By Jonah Gold
During the 1960s and 70s, the United States and Soviet Union engaged in a “Space Race,” driven by an ideological rivalry that kept the world on edge. Now, well into the 21st century, a new “Space Race” is underway, primarily between the United States and China, with other notable participants. While still colored by ideology, the winner of this race stands to gain far more tangible economic, scientific, and military advantages than were dreamed of in the first space race.
Commercial actors are the primary participants in this new race and now drive the entire operational infrastructure. Most saliently, the growth of Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit (NGSO) constellations, such as those launched by SpaceX and Amazon Leo, stands to dramatically alter satellite communications; with each company planning to launch tens of thousands of satellites in the coming years as part of its home internet and direct-to-device (D2D) services. Additionally, the evolution of in-space servicing, assembling, and manufacturing (ISAM) is changing the type of requests the Commission receives. Companies no longer request licenses for simple satellite communications but are proposing complex and experimental schemes that could not have been predicted decades earlier. The Part 25 licensing framework, designed for an age of space that no longer exists, is unable to keep up with growing and changing demands.
Accelerating launches is a priority for the current administration, which has released several Executive Orders designed to promote the commercial space sector since returning to the White House. Commercial actors such as Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Amazon Leo have played an influential role in lobbying for the new federal rules.
As part of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) mission to modernize and accelerate the American space industry, the agency unanimously adopted a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. space and earth station licensing regulations during its July 2026 Open Meeting. This overhaul is expected to take effect in early 2027, though as of the writing of this article no formal sunset date for Part 25 has been released.
In adopting these rules, the FCC described American space superiority as critical to the United States’ future and determined that it must remain the ideal nation for space manufacturing, operations, and licensing. What follows is an overview of the recent Part 100 changes in the context of the larger mission of ensuring American space supremacy.
Assembly Line Licensing
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the Part 100 rule changes is the “licensing assembly line” process, which can be understood as two distinct changes. The first is a modular filing system, through which the FCC will only collect “necessary information” that will enable it to quickly identify applications in need of targeted review. Specifically, the rules allow for an active current Form 312 to be used across multiple licensing applications.
Additionally, the FCC has embraced a presumption of public interest posture when evaluating applications. Under this new posture, all applications will be evaluated with the presumption that the application meets its public interest obligations. Accordingly, if an application satisfies the certification requirements, it will be able to bypass more onerous review. However, the Commission has identified specific categories of applications that require additional scrutiny:
- An application fails to certify its compliance with an established requirement;
- An application requests waiver of a rule;
- An application applies for access to the U.S. market;
- An application reports foreign ownership;
- An application chooses to participate in a processing round;
- An application attempts to access a spectrum band the FCC has previously determined required additional technical requirements; and
- An application seeks access to spectrum in which coordination with federal operators in that band would be required for use.
The certification-based approach in Part 100 is a significant change from the narrative-heavy requirements of Part 25, under which applicants were often required to resubmit the same information with each application.
The second change is streamlined application processing, including standardized public notice timelines. The streamlined timeline can be understood in four steps:
- The FCC must either place a completed application on public notice or identify faults in the application that require correction within 30 days;
- A 15-day public notice period for space and Earth station applications begins;
- 10 days for opposition comments and another 5 for replies are afforded;
- There is a final 60-day post-public notice review period.
These established time periods are a noticeable difference from Part 25, under which geostationary-orbit-like applications were placed in a queue and considered in the order they were received, without a specific timeline, and NGSO-like applications were reviewed in groups based on filing dates under a processing round procedure. Part 25 application timelines would vary, with straightforward and uncontested applications for geostationary orbit (GSO) satellites taking around 6-9 months.
Beyond the “assembly line,” the FCC has adopted several other changes to the management of satellite applications, including the creation of two new licensing categories. The first is a new variable trajectory space station (VTSS) license category for systems that do not fit traditional GSO or NGSO framework. The second is a multi-orbit satellite system (MOSS) category, in which two or more types of satellite systems operate together under one call sign.
Surety Bonds
Another important change occurred regarding surety bond requirements. Under the old Part 25 rules, an approved application required the operator to post a surety bond within 30 days of the license grant. The amount varied by applicant based on formulas set forth in the Commission’s rules. Additionally, the applicant needed to meet a six-year milestone demonstrating deployment of 50% of the authorized satellites for NGSO systems or deploy a GSO satellite within five years of grant. This requirement was established as a key tool for the FCC to limit speculative applications, and to deter the storing of acquired spectrum.
Now, surety bonds have been eliminated entirely for GSO space stations and NGSO systems that do not participate in a processing round. Additionally, the FCC has established a mandatory requirement for satellite operators to share real-time ephemeris data with an approved space situational awareness (SSA) provider.
As the FCC argues, processing rounds are inherently voluntary and tying surety bonds to processing rounds requires applicants to evaluate the benefits of the processing rounds against the risks of posting bonds. Moreover, surety bonds may not be effective at curtailing the behavior they are intended to stop; after all, the companies that are in the best position to hoard spectrum are likely those that are large enough to easily absorb the cost. In the end, the rule may have had a disproportionate effect on smaller companies that lacked the financial flexibility to post bonds with unproven innovations.
For the NGSO systems in processing rounds that will be required to post bonds, there will be a flat fee of $10 million. This must be posted within 30 days of license grant; the amount will also decrease when certain deployment criteria are met, reaching zero when 90% of the deployment is completed.
How Does Part 100 Affect Operators?
The new rules create unique opportunities for both commercial operators and federal agencies. For commercial operators, they will provide a more predictable and expedited application process; with clearly defined parameters and deadlines. An applicant can be confident that its application will be approved even before submission. The streamlined process is designed to keep up with rapidly evolving innovations in satellite and space technology, limiting the risk of obsolete applications. The removal of bond requirements for GSOs or for applications not participating in NGSO processing rounds will eliminate a barrier to commercial space, providing an opportunity for smaller companies to potentially break into the market.
While the expedited process is expected to significantly improve the rate of commercial application approval, this acceleration could come at the expense of sufficient scrutiny of interference concerns by federal operators. Many issues regarding federal coordination and spectrum interference fail to materialize immediately; and with a shorter processing time, federal stakeholders may not be able to properly evaluate potential risks to their operations. By the time interference impacts become clear, the satellites will have already been approved, and while the FCC retains tools to revoke licenses, revocation of a significant number of licenses may cause even greater uncertainty than there was before.
Conclusion
The new Part 100 rules mark the beginning of a new chapter in American space regulation, and it is only the beginning. An additional Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has already been announced which will seek comments on experimental space licensing, intersatellite links, hosted payloads, and streamlined transfers. As the administration prioritizes commercial space growth, the FCC has fully embraced a “less is more” mentality, believing that a streamlined process is the right course in the 21st century.
Innovation is skyrocketing (pun intended), and technological advancements are happening every day. With accelerating demand for space-based services, it was timely for the FCC to refine its processes to avoid slowing down industry growth. However, the impact that these new rules could have on federal operators remains to be seen. Further, while some revised rules like the removal of surety bonds for most applicants seem poised to help smaller operators, it is likely that the largest companies will benefit the most from the streamlined process. The rules governing space are rapidly changing, and it is important for all operators whether big, small, or federal, to be aware.
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent.