Space Modernization for the 21st Century

FederalRegulations

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Federal Register › Vol. 90 › 90 FR 56338

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

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 “. .

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

ould 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

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

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

etween 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

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

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

erate 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

dopt 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

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

s 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

d 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

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

ing 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

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

ment 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.

niform 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.

ould 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

ement, 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

lly 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

plicant 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

elp 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

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

ould 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

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

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

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

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

mmission, 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

pace 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

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

s 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

pplications 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

GSO 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

s in

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.

on'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

ed 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

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

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

ming 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.

hen 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

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

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

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

n 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

ations 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

t 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

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

• 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

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

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

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

cted 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

ternatives that will assist the Commission in making sure the Commission's space licensing rules are able to continuously accommodate in a structured and predictable way new innovations which cannot necessarily be foreseen.

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

124. To further guide decisions on applications, we propose a section articulating the standards under which requests will be judged

's proposal that might prevent the applicant from beginning operations in other frequency bands or with certain satellites that are not affected by the issue. Specifically, we propose to allow conditional grants by rule in the scenarios discussed below.

126. Expedited Processing Conditional Grant. We propose to permit conditional grants for applications that are eligible for expedited processing. Specifically, we propose that an application that is not subject to any of the exceptions described herein, that is deemed complete and placed on public notice, and that receives no objections, comments, or other petitions during the public notice period would be conditionally granted upon the expiration of the seven-day public notice period. We propose that this conditional grant would apply to all proposed operations and will authorize operations only on an unprotected, non-interference basis. Commencement of operations following a conditional grant would be at the operator's own risk, including adverse final action on the application or conditions imposed on the authorization following completion of staff review. We seek comment on this proposal and whether it provides sufficient oversight of satellite operations consistent with our rules and treaty commitments. Should there be a specified process for moving to a full grant after the conditional grant? If so, what should it be? Should the Commission adopt a rule that it will issue a final decision within a certain number of days after the public notice period? If so, how many days should that be? We specifically believe that conditional grants would be particularly beneficial in situations where applicants file an application for a license modification and then file multiple STAs covering the same request while the modification application is pending

rule that it will issue a final decision within a certain number of days after the public notice period? If so, how many days should that be? We specifically believe that conditional grants would be particularly beneficial in situations where applicants file an application for a license modification and then file multiple STAs covering the same request while the modification application is pending. Under this proposed rule, an applicant who files an application for license modification that fits within the parameters of this conditional grant would not need to file for STA during application review and would instead be able to operate under the conditional grant.

127. Should conditional grants be allowed for expedited processing even if comments or petitions to deny or other filings are made on the underlying application? Would the requirement that all operations be on a non-interference, unprotected basis be sufficient to protect other operators? Would the rule that all operations are at the applicant's own risk—and therefore the Commission could deny the application and the applicant would be forced to immediately cease operations—be sufficient to ensure applicants are operating within our rules? Are there other guardrails that we should put in place to ensure that no harmful interference results from

operations under this proposed conditional grant mechanism?

128. Orbital Debris Deferral Conditional Grant. We also propose to allow a conditional grant for applicants who are not sufficiently advanced in the critical design review phase to be able to submit the orbital debris mitigation plan (ODMP) when they submit their space station license application. In recent years, the Commission has received requests for waiver of the orbital debris showings which are handled on an ad hoc basis. We believe our proposal will create a standard approach so applicants can flexibly plan their system design and application filing

n review phase to be able to submit the orbital debris mitigation plan (ODMP) when they submit their space station license application. In recent years, the Commission has received requests for waiver of the orbital debris showings which are handled on an ad hoc basis. We believe our proposal will create a standard approach so applicants can flexibly plan their system design and application filing. Applicants could elect when they initially file their application to receive a conditional grant without providing certifications and supporting materials related to orbital debris. Under this proposal, an applicant may file for a conditional grant with the requirement that at least six months prior to integration with a launch vehicle, the applicant must submit an ODMP for Commission review and approval. Additionally, we propose to require applicants who seek this conditional grant to meet the following requirements: (1) provide all information required by the space station information requirement sections in the proposed rules, and any additional information required; (2) certify that the finished and operational satellite system will comply with all the requirements in the orbital debris rules adopted by the Commission as well as all of the showings required by the proposed “Space Station Orbital Information” section; (3) file an ODMP that demonstrates compliance with all relevant orbital debris rules and certifications at least six months prior to integration of any satellites with a launch vehicle. We propose that if an applicant is unable to follow these requirements, they would be directed to file an application for license modification and the conditional grant would be revoked. We believe this approach would incentivize applicants to provide an ODMP as soon as practicable while still having much more flexibility during the design process. Additionally, we believe this would incentivize applicants to design satellite systems that comply with the bright-line criteria rather than request a modification

ion for license modification and the conditional grant would be revoked. We believe this approach would incentivize applicants to provide an ODMP as soon as practicable while still having much more flexibility during the design process. Additionally, we believe this would incentivize applicants to design satellite systems that comply with the bright-line criteria rather than request a modification. We seek comment on this proposal. Is there additional information that we should require at the time of the application? Is six months prior to integration with a launch vehicle sufficient time to allow the Commission to review the ODMP?

