The FCC Says EPFD Limits Are Over. The Rule That Replaces Them Still Has No Effective Date
The FCC's replacement for EPFD limits gets updated reference links on 7 December, but its key rule still has no effective date. What operators should know.
Published in the Federal Register on 5 November, a short Space Bureau notice at 91 FR 69725 looks like housekeeping. It updates a dataset. But that dataset is the working core of what is arguably the biggest change in US satellite sharing rules since EPFD limits were adopted at the ITU in 2000, and it arrives before the rule it serves.
EPFD stands for equivalent power flux density. The limits cap how much power a non-geostationary (NGSO) system may aim at the ground so that geostationary (GSO) networks are protected. Spectrum lawyers have argued over them for two decades. We have touched on them in our pieces on ITU filings and satellite internet licensing, but we have not yet set out where the US rules now stand. The short answer is that they are further from finished than the headlines suggest.
What the FCC decided in April
In the Report and Order, FCC 26-26, adopted on 30 April and released on 1 May, the Commission said the EPFD limits overprotect GSO networks in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6 and 19.7-20.2 GHz downlink bands. It claimed benefits that “may total well over $2 billion” and capacity gains of 100% to 700% using the same satellites. DLA Piper records that the vote was unanimous.
The new route has two limbs. An NGSO operator either certifies that it has a coordination agreement with every operational co-frequency GSO network, or files a compatibility showing for any network it has not coordinated with. That showing must meet four backstops. Throughput degradation, averaged over time, may not exceed 3% on any GSO reference link using adaptive coding and modulation (ACM). The absolute change in link availability may not exceed 0.1% on any reference link. Non-ACM reference links, such as video distribution, get a limit of -10.5 dB I/N for 80% of the time. And the system must keep a GSO-arc avoidance angle of at least 3 degrees.
The FCC refused to set aggregate limits across several NGSO systems, although SES and Eutelsat had pressed for further work on them, and it refused any grandfathering. The rules apply to current licensees, market access holders and pending applicants alike.
The part that is not in force
Here is the detail that matters most. The order took effect on 13 July 2026, except for 47 CFR 25.146(a)(3) and 25.289(a)(2). Those are the two provisions that create the alternative route and treat a compliant operator as having met its duty not to cause unacceptable interference. The Federal Register entry says they are “indefinitely delayed” until the FCC publishes an effective date, because they may carry information collection requirements needing review by the Office of Management and Budget.
The FCC opened that process with a Paperwork Reduction Act notice at 91 FR 57594, which names both sections and asks for comments by 9 November. A Federal Register search on 5 November found no effective date notice for either section.
So what binds operators today? Revised section 25.289 is live, including the duty in paragraph (b) for GSO and NGSO operators to coordinate in good faith in these bands. Paragraph (a)(1) keeps ITU EPFD compliance as a way to meet the interference obligation. The new route sits behind the delay.
This matters less for the two largest players than it sounds, and that is my inference from the order. Paragraph 9 records that the Bureau waived the EPFD limits for SpaceX on 9 January 2026, for the configuration it used in testing, with eight co-frequency beams and a 4-degree avoidance angle. Amazon received a similar waiver on 20 February. Everyone else waits.
Why a spreadsheet now carries legal weight
The reference links are the part lawyers should read. A compatibility showing must meet the backstops at every link in the set, and the FCC explains that one protection criterion on one link will often be the constraint. That “most sensitive link” then sets the operating parameters the system may use anywhere in the United States. In other words, a row in a dataset can cap the capacity of a whole constellation.
The FCC’s point is that this helps GSO operators, because links outside the dataset receive the same operating constraints. The Bureau also notes that actual protection “will often be greater” than the adopted levels. The reverse is that a GSO operator is not protected as such. It benefits from whichever link happens to bind.
The order adopted 328 initial links and told the Bureau to refine them. It sought comment in May, received nine comments and seven replies, and released DA 26-973 on 11 September. The notice added links supplied by GSO operators, took replacement Ka-band links proposed by an NGSO operator, removed links for networks outside the US or long out of service, and corrected Hispasat parameters. It also streamlined the dataset’s columns.
The contested call was on signal levels. Commenters pointed to non-ACM links with carrier-to-noise values of up to 18 dB. As I understand it, a higher figure tends to make a link more constraining, which is why this mattered. SpaceX proposed a 9.5 dB maximum and DIRECTV supported it for its broadcasting links. SES objected that some media distribution links are designed for high availability and use 12.6 dB. The Bureau called the higher figures “relative outliers on older networks” and adopted 9.5 dB.
