Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal Space 
Launch Operations
Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules 
for Federal Earth Stations Communicating with 
Non-Federal Fixed Satellite Service Space Stations; 
and 
Federal Space Station Use of the 399.9-400.05 
MHz Band )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)ET Docket No. 13-115
RM-11341
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED 
RULEMAKING
Adopted:  September 21, 2023 Released:  September 22, 2023
Comments Date: [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comments Date: [60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission: Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioner Starks issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................3
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER.......................................................................................................13
A. Non-Federal Allocations for the 420-430 MHz, 2025-2110 MHz, 2200-2290 MHz, and 
5650-5925 MHz Bands ...................................................................................................................13
B. Licensing and Technical Rules for Space Launch Operations .......................................................39
1. Licensing Rules for Space Launch Operations ........................................................................40
a. Creation of New Rule Part 26............................................................................................40
b. Scope of Service ................................................................................................................45
c. Eligibility ...........................................................................................................................59
d. Shared Frequency Use and Cooperative Use of Facilities.................................................63
e. Licensing............................................................................................................................66
f. Authorized bandwidth........................................................................................................78
g. License Term and Renewal................................................................................................83
h. Application Process ...........................................................................................................89
i. Frequency Coordination...................................................................................................106
2. Technical Rules for Space Launch Operations ......................................................................123
a. 2200-2290 MHz Band......................................................................................................124
b. 2025-2110 MHz Band......................................................................................................138
c. Equipment Authorization.................................................................................................147
C. Expanded Federal Use of the non-Federal FSS and MSS Bands .................................................150
D. Federal Space Stations in the 399.9-400.05 MHz MSS Band ......................................................154Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
2IV. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING...................................................159
A. NASA Footnotes...........................................................................................................................159
B. Space Operation ............................................................................................................................164
C. Use of 2360-2395 MHz Band or Other Bands for Commercial Space Launch............................171
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS...............................................................................................................177
A. Ex Parte Presentations...................................................................................................................177
B. Comment Period and Filing Procedures .......................................................................................178
C. People with Disabilities ................................................................................................................179
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act ............................................................................................................180
E. Paperwork Reduction Act .............................................................................................................182
F. Congressional Review Act............................................................................................................184
G. Accessing Materials ......................................................................................................................185
H. Further Information.......................................................................................................................187
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES......................................................................................................................188
APPENDIX A FINAL RULES
APPENDIX B FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C LIST OF COMMENTERS
APPENDIX D PROPOSED RULES
APPENDIX E INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The United States has a long and proud history of space exploration and development.  
The Federal government took the lead, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
and other Federal agencies launching both manned and unmanned spaceflights to conduct various 
missions.  However, the private sector now plays an increasingly vital role in these efforts, serving both 
commercial and government interests.  To facilitate growth of the commercial space industry, the 
Commission has worked diligently to ensure commercial space launch companies have access to the 
necessary radio spectrum to communicate reliably with their launch vehicles before, during, and after 
takeoff.  Yet there is still room for improvement, to enhance and streamline access to the necessary 
spectrum for commercial space launches.
2. Today, we take further steps towards establishing a spectrum allocation and licensing 
framework that will provide regulatory certainty and improved efficiency for commercial space launch 
operations.  These steps will promote continued innovation and investment in the United States 
commercial space launch industry.  Specifically, we adopt a new secondary allocation in the 2025-2110 
MHz band for non-Federal space operations, remove the restriction on use of the 2200-2290 MHz 
secondary non-Federal space operation allocation to four specific sub-channels to make the entire 2200-
2290 MHz band available, add a non-Federal secondary mobile allocation to the 2200-2290 MHz band, 
and adopt licensing and technical rules for space launch operations.  Additionally, we amend the 
allocation for the 399.9-400.05 MHz band to permit the deployment of Federal space stations.  We also 
seek further comment on whether to adopt licensing and operating rules for payload activities as well as 
on modifying our existing 2360-2395 MHz space launch rules and on possible additional licensing 
provisions for sub-orbital launch vehicles.  These actions will encourage the continued development of a 
robust U.S. commercial space sector to the benefit of national interests in security, prosperity, and 
science.
II. BACKGROUND
3. Commercial space launch entities continue to proliferate and are increasingly involved in 
all aspects of U.S.-based space activities, including transportation of cargo and people into space, orbital 
launches to place satellites into space, and suborbital launches.  Prior to 2017, the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) had never licensed more than 20 launch and reentry operations within a given year, 
yet there were 74 such operations licensed in 2022 and there are projected to be over 100 launch and Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
3reentry operations per year from 2024 onward.1  Many of these launches will continue to utilize Federal 
spaceports, but commercial entities have also established non-Federal spaceports for the exclusive use of 
one launch provider or for any commercial launch licensed by the FAA.2  
4. Five frequency bands have commonly been used for communications with and tracking 
of space launch vehicles: 420-430 MHz, 2025-2110 MHz, 2200-2290 MHz, 2360-2395 MHz, and 5650-
5925 MHz.3  The 420-430 MHz band has been used for sending flight termination commands to the 
launch vehicle, if necessary, during the launch.  The flight termination signal link must be extremely 
reliable to avoid endangering lives from a launch vehicle that has gone astray.  The 2025-2110 MHz band 
has been used during some space launches to send control signals to guide the launch vehicle boosters to a 
controlled landing so that they may be reused.  The 2200-2290 MHz band has been used to send telemetry 
data from the launch vehicle to the controllers on the ground.  Telemetry is diagnostic information, 
transmitted from the launch vehicle to ground controller stations during the flight, which allows the 
ground controller station to track the performance of the launch vehicle.  Three frequencies in the 2360-
2395 MHz band are available for telemetering and associated telecommand operations of expendable and 
reusable launch vehicles.4  The 5650-5925 MHz band has been used to support launch vehicle radar 
tracking.  Oftentimes, a transponder is placed on the launch vehicle that transmits a signal in this band in 
response to the radar tracking signal to allow more accurate tracking of the launch vehicle.
5. An allocation indicates an entry in the Table of Frequency Allocations5 of a given 
frequency band for the purpose of its use by one or more terrestrial or space communications services 
under certain conditions.6  Spectrum allocations in the U.S. Table may be established for Federal use, 
non-Federal use, or shared Federal/non-Federal use, and can be either primary or secondary.  Stations of a 
service with a secondary allocation are entitled to protection from stations operating without an allocation 
but may not cause harmful interference to, and must accept interference from, stations of a primary 
service.7
6. Because several of the frequency bands used to support commercial space launches do 
not have provisions in the Table of Allocations for non-Federal access to the allocations, the Commission 
cannot license commercial entities to use these bands on an interference-protected basis during space 
launches.8  Instead, the Commission grants space launch providers special temporary authority (STA) 
1 See Federal Aviation Administration, Licenses, Permits, and Approvals (last visited July 28, 2023), 
https://www.faa.gov/space/licenses.
2 See Federal Aviation Administration, Active Licenses, 
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/ (last visited July 28, 2023); Federal Aviation 
Administration, U.S. Spaceports (June 2020), 
https://www.faa.gov/space/additional_information/faq/media/Spaceport_Map_June_2020.pdf.
3 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules for Federal Earth Stations Communicating with Non-Federal 
Fixed Satellite Service Space Stations, ET Docket No. 13-115, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of 
Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd 6698, 6727-28, 6730, paras. 76, 79, 85 (2013) (NPRM).  Launch vehicles, commonly known as 
rockets, are used for delivering payloads, such as satellites and spacecraft, into space.  The Commission’s rules 
define spacecraft as “a man-made vehicle which is intended to go beyond the major portion of the Earth’s 
atmosphere.”  47 CFR § 2.1.
4 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US276; 47 CFR § 87.303(d)(1).
5 The Table of Frequency Allocations comprises the International Table and the United States Table of Frequency 
Allocations (U.S. Table).  The International Table is described in 47 CFR § 2.104 and the U.S. Table is described in 
47 CFR § 2.105.
6 See, e.g., ITU Radio Regulations, Vol. 1, No. 1.16 (2020); 47 CFR § 2.1.
7 47 CFR § 2.105(c)(2).
8 NTIA regulates the use of spectrum with Federal allocations and the Commission regulates use of spectrum with 
non-Federal allocations.  Generally, if there is no non-Federal radio service allocation for a frequency band, non-
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
4under the Part 5 experimental licensing rules to use these frequencies.9  These STAs allow the space 
launch providers to use the spectrum allocated for Federal use on a non-interference basis.  To enable 
successful coexistence during launches, the Commission coordinates use of the spectrum with the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which consults with affected 
Federal agencies.  These experimental STAs are valid for a single launch and expire after six months.  
The STAs have included pre-launch communications operations and communications with the space 
launch vehicle and payload during orbital and reentry phases of the operations.  These STAs are issued 
with the condition that any future launches by the grantees would be considered on a case-by-case basis 
and that there is no expectation that experimental STAs for future launches would be approved.
7. Seeking to improve this situation by providing greater clarity and predictability for 
commercial space launch providers, the Commission began this proceeding in 2013 with a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI).10  The NPRM proposed to provide a primary 
allocation of spectrum in the 420-430 MHz, 2200-2290 MHz, and 5650-5925 MHz bands for use during 
commercial space launches.11  For the 420-430 MHz band, the NPRM sought comment on adding a 
primary non-Federal Aeronautical Mobile allocation to the U.S. Table to permit commercial entities to 
transmit self-destruct signals (i.e., flight termination signals) from ground controllers to launch vehicles, 
when necessary.12  For the 2200-2290 MHz band, the NPRM sought comment on alternative proposals to 
either add a primary non-Federal Space Operation allocation to the U.S. Table or add this allocation as a 
footnote to the U.S. Table.13  In both of these proposals, the allocation would restrict use of the band to 
the 2207-2219 MHz, 2270.5-2274.5 MHz, and 2285-2290 MHz portions of the band, and use of the band 
would be limited to channels with bandwidth of less than 5 MHz.14  For the 5650-5925 MHz band, the 
NPRM sought comment on alternative proposals to either add a primary Non-Federal Radiolocation 
allocation to the U.S. Table or add this allocation as a footnote to the U.S. Table.15  In both of these 
proposals, the allocation would restrict use of the band to transmission of radar signals to track launch 
vehicles.16
8. The NPRM also addressed a 2012 NTIA request to change a footnote in the U.S. Table to 
enable Federal space stations to operate in the 399.9-400.05 MHz Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) band.17  
The footnote restricts Federal earth stations in the band to communicating only with non-Federal space 
stations.  According to NTIA, removing this restriction will allow some applications to be shifted from 
Federal stations may not operate in that band.  However, the Commission may authorize non-Federal users to use 
Federal frequencies on a non-interference basis in bands with only Federal allocations after coordination with NTIA.  
See 47 CFR § 2.102(c).
9 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 303, 307, 308, 309.
10 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules for Federal Earth Stations Communicating with Non-Federal 
Fixed Satellite Service Space Stations, ET Docket No. 13-115, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of 
Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd 6698 (2013) (NPRM).
11 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 6727-31, paras. 76-87 (2013).
12 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 6727-28, para. 78.
13 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 6728, para. 79.  The Space Operation Service is a radiocommunication service concerned 
exclusively with the operation of spacecraft, in particular space tracking, space telemetry, and space telecommand. 
47 CFR § 2.1.
14 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 6728, para. 79.
15 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 6731, para. 87.
16 Id.
17 See Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, to Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, July 10, 2012, ET 
Docket 13-115 (NTIA US319 Letter).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
5the Argos satellite system operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to 
a new satellite network in the 399.9-400.05 MHz band.18
9. The NOI sought comment broadly on the future spectrum needs of the commercial space 
sector.19  The Commission received fifteen comments and four reply comments in response to the NPRM 
and NOI.20
10. The Commission’s next step in this proceeding was in 2021, when it issued a Report and 
Order (R&O) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM).21  The R&O adopted a non-Federal 
allocation for the 2200-2290 MHz band for use during commercial space launches.22  As advised by 
NTIA, the allocation was made secondary rather than primary.23  The allocation was added as a footnote 
to the U.S. Table, US96, that limits use of the allocation to pre-launch testing and space launch 
operations, requires coordination with NTIA prior to each launch, and limits non-Federal use to the 
2208.5-2213.5 MHz, 2212.5-2217.5 MHz, 2270-2275 MHz, and 2285-2290 MHz portions of the 2200-
2290 MHz band.24  Use of the allocation is not restricted to Federal launch ranges.25
11. The FNPRM sought comment on a number of proposals to clarify and enhance non-
Federal access to the spectrum necessary for commercial space launches.  The FNPRM:
•sought comment on the definition of space launch operations;26
•sought comment to refresh the record on the allocations for the 420-430 MHz and 
5650-5925 MHz bands that were proposed in the NPRM, given that the apparent need 
for access to these bands has diminished since the NPRM was issued in 2013;27
•sought comment on whether to add a co-primary non-Federal space operation (Earth-
to-space) allocation for the 2025-2110 MHz band to the U.S. Table without any 
restriction on where licensed launches may occur;28
•sought comment on whether to enhance the allocation for the 2200-2290 MHz band 
by adding a secondary Mobile Service allocation as a footnote to the U.S. Table, 
removing the restriction limiting use of the band to the four identified subbands, and 
18 Id.
19 Space NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 6731-32, paras. 88-90.
20 We received comments from the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC), Aerospace 
Industries Association, Bigelow Aerospace, LLC (Bigelow), Boeing Company (Boeing), Commercial Spaceflight 
Federation (CSF), Comsearch, EchoStar Satellite Operating Corp. and Hughes Network Services, LLC (EchoStar), 
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC), Lockheed Martin Corp. (Lockheed), Marcus Spectrum 
Solutions (Marcus), New Mexico Spaceport Authority (NMSA), Orbital Sciences Corporation (now Northrop 
Grumman), Satellite Industry Association, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and XCOR Aerospace.  We 
received reply comments from Boeing, Engineers for the Integrity of the Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum, 
FWCC, and the Satellite Industry Association.
21 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules for Federal Earth Stations Communicating with Non-Federal 
Fixed Satellite Service Space Stations, ET Docket No. 13-115, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd 7764 (2021) (R&O and FNPRM).
22 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7769-80, paras. 11-36.
23 Id. at para. 20.
24 Id. at para. 22.
25 Id. at paras. 29-31.
26 Id. at para. 60-65.
27 Id. at paras. 38-41, 55-59.
28 Id. at paras. 42-48.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
6upgrading the allocation from secondary to primary;29
•sought comment on proposed service rules for the 420-430 MHz, 2025-2110 MHz, 
2200-2290 MHz, and 5650-5925 MHz bands, including licensing and technical rules 
and coordination procedures, for use of the spectrum for commercial space launch 
operations;30
•sought comment on authorizing communications between space launch vehicles and 
other space stations, including satellites;31
•sought comment on expanding Federal use of the non-Federal FSS and MSS bands;32
•sought comment to refresh the record on enabling more robust Federal use of the 
399.9-400.05 MHz band;33 and
•sought comment broadly on the future needs of the commercial space industry.34
12. The Commission received 29 comments and 21 reply comments in response to the 
FNPRM.35
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
A. Non-Federal Allocations for the 420-430 MHz, 2025-2110 MHz, 2200-2290 MHz, 
and 5650-5925 MHz Bands
13. In this Report and Order, we continue our efforts to provide regulatory certainty and 
additional spectrum to promote innovation and investment in the United States commercial space launch 
industry.  Taking into account the record, we find sufficient support and justification for adopting an 
allocation for the 2025-2110 MHz band and expanding the previously adopted 2200-2290 MHz band 
allocation.  Given that use of the 420-430 MHz, 2360-2395 MHz, and 5650-5925 MHz bands remains 
limited, we are not convinced there is need for new allocations for any of these bands at this time.
14.Allocation for the 420-430 MHz band.  The 420-430 MHz band is used during launches 
from Federal launch sites to transmit a flight termination signal to a launch vehicle, resulting in its self-
destruction if necessary.36  The initial NPRM received minimal feedback, with most commenters 
29 Id. at paras. 49-54.
30 Id. at paras. 60-138.
31 Id. at para. 145.
32 Id. at paras. 146-51.
33 Id. at paras. 152-56.
34 Id. at para. 157.
35 We received comments from AFTRCC, Aerospace Industries Association, Astroscale U.S. Inc., Axiom Space 
Inc., Atmos Space, Sierra Space Corp., Scout Inc. (Industry Participants), Axiom Space, Inc. (Axiom), BlackSky 
Global LLC (BlackSky), Boeing, CTIA, Department of Commerce (DoC), Department of Defense (DoD), EchoStar, 
EIBASS, Industry Coalition Response (ICR), Iridium Communications Inc. (Iridium), Myriota PTY. LTD. 