129. Commercial Coordination Conditional Grant. Finally, we propose allowing applicants to receive a conditional grant in situations where an applicant is coordinating with other operators in specific frequency bands. Specifically, we propose to allow a conditional grant for operations in the frequency bands or portions of the frequency bands that are not subject to coordination with other commercial operators. We further propose to condition the operations in shared frequency bands or bands that require coordination with other operators on the applicant providing notice to the Commission of successful coordination with other commercial operators. Does this proposal provide sufficient flexibility for operators to use frequencies not subject to coordination? If not, how should this proposal be modified? Would it instead be more efficient to allow operations in the bands subject to coordination on a non-interference, unprotected basis to incentivize coordination? What are the risks and benefits to this approach? What exactly should the applicant be required to submit to the Commission to show successful coordination—a coordination report that becomes part of the grant?

130. In addition, we seek comment on specific questions related to conditional grants

n operators and especially those that request multiple frequency bands because it will allow them to begin operations in bands without coordination issues while addressing necessary coordination for the other bands.

131. Federal Coordination Conditional Grant. We seek comment on whether we should allow for conditional grant of a license in a frequency band that is subject to federal coordination. Specifically, what are the benefits or drawbacks to allowing conditional grant for licenses that are subject to federal coordination? If we adopt this approach, should we allow for conditional grant for all requested frequencies—including those subject to federal coordination—or only allow it for the bands not subject to the federal coordination, similar to what we propose for commercial coordination conditional grants? Do existing rules and coordination requirements for shared bands mitigate the risks of allowing for conditional grants in bands subject to federal coordination requirements? Should applicants be required to demonstrate that coordination with the federal government is complete? Or instead, should applicants only be required to certify that they will complete coordination prior to operating and be able to provide evidence of completed coordination upon request by the Commission or any impacted federal agency? What type of certification or documentation is sufficient to demonstrate this? Alternatively, would a certification from the applicant be sufficient, or should the Commission require some other indication that federal coordination is complete? Further should we instead adopt a framework in our rules that outlines specific license conditions for operations in shared federal bands rather than any bespoke license conditions for federal coordination? Should this framework also establish a mechanism for licensees to quickly determine what shared frequency bands with federal operations may be subject to more stringent coordination reviews? Alternatively, rather than a framework for federal coordination con

ecision to open a processing round is discretionary based on designation of a lead application and therefore there is little predictability as to whether an application will initiate a processing round. As part of our modernization efforts, we aim to revise the NGSO processing framework to limit regulatory obstacles and provide a clearer and more reliable path to authorization and operation.

134. Instead of the existing approach, we propose that the Commission would pre-determine specific frequency bands (“processing round-eligible bands”) and applications for authorization in those bands would accordingly be processed in a processing round. For each of these designated frequency bands, by rule, a processing round would automatically open on January 1 at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time and close on October 31 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time of the same year, eliminating the cut-off date for applications. This way, the licensing assembly line would automatically determine when and into which processing round(s) a license application would be considered. Thus, regardless of the existence of any actual applications, there would be an annual processing round open for each of the designated bands ( i.e., “synthetic processing round”).

135. Under this proposal, applicants would file applications for inclusion in a processing round at any time, with priority status based on the date of grant, rather than the date of filing. Applications granted during the same band-specific processing round in a given year would have the same priority status. For example, applications granted for a specific band between January 1, 2027, and October 31, 2027, would be part of the 2027 processing round. We note that the NPRM does not propose any changes to the spectrum sharing procedures in part 25 and we propose to incorporate the relevant rule sections into proposed part 100

ite system seeking authorization for 200 or more satellites would be required to post a surety bond to the U.S. Treasury in the event of a default, in accordance with the surety bond requirements and calculation proposed in the NPRM. Our logic behind such a proposal is that applicants seeking priority in a processing round should be held to a bonding requirement. We seek comment on these proposals. Do the proposed criteria justify inclusion in a processing round? Are there other factors or alternative methods the Commission should consider in determining whether and how an application should be included in a processing round? We additionally ask for input on whether a system with 200 or more satellites would be an effective benchmark for determining that an application should be considered in a processing round and therefore required to post a surety bond.

138. We also, however, propose that applicants who do not meet the surety bond criteria ( i.e., fewer than 200 satellites) but seek to operate in a processing round-eligible band may request for an application to be included in that processing round to receive priority status. In that case, the requesting applicant would be required to comply with the surety bond requirements and post the required bond within 30 days of the license grant. We see this as a way for operators to have the flexibility to seek priority in a processing round if that is worth the cost of taking on the bond. We seek comment on this approach, proposed eligibility via surety bond, and alternative methods in greater detail in the section of the NPRM discussing proposed reforms to surety bonds. Relatedly, we discuss the intersection of the processing rounds and milestone deployment requirements in the milestone section below.

