Space Modernization for the 21st Century

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

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

Space Modernization for the 21st Century

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by SB Docket No. 25-306, by any of the following methods:

☐

FCC Website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

☐

People with Disabilities:

Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:

FCC504@fcc.gov

or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn Mahoney, 202-418-7168,

Carolyn.Mahoney@fcc.gov

or Brandon Padgett, 202-418-1377,

Brandon.Padgett@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM, FCC 25-69, adopted October 28, 2025, and released October 29, 2025. The document is available for public inspection online at

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-69A1.pdf.

The document is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to

FCC504@fcc.gov

or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Procedural Matters

Comment Filing Requirements

Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the

DATES

section above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

•

Electronic Filers.

Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.

•

Paper Filers.

Parties who file by paper must include an original and one copy of each filing.

• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express, must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

•

People with Disabilities.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to

fcc504@fcc.gov

or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or TTY: 202-418-0432.

•

Availability of Documents.

Comments, reply comments, and

ex parte

submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

Ex Parte Presentations

Pursuant to § 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's

ex parte

rules. Persons making

ex parte

presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral

ex parte

presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the

ex parte

presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during

ex parte

meetings are deemed to be written

ex parte

presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written

ex parte

presentations and memoranda summarizing oral

ex parte

presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (

e.g.,

.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's

ex parte

rules.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM on small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the Commission document,

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-69A1.pdf.

The Commission invites the general public, in particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

OPEN Government Data Act

The OPEN Government Data Act requires agencies to make “public data assets” available under an open license and as “open Government data assets,”

i.e.,

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

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on

https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

1. Across the United States, the space economy is booming and American companies are building to ensure our nation leads into the final frontier. To assure our nation's continued space leadership, the United States must be the place where the world's space industry builds, operates, and licenses. In a recent Executive Order, the President set our nation on a course “to ensure that new space-based industries, space exploration capabilities, and cutting-edge defense systems are pioneered in America rather than by our adversaries.” And the Administration has called for investments in space as a key priority to “assure America's continued space dominance.”

2. To achieve these goals and to be the nation of choice for space excellence, the United States must also have a modern, efficient space licensing system that enables innovation and exploration. That is why with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) we are launching a proceeding to modernize the Commission's space and earth station licensing rules to meet the needs of the space economy for today and tomorrow. We expect that modernizing our rules will support the vibrant space economy so that the United States can achieve what the President called for in his 2025 Address to Joint Session of Congress when he said, “We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond. And through it all, we are going to rediscover the unstoppable power of the American spirit, and we are going to renew unlimited promise of the American dream.”

3. With these goals in view, our proposal in the NPRM designs a “licensing assembly line” to process space and earth station applications with great efficiency and at the speed and scale required by the 21st century space economy. Like a physical assembly line, we seek to move standardized application materials in direct paths from one stage of the review process to the next in a highly predictable way. Given the nature of our licensing duties, our assembly line will be designed so applications can be routed along different paths and segmented for review based on specific aspects of a request. By modernizing processes in our rules, we aim to set the stage for increasing automation over time. In this way, we expect—like actual assembly lines—that the space review processes can become more efficient and dramatically accelerated while improving the quality of the Commission's licensing work for the American people.

II. Background and Objectives

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

5. The expansion of the space economy has resulted in significantly more licensing activity at the Commission. The Commission received 295 space station applications and 2,684 earth station applications in 2024. In contrast, the Commission received only 124 space station applications and 974 earth station applications in 2016. During this time, the complexity, size, and variety of license applications has also changed. Such rapid change in the space economy—and the resulting demands on the Commission's existing licensing system—means our rules and operations must be modernized to

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

A. Rationale for Modernizing Space Licensing

6. As we modernize the Commission's space and earth station licensing process, we aim to align our rules with the pace, growth, and innovation in the space economy while upholding our statutory duties. Unnecessary regulatory burden imposed on a dynamic, early growth industry can have substantial costs. Inefficient, slow, and costly license processing thwarts innovation and reduces competition. Complex and prescriptive regulation can support incumbents' lobbying against new innovators, and highly discretionary regulation can enable regulators to arrogate their power at the expense of the public. If regulation prevents deployment of new space systems, consumers and businesses must wait to realize the tangible benefits of new innovations and services flowing from the space economy. Many satellite systems also combine commercial and national security components, and the costs of inefficient regulation may hinder America's defenses or put us at a strategic disadvantage with our adversaries.

7. With the NPRM, we have four main goals: (1) to increase license processing speed; (2) to provide more predictability to applicants and licensees; (3) to provide more flexibility for innovation and for licensees' operations; and (4) to faithfully meet our responsibilities. Pursuit of these goals guides each element of our proposal as we aim to design a system which can efficiently scale with the space economy. These goals flow directly from the mandates in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), directing the Commission “to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States . . . . world-wide wire and radio communications service” and to “encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public.” Additionally, the Act provides for the regulation and licensing of radio communications, including satellite communications, for the purpose of national defense and in service of the “public convenience, interest, or necessity.” We believe these statutory mandates strongly support our goals of greater speed, predictability, and flexibility in the space and earth station licensing process to promote the wide availability and proliferation of communications and new technologies for the public.

8. Therefore, we direct our space licensing review toward a clear and limited set of concerns when determining if granting a license will serve the “public convenience, interest, or necessity.” In particular, these areas are (1) harmful interference, (2) spectrum efficiency, (3) space safety, and (4) foreign ownership. As we re-design the Commission's space licensing processes to increase speed, predictability, and flexibility we must do so in a way that guides our determination as to whether a license for space-based communications is in the public interest based on evaluation in these areas. We recognize that a process which efficiently and effectively reviews license applications for these factors will promote the wide availability of communications delivered by a thriving space economy employing new technologies. In addition, it is our intention that by simplifying and modernizing our space licensing procedures we will ensure that the use of part 5 experimental licenses will again be for the testing and development of truly novel space concepts.

9.

Increasing Processing Speed.

The Commission must increase the speed of application processing to ensure that space innovation is not limited by unnecessary delay, which entails more quickly licensing qualified applicants and dismissing unqualified requests. In burgeoning sectors like space, progress stems from a chain of iterative innovations. This means that seemingly small delays in authorizing beneficial new services—such as a few months extra to process an application—could result in a cascading chain of delays over time. Delay in innovation today means delay in the next step, and then the next, and so on in the iterative innovation process. Over time there will be less advancement, slower economic gains, and a weaker national defense. The Commission's licensing process should foster and support innovation and not be an additional source of delay and uncertainty. The volume and variety of space and earth station applications have been increasing and will continue to do so. Large amounts of staff resources go to sifting through non-standardized application materials to determine whether an application is complete and is in alignment with the Commission's rules. Application review frequently entails excessive, time-consuming back-and-forth between the Commission and applicants, with the Commission having to make a large number of non-routine decisions, which can cause delays. The application process should incentivize applicants to submit clear, high-quality, and complete applications so that Commission staff can focus on whether applicants are technically and financially qualified to deploy their systems rather than manage administrative hurdles unrelated to the quality of the application. Applicants should also have clarity as to the timing under which their applications will be processed so they can plan accordingly when designing and implementing their systems.

10.

Providing More Predictability.

Our goal is for both applicants and the public to be able to generally understand how a request will be handled in terms of process, timeframes, and requirements based on the Commission's rules. In a dynamic, capital-intensive sector like space where funding sources often depend on quick execution and demonstrated progress, it is critical that applicants know what to expect when seeking Commission authorizations. Applicants must be able to plan. Engineers need to know what requirements their systems must meet. Additionally, it is important for licensees to know the rules they must follow after receiving a grant and the consequences for rule violations or non-compliance. Furthermore, in a situation where an entity's actions can have considerable impact on others—for example, one satellite operator causing another harmful interference—it is important that there is predictability in how the regulator will approach a request so that parties can find private agreements with mutually beneficial outcomes. Unfortunately, part 25 of the Commission's rules does not always afford a high level of predictability for applicants. Timelines for acting on some license applications can be years. The sometimes-subjective nature of certain application requirements means that applications receive unpredictable levels of review. The Commission's proposals in the NPRM seek to remedy these issues by providing applicants with predictability in how applications will be processed.

11.

Expanding Flexibility for Operations.

The satellite industry is developing systems, services, and operations that were not envisioned

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

12. Lastly, in addition to our key goals, we also take this as an opportunity to propose clearing out regulatory underbrush. In crafting the proposals in the NPRM, we heavily incorporate suggestions from the

Delete, Delete, Delete

proceeding and seek comment on additional reforms that should be undertaken in light of these proposals to overhaul our approach to regulation. We see our proposals in the NPRM as aligning with the President's Executive Order

Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation

to remove “. . . unnecessary regulatory burdens.”

B. Three Pivots Towards Modernization

13. To modernize our licensing process so it can scale to meet the needs of the space economy, we propose three pivots away from the current framework in our part 25 rules. First, we propose a review process to facilitate permissionless innovation. Second, we propose an overhaul of the application materials for more efficient processing. Third, we propose expanding the freedom applicants and licensees have for designing and operating their systems. We believe these pivots are the conceptual path to achieving greater speed, predictability, and flexibility in space and earth station licensing.

14.

Presumed Acceptable Criteria.

The core of our proposal is an approach to facilitate permissionless innovation which sets forth a set of system features which the Commission generally presumes to be acceptable. Our proposed framework looks to the outcomes and performance of a proposed space system rather than trying to prescriptively regulate how a system must be designed to obtain authorization. The notion behind our proposed framework is that the Commission should set bright-line performance measures and characteristics of systems that it finds are presumed to be in the public interest. That is, the Commission will default toward allowing proposals that fall within these bright-line standards and characteristics. In its review, the Commission can then compare a particular applicant's proposal against such bright-line criteria. This change should allow applicants greater freedom to design systems that meet performance standards rather than the Commission providing detailed direction on how to reach a performance standard. While we recognize some applicants may find it difficult to not have prescriptive rules around how to design their system, we believe this can be mitigated by defining a clear set of boundaries as a kind of safe harbor that companies can build within.

15. Our aim is for this approach to support expedited review of any portions of an application that meet bright-line rules. Doing so then allows for targeted review of any elements which do not meet the bright-line criteria, essentially allowing the Commission to make decisions about systems once in a rulemaking (for all applicants) and taking a posture of defaulting toward permitting any requests meeting the criteria. Space companies will then be incentivized to design their systems to meet these standards that the Commission has found are in the public interest while still allowing for deviation as necessary.

16. One key element of this approach that we propose is an expedited processing pathway. We propose that an application will be placed on public notice for seven days and then be granted quickly in most circumstances if it: (1) meets certain presumed acceptable criteria that the Commission has found to be in the public interest; (2) does not request waivers; and (3) is not subject to certain limited “exceptions” to expedited processing. Our expectation is that operators will see expedited processing as a highly desirable way to obtain a license and will design their systems and organize their licensing requests to take advantage of this path. Such an approach with expedited processing delivers by providing faster processing speeds, more predictability as to what features of a system are unobjectionable, and greater flexibility to design systems within the performance parameters presumed to be in the public interest.

17. For applications that do not qualify for expedited processing, our proposal still postures toward granting a license application. We recognize that many applications may not meet all the bright-line standards or that may seek a waiver of the Commission's rules. There also are situations where the Commission will need to consider issues beyond the performance of a particular proposed system, such as how that proposed system will impact other operators' ability to use spectrum. To handle these situations, we propose to adopt a limited set of “exceptions” to the expedited processing pathway. We envision using these exceptions as a clear way to identify specific aspects of applications that require targeted review, like off-shoots from an assembly line.

18. Identified exceptions for a given application would serve as the basis for targeted review. That is, the Commission will focus on review and consideration of any identified exceptions in determining whether granting an application is in the public interest. However, existence of an exception should not necessarily mean an extensive or delayed process. For most applications with an identified exception, we propose to place complete applications on public notice for 15 days. After the public comment period ends, we expect the Commission will work quickly through the areas needing focused review. To facilitate timely review and to increase transparency, we also propose the Commission will notify applicants of any or all exceptions still undergoing

Commission review if full action has not been taken within 60 days after the close of the public comment window. This notification will inform the applicant and the public of any areas which still stand as barriers to grant and promote quicker resolution of any outstanding issues. Our expectation is that applications can be granted well before the 60-day window closes if we implement an overhauled process designed to focus attention on the areas that cannot be presumed to be in the public interest. Lastly, to provide transparency and accountability we also propose that the Space Bureau release regular updates tracking the efficiency of the modernized application framework.