(Myriota), NASA, National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), NCTA, NTIA, Relativity Space, Inc. (Relativity), 
Rocket Lab USA, Inc. (Rocket), Satellite Industry Association (SIA), Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE), 
Spaceflight Inc., SpaceX, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), United Launch Alliance, LLC (ULA), Verizon, Virgin 
Galactic Holdings, Inc. (Virgin Galactic), and Wi-Fi Alliance.  We received reply comments from AFTRCC, Astra 
Space, Inc., AT&T, Axiom, Boeing, Consortium for the Execution of Rendezvous and Servicing (CONFERS), 
CTIA, EIBASS, Fleet Space Technologies Pty. Ltd., Globalstar Inc., Industry Participants, Momentus Inc., Myriota, 
Northrop Grumman, Open Technology Institute at New America and Public Knowledge, Spaceflight Inc., SpaceX, 
TechFreedom, T-Mobile, ULA, and Verizon.
36 This signal is sent if the launch vehicle strays off course and poses a danger to a populated area.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
7disagreeing that an allocation is necessary.  However, commenters did highlight that the need for an 
allocation for the band may change as launches begin occurring outside Federal ranges.  Therefore, the 
FNPRM sought further comment on whether to adopt a primary non-Federal Aeronautical Mobile 
allocation for this band.
15. While there was support on the record for adding this allocation, commenters differed in 
their suggested use of the band.  Boeing suggest that the Commission restrict use of the band to only pre-
launch testing and launches to prevent ancillary uses from interfering with safety-of-life transmissions.37  
The United Launch Alliance (ULA), the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), and the Industry 
Coalition Response (ICR), however, support flexible use of the band beyond the proposed self-destruct 
transmissions.38  Further, AIA suggests that the allocation maintain flexibility as operations change and 
coordinated use of the band be managed by a third-party.39  ULA also claims that there are other flight-
termination solutions that are already being put in place.
16. Federal incumbents in the band also had differing opinions on adding the allocation to the 
band.  NASA supports the allocation, if use of the band is limited and Federal incumbents are properly 
protected.40  The Department of Defense (DoD) does not oppose adopting such an allocation; however it 
recognizes that high power radar systems across the country could interfere with the reception of 
termination signals.41
17.  We conclude not to adopt a primary non-Federal Aeronautical Mobile allocation for the 
420-430 MHz band.  The FCC has not received any STAs to use this band during space launches, as most 
current launch facilities have Federal systems in place for flight-termination purposes.  Additionally, as 
ULA correctly observes, alternative flight-termination solutions for errant launches are already being 
implemented.  For these reasons, and in light of the present and potential future limitations on use of the 
band raised by commenters, we are not adopting the proposed allocation.
18.Allocation for the 2025-2110 MHz band.  The 2025-2110 MHz band is currently 
allocated for both Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile uses.  The Broadcast Auxiliary Services 
(BAS) make up most of the non-Federal use of the band and share the band with the Cable Television 
Relay Service (CARS) and the Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS).  The band is also 
allocated on a primary basis for Federal space operation, Earth exploration satellite, and space research 
uses.42  While Federal use of the band is allocated on a co-primary basis, Federal use must not constrain 
BAS, CARS, and LTTS deployment.43  The 2025-2110 MHz band also includes primary Federal fixed 
and mobile allocations with use restricted to the military services, in order to facilitate relocation of 
military operations from the 1755-1780 MHz band.44  Federal use of the band has continued to increase, 
but coordination with non-Federal users has been successful.  This success is due in large part to the 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) created by broadcast incumbents and the Federal users.45  The 
Commission has issued many STAs in this band allowing space launch operations to transmit control 
signals to launch vehicles.  The FNPRM sought comment on adding a co-primary non-Federal space 
37 Boeing Comments at 6.
38 ULA Comments at 25; AIA Comments at 1-2; Northrop Reply at 13; ICR Comments at 2-3.
39 AIA Comments at 1-2.
40 NTIA/NASA Comments at 11.
41 NTIA/DoD Comments at 20.
42 47 CFR § 2.106.
43 47 CFR § 2.106 footnotes US92, US346.
44 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US92.
45 See Society of Broadcast Engineers, DoD, Broadcasters Agree on Spectrum Sharing Arrangement for Select 
Military Bases (Nov. 21, 2022), https://sbe.org/dod-spectrum-sharing/.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
8operation (Earth-to-space) allocation to the 2025-2110 MHz band, in order to provide the space launch 
industry’s increased use of the band with regulatory certainty.46
19. In the FNPRM, we recognized that the 2200-2290 MHz band was allocated for Space 
Operations under restrictions intended to facilitate coordination with existing Federal users.47  We 
therefore sought comment on the necessity for similar restrictions to be included in the proposed 2025-
2110 MHz allocation.48  There was overwhelming support on the record for adopting the proposed 
allocation.49  While there was disagreement on the type of restrictions that should be adopted, all 
commenters were in agreement that any potential space launch operations in the band must be 
coordinated with all incumbents.50  Boeing supports allocating operations to the entire band but suggests 
restricting those operations to only telecommand uplink transmissions from ground control stations to 
space launch vehicles.51  The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), DoD, and NCTA also support 
allocating the band strictly for telecommand uplink transmissions from ground controller stations to space 
launch vehicles.52  NASA supports allowing space launch providers to transmit command signals to 
launch vehicles for recovery and retrieval purposes.53  SpaceX claims that commercial launch operations 
need spectrum for uplink operations, which are generally performed in the 2025-2110 MHz band.54  
However, SpaceX also believes the allocation should be expanded to cover the recovery of vehicles and 
communications involving cargo and crew delivery to inhabitable space stations.55  Companies such as 
Spaceflight, Axiom, Astroscale, and Sierra Space suggest that spacecraft engaged in rendezvous and 
proximity operations (RPO) and spacecraft whose primary purpose is to deploy other spacecraft 
(described as ”payload deployment operations”) be among the operations included in the allocation of the 
band.  Spaceflight argues that an allocation for these services, which currently operate without any 
official allocation, would alleviate them from having to undergo the burdensome and repetitive STA 
process.56  However, Boeing believes that a second FNPRM can better address the potential to expand the 
types of operations authorized under this proposed allocation.57
20. Most of the proposed restrictions on use of the proposed allocation came from broadcast 
interests.  NAB and the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) express concern for further increasing use 
of a band that is crucial for broadcast auxiliary services.58  To address these concerns, NAB, SBE, and the 
Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS) believe commercial 
space launch entities should be subject to the coordination criteria established in the SBE-DoD MOU.59  
46 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd 7784, at para 48.
47 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd 7784, at para 48.
48  Id.
49 ULA Comments at 26; Boeing Comments at 3; Relativity Comments at 3; ICR Comments at 1; Rocket Labs 
Comments at 1.
50 ULA Comments at 26; SpaceX Comments at 4-5; Aerospace Industries Association Comments at 1; Society of 
Broadcast Engineers Comments at 15-16; NCTA Comments at 6.
51 Boeing Comments at 6.
52 NAB Comments at 6-7; NTIA/DoD Comments at 20-22; NCTA Comments at 6.
53 NTIA Comments at 11.
54 SpaceX Reply at 6-7.
55 SpaceX Comments at 4-5.
56 Spaceflight Comments at 8-9.
57 Boeing Reply at 3-4.
58 SBE Comments at 1; NAB Comments at 3.
59 BAS Comments at 7; EIBASS Comments at 4-5; SBE Comments at 15-16.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
9As EIBASS points out, the MOU’s 0.5 dB noise threshold degradation metric will require any newcomer 
to ensure they will not cause interference before operating.60  SpaceX supports using this criterion, so 
long as it facilitates coordination efforts in the band.61  SBE claims that as part of this coordination, its 
frequency and local market coordinator should be involved in frequency coordination studies.62  NCTA 
supports using SBE’s database of BAS facilities for frequency coordination studies.63  EIBASS suggests 
that any space launch site within 100 miles of an ENG-RO site should require an engineering study and 
that this study be provided to the BAS licensee.64  As part of this coordination, SBE and NAB propose for 
space launch operations in the band to be limited to specified geographic sites and pre-licensing 
coordination.65  NCTA supports the limited site restriction, because a fixed site approach would simplify 
coordination.66  EIBASS, however, believes an uplink licensee should be allowed to operate anywhere if 
it can meet the protection criteria.67  SpaceX agrees that demonstrating protection of incumbents through 
MOU criteria undermines the need for specified launch sites or pre-licensing coordination, adding that a 
fixed site approach risks slowing down innovation without any clear benefit.68  The ULA and Boeing 
claim that the dynamic nature of space launches renders pre-licensing coordination highly unlikely.69  
Comments from Federal users generally did not address a fixed site approach, but DoD recognized the 
nature of the congested band may result in such an approach being necessary.70 
21. According to NTIA, given the important missions of Federal agencies in the band it is 
important for all Federal users to maintain priority and for all commercial launches to remain subject to 
prior coordination.71  DoD notes that their operations for space and terrestrial systems operate with 
restrictions to protect BAS and CARS licensees and that the continuing relocation of DoD operations 
from the AWS-3 band will further increase the density of spectrum use in the band.72  DoD recommends 
that non-Federal space operations be established on a secondary basis instead of creating a primary 
allocation.73  If a primary allocation for commercial space operations is adopted, DoD recommends that a 
footnote be adopted placing the same types of restrictions on these operations as apply to the Federal 
allocations in the band.  NOAA states that limiting non-Federal allocations in the band to a secondary 
basis is critical to ensuring protection of existing Federal operations and NASA also does not support 
60 EIBASS Reply at 1-2.
61 SpaceX Reply at 4.
62 SBE Comments at 15-16.
63 NCTA Comments at 6.
64 EIBASS Reply at 3.
65 SBE Comments at 17; NAB Comments at 5.
66 NCTA Comments at 6.
67 EIBASS Reply at 3.
68 SpaceX Reply at 4.
69 ULA Reply at 5-6; Boeing Comments at 18-19.
70 NTIA/DoD Comments at 22.
71 NTIA Comments at 4.
72 NTIA/DoD Comments at 21.  Federal operations in the AWS-3 uplink band (1755-1780 MHz) have been 
relocated and the band has been auctioned to make the band available for commercial services.  Amendment of the 
Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695- 1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-
2180 MHz Bands, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4610, 4629, para. 37 (2014); Auction 97: Advanced Wireless 
Services (AWS-3), https://www.fcc.gov/auction/97.  
73 NTIA/DoD Comments at 21.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
10providing a primary allocation for commercial space operations.74  
22. We conclude that adopting a non-Federal secondary allocation for space launch 
operations with the same coordination requirements that currently apply to Federal users will sufficiently 
address the regulatory needs of the commercial space launch industry while ensuring the protection of 
incumbents.  This spectrum is regularly used by commercial space launch providers and granting 
regulatory certainty will boost investment and promote innovation in this industry.  Adopting this 
allocation will eliminate the time and expense required for seeking STAs, which also often lapse due to 
the need to reschedule launches, thus requiring multiple STAs per launch.75  Based on our experience with 
STAs in this band, we believe the existing coordination requirements, already proven to facilitate 
frequency re-use and coordination, will sufficiently protect incumbents and readily grant launch providers 
access to spectrum.  We appreciate the concerns raised by the Federal agencies and are following their 
suggestion to adopt a secondary allocation instead of a primary allocation as proposed.  While Federal 
space operations have primary allocation status, the restrictions on Federal operations to protect the long-
established BAS and CARS licensees in the band in effect relegate the Federal space launch activities as 
secondary to these Commission licensees.  As the commercial space launch providers will also have to 
coordinate with these terrestrial licensees, a secondary allocation appears to be more appropriate at this 
time.76  The coordination framework currently in place for Federal space operations has permitted a high 
degree of spectrum efficiency and reuse for non-Federal and Federal operations.77  Adopting a secondary 
non-Federal Space Operation allocation for the 2025-2110 MHz band will allow us to develop effective 
rules for the space launch industry, no longer requiring the lengthy experimental rules process.  Hence, 
we are implementing this secondary non-Federal Space Operation (Earth-to-space) allocation to the 2025-
2110 MHz band in the U.S. Table.  This allocation will be limited to space launch telecommand 
transmissions and will require commercial space launch providers to coordinate with non-Federal 
terrestrial licensees (i.e., BAS, LTTS, and CARS) and NTIA.  
23. While there was support on the record for making the band available for use for on-orbit 
service (OOS) and RPO,78 we agree with Boeing that the increased use of the band from the ongoing 
relocation of Federal operations provides reason to exercise caution in authorizing any additional non-
Federal space operations.79  We therefore will address these operations through separate action, taking 
into account also the record developed in response to our Notice of Inquiry on In-space Servicing, 
Assembly, and Manufacturing.80  We also do not agree with NAB and SBE that space launch operations 
in the band should be limited to specified geographic sites because the coordination requirement we are 
adopting will ensure BAS, LTTS, CARS licensees in all geographic areas are protected from harmful 
interference.81
24.Allocation for the 2200-2290 MHz Band.  The 2200-2290 MHz band is used for launch 
telemetry—i.e., sending diagnostic information from the space launch vehicle to ground controller 
74 NTIA/NOAA Comments at 27; NTIA/NASA Comments at 11.
75 ULA Comments at 13.
76 While we are adopting a secondary non-Federal Space Operation allocation for this band at this time, we remain 
open to the possibility of upgrading the allocation to primary status at a later date as the commercial space launch 
industry continues to develop and we gain experience with the licensing framework and coordination process we are 
adopting.
77 SBE Comments at 8-10.
78 Axiom Comments at 3; Astroscale U.S. Inc., Axiom Space Inc., Atomos Space, Sierra Space Corp., Scout Inc. 
Comments at 6 (RPO Proponents); Momentus Inc. Reply at 1-2.
79 Boeing Reply at 3-5.
80 Facilitating Capabilities for In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing, IB Docket No. 22-272, Notice of 
Inquiry, FCC 22-66 (2022).  
81 SBE Comments at 17; NAB Comments at 5; EIBASS Reply at 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
11stations during the launch to allow tracking of the performance of the launch vehicle.  The 2200-2290 
MHz band is heavily used by DoD and other Federal agencies and has primary Federal Space Operation, 
Earth Exploration Satellite, Fixed, Mobile, and Space Research allocations.82  The R&O added a non-
Federal secondary Space Operation (space-to-Earth) allocation to the band.83  Use of this allocation is 
limited by an Allocation Table footnote to pre-launch testing and space launch operations and 
coordination with NTIA is required prior to each launch.84  In addition, non-Federal space operations are 
restricted to the 2208.5-2213.5 MHz, 2212.5-2217.5 MHz, 2270-2275 MHz, and 2285-2290 MHz 
portions of the band.85
25. The FNPRM proposed to remove the restriction on non-Federal use of the new Space 
Operation allocation to the four sub-bands.86  The FNPRM noted that recent space launches that have 
accessed this band for telemetry using STAs have used different portions of the band than these four sub-
bands.  As these other channels had been successfully coordinated with NTIA, the FNPRM explained that 
it may be possible to offer additional flexibility to launch operators rather than maintaining this limitation.  
Because of the heavy use that Federal agencies make of this band, the FNPRM cautioned that use of this 
band for launches will still need to be coordinated with NTIA on a launch-by-launch basis.  The FNPRM 
also sought comment on whether non-Federal use of the band should continue to be limited to channels 
with a necessary bandwidth of 5 megahertz.87   
26. The FNPRM also sought comment on upgrading the secondary Space Operations 
allocation to a primary allocation noting that this would place commercial launch operators on an equal 
footing with other users of the band and provide greater certainty to incentivize investment as the 
commercial space industry continues to expand with more frequent launches, privately developed launch 
facilities, and manned space flights.88  The FNPRM explained that even if the primary allocation is 
adopted, individual launches would still have to be coordinated with NTIA because of the heavy existing 
Federal use of the band. 
27. The FNPRM also sought comment on adding a secondary Mobile allocation to the 2200-
2290 MHz band.89  The FNPRM noted that both the International Table and the Federal Table include a 
Mobile Service allocation for this band allowing aeronautical mobile use.  According to the FNPRM, 
adding a Mobile allocation would harmonize the allocation status and the applicable service rules of the 
2200-2290 MHz and 2360-2395 MHz bands as three frequencies in the 2360-2395 MHz band are 
available for both Federal and non-Federal use for telemetry and telecommand of launch and reentry 
vehicles under a Mobile allocation and our Part 87 rules.90  The FNPRM also asked whether use of the 
Mobile allocation should be subject to the same restrictions that apply to the non-Federal Space 
Operations allocation for the band and whether it should be subject to the same restrictions that apply to 
Federal users—i.e., should it be restricted to line-of-sight use only, exclude flight testing of manned 
82 47 CFR § 2.106.