139

ity in a processing round if that is worth the cost of taking on the bond. We seek comment on this approach, proposed eligibility via surety bond, and alternative methods in greater detail in the section of the NPRM discussing proposed reforms to surety bonds. Relatedly, we discuss the intersection of the processing rounds and milestone deployment requirements in the milestone section below.

139. Under the proposed annual processing round framework, NGSO system applicants that request to operate in multiple frequency bands would be placed in the corresponding processing round for each frequency band and the remainder of the frequency bands requested ( i.e., those not subject to a processing round) would be considered under the expedited processing procedures detailed herein, unless another exception to expedited processing applies. This could lead to a scenario where a single operator of a large satellite system that operates in multiple frequency bands could hold a different priority status for each band in which it is authorized, depending on when authority to operate in each requested band is granted. How should we handle these cases? Would this annual processing round structure disincentivize satellite operators from upgrading their systems and instead encourage them to design new systems and file new applications? Should we grant priority based on when the first communications for the system are initially authorized? We seek comment on these questions and any other proposals that could help inform the Commission on how to address these issues.

140. NGSO FSS Spectrum Sharing. NGSO FSS operators who are granted authority to operate in certain frequency bands through a processing round would be still subject to the Commission's spectrum sharing rules among NGSO FSS systems. For these systems, the Commission has recently adopted specific protection criteria and other sharing obligations developed with the benefit of a substantial technical record

d requires later round-systems to either coordinate with or otherwise demonstrate they will protect earlier-round systems, subject to the sunsetting provision. NGSO FSS systems authorized in the same processing round share spectrum on an equal basis under a ΔT/T > 6% spectrum-splitting rule, and this equal treatment is also extended to later-round NGSO FSS systems following a 10-year sunset period. We propose to incorporate these procedures as is into the new proposed part 100 and do not intend to consider any substantive revisions to the NGSO FSS sharing requirements, including the 10-year sunset period, currently in § 25.261 as part of this rulemaking. Considering the

proposed processing round framework, we seek comment on any changes that should be made to better adapt processing rounds to the existing NGSO FSS spectrum sharing criteria.

142. What are the benefits and costs of each processing round approach? How does a processing round framework help or harm innovation for NGSO operators? Do processing rounds place a burden on operators who are able to launch, deploy, and operate systems quickly while simultaneously encouraging hastily submitted applications for systems that may not be viable? Does our proposed approach address these problems? Alternatively, should we instead maintain the existing processing round approach and address these issues in a separate proceeding? What other changes might we consider to improve the processing round framework?

143. Mutually Exclusive Applications. We propose to delete the Commission's rule on mutual exclusivity in § 25.155. Given that satellite and earth station operators share spectrum, this requirement is no longer needed. In particular, our proposed rules account for the compatible operations of different licensees through first-come, first-served application processing, processing rounds, and various technical requirements on space station and earth station operation

sion's rule on mutual exclusivity in § 25.155. Given that satellite and earth station operators share spectrum, this requirement is no longer needed. In particular, our proposed rules account for the compatible operations of different licensees through first-come, first-served application processing, processing rounds, and various technical requirements on space station and earth station operation. In light of these, we believe the concept of mutually exclusive applications is unnecessary in part 100. We seek comment on this proposal and alternatives, including whether, in light of the proposed yearly processing rounds for NGSO systems and first-come, first-served processing for GSO networks we need to include a mechanism for deciding priority for orbital or spectrum resources between applications received at exactly the same time, or whether such rare instances, if they ever occur, could be sufficiently resolved on a case-by-case basis within the Commission's licensing discretion or potentially through a prescribed resolution criteria.

144. Compatibility of Systems Authorized Outside of a Processing Round. For NGSO licensees authorized to operate in frequency bands that are not granted in a processing round, we propose to require compatibility with existing or future operations in those bands. Specifically, we propose that “the NGSO satellite system must be compatible with existing operations in the authorized frequency band(s) and must not materially constrain future space station entrants from using the authorized frequency band(s).” This is similar to how small satellite systems currently operate under § 25.122(c)(9), and we believe this could be appropriate for a broader range of operations. We seek comment on this proposal

GSO systems.

146. NGSO System s. The Commission currently licenses certain NGSO satellite systems outside of a processing round when they are shown to be compatible with existing operations and will not materially constrain future entrants. In the context of NGSO FSS satellite systems, as described above, the Commission has adopted specific technical criteria to ensure their compatible operation. These criteria, applied in the processing round context, could readily be used to create a first-come, first-served licensing procedure for NGSO FSS systems. For example, a new applicant could either coordinate with each earlier-filed NGSO FSS system operating in the same frequency bands or demonstrate that it will meet the dual protection criteria of causing no greater than 3% average degraded throughput or 0.4% absolute change in unavailability for any system with which coordination is outstanding, in order to be licensed. Additionally, 10 years after licensing of a new system, we could apply the current sunset period and afford that system equal spectrum sharing with earlier-filed systems under the ΔT/T > 6% spectrum-splitting rule. We invite comment on whether to authorize NGSO FSS systems on a first-come, first-served basis and, if so, how best to adapt our current sharing criteria to such an approach. We also invite comment on whether, and how, to authorize any additional NGSO systems on a first-come, first-served basis, including whether any applications that qualify for such processing should be considered for expedited processing as outlined above.

