Ground Control to Major Reform: FCC Adopts Landmark Overhaul of Space Bureau Licensing Process

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on July 22, 2026, replaced its long-standing Part 25 satellite licensing framework with a decluttered and significantly reformed new Part 100,¹ following through on a proposal from October 2025 and seeking comment on yet another round of changes.

The likely result? Challenging applications will remain challenging, though licensing strategies may change. Straightforward applications will become much easier to process and, in more cases, unnecessary – freeing government and industry to focus on harder problems. Transparency should improve across the board, at least after an initial adjustment period. Ultimately, the agency's "get to yes" maxim will not guarantee full approval of every request nor eliminate every time-consuming aspect of the licensing process, such as the need to undergo potentially multiple rounds of federal coordination. But it should reduce undue gatekeeping and policy paralysis and advance the basic premise that, at the end of the day, the agency's job is to grant licenses.

The FCC's enormous undertaking also sets a strong foundation for ongoing reform. The 'decision does not purport to solve every licensing issue and, in transitioning to a new framework, gaps inevitably will emerge that the agency will need to address.

Expect much more to come.

Key Part 100 Changes

The Assembly Line

Part 100's centerpiece is a "licensing assembly line" built from three components, as well as conditional grants and annual, opt-in processing rounds.

Component 1: Modular, Minimalist and Flexible Applications

Part 100 establishes a modular filing system that collects only required information. The core forms are FCC Form 312 (Main Form, required for all applicants), Schedule O and Schedule F (for space station applicants) and Schedule B (for earth station applicants). Critically, applicants may submit Form 312 independently of the technical schedules and reference a previously filed Form 312 in later filings. Narratives are to be more concise with key information collection standardized on the schedules.

The schedules, in turn, will rely on certifications to differentiate easy applications from hard applications and thus facilitate review (country fans may appreciate footnote 299's reference to "Check Yes or No," as performed by George Strait). The schedules also will better accommodate collocations, hosting, emerging space operation mission profiles and flexibility in finalizing orbits through the specification of deployment "envelopes."

The application also will allow earth station operators to streamline authorization of multiple similar earth stations through a "nationwide, non-site" license and individual site registration, with band-specific particulars of registration to be handled in future proceedings.

Component 2: Streamlined Processing and Public Notice

The Order also streamlines the application processing framework. Within 30 days of filing, the Commission will either place a complete application on public notice or identify deficiencies needed for completeness. Notably, the Commission rejected its ''proposed bifurcated 7-day/15-day "expedited processing" public notice framework. Instead, the Order adopts a single, uniform 15-day public notice period for all space and earth station applications (except those subject to the statutory 30-day period under 47 U.S.C. § 309(b)). Following the public notice period, a 10-day window allows for oppositions or responses to any petitions filed, and a 5-day window allows for reply comments. FCC information requests are still permitted, but with guardrails.

Small satellite streamlined licensing procedures are eliminated in light of these reforms, creating uncertainty over regulatory fees applicable to such systems.

Component 3: Public Interest Review Under a "Default to Yes" Presumption

Applications that comply with the Commission's rules will be presumed to be in the public interest. The Order identifies seven "targeted review categories" where the presumption does not apply and additional scrutiny is warranted: 1) failure to certify, 2) waiver requests, 3) market access, 4) foreign ownership, 5) processing round, 6) spectral constraints and 7) federal coordination. Importantly, if the FCC has not acted on an application within 60 days after the comment period, it must inform the applicant of the reasons for the delay, referencing the applicable targeted review category.

Notably, the FCC makes a rare concession that its "public-interest review is not unbounded," citing (at footnote 422) judicial precedent limiting its authority to condition licenses.

Conditional Grants and Processing Rounds

The FCC codifies and expands its informal practice of issuing conditional grants pending submission of a final orbital debris mitigation and end-of-life disposal plan or completion of federal and/or commercial interoperator coordination.

Conditional grantees remain on a tight leash: Deferred plan conditional grantees cannot integrate, launch or operate satellites prior to submission and approval of their plan, and coordination conditional grantees can only operate in authorized frequencies outside of the shared bands where coordination is pending.

The Order revamps the non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) processing round framework by 1) making participation voluntary, 2) holding rounds automatically each year from January 1 to October 31, 3) applying them only in eligible frequency bands that the FCC's Space Bureau will announce annually and 4) codifying practice on the spectrum-sharing implications of in-round and out-of-round licensing. Relatedly, the Order limits bonds to those NGSO systems that opt in to a processing round while shifting from an escalating to a deescalating bond calculation formula. The FCC also holds in-round licensees to its existing milestone framework while substantially relaxing milestones for out-of-round licensees. It also clarifies penalties, including spectrum priority downgrades, that apply when a milestone is missed.

New License Categories for Emerging Space Operations

Part 100 expands the types of systems that can be licensed to accommodate emerging space operations. Applications may now be filed for geostationary orbit (GSO), NGSO, variable trajectory space station (VTSS) or multi-orbit satellite system (MOSS) authorizations.