83 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7772-76, paras. 17-25; 47 CFR § 2.106, US96.  Non-Federal space stations in 
the space research, space operations, and Earth exploration satellite service my use the band to transmit to NASA’s 
Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System.  47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US303.
84 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US96.
85 Id. 
86 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7786, paras. 52.
87 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7786, paras. 53.
88 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7787, paras. 54.
89 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7785, paras. 49-50.
90 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US276; 47 CFR § 87.303(d)(1).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
12aircraft, and prohibit the introduction of high-density mobile systems.91
28. The FNPRM noted that use of the secondary Space Operation allocation for the band is 
limited compared to what would normally be permitted under a Space Operation allocation.92  The Space 
Operation Service is defined in the Commission’s rules as being “concerned exclusively with the 
operation of spacecraft, in particular space tracking, space telemetry, and space telecommand.”93  The 
FNPRM sought comment on whether a greater range of non-Federal space operations should be permitted 
under the Space Operation allocation in this band.  The FNPRM explained that expanding the scope of 
this allocation could be especially useful for some types of missions involving communication between 
spacecraft during orbital and suborbital missions.  
29. Comments from the commercial space industry overwhelmingly support removal of the 
restrictions on non-Federal use of the band for launch operations.  ULA and SpaceX claim removing the 
restrictions on access to the 2200-2290 MHz band will facilitate commercial space use and promote 
innovation in the industry without increasing the risk of harmful interference to Federal users.94  Boeing 
explains that expanded access to the band will not lead to increased risk of interference, because non-
Federal launches would still be required to coordinate with Federal operators.95  ULA notes that space 
launch operations outside of the four sub-bands have been successfully coordinated with NTIA.96  
Further, ULA believes that the Commission should open the 2230-2235 MHz and 2253-2258 MHz sub-
bands with at least one of the allocated sub-bands allowing for a contiguous 20 megahertz bandwidth.97  
Additionally, ULA claims its vehicles transmit on channels and with a bandwidth not included in the 
current allocation.98  Similarly, SpaceX believes access to the entire band without any bandwidth 
limitations will facilitate use of the band by space launch providers.  SpaceX claims to use only one of the 
four sub-bands for its launches because the rest do not fully support telemetry applications.  Northrop 
Grumman claims its space launch and cargo delivery vehicles use spectrum outside the four sub-bands for 
critical operations with the International Space Station (ISS).  These operations include space-to-space 
communications, rendezvous, and docking with the ISS.  Therefore, Northrop Grumman believes the 
Commission should provide operators with unrestricted use of the 2200-2290 MHz band along with 
greater flexibility on the types of operations allowed in the band.  Axiom urges that use of the allocation 
be expanded to include payload deployed from a launch vehicle because it plans to send TT&C to a 
module docking with the ISS.99  
30. While most of the commercial space industry commenters supported removing 
restrictions on use of the band, Boeing expressed some reservations.  Boeing believes that additional 
space operations are best left to a second FNPRM for further consideration.100  Boeing notes that 
extensive coordination and heavy use of the band has resulted in Federal agencies’ apprehension towards 
permitting additional space operations in the non-Federal allocation.101  Boeing also does not believe a 
91 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7785, paras. 50; 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote 5.391.
92 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7786, paras. 51.
93 47 CFR § 2.1.
94 SpaceX Comments at 5-6; ULA Comments at 3.
95 Boeing Comments at 4.
96 ULA Reply at 4; ULA Comments at 28.
97 ULA Comments at 29.
98 ULA Comments at 27.
99 Axiom Comments at 3.
100 Boeing Reply at 5.
101 Boeing Comments at 3-4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
13primary allocation is necessary citing the already intensive use of the band.102  Furthermore, Boeing 
believes the secondary allocation already provides the necessary interoperability with Federal operations 
and grants non-Federal launches full interference protection.103  
31. Federal agencies such as NASA, DoD, and the Department of Commerce (DoC) strongly 
oppose any changes to the restrictions on non-Federal use of the band.  DoD and DoC highlight the heavy 
use and coordination already required by Federal operations as sufficient reason for rejecting any 
expansion of non-Federal use of the allocation.104  DoD claims that limiting non-Federal use to the four 
sub-bands establishes predictable frequencies that facilitate coordination with non-Federal users.105  NTIA 
states that expanding the scope of non-Federal use of the band would worsen coordination efforts in an 
already heavily congested band.106  Additionally, many of these Federal agencies heavily oppose any of 
the expanded use cases that non-Federal users such as Northrop Grumman and Axiom support.107  The 
Federal agencies also did not support upgrading the secondary non-Federal Space Operation allocation to 
primary status.108  However, as Boeing and Northrop Grumman note, NTIA and NASA have 
acknowledged an exception can be made in the 2200.2-2206.2 MHz band for non-Federal 
communications supporting ISS operations.38
32. We conclude that it is appropriate to provide commercial space launch operators with 
access to a greater portion of the 2200-2290 MHz band beyond the four sub-bands currently provided.  As 
noted above, most of the STAs that the Commission has issued for space launch telemetry in this band 
have regularly included use of channels that are outside of these four sub-channels.109  As all of these 
STAs have been coordinated with NTIA this indicates that coordination of use of channels outside of 
these sub-bands is achievable and that limiting use of 2200-2290 MHz for commercial space launches to 
these sub-bands does not fully meet the needs of the commercial space launch industry.  Therefore, we 
are removing the restriction of use of the non-Federal space operation allocation to the four sub-bands.  
33. However, we will not upgrade the secondary non-Federal Space Operation allocation for 
the 2200-2290 MHz band to a primary allocation.  When we adopted the current secondary allocation for 
the band, we noted that this would accomplish many of the goals the Commission had sought to 
accomplish with the proposed primary allocation such as enabling the Commission to adopt service rules 
and issue spectrum authorizations, reduce the uncertainty of the launch-by-launch STA process, and 
permit the development of well-defined technical rules that licensees can design equipment to comply 
with.110  The Commission noted that even if it had adopted a primary non-Federal allocation for this band, 
individual launches would still need to be coordinated because of the heavy existing Federal use of the 
band.  We continue to believe for these same reasons that the current secondary allocation will meet the 
needs of the commercial space industry.  We are cognizant of the complications of sharing this band with 
the large number of Federal operations and the expressed preference of Federal agencies to maintain the 
102 Boeing Reply at 6.
103 Boeing Comments at 4.
104 NTIA/DoD Comments at 22; NTIA/DoC Comments at 26-27.
105 NTIA/DoD Comments at 22.
106 NTIA Comments at 3-5.
107 Axiom Comments at 3; Northrop Grumman Reply at 22-23.
108 NTIA/NASA Comments at 9.
109 See, e.g., Space Exploration Technologies Corp, Special Temporary Authorization, OET Experimental Licensing 
System File Nos. 0729-EX-ST-2023, 0673-EX-ST-2023, 0659-EX-ST-2023, 1895-EX-ST-2020, 0126-EX-ST-
2021, 0249-EX-ST-2021; Rocket Lab USA Inc. Special Temporary Authorization, OET Experimental Licensing 
System File No. 1688-EX-ST-2022; Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. Special Temporary Authorization, OET 
Experimental Licensing System File No. 0916-EX-ST-2022.
110 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7774, para. 20.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
14current secondary allocation.  In recognition of the need to work closely with our Federal partners in 
managing the use of these band, we find that maintaining the current secondary allocation as advised by 
NTIA is appropriate at this time.  
34. We will add a secondary Mobile allocation to the band.  Providing this Mobile allocation 
will facilitate the Commission adopting technical rules for space launch telemetry that follow the same 
approach that NTIA applies to Federal launches.  NTIA treats telemetry systems during the first stage of a 
launch as an aeronautical mobile system and the second and later stages as a space operation system.111  
Because many launch vehicles are used for both Federal and non-Federal launches and many non-Federal 
launches occur at Federal launch facilities, we believe it is important to have the flexibility to adopt 
technical rules that are in harmony with the technical standards applied to Federal launches.  The 
secondary Mobile allocation we are adopting for this band will be subject to the same restrictions as the 
non-Federal Space Operation allocation in the band.  The non-Federal Mobile allocation will be restricted 
to use during pre-launch testing and space launch operations and subject to coordination for each launch.  
The only opposition to adding a Mobile allocation to the band came from Boeing, who expressed concern 
that adopting the Mobile allocation would prompt interest in making the band available for 5G and other 
future mobile services.112  Given the heavy restrictions on non-Federal use of this band we do not agree 
with Boeing that it will be considered a candidate for commercial mobile use.
35. We will not remove the current limitation on use of the non-Federal Space Operation 
allocation to pre-launch testing and space launch operations at this time.  The heavy use of the band by 
Federal agencies necessitates that we take a cautious approach to making provisions for additional use 
cases of this band.  While several commenters such as Northup Grumman and Axiom expressed interest 
in using this band for on-orbit activities, the record is sparse as to the technical details of these types of 
operations.  We do not currently have the information needed to reach a conclusion as to the impact of 
these operations on Federal users of the band  
36.Allocation for the 5650-5925 MHz Band.  The 5650-5925 MHz band is used for radar 
tracking of launch vehicles.  During a launch, a radar transponder located on the launch vehicle is 
typically used to transmit tracking information down to the tracking station.  A primary Federal allocation 
limits use of radiolocation services to military operations.113  Prior space launches that have used this 
band have relied on Federal facilities to provide tracking for launches occurring at Federal ranges.  The 
band is also used by Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices operating under the 
Commission’s Part 15 rules.114  The 5850-5925 MHz portion of the band has a primary non-Federal 
Mobile allocation limited to the Intelligent Transportation System radio service.115  While commercial use 
of the band remained limited at the time, the FNPRM sought comment on whether to adopt a non-Federal 
Radiolocation allocation for the 5650-5925 MHz band by adding a footnote to the U.S. Table.
37. Of the few comments addressing this topic, there was no consensus on the record for 
adopting this allocation.  The few comments in support of the allocation did not address any of the 
FNPRM’s questions regarding the band, with most expressing their support in a blanket statement 
covering other proposed allocations.116  AIA suggests that operations authorized within the allocation 
remain flexible as the needs of the commercial space launch industry change.117  However, Boeing 
111 NTIA Manual § 8.2.44. 
112 Boeing Comments at 6. 
113 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote G2.
114 47 CFR § 15.407.
115 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote NG160.
116 Relativity Space Comments at 3; Industry Coalition Response Comments at 2; and Rocket Lab USA Comments 
at 1.
117 AIA Comments at 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
15believes that the band should be restricted to launch vehicle tracking.118  Further, it suggests that an 
FNPRM could seek comment if tracking vehicles that are in orbit for extended periods of time could be 
permitted.119  NASA and DoD support the allocation, with NASA suggesting operations be limited to 
tracking only and DoD suggesting any co-primary allocation be restricted to ensure new users do not 
constrain Federal users.120  Northrop Grumman claims it relies on the band for critical tracking operations 
and support the allocation, regardless of the lack of interest on the record.121  The Wi-Fi Alliance opposes 
the allocation and believe the lack of interest on the record should result in its rejection.122  Additionally, 
Wi-Fi Alliance claims that expanding radar operations in the band would be complex and any potential 
allocation should heavily restrict operations to parallel current Federal use of the band.123  The Wi-Fi 
Alliance also suggest that because the band is available to U-NII devices that currently detect and avoid 
radar patterns specified by Federal users, any allocation should ensure that non-Federal radar applications 
comply with Federal radar criteria that serves as the basis for U-NII devices’ dynamic frequency selection 
capability.124
38. Based on the record, we conclude not to adopt a non-Federal Radiolocation allocation for 
the 5650-5925 MHz band.  While there was support for adding the allocation from some commercial 
space launch entities, interest in using the band remains low.  Commenters failed to provide information 
on the number of launches likely to need access to this band in the future or other information requested 
in the FNPRM.  In recent years only a small number of launches have obtained access to this band for 
radar transponders using STAs.  As there has been limited use of this band in the past and we have no 
reason to believe this will change in the future, there is no clear need to adopt this allocation.  If space 
launch operators need access to this band for radar transponders, they may continue to use the STA 
process.
B. Licensing and Technical Rules for Space Launch Operations
39. In this section, we adopt rules for the new commercial Space Launch Services.  We 
establish rules that flexibly, efficiently, and effectively support the evolving spectrum requirements of 
commercial space launch operations while continuing to protect vital Federal operations in the 2025-2110 
MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands.  We install a licensing framework that will grant nationwide, non-
exclusive licenses to non-Federal entities that conduct space launch operations in the 2025-2110 MHz and 
2200-2290 MHz bands.  We also add a new Part 26 to the Commission’s rules that codifies the rules we 
adopt today for space launch operations, as well as any related rules that we may adopt in the future for 
other types of space activities.  In addition, we adopt rules defining the scope of the service we establish 
today, as well as the types of entities that will be eligible to hold licenses in the new commercial Space 
Launch Services.  Finally, we adopt specific licensing rules governing shared frequency use, authorized 
bandwidth, license term and renewal, application processing rules, and coordination requirements, as well 
as technical rules that will foster interoperability of equipment used for non-Federal and Federal launches 
and rules regarding equipment authorization.  In doing so, we recognize that licensee pre-launch 
coordination with NTIA may necessitate additional requirements and limitations on non-Federal launch 
operations in specific instances, in addition to those we establish here.
118  Boeing Comments at 6.
119  Id.
120  NTIA/NASA Comments at 13; NTIA/DoD Comments at 23.
121 Northrop Grumman Reply at 12.
122 Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 2.
123 Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 6.
124 Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 5-6.  Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) is the process of detecting radar signals 
that must be protected against interference from 5 GHz (802.11a/n/ac/h) radios.  DFS is required only in the 5650-
5850 MHz portion of the band.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
161. Licensing Rules for Space Launch Operations
a. Creation of New Rule Part 26
40. The Commission sought comment in the FNPRM on which rule parts should apply to 
different elements of space launch operations, and how to integrate provisions from those rule parts into a 
commercial space launch service.125  The FNPRM identified Parts 87 (Aeronautical Mobile) and 25 
(Satellite) as rule Parts that might be applicable to commercial space launch operations.126  The 
Commission sought comment on whether to integrate all rules for commercial space launch operations 
into a new standalone rule part, or whether to integrate those rules into one or more subparts within 
existing rule parts.127  We create a new rule Part 26 for the new commercial space launch service we adopt 
today.  We agree with commenters who argue that a standalone rule part is more efficient and flexible 
than regulating commercial space launch operations under existing rule parts.128
41. The record regarding the question of where to incorporate the rules for space launch 
operations is mixed, due largely to varying opinions as to the activities that should be included in a space 
launch operation.  While Boeing and NASA advocate for organizing rules for commercial space launches 
into a new subpart under Part 87,129 several other commenters do not support applying existing rule parts 
to space launch operations, instead preferring other approaches that would provide greater clarity and 
flexibility with respect to space-related operations.  SpaceX, which supports licensing all space operations 
under a single authorization, argues for the creation of a single set of rules under a new Part 26.130  
TechFreedom also supports the creation of a new Part 26, arguing that placing space spectrum uses in a 
single rule part will ease coordination and spectrum choices by new entrants.131  Relativity argues that 
applying Part 87 and/or Part 25 rules to space launch or reentry activities would be overly burdensome 
and costly to the industry.132  Still others in the record note that there are space services that cannot be 
considered as part of a space launch and likely do not fall under either Part 87 or Part 25.  These 
commenters argue that space-related services, such as OOS and RPO operations, as well as operations 
that transport passengers to space, have distinct licensing needs that should be accommodated.133
42. We find that locating rules into a new part will provide greater clarity and ease of 
reference regarding commercial space launch operations.  Establishing a rule part specific to these 
operations rather than placing rules in existing rule parts appears more appropriate given that launch 
operations, while having elements applicable to Parts 87 and 25 depending on the launch, do not fall 
125 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7789-92, paras. 60-65.
126 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7790-92, paras. 61-64.  The FNPRM also sought comment regarding whether Part 90 
could serve as an appropriate location for rules regarding 5650-5925 MHz band radiolocation services.  As we are 
not adopting rules for that band in this 2nd R&O, we do not discuss the applicability of Part 90 here.
127 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7792, para. 65.
128 SpaceX Comments at 7-9.
129 Boeing Comments at 3; Boeing Reply at 10-11; NTIA/NASA Comments at 13.
130 SpaceX Comments at 9-11 (asserting that although definitions appropriate for space launch are similar to those 
applicable to Part 25, launch activities go beyond those found in that rule part).