B. Additional Reforms for Licensing Efficiency

processing as outlined above.

B. Additional Reforms for Licensing Efficiency

147. In addition to the proposed processes discussed above, we also propose rules to improve the efficiency of the licensing process. We expect these proposals to further enhance the proposed licensing process by alleviating burdens on the licensing system and aligning parties' incentives to act in more efficient ways. For example, in addition to allowing greater freedom for entities to operate and upgrade their systems, some of our proposals for modifications will mean that fewer requests will need to be processed. We also seek comment on how the Commission can reduce the complexity of requirements and the cost of licensing in the United States.

1. Dismissal and Return of Applications

148. § 25.112 of the Commission's rules details the procedures for dismissal and return of applications. To better harmonize the proposed rules, and in consideration of the proposed completeness standard discussed above, we propose to clarify the § 25.112 requirements in part 100. The Commission proposes that, unless otherwise specified, dismissal or return of an application would be without prejudice. An application would be deemed unacceptable for filing and may be dismissed with a brief statement if the application is determined not to meet the standard for complete applications under proposed § 100.131. Additionally, an application would be dismissed if an application requests authority for a specific type of system that does not align with the proposed operations. Applications would also be subject to dismissal if the application does not comply with relevant application requirements, is duplicative of a pending application on file with the Commission, or if there is clear indication that the application contains materially false information. We also propose to include a new section clarifying that application fees are due upon filing and that applications filed without the corresponding application fee will be dismissed by the Commission

with relevant application requirements, is duplicative of a pending application on file with the Commission, or if there is clear indication that the application contains materially false information. We also propose to include a new section clarifying that application fees are due upon filing and that applications filed without the corresponding application fee will be dismissed by the Commission. We believe that a deviation from the existing part 1 rule,

which allows applicants a 14-day window after filing to pay the associated application fee, is warranted to effectuate the processing timelines we propose here. We seek comment on the proposed revisions. Are there other scenarios the Commission should include in the proposed rules to provide applicants with a clear framework for dismissal or return of applications?

149. We also seek comment on how the Commission should address applications where the applicant does not sufficiently address any additional questions asked by staff in their review of the application. Should the Commission establish a default standard of how to address applications where the applicant does not sufficiently answer additional information requests? Should the Commission immediately dismiss those applications? Should we only allow for a single follow-up request for the same questions? We invite comment on these proposals and any other commenters may have.

2. Other Application Filings

a. Amendments to Applications

150. We propose to adopt new procedures for the filing and processing of amendments to applications and expand the scope of the term “major amendment,” as a means of preventing abuses of the amendment system while also streamlining the process. Under the current rules, a pending application generally may be amended until the Commission adopts a final order on the application

ddition, we propose to automatically dismiss major amendments filed after the 45-day window. We seek comment on this proposal. Does a 45-day window give applicants sufficient time to file any major amendments? Should we limit the permissible timeframe for the filing of major amendments to the period before an application is placed on public notice?

b. Applications for License Modifications

153. Currently, if an applicant wants to make a change to its systems or operations, the applicant typically must file either an application for modification or a notice of modification with the Commission. While the Commission previously revised the modification rules in part 25 based on the record we had before us, we believe that the structural overhauls proposed in this rulemaking present an opportune time to propose larger changes to what types of modifications require notice or application.

154. Under the current rules as recently amended, any modification not specifically categorized as a “minor modification” must be treated as major modification. While the recent changes the Commission made are an improvement, an operator must still file an application and wait for Commission approval to begin operations even for modifications that would have little to no risk of harm to people or the radio frequency environment. In turn, licensees often seek STA to operate under a revised set of parameters while modification applications are pending, or in lieu of seeking a modification at all. We believe that by allowing applicants to make a broader range of changes to their systems without needing to notify the Commission or seek prior approval, we can alleviate the need for STAs and allow staff to prioritize reviewing license applications while ensuring no harmful interference and that the public interest is served. We also hope to give licensees the flexibility to test and modify systems as needed to determine the most effective and efficient system equipment or operational parameters as quickly as reasonably possible

hat there are modifications that risk creating harmful interference to other licensed operations and warrant public review and comment. Therefore, what we are

proposing, while giving maximum flexibility to licensees, still requires that licensees either seek prior Commission approval for certain modifications or notify the Commission either before or after the modification in certain instances. We believe that this careful balancing act that started in the Streamlining Second Report and Order and that we propose to expand upon here is necessary to ensure we are maintaining our obligation to protect against harmful interference and ensure the public interest is met. We seek comment on our proposal generally.

