FCC Part 100, Round Two: Experimental Licences, a US Control Point and Who Gets a Vacated GSO Slot
The FCC's Part 100 further notice is out: an experimental space licence, a US control point for satellites and export control checks. Comments due 25 Nov.
When the FCC adopted its new Part 100 satellite rules in July, most of the attention went to the order itself: the 20-year licence term, the “licensing assembly line” and the rewritten milestone and bond rules. Attached to that order was a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and on 26 October 2026 it was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 67225. Publication starts the clock. Comments are due on 25 November 2026 and reply comments on 28 December 2026, in SB Docket No. 25-306.
The Further Notice is where the Commission parks the ideas it was not ready to adopt. Some are housekeeping. Several are not, and anyone holding or planning an FCC space licence, in the US or through market access from abroad, should read it with care.
Where the Further Notice sits
The full text of FCC 26-47 was adopted on 22 July 2026 and released the next day. The Report and Order replaced Part 25 with a new Part 100 and split it into subparts for applications (subpart B), operations (subpart C) and enforcement (subpart D). I covered the milestone and surety bond changes, and the Space Bureau’s 7 October transition guidance in DA 26-1080, in our piece on Part 100 milestones and surety bonds. As of that guidance, the Part 100 Effective Date had not yet been announced.
The Further Notice’s stated theme is “operational envelopes”. Instead of listing exact technical parameters and then filing modification after modification, an operator would ask for a broader envelope and move within it without returning to the Commission. That is a sensible direction for a regulator that licenses apparatus but now oversees constellations that change shape every month.
A new experimental licence for space
The most practical proposal is a dedicated experimental licence for space and earth stations. Today, satellite experiments are usually licensed under Part 5, the general experimental radio service that also covers terrestrial, aeronautical and maritime tests, while commercial systems go through Part 25. The FCC admits this “often creates confusion” and leads to “back and forth between the applicant and the Commission”.
Its preferred fix is a new subpart J in Part 5. Applications would still be filed under Part 5, but the Space Bureau, not the Office of Engineering and Technology, would do the initial processing, and the substantive space rules would sit in Part 100 with cross-references. The general Part 5 rules would continue to apply. That means a two-year licence term under section 5.71, extendable to five years with justification, and operation only on an unprotected and non-interference basis under section 5.84. An operator wanting interference protection would need a full Part 100 licence.
Two details stand out. First, the FCC proposes not to put these applications on public notice before grant, consistent with current experimental practice, although the filings would be publicly accessible. Second, applicants would certify that operations are only for “testing, experimentation, demonstration, or validation”, read broadly enough to cover upgrades to systems already in commercial service. The Commission also asks whether the Part 5 rule requiring trial devices to be “rendered inoperable or retrieved” after a market trial is “practical for a satellite”. It plainly is not.
The second half of the proposal is a conversion route. A licensee that has validated its satellite could ask to convert the experimental licence into a regular Part 100 authorisation, treated as a major modification on public notice. The FCC expects that requests not seeking more interference protection “could be granted quickly”.
I think this is the proposal most likely to be adopted in some form. The open question is public scrutiny. Experimental satellites can carry novel payloads, and the recent fight over Reflect Orbital’s test mirror, which I discussed in our piece on that licence, shows that a “test” satellite can attract a large record. A pathway with no pre-grant notice and a fast conversion to commercial status will draw objections from astronomers and competitors.
A US-based control point
The proposal with the widest international reach is short. The FCC “tentatively conclude[s]” that all space stations it licenses should maintain a US-based control point. Current rules only require a 24/7 point of contact able to cease transmissions; that contact need not be where the system is actually controlled. The Commission says a US control point would help licensees “communicate with one another and respond quickly to potentially hazardous events”, asks whether third-party control points could ease the burden, and tentatively concludes that neither international agreements nor statute stand in the way.
For many US operators this changes little. For companies that operate from mission control centres in Europe or Asia and hold FCC licences through US subsidiaries, it could mean new infrastructure or a contract with a US ground operator. The proposal refers to space stations the Commission licenses and does not say whether it would reach foreign-licensed systems holding US market access; commenters should press for clarity.
Export controls and cybersecurity
The FCC also asks whether Part 100 should expressly address export controls. It floats a certification that applicants will comply with the Export Administration Regulations and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations “in the design, manufacture, launch, operation, and control of their systems”, a duty to keep compliance records, and disclosure in foreign-ownership transactions of whether other agencies must approve the deal.
These are not new obligations; the EAR and ITAR already apply, as our export controls explainer sets out. What would change is that a licensing agency would require a certification about another agency’s regime, which raises the risk that a technical export violation becomes an FCC licensing problem too. The Commission itself invites comment on “any potential overlap” and “risk of duplication”.
On cybersecurity, the questions are open-ended: whether licensing should include requirements at all, and whether they would duplicate what other agencies collect. Congress has been looking at the issue separately, as I noted in our coverage of the SECURE Space Act and the Satellite Cybersecurity Act.