131 TechFreedom Reply at 9-10.
132 Relativity Comments at 4.
133 Virgin Galactic Comments at 2 (asserting that its service offering—transporting humans to suborbital space—
presents different spectrum needs and considerations than Part 87 commercial airlines, Part 25 space stations, and 
other types of space operations); SpaceFlight, Inc. Reply at 9 (asserting that OOS operations have distinct licensing 
needs from the kind of satellite operations that are licensed under Part 25 and that OOS can best be viewed and 
understood from a licensing perspective as a hybrid between traditional launch and satellite service); Industry 
Participants Comments at 5 (agreeing that OOS and RPO services should be viewed as a hybrid between traditional 
launch/reentry and satellite services).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
17completely under either one.  Creating a new rule part is also forward-looking; as discussed infra, while 
the rules we are adopting here are specific to launch operations, we are seeking additional comment on 
measures that we can take to facilitate more routine licensing for certain payload and space operations.134  
The use of a standalone rule part therefore could be used to accommodate rules relating to other types of 
space activities to the extent the Commission adopts rules regarding such operations.  Accordingly, we 
find it appropriate to establish a new Part 26.
43.Issues Overlapping with ISAM Proceeding.  In the 2021 FNPRM the Commission asked 
multiple questions related to payload communications in the context of space launch operations.135  For 
example, we sought comment on whether payload operations, currently addressed through experimental 
licensing, should be addressed in Part 25 of the Commission’s rules.136  Because these newer commercial 
operations were not considered when many of our rules were first adopted, we sought comment on any 
modifications to the current Part 25 rules (e.g., default rules, bond requirements, fees, etc.) that may 
facilitate licensing and whether a streamlined process along the lines of the recently adopted process for 
small satellites would be appropriate for such operations.  We also asked if there are other licensing 
models that can be better suited for the needs of these payload operations.  In response many commenters 
in this proceeding raised issues related to space operations such as on-orbit servicing (OOS), rendezvous, 
proximity space operations (RPO), Earth-escape operations, and lunar orbit missions, to name a few.137  
Several of the leading industry operators for these types of activities, while urging the Commission to 
develop rules to better account for such space activities, suggested that these issues should be considered 
in a further notice of proposed rulemaking.138
44. We note that many of the same operators that have commented on the need for spectrum 
allocation and licensing procedures for novel payload activities in this proceeding have also responded to 
our August 2022 Notice of Inquiry in the ISAM proceeding.139  ISAM refers to a set of capabilities that 
are used on-orbit, in transit, or on the surface of space bodies.  Within the category of ISAM, “servicing” 
includes activities such as use of one spacecraft to inspect another, to dock with other spacecraft and 
provide support such as maintaining the station in its orbital location in order to extend the period of 
operations, or to repair or modify a spacecraft after its initial launch.  These activities typically include the 
process of maneuvering close to and operating in the near vicinity of the “client” spacecraft, a set of 
activities often referred to as rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO).  “Servicing” also involves 
transport of a spacecraft from one orbit to another and debris collection and removal.140  While we 
acknowledge that this industry is advancing rapidly, and we recognize the importance and benefit of in-
space services that could extend the life of satellites, reduce orbital debris, and more, we agree with 
commenters that the Commission should not attempt to shoehorn these activities into a space launch 
licensing regime,141 nor is it necessarily appropriate to attempt to fit these operations into rules “designed 
for a previous space age.”142  Accordingly, we will continue to expand the record on these in-space 
134 See infra Section IV.B (Space Operations).
135 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7815-17, paras. 139-45.
136 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7816, para. 142.
137 See, e.g., Rocket Lab Comments at 2; Axiom Space Comments at 2-3; Industry Participants Comments at 5; 
Industry Participants Reply at 4; Spaceflight Reply at 3-4; CONFERS Reply at 2; Momentus Reply at 1-2; BlackSky 
Comments at 2-4.
138 See, e.g., Industry Participants Reply at 3, 5-7; CONFERS Reply at 3; Spaceflight Comments at 8-9.
139 See Comments filed in the FCC’s Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS) for Dockets 22-271, 22-272, 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
140 ISAM NOI at 2 para. 4.
141 See Industry Participants Reply at 6.
142 CONFERS Reply at 3.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
18operations through our ISAM proceeding and welcome continued comment and dialogue from the 
regulated community as we seek to develop short and long-term regulatory procedures for these 
operations.
b. Scope of Service
45. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on how to define certain key terms for 
purposes of licensing commercial space launch operations, including “space launch operations,” “space 
launch vehicle,” and “reentry vehicle.”143  The Commission also sought comment on an appropriate scope 
for the commercial use of the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz bands.144  Below, we first define the 
key elements of a space launch, and use those definitions to frame and articulate the applicable scope of 
the commercial space launch service.
46.  Space Launch-related Definitions.  In requesting comment on how to define non-Federal 
“space launch operations,” the FNPRM noted that the STAs that have previously been granted have 
included telemetry from the launch vehicle and the payload, during the initial space launch, recovery of 
the booster, and the orbital and re-entry phases for operations such as cargo and crew delivery to and from 
the ISS.145  We asked whether it would serve the public interest to include all of these operations in the 
definition of “space launch operations,” and whether there is a need to either limit the definition or further 
expand the definition to other space operations.146
47. Commenters are divided on whether “space launch operations” should encompass 
payload and expanded in-orbit operations, such as rendezvous and proximity operations, ISS docking, and 
space-to-space links.  SpaceX advocates to include all operations that fall under our Part 2 definition of 
Space Operation Service.147  A coalition of industry members recommend that we develop rules that 
would apply through every phase of space flight,148 while Rocket Lab and ULA similarly ask us for 
regulations that apply consistently over all mission phases.149  Further, Virgin Galactic supports the 
inclusion of a separate definition for spaceflight operations.150  Conversely, Boeing believes that activities 
ancillary to a launch should not be included in the definition of “space launch operations.”151  NTIA 
likewise states that including in-orbit operations to a definition of “space launch operations” would put 
unacceptable strain on the bands at issue and advises that space launch operations are fundamentally for a 
short duration.152  Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) agrees with Boeing 
and NTIA on these points.153
48. While we seek to implement rules that will provide greater certainty and streamline 
access and use of the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz bands, we also remain cognizant that the two 
bands are already heavily encumbered and that there is a need to proceed cautiously regarding access to 
143 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7789, para. 60.
144 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7792-93, paras. 66-71.
145 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7789, para. 60.
146 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7789, para. 60.
147 SpaceX Comments at 6.  Section 2.1 defines Space Operation Service as “[a] radiocommunication service 
concerned exclusively with the operation of spacecraft, in particular space tracking, space telemetry, and space 
telecommand.”  47 CFR § 2.1(c).
148 Astra et al. Comments at 2.
149 Rocket Lab Comments at 2; ULA Reply at 6-7.
150 Virgin Galactic Comments at 6-7.
151 Boeing Comments at 5.
152 NTIA Comments at 4.
153 AFTRCC Reply at 9.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
19the bands for activities that go beyond the operations of a launch vehicle.  Accordingly, we find that it is 
appropriate at this juncture to limit the definition of commercial space launch operations to activities 
associated only with the launch and recovery or reentry of a launch vehicle, and exclude payload and 
other on-orbit communications.154  We conclude that the inclusion of payload and on-orbit operations, 
such as rendezvous and proximity operations, ISS docking, and space-to-space links, are outside of what 
can fairly be considered “space launch operations.”  We agree with Boeing that such ancillary operations 
are outside the scope of the launch operations addressed in the FNPRM.155  We therefore decline to extend 
the concept of commercial space launch beyond the operations of a launch vehicle itself.156  Because it is 
not clear from the record that the bands at issue can support streamlined authorization and access for 
payload and on-orbit operations today, we are seeking further comment on these issues in the Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) and through our ISAM proceeding, noted 
above.157
49. Instead, we find it appropriate to adopt a definition of “space launch operations” that is 
specific to launch vehicle operations.  We define non-Federal “space launch operations” as any activity 
that places a launch vehicle, whether an expendable launch vehicle or a reusable launch vehicle or a 
reentry vehicle used for launch, and any payload or human being from Earth in a suborbital trajectory in 
Earth orbit, or otherwise in outer space, including pre-launch testing and recovery or reentry of the launch 
vehicle.  We find it appropriate to broadly define “space launch operations” instead of including in the 
definition an exhaustive list of permissible operations or defining a launch by stages given that operations 
may vary from launch to launch.  This definition is similar to the broad definition that the Commercial 
Space Launch Act, as amended, and the FAA’s commercial space transportation rules apply to 
“launch.”158
50. Next, we adopt definitions for “launch vehicle” and its different forms as they apply to 
the “space launch operation” definition and describe the permissible scope of commercial space launch 
operations.  In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether and how to define “launch 
vehicle” for space launch operations purposes.159  SpaceX and TechFreedom advocate for the 
Commission to make use of its existing Part 2 definition of “spacecraft.”160  NASA disagrees, arguing that 
a launch vehicle does not constitute a spacecraft, making the Commission’s Part 2 definition 
inapplicable.161
154 However, as noted, we are seeking additional comment regarding certain in-orbit operations in Section IV.B 
(Space Operations) and have opened the ISAM proceeding through our NOI.
155 See Boeing Comments at 5.
156 The “Space Operation Service” definition includes “space tracking,” “space telemetry,” and “space 
telecommand,” all of which are defined terms that include on-orbit operations.  See 47 CFR § 2.1(c).
157 See infra Section III.B.1.a.  We note that entities may continue to seek authorization for use of the 2200-2290 
MHz and 2025-2110 MHz bands for such operations through the use of STAs.
158 The Commercial Space Launch Act, as amended, provides that “…launch means to place or try to place a launch 
vehicle or reentry vehicle and any payload or human being from Earth—(A) in a suborbital trajectory; (B) in Earth 
orbit in outer space; or (C) otherwise in outer space, including activities involved in the preparation of a launch 
vehicle or payload for launch, when those activities take place at a launch site in the United States.” 14 U.S.C. § 
50901(7).  The Commercial Space Launch Act, which directs the Department of Transportation and, by delegation, 
the FAA to oversee launch and reentry of launch and reentry vehicles, is codified at 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509.  The 
same definition is found in the FAA’s rules.  See 14 CFR § 401.7.
159 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7789, para. 60.
160 SpaceX Comments at 10; TechFreedom Reply at 8-10.  “Spacecraft” is defined as “[a] man-made vehicle which 
is intended to go beyond the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere.”  47 CFR § 2.1(c).  See also 47 CFR § 25.103.
161 NTIA/NASA Comments at 13.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
2051. We agree with NASA that the term “spacecraft” is not appropriate.162  The term would 
not cover certain launch operations, such as first stages that do not go beyond the major portion of Earth’s 
atmosphere or suborbital launches, but yet would encompass other activities, such as on-orbit missions, 
that we are not including as part of a launch operation at this juncture.  Instead, in line with our definition 
of “space launch operations,” we define “launch vehicle” more specifically as a vehicle built to place a 
payload or human beings from Earth in a suborbital trajectory, in Earth orbit, or otherwise in outer space.
52. In seeking comment regarding the appropriate definition for “launch vehicle,” the 
FNPRM asked whether we should draw on the definitions of “expendable launch vehicle” and “reusable 
launch vehicle” under Part 87,163 and also sought comment on whether there should be any distinction 
between a “launch vehicle” and a “reentry vehicle” for space launch purposes.164  Few commenters 
addressed these issues.  SpaceX and Relativity urge the Commission to avoid drawing distinctions that 
may become technologically outdated,165 while NASA states that the existing Part 87 definitions for 
“expendable launch vehicle” and “reusable launch vehicle” are appropriate.166  As implied in our 
definition for “space launch operations,” we find that a launch vehicle could be an “expendable launch 
vehicle,” a “reusable launch vehicle,” or a “reentry vehicle” used for launch.  Accordingly, it is necessary 
to define those terms.  While section 87.5 of the Commission’s rules provides definitions for “expendable 
launch vehicle” and “reusable launch vehicle” in the context of launches administered under Part 87, 
these definitions describe such launch vehicles as “booster rockets.”167  Because the Part 87 definitions 
may not adequately capture the launch vehicles that are in use today (or in the future), we instead find it 
appropriate to adapt definitions for launch vehicles using definitions from the FAA’s commercial space 
transportation rules.168  We define “expendable launch vehicle” as a launch vehicle whose propulsive 
stages are used only once, and “reusable launch vehicle” as a launch vehicle that is designed to return to 
Earth substantially intact and may be launched more than one time or that contains vehicle stages that 
may be recovered by a launch operator for future use.  Because it is feasible for commercial operators to 
conduct operations with a vehicle that cannot be solely described as a reusable launch vehicle (for 
example, the vehicle has the ability to be used for purposes other than launch), we find it appropriate to 
also include “reentry vehicle” and to adopt a definition similar to the FAA’s definition of “reentry 
vehicle” as a vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth substantially intact.169  
We note that because “reentry vehicle” under this definition could be applicable to either a launch vehicle 
or spacecraft designed to be capable of reentry, we specify that a reentry vehicle is regarded as a launch 
vehicle in the context of a space launch operation only to the extent that it is being used for launch 
162 See NTIA/NASA Comments at 13.
163 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7789, para. 60 n.169.  
164 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7789, para. 60.
165 SpaceX Comments at 10; Relativity Comments at 4.
166 NTIA/NASA Comments at 13.
167 See 47 CFR § 87.5 (defining “expendable launch vehicle” as “[a] booster rocket that can be used only once to 
launch a payload, such as a missile or space vehicle” and “reusable launch vehicle” as “[a] booster rocket that can be 
recovered after launch, refurbished and re-launched”).
168 See 14 CFR § 401.7 (defining “expendable launch vehicle” as “…a launch vehicle whose propulsive stages are 
flown only once” and “reusable launch vehicle” as “…a launch vehicle that is designed to return to Earth 
substantially intact and therefore may be launched more than one time or that contains vehicle stages that may be 
recovered by a launch operator for future use in the operation of a substantially similar launch vehicle”).
169 See 14 CFR § 401.7 (defining “reentry vehicle” as “…a vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space 
to Earth substantially intact. A reusable launch vehicle that is designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to 
Earth substantially intact is a reentry vehicle.”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
21purposes.170
53.Permissible operations.  In the FNPRM, we noted that the Report and Order limited non-
Federal use in the 2200-2290 MHz band to telemetry and tracking operations of launch vehicles during 
pre-launch testing and launch operations.171  Because the 2200-2290 MHz allocation was originally 
limited to the 2208.5-2213.5 MHz, 2212.5-2217.5 MHz, 2270-2275 MHz, and 2285-2290 MHz sub-
bands, the FNPRM sought comment on whether we should remove any presumptive limitation to the four 
sub-bands in the service rules to the extent that we permit use beyond the original four sub-bands.172  
Further, the FNPRM also proposed to restrict the commercial launch use of the 2025-2110 MHz band to 
telecommand uplink transmissions from the ground controller stations to the space launch vehicle.173  
Noting the heavy usage of this band by BAS, CARS, and LTTS operations, as well as by Federal entities 
for space operations, Earth exploration satellite, space research, fixed, and mobile uses, the FNPRM asked 
whether it is feasible to accommodate uses in addition to the space launch telecommand uses.174
54. We will clarify in our service rules that the use of the entire 2200-2290 MHz band is 
permissible for all launch vehicle-to-ground communications associated with telemetry and tracking 
operations, and the 2025-2110 MHz band is available for all ground-to-launch vehicle telecommand uses 
necessary to support space launch operations.  As discussed above in Section III.A., we are revising 
Footnote US96 to enable use of the entire 2200-2290 MHz band.  Accordingly, we find that it is 
necessary to also make clear in our service rules, in addition to the changes made to Footnote US96, that 
space launch telemetry activities are permitted throughout the band.  
55. Further, given that the 2025-2110 MHz band is heavily used, we find it necessary to limit 
the band to telecommand operations.175  As noted, certain commenters advocate for a broad range of 
permissible uses in this band, including those that do not fall under the definition of “space launch 
operations” above.176  NTIA, however, supports limiting commercial space launch use of the band to 
telecommand transmissions from the ground controller stations to the launch vehicle.177  While other 
commenters, such as the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) and Engineers for the Integrity of 
Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS), do not speak specifically as to whether to permit uses 
beyond telecommand activities, they do warn of the difficulties with managing use and avoiding 
interference among the users of the band.178  Given the increasingly heavy use of the 2025-2110 MHz 
band and the importance in ensuring that incumbent operations are adequately protected, we find that we 
should not expand space launch uses beyond telecommand for this band.