157. We seek comment on the proposed categories of major and minor modifications in part 100 and the types of operations included in each. Are these categories sufficiently clear in outlining which types of activities would require approval rather than notification, or no notice at all? We also seek comment on other potential changes or operations the Commission should consider in categorizing the types of modifications and any corresponding needs for notice or approval by the Commission. For example, we generally want operators to be able to increase transmission capacity and improve spectral efficiency with minimal regulatory barriers. Do the proposed rules herein provide enough leeway for licensees to make such improvements with minimal burden or delay? Are there ways we can make clearer the type of changes that are permissible without approval? Additionally, although the Commission recently modified the part 25 rules to make adding a point of communication or changing certain satellite equipment minor modifications (requiring only prior notification to the Commission), we did so based on the record before us in that proceeding. We seek comment on whether we should instead change those minor modification requirements so that the Commission may be notified after the change is made

which licensee? Should the notification requirements differ if the space station is U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.-licensed? How should we handle situations where the hosted space station and the host satellite are licensed by different administrations? If a hosted space station is licensed by the U.S., should that licensee be required to file for a license modification to attach to a satellite?

160. Finally, could we use modifications to handle situations where one spacecraft transfers a hosted space station to another spacecraft? Anticipating such requests in the future, is a modification the most straightforward approach to handling such requests? For example, should the Commission review requests to transfer a hosted space station that would remove the hosted space station from one license and add it to another license via modification? In that situation, could the “offloading” modification be a notification while the “onloading” modification would require a major modification if adding a space station to a separate system? If multiple spacecraft are joining, should licenses be modified? Should we add to the rules a specific type of modification to handle such situations or can it be handled by our proposed modification framework? What are the orbital debris and radiofrequency implications involved? We broadly seek comment on what type of activities and scenarios this may involve and how the proposed modification framework could accommodate these situations in a flexible and predictable way with minimal burden on operators and the Commission.

c. Special Temporary Authorizations

porary Authorizations

161. We propose to significantly overhaul and limit the way in which STAs may be used in part because we believe that the changes proposed in the NPRM for license modifications and conditional grants will greatly alleviate the need for STAs. Specifically, we propose to only allow for two types of STAs—60 day and 180 day—and limit requests for extension without public notice. In addition, we propose to deem granted earth station STA requests for 60 days or fewer upon the filing and payment of fees. We seek comment on these proposals more fully below. As the Commission recently recognized, the current STA process is “generally in need of reexamination.” The current STA application process for space and earth stations has created administrative burdens and a loophole for applicants and operators to secure prolonged temporary authorizations as a substitute for the proper licensing or to initiate prolonged temporary operations before the conclusion of a public notice period. This is neither the principle behind nor the intended effect of the STA process.

162. We recognize that there are instances where an STA is necessary in lieu of a permanent license authorization. For instance, during natural disasters, emergencies, or other anomalies, STAs are vital to quickly ensure continued operations. Thus, we are not proposing to eliminate STAs. Rather, we propose to limit the types of STAs available to licensees, shorten the processing timelines, and incentivize applications for STAs only when necessary, rather than when convenient. In addition, with the proposed conditional grants and the proposed overhauls regarding license modifications without Commission approval, we believe operators will have less need for STAs beyond actual short-term use or emergency situations, as directed and intended by the Act.

163. We seek comment on whether our proposal to create conditional grants would eliminate the need for an applicant to seek STA to commence operations prior to the grant of their license

overhauls regarding license modifications without Commission approval, we believe operators will have less need for STAs beyond actual short-term use or emergency situations, as directed and intended by the Act.

163. We seek comment on whether our proposal to create conditional grants would eliminate the need for an applicant to seek STA to commence operations prior to the grant of their license. Further, we seek comment on whether the two proposed terms for STAs, 180 days and 60 days, are enough time for true emergency and short-term uses. Should these terms be extended or reduced? Are there any limits placed on the Commission by the Act on how we can change our rules for STAs? Should we put STAs on public notice? The Space Bureau has previously announced that STAs for services not covered by section 309(b) of the Act will not be placed on public notice. We also seek comment on our proposal to deem granted earth station STAs for a term of up to 60 days upon the filing and payment of fees. Should our deemed granted approach for earth station STAs only be permitted in certain frequency bands or in specific situations? We note that all STAs are granted on an unprotected, non-interference basis. Does that alleviate the coordination and interference concerns given that the STA holder is responsible for ceasing operations in the event of any interference? Considering the proposals to the license modification process discussed above, do the proposed changes and limitations on STAs sufficiently address and resolve

ambiguities on the appropriate use of each of these two types of applications for the type of authorization requested? We ask for comment on whether the NPRM provides applicants and licensees with the tools to determine when a modification is needed compared to an STA, and if not, how we can more clearly distinguish the two to avoid further conflation and improper use of the licensing process. Finally, we seek comment on any alternative proposals, requirements, or limitations for the STA process.

on requested? We ask for comment on whether the NPRM provides applicants and licensees with the tools to determine when a modification is needed compared to an STA, and if not, how we can more clearly distinguish the two to avoid further conflation and improper use of the licensing process. Finally, we seek comment on any alternative proposals, requirements, or limitations for the STA process.