Space safety: ephemeris, trackability and de-orbit
The Report and Order requires licensees and market access holders to share ephemeris data and encourages updates every eight hours. The Further Notice asks whether to make that more frequent, whether operators doing rendezvous and proximity operations or servicing should share data more often and give the Commission advance notice before starting, and whether to phase in tighter cadences. It also proposes that the Space Bureau could certify private ephemeris tracking systems, so operators could choose among commercial space situational awareness providers rather than report to one provider picked by the FCC.
On trackability, Part 100 presumes an NGSO satellite trackable if it is 10 cm or larger in its smallest dimension. Citing NASA, the FCC says that figure is insufficient above 2,000 km and proposes a new presumption that MEO and GEO satellites are trackable only if each is at least 1 metre in its smallest dimension, excluding deployables. It asks whether spacecraft in highly elliptical orbit, cislunar space or beyond should have to certify trackability. It also seeks comment on requiring collision avoidance capability throughout a satellite’s life until re-entry, including during de-orbit, and on expanding space system safety reports to cover disposal failures and debris release.
The FCC also proposes to close its separate orbital debris docket because those issues are “better addressed” in this proceeding.
Vacated GSO slots and tradable priority
Two proposals deal with spectrum and orbital resources as assets. The first concerns geostationary satellites that are disposed of or relocated without a replacement. The FCC says it is currently “unclear” whether the vacated orbital location and spectrum can be applied for at once. It proposes that the resources become available for reassignment automatically unless the licensee has a replacement in place, or within a year has moved another in-orbit satellite there to use all the authorised frequencies; the Space Bureau would then open a filing window. It also asks whether two weeks or 30 days is more appropriate, and whether applications should open in ICFS at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the day after “the 30-day replacement window” without any public notice. The text uses both a one-year and a 30-day period, so commenters will need to pin down which the Commission means. The FCC ties the proposal to the risk that an unused ITU filing may be suspended or suppressed, a mechanism I explained in our piece on ITU spectrum and orbital slots.
The second asks whether NGSO operators could trade processing round status on a secondary market, which the FCC expects would be limited to entities that have deployed a system. Separately, it proposes that a processing round’s ten-year priority period start on 1 January of the following year, so a 2027 round would carry priority from 1 January 2028 to 1 January 2038, and asks whether processing round systems should meet performance benchmarks such as latency, signal to noise ratio or spectral efficiency.
The rest of the list
The Further Notice ranges widely. It asks whether user terminals and handsets should still be “earth stations”, or whether a new “Nomadic Terminals” category would fit better, and confirms that a drone may qualify as an earth station in motion. It asks about licensing inter-satellite links between US and foreign satellites, which it says “could pose security risks”, and about software-defined payloads shared by several operators. It proposes a single renewal standard, asks whether GSO licences could be renewed now that servicing can extend satellite life, and suggests deemed grants for more transfers of control, though not where foreign ownership exceeds 10%. It also asks about bright-line criteria to protect US radio astronomy sites.
What I would watch
The first is the control point proposal. It is a tentative conclusion, not a question, which signals intent. I would watch for comments from non-US operators and allied regulators on whether it reaches market access holders.
The second is the experimental licence. If adopted without pre-grant public notice and with a quick conversion route, it will become the default entry point for new space businesses in the US. Whether astronomy and debris concerns get any procedural hook will decide how controversial it becomes.
The third is the GSO reassignment rule. The inconsistency between one year and 30 days needs resolving, and fleet operators will push hard for the longer period.
The fourth is timing. Reply comments close on 28 December 2026. With the Part 100 Effective Date still to be set, operators will be complying with Part 25, transitioning to Part 100 and commenting on the next version of Part 100 at the same time.
Questions people actually ask
What is the FCC's Part 100 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
It is the follow-on proposal adopted with the FCC’s Space Modernization for the 21st Century order (FCC 26-47) on 22 July 2026. It seeks comment on further changes to the new Part 100 satellite licensing rules, including an experimental space licence, a US-based control point, export control certifications and space safety measures. It was published in the Federal Register on 26 October 2026.
When are comments due on the FCC Space Modernization Further Notice?
Comments are due on 25 November 2026 and reply comments on 28 December 2026. They are filed in SB Docket No. 25-306 through the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System.
What is the proposed FCC experimental licence for satellites?
The FCC proposes a dedicated experimental licence for space and earth stations in a new subpart J of Part 5, with initial processing by the Space Bureau. Licences would normally run for two years, extendable to five, on a non-interference basis, would not be placed on public notice before grant, and could later be converted into a full Part 100 licence through a major modification request.
Will FCC-licensed satellites need to be controlled from the United States?
Not yet. The FCC has tentatively concluded that all space stations it licenses should maintain a US-based control point and has asked for comment, including on whether third-party control points could reduce the burden. No rule has been adopted.
What happens to a vacated geostationary orbital slot under the proposal?
The FCC proposes that the orbital location and spectrum become available for reassignment automatically unless the licensee has already put a replacement in place, or within a year moves another in-orbit satellite there to use all the authorised frequencies. It also asks whether a shorter period, such as two weeks or 30 days, would be more appropriate.
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.
