Stay Up to Date
Submit your email address to receive the latest industry and Aerospace America news.
The Federal Communications Commission today voted unanimously to overhaul its satellite licensing process, despite a request to postpone the vote by U.S. House space policy leaders.
FCC on July 1 published the Space Modernization Order outlining the changes, which include establishing “a licensing assembly line” to process applications for satellite licenses, potentially in batches as opposed to separate approvals for each satellite in a large constellation. The order is among several planned overhauls to U.S. space licensing that were prompted by various 2025 White House executive orders.
An FCC license is required for any satellite that will transmit or receive radio signals to communicate with operators on the surface for telemetry, tracking and command. However, the current licensing regulations contain “unnecessary and outdated rules,” the order reads, and the new framework would be easier to understand, especially for new entrants.
“We’re scrapping our old rules in their entirety and replacing them with better new ones,” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said before the vote, which was held during an open meeting at the commission’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. “This kind of ambition shouldn’t be taken for granted. Regulators tend to tinker around the edges; they don’t throw away the rulebook and rewrite it from scratch.”
At the meeting, the commissioners also approved a further notice of proposed rulemaking seeking additional public comment on various topics, including experimental applications and intersatellite links between spacecraft licensed in the U.S. and those licensed in other nations.
The Space Modernization Order replaces the longstanding Part 25 regulations with a new Part 100, permitting companies to seek “base” certifications for standard satellite parts and reserve detailed certifications for complex or unique parts, among other changes. It also creates a new “Variable Trajectory” license for spacecraft with changing paths or multi-orbit licenses.
Carr said in a letter accompanying the order that it provides “spectrum abundance” to support “our builders in space.”
The leadership of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has expressed disapproval about the scope of the order, a draft of which was first released in October. In February, U.S. Reps. Brian Babin (R-Tex.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) — the chairman and ranking member of the committee, respectively — sent a letter to Carr stating the order goes beyond FCC’s statutory purview of regulating “spectrum management or the prevention of harmful radiofrequency interference.”
Among their objections was that the order would require operators to “take all possible steps” to assess and mitigate collision risks, the letter reads. However, Congress has charged other agencies with launch and reentry licensing and “has never granted comparable authority for space operations, space safety, or orbital debris mitigation to the FCC.”
“When Congress has chosen to regulate private space activities, it has done so explicitly and unambiguously, assigning launch and reentry licensing authority to the Department of Transportation and remote sensing licensing authority to the Department of Commerce,” the letter states. “Congress has never granted comparable authority for space operations, space safety, or orbital debris mitigation to the FCC.”
Babin and Lofgren sent another letter Tuesday, saying they had received no response. They also requested FCC postpone today’s vote, a request that neither Carr nor the other two commissioners mentioned during the meeting.
“The Commission’s failure to respond is not only disappointing — it is unacceptable,” Babin and Lofgren wrote. “In the absence of responsive action, constructive dialogue, and a meaningful exchange of information on this matter, we must consider all appropriate legislative and oversight tools available to us.”
About paul brinkmann
Paul covers advanced air mobility, space launches and more for our website and the quarterly magazine. Paul joined us in 2022 and is based near Kennedy Space Center in Florida. He previously covered aerospace for United Press International and the Orlando Sentinel.
Related Posts
Stay Up to Date
Submit your email address to receive the latest industry and Aerospace America news.
Facts Only
* The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously to overhaul its satellite licensing process.
* The FCC published the Space Modernization Order on July 1.
* The order establishes a "licensing assembly line" for satellite license applications, allowing for batch processing.
* An FCC license is required for satellites transmitting or receiving radio signals for surface communication (telemetry, tracking, and command).
* The new framework replaces Part 25 regulations with a new Part 100.
* Part 100 permits "base" certifications for standard satellite parts and reserves detailed certifications for complex parts.
* A new "Variable Trajectory" license is created for spacecraft with changing paths or multi-orbit licenses.
* The FCC Chairman stated the changes provide "spectrum abundance."
* U.S. House representatives objected to the order's scope, citing concerns about authority over spectrum management and collision risk mitigation.
* Representatives asserted that Congress has assigned launch/reentry licensing to the Department of Transportation and remote sensing licensing to the Department of Commerce.
Executive Summary
The Federal Communications Commission unanimously voted to overhaul its satellite licensing process, despite requests from U.S. House space policy leaders to postpone the vote. The commission published the Space Modernization Order, which establishes a "licensing assembly line" to streamline applications and potentially process satellite licenses in batches rather than individually for large constellations. This order replaces existing Part 25 regulations with a new Part 100, permitting "base" certifications for standard satellite parts while reserving detailed certifications for complex ones, and introduces a new "Variable Trajectory" license for spacecraft with changing paths. The FCC Chairman stated the changes are intended to provide "spectrum abundance" for space builders by scrapping old rules and replacing them with a new framework designed to be easier for new entrants.
House Committee leadership objected to the scope of the order, arguing it exceeded the FCC's authority regarding spectrum management or interference prevention. They contended that Congress has explicitly assigned launch/reentry licensing to the Department of Transportation and remote sensing licensing to the Department of Commerce, suggesting the FCC lacks comparable authority over space safety or orbital debris mitigation. Furthermore, the committee members expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission's failure to respond to their concerns, leading them to request a postponement of the vote.
Full Take
The dynamic between regulatory action and legislative oversight reveals a tension point between agency expertise and Congressional delegation. The FCC's initiative—streamlining licensing through an assembly line and redefining certification standards—suggests a drive for efficiency in the rapidly evolving commercial space sector, framing the changes as necessary to support innovation, as evidenced by the stated goal of providing "spectrum abundance." However, the immediate legislative pushback highlights a fundamental constitutional or jurisdictional dispute regarding which branch holds ultimate authority over space operations, safety, and debris mitigation. The conflict centers on whether updating operational regulations falls within the FCC's statutory purview or requires explicit Congressional delegation beyond existing mandates given to other departments like the DOT and Commerce.
This pattern suggests that technological evolution often outpaces established legal frameworks, forcing regulatory bodies to assert new powers while legislative bodies attempt to reassert traditional boundaries. The refusal of the Commission to immediately address specific policy concerns raised by Congressional leadership underscores a potential disconnect where technical necessity is prioritized over comprehensive public consultation or immediate political accommodation during high-stakes rulemaking. The pattern implies that when agencies enact sweeping changes, they may operate under an assumption of necessary authority, which can be challenged when external checks on jurisdictional boundaries are invoked.
What assumptions about the scope of regulatory power govern these decisions? How does the prioritization of operational efficiency interact with the constitutional separation of powers concerning space safety and orbital debris mitigation? Does the framework implicitly favor rapid technological deployment over exhaustive legal clarity regarding risk management?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like standard reporting on a specific regulatory event, characterized by quoted statements from named officials and clear attribution of political maneuvering.