d. Assignments and Transfers of Control

164. We propose to largely maintain the text of current § 25.119, which sets forth the requirements for assignment and transfer of control of space and earth station licenses and receive-only earth station registrations, although we propose a reorganization of the rule provisions to more logically group relevant requirements together and propose textual changes to more clearly state existing requirements. We also propose to incorporate into this section the requirements for assignments and transfers of control in the context of non-U.S.-licensed space stations granted U.S. market access. We seek comment on the proposed regulatory language and its structure. We note that, as discussed above, we propose that applicants include with the FCC Form 312—Main Form a diagram depicting ownership and control and, for assignments and transfers of control, we propose that the diagram include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the authorization holder. We seek comment on these proposals and any alternatives.

e. Submission of ITU Filings

165. Before the Commission submits a filing to the ITU for a satellite system on behalf of an applicant, the Commission has required an applicant to first file the space station application describing the overall system, operational parameters, type of service, and the service area(s). This requirement was intended to prevent speculative filings with the ITU and ensure that the filings submitted to the ITU are consistent with the associated application

or a satellite system on behalf of an applicant, the Commission has required an applicant to first file the space station application describing the overall system, operational parameters, type of service, and the service area(s). This requirement was intended to prevent speculative filings with the ITU and ensure that the filings submitted to the ITU are consistent with the associated application. This, however, may have led some operators to submit ITU filings through other regulatory regimes that vary in the requirements and processes for submitting applicants' filings to the ITU. Considering the proposals to the licensing structure in the NPRM and the ITU cost recovery fees associated with ITU filings, we propose to allow prospective applicants greater flexibility to submit ITU filings to the Commission without requiring an underlying space station application. We seek comment on this proposed change. Should we limit this proposal so that a prospective applicant can only submit one ITU filing to the Commission without an underlying application? Given that applicants are already required to pay the ITU cost recovery fees for each filing submitted to the ITU, is there any need to limit the number of ITU filings? How would this affect a first-come, first-served application process? Are there any additional safeguards needed alongside such a new rule to prevent potentially harmful, speculative filings with the ITU? We also seek comment on other measures the Commission can take to facilitate ITU filings from prospective applicants and operators.

166

TU, is there any need to limit the number of ITU filings? How would this affect a first-come, first-served application process? Are there any additional safeguards needed alongside such a new rule to prevent potentially harmful, speculative filings with the ITU? We also seek comment on other measures the Commission can take to facilitate ITU filings from prospective applicants and operators.

166. If the Commission allows prospective applicants to submit ITU filings to the Commission without having filed an underlying application, how long should the Commission maintain these filing(s) without an underlying application before suppressing them? Is four years a reasonable timeline? If no application is filed, could the entity lose the ability to use the ITU filing but the Commission allow another entity to do use that filing? Are there other considerations that we should take into account?

167. Regarding space station experimental applications filed under part 5 of the Commission's rules, the Commission will typically submit the ITU filing after the application has been granted. This allows for complete coordination with U.S. government operators before submitting the ITU filing, specifically in frequency bands that are shared on an equal basis with federal operators, given the quick turnaround time for a part 5 grant. We seek comment on the Commission submission of part 5 satellite ITU filings while an FCC experimental license application is pending for bands that are not primarily allocated to federal operations. For bands that are co-shared on an equal basis with federal and non-federal users, we seek comment on the Commission submission of ITU filing for these bands while the application is pending provided the applicant is able to obtain a letter from NTIA agreeing to the ITU submission. Are there other considerations that we should take into account?

3. Milestones and Surety Bonds

168

one requirement for GSO space station licensees. Considering the proposed license terms for GSO space station licensees in the NPRM, we believe that the five-year milestone benchmark for a 20-year license term would not be necessary to ensure that GSO system operators launch the authorized satellite(s) and position and operate the satellite(s) in the orbital location by the end of the license term. We seek comment on this proposal to remove the milestone requirements for GSO systems. In the alternative, should the Commission retain a milestone requirement for GSO licensees, or alternatively revise the GSO system milestones to more closely align with the ITU requirements for GSO systems? If so, should the Commission continue to require the five-year deployment milestone for GSO licensees, or should the Commission shorten or extend this milestone to more effectively ensure that GSO satellites are timely launched and operational? Similar to the NGSO milestone proposals discussed below, should the Commission similarly require an initial “bringing-into-use” (BIU) benchmark to align with the ITU requirements for GSO licensees? If the Commission took that approach, should we further align to only require a BIU benchmark for GSO licensees rather than a milestone deadline, or require both a BIU and milestone deadline? We seek comment on alternative milestone proposals and the benefits to any such proposals on a revised GSO milestone benchmark framework. Are there other approaches or benchmarks the