19.

Enhanced Application Design.

Our proposed framework also seeks to dramatically increase processing speeds and lower burdens on applicants by using modularity, standardization, and certifications. With such reforms we seek to reduce unnecessary burden on applicants while also facilitating application routing as part of the licensing assembly line. Our vision is that the application itself will be designed so that the Commission can easily determine completeness and then appropriately route the request to expedited processing or for focused review of one or more elements. Further, a modular design will also support future changes to application requirements.

20. Over time, we expect that our standardized and modular application design will allow for increasing automation of licensing. We envision applicants being able to submit requests into an FCC system where, based on responses, the application form dynamically adjusts. Applicants would be able to quickly see which rules apply to their proposal and make certifications alongside such information. The system would also then be able to conduct validation checks, identify incomplete elements, and then route the application to Commission staff with any exceptions already identified. With standardized, machine-readable application materials organized by design, an FCC system could automatically generate public notices and draft grant materials. During the public notice period, commenters could respond to particular elements of a proposal in a system, so that when the comment period closes, all application materials and public comments are already organized by issue so that staff does not have to do such sorting. With time, artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be used to assist, automating parts of the review so that staff can focus on more complex policy questions. While our proposal does not take these steps, our enhanced application design anticipates such developments. Further, section 8(a) of the Communications Act mandates that the Commission assess and collect application fees based on the Commission's costs to process applications. Section 8(c) also requires the Commission to amend the application fee schedule if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment to ensure that: (1) such fees reflect increases or decreases in the costs of processing applications at the Commission or (2) such schedule reflects the consolidation or addition of new categories of applications. Thus, as we make changes to our application process, we will also consider as necessary, any changes to the Commission's schedule of application fees that result from a more standardized and modular application design.

21. Under our proposal, applicants would be able to flexibly select the application modules relevant to the system's frequency bands, orbital characteristics (

e.g.,

GSO, NGSO) and services (

e.g.,

fixed-satellite service (FSS); mobile-satellite service (MSS); telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C)). Applicants would only need to complete the application materials needed for their request and could even choose to segment requests for more efficient processing. This modular approach de-couples in the application the orbital characteristics from the frequency and service elements so there is flexibility in how systems can be licensed. Over time, licensees could use these “licensing building blocks” to add to their systems with additional satellites or frequencies or make changes to improve efficiency.

22. One particular example of the flexibility and reduced burden afforded by the modular license approach that we propose is that entities be able to complete the FCC Form 312—Main Form with basic contact and ownership information

without

immediately seeking an authorization request. Then, all future license requests from one applicant could be associated with the single FCC Form 312—Main Form so applicants only need to submit this information once (and keep one form updated) and so all requests and licenses associated with an entity can easily be identified. We also propose to eliminate unnecessary narratives as these impose burden on applicants and can require significant unpacking by staff when reviewing a proposal.

23. Perhaps most important to enhancing the application process, our proposal introduces a series of certifications concerning the bright-line elements that carry a public interest presumption. These certifications are specific to the type of proposed system, such as GSO or NGSO, and applicants will certify affirmatively or negatively as to whether their proposed system meets these prespecified elements. Not only do these certifications allow us to relieve applicants of certain showings, but these certifications can be used to quickly identify specific areas where targeted review is needed. Applicants who provide a negative certification—that is, applicants who certify that their system will

not

meet a bright-line standard that the Commission has determined to be in the public interest—will be required to submit additional information so the Commission may make a determination as to whether the application is in the public interest. But in the case of an affirmative certification, applicants generally will only need to submit system design information collected in non-narrative form.

24.

Increased Freedom for Applicants and Licensees.

Our proposals also seek to increase licensees' freedom to design, build, and operate systems. Our view is that licensees should be able to easily create and authorize systems and then continuously upgrade these systems for greater capability and efficiency. It is economically inefficient for the Commission to require approvals for activities which create no harm or to over-prescribe system design features. To allow operators to have the flexibility to operate and compete in the market, our proposals would both remove the burdens of handling requests for unobjectionable activity and allow operators to improve systems over time.

25. Our proposal allows for freedom and flexibility in numerous respects so that applicants can seek authorizations that work best for their operations and so that licensees can operate as necessary. As a general matter, we follow the principle that if a request or activity does not trigger one of the specific exceptions then it is presumed to be in the public interest and requires minimal review. We also seek to allow entities, in some instances, to evaluate tradeoffs within the licensing process and then choose how to proceed with an application. Here, we note key elements of our proposal intended to offer flexibility to applicants and licensees. First, we propose to expand the set of modifications to a license which would be permitted through only a simple notification and/or certification. This means that licensees will be able to operate more freely and only have to

seek additional authorization when requesting a change which falls outside prespecified boundaries set by the Commission. Second, we propose to update our rules to provide the opportunity for applicants to request conditional grants in situations where such flexibility will fit better with the applicant's planning and design process. For example, we are proposing to grant authorizations conditioned on the applicant submitting a future satisfactory orbital debris showing prior to launch. This change would provide applicants more flexibility as to when they can submit their application to the Commission while still finalizing their system design. Third, our modularized application proposal means applicants can choose to segment their requests. If desired, an applicant could send some requests that will not trigger an exception through expedited processing while segmenting others that will take longer into a different request. In addition, over time, licensees could add satellites or frequencies to their systems incrementally at the pace needed. Fourth, we propose that applicants can request any license term shorter than the default term. Fifth, we propose to allow applicants that are not automatically subject to processing rounds to opt-in to a new processing round approach for certain bands to receive priority if needed. In exchange, the applicant would be required to maintain a surety bond on file with the Commission. This allows entities to decide whether to take on a bond in exchange for priority or whether to operate without priority and not have a bonding requirement. Lastly, for licensees with a bonding requirement, we propose a deescalating surety bond formula that declines with deployment so that licensees can control how quickly and granularly to reduce the bond.

26. A final important element of flexibility in our proposal considers new areas of space and satellite innovation that do not fit neatly into the traditional GSO or NGSO categories. In particular, we propose to create a new category of Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System (VTSS). This proposed category would provide a new licensing pathway for applicants seeking to operate space stations on spacecraft that may not follow predictable trajectories. For example, we believe that the VTSS category would include certain ISAM operations, as well as lunar missions, or missions to other celestial bodies. We recognize these systems need greater flexibility in their operations and therefore propose to update our licensing process and rules to accommodate these operations. One particular way we do this is by proposing to allow VTSS licensees to file propagated ephemeris and engage in collision avoidance rather than having to generally prespecify all activities over the license term.

III. Discussion

27. The NPRM seeks comment on all aspects of the proposal and alternative possibilities. We have organized the discussion in the NPRM around four main threads: (1) the licensing assembly line in which we describe our proposals related to the application process for space and earth stations, including application materials, handling, and decision processing; (2) additional reforms for licensing efficiency where we describe proposals related to space and earth station licenses, such as milestones and surety bonds, and the transition to part 100; (3) operational and technical requirements where we describe our proposals related to operational and technical rules for licensees; and (4) compliance where we describe our proposals for rules addressing violations. In each, we seek to explain how our proposals support the overall goals of the modernization process.

28. We propose to adopt a new part 100 of the Commission's rules that would replace the existing part 25 rules. We believe that creating a new rule part altogether would provide a better organized and improved framework for applicants and industry stakeholders, rather than extensively revising the current rules and potentially creating unnecessary confusion. We therefore propose to create part 100 and sunset part 25. Part 100, which is Reserved, is contained in 47 CFR Subchapter D—Safety and Special Radio Services which is preferrable to the current placement of part 25 in Subchapter B—Common Carrier Services. We make this proposal because, while not all our licensees or market access grantees provide common carrier services, all use radio services. We also propose titling part 100 as “Space and Earth Station Services” rather than the current part 25 title, “Satellite Communications.” Satellite communications is a subset that does not include communications with earth stations or spacecraft that are not satellites, and as such is limited. The new proposed title encompasses a broader set of communications operations that reflect the current space industry. We seek comment on implementing the new part 100 and on the overall structure of the proposed modernized rules. Are there benefits to retaining part 25, or are there alternative solutions that the Commission should consider in restructuring the rules?

29. Appendix A to the NPRM contains the largely complete proposed part 100. By providing a largely complete text of proposed rules, we aim to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the overall framework and detailed, specific rule sections. There are instances where we do not propose specific regulatory text and instead describe a proposal in the text of the NPRM and seek comment on appropriate additional regulatory text. We also propose alternatives to the proposed rule text and seek comment on both the proposed rules in Appendix A and any alternative proposals in the NPRM. In addition, other parts of the Commission's rules contain cross-references to part 25, or specific sections within it, that would need to be updated if part 100 replaces part 25. We also seek comment on the necessary revision of these cross-references, including whether any would involve substantive changes to those rule parts.

30. We propose to organize the new part 100 into four subparts:

Subpart A—General.

This would include the legal basis for the rules, authorization requirements, definitions, ownership, references, and preemption of local zoning.

Subpart B—Applications and Licenses.

This would include application materials and application processing for space and earth station licenses.

Subpart C—Operational Rules.

This would include rules general to all licensees and specific to operations, services, or frequencies.

Subpart D—Compliance.

This would include consequences for rule violations.

31. Two of the main goals of this modernization effort are to make the Commission's space and earth station licensing rules easier to understand and to make the application process easier for incumbent and new operators alike. In this regard, an overhaul of certain aspects of our rules could bring more clarity to regulated entities, such as removing redundant portions and separating application requirements from operational rules to clarify for applicants what is required in the application process versus after grant. We believe that the proposed organization of part 100 will help applicants and licensees to more easily understand the application requirements, the application process, the rules applicable to a licensee, and the consequences for non-compliance of the rules and requirements. We seek

comment on this proposed organization of the new part 100. Additionally, we seek comment on whether certain proposed rule sections should be moved to a different subpart.

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

A. Licensing Assembly Line

33. Our proposed “licensing assembly line” is designed so applicants can efficiently prepare applications which can be routed so that applications are identified for quick review (

i.e.,

expedited processing) or targeted review (

i.e.,

exceptions to expedited processing). Like an assembly line, the proposed approach aims to standardize the review process and route the review of each application on a predictable and ever-moving track. We seek comment on this proposed approach.

34. The licensing assembly line proposes three key phases. First, the modular application phase where applicants submit applications or other requests to the Commission. Second, the application processing phase where the request is prepared for a decision in a timely fashion by establishing completeness, seeking public comment, and requesting or receiving any additional information or amendments. Third, the application decision phase in which the Commission applies a structured review process to decide on the request in accordance with the rules. The particulars of these three phases are embodied by the rules proposed in Appendix A and are discussed below.

35. Within the proposed part 100, “Subpart B—Applications and Licenses” is where we propose rules for accepting and processing applications. In subpart B, we propose to organize the rule sections covering the space and earth station application requirements as well as rules for application review. Our expectation is that subpart B would be the primary portion of our rules that the public and regulated entities would reference to understand how to apply for a space station or earth station license and the application review process. We seek comment on the general organization of part 100 proposed below and in Appendix A, as well as on the specific proposals for each section.

1. Application Modularity; Required Forms

36. We propose to require applicants to submit their space and earth station applications by completing one or more application pieces depending on the nature of the request. Relying on modularity will mean applicants only need to complete relevant portions of the application and the Commission can efficiently design and update internal review processes for applications. We intend for this approach to apply to any type of application, including initial space and earth stations applications, petitions for market access, amendments, modifications, requests for special temporary authority (STA), and any other applications. The key modular pieces of the application materials under our proposal for space station applications include General and Ownership Information on FCC Form 312—Main Form, Orbital Elements on Schedule O to the FCC Form 312, and Frequency Elements on Schedule F to the FCC Form 312. Earth station applicants would file FCC Form 312—Main Form and Schedule B to FCC Form 312. Additional information would be required for applications to provide Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) and petitions for U.S. market access.

