FCC overhauls space and satellite licensing process: Key changes

On July 22, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted a Report and Order that overhauls the existing rules governing satellite communications – including the commercial space and Earth station licensing process – and transitions the current Part 25 rules to a new Part 100 framework.

Titled “Space Modernization for the 21st Century,” the Report and Order follows the Commission’s October 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), discussed in a prior DLA Piper alert. In the same action, the FCC also adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) requesting comment on further updates to the newly adopted Part 100 rules.

This article focuses on significant differences between the proposed rules and the finalized, adopted rules.

Key changes compared to the original NPRM

Removal of expedited application distinction

The NPRM proposed an expedited application framework where applications that do not conflict with one of the many exceptions (i.e., Failure to Certify, Waiver Requests, Foreign Ownership, Market Access, Processing Rounds, Spectral Constraints, and Federal Coordination) would qualify for a seven-day public notice period with a conditional grant if no comments are received. Non-expedited applications would have been subject to a 15-day public notice period.

In the Report and Order, the Commission removed the expedited distinction and adopted a single 15-day public notice period unless the application is specified in Section 309 of the Communications Act, which would require a 30-day public notice period. The FCC will maintain the list of exceptions and will notify an applicant when an exception has delayed its application for 60 days or more.

This update shifts the bifurcated timeline approach to one general timeline; however, any major, non-routine conflicts with the specified exceptions will be treated as an additional review category, potentially delaying an application.

One de-escalating bond requirement

The NPRM proposed that bond requirements apply to Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) systems with 200 or more satellites or any NGSO system participating in a processing round.

The Commission specified two different bond formulas with a ramping-per-satellite equation for any constellation with more than 200 satellites and a de-escalating $1.8 million bond for any constellation with fewer than 200 satellites. Both formulas would decrease in step with the number of satellites deployed until the licensee deployed 90 percent of its authorized system. The proposed changes also would have removed the bond requirements for Geostationary (GSO) satellites and Variable Trajectory Spacecraft Systems (VTSS).

The adopted Report and Order removes the 200-satellite threshold and requires a surety bond for only NGSO or Multi-Orbit Satellite Systems (MOSS) filings that voluntarily participate in a processing round, making bond requirements optional. It also changes the surety bond equation to be a de-escalating $10 million bond that decreases with the number of satellites deployed, reaching $0 when deployments reach 90 percent of authorized satellites. The new proposal still removes the bond requirements for GSO satellites and VTSS.

GSO extensions and milestones

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a default 20-year license term for GSO satellites, up from the current 15-year term. The FCC also proposed removing the five-year milestone requirement that a GSO provider launch and operate its satellite within this timeframe.

In the Report and Order, the FCC maintained the 20-year license term but removed the option for GSO operators to request a five-year extension to their license, determining that this is redundant to the 20-year term. The Commission also retained the five-year milestone for GSO operators under the concern that removing this requirement would tie up orbital slots.

NGSO milestones

The NPRM proposed changing the NGSO launch milestone requirements, specifically also asking whether there should be a different set of requirements for NGSO systems participating in a processing round versus not.

In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted the ITU milestone requirements for non-processing round NGSO systems, meaning licensees would need to launch at least one satellite within seven years and maintain it for 90 days. Further, licensees would be required to launch ten percent of their total number of satellites within nine years, 50 percent within 12 years, and 100 percent within 14 years. However, for processing round NGSO systems, the FCC chose to maintain the six- and nine-year milestones, so a licensee would be required to launch 50 percent of its total authorized satellites in six years and 100 percent by nine years.

Unlike non-processing round NGSO systems, if a licensee fails to meet the six-year milestone but launched at least one functional satellite, it would be shifted priority-wise to a later processing round but maintain its total number of authorized satellites. However, if the licensee does not meet its nine-year milestone, then it will lose its launch authority for any undeployed satellites.