Commission should consider specific to GSO systems to ensure that GSO satellites are timely launched and operational, for example, should the five-year milestone be maintained or should we establish alignment with the proposed first NGSO milestone? Specifically, we seek comment on a requirement that GSO operators enter into a verifiable launch contract no later than five years after the grant of the license

should consider specific to GSO systems to ensure that GSO satellites are timely launched and operational, for example, should the five-year milestone be maintained or should we establish alignment with the proposed first NGSO milestone? Specifically, we seek comment on a requirement that GSO operators enter into a verifiable launch contract no later than five years after the grant of the license. This approach may be desirable as it replaces overly strict milestone requirements with a more flexible launch contract obligation that continues to promote timely deployment while reducing administrative burdens on technically prepared applicants. We seek comment on this alternative to our proposal and on any other approaches. We propose to retain interim and final milestone requirements only for NGSO satellite systems and recipients of U.S. market access grants, but we propose to align the milestones with the milestone deployment benchmarks as required by the ITU for NGSO satellite system operators. Under the current rules, a licensee is subject to both the Commission's milestones and the ITU milestones. We view this alignment of the two sets of milestone benchmarks as an effective way to simplify requirements for licensees.

171. As such, we propose that recipients of an initial authorization for an NGSO satellite system, other than a Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) system, would be required to deploy at least one satellite in the authorized system no later than seven years after the date of the license grant, consistent with the ITU's BIU period. Licensees would be considered to have met the requirement upon notification to the Commission that a satellite has been deployed and operating for a continuous period of 90 days consistent with a system's authorization. If a licensee fails to meet this requirement, the license would be automatically terminated and declared null and void

d system? What other methods could the Commission employ to ensure that NGSO licensees in a processing round are both on track in reaching the required milestone obligations while fulfilling the spectrum sharing and coordination obligations with other systems authorized within a processing round? We seek comment on this approach and any alternative methods or suggestions to best support NGSO systems deployment within a processing round framework as proposed in the NPRM.

174. With respect to licensees authorized to operate different types of satellites in the same system under a MOSS authorization, we propose to revise § 25.164(g), which requires that licensees must meet the applicable milestone deployment deadlines for its satellites, to reflect whatever milestone is ultimately established in the final order. We seek comment on this proposal. We also propose to carry over the current requirement that, in cases where the Commission grants more than one space station authorization for the same system in different stages, the earliest of the milestone schedules will be applied to the entire system. Effectively, the first authorization for a satellite system establishes the milestone deployment timeliness and applies to any subsequent authorizations for that system. Retaining this provision would provide necessary clarity to NGSO operators, especially considering the revised milestone schedule and modernized licensing framework proposed herein, in establishing that all space stations authorized within one licensed system are subject to the same milestone deployment timelines. We seek comment on this rule part and any revisions the Commission should

consider regarding multiple space station authorizations within one system and the associated deployment timelines

ed milestone schedule and modernized licensing framework proposed herein, in establishing that all space stations authorized within one licensed system are subject to the same milestone deployment timelines. We seek comment on this rule part and any revisions the Commission should

consider regarding multiple space station authorizations within one system and the associated deployment timelines. Should the Commission consider multiple deployment timelines for one system in certain circumstances, or does retaining this provision provide licensees with a helpful bright-line rule? We seek comment on the proposed requirement and on any alternative approaches.

175. Surety Bonds. Under the current rules, all space station licensees are required to post a surety bond covering the potential payment liability to the U.S. Treasury in the event of a milestone default. The Commission adopted the application-stage surety bond requirement to establish a market-based mechanism for ensuring that licensees are financially willing and able to proceed with satellite construction and to discourage warehousing of scarce spectrum resources. Space station licensees generally must post the required bond within thirty days from the date of the license grant, while NGSO systems granted under the small satellite procedures are required to post the bond within one year and thirty days from the date of the grant. Failure to post the bond in full within the designated timeframe automatically renders the license null and void. The amount of a licensee's total surety bond is determined based on a formula calculation dependent on the number of days from the date the license is surrendered, increasing liability for default over time.

176. For NGSO space stations, the Commission proposes to limit the requirement of a surety bond to licensees with 200 or more authorized satellites in one system, excluding replacements

ld such as this creates incentives for licensees to “structure” licenses to avoid the bond, should we establish requirements to prevent circumventing the purpose of the surety bond, and what would they be?

177. We further propose that any NGSO space station licensee authorized to operate fewer than 200 satellites but licensed within a processing round would also be required to post a surety bond. We tentatively conclude that the current surety bond requirement for all NGSO and GSO licensees to discourage spectrum warehousing and encourage efficient construction is no longer necessary to impose on all such licensees, considering the Commission's revisions to the regulatory fee requirements for space station authorizations. In addition, under our proposal licensees granted access to bands outside a processing round would be operating on a compatible basis with other systems and would not be required to post a surety bond. We see little benefit to adding the cost of a bond to systems for which no particular priority is provided and for which there is likely to be no material preclusion of other systems in terms of resources. We also believe that by dramatically reducing the number of situations in which a bond is required, we will better encourage U.S. companies to license with the Commission rather than overseas, and even with a potential increase in non-priority applications due to the removal of the bond requirement, we do not anticipate harmful interference risks that would justify the cost burden. We seek comment on whether this assessment is correct.