37. We propose to modularize the information that space station applicants must provide in the new part 100. Specifically, we propose to condense the information required for space station applications into three rule sections in part 100: one section for general applicant information; one section that contains the orbital information for a proposed system; and one section that contains the frequency information for a proposed system. Many of the information requirements that we propose in these sections are similar to the current part 25 rules, though we have sought to significantly reduce what is required. We also propose in many of these information requirements to shift away from requiring narratives and demonstrations and shift to requiring more straightforward pieces of information. In making these changes we propose to replace the current Schedule S and much of the narrative required for space station applicants with two new schedules to the FCC Form 312: Schedule O and Schedule F. Schedule O would contain the orbital information and Schedule F would contain the frequency information related to the space station application. We propose to still require earth station applicants to submit Schedule B but propose streamlined revisions.

38. Applicants would only need to complete the portions of the forms that pertain to their requested operations. We propose to still require a description of the proposed system in the application but seek to substantially reduce the narratives required. Experience with part 25 application requirements shows that lengthy narratives and non-standard submissions can slow the review process as the Commission must spend time parsing the narrative and reconciling inconsistencies with other parts of the application. Additionally, we believe that this approach could facilitate intake of application data in standardized formats for improved review over time. By modularizing the orbital and frequency information, we seek to provide a wide range of flexibility for applicants. For instance, we envision this modularity facilitating simpler approval of hosted space stations and space-as-a-service systems by only requiring the information needed for their proposal. We seek comment on how our proposed application design could support such flexibility. Are there any changes we should make to our proposal for these

kinds of requests? We also want the application process to be flexible enough to accommodate novel proposals. For instance, how can the application process accommodate an operator who seeks to transfer a hosted space station from one spacecraft to another? We seek comment on the types of systems that need flexibility and how our application materials can support such requests in line with our goals.

39. We also propose to continue to require electronic submission of applications via ICFS or another successor system and propose delegating to the Space Bureau the ability to designate the specific application filing system. In addition, we propose to codify that waiver requests are not necessary for submission of supplements or exhibits filed contemporaneously with applications due to technical limitations of the designated forms. We also propose that, consistent with Commission precedent and practice, applicants would not be entitled to refund of application filing fees once an application is reviewed. We seek comment on these proposed changes and generally on whether any changes related to the application fee rules in part 1, subpart G, or the ICFS rules in part 1, subpart Y would be required as a result of the proposals in the NPRM.

40. While the proposed rules set forth the requirements for application materials, we expect the form and format will need to be carefully designed to support our goals. Furthermore, we anticipate the need for the form and format of applications to evolve over time. Therefore, we plan to delegate authority to the Space Bureau to determine and revise the form and format for filing application materials and for designating the system for the intake of those materials. In particular, we plan to delegate to the Space Bureau the authority to announce through public notice any changes to the form and format of required application materials. This delegated authority would allow the Space Bureau to modernize and streamline the application process as necessary through improved technology and other process design improvements. We also propose to delegate authority to the Space Bureau to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking in making these changes if the Space Bureau deems required or advisable. Delegating authority to the Space Bureau as set forth above will allow it to effectuate improvements as quickly as possible. Since these delegations of authority, if made, might be of a continuing nature, we seek comment on whether corresponding rule changes should be made to Section 0.51 or other parts of our regulations. We seek comment on this approach.

a. FCC Form 312—Main Form

41. Section 25.114(a) directs applicants for NGSO and GSO space station authorizations to submit applications via FCC Form 312—Main Form, with the required exhibits attached. The FCC Form 312—Main Form also prompts applicants to respond to a number of questions relating to the applicant's compliance with the Commission's environmental policy rules, basic qualifications, and ownership, and requires certifications to the accuracy of the information provided therein. We propose to create a new rule section entitled “Application Requirements of the FCC Form 312—Main Form” that aggregates the required information for space or earth station license applications with the FCC Form 312—Main Form. Specifically, this section would continue to require applicants to submit contact information, management and ownership information, and attest to certifications that are included in the existing application forms. We propose to connect the requirements with the FCC Form 312—Main Form in the rules so that it is clear what information applicants must provide in applications. We seek comment on these proposals. Does this proposal provide predictability for applicants? Is there additional information that should be included in this form?

42. We propose to retain the FCC Form 312—Main Form existing requirement that the applicant include an attestation, made under penalty of perjury, that all information submitted on FCC Form 312—Main Form and any associated forms has been verified for accuracy and is believed to be complete and accurate at the time of submission similar to what is currently required by our forms. The Commission often receives applications with incomplete, inconsistent, and inaccurate information, and staff have generally engaged in a time-consuming process of guiding applicants on how to correct and amend applications so that they are acceptable for filing. Should an additional requirement be added so that the attestation be made by an officer of the applicant filing the FCC Form 312—Main Form to better ensure that the information is complete, consistent, and accurate since the submission might be taken more seriously by leadership of the entity filing the authorization if an officer has to attest? Currently, all applications are subject to the requirements outlined in part 1 of the Commission's rules to maintain the ongoing accuracy of its materials.

43. We also seek to reduce the need for applicants to fill out the same form multiple times with identical information when applying for additional space or earth station authorizations. Under the current rules, applicants must re-file the same information required by FCC Form 312, Main Form for every request. We propose to allow applicants to certify that no information has changed from a previously filed FCC Form 312—Main Form rather than requiring them to submit a new FCC Form 312—Main Form with each request. We seek comment on this proposal generally and invite suggestions on how to operationalize this requirement. Specifically, should the Commission allow applicants to certify that no information has changed from a previously submitted FCC Form 312—Main Form and provide the corresponding file number? Would this proposal relieve any significant burdens on applicants such that it would justify the operational changes that may need to be made to ICFS?

44. We also propose an avenue that would bifurcate the FCC Form 312—Main Form from the associated application schedules so that applicants could elect to file the FCC Form 312—Main Form independent of an application for space or earth station authorization. We believe that independent filing of the FCC Form 312—Main Form would allow the Commission to make a preliminary determination as to whether an applicant is qualified to hold a space station or earth station license before they actually apply for a license. Since the FCC Form 312—Main Form collects ownership information, we propose to allow entities to seek preliminary-clearance to hold a license which could facilitate accelerated review for transfers of control or assignments. Specifically, this would allow an applicant seeking to obtain a space station or earth station authorization to submit an FCC Form 312—Main Form in advance of a transfer of control or assignment and have the Commission review the ownership and legal qualifications of the applicant in advance of any transfer or assignment. It could also be a way for entities who do not typically operate space or earth stations to be pre-cleared to hold a license if that would facilitate a contractual arrangement. We seek comment on this proposal and any potential alternatives. Would this proposal facilitate a more efficient review of basic licensee qualifications

and promote investment and capital formation in the space sector? If we were to adopt this proposal, should the Commission adopt a new application fee for reviewing an FCC Form 312—Main Form application that is not associated with an underlying application, consistent with section 8 of the Act? We believe the Act provides authority for creating a process that bifurcates preliminary review of applicant qualifications from the final review of all elements of an application to achieve permissible policy objectives, such as facilitating efficient capital formation to promote investment in communications facilities. What rules, if any, need to be added to carry out this proposal? Are there any legal barriers to the Commission providing preliminary review of applicant qualifications, subject to review of any new information that may be provided in connection with a complete application for authorization?

b. Ownership Information

45. The Commission also proposes to codify in part 100 the long-standing requirement that space station applicants include a disclosure of certain management and ownership information in FCC Form 312—Main Form, and to expand this requirement to every applicant filing an FCC Form 312—Main Form, including all earth station applicants. This information has been required to ensure that applicants meet the basic qualifications to hold satellite licenses and grants of market access. While this information is already required by the current FCC Form 312—Main Form for space station applicants, we propose to include a reportable ownership requirement in part 100 that all applicants disclose information about individuals or entities holding a 10% or more direct or indirect (equity and/or voting interest) in the applicant or a controlling interest, as well as the names, citizenship, and address of each officer and director in the applicant. These requirements would also allow the Commission to identify domestic and foreign persons, governments, or entities that hold 10% or more interest, consistent with current practice. We believe that such information allows the Commission to assess whether grant of an application will serve the public interest, including consideration of any national security concerns and a determination of whether to refer an application to the Executive Branch for review to assess any national security or law enforcement issues presented by foreign ownership. We seek comment on how these proposed regulations interact with 47 CFR 1.5000 et. seq., which apply to satellite or earth station common carriers, and how to enable a single set of ownership rules with a uniform 10% reportable ownership threshold that apply to all satellite and earth station licensees and recipients of market access grants.

46. The Commission adopted a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

in May 2025 proposing foreign adversary ownership certification and information collection requirements for all entities holding covered Commission licenses or authorizations (

Foreign Adversary NPRM

). Specifically, the

Foreign Adversary NPRM

proposes to require such entities to affirmatively certify whether the entity is or is not directly or indirectly owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary, and if so, to submit any additional information on foreign adversary control including identities, citizenships, and descriptions of any held control. The

Foreign Adversary NPRM

proposes to require foreign adversary certification and reporting for satellite networks, specifically seeking comment on whether to modify FCC Form 312—Main Form, along with other categories of satellite licensing, to include a certification on an applicant's foreign adversary ownership. We propose to align our final rules in this proceeding with the final rules established in the

Foreign Adversary NPRM,

including the final decision on whether those requirements should be incorporated into existing licensing rules or whether the Commission should create a single set of new rules that apply to all regulated entities and whether the requirements should be reflected in FCC Form 312—Main Form.

47. Finally, we propose to incorporate the current requirement that applicants submit an ownership diagram that illustrates the applicant's vertical ownership structure, including the direct and indirect ownership interests with 10% or more ownership interest or controlling interest. This chart should clearly indicate the non-U.S. citizenship entities. As ownership and control structure of companies in the space industry have become increasingly complex, Commission staff have routinely requested that applicants provide information in this format to facilitate their analysis. We propose requiring this submission with the FCC Form 312—Main Form at the initial stage of the application process to avoid delays. We seek comment on whether this proposal should be included in final rules and any alternative methods for collecting ownership information.

c. General Space Station Application Requirements

48. We propose to create a rule section that would aggregate many of the space station application requirements currently found in separate sections of part 25 and that apply to all space station applicants. This rule section would consolidate certain part 25 rules into one rule section requiring applicants to provide the type of authorization requested, contact information for the applicant, a comprehensive description describing the satellite system, a brief public interest statement, and ITU filings and cost recovery materials. These proposed requirements are similar to the current requirements found in part 25, but we seek comment on whether certain information should be added, eliminated, or modified.

49. The FCC Form 312—Main Form requires space station applicants to submit contact information for the applicant and a point of contact if different from the applicant. We propose to retain this information and include contact information for the person or entity capable of and responsible for ceasing transmissions directly on the FCC Form 312—Main Form, which applicants are already required to submit to the Commission under the § 25.271 point of contact filing requirement. This section would also require applicants to submit a comprehensive statement that includes a description of the satellite system, detailing its services, orbits, and planned operations. While we propose to require applicants to submit most technical elements of their applications on one or more schedules to the FCC Form 312, we view the comprehensive statement as the portion of the application that describes in relatively plain language the overall design and operations of the proposed system. We see this as a valuable element that puts the rest of the information in the application into context and makes it easier for the public to understand and comment on applications when they are placed on public notice. However, we would also like to reduce the burden of unnecessary requirements. Accordingly, we propose that applicants provide a comprehensive statement rather than the currently required “comprehensive proposal” in § 25.114, which refers to the application in its entirety. We tentatively conclude that a statement will result in a reduced burden on applicants while still giving the public and the Commission an opportunity to scrutinize any planned operations. Should we issue additional guidance

regarding what entails a comprehensive statement to ensure that applications contain sufficient information for Commission review while preventing applicants from having to expend resources on unnecessary showings? Are there more effective or efficient ways to collect the required information within the overall application? We seek comment on whether the comprehensive statement element of an application is necessary for public review of applications. Is the statement at all redundant to any other proposed requirement?

50. We also propose in Appendix A to retain the required public interest statement supporting grant of the proposed operations. However, we seek comment on whether a public interest statement is necessary. Our proposed modified application process is designed to identify parts of an application where either a public interest presumption cannot be made

ex ante

or where a more focused review of the merits is needed. In those situations, the applicant would provide information to support a grant of authorization. Therefore, is it necessary to require a separate public interest statement? If we do retain this requirement in the new proposed rules, are there ways to limit the burden on applicants in preparing public interest statements?