56. Permissible uses for the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz bands, therefore, will be 
limited to telemetry, tracking, and command activities for space launch operations.  Telemetry, tracking, 
and command necessary to support space launch operations may include, but are not limited to: (1) pre-
launch testing, such as pre-flight checks, ground testing, and telemetry; (2) vehicle tracking, including the 
170 While there are no mentions in the record of reentry vehicles that are also used as launch vehicles, we seek to 
avoid adopting a “launch vehicle” definition that may be rendered obsolete by future industry developments.  See 
Relativity Comments at 4.
171 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7792, para. 67.
172 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7792, para. 67.
173 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7793, para. 69.
174 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7793, para. 69.
175 We note that as in the case with Federal space operations using this band, non-Federal space launch operations 
must protect BAS, CARS, and LTTS operations, as well as any previously granted Federal space launch operations.
176 See, e.g., SpaceX Comments at 6; Spaceflight Comments at 3.
177 NTIA/NASA Comments at 13.
178 See generally SBE Comments; EIBASS Comments.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
22transmission of parameter data from a launch vehicle to ground; (3) telecommand signals for propulsive 
maneuvering of a launch vehicle and separation of payload from launch vehicle; and (4) telecommand 
signals for propulsive maneuvering of a reentry vehicle for return and recovery.
57. We emphasize that these telemetry, tracking, and command communications are 
authorized only during space launch operations as we have defined above.  This includes preparation for 
launch, launch of the launch vehicle, the launch vehicle’s flight path, release of payload, and recovery or 
reentry of the launch vehicle.179  On-orbit communications after a launch vehicle separates from its 
payload are outside the scope of the service we adopt today.  We recognize that there may be 
circumstances where telemetry, tracking, or command activities may be necessary for the incidental 
orbital period of a launch vehicle before or after it has separated from its payload.  We will allow such 
incidental use only to the extent necessary to successfully complete a launch operation.  However, 
incidental use must be limited only to the extent necessary, and communications on these frequencies that 
are not related to space launch operations as defined are not permitted.
58.Launch Vehicle-Satellite Communications.  In the April 2021 FNPRM we sought 
comment on the possibility of authorizing communications between space launch vehicles and satellite 
systems used for data relay, noting that radios designed as earth stations for communications with the 
Globalstar or Iridium satellite systems have been used on space launch vehicles in order to utilize those 
systems for data relay, including for TT&C purposes.180  Given this, we asked whether these types of 
operations should continue to be licensed on an experimental basis.  In response to these questions, 
Globalstar asserted that authorization for these types of operations in the L-band at 1610-1626 MHz 
should continue on an experimental basis only, given the limited number of launch vehicle customers and 
limited nature of the message traffic.181  Several other commenters generally voiced support for allowing 
such operations, while others noted concerns.182  We agree with Globalstar that currently the experimental 
licensing process serves as an adequate mechanism for licensing these types of  communications.  As 
Globalstar points out, current demand for these operations is limited.183
c. Eligibility
59. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment about the appropriate eligibility criteria 
for holding commercial space launch licenses.184  The Commission proposed to use the supplemental 
eligibility criteria for Part 87 flight test stations as a model for eligibility criteria.185  Under that model, 
commercial space launch license applicants would need to qualify as either: (1) an operator or 
manufacturer of a commercial space launch or reentry vehicle or space launch or reentry vehicle 
components; (2) a parent corporation or its subsidiary if either corporation is an operator or manufacturer 
of a space launch or reentry vehicle or space launch or reentry vehicle components; or (3) an educational 
institution or a person primarily engaged in the design, development, modification, and flight test 
evaluation of a launch or reentry vehicle or launch or reentry vehicle components.186
60. After reviewing the record, we adopt a modified version of the Part 87 model and 
FNPRM proposal.  Specifically, in order to be eligible to hold a commercial space launch license, an 
applicant must qualify as one of the following: a non-Federal entity that conducts space launch 
179 Boeing Comments at 6.
180 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7817, para. 145.
181 Globalstar Reply at 1-4.
182 See NASA Comments “Enclosure” at 5; SpaceX Comments 4-6; but see, e.g., NAB Comments at 2.
183 Globalstar Reply at 3.
184 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7793-94, paras. 72-73.
185 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7793, para. 72 (citing 47 CFR § 87.301).
186 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7793, para. 72 (citing 47 CFR § 87.301).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
23operations, or a parent of such entity or a subsidiary of such entity if either conducts space launch 
operations.  Commenters expressed unanimous support for providing eligibility for commercial space 
launch licenses to those individuals and entities that conduct space launch operations.187
61. We decline to extend eligibility at this time to educational institutions and persons 
engaged in the design, development, modification, and flight test evaluation of a launch or reentry vehicle 
or launch or reentry vehicle components, as proposed in the FNPRM.188  Commenters expressed concerns 
over extending eligibility in this fashion, arguing, for example, that such operations would be difficult to 
monitor and control.189  While NAB and Boeing do not object to allowing vehicle manufacturers 
eligibility, given the congested nature of the bands at issue, we opt to limit eligibility for permanent 
authorization at this time to only those entities that conduct commercial space launch operations, as 
recommended by NTIA/NASA.  We may revisit our eligibility criteria in the future, if needed.
62. We also decline to require commercial space launch license applicants to include a 
separate certification with their application to establish eligibility.190  As Boeing observed, license 
applicants using Form 601 already must certify as to their eligibility to hold the license for which they are 
applying.191  General Certification Statement 7 on Form 601 requires the applicant certify that “it has 
reviewed the appropriate Commission Rules defining eligibility to hold the requested license(s), and is 
eligible to hold the requested license(s).”192  We conclude that requiring a separate eligibility certification 
would be a superfluous requirement for license applicants.
d. Shared Frequency Use and Cooperative Use of Facilities
63. Consistent with our decision to allocate the 2025-2110 MHz band for commercial space 
launch operations on a secondary basis and modify our previous allocation of the 2200-2290 MHz 
band,193 we adopt our proposal to provide non-Federal space launch operators access to both bands on a 
shared, non-exclusive basis.194  We understand that these allocations will be used by space launch 
operators to conduct telemetry, tracking, and command operations of launch vehicles during pre-launch 
testing and space launch operations and that they will more than often be working with the same launch 
site operators given the finite number of suitable launch sites.  As we noted in the FNPRM, given the 
potential for many different launch vehicle operators to use a given launch facility, authorizing 
commercial space operations on a shared and cooperative basis appears to be a reasonable approach for 
providing spectrum access to multiple space launch entities.195  We find therefore that providing access on 
a shared, non-exclusive basis will offer the burgeoning commercial space launch industry a more 
predictable, collaborative, and flexible means of gaining access to spectrum, one that will provide greater 
regulatory certainty and foster continued growth in this sector.
64. Our decision is supported by the record in this proceeding as the majority of commenters 
filed in support of spectrum sharing on a non-exclusive basis through the use of coordination techniques.  
187 See, e.g., Boeing Comments at 9-10; NTIA/NASA Comments at 14; NAB Comments at 2.
188 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7793-94, para. 72.
189 NTIA/NASA Comments at 14; NAB Comments at 2.
190 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7794, para. 73.
191 Boeing Comments at 9-10.
192 See FCC Form 601 at 6, available at https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcc-form-601-main-schedule-a.pdf.
193 See supra at Section III.A.
194 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7794, para. 74.
195 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7794, para. 74.  We note that, in this context, shared use status, while non-exclusive, 
does not mean that a licensee will be required to accept interference as we will require licensees to submit their 
launch operations to post-license coordination to protect co-frequency Federal and non-Federal users against 
harmful interference.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
24SpaceX suggested that to promote and support commercial spectrum for space operations, the 
Commission should grant licenses on a shared, coordinated, non-exclusive, and nationwide basis.196  
Astra states that the intermittent nature of space launch operations facilitates spectrum sharing and 
promotes non-exclusive licenses.197  SIA advocated for a licensing framework modeled after the former 
3650-3700 MHz fixed operations licensing model where launch operators would obtain nationwide, non-
exclusive licenses for shared spectrum use with spectrum deconfliction and third-party frequency 
coordination facilitating spectrum sharing in addition to mandatory post-licensing spectrum coordination 
with NTIA and other co-frequency non-launch operators.198  ULA also advocates for the use of the 3650-
3700 MHz licensing model to grant non-exclusive nationwide licenses to users who agree to share the 
spectrum and use a third-party frequency coordinator like AFTRCC, prior to registering and operating a 
given site, with coordination occurring with NTIA, government AFCs, and co-frequency non-launch 
operators.199  Boeing supports non-Federal space launch licensees sharing spectrum on a non-exclusive 
basis and expects licensees to coordinate and to be protected from harmful interference from other 
users.200
65. We received few responses to the question raised in the FNRPM regarding whether the 
Commission should adopt a non-discrimination policy for all space launch operations similar to the rule 
imposed by the Part 87 rules on access to flight test facilities.201  None of these commenters support 
imposing such a requirement.  Boeing asserts that the non-discrimination rules for Part 87 flight test 
stations are irrelevant to space launch licenses because space launch communications equipment will not 
be shared unless various commercial entities contractually agree on sharing arrangements.202  Boeing 
argues that this will be true regardless of whether the communications facilities are positioned at Federal 
196 SpaceX Comments at 12.  SpaceX states that shared nationwide licensing can be achieved with post-licensing 
coordination and de-confliction.  SpaceX Reply at 4.  SpaceX asserts that this will remove the need for competitive 
bidding and facilitate launch operations.  SpaceX Comments at 12.
197 Astra Reply at 3-4.
198 SIA Comments at 3-4, 8-9.  SIA asserts that the use of non-exclusive licenses to permit spectrum sharing for 
launch and reentry operations meets the policy objectives of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 
promoting economic growth and enhancing telecommunication offerings just like 3650-3700 MHz where the 
Commission chose not to auction spectrum because it was in the public interest to share the spectrum.  SIA 
Comments at 9-11; see also discussion infra at Section III.B.1.h (Application Process).
199 ULA Comments at 2-4.  ULA asserts that launches depend on a myriad of variable factors so pre-license grant 
coordination is unnecessary, but post-license grant deconfliction and coordination will be required.  ULA Comments 
at 4-6.
200 Boeing Comments at 10.  Several other commenters also suggested that coordination would facilitate spectrum 
sharing.  Spaceflight indicated that coordination techniques (i.e., low duty cycles, predictable transmission times, 
and location) will make sharing possible and that granting deployment service and launch service operators equal 
access to the bands will ensure deployment services remain viable.  Spaceflight Comments at 5.  AIA supports 
shared frequency slots, with wider bandwidths, on a temporary basis where sharing will last months not years.  AIA 
Comments at 2.
201 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7794-95, paras. 75-76.  The FNPRM sought comment on the practices involving 
ground stations at Federal ranges and FAA-licensed sites and whether the Commission should adopt rules providing 
for non-discriminatory access to these facilities by non-Federal space launch entities to support the existing and 
future needs of commercial space launch entities.  In the context of flight test operations, a Part 87 rule enables the 
shared use of facilities, which reduces costs to licensees and promotes efficient use and competition in the aviation 
industry.  Specifically, under section 87.307, the Commission licenses only one flight test land station per airport, 
but it requires that these stations be made available without discrimination, on a cooperative maintenance basis, to 
anyone eligible for a flight test station license.  47 CFR § 87.307.  Section 87.307 permits additional flight test land 
stations if an applicant can demonstrate that sharing of an existing flight test land station is not possible and that the 
addition of another land station will not result in significant degradation of the reliability of the existing station.  See 
47 CFR § 87.307(d).
202 Boeing Comments at 10.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
25or non-Federal launch facilities and that therefore the Commission’s non-discrimination rules for Part 87 
flight test stations should not be adopted for space operations.203  We agree with Boeing that the 
cooperative use of space launch facilities are more appropriately addressed through the use of private 
contractual arrangements and will not impose a non-discrimination policy in this context.  Moreover, 
because we grant licenses on a shared, non-exclusive basis at a nationwide level,204 we will not be issuing 
only a single site-based authorization per launch site, which, as SpaceX points out, obviates the need for 
the Commission to adopt a non-discrimination requirement because launch vehicle operators will have 
other sites around the country to choose from.205  
e. Licensing
66. In the FNPRM, the Commission indicated that its goals in licensing space launch 
operations are two-fold: (1) to encourage innovations and investments in the U.S. space commerce; and 
(2) to ensure a regulatory environment conducive to the establishment of a competitive U.S. commercial 
space launch sector while protecting Federal and other users in the bands.206  To meet these goals and to 
facilitate the shared spectrum access approach discussed above, we will issue space launch licenses on a 
nationwide, non-exclusive basis.  
67. The Commission sought comment on various licensing models with the aim of providing 
regulatory certainty in the marketplace while minimizing administrative burdens and duplicative 
regulations.207  Specifically, the Commission asked commenters whether it should consider applying a 
site-based licensing model in a shared use situation as fixed, well-defined areas of operation can simplify 
coordination during the application process for services requiring frequency coordination, and facilitate 
intensive spectrum sharing.208  The Commission also suggested that a site-based approach would enable 
stakeholders to identify quickly licensees in the band and their specific areas of operation in the event 
interference issues arise thus allowing parties to resolve such issues in the shortest timeframe 
practicable.209
68. The Commission also sought comment on other licensing models that may be suitable in 
the space launch operations context.210  Among other things, the Commission asked whether it should 
consider a new approach combining various aspects of space-based services and aeronautical service 
licensing rules or whether it would be appropriate to license space launch vehicles similar to space 
stations and their communicating ground/earth stations on a single or multiple site basis.211  In addition to 
inquiring about conditioning ground/earth station operations on the filing of a certification that any 
required frequency coordination has been satisfactorily completed prior to a space launch, the 
Commission asked whether it could license space launch operations in a manner similar to previous 
licensing models applicable to certain wireless services such as the 3650-3700 MHz band.212  In doing so, 
the Commission sought to provide space launch operators access to various spectrum bands on a non-
exclusive, yet protected, basis, subject to measures designed to promote shared use of spectrum, such as a 
203 Id.
204 We discuss the granting of nationwide, non-exclusive licenses in further detail below.  See discussion infra at 
Section III.B.1.e (Licensing).
205 SpaceX Comments at 12 n.27 with accompanying text.
206 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7795, para. 77.
207 Id.
208 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7795, para. 78.
209 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7795, para. 78.
210 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7795-96, para. 79.
211 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7795-96, para. 79.
212 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7795-96, para. 79.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
26registration and frequency coordination requirement prior to each launch.213  The FNRPM also considered 
ways to reduce potential administrative burdens and streamline the information that would be needed for 
initial licensing and then registration and coordination prior to a planned launch.214
69. As discussed above, we find that space launch access to spectrum on a shared basis is 
appropriate and we find that permitting such access on a nationwide basis similar to the licensing 
mechanism established for the 3650-3700 MHz band is also warranted.  There is wide support in the 
record for licensing commercial space launch operations on a nationwide, non-exclusive basis covering 
related launch vehicles across multiple launch sites.215 We find that such an approach will give certainty 
to licensees and provide the efficiencies of scale and scope that will spur innovation, investment, and 
rapid deployment of space launch services.  
70. We also agree with commenters who assert that a licensing framework based on 
nationwide, non-exclusive licenses offers a number of distinct advantages over a site-based licensing 
regime.  As Boeing points out, a nationwide approach in parallel with a real time coordination database 
will provide the benefits of a site-based licensing scheme without the added complexity given that any 
changes in launch operations can be easily updated in the database and resolved after all other users are 
informed.216  SpaceX advocates against a licensing scheme that grants only a single authorization per 
launch site because multiple providers may each need access to spectrum and a shared, non-exclusive 
nationwide authorization would cover all spectrum bands and all phases of a commercial space operation, 
including operations outside the United States.217  While Astra suggests that a site-based licensing 
approach would be an improvement over the cumbersome STA licensing process, it also asserts that a 
site-based approach fails to acknowledge that space launch operations do not consist of a single “site” but 
instead use multiple sites, each of which is integral to a successful launch.218  Astra argues therefore in 
favor of a single, nationwide license that will relieve the administrative burden on space launch operators 
by covering the full range of facilities used by a space launch operator, including all ground stations, 
radars for launch vehicle tracking, and the launch vehicle itself, as well as all the stages of launch and 
frequency bands to be used, with the expectation that the license will be valid for an unlimited number of 
launches during the license period.219  Moreover, Astra asserts that maintaining all of an operator’s sites 
under a single nationwide license not only eases the administrative burden but would also enable other 
interested parties to understand all of the sites that are authorized for use by a particular launch 
operator.220  In short, the record shows that a single nationwide, non-exclusive license offers greater 
administrative and regulatory efficiencies than either a site-based licensing regime or the arduous STA 
213 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7796, para. 79.