It then declined broader changes, keeping the disputed 25-degree minimum elevation angle criterion. It added a sentence GSO lawyers will quote: the Commission “has never concluded” that a link receiving less than the adopted protection “would be nonviable in specific use cases”. I read that as a warning that a specific link’s survival is a matter for coordination, not for the rulebook.
The notice also says that operating NGSO systems “may be required to adjust their operations” to protect links added later. Anyone financing a constellation on the strength of a compatibility showing should treat that as a live regulatory risk.
What it does not change abroad
The ITU limits remain. The FCC relies on Article 22, No. 22.5CA of the Radio Regulations, which says the limits “may be exceeded on the territory of any country whose administration has so agreed”. Its position is that systems can exceed the limits over the US while respecting them over neighbours, using narrow beams with sharp roll-off. It will keep requiring international compliance from systems notified by the United States.
That is a defensible reading, and it means a US-only change for a global business. WRC-23 did not put EPFD on the WRC-27 agenda. It invited studies “without any regulatory consequences”. The FCC is unusually blunt about that process, complaining of “needless procedural roadblocks and delay tactics” in the ITU working party. It is a sharper tone than I would expect from a regulator that still needs other administrations’ goodwill, and it follows the same pattern as the 12.7 GHz decision, where the FCC also went its own way on the international table.
Who can still challenge this
DIRECTV filed a petition for reconsideration of the order on 12 June. I could not read the petition, and I found no decision on it. Before the vote DIRECTV had urged a wider avoidance angle, so I would expect that to feature, but that is an assumption. I found no court challenge to the order.
The September notice was made on delegated authority. Anyone aggrieved goes first to the full Commission under 47 CFR 1.115, within 30 days of public notice, and that step is “a condition precedent to judicial review”. When the clock started depends on whether this counts as a rulemaking document, where 47 CFR 1.4(b) uses Federal Register publication, or not, where it uses the release date of 11 September. I would take the cautious view and check the docket.
What I would watch
The first is the effective date notice. Comments close on 9 November, and until the FCC publishes a date, the route in section 25.146(a)(3) is not open to anyone.
The second is the first contested compatibility showing. While it is pending an operator may start on an unprotected, non-interference basis, so a dispute over the methodology will come quickly, and it will show how much weight the Bureau gives real-world measurement.
The third is WRC-27. The FCC hopes its record will be “a useful reference point” there. If other administrations follow under No. 22.5CA, the US carve-out starts to look like a template. If they do not, operators will run two sharing regimes at once.
Questions people actually ask
What are EPFD limits?
Equivalent power flux density limits cap the power a non-geostationary satellite system may direct at the ground, to protect geostationary networks. They were adopted at the ITU’s World Radiocommunication Conference in 2000 and sit in Article 22 of the Radio Regulations. The FCC incorporated them into its own rules.
Has the FCC abolished EPFD limits?
Not fully. On 30 April 2026 the FCC adopted an alternative route for the United States in FCC 26-26, but sections 25.146(a)(3) and 25.289(a)(2) were delayed pending Paperwork Reduction Act review. No effective date had been published by 5 November 2026. ITU limits still apply outside the US.
What is a GSO reference link?
It is an entry in an FCC dataset describing a typical geostationary link. An NGSO operator’s compatibility showing must meet the protection criteria at every link. The FCC adopted 328 initial links in April 2026, and an updated set in DA 26-973 takes effect on 7 December 2026.
What protection do geostationary operators get under the new rules?
Without a coordination agreement, an NGSO system must cause no more than 3% time-weighted degraded throughput on ACM links, no more than a 0.1% absolute change in availability, and no more than -10.5 dB I/N for 80% of the time on non-ACM links. It must also keep a 3-degree GSO-arc avoidance angle.
Do the FCC's changes apply outside the United States?
No. The FCC’s framework covers operations in the United States. It relies on Article 22, No. 22.5CA of the ITU Radio Regulations, under which limits may be exceeded on the territory of a country whose administration agrees. US-notified systems must still meet the limits elsewhere.
Have SpaceX and Amazon already been allowed to exceed EPFD limits?
Yes, by waiver. The Space Bureau granted SpaceX a US waiver on 9 January 2026 for operation with eight co-frequency beams and a 4-degree avoidance angle, and granted Amazon a similar waiver on 20 February 2026, according to the FCC’s order.
Anuj KumarEditor-in-Chief
Anuj Kumar is the founder of Legal Desire Media and publishes Fashion Law Journal and Space Law Journal.
Space Law Journal is a joint initiative of Legal Desire Media and Odyogeek. Spotted something we got wrong, or want to respond? Write to space@legaldesire.com.