51. We also propose to codify that an operator may file an application requesting authority for multiple GSO satellites under a single call sign as long as the necessary information is provided for each specific GSO satellite listed in the application. Historically, the Commission has licensed single GSO satellites for a single location on the geostationary arc. This is largely due to the distance from Earth, which requires high power and large GSO satellites that are expensive to construct, launch, and operate. But that is beginning to change. As satellite systems are becoming more advanced with increased technical capabilities, we anticipate that applicants may seek to operate multiple satellites at one location on the geostationary arc. We therefore propose to modify our rules to allow applicants to file for and receive a GSO space station license for multiple GSO satellites. We seek comment on this proposal. Should applicants only be allowed to file a single application for multiple GSO satellites if those satellites will be located at the same location on the GSO arc? Should there be a maximum number of GSO satellites allowed to operate under one license? Should existing operators be allowed to combine multiple GSO satellites under one license?

52. Finally, are there any additional requirements that generally pertain to space station applicants that should be included here? Are there elements we propose which should be removed or changed?

d. Space Station Orbital Requirements; Schedule O

53. We propose to create a new schedule to the FCC Form 312, Schedule O, as part of the application requirements for space station applicants to submit the corresponding orbital information for proposed systems. Applicants seeking license authorizations for GSO satellite systems, NGSO satellite systems, VTSS, and Multi-Orbit Satellite Systems (MOSS) would be required to submit Schedule O as part of their initial application.

54. In the proposed Schedule O, applicants would provide the system's orbital information, such as the number of satellites and orbital planes. Applicants would also certify whether a proposed system would meet a set of bright-line orbital criteria. These certification criteria, including collision risk and human casualty risk, would define the contours of the orbital criteria that the Commission presumes to be in the public interest. We want the part 100 application materials to clearly define what applicants must submit and we believe that the proposed Schedule O will help to reduce uncertainty on the orbital information required. Certain current part 25 rules require statements or technical disclosures demonstrating how the applicant meets the orbital criteria. Under our proposal, we seek to allow applicants to certify affirmatively or negatively that their system will meet the criteria, instead of preparing statements describing in detail how their system will meet a certain standard, and the Commission can verify this certification via the technical information included in the submitted orbital debris mitigation plan. In the case of a negative certification, the applicant would then submit additional information to justify why the request is in the public interest. We have largely transferred from part 25 to part 100 the same required orbital showings, but have sought to revise these showings into bright-line standards to support our certification approach where possible. In this way, applicants can have clarity on what exactly the Commission will consider and then need only submit a public interest justification for a request outside of the presumed acceptable orbital debris criteria.

55. The proposed Schedule O would aggregate some of the requirements located in part 100 to help applicants easily determine and certify whether the orbital components of their proposed system are in compliance with the Commission's rules. Additionally, Commission staff would be able to review an applicant's Schedule O to quickly determine whether the application meets the orbital requirements or requires further review. With this proposed Schedule O, we seek to clearly organize the information required under the proposed rules and provide Commission staff with an easy way to identify applications that require closer review, thereby making the licensing process more efficient. In cases where the applicant cannot certify compliance in the affirmative, then the applicant would be permitted to submit a justification for Commission review to determine if granting the license is in the public interest. In this way, the application materials would, by design, assist with routing an application along the licensing assembly line. We seek comment on this as well as the general proposal outlined here. Are the proposed Schedule O and orbital certifications therein sufficient for the Commission and the public to analyze space station applications?

56. As part of providing the orbital information for a system, under our proposal applicants will need to identify their proposal as a GSO satellite system, an NGSO satellite system, a VTSS, or a MOSS. Depending on the type of request, we propose specific application requirements. The proposed definitions and application requirements for each type of system are discussed below.

e. GSO Satellite Systems

57. The Commission's rules currently define a “Geostationary-orbit satellite” as “[a] geosynchronous satellite whose circular and direct orbit lies in the plane of the Earth's equator and which thus remains fixed relative to the Earth; by extension, a geosynchronous satellite which remains approximately fixed relative to the Earth.” This definition is included in both parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's rules, and we therefore propose to forgo its inclusion in part 100 as unnecessary and retain the definition in part 2. We do, however, propose to adopt a definition of “GSO satellite system” to help applicants and operators determine when a defined GSO satellite would be classified as part of a larger GSO system in the context of the Commission's regulations. We propose to define a “GSO satellite system” as, “a system composed of one

or more geostationary-orbit satellites operating together at a single location and under a single call sign.” We seek comment on this proposed definition. Should we expand this definition to include multiple GSO satellites operating at different locations as part of the same call sign? Are there other defining traits of a GSO satellite system that should be included in this definition? Should the definition require that the multiple GSO satellites be controlled by a single network control center?

58. We propose to significantly reduce the amount of information required for applicants for GSO space stations and satellite systems. Specifically, we propose to require the requested orbital location, certifications as to whether the satellite(s) will comply with the two-degree spacing requirements on the U.S. arc and the orbital debris mitigation rules we propose in subpart C. We also propose to require materials be provided to explain orbital debris mitigation plans and end-of-life disposal plans in support of the certification. We seek comment on this proposal. Is there any additional information the Commission should include in this section? Are the rules proposed in Appendix A clear so that applicants understand what is required?

f. NGSO Satellite Systems

59. We propose to codify a definition of “NGSO satellite system.” We think that this will make it easier for Commission staff and applicants to refer to applications and discrete satellite systems, particularly if certain applicants apply for multiple satellite systems. Specifically, we propose to define “NGSO satellite system” as “[a] system of one or more non-geostationary orbit satellites operating together under one space station call sign.” We seek comment on the proposed definition and whether it will facilitate flexibility for operators over time. Does this definition support flexibility and efficiency in how operators organize their systems? As operators build and modify their systems through the licensing process, there may be value in allowing an operator to consolidate multiple call signs so that changes to the operator's deployed system only require a change to one call sign. Should we limit the proposed “NGSO satellite system” definition or make clear that licensees cannot consolidate satellites that would otherwise be viewed as separate systems into a single system with a single call sign? How should we determine whether satellites are “operating together”? Should we allow applicants to define the limits of their own satellite systems for purposes of deciding whether a separate license and/or call sign is necessary?

60. We propose to divide the information that NGSO space station applicants must provide into three parts: technical information, certifications, and additional information. The technical information that we propose to require is similar to current part 25 requirements. We propose rules in Appendix A that include information such as the number of satellites in a constellation, the requested orbital planes, inclinations, and apogee and perigee, among others. We seek comment on this proposal. Does the information we propose to require provide enough flexibility for modern systems to be described?

61. Is there any additional information that the Commission should require for both the Commission and the public to better evaluate applications, or information we do not need to require? For NGSO satellite systems, are there different aspects of a system design we should collect, or aspects we should collect differently, to ensure applicants can request the type of flexibility needed for their proposed operations? For example, do the requirements afford the opportunity for requests involving flexibility in adjusting systems across orbits or shells? Do we need to specify that the information provided only needs to reflect an applicant's initial deployment but that the system can operate flexibly as long as it is done within our rules and subject to any license conditions? Are there other areas we can build in flexibility so that applicants may request to operate within certain envelopes? If so, how would we incorporate this into our application requirements and the forms?

62. The list of proposed certifications for NGSO satellite system applicants is set forth in Appendix A. These proposed certifications include bright-line criteria that applicants must certify whether or not their requested system will meet. Many of these criteria are taken from the current streamlined small space station authorization process in part 25. For example, we propose to require applicants to certify whether their satellite(s) will be 10 cm or larger in the smallest dimension. We believe that these bright-line criteria, drawn largely from current information requirements in part 25, will make the application review process more efficient because it will remove subjective elements from the review. We seek comment on this proposal, including on the specifics of each certification we propose. Are the certifications clear enough so that applicants can make accurate certifications? Is the way we propose to rely on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Debris Assessment Software appropriate? Do we need to provide additional guidance as to how collision probabilities should be calculated? Do we need to provide guidance on what it means for a satellite to be able to be “maneuvered effectively” under proposed rule § 100.111(c)(2)(vi)? Are there additional certifications that should be added, or proposed certifications that should be deleted? Are there other proposed rules or requirements that could be turned into certifications?

63. Similar to our current application process, we propose to require that applicants submit an orbital debris mitigation plan that details their end-of-life disposal plan and demonstrates how the applicant will comply with the orbital debris rules and required certifications in subpart C of the proposed new part 100. Additionally, for applicants who may request a waiver of any orbital debris rules or certify that they will not comply with one of the bright-line rules we propose that they would provide the necessary technical information to supporting the specific waiver request. We seek comment on this proposal. Would it be helpful for the Commission to release guidance documents with examples for newer applicants to use as a model? Our goal is for the orbital debris mitigation plans to create as little burden as possible while supporting the certifications made in the application. Therefore, what steps can the Commission take to reduce the burden of these plans? Given that ensuring compliance with the orbital debris certifications will require running orbital debris models, is requiring submission of the report any more burdensome?

64. We also propose to require NGSO satellite system applicants whose requested operations trigger certain information requirements to submit additional information. We believe that these situations will arise in two cases. First, when an applicant certifies that it will not meet one of the proposed bright-line criteria, that applicant would need to provide additional justification to support a grant by the Commission. For example, an application for an NGSO satellite system with a human casualty risk that is greater than 1 in 10,000 would not fit within the criteria that the Commission presumes

ex ante

to be in the public interest. Accordingly, the applicant would need to justify why it is in the public interest for the Commission to grant the application despite having a higher casualty risk.

The second case is when an applicant proposes specific system operations where the Commission has identified that such operations require additional information. For example, we propose to require applicants whose space stations will transit through orbits used by inhabitable spacecraft to provide a description of the design and operational strategies they would employ to minimize the risk of collision with any inhabitable spacecraft. An applicant who falls within this category would then provide additional information to the Commission when they submit their application so that the Commission can determine whether granting the application is in the public interest. Under this proposal, applicants would submit additional information where necessary either in a text box on Schedule O or by filing a supplement to Schedule O. We believe including specific circumstances that require applicants to submit additional information in the “Additional Information” section will make it easier for applicants to identify whether they need to submit the required information. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there other information requirements that would pertain to many NGSO satellite systems—but not all—that should be included in this section? Should we place any limits on the information or its form or format to reduce burden or promote efficient review?

g. Variable Trajectory Spacecraft Systems

65. Increasingly, the Commission is receiving applications for systems that do not fit neatly into the construct of a traditional NGSO or GSO system. These applications instead seek authority for operating space stations on spacecraft with variable orbital parameters in order to conduct novel space activities. Additionally, the Commission has already issued licenses and continues to receive numerous applications for lunar landers and operations. In line with the Commission's modernization goals, we propose to add a new type of license for space stations on a “Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System” or VTSS. Specifically, we propose to define VTSS as, “[o]ne or more spacecraft either operating beyond the geosynchronous orbit or operating without fixed or predictable orbital patterns over the course of its lifetime and operating under one space station call sign.” We intend for this defined category of operations to capture applications for systems that do not fit within the traditional idea of an NGSO or GSO satellite system which have generally predictable and stable orbits. Specifically, under our proposal we expect VTSS would encompass applications for many ISAM systems, orbital transfer vehicles, lunar operations, other novel space activities and operations beyond geosynchronous orbit to asteroids and other planets, and applications for space stations that do not fit neatly within the traditional idea of an NGSO or GSO satellite or satellite system. These operations are often unique in their orbital parameters because satellites or spacecraft may move around to service different spacecraft in orbit, or they may move between NGSO and GSO orbits, or because they transit to or orbit around the moon or other celestial bodies. Our expectation is that VTSS license requests will be distinct from GSO or NGSO requests because of the variability in the orbital parameters of the spacecraft over the course of the license term. We seek comment on this definition and whether it will provide the clarity and distinction needed so that applicants are able to clearly determine whether they need to file an application for a VTSS or a different system type.