No 45-day bright-line major amendment rule

The NPRM proposed a 45-day bright-line rule for major amendments to an application, meaning no substantial changes to an application could occur after 45 days of filing.

In the Report and Order, the FCC declined to adopt this rule, noting that key engineering refinements and coordination changes for applications can occur well past this timeframe.

Receive-only Earth stations maintained

The NPRM invited comment on whether it was necessary for receive-only Earth stations to receive a license if the station is communicating with a United States-authorized space station.

In the Report and Order, the Commission elected not to delete the rules for receive-only Earth stations. The FCC further clarifies that a receive-only Earth station does not need a license if it does not claim protection from interference and does not communicate with a market access satellite.

No streamlining of off-axis GSO power limits and Earth station antenna performance

In the NPRM, the FCC proposed having a single simplified standard for Earth stations operating in the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) frequencies transmitting to a GSO satellite, instead of the mix of standards applied to such operations today. Similarly, the Commission also proposed establishing just two masks for GSO transmissions in the C-, Ku-, and Ka-bands.

In the Report and Order, the Commission did not adopt either of its previous proposals due to the potential exclusion of currently authorized licensees and the need for further technical analysis. However, the FCC notes that both proposals could be explored as separate proposals in the future.

Other notes

The FCC also removed its proposal for a “Licensable System” term because rules for Earth stations and space stations are clearly defined. Further, the FCC retained its proposal to delete the “Small Satellite” authorization processes due to the streamlined improvements for all applications.

Implications of the Report and Order for the space industry

• One uniform path but many exceptions: Companies are likely to benefit from a singular expedited commenting and review process for all applications. However, novel requests can potentially indeterminately delay a filing due to the number of categories that can prompt an additional review.
  
  
• One bond equation: The removal of bond requirements for applicants not participating in an NGSO processing round reduces the cost barrier to space. Combined with the flat rate for NGSO providers, this structure may incentivize additional launches and larger constellations to maximize use of an operator's allocated spectrum if it can fulfill its buildout requirements.
  
  
• More potential streamlining in the future: Although the Commission chose not to overhaul some of the off-axis power limit masks and antenna performance standards, it left these areas open to potential future streamlining. This reflects the FCC’s aim to implement Part 100 rapidly, but further changes will likely follow.

Key proposals of the FNPRM

The FNPRM seeks comment on building "operational envelopes" that would enable licensees to request broader authority upfront and adjust their operations within that authority without needing separate Commission approval for the subsequent changes, thereby reducing the burden of repeated modification filings.

It also proposes a new short-term experimental or developmental license category to give companies a clear, streamlined path to test new space technologies before moving to full commercial licensing. Additional proposals, for instance, include 1) allowing satellite operators to consolidate multiple call signs, 2) exploring whether certain updates (such as changes in radio-frequency sensing capabilities) could be approved through a simpler notification process, rather than a full modification application, and 3) considering whether to apply recent rule changes to non-US hosted payloads.

The FNPRM further asks for input on 1) creating a secondary market allowing operators to exchange priority status obtained through the licensing process, 2) establishing clearer expectations for license renewals and satellite replacements, and 3) whether all Commission-licensed satellites should be required to have a control point based in the US.

The Commission also seeks broader public input on a range of related technical and administrative topics, including earth station-related definitions and antenna performance standards, where it determined more industry feedback is needed.

Next steps

Report and Order: The Report and Order will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with the exception of Sections 9.10, 9.18, and 100.1–100.34 – which will become effective after completion of the Office of Management and Budget’s review and will be announced by the Space Bureau through publication in the Federal Register.

FNPRM: Comments on the FNPRM are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, with reply comments due 60 days after publication.

If you have questions or would like assistance concerning the proceeding, please contact the following DLA Piper professionals:

Julie Kearney, Partner, Global Co-Lead, Space Exploration and Innovation practice

Emma Marion, Senior Associate

Cait Barbas, Associate

Phillip Post, Telecom Engineer