for earth stations and whether, and how, 
the Commission should adopt more structured renewal and replacement 
expectancy frameworks for satellite and earth station authorizations. 
The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic impact on 
small entities following its review of comments filed in response to 
the FNPRM, including costs and benefits information. Alternative 
proposals and approaches from commenters could also help the Commission 
further minimize the economic impact on small entities.
    106. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this 
proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final 
alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this 
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur 
on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    107. None.

V. Ordering Clauses

    108. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 
309, 310, 312, 316, 332, that the FNPRM is adopted.
    109. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, shall 
send a copy of the FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration, in accordance with section 603(a) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-21818 Filed 10-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>