66. We seek comment on the proposed definition of VTSS and on the category more broadly. We believe there is a need to have a definition and licensing category for space stations that encompasses the wide range of applications the Commission has received and will continue to receive as companies innovate and seek authorizations for radiocommunications to support novel space activities. Does our proposal for the VTSS definition and licensing category adequately encompass the types of novel operations at the forefront of the industry? Is it sufficiently future-looking and distinct from our proposed definitions of GSO satellite system and NGSO satellite system? Would it make more sense to separate the definition so that space stations traveling beyond the geosynchronous orbit are separate from space stations operating in NGSO or GSO with variable orbits? While we propose to define VTSS (and NGSO and GSO) with respect to the orbital parameters of the system containing the space station(s) being licensed, would it make more sense to define this category based on spectrum use, with a focus on space stations that seek authority for communications not to provide services directly to consumers on Earth, but to operate spacecraft that will provide services in or beyond Earth's orbit? To provide modularity and flexibility, our proposal seeks to separate in the application process the orbital parameters of a system from the frequencies and spectrum use but we welcome suggestions for other approaches. Should we permit operators to file separate Schedule O and Schedule F for propulsion, sensor, or communications payloads that evolve over time? Furthermore, are there alternative names that would fit this definition better? Would Dynamic Satellite (or Spacecraft) System, Non-Standard Orbital Operations, Flexible Space Activities, Non-Conventional Satellite (or Spacecraft) System, or Mission Infrastructure Support Communications (MISC) be better names? Or should the Commission select a more colloquial name like Weird Space Stuff (WSS) to describe this class of applications?

67. We propose to separately specify the information that VTSS applicants must submit when filing an application under the proposed part 100 to make it easier for applicants to know which information is required of them and as a recognition that review of VTSS applications will differ from review of NGSO or GSO applications due to the unique nature of the system. Specifically, we propose to require VTSS applicants to submit information about the number of spacecraft they seek authority for as part of the system, the range of altitudes at which those space stations will operate, and the anticipated amount of time the space station(s) are expected to operate in any particular phase of a mission. These proposed requirements are similar to the proposed requirements for NGSO satellite systems, but differ slightly because we believe they will give operators flexibility in designing systems that do not follow traditional NGSO or GSO operations, while allowing the Commission to collect the information necessary to evaluate a system's potential to cause interference to other operators. We seek comment on these proposed requirements. Are there additional information requirements that should be included? Should they be further subdivided so that certain requirements only apply to certain sub-categories of VTSS, like lunar missions?

68. We also propose to include certifications for VTSS applicants similar to the certifications we propose for GSO and NGSO applicants. We propose fewer certifications for VTSS applicants than NGSO applicants to account for the added flexibility that we seek to provide these operators. Some certifications are unique to the types of operations anticipated under a VTSS application. Specifically, we propose to require applicants who plan to conduct

servicing missions to certify that operations will only happen with the consent of the client and that the applicant will consult with other relevant federal agencies. Additionally, we propose to require operators to certify that they will comply with the relevant end-of-life disposal rules for the orbit at which they will terminate operations. For example, an operator that plans to conduct servicing in medium Earth orbit (MEO) and then move to service a satellite in GEO would have to certify that they will comply with the end-of-life disposal rules for GSO satellites. We seek comment on these proposals. Additionally, is there anything specific the Commission should require from applicants seeking to provide servicing as evidence of client consent? Will the proposed information requirements for VTSS applicants provide operators with flexibility to design and operate novel space stations for novel services?

69. We currently propose adding a rule that requires all space station licensees to share ephemeris data more broadly, which is discussed further below. Is that proposed rule sufficient for VTSS applicants who will be moving spacecraft around more variably and interacting with other satellites on orbit? Should the rule be modified or changed to effectuate the goals outlined above for VTSS applicants and licensees? Should the Commission encourage or require standardized telemetry formats for conjunction assessment and covariance data? What sources might be used to set such standards?

70. In addition to the rule requiring space station licensees to share ephemeris data, we propose to require VTSS applicants to certify whether they will share propagated ephemeris and covariance data prior to and during any planned maneuvers or rendezvous and proximity operations. We believe that for operators planning to move their spacecraft over the course of their lifetime and perform RPO maneuvers, sharing propagated ephemeris and covariance data is in the public interest so the Commission and public may have information on the location of the licensed space station(s) attached to the spacecraft. Having VTSS operators share propagated ephemeris could allow licensees the flexibility to move between orbits while maintaining transparency as to where a licensed space station is. Additionally, this will support space safety and help other operators protect their satellites as well. We therefore propose adding this certification to encourage applicants to file ephemeris and to assist the Commission in quickly identifying VTSS applications that need further review if the applicant is not willing or able to share ephemeris information. We seek comment on this proposal.

71. We also seek comment on whether we should allow VTSS operators who decline to share their propagated ephemeris and covariance data to instead submit a completed agreement with another government agency approving the applicant's space safety plan. Given that some operators work closely with federal agencies, would it be feasible to rely on another federal agency to review and coordinate a VTSS applicant's plans consistent with our obligations under the statute? Could allowing applicants to work with other government agencies for operations that are unique like those we envision under the VTSS framework and submit a coordinated agreement for consideration by the Commission be a substitute for sharing propagated ephemeris and covariance data? Are there other possible ways that operators could meet the needs we identify as in the public interest if they cannot or will not certify to submitting their ephemeris data? Should operators ever be allowed to refuse to submit this data if they are planning on performing maneuvers and RPO? Should we let VTSS applicants submit an orbital debris mitigation plan and certifications to the requirements for NGSO satellite systems or GSO satellite systems, depending on the proposed operations?

72. We also propose to require that VTSS applicants submit certain additional information depending on the specific requested operations. In this section for additional information, we propose to require VTSS applicants whose space stations will travel beyond the geosynchronous orbit to submit a description of any instruments or rovers onboard that will engage in radiofrequency communications with the spacecraft as well as a description of coordination with government entities such as the National Science Foundation We seek comment on this proposal. These information requirements come from the Commission's experience with lunar applications. Are there additional information requirements that the Commission should seek for these missions? We also propose to require applicants who plan to engage in servicing or otherwise interact with other spacecraft on-orbit to submit the following information: a list of FCC file numbers or call signs for applications or grants related to the operations, including for client space stations; a list of ITU filings or United Nations (U.N.) registration information, or the expected State of Registry with the U.N., for any space stations not licensed by the FCC or without market access that will be client spacecraft or related to the proposed operations; and a statement disclosing planned proximity operations and addressing any debris generation. Since many VTSS operators may not likely know at the application stage the particulars of this information, should we instead set this as a notification requirement unless the information is already known? Could the Commission, working with others in the United States government, create pre-cleared lists of nations for which operations need not be specifically disclosed? Or potentially a list of only spacecraft overseen by certain administrations? We seek comment on these proposals. Is there any additional information that the Commission should request?

h. Space Station Frequency Requirements; Schedule F

73. We propose to adopt a new Schedule F to the FCC Form 312—Main Form on Space Station Frequency Information Requirements as the other main schedule for information that applicants must provide to the Commission. Schedule F would replace the current Schedule S but contain much of the same required frequency information. We believe that including all required frequency information in one section will make it easier in the future for the Commission to update both the Schedule F and the Commission's rules as industry and technologies evolve. In addition, we seek to reduce the number of technical showings that applicants must submit. For example, if the Commission were to use an electronic filing system that auto-populated information based on an applicant's requested services, orbital locations, and frequencies, we would not need to change the rules to accommodate that system. We seek comment on this proposal.

74. Similar to the space station orbital information requirements in the proposed Schedule O, we also propose to include certifications in the space station frequency information requirements section. Specifically, we propose to include the following certifications in Schedule F: the space station(s) will comply with all applicable technical rules; the space station(s) will operate under ITU coordinated procedures and agreements; and the space station(s) can be commanded to immediately cease transmissions to eliminate harmful interference. We believe that these certifications will help the Commission quickly identify applications that are in

compliance with the rules and can therefore be processed quickly, distinguishing from applications that request a waiver and therefore require further review. We seek comment on these certifications. Are there additional certifications specific to frequency information that we should include in Schedule F? We also propose to include a subsection that points applicants who seek to operate in specific frequency bands or to provide specific services to the appropriate rule sections in subpart C where additional application materials can be found. We believe that this will be more efficient and reduce the overall length of part 100. We seek comment on this proposal. Does it give applicants sufficient notice of what information is required of them? Are there proposed requirements we should not adopt?

75. The specific frequency information we propose to require is set forth in Appendix A. We seek comment on this proposed rule and the information and certifications. Are there any frequency information requirements that are no longer needed or relevant, either because they are not used in practice by space station operators to assess interference or because technology has evolved? Are there additional frequency or technical requirements or data that we should require applicants to provide? Are there alternative methods for collecting the relevant frequency information from applicants that the Commission should consider?

i. Requirements of Supplemental Coverage From Space Applications

76. Because SCS is a developing service, we do not at this time propose to make any substantive changes to our rules from what is currently required in part 25. We generally believe that making substantive changes to the requirements for SCS at this juncture would be premature and may risk derailing efforts by the industry to build systems that comply with the current rules, with one exception where we propose to eliminate a current requirement.

77. As has been pointed out in other proceedings, and as we have seen in applications before the Commission, although we had endeavored to create a flexible and low burden approach to licensing devices for SCS, there may be some areas which can be further improved. We think this proceeding serves as an opportunity to potentially revise our SCS equipment rules in a targeted manner. As such, we seek comment on whether to remove the requirements for equipment authorization certifications under part 25 and omit them from new part 100 for SCS earth stations. We tentatively conclude that this requirement is unnecessary because all devices used for the provision of SCS must be certified under other rule parts and, the way the rule is structured, the certification under part 25 mirrors the certifications under other rule parts without requiring anything new. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Is there a reason to keep this requirement? If we do adopt our proposal, would a rule in the new part 100 making all equipment that meets the equipment authorization requirements of parts 22, 24, or 27, SCS earth stations by default be sufficient to classify the devices as earth stations for allocation purposes? Alternatively, is there a way that we can incentivize manufacturers who are responsible for equipment certifications to certify their equipment to be SCS compliant? We do not seek comment on any other matters related to SCS or the other rules previously adopted.

j. U.S. Market Access

78. The Commission permits satellite systems that are licensed by jurisdictions other than the United States to access the U.S. market. Our current rules require a demonstration that U.S. licensed space stations have effective competitive opportunities to provide analogous services in the country in which the non-U.S. licensed space station is licensed. The Commission currently allows this access to the U.S. market via either a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the space station operator or a request to access the foreign satellite by a Commission-licensed earth station operator. We propose to continue to review market access applications to ensure U.S. licensed space stations have effective competitive opportunities to access other markets.

79. Additionally, we propose a change to our request for market access procedures to prohibit U.S. market access via earth station licensing. We seek comment on whether to prohibit companies that seek U.S. registration for a space station or system pursuant to the Registration Convention from receiving an FCC authorization for U.S. market access.

80. Current § 25.137 allows earth station applicants to request authority to communicate with a non-U.S. licensed space stations via a petition for declaratory ruling under requirements that are equivalent to those currently outlined in § 25.137 which governs access via satellites. In practice, however, we have found that this process creates confusion among operators since this rule provision only allows for communication with the specific earth station for which the petition for declaratory ruling was made and not broader access to the U.S. market. The current process also creates unnecessary burdens on the Commission to process multiple earth station market access applications rather than a single market access application for a non-U.S. licensed satellite or satellite system. Therefore, we propose to eliminate this option in our rules and only permit market access for non-U.S. licensed satellites pursuant to petitions for declaratory ruling for satellites and no longer via earth stations. We seek comment on this proposal.

81. We seek comment on whether to change our market access rules to prohibit applicants who seek registration by the United States under the processes defined in the Registration Convention from receiving authorization to access the U.S. market via a petition for declaratory ruling and instead require those entities to hold an FCC space station license. We seek comment on whether to require entities that seek registration from the United States to hold a U.S. space station license pursuant to our licensing authority under section 301(f) of the Act, the stated purpose of which is “to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission,” and section 303(r) of the Act, which directs the Commission to make such rules and prescribe such restrictions to carry out the provisions of the Act and “any international radio [ ] communications treaty or convention, or regulations annexed thereto, including any treaty or convention insofar as it relates to the use of radio, to which the United States is or may hereafter become a party.” We seek comment on whether this change in our licensing process is necessary to fulfill the statutory objectives expressly stated in section 301, and to assist the United States as a party to the Outer Space Treaty, pursuant to the express requirements of section 303(r) of the Act. Under the Registration Convention, States register space objects in a registry maintained by each State in order to provide information regarding each space object to the U.N. We also seek comment on whether there are other sound reasons to make this change.