214 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7795-96, paras. 79-80.
215 See ULA Comments at 1-2; Boeing Comments at 11-12; SpaceX Comments at 12; SIA Comments at 3-4; AIA 
Comments at 1; Northrop Grumman Reply at 6-8; Astra Reply at 3-4; Momentus Reply at 1-2.  As discussed infra at 
Section III.B.1.h (Application Process), assigning spectrum through nationwide, non-exclusive licenses would not 
result in mutually exclusive applications and thus these spectrum licenses are not subject to the competitive bidding 
requirements of section 309(j) of the Communications Act.
216 Boeing Comments at 12.  Boeing also opposes issuing licenses specific to a particular launch vehicle or 
transmitting station because it would be cumbersome to apply this approach to launch vehicles that, for the most 
part, are not reusable.  Boeing Comments at 12.
217 SpaceX Comments at 12-13.  To support the use of a single, comprehensive license, SpaceX pointed out that the 
Commission recognized that “not all operators will seek authorization for all of the bands at issue,” and “even where 
an applicant seeks multiple frequency bands, the applicant may not have the same site or area of operation for each 
of the bands.”  SpaceX Comments at 13.
218 Astra Reply at 3-4.
219 Astra Reply at 3-4.
220 Astra Reply at 3-4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
27process, particularly as the volume of commercial space launch activities continues to grow.
71. Nationwide licensing offers the advantages of a simpler, more streamlined application 
process that shifts the burden of information collection from the licensing stage to post-licensing site 
registration and per-launch coordination with the relevant Federal and non-Federal entities.221  Moreover, 
nationwide, non-exclusive licensing offers space launch operators the benefit of only having to file a 
single license to cover a range of different launch sites shared by multiple co-frequency operators, a far 
more straightforward process than the site-by-site STA process.  We agree with SpaceX that granting a 
series of authorizations by site, frequency band, and mission phase would create unnecessary burdens and 
that structuring the license in a comprehensive way enables each launch provider to have a “single, all-in-
one authorization” to cover all of its activities thereby obviating the need for multiple licenses to cover 
different launch sites, different recovery sites, and different launch vehicles.222
72. From an operational standpoint, nationwide licensing offers space launch operators the 
flexibility to accommodate future expansion in the space launch industry as more launch sites (Federal or 
non-Federal) are constructed, new and improved launch vehicle technologies are introduced, and the 
number of licensees operating in the bands continues to grow.  As ULA notes, nationwide licensing 
affords space launch operators the operational flexibility to launch from any U.S. launch site to account 
for the multitude of variables, including weather delays, payload changes, orbital-path and/or destination 
shifts, and other “uncontrollable” factors that can affect the location and timing of launches.223  Such 
flexibility is critical as launch vehicle operators are not always the same entity as the launch site operator, 
with variability from launch-to-launch in terms of the entities involved on any given launch on any given 
date and time.
73. Prospectively, nationwide, non-exclusive licensing also could provide us with a strong 
foundation to build upon as we develop a regulatory scheme that will accommodate space-to-space 
communications through the record being developed by the Second FNPRM.224  With the input of Federal 
and non-Federal stakeholders, we anticipate that we will develop a record to determine the best path 
forward for licensing on-orbit services, including RPO and OOS.  As discussed in further detail below, 
we would pair a nationwide licensing scheme with post-licensing coordination to ensure cooperation with 
and avoid harmful interference to co-frequency entities.225  Post-licensing coordination under this 
framework would permit non-Federal licensees who are sharing the frequency bands to address specific 
areas of operation associated with each specific launch (launch site location and corresponding stations, 
launch vehicle, in-flight trajectories or coordinates, etc.) in a manner similar to existing coordination 
processes.
74.We conclude that the 3650-3700 MHz licensing framework that authorized nationwide, 
non-exclusive licenses for terrestrial operations on a cooperative shared basis offers a suitable template to 
license commercial space launch operations in a similar streamlined fashion.226  We base this conclusion 
on the unique nature of the service, including the variability of launches.  We agree with SIA that a 
modified version of the 3650-3700 MHz licensing model would provide a good licensing framework for 
space launch operators to obtain nationwide, non-exclusive licenses for shared spectrum use.227  We also 
221 See SIA Comments at 8-9.
222 SpaceX Comments at 13.  Although SpaceX advocates for a single authorization that would cover all mission 
operations, such as launch, recovery, and orbital operations, the licensing mechanism we adopt here is limited to 
space launch activities at this juncture.
223 See ULA Comments at i, 2-4.
224 See discussion infra at Section IV.B (Second FNPRM).
225 See discussion infra at Section III.B.1.i (Frequency Coordination).
226 See SIA Comments at 3-4; ULA Comments at 2-4.
227 SIA Comments at 3-4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
28agree with ULA that we should apply elements of the 3650-3700 MHz licensing framework, including the 
requirement that operators can obtain a nationwide license only if they agree to cooperate with and avoid 
harmful interference to co-frequency licensees and cannot commence operations until they register the 
sites affiliated with their launch service.228  In the 3650-3700 MHz proceeding, the Commission indicated 
that nationwide, non-exclusive licenses would serve as a prerequisite for registering individual fixed and 
base stations, i.e., a licensee cannot operate a fixed or base station before registering it under its license 
and must delete registrations for unused fixed or base stations to facilitate proper coordination.229
75. Like the 3650-3700 MHz licensing regime, any space launch operator interested in 
obtaining a nationwide, non-exclusive license can do so on the condition that they agree to cooperate with 
and avoid harmful interference to co-frequency entities and complete coordination efforts to avoid in-
band interference, including providing the information necessary to conduct coordination via site 
registration.230  All commercial space launch licensees in the band will have equal rights to the use of the 
spectrum as long as they comply with all applicable licensing, service, and operating rules but all the 
licensees will have a mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid causing harmful interference to other users 
in the band.  Applicant qualification for non-exclusive nationwide wireless licenses in the space launch 
service will be assessed in accordance with FCC Form 601 and Commission rules.231  There will be no 
limit to the number of non-exclusive nationwide wireless licenses that may be granted for the spectrum 
allocated to commercial space launch services, and these licenses will serve as a prerequisite for 
registering launch sites and operational parameters, space launch vehicle stations, individual ground/earth 
stations, and itinerant stations needed to support a launch.232  We note that the registration process will be 
streamlined to the extent possible233 and will be done electronically through the Universal Licensing 
228 ULA Comments at 2-4.
See Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 04-151; Rules for Wireless Broadband 
Services in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 05-96; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 
900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380; Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to the 
3650-3700 MHz Government Transfer Band, ET Docket No. 98-237, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 6502 (2005) (3650-3700 MHz R&O); see also 47 CFR § 90.1307 (Licensing).
230 See 3650-3700 MHz R&O, 20 FCC Rcd at 6512-13, para. 30.
231 47 CFR §§ 1.913-1.917.  FCC Form 601 - Application for Authorization in the Wireless Radio Service.
232 We will not require a space launch operator to obtain a construction permit before obtaining a space launch 
license.  Given the variable nature of space launch operations and the fact that a space launch operator might not 
have ground facilities, we are not imposing a build-out or construction requirement.  Space launch licensees will 
include both site owners/operators and launch vehicle operators, with the majority being commercial launch vehicle 
operators many of whom are using Federal launch facilities or FAA-certified sites that are already in existence.  
Moreover, like the 3650-3700 MHz model, we are allowing licensees to determine their individual business needs 
with respect to facility access, and by adopting a nationwide, non-exclusive licensing scheme instead of a site-based, 
exclusive licensing approach, we are providing launch vehicle operators, many of whom do not own their own 
launch sites, with operational flexibility and the ability to access a wide range of launch facilities around the 
country.  With regard to the construction permit requirement of section 319(d) of the Communications Act, the 
radios on launch vehicles will be mobile stations so their operators will be exempt from needing a construction 
permit.  See 47 U.S.C. § 319(d).  To the extent that launch site operators are subject to Section 319(d) given their 
non-common carrier status, we find that a waiver of the construction permit requirement is warranted and would 
serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity by, among other things, expediting the provision of space 
launch communications services and promoting innovation and investment in the United States commercial space 
launch industry.  
233 Licensees will be required to provide information necessary for identification and location of fixed, base, and 
itinerant stations (e.g., latitude and longitude) as well as mobile stations associated with the launch vehicle and 
technical information on each station’s operation to facilitate interference analysis (e.g., bandwidth, frequency and 
antenna characteristics).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
29System (ULS) as suggested by several commenters.234  The initial filing date for these commercial space 
launch licenses, along with directions on how to use the ULS, will be announced in a future Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) Public Notice.  We note that in order to keep the ULS licensing and 
registration database for space launch services accurate and up-to-date, we delegate to the WTB the 
authority to adopt rules regarding the reporting of database information including reporting of any license 
or secondary markets transactions.  The WTB will issue a Public Notice seeking comment on these issues, 
as appropriate.235
76. As stated above, we are hereby creating a new rule Part 26 that will set forth the 
licensing, operation, and service rules for the space launch service.  With respect to their regulatory status 
under the Communications Act, space launch service licensees operating in these shared use bands will be 
providing services on a non-common carrier basis236 after they obtain their licenses and register the launch 
site and corresponding fixed, base, and itinerant stations as well as mobile stations associated with the 
launch vehicle to comply with post-license grant coordination requirements.  Consistent with the non-
exclusive nature of the licensing scheme we are adopting here, we will not impose any spectrum 
aggregation limits, either in-band or out-of-band, or eligibility restrictions other than the eligibility criteria 
discussed above in section III.B.1.c above and statutory foreign ownership restrictions.237  All potential 
space launch service providers will have equal access to these bands and by opening this spectrum to as 
wide a range of eligible applicants as possible, we aim to encourage new entry and investment as well as 
entrepreneurial efforts to develop new launch-related technologies and services, while helping to ensure 
efficient spectrum use.  We further believe that this approach will promote economic opportunity and 
competition in the subject bands.  We will not impose a performance or build-out requirement because 
space launch sites and launch vehicles may vary from launch to launch, making specific construction 
requirements impractical.  Of course, any interested party is free to, depending on the site, construct 
facilities and may operate according to its particular business plan at any time, as long as it has a valid 
wireless license, registers its stations, and complies with coordination requirements as well as other 
applicable rules.  However, we strongly expect space launch service providers to consult with NTIA in 
advance of commencing construction on a new launch site.  We conclude such a consultation is in the 
provider’s best interest, as providers will have the information needed from NTIA to make an informed 
decision about whether to proceed with construction at a given site.  Although we do not impose a 
performance requirement, we will require that space launch licensees delete registrations for unused sites 
and unused fixed, base, itinerant, and mobile stations in order to maintain ULS database integrity and 
facilitate efficient coordination between licensees.
77. Any eligible party may apply at any time for a license in these frequency bands 
regardless of the presence of other licensees in the geographic area where it intends to use the spectrum 
234 See Boeing Comments at 9, 15; SBE Comments at 7; EIBASS Comments at 4; Boeing Reply at 10-11; EIBASS 
Reply at 1-2. 
235 Any delegations in this Order to WTB to adopt rules or procedures are subject to the requirements of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.  See, e,g., infra paras. 75, 98 and Appendix A (adopting 47 CFR § 0.331(g)).
236 Regulatory status as a common carrier or non-common carrier depends on the services provided pursuant to the 
Communications Act.  Section 153 of the Communications Act defines the term “common carrier” as “any person 
engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in interstate or 
foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this Act [47 
USCS §§ 151 et seq.]; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be 
deemed a common carrier.”  See 47 U.S.C. § 153. 
237 Sections 310(a) and 310(b) of the Communications Act, as modified by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
impose foreign ownership and citizenship requirements that restrict the issuance of licenses to certain applicants.  47 
U.S.C. § 310(a), (b).  We note that under the Act, an applicant requesting authorization for services other than 
broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route, or aeronautical fixed services would be subject to only section 
310(a), which states “[t]he station license required under this Act shall not be granted to or held by any foreign 
government or the representative thereof.”  47 U.S.C. § 310(a).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
30and licensees may assign or transfer their non-exclusive nationwide authorizations, upon application to 
and prior approval from the Commission.238  However, our decision to license the space launch services 
on a non-exclusive nationwide basis obviates the need to adopt partitioning and disaggregation provisions 
because partitioning and disaggregation is only pertinent in geographic licensing settings where the 
licensee has exclusive use of a particular area.  For similar reasons, we need not make our spectrum 
leasing rules applicable to licensees because the non-exclusive licensing scheme we employ here, coupled 
with the required post-license coordination, permits a high degree of access and spectrum re-use in these 
bands by multiple users, while minimizing the likelihood of harmful interference.  Accordingly, the 
spectrum leasing arrangements described in the Secondary Markets Report and Order are not 
applicable,239 and we do not see a need to apply those spectrum leasing rules and policies to this spectrum 
at this time.
f. Authorized bandwidth
78. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to grant licenses for commercial space launch 
operations using a 5 megahertz bandwidth for the 2200-2290 MHz band and sought comment on the 
appropriate bandwidth for the 2025-2110 MHz band.240  The Commission also sought comment on 
whether to permit licensees to use larger bandwidths upon adequate justification, and also on whether to 
authorize operations using a range of bandwidths instead of a fixed bandwidth of 5 megahertz.241  After 
reviewing the record, as well as the space launch operations the Commission has licensed on experimental 
bases to date, we will issue licenses of any bandwidth a licensee chooses, up to 5 megahertz, for both 
bands.  In the event a licensee requires a bandwidth greater than 5 megahertz, we will authorize a 
bandwidth exceeding 5 megahertz upon adequate justification for why such bandwidth is necessary for 
space launch operations in a particular launch.  For purposes of such requests, licensees must demonstrate 
that the bandwidth requested is that which is necessary to accomplish the specific telemetry, tracking, or 
command operation(s) at issue.  This framework is similar to our licensing of the 2360-2395 MHz band 
space launch telemetry and telecommand operations, which are licensed on a range of bandwidths capped 
at 5 megahertz, with larger bandwidths available on a case-by-case basis.242
79. Given that the majority of requests for experimental licenses for the 2200-2290 MHz 
band to date have requested bandwidths smaller than 5 megahertz,243 we find it appropriate to impose a 5 
megahertz maximum bandwidth limitation.  In light of the existing usage of this band, we find it 
appropriate to limit the authorized bandwidth to only that which is generally necessary for a launch.  We 
note that the limit for federal space launches using the 2200-2290 megahertz band is 5 megahertz,244 and 
NASA supports applying a 5 megahertz maximum bandwidth to non-federal launch operations as well.245  
While there was limited discussion in the record regarding the appropriate bandwidth limit for the 2025-
2110 MHz band, NOAA notes that federal entities are limited to a maximum bandwidth of 5 megahertz in 
both the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands in order to reduce congestion and to ensure 
238 See FCC Form 603.
239 See Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary 
Markets, WT Docket No. 00-230, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 
20604, 20643-44 (2003) (Secondary Markets Report and Order) (spectrum leasing policies apply to services in 
which licensees hold exclusive use rights with respect to the spectrum).
240 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7796-97, paras. 81-82.
241 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7796-97, para. 81.
242 47 CFR § 87.303(d)(3) (authorizing bandwidths of 1, 3, or 5 megahertz for the 2345-2395 MHz band, but 
permitting larger bandwidths on a case-by-case basis).
243 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7796, para. 81.
244 See NTIA Manual § 8.2.41.
245 NTIA/NASA Comments at 9.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
31compatibility with existing operations.246  We conclude that it would be appropriate to apply a 5 
megahertz limit to non-federal uses of the 2025-2110 MHz band for these reasons as well.  While some 
industry commenters advocated for an authorized bandwidth exceeding 5 megahertz,247 we find that a 5 
megahertz limit for both the 2025-2110 MHz band and the 2200-2290 MHz band will help to lessen 
impacts to other users in these bands, and put commercial space launch operators on par with federal 
entities as well as those using the 2360-2395 MHz band for launch operations.  And as explained below, 
we are allowing licensees to exceed the 5 megahertz bandwidth to the extent they can demonstrate such 
additional bandwidth is necessary for a given launch.
80. Further, we find that allowing licensees to choose their own bandwidth, up to 5 
megahertz, will provide licensees with the flexibility to undertake a variety of commercial space launch 
activities, including future industry developments.  No commenters opposed this approach, while NASA 
supports allowing non-federal users to use any bandwidth up to and including 5 megahertz, noting that the 
narrower emissions will be easier to coordinate with existing Federal users.248  For those reasons, we will 
allow licensees to choose a bandwidth of any size, up to 5 megahertz.