178. The Commission proposes to revise the surety bond formula to calculate the surety bond that a licensee must maintain on file and the amount required for payment in the event of a default. We propose two significant changes to the Commission's approach to the surety bond requirement. First, we propose to shift the approach to the surety bond formula from an escalating bond to a deescalating bond calculation

ssion proposes to revise the surety bond formula to calculate the surety bond that a licensee must maintain on file and the amount required for payment in the event of a default. We propose two significant changes to the Commission's approach to the surety bond requirement. First, we propose to shift the approach to the surety bond formula from an escalating bond to a deescalating bond calculation. Second, we propose to apply two different calculations—one applicable to NGSO space station licensees with two hundred or more authorized satellites and one applicable to NGSO space stations with fewer than two hundred satellites but that are authorized within a processing round. For NGSO space stations with 200 or more authorized satellites, we propose the following calculation, rounded to the nearest dollar: B = $10,000 * ((0.9*A)−D), where B is the bond amount, D is the number of satellites deployed, and A is the number of satellites authorized. For NGSO space stations authorized in a processing round but with fewer than 200 authorized satellites, we propose using the following calculation, rounded to the nearest non-negative dollar amount: B = $1,800,000 * (1−(D/(0.9 * A))). Since licensees authorized in a processing round are granted a priority status, we believe it is reasonable to set a minimum surety bond amount to disincentivize applications for speculative systems and promote more intensive use of spectrum resources. The proposed formula for NGSO systems with fewer than 200 authorized satellites maintains consistency across small systems, avoids discontinuities in regulatory treatment at the 200-satellite threshold, and ensures that the cost of entry remains sufficiently high to preserve the functional separation between priority and non-priority licensing. We seek comment on these formulae and ask whether there are alternative approaches?

179

Do each of the proposed formulas support these goals equally, or are there specific considerations or concerns with either of the two formulas? Should the Commission include an inflation adjustment to the bond formula so that the bond amount retains its purpose? If so, what measure of inflation should the Commission rely upon and how frequently should the Commission perform this adjustment? Are there other methodologies or proposals for alternative surety bond formulas or calculations that the Commission should consider in modernizing the surety bond requirement? How should licensees be permitted to notify the Commission of its deployment progress to reduce the total amount of the bond?

183. We additionally inquire as to when and how any revised milestone and bond requirements should come into effect if the proposed revised milestone deployment benchmarks and surety bond requirements and calculations are adopted. When the Commission revised the surety bond requirements in 2016, the Commission permitted space station licensees and market access grantees with existing grants at the time the new rules came into effect to submit a letter requesting to replace its current milestone schedule and bond obligation with the new schedule and obligation. These operators were also permitted to submit a new or modified bond and were relieved of their previous obligations, or retained the option to continue under the milestone and bond conditions established in their grants. We seek comment on whether the Commission should take a similar approach to any revisions to the milestone or bond requirements, allowing applicants the option to either keep their existing obligations and bond amount or replace them with the new rule requirements

of their previous obligations, or retained the option to continue under the milestone and bond conditions established in their grants. We seek comment on whether the Commission should take a similar approach to any revisions to the milestone or bond requirements, allowing applicants the option to either keep their existing obligations and bond amount or replace them with the new rule requirements. In the case that the Commission adopts its proposals to require surety bonds for only those systems authorized to operate 200 or more satellites or for NGSO systems with fewer than 200 satellites authorized within a processing round, or an alternative proposed methodology, we propose that current licensees holding authorizations pursuant to §§ 25.122 and 25.123 of the Commission's rules would be relieved of their bond obligations under § 25.165(a) upon the effective date of any adopted rules. Are there other approaches or considerations the Commission should consider in transitioning to this revised surety bond framework? Should the Commission consider different approaches to the implementation of any revised milestone and surety bond requirements specific to licensees authorized within a processing round? How should the Commission address licensees with surety bonds on file with upcoming milestone deployment deadlines?

4. License Terms, Extensions, Replacements, and Renewals

184. License Terms. Currently there are a variety of different license terms for satellite and earth station licenses in our rules. Authorizations for GSO and NGSO space stations are issued for fifteen-year license terms, with certain service-specific exceptions, while satellites licensed under the small satellite and small spacecraft rules are licensed for six-year terms. For GSO space stations, license terms begin at 3 a.m. Eastern Time on the date when the licensee notifies that the Commission that the space station has been placed into orbit at the assigned location and the operations are compliant with the license terms and conditions

ific exceptions, while satellites licensed under the small satellite and small spacecraft rules are licensed for six-year terms. For GSO space stations, license terms begin at 3 a.m. Eastern Time on the date when the licensee notifies that the Commission that the space station has been placed into orbit at the assigned location and the operations are compliant with the license terms and conditions. NGSO space station license terms begin at 3 a.m. Eastern Time when the licensee notifies the Commission that operation of an initial space station that is compliant with the license terms and conditions is placed into the authorized orbit. Our current rules state that the term of earth stations shall be specified in its authorization.

185. We propose extending the license term for most space stations and earth stations to 20 years. We note that we routinely receive applications to extend the license term beyond fif

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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.