82. When entities seek authorization for space stations from non-U.S. administrations, in many cases, the authorization is of limited scope. For example, the authorization may only involve ITU filings for some, but not all,

of the operational frequencies, or it may be only one of several authorizations for space activities that the country's national legislation provides. Given that the non-U.S. authorization may be incomplete, we seek comment on whether an FCC license should be required when an applicant seeks to have its satellites registered by the United States under the processes defined by the Registration Convention. Is this requirement necessary so that the United States can maintain “authorization and continuing supervision” over the space object? We therefore seek comment on how the U.S. space station licensing process can better align with the registration process. Additionally, we seek comment on how to implement any new rule if adopted, recognizing the complexity of issues that could arise between the licensing administration, the ITU filing, and the U.N. registration. Should any operator that seeks or obtains registration by the United States under the Registration Convention be required to obtain a FCC space station license as of the effective date of any new rule? Should a condition be added on any grant of U.S. market access, providing that authorization would be automatically terminated without further action by the Commission if, after grant, the grantee seeks or receives registration by the United States for any of the authorized satellites and if so, what effect would that have on existing services? If any new requirement only applies on a going-forward basis, should the requirement for a U.S. license attach if current operators who received market access and were registered by the United States apply for renewal, if a renewal period is established, or a major modification and what effect would that have on existing services? We seek comment on how real-world scenarios should be addressed as well as any alternative suggestions.

83. Finally, it is our intention to ensure that operators who are granted authorization to access the U.S. market via a petition for declaratory ruling do not receive an advantage over entities holding a U.S. satellite license. Do our proposed rules meet that goal, and if not, how can they be improved? We note that the European Union (EU) recently proposed a comprehensive EU Space Law which includes additional requirements for non-EU entities to gain access to the EU market, such as appointing an EU legal representative. Under the EU proposal, some of these requirements may be waived if the European Commission determines the non-EU jurisdiction's regulatory framework is sufficiently equivalent to its own. Are there additional requirements, including requirements like those proposed by the EU, that should be incorporated into the Commission's rules for market access entities to establish a level playing field for U.S. operators? For example, there is no license term for U.S. satellite market access grants, and instead we rely on the review of the licensing administration, which establishes the term, if any, on the original license. Therefore, we propose to establish a 15- or 20-year license term for these authorizations, as discussed below. Are there additional requirements that should be imposed on the grantees of market access? For example, should the Commission require a periodic certification that grantees continue to hold a license from their authorizing administration, and/or the ITU and continue to provide service to end-users in the U.S. market? If so, when should such a certification be required? Commenters should describe proposals with specificity, including whether the requirement can be waived upon a showing of sufficiency of the regulation in the country in which the operator holds its original license.

k. Small Satellite Systems

84. We believe the Commission's small satellite and small spacecraft rules in §§ 25.122 and 25.123 have generally been successful despite applicants facing some of the same challenges as other applicants for part 25 licenses. In addition to the more straightforward criteria to qualify as a small satellite system (akin to our proposed approach to prespecify acceptable criteria), the current rules for small satellite systems afford applicants relaxed surety bond and milestone requirements. Accordingly, we do not propose separate rules for small satellite systems. Instead, under the proposed part 100, we expect that applications for all space stations will be reviewed against a prespecified set of standards for expedited processing, as described in the NPRM. Our proposed framework essentially expands the existing small satellite authorization process to encompass a broader range of systems eligible for faster processing. In addition, as proposed herein, small systems would not be required to post a surety bond. We therefore believe that applications that are currently eligible for small satellite or small spacecraft processing will receive the same benefits—no surety bond, exemption from processing rounds, faster processing—under the proposed part 100 rules. Further, our proposal expands the class of applications that would receive these benefits. We seek comment on this approach and alternatives.

85. First, we seek comment on whether we should eliminate the streamlined small space station and small spacecraft authorization processes entirely if we adopt the proposed processing rules in the NPRM. Specifically, because the rules we propose aim to optimize all application processing and would only require larger systems to post a surety bond, as discussed below, would these changes effectively negate the need for a process specific to small satellite systems? We do not propose to address any regulatory fee issues in the NPRM but seek comment on any alternatives the Commission should consider as far as designating certain systems as “small satellite systems.”

86. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should continue to distinguish a small satellite system from an NGSO satellite system. Could we revise the definition to be any NGSO satellite system of ten or fewer satellites under a certain mass limit? Would it then make sense to retain the shorter six-year license term? Should we change the current mass requirement by increasing it? We seek comment on this proposal and how to define “small satellite” or “small satellite system” if we retain these categories. Is there any benefit to having this specific carve out and definition? What benefits, if any, would a small satellite system get given our proposed streamlined approach to application processing and the proposed changes to the surety bond requirement for applicants and licensees? Is this proposed definition too restrictive or not restrictive enough? We seek comment on these questions and proposals generally.

l. Earth Station Licensing Application Requirements

87. We propose to streamline the earth station application requirements by shifting to a predominately Nationwide, Non-Site License approach, and modularize the application so that applicants only provide information that is necessary for the license sought. We believe that this will be more efficient than the current approach, where the Commission requires certain information that it typically does not review. We propose to require additional specific information be submitted based upon the type of application. For instance, rather than applying radiofrequency exposure requirements to all applicants, we propose to only require the information for user terminal and Earth Stations in

Motion (ESIMs) applications. We believe that the changes we make to the requirements for earth station applications will streamline the process for most applicants and promote more efficient Commission processes.

88. Our current rules regarding earth station application requirements are overly burdensome and outdated. Experience indicates our earth station rules often confuse applicants. Much of what the Commission currently requires an applicant to provide is information that is redundant or unnecessary to the Commission's review. In addition, we generally require separate applications for earth stations with the same operating or technical parameters, requiring multiple and redundant reviews. The current approach by the Commission to reviewing earth station applications requires applicants and the Commission to engage in time-consuming submissions and tedious reviews. In addition, the current rules do not take into account advances in technology since the rules were written. To modernize our process, similarly to how we propose reviewing space station applications, we propose to shift to a certification-based approach for earth station applications. Under this approach, applicants who do not operate in accordance with the certifications that they make in the application will assume the risk of an enforcement action for falsely certifying, including the possibility of forfeitures and revocation. So, while the proposed approach may increase speed and efficiency for applicants, it comes with more responsibility on the applicants to ensure they are meeting the Commission's requirements. We seek comment on our proposals. We note that some of the proposals may impact earth stations that operate in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS). We do not propose any substantive changes to the UMFUS regulations in this proceeding and do not seek comment on changes to the UMFUS rules here, instead leaving any such substantive discussion to other proceedings.

89. In addition, we also seek comment on a number of specific questions that may inform the Commission on how our proposed approach will impact industry and the public. Specifically, if an applicant provides all of the certifications in the application, is that sufficient, or does the Commission need to require additional information or review before placing an application on public notice? What additional information, if any, should an applicant be required to provide? For instance, we propose to require applicants to provide their power levels, out-of-band emissions (OOBE), and other power information and also to certify that they are operating within the rules we have established. Is this redundant? Should we instead only require the certification? If we should require both the technical data and the certifications, what is the benefit to doing so? What should the Commission do if an applicant does not certify that they have completed coordination but states they are in the coordination process? Should this be deemed an incomplete application? For operations in shared bands, should we request different or additional information? We tentatively conclude that an applicant, for operations other than those for Immovable earth station Nationwide, Non-Site License, will likely have coordinated applicable operations before submitting an application with the Commission and that such coordination would be reflected in the coordination report. We seek comment on this conclusion. Instead of requiring applicants to provide their coordination reports, should we require licensees to certify that they will complete coordination prior to operation but have available at the request of the Commission evidence of having completed that coordination? Would a coordination report be appropriate evidence or something else? Is there any particular benefit to having a coordination report in a license file instead of simply requiring licensees to produce evidence of coordination at the request of the Commission? Should applicants provide a description of their operations? Is that information relevant for Commission review and licensing? For instance, if an applicant applies for a user terminal authorization, should they be required to tell us what the intended use is, or should they be allowed to use the devices as they see fit so long as they do not violate the Commission's rules? For an applicant who fails to certify in the affirmative or who requests a waiver of the Commission's rules, what information should we require from them? Should we be more specific as to what showings (

e.g.,

interference analysis) should be included with particular types of waiver requests? Is any of the information proposed to be requested unnecessary? Are there sufficient similarities between ESIMs and user terminals so that an applicant can apply for both ESIM and user terminal authorization in the same application if the technical information provided meets applicable requirements specific to each service? Further, we seek comment generally on any potential impacts our proposed changes to earth station licensing could have on services in shared spectrum bands. In addition, should we exclude spectrum bands that are subject to freezes or other limitations—such as C-band—from the proposed licensing rules?

m. Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing With Registration for Immovable Earth Stations

90. We propose to shift our earth station licensing from the current, burdensome site-by-site approach to a predominately Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing approach. While the site-by-site approach will still be available, the dramatic increase in the number of earth stations required by the space industry necessitates a much more streamlined approach that can scale licensing earth stations. We envision a framework involving two steps: first, obtaining a Nationwide, Non-Site License; and second registering earth station sites and completing coordination before operations. Under this two-step process, an operator would only need to go through a full licensing process once but could then register earth station sites as needed. Under this proposal, either at the time of registration or after registration but prior to operation the licensee would certify and/or demonstrate compliance with any location- or frequency-specific rules that might apply. Our intention is for the proposed two-step framework to apply to all frequency bands. However, given that there are specific rules related to different frequency band usage and that we do not propose to change them here, we see this approach as setting the framework for licensing and registering earth stations so we progressively make registration more efficient in various bands. While initially some bands or locations may vary in how registration takes place, it is our goal to progressively move toward simpler, data-based enabled registration of earth stations under this Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing model. For example, similar to what the Commission has adopted for the 70/80/90 GHz band, such an approach could be applied to other frequency bands used for earth station operations.

91. We propose to adopt a new class of earth station, the Immovable earth station. We propose to define “Immovable earth station” as, “[a]n earth station licensed under either a Nationwide, Non-Site License or a single location authorization that is located at a single fixed location that must be registered and coordinated before operating.” We propose this definition to distinguish from the

Commission's definition of fixed earth station (which operate in the FSS) from other types of earth stations. Additionally, we propose to only allow applicants who do not require any exceptions or waivers to apply for a Nationwide, Non-Site License for Immovable earth stations and then register locations. We believe that this new type of earth station and definition, one that makes clear that an earth station must be registered at a location, will provide flexibility to applicants and avoid confusion with the definition for fixed earth stations that currently exists in our rules. In addition, under the current rules, the Commission requires, generally, that every new earth station at a different location goes through the entire licensing process, even where new earth stations are technically identical. Although currently the part 25 rules allow for blanket licensing in certain frequency bands, those bands are limited and do not account for technical advancements or more efficient use of spectrum in the future. Accordingly, we believe that creating this new class of Immovable earth station, and permitting nationwide, non-site licensing with registration requirements, is a more efficient way to license earth stations.

92. We do not wish to allow licensees to circumvent coordination or other requirements that are meant to protect against harmful interference. We therefore propose that applications requiring a waiver or an exception, other than for federal coordination, will be required to file a site-specific license application for the earth station that requires the exception or waiver. In addition, while we propose allowing applicants to register their sites instead of needing to go through a full licensing approach, we still will require proof that coordination has occurred prior to the earth station operating at the newly registered site. In this case, we propose to require applicants to file a certification prior to beginning operations affirming that all required frequency and site-specific coordination has been completed. To be clear, what we propose is a two-step process. An applicant can first be licensed for the use of a specific frequency without the need to coordinate but would then have to coordinate with all required commercial and federal entities prior to operating at a site registered under the Nationwide, Non-Site License. What we propose still requires that coordination occurs between operators prior to operations—although registration may occur prior to certifying to meeting coordination. We envision this approach to be used in all frequency bands. We tentatively believe that our coordination before operation but after registration proposal would ensure protection and that the criteria of any frequency specific rules, such as those for the UMFUS bands, are met. Although we propose to allow an applicant to receive a license, this proposal does not allow a licensee to begin operations prior to both registering their sites and certifying that coordination has been completed at those sites and completing all coordination requirements. We believe this two-step approach—licensing first then site specific registration and coordination prior to operations—would allow for a streamlined licensing regime wherein operators would only need to come to the Commission for a license once and then register sites pursuant to the Nationwide, Non-Site License and begin operations after certifying to completing all required coordination without having to seek additional Commission approval.

93. Alternatively, rather than requiring filed coordination reports prior to operations, would self-coordination amongst operators as the default approach in all frequency bands achieve the same objectives? Specifically, should we allow earth station operators to assess the risk of harmful interference to incumbent users prior to operation and require them to take steps to proactively prevent harmful interference to earlier-in-time users? Would this approach better allow for licensee's to begin their operations quickly while still ensuring that other users are protected? Are there any drawbacks to this approach? What benefits are there to this approach over what we propose above? Alternatively, is there a way to combine the two approaches that would still allow for quickly deploying and operating while ensuring there is no harmful interference to incumbent operations? We note that the proposal above does allow for licensees to register sites prior to coordination, but must coordinate and certify to meeting all coordination requirements before operating. Would instead allowing operations on an unprotected/non-interference basis while coordination is occurring but still require a coordination report or certification be filed upon completion of coordination be a suitable alternative to what we propose? Should we instead adopt this self-certification approach for certain bands and exclude others? Alternatively, would allowing licensees at the time of registration to certify that they will complete coordination prior to beginning operations but rather than file a coordination report only require that they be able to provide evidence of completed coordination at the request of the Commission achieve the same goals with a reduced administrative burden?

94. We are cognizant, however, that a one size fits all approach for every frequency band is unlikely to be possible in the immediate future. Many bands have certain restrictions or limitations that likely need to be addressed in separate rulemakings. However, we tentatively believe that the new predominately nationwide, non-site licensing approach we propose here can be applied broadly nonetheless. We invite comment on whether there are any spectrum bands today that are suitable for a lighter approach than what is proposed. For instance, are there any where we can require only to supplement their license file with the locations at which they seek to operate rather than officially registering the sites? Are there any other approaches that should be considered for certain frequency bands that do not have coordination concerns or use limitations?

95. While we tentatively conclude that adopting a nationwide, non-site licensing approach would best serve the dual needs of ensuring growth in the industry while protecting other spectrum users, we recognize that there are issues that may still need to be addressed. Accordingly, we seek comment on specific questions and proposals. First, as part of this approach, should we establish any sort of first in time right? For instance, if two licensees want to register at the same location, should the one that files first have protection over the one that files second? Should it be based on who begins operations first? Are such rules even necessary, or does the coordination process coupled with the requirements to only operate within the Commission's rules without the need for waiver or exceptions resolve most of these issues? We note that under our current rules, coordination is only required for operational sites. Does that address these issues? In that same regard, how should site-specific licenses be treated when determining priority? Should there be different operational limits for different frequency bands or do the proposed operational limits in Appendix A sufficiently protect other spectrum users? Similarly, are there bands that should be excluded from our proposed Nationwide, Non-Site License with registration approach? Is there a benefit to allowing for registration prior to certifying to coordination if it means that the earth station cannot operate until the certifications are also filed?

Could this result in warehousing of locations for a year at a time? Should we establish a mechanism where multiple parties can register at a site, so that if the party that registers first is unable to meet the 365 day deadline, the applicant that is next in line will have a chance to begin operations at the site?

96. Further, should the Commission establish a database for registering the sites? We note that no database currently exists, but licensees are currently able to file supplements in their license files in ICFS. Does the filing of supplements achieve the same purpose as a database? If so, how would the public be made aware that the registration has been filed without causing unnecessary burdens on Commission resources? We also ask whether we should have different registration systems generally for different frequency bands or if they should all be uniform? For instance, UMFUS bands have specific requirements that must be met before a licensee can begin operating, but S- and X-band frequencies do not have those same requirements. Does this warrant establishing different registration systems or rules for registration for specific frequency bands? Could establishing a database similar to what the Commission has established for the 70/80/90 GHz bands be a solution that would allow for a single database? Should the Commission instead delegate to the Space Bureau responsibility to find the best approach for registering sites at a later date? Should the Commission establish a new database that is more easily searchable and tailored specifically to just these proposed registrations?

97. In addition to the questions above, we seek comment on general questions related to this approach. Specifically, what possible issues exist with adopting a Nationwide, Non-Site License approach? Are there specific bands where this proposal would not work, and if so, why not? How would this impact coordination between operators or with the federal government? Is there a benefit to this approach, or will applicants primarily only seek site specific licenses? Should we permit applicants that seek a waiver of certain rules, such as the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, to utilize the Nationwide, Non-Site License approach? Are there any drawbacks or benefits to allowing an applicant who requests a waiver to utilize the Nationwide, Non-Site License approach?

2. Application Handling

98. We propose to revise the Commission's rules guiding how a filed application will be processed prior to a final action by the Commission. The proposed rules in this portion of subpart B would establish certain processing timelines, a standard of completeness, public comment processes and guidelines for information requests to applicants. As part of the licensing assembly line, application processing is designed to gather and organize all the information needed in preparation for the Commission to consider the application. We believe that these proposed rules will increase processing speed and reduce burden on applicants and the Commission. Our proposed rules would function as follows:

• Within 30 days of filing and confirmation of fee payment, the Commission must either place an application on public notice or, if the application is incomplete, ask for all information needed to establish completeness.

• Once an incomplete application is supplemented and deemed complete, the application will be placed on public notice as soon as practicable.

• If an application is complete, and the applicant certifies in the affirmative to meeting all the bright-line criteria for their system, does not request a waiver, and is not subject to any “exceptions” to expedited processing, the application will be placed on seven-day public notice (

i.e.,

expedited processing).

• Applications not eligible for expedited processing will be placed on 15-day public notice.

• Applications subject to section 309(b) of the Act will be placed on 30-day public notice.

• If no action is taken on the space station application within 60 days following the end of the public notice period, the Commission will inform the applicant of the reasons preventing a license grant with specific reference to any exceptions.

We seek comment on the specific revisions to the application processing phase detailed below and in Appendix A.

a. Completeness

99. Before an application is placed on public notice, the Commission must determine that the application is complete. It is longstanding Commission precedent that applications must be “substantially complete” before they are accepted for filing, meaning that “applications must be complete in substance, and must provide all the information required in the application form.” The substantially complete standard does not refer to a determination on the merits of the application, nor does it imply that the Commission does not have further questions for an applicant after an application is placed on public notice. Rather, it is designed to ensure that an application includes all of the information required by the Commission's rules and helps to deter against the filing of speculative applications.

100. The Commission's rules state that an application will be unacceptable for filing and returned to the applicant if “the application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informal showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or other matters of a formal character.” Further, § 25.112 of the Commission's rules states, in part, that an application will be unacceptable for filing and returned to the applicant if the application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for additional information, or other requirements. In adopting this rule, the Commission clarified that “[w]hile in some instances it is efficient for staff to help parties address discrepancies in their pending applications, we require all applications under part 25 to be substantially complete when they are filed.” The current requirements for space station applications additionally require that an applicant provide a “comprehensive proposal.” The Commission has previously noted that a “comprehensive proposal” must describe “in detail all pertinent technical, operational and ownership aspects of the system and its ability to proceed expeditiously with construction and launch.”

101. Our experience is that these overlapping and subjective standards have not served to promote expediency in placing applications on public notice or in making applicants aware of what comprises a complete application. We believe that establishing a clearer standard for what determines “completeness” as a precursor to the application review process will be an important and beneficial addition to the rules if we adopt our proposal to determine whether an application qualifies for expedited processing prior to the public notice period. This proposed rule section would codify the existing process for determining whether an application is complete and the process by which an applicant will be notified of any deficiencies in the application. To provide applicants with clarity and a more predictable standard, we propose to clearly articulate the

standard for completeness before an application can be accepted for filing and placed on public notice. Accordingly, we propose to include a new rule section in part 100 defining the standard for completeness, stating, “An application will be considered complete if, under the relevant rule section(s), all required information, forms, certifications, and showings are included in the application.” We believe this definition focuses on whether all required materials have been provided rather than involving a determination on the merits of an application. In addition, the application certifications and processing framework to identify exceptions to expedited processing as proposed herein aim to allow for a more objective determination of whether all information required has been provided and an application can be deemed complete. We also clarify that applications with negative certifications or waiver requests must provide additional information to be complete, which will assist the Commission as it informs applicants of any deficiencies in an application within 30 days of filing. We seek comment on the proposed definition and standard for completeness. Are there alternative proposals or methods the Commission should consider in determining that an application is “complete”? Does the proposed standard provide the intended benefit and guidance to applicants in stating a more clear standard on when applications can be accepted for filing? We believe that 30 days will give the Commission sufficient time to review space station applications and either place them on public notice or contact applicants to inform them of any missing information or other deficiencies. Should the initial timeline be longer to encourage more intensive review prior to public notice to identify any missing application requirements or exceptions that might delay grant so that the Commission can proceed with grant more quickly following the end of the public notice period?

b. Public Notices and Oppositions to Applications

102. We propose to overhaul our current public notice procedures for all applications not subject to section 309(b) and (c) of the Act. For most applications that are determined to be acceptable for filing, we propose a shortened public notice period of either seven or fifteen days. Applications that do not have any enumerated exceptions would be subject to expedited processing and placed on a seven-day public notice period. All other applications would be placed on a 15-day public notice period. Applications subject to section 309(b) and (c) of the Act would continue to be placed on public notice for a 30-day comment period.

103. We propose that oppositions to applications, including petitions to deny and other pleadings (collectively “oppositions”), would need to be received by the Commission within seven days after public notice for applications. Any replies responding to oppositions must be filed within five days after the expiration of the time for filing oppositions, consistent with the current rules. We note that the Commission currently accepts informal objections filed outside of the established public notice window or outside of conformance with § 25.154(a). To encourage timely filings, we propose to include in part 100 the requirement that any commenter, petitioner, or filer request a waiver of the rules when filing outside of a designated filing window. Finally, we propose allowing the Commission to shorten or extend a public notice period on its own motion.

104. We seek comment on these proposals. It is our goal to provide certainty to process applications quickly while still guaranteeing opportunity for public comment. Do these comment periods provide enough time for the public to understand and comment on applications, particularly given our proposed revisions to the application requirements so the request may be more quickly understood? Is the rule language sufficiently clear to inform applicants of the relevant public notice period? Does this proposed rule section include all pleadings that are subject to public notice requirements, or should additional classes of pleadings be added? The proposed rules only allow reply comments to be filed by the party that filed a petition to deny. Would a more robust record result if that constraint were eliminated and the public at large allowed to participate at this stage of the proceeding? Would expanding the process in such a manner complicate the proceeding or cause delay in resolution? We seek comment on the full range of options available for expediting public notice procedures, consistent with the goals of this proceeding.

c. Processing Timelines for Space Stations

105. We propose to adopt timelines for space station application processing in order to achieve our goals of speed and predictability. We propose that if no action is taken on a space station application within 60 days following the end of the public notice period, Commission staff will inform the applicant and public of the reasons preventing a license grant with particular note to any exceptions. We believe this approach will foster accountability and transparency which in turn will facilitate resolution of outstanding issues as the applicant will be better able to understand the Commission's view on its license request. We seek comment on these proposals. Are these timelines appropriate? In what manner should the Commission notify the applicant of any issues or deficiencies? Would a letter filed in ICFS (or successor system) be sufficient?

d. Processing for Earth Station Applications

106. We also propose to adopt processing timelines for earth stations that mirror those for space stations. Under our current policies, earth station license applications are placed on public notice within 30 days of filing. However, the Commission has not generally adopted strict timelines for taking action on an earth station application, other than in the case of renewals. While this approach has drastically increased the speed of earth station application processing, it leaves applicants with a lack of clarity on status once the public notice period ends. Accordingly, we propose to adopt rules that specify for applicants how their applications will be processed. We seek comment on our proposals.

107. As a general matter, we acknowledge that while earth station processing has seen dramatic increases in speed over the last year, there is still plenty of opportunity for improvement to the process. With that in mind, we propose to overhaul the processing of earth station applications to be more streamlined so that applicants can start providing services faster. Under our current rules, when staff processes applications, no differentiation is made between applications that conform to the Commission's rules and those that seek waivers. This results in all of the applications being processed in the order in which they are received rather than creating a way for those applications that comply with Commission rules to move through the process faster. Accordingly, we propose to create two separate processes for earth station applications. Specifically, we propose a process where applications that conform to the Commission's rules can begin temporary pre-grant operations on a non-interference, unprotected basis once the application is placed on public notice,

similar to the current process for STA. Applications that do not conform with the Commission's rules—for example, if they request a waiver or do not certify in the affirmative to requested certifications—will not be afforded this status. We seek comment on these proposals.