81. While we find that we should impose a maximum bandwidth of 5 megahertz as a means 
to help lessen the impact of commercial space launch operations on these bands, we are aware that there 
may be instances when wider bandwidths may be necessary for a given launch.  We therefore find it 
appropriate to permit commercial space launch operators to use bandwidths exceeding 5 megahertz on a 
case-by-case basis.  Several commenters advocate for bandwidths exceeding 5 megahertz.  United Launch 
Alliance states that allowing bandwidths greater than 5 megahertz will reduce operation costs and provide 
needed spectrum.249  Boeing argues that larger bandwidths will provide significant benefits to commercial 
space launch operators.250  The AIA also supports mechanisms that would permit access to wider 
bandwidths in certain circumstances.251  Conversely, NASA argues that authorized bandwidth should be 
capped at 5 megahertz, arguing that the same restriction applies to Federal users in the 2200-2290 MHz 
range.252  However, bandwidths exceeding 5 megahertz in the 2200-2290 MHz band are available to 
Federal users upon adequate justification.253  In addition, commercial launches in the 2200-2290 MHz 
range using bandwidths exceeding 5 megahertz have been successfully coordinated with NTIA in the 
past.254  Similarly, as noted, although launch operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band have a limit of 5 
megahertz, our rules permit applicants to seek authorization for wider bandwidths.255
82. Accordingly, for those commercial space launch operators seeking authorizations for 
bandwidths exceeding 5 megahertz in the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2100 MHz bands, we will apply the 
NTIA framework for such requests.256  Specifically, the requesting space launch operator shall submit a 
246 NTIA/NOAA Comments at 27.
247 ULA Comments at 28; SpaceX Comments at 16; AIA Comments at 1-2.
248 NTIA/NASA Comments at 9, 14.
249 ULA Comments at 28.
250 Boeing Comments at 20.
251 AIA Comments at 2.
252 NTIA/NASA Comments at 13.
253 See NTIA Manual § 8.2.4.1.
254 See, e.g., Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Special Temporary Authorization, Call Sign WG9XHP, ELS 
File Nos. 1895-EX-ST-2020, 0126-EX-ST-2021, 0249-EX-ST-2021.
255 47 CFR § 87.303(d)(3).  Applications for greater bandwidths are considered in accordance with the provisions of 
47 CFR § 87.135.
256 See NTIA Manual § 8.2.41.  Section 87.303(d)(3) provides that applications for bandwidths greater than 5 
megahertz may be submitted for the 2360-2395 MHz band, but does not specify a framework for those requests.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
32justification as part of the registration process for a launch on why the requested bandwidth is necessary 
for the specific TT&C space launch operation, including an explanation of why the operator’s 
requirements cannot be satisfied using a bandwidth of 5 megahertz or less.  The applicant’s justification 
will be carefully assessed to determine whether a request for bandwidth in excess of 5 megahertz for a 
given launch will be granted.  Such requests will not be routinely granted given the goal of limiting 
impacts to other users in the band.  As discussed below, all launch operations must be coordinated; we 
note that, given the heavy usage of these bands, it may be difficult to successfully coordinate operations 
involving requests for bandwidths greater than 5 megahertz. 
g. License Term and Renewal
83. We adopt a ten-year license term for commercial space launch operations.  In the 
FNPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that a ten-year term would provide sufficient certainty 
and flexibility for space launch providers.257  The Commission has applied ten-year license terms to 
similar services, such as Part 87 aviation,258 Part 90 radiolocation,259 and Part 90 telemetry and remote 
control operations.260  More generally, ten-year license terms are common among the Commission’s 
various wireless services.261  Several commenters support our ten-year term proposal.262  Boeing, for 
example, agrees that a ten-year license term would appropriately balance the need for continued 
Commission oversight with the goal of minimizing unnecessary administrative burdens.263
84. SpaceX and Astra advocate for 15-year license terms.  More specifically, SpaceX 
advocates for parity with space stations and earth stations, which are licensed for up to15-year terms, and 
argues that operations at a given launch site will take place for an extended period of time.264  Astra 
argues that a 15-year license term will provide space launch providers with greater operational 
certainty.265  We do not agree that a longer 15-year term is necessary for commercial space launch 
operations.  Regarding space stations and earth stations, the operation of satellite communications under 
Part 25 presents a distinct set of factors from space launch considerations, including the scope and extent 
of deployment.266  Although the Commission has also adopted 15-year license terms under certain 
257 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7797, para. 83.
258 47 CFR § 87.27.
259 47 CFR § 90.149(a).
260 See 47 CFR § 90.20(d)(34), (91), (92) (authorizing telemetry and remote control operations on certain Public 
Safety Pool frequencies); 47 CFR § 90.149(a) (ten-year term for all services authorized under Part 90, including the 
Public Safety Pool).
261 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 24.15 (ten-year term for Personal Communications Services); 47 CFR § 27.13(a) (ten-year 
term for Wireless Communications Services); 47 CFR § 27.13(b) (ten-year term for 700 MHz Services); 47 CFR § 
27.13(g), (i), (j) (ten-year term for Advanced Wireless Services); 47 CFR § 95.1912 (ten-year term for 218-219 
MHz Service); 47 CFR § 95.1705 (ten-year term for General Mobile Radio Service).
262 ULA Comments at 13-14; Boeing Comments at 13; SIA Comments at 8-9.
263 Boeing Comments at 19.
264 SpaceX Comments at 16-17.
265 Astra Reply at 8.
266 For example, while the Commission agreed that a 15-year license term with respect to the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite 
Service band would provide increased certainty, the longer license term was largely adopted to allow operators to 
attract the extremely large amount of capital necessary to deploy a global system, and to also accommodate the 
lifespan of the satellites providing service—factors that are not applicable to a space launch operation.  See The 
Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99-
81, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16175-16176, paras 101-103 (2000).  The Commission also indicated 
that the longer license term in that instance could also serve to assure continuity of service to consumers, to reduce 
the burden associated with the grant of ad hoc extensions, and to acknowledge the great expense of procuring the 
initial license.  Id. at 16177, para. 105.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
33circumstances for non-satellite wireless services, it has done so to address circumstances not present here, 
such as the complexities surrounding 5G deployment, relocation and repacking of incumbent operations, 
and support for network expansion and densification.267  We instead agree with SIA that a ten-year term is 
sufficient to provide launch operators with the certainty of a longer license term, and will encourage 
launch operators to make long-term investments.268  And while we seek to provide commercial space 
launch operators with as much certainty as possible, we also find it necessary to set timeframes that will 
enable us to adequately verify that licensees are operating within their authorized parameters.  Given the 
congested nature of the bands at issue, we conclude that such review should take place after ten years, 
not 15.
85. Given the heavy use of these bands, we also find it appropriate to require space launch 
operators to demonstrate that they qualify for license renewal.  In the FNPRM, the Commission sought 
comment on whether to require commercial space launch licensees to make a renewal showing, such as 
certifying that they are operating consistent with their initial application for authorization or that they 
have complied with the required coordination.269  
86. In 2017, the Commission harmonized the renewal processes for numerous Wireless 
Radio Services (WRS).270  The Commission determined that a site-based WRS licensee would meet our 
renewal standard if it could certify that it is continuing to operate consistent with its most recently filed 
construction notification (or most recent authorization, when no construction notification is required), and 
make certifications regarding permanent discontinuance and substantial compliance with Commission 
rules and policies.271  The Commission also provided that, for geographic-based licenses to qualify for 
renewal at the end of an initial license term, the licensee must show that it timely constructed to any 
level(s) required by the service-specific rules for either provision of service to the public or for the 
licensee’s private and internal needs, and, thereafter, consistent with the Commission’s permanent 
discontinuance rules, continuously provided service or operated at or above the required level(s) for the 
remainder of the license term.272  The WRS Order does not apply to Wireless Radio Services that are 
licensed by rule or on a "personal" basis or that have no construction/performance obligation.273
87. Because launch operations are dissimilar to most other wireless services, we do not find it 
appropriate to apply to commercial space launch licensees the same renewal standards that are applied to 
geographic-based or site-based WRS licensees.  Instead, a commercial space launch licensee will be 
entitled to renewal if it remains otherwise qualified and can certify that (1) it has operated and is 
continuing to operate consistent with Commission rules and the terms of its existing authorization, and (2) 
267 See Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 19-348, Second Report and Order, 
Order on Reconsideration, and Order of Proposed Modification, 36 FCC Rcd 5987, 6029, paras. 116-17 (2021); 
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-122, Report and Order and Order of 
Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2384-85, paras. 90-91 (2020).
268 SIA Comments at 8-9.
269 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7798, para. 85.
270See Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and JOI to Establish Uniform License Renewal,
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for
Certain Wireless Services, WT Docket No. 10-112, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 32 FCC Red 8874 (2017) (WRS Renewal Reform 2nd R&O and FNPRM).
271 WRS Renewal Reform 2nd R&O and FNPRM, 32 FCC Red 8874, 8882, para. 19.
272 WRS Renewal Reform 2nd R&O and FNPRM, 32 FCC Red 8874, 8878, para. 10; 8883-86, paras. 19-24.  For 
subsequent renewals, the licensee was required to demonstrate that it continuously provided service to the public or 
operated under the license to meet the licensee’s private, internal communications needs, at or above the level 
required to meet the final construction requirement during the initial term of the license.
273 WRS Renewal Reform 2nd R&O and FNPRM, 32 FCC Red 8874, 8880, para. 13.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
34it has complied with the required coordination throughout its license term.274  Given the nature of space 
launch operations (for example, there may be significant periods of time between launches), we will not 
apply discontinuance of operations rules.
88. Most of those commenting on this issue support a presumptive renewal expectancy and 
oppose renewal showings.275  Commenters that oppose the use of a renewal showing claim that one is not 
necessary given the non-exclusive nature of the band, which, commenters claim, prevents spectrum 
warehousing by itself.276  While we agree that a non-exclusive band presents different considerations from 
an exclusive licensing regime, we conclude that imposing this requirement will aid the Commission in 
verifying that space launch entities are operating within licensed parameters, thereby helping to manage 
use and prevent interference within congested bands.  As noted in the FNPRM, we conclude that requiring 
a renewal showing from commercial space launch entities would facilitate efficient spectrum use by 
ensuring that licensees use the spectrum productively, collaboratively, and in compliance with 
Commission rules.277  For that reason, we adopt the aforementioned renewal standard.
h. Application Process
89.Background.  The FNPRM sought comment on the application process to be used to 
assign commercial space launch licenses.278  The Commission also sought comment on whether 
assignment of space launch operations licenses is subject to Section 309(j) of the Communications Act279 
but noted that the shared, non-exclusive licensing it was proposing for the spectrum bands at issue would 
not result in mutually exclusive applications and thus would not be subject to such competitive bidding 
requirements.280  The Commission stated that it aimed to establish an application framework that would 
increase the regulatory certainty while reducing the administrative burden on space launch operators and 
sought comment on whether applicants should seek authorizations by either filing an FCC Form 601 and 
applicable schedules through ULS or to use aspects of Form 312 and Schedule S through the International 
Communications Filing System (ICFS).281
90. The FNPRM asked commenters to weigh in on the appropriate type of licensing scheme, 
including site-based licensing or a nationwide non-exclusive licensing application process that would be 
coupled with a planned launch coordination registration.282  In addition to asking about the most efficient 
and effective way to license space launch operations that will provide operators with substantial benefits 
274 Commercial space launch licenses will be subject to the standard electronic filing requirements applicable to 
renewal applications set forth in section 1.949(a) of the Commission’s rules.  See 47 CFR § 1.949(a).
275 Boeing Comments at 13 (advocating for presumptive renewal expectancy and no built out or minimum usage 
requirements); Northrop Grumman Reply at 17-18 (urging traditional, routine renewal process); Astra Reply at 8 
(renewal showing not needed).
276 Northrop Grumman Reply at 17-18; Astra Reply at 8.
277 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7798, para. 85.
278 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7798, para. 86.
279 Specifically, Section 309(j) of the Communications Act requires that the Commission assign initial licenses 
through the use of competitive bidding when mutually exclusive applications for such licenses are accepted for 
filing, except in the case of certain specific statutory exemptions.  See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1), (2).  Section 765(f) of 
the Communications Act also states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not 
have the authority to assign by competitive bidding orbital locations or spectrum used for the provision of 
international or global satellite communications services.” 47 U.S.C §￿765f.  We note that the Commission's 
authority to assign licenses through competitive bidding expired on March 9, 2023.
280 See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act — Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, 
Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2351, para. 13 (1994).
281 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7798-99, para. 87.
282 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7799-7800, paras. 88-91.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
35in terms of flexibility and efficiency, and facilitate rapid implementation of the service, the Commission 
sought comment on how to allow applicants to request authorization covering all launches within their 
license terms.283
91.ITU Process.  The FNPRM noted that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 
Radio Regulations are treaty provisions binding on the United States, and require that no transmitting 
station may be established or operated by a private person or by any enterprise without a license by or on 
behalf of the government of the country to which the station in question is subject.284  Because space 
launch operations could cause harmful interference in other countries, the Commission sought comment 
on its proposal to require applicants to submit appropriate draft documentation for submission to the ITU 
and whether there are other alternatives, including bi-lateral coordination with affected countries, to 
coordinate and minimize harmful interference from any FCC authorized space launch operation.285  The 
FNPRM also sought comment more generally on the ITU process as it relates to space launch vehicle 
licensing and operations.286
92.Space Launch Vehicle Operations with Earth Stations Outside the United States.  In the 
FNPRM we noted that launch vehicle flight paths commonly extend downrange beyond the United States, 
which would require the launch vehicle to communicate with earth stations outside the U.S., particularly 
in the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands.  We sought comment on the best way to authorize the 
use of the relevant spectrum bands to account for these operations.  We also sought comment on the role 
that ITU coordination should have in a licensing approach that would address the need for down-range 
communications during launch.
93.   Operations Inside the United States with non-United States Space Launch Vehicles.  We 
also sought comment on the inverse situation: how the Commission should authorize U.S.-licensed earth 
station operations communicating with space launch vehicles originating from a non-U.S. launch site and 
not otherwise licensed to communicate with earth stations in the United States.287  We sought comment on 
whether to adopt a process for ground station operators to request communications with these launch 
vehicles and noted the Part 25 rule allowing U.S.-based earth station operators to apply for authority to 
communicate with non-U.S.-licensed space stations.288
94.Discussion.  As an initial matter, we conclude that it serves the public interest and the 
Commission’s policy objectives to promote innovation and investment in the United States commercial 
space launch industry by assigning non-exclusive nationwide licenses for the space launch services which 
will not result in mutually exclusive applications and therefore will not be subject to the competitive 
bidding requirements of section 309(j) of the Communications Act.289  Consistent with our decision to 
283 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7799-7800, para. 89.
284 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7800, para. 92, citing International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio 
Regulations, No. 18.1 (2015).
285 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7800, para. 92.
286 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7800-01, para. 93.
287 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7801-02, para. 96.
288 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 25.137.  See also Amendment of the Commission’s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. 
Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, IB Docket No. 
96-111, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997) (DISCO II).
289 Our decision herein to adopt a licensing scheme that avoids mutual exclusivity comports with the competitive 
bidding approach set forth in the Commission’s Balanced Budget Act proceeding.  In the BBA Report and Order, 
the Commission established a framework for exercise of the Commission’s auction authority, as expanded by the 
Balanced Budget Act.  See Implementation of Section 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as 
Amended, WT Docket No. 99-87, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 
22709, 22718-22723 (2000) (BBA Report and Order).  The BBA Report and Order affirmed that, in identifying 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
36adopt a non-exclusive nationwide licensing scheme, we will adopt an application process modeled after 
the 3650-3700 MHz licensing framework to permit space launch operators access to various spectrum 
bands on a non-exclusive basis, subject to measures designed to promote shared use of spectrum, that will 
impose a post-license grant frequency coordination and registration requirement prior to each launch.