• VTSS. The Order creates a new VTSS license category for systems that do not fit traditional GSO or NGSO frameworks. VTSS systems may include, but are not limited to, space stations on orbital transfer vehicles, rendezvous and proximity operations platforms, in-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) and missions involving transit to, orbiting of or operations on the moon or other celestial bodies. The FCC previously sought to address licensing for ISAM missions in prior proceedings. The Order terminates and closes the docket on those proceedings. VTSS applicants must, among other things, certify spacecraft trackability, register with an approved space situational awareness (SSA) provider at least 30 days before launch, and share propagated ephemeris and covariance data before maneuvers.They are not subject to bond or milestone requirements.
• MOSS. The Order also creates a MOSS category, defined as "a system of two or more types of satellite system(s) operating together under one call sign." MOSS applies prospectively only, and each component system remains subject to its own applicable milestones and bonds.

Other Notable Provisions

Part 100 also:

• allows earth station applicants that have an approved Form 312 requesting a license without waivers to begin operating on a non-interference, unprotected basis once the application is placed on public notice, even before final grant
• clarifies that it will allow submission of International Telecommunication Union (ITU) filings without an underlying space station application
• prohibits U.S. market access through an earth station application and requires all such market access grantees to reapply through a petition for declaratory ruling
• requires special temporary authorizations (STA) to be rolled over into permanent applications while allowing continued operations under the STA pending approval of the application for permanent authority (as the FCC long has done with experimental STAs)
• provides new clarifications on which system modifications do and do not require prior FCC approval
• expands licensing-by-rule for direct-to-device (D2D) devices, whether they are operating as mobile-satellite service (MSS) earth stations or supplemental coverage from space (SCS) earth stations
• extends license terms for most space stations and earth stations to 20 years while allowing licensees to request a shorter term if desired
• requires all space station licensees and market access grantees to share ephemeris data, characterized by the FCC as a "meaningful step towards enhancing space safety"
• requires the Space Bureau to report processing statistics annually, including the percentage of applications pending for various time bands (under 30 days, 31-60 days, 61-90 days, etc.)

Transition Matters

The Space Bureau will announce a future Part 100 effective date. Key transition provisions include:

• On the effective date, all existing space and earth station licensees and market access recipients must comply with Part 100, subject to the terms of their existing authorizations.
• The Space Bureau will post the full text of Part 25 (as it existed on the effective date) on a transition webpage and will issue a chart mapping each Part 25 rule to its Part 100 counterpart.
• All non-processing-round NGSO licensees are immediately relieved of the surety bond requirement upon the effective date, without need for Space Bureau action.
• The revised processing-round framework does not apply retroactively; systems already in a processing round remain in that round under existing rules.
• Current licenses retain their existing terms unless the licensee petitions within one year of the effective date for an extension to a 20-year term from the date of grant.
• All new applications filed after the effective date must follow Part 100 procedures. Applications pending as of the effective date generally continue under the rules in place when filed.
• Licensees unable to comply with Part 100 due to a technical or operational feature must seek a waiver through Space Bureau-established procedures; a grace period will apply.

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The accompanying further notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on additional reforms building on Part 100, including:

• a new space-based experimental licensing regime
• NGSO call sign merging
• further earth station definitional reforms, including defining "site" and "User Terminal" and revisiting earth stations in motion rules
• additional adjustments to minor and major modification categories
• hosted payload arrangements involving non-U.S. licensees
• enhanced ephemeris data sharing and reporting requirements
• rules for intersatellite links between U.S.-licensed and non-U.S.-licensed satellites
• "operational envelopes" that would authorize broader ranges of permitted operations
• expanding frequency reuse, orbital debris mitigation requirements, two-degree GSO spacing, secondary market transactions, and renewal and replacement license expectancies

Related Development: Office of Space Commerce Announces Space Commerce Certification

The day the FCC released the Order, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Space Commerce (OSC) announced that it is moving forward with its proposed Space Commerce Certification (SCC) framework for novel commercial space activities. OSC will publish a "call for interest" for initial applications in the Federal Register in the coming weeks and expects to begin certifying novel space missions in the coming months.

The SCC is a voluntary, opt-in certification framework administered by OSC, first proposed on March 24, 2026, pursuant to Executive Order 14355. It is designed to provide a consolidated interagency review pathway for novel commercial space activities not clearly governed by existing regulatory frameworks such as in-space manufacturing, satellite servicing, lunar operations and commercial inhabitable stations. The certification process features a presumption of approval, with decisions generally required within 120 days of a completed application (extendable to a maximum of 180 days to resolve interagency disagreements) and is intended to reduce duplicative regulatory requirements across the Federal Aviation Administration, FCC and OSC's Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs office.

The FCC Order acknowledges OSC's progress and confirms that the FCC is "collaborating with other federal agencies to establish a framework whereby the FCC may permit an applicant to not provide certain application elements that have or will be reviewed by another federal agency."

Holland & Knight previously analyzed OSC's SCC proposal in an April 2026 client alert, explaining that the SCC does not replace or excuse compliance with existing FCC licensing obligations. Significant open questions remain about how the SCC will interact with the FCC's framework, including requirements governing its new VTSS license category.

Companies pursuing novel space activities that fall within both the FCC's framework and OSC's SCC eligibility criteria should read these two developments together and evaluate how each may apply to their planned operations.

Holland & Knight Can Help

For additional information about the Order, further notice of proposed rulemaking, OSC Space Commerce Certification or any other FCC proceedings relating to commercial space activities, please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's Satellite and Space Technology Team.

Notes

¹ Space Modernization for the 21st Century, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 26-47, SB Docket No. 25-306 (rel. July 23, 2026) (the Order).

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.