108. While we are cognizant of concerns of harmful interference when allowing operations to begin before the completion of a public notice period, we note that what we propose allowing is similar to what the Commission currently allows via STA, only without the extra step of submitting another application. Specifically, earth station operators often file for STA operations while their underlying applications are being processed so that they may begin operations, even if it is on a non-interference and unprotected basis. We seek comment on whether our proposal of permitting operations to commence prior to grant without requiring the submission of another application would be consistent with statutory requirements.

109. In addition, we seek comment on whether the industry has matured to a point where users in shared frequency bands or adjacent bands are able to coordinate amongst themselves to prevent interference such that allowing operations while an application is on public notice would cause little to no harm. Should there be restrictions on specific bands or operations? For instance, should this approach be limited to non-Federal bands only? If so, why? And if not, is it because the coordination and interference protection is band agnostic? Do there need to be any other restrictions? Given that we only propose to allow the operations beginning at public notice in specific circumstances, do the proposed rules offer sufficient protection and afford operators a sense of predictability? Does the differentiation even matter, or should the Commission allow operations for all applicants, regardless of whether they require any waivers or exceptions? What are the benefits or drawbacks to this approach? Should we allow operations while an application is on public notice when the applicant requests waiver of certain rules? Are there common waivers the Commission grants regularly that we should consider as part of this approach such as waivers of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations or location restrictions?

e. Information Requests

110. Applicants need predictability, whether in terms of launch timing, regulatory requirements, or the kind of questions that can be expected during the licensing process. At the same time, it is critical that the Commission receive clear, complete, and factually accurate applications. Accordingly, we propose specifying the scope of information the Commission may request from applicants. We propose that information requests must be targeted at obtaining information directly material to a determination of whether the requested authorization is in the public interest, or to resolve inconsistencies, technical issues, or other matters of concern that have a direct bearing on the decision. We believe that by requiring the Commission to identify all issues with an application in the initial information request and explain why the information is necessary, we will not only increase the level of predictability for applicants, but also increase the speed at which applications can be processed. We seek comment on our proposal generally.

111. We propose that the Commission may request information from applicants to: (1) determine completeness of the application; (2) understand the facts of informational showings, inconsistencies, execution, or other technical matters when the factual issue is directly material to the review; (3) determine if an exception applies to the application; (4) resolve matters of concern raised in pleadings, objections, or comments in response to an application; (5) evaluate compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations or other requirements; and (6) consider issues that are directly material and necessary for the Commission to evaluate the merits of the application under the Commission's rules. Our objective is to limit information requests to only those showings that are directly material to the Commission's review of the application under our rules and regulations. Do these categories sufficiently cover such areas? Are there any ways in which the information requests allowed should be narrowed to prevent unnecessary or tangential inquiry?

112. To be clear, we do not propose to limit the Commission's ability to speak with applicants to discuss the status of an application or as part of

ex parte

presentations outside of a formal information request to address issues or deficiencies with applications. We believe that the proposed rule strikes the right balance of speed and predictability but also provides applicants the opportunity to engage with Commission staff to address any issues or concerns within the application that may risk delay in the licensing process. We seek comment on this proposal. Further, is there value in expressly outlining guidance by which the Commission may ask for additional information from an applicant? Do our proposed rules provide enough flexibility for the Commission to be able to get all the information necessary to make a final determination on the merits?

3. Review of Applications for Decision

113. We propose to apply a standardized decision framework to determine whether grant of a space or earth station application would be in the public interest. We propose rules that would standardize the Commission's review process by using the information received in the application materials and through public comment. Our proposal seeks to focus review of the application primarily on areas where the Commission needs to consider an issue that is not presumed to be in the public interest. If there are no issues, then the application will receive expedited processing. If there is one or more identified “exception” to expedited processing, then the Commission will consider the issue(s) triggering the exception in light of the record. We detail our proposals and seek comment on each below.

114.

Expedited Processing.

We propose that an application which does not trigger one or more specific “exceptions” following the public comment period will generally be presumed to be in the public interest and thus granted as soon as practicable. For applications placed on seven-day public notice (based on the Commission's initial review not identifying any exceptions to expedited processing), we propose to allow a conditional grant by rule upon completion of the public notice period if no comments are received. Not only would this allow operators to more quickly begin operations prior to a license being issued, but we expect this would reduce the number of requests for STAs. As discussed in more detail below, operations under a conditional grant would be at the operator's risk and would not guarantee a final grant, though we would expect in most instances that the Commission would issue a license soon after. We seek comment on this proposal.

115.

Exceptions to Expedited Processing for Applications.

For applications where the Commission identifies one or more exceptions to expedited processing—for example, a waiver request or negative certification—then the Commission would focus its review on the element(s)

of the application triggering the exception. The logic behind our proposal is that the portions of an application that do not result in an exception may generally be considered to be in the public interest and therefore would not need additional review. Therefore, the Commission can focus attention on the smaller set of issues needing an individualized public interest determination. We seek comment on this proposed approach and on any alternative frameworks.

116. To operationalize this framework, we propose to adopt rules that clearly identify the instances when an application would be removed from expedited processing. We propose to refer to these instances as “exceptions” to the expedited processing timeline. We believe that by including a specified list of scenarios that would qualify an application for an exception to expedited processing and how the Commission will process and review such applications, applicants will be provided more regulatory predictability.

117. We describe the proposed exceptions to expedited processing below, and seek comment on each:

•

Negative Certification.

If an applicant is not able to affirmatively certify a particular element on the relevant application materials then we will consider that to be a “negative certification,” requiring review. In some instances, a negative certification would require a waiver of one or more rules, but it may simply require a review of additional information supplied by the applicant. Applicants would be able to provide additional information to support a public interest finding for negative certifications.

•

Request for Waiver.

If an applicant requests a waiver of any of the Commission's rules, the waiver request would require review on the merits to determine if it is in the public interest.

•

Foreign Ownership.

Reportable foreign ownership above a threshold and control information, including foreign adversary ownership or control, will need to be carefully reviewed.

•

Processing Round.

Applications requesting to operate in certain identified frequency bands that have been designated for a processing round would be considered as part of that processing round and thus excepted from expedited processing.

•

Spectral Constraints.

A proposed system also may require the use of frequencies which may be subject to limitations prescribed by rule or that relate to existing users or international arrangements. The Commission would need to review such proposals.

•

Federal Coordination.

Applications involving frequency bands subject to federal coordination would not be eligible for expedited processing.

•

Market Access.

Requests for market access would need to be reviewed in light of market access rules addressing whether applicants' home administrations have opened access to U.S. companies.

118. Our goal is to provide applicants with a high degree of predictability as to whether an exception to expedited processing would apply to an application. Relying on our proposed design of the application materials and required certifications, we believe the Negative Certification exception can be clearly identified. We also believe it will generally be clear to applicants whether the Waiver Request, Foreign Ownership, Federal Coordination, and Market Access exceptions will apply. Under our proposal for processing rounds, we also believe clarity can be provided as to whether a processing round exception would apply. We expect the most ambiguous exception may be Spectral Constraints, and we seek comment on how we might provide clarity as to when such an exception would apply. What criteria could be elaborated upon to make it clear when such an exception is likely to be applicable? Is there a need for delegation to the Space Bureau to provide continuing clarity around the Spectral Constraint exception or any other exceptions? We also seek comment on each of the exceptions and whether they could be applied in a straightforward and predictable manner.

119. As part of reviewing exceptions related to an application, we expect there will be situations where information is needed beyond what is required by the application sections. For instance, under the Spectral Constraint exception there may be a need for interference analyses from the applicant so that the Commission can determine whether it is technically feasible for a system to operate in certain frequency bands in accordance with our rules while protecting other operators. Under our proposed application design, we have sought to limit such showings and technical narratives for

all

applicants so we can narrow the scope of situations where such submissions must be made. To ensure the Commission can request the information needed to review any of the exceptions, we propose to allow for such information requests for the purpose of making a decision related to any exceptions. While supplemental information may need to be requested, our hope is that, by providing clarity in the rules as to which exceptions are likely to apply, the Commission can help applicants predict what will be needed so they can supply that information with the initial application. We seek comment on this approach. Are there ways we can provide further clarity so that applicants know what information will eventually be requested as part of reviewing exceptions? Will this approach reduce the amount of unnecessary information requests pertaining to areas of an application which require more focused review (

e.g.,

exceptions)?

120. Do these exceptions from expedited processing sufficiently encompass all instances where the Commission may need to conduct a more thorough review of an application to determine if it is both in conformance with the rules and in the public interest? As discussed above, we propose to place applications

not

triggering any exceptions and not requiring a thirty-day public notice, on seven-day public notice with the potential for a conditional grant by rule if no comments are filed in response to the application. In that context, are these exceptions appropriate? Are the proposed classes of exceptions too subjective? Are there any other classes of exception that should be added? Or should any of the classes be removed? Are there approaches to federal coordination that we might adopt and which we discuss elsewhere that would allow us to remove the exception for federal coordination? We ask commenters to provide examples of possible additional exceptions to expedited processing with justification as to why an exception should be added or removed. In particular, we ask that proposed exceptions be able to function within the framework we have set out such that whether an exception applies may be quickly and clearly determined.

121. We also seek comment on the factors the Commission should consider when determining whether a request is in the public interest if an application includes one of the listed exceptions. We seek comment on how we may better operationalize application of these rules during the review and decision-making periods. In particular, we seek comment on how decisions around Negative Certifications, Waiver Requests, Foreign Ownership, and Spectral Constraints should be made. Given that we expect many applications for new and novel operations would have one or more negative certifications or waiver requests, how or should we provide additional guidance on any additional information that applicants should provide? How can we make sure triggering an exception would not result in longer review timelines? Given our

desire and statutory responsibility to promote the proliferation of new technology, how might we implement decision-making processes that support innovative and novel technologies? To seek specific comment, we propose that system designs resulting in negative certifications would be in the public interest if the expected benefits of the system design with the negative certification exceed the expected costs to society. This approach would allow for applicants to submit information demonstrating the net positive benefits to society and would give the Commission a basis for making a decision. We would expect such showings in most instances to be limited to a basic set of calculations with reasonable assumptions. We seek comment on this proposal, as well as alternatives, and ways the process could be made as straightforward as possible. Should this approach be applied to review of other exceptions besides Negative Certification?

122. Both applicants and the Commission often have struggled to figure out how a new technology or innovative proposal fits into the Commission's rules. Since we seek to provide predictability and flexibility, we seek comment as to how our proposed licensing approach can address and anticipate new technologies in the Commission's rules. Our expectation is that the exceptions framework will route the novel portions of an application for focused review. Within that focused review, an expectation of grant in situations where the net benefits are positive can greatly facilitate approval for proposals that fall outside the bounds of the presumed acceptable framework. In this way, applicants can have some predictability in seeking a potential license grant. Is this a workable way to provide for innovation and technological development over time? We seek comment on this approach and alternatives that will assist the Commission in making sure the Commission's space licensing rules are able to continuously accommodate in a structured and predictable way new innovations which cannot necessarily be foreseen.

123. In addition, we seek comment on the proposed timelines and the requirements on the Commission to communicate to applicants why no action has been taken on an application. Specifically, is the fact that the Commission must either act on an application within 60 days or notify applicants and the public of the reasons for not processing an application sufficient? We seek comment on what impact, if any, that might have on the proposed process. Regarding applications for shared Federal bands, would it assist the process if the Commission were to provide a point of contact at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) as part of the notice to an applicant if the reason the application has not been acted upon is due to federal coordination? Alternatively, in shared terrestrial bands where an applicant is unable to coordinate with a terrestrial operator and that is preventing action on the application, should we require the terrestrial operator to justify why they cannot complete coordination with the applicant? Ultimately these are issues that may be primarily outside the Commission's control but that can still prevent action on an application. How can the Commission ensure transparency for these or other instances that are outside the Commission's control? We seek comment on these questions and welco

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.