95.Application Form and Licensing Database.  Building on our decision to utilize a 
modified version of the 3650-3700 MHz licensing model, we will require space launch operators to apply 
for and obtain a nationwide, non-exclusive license in ULS.  Once licensed, space launch operators, 
working through a third-party coordinator, must coordinate each launch with NTIA and other non-Federal 
users, as discussed infra.  After that per-launch, per-site coordination process has been successfully 
completed,  space launch operators must then register in ULS the technical and operating parameters 
associated with the coordinated launches.  Only after the final technical parameters of a given launch are 
registered under their license can space launch operators commence their launch service subject to the 
condition that they re-coordinate a launch if operational details change and agree to maintain and update 
those registered sites and stations, including deleting any unused or superceded launch site or station 
information to facilitate coordination.  The information required for the application, coordination and 
registration processes will be identified in a Public Notice.290  
96. A number of commenters weighed in on the use of a common database to receive 
applications for launch operators seeking authorization to provide commercial space launch services and 
to register terrestrial sites and associated stations.291  Some suggested supplementing applications with an 
online registration portal to monitor the review of license applications.292  Several commenters advocated 
for the use of the Commission’s existing licensing databases, Universal Licensing System (ULS) or 
International Communications Filing System (ICFS), and their associated forms and schedules.293  We 
agree with Boeing that requiring applicants to file FCC Form 601 and its associated schedules through the 
ULS would be expedient and administratively efficient294 and note that the 3650-3700 MHz band upon 
which we are basing our licensing approach has been successfully administered through ULS.  We 
which classes of licenses should be subject to competitive bidding, the Commission must pursue the public interest 
objectives set forth in Section 309(j)(3).  Id.  Although the Balanced Budget Act did not amend Section 309(j)(3)’s 
directive to consider certain public interest objectives in identifying classes of licenses and permits to be issued by 
competitive bidding, pursuant to that statute, Section 309(j)(1) did include a reference to the Commission’s 
obligation to avoid mutual exclusivity under Section 309(j)(6)(E), which directs the Commission to use engineering 
solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations, or other means to avoid mutual exclusivity 
where it is in the public interest to do so.  See 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(1), 309(j)(3).309(j)(6)(E).   Accordingly, the BBA 
Report and Order affirmed that the Commission has a continuing obligation to attempt to avoid mutual exclusivity 
by the methods prescribed in Section 309(j)(6) only when doing so furthers the public interest goals set forth in 
Section 309(j)(3).  See BBA Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 22718-22723.
As a general matter, in determining whether to assign licenses through the use of competitive bidding, the 
Commission consistently has concluded that its obligation to avoid mutual exclusivity does not preclude it from 
adopting licensing processes in the non-exempt services that result in the filing of mutually exclusive applications 
where it determines that such an approach would serve the public interest.  Id.  In adopting the appropriate licensing 
scheme for any particular spectrum band, the Commission has interpreted its statutory obligation in a manner 
consistent with the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which stated, “Section 309(j)(6)(E) 
imposes an obligation only to minimize mutual exclusivity ‘in the public interest’ and ‘within the framework of 
existing policies.’”  See Benkleman Telephone Co. et al v. FCC, 220 F.3d 601,606 (D.C. Cir. 2000), petition for 
rehearing on other grounds pending (citing DIRECTV, Inc.  v. FCC, 110 F.3d 816, 828 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).  
290 See discussion supra at Section III.B.1.e (Licensing).
291 See ULA Comments at 2-4; Boeing Comments at 15; ICR Comments at 3-4; SpaceX Comments at 13; Northrop 
Grumman Reply at 17-18; Boeing Reply at 10-11; Industry Participants Reply at 9; Spaceflight Reply at 10.
292 See Boeing Reply at 10-11; ICR Comments at 3-4.
293 See Boeing Comments at 15; SpaceX Comments at 13.
294 See Boeing Comments at 15.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
37therefore decline to use Form 312 and Schedule S and ICFS at this time.  While several commenters 
urged us to consider using FCC Form 312 and Schedule S in the ICFS system in line with Part 25 
authorizations,295 we agree with Boeing that Form 312 and Schedule S would require significant revisions 
to accommodate space launch licenses, changes that would be difficult to implement with the older ICFS 
software.296  We also find using the ULS database to field applications is consistent with our decision to 
create a new rule Part 26 for the space launch service rather than shoehorning a unique and fast 
developing service into existing rule parts like Part 87, Part 90, or Part 25.
97.Filing requirements and station registration to facilitate post-licensing coordination with 
frequency coordinators and NTIA/DoD.  Having identified the appropriate application intake process, we 
now turn to the information that applicants will have to provide to obtain a nationwide, non-exclusive 
license to operate space launch services in the frequency bands at issue.  We received only a few 
comments regarding the information that applicants should provide in an application.  Northrop Grumman 
suggested that a nationwide license application would require identification of all relevant frequencies, 
technical parameters, launch sites, and ground stations.297  Northrop Grumman also asserts that each 
application would be subject to FCC public notice and approval processes and requirements, along with 
NTIA coordination.298  SBE suggested that each applicant should demonstrate that it has previously 
coordinated its proposed operations with the SBE frequency coordinator; that it has ascertained that its 
proposal will not constrain, preclude, nor interfere with incumbents in the band; and that a technical 
showing shows that its proposed operation will not create more than 0.5 dB increase in the noise 
threshold of a receiver at a fixed or temporary fixed Electronic News Gathering (ENG) receive site.299  
We find that these comments have merit, but that technical data such as frequencies would be most useful 
for coordinating and registering specific launches.  For purposes of applying for the nationwide, non-
exclusive license, we find that it is only necessary for launch providers to provide administrative 
information and later register data associated with a specific launch operation, such as the name of the 
launch sites and their latitude, longitude, address, corresponding stations, and area of operation for mobile 
stations.  Indeed, data such as frequencies and technical parameters will vary from launch to launch and 
are not necessary for assessing an application for a nationwide, non-exclusive license.  
98. We will delegate to the WTB the authority to further review and refine the filing process.  
As stated previously,300 the initial filing date for these commercial space launch applications, along with 
directions on how to use the ULS, will be announced in a future WTB Public Notice.301  Correspondingly, 
295 See SpaceX Comments at 13; Northrop Grumman Reply at 17-18.
296 See Boeing Comments at 15.  Moreover, as Industry Participants and Spaceflight point out, operators of on-orbit 
servicing (OOS) and rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) would face challenges using Schedule S because 
the form is outdated (operators often request waiver of the form) and it is difficult to accurately represent novel 
systems with the form, particularly since OOS and RPO use spectrum very differently than most satellite missions 
under Part 25.  See Industry Participants Reply at 9; Spaceflight Reply at 10.  While we acknowledge the concerns 
raised regarding the use of ICFS and its corresponding forms and schedules to cover authorizations for on-orbit 
services, we must reiterate that the licensing mechanism and application process we adopt here is limited to space 
launch activities at this juncture.
297 Northrop Grumman Reply at 8-9.
298 Id.
299 SBE Comments at 18.
300 See discussion supra at Section III.B.1.e (Licensing).
301 We find space launch services to be a new wireless radio service that would be subject to existing 
application fees under the 3-tiered schedule found in Section 1.1102 of the Commission’s rules.  
Specifically, we find that applications in this new wireless radio service are deemed “site-based” 
pursuant to Section 1.1102(b)) for purposes of application fees.  See 47 CFR § 1.1102(b).  Section 
1.1102(b) defines site-based licensed services as services for which an applicant’s initial application for 
authorization generally provides the exact technical parameters of its planned operations (such as transmitter 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
38we also delegate to the WTB the authority to specify application information, to make any necessary 
modifications to the FCC Form 601 and its related schedules, including any reprogramming of the ULS 
software, to accommodate the application and post-license site and station registration and frequency 
coordination process prior to each launch.  The WTB will issue a Public Notice, in consultation with the 
Space Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology, seeking comment on these issues, as 
appropriate, to further refine our online application process and accommodate frequency coordination.302
99. As discussed infra, we will require space launch operators to coordinate every launch 
with applicable Federal and non-Federal entities.  While the WTB after seeking comment will issue a 
Public Notice identifying information that will be required with respect to the application and 
coordination processes as well as post-license grant registrations, licensees will likely be expected to 
provide, at a minimum, the same operational and technical parameters currently required of applicants 
seeking special temporary authority for their space launches to facilitate post-licensing coordination.303  
We anticipate that licensees will identify requisite site and station information, including the specific 
coordinates of fixed, base, and itinerant stations (e.g., latitude and longitude), frequency channels, launch 
trajectories, launch window or planned launch date, and any other technical and operational information 
(e.g., antenna characteristics, power levels, emission designators, launch vehicle trajectory) needed by a 
third-party frequency coordinator to submit the launch coordination request to the relevant non-Federal 
and Federal entities.  Other information could include coordinates and operational parameters of the 
earth/ground stations launch operators will be using to provide service at a particular launch site, 
including whether the sites are Federal or FAA-licensed commercial spaceports or non-Federal launch 
sites (e.g., Spaceport America in New Mexico and Mojave Air and Space Port in California).  Operators 
may also be asked to provide any coordination agreements that they have already entered into with co-
frequency entities or successfully completed coordination conducted by the designated frequency 
coordinator.  As part of this post-license grant coordination process, launch providers must consistent 
with our service rules comply with the continuing obligation to update their licenses to ensure proper 
coordination.  As noted, the WTB Public Notice will seek comment on collection of this coordination 
data as well.304
100.Space Launch Vehicle Operations with Earth Stations Outside the United States.  ULA 
and SpaceX suggest that the Commission forego restrictions on launch vehicle spectrum operations 
outside the U.S.  And ULA, as well as SIA, question whether the Commission has jurisdiction to regulate 
foreign earth stations’ communication with U.S. launch vehicles.  SIA asserts that a launch operator with 
a launch path that extends into a foreign territory must comply with the licensing requirements of that 
country for those communication needs.  Similarly, Boeing suggests that the Commission allow the 
foreign regulatory authority to handle the licensing for any communications from within its territory with 
a U.S.-launched vehicle.  Finally, Astra Space suggests that if non-U.S. launch operators are authorized to 
communicate with U.S. ground stations, a similar authorization should be made for U.S.-based launch 
vehicles that communicate with non-U.S. earth stations.
location, area of operation, desired frequency(s)/band(s), power levels).  Geographic-based licenses, on the other 
hand, authorize an applicant to construct anywhere within a particular geographic area’s boundary and generally do 
not require applicants to submit additional applications for prior Commission approval of specific transmitter 
locations.  Although space launch entities will be authorized on a nationwide basis, the site-based designation is 
better suited for the per-launch registration process.  
302 Until we begin accepting applications for space launch services, launch operators will continue to apply for 
authorization under the normal STA process.
303 See discussion infra at Section III.B.1.i (Frequency Coordination).
304 The WTB Public Notice will outline the process for coordination to be followed by space launch operators in 
detail.  NTIA may also establish a mechanism to help facilitate the coordination between non-Federal launch 
operations and Federal incumbents in these bands.  In the event an NTIA coordination mechanism is established, 
WTB will issue a Public Notice with instructions regarding that coordination mechanism.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
39101. We agree with commenters that any launch vehicle operator that requires communication 
with a foreign earth station must obtain the necessary approvals for operations of the earth station from 
the appropriate regulatory body in that country.  However, this does not mean that the launch vehicle can 
be correctly viewed as licensed by that same regulatory body.  We are unaware of any ITU 
Administration that views a U.S. launch vehicle upper stage as a station subject to its licensing (See 
Article 18.1) simply because it communicates with an earth station within its territory, and similarly this 
is not the approach taken for non-U.S. launch vehicles communicating with U.S. earth stations.  More 
generally our current licensing of space stations, including under Parts 5, 25, and 97, accounts for space 
station operations with earth stations outside the United States.  The conditions that the Commission 
places on a satellite license continue to be in effect for the duration of satellite operations regardless of 
whether the satellite communicates with non-U.S. licensed earth stations, and in some circumstances the 
space station authorization may involve communications exclusively with earth stations outside the 
United States.
102.Operations Inside the United States with non-United States Space Launch Vehicles.  We 
received limited comments on this issue.305  We agree with Boeing that there may not be a current demand 
for these types of communications.  We conclude that we can address any requests for these 
communications through the experimental licensing process for the time being.   We believe this approach 
addresses Astra Space’s comments as well by providing an avenue for operators to seek authorization. 
103.ITU Process.  Commenters generally oppose requiring submissions to the ITU related to 
space launch operations.  ULA, Northrop Grumman, and SIA assert that an ITU filing is unnecessary to 
the space launch licensing process given that there is no existing ITU filing process requirement for such 
operations.306  ULA and Northrop Grumman both note that engaging in a lengthy ITU filing process 
would be burdensome and unrealistic with the nature of short-duration space launch operations and the 
fleeting potential for harmful interference.307  Similarly, Boeing argues that because space launches often 
occur over major oceans, there is little concern for interference with international spectrum users but 
suggests that any potential concern with neighboring nations could be addressed through bilateral 
agreements.308  Astra Space also supports the notion of bilateral agreements with any affected countries to 
address interference concerns instead of an ITU filing requirement.309
104. We agree with commenters that under current circumstances many U.S.-based space 
launches may not result in the realistic potential for international harmful interference, particularly with 
respect to the first stage of a launch vehicle or a single stage launch vehicle, for which radio operations 
may be limited to line-of-sight communications with ground stations in U.S. territory and occur while the 
launch vehicle is over oceanic areas.  As such, engaging in a filing process with the ITU might be viewed 
as an unnecessary administrative hurdle, and any interference concerns can be addressed bilaterally with 
adjacent countries.  However, we also recognize our duty to carry out the United States’ treaty obligations 
as a ratifying member of the ITU convention, and that this includes an obligation to ensure that U.S.-
licensed operations do not cause harmful interference on an international scale.310  This concern is of 
greater significance for launch vehicle upper stage operations involving earth stations outside the United 
States, as those operations do present the potential for interference in multiple countries.  These 
competing considerations must be taken into account in determining whether ITU filings should either be 
305 See Boeing Comments at 16-17; NASA Comments “Enclosure” at 4; Astra Space Reply at 9.
306 ULA Comments at 22-23; SIA Comments at 14; Northrop Grumman Reply at 16.
307 ULA Comments at 22-23; Northrop Grumman Reply at 16.
308 Boeing Comments at 16-17.
309 Astra Space Reply at 8-9.
310 See ITU Convention, Art.  45 “Harmful Interference” (“All stations, whatever their purpose, must be established 
and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other 
Member States….”); see also ITU Radio Regulations, Vol. 1, Nos. 0.4, 4.3, 4.4 (2020).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
40uniformly required for licensed Part 26 operations, or whether operators should be exempted from such 
requirements.
105. A third option is to require applicants to submit appropriate draft documentation for 
submission to the ITU on a case-by-case basis, as is the current practice, if the scope and nature of the 
space launch operations would have the potential to cause harmful interference in another country.  For 
example, the Commission may consider requiring a filing if the upper stages of a launch vehicle will be 
communicating with earth stations outside the United States.  This would align the U.S. with the practice 
of other countries that submit materials to the ITU for upper stage orbital operations.311  We conclude that 
this third option is preferrable.  We will not adopt a blanket requirement that all space launches require an 
ITU filing, yet we do not preclude our ability to require such a filing in the event the Commission deems 
that such a filing would be necessary and prudent in order to avoid harmful interference with other 
countries.  The Commission has taken steps to create a flexible licensing regime for space launches under 
the new Part 26, including allowing one launch license to cover multiple launches and nation-wide launch 
locations, and a 10-year license duration.  Particularly given the longer-term aspects of the licensing 
approach adopted, requiring an ITU submission as part of the license application process will not create 
an undue burden to operators in the event a filing is deemed necessary and appropriate.  We also note that 
the Commission will be bound by any future ITU requirements related to space launch filings and so our 
current position is subject to change upon the issuing of new ITU regulations in this area.312
i. Frequency Coordination
106. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate coordination process 
between Federal and non-Federal entities to be used prior to the grant of an application for space launch 
frequencies as well as a coordination process for the ongoing use of these frequencies by operators during 
their license terms.313  Historically, the Commission and NTIA’s shared licensing authority has been 
guided by an established set of procedures for developing regulations for radio services in the shared 
bands and for authorizing frequency use by Federal agencies and Commission licensees.  These 
procedures implement the obligation of NTIA and the Commission under their Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) that the agencies endeavor to give notice to each other of “all proposed actions 
that could potentially cause interference” to non-Federal and Federal operations respectively.314
107. The Commission sought comment on whether it should require applicants for a license in 
space launch frequencies to undergo a pre-application coordination requirement similar to that specified 
in section 87.305, or whether, in the alternative, the Commission should impose a different coordination 
process.315  The Commission noted that Federal entities seeking to use the 2025-2110 MHz band must 
complete a similar coordination process prior to submitting an application for authorization to NTIA, 
must coordinate with all BAS and other non-Federal incumbents that may be affected by the Federal 
operation prior to submitting an application, and must engage the local BAS frequency coordinator(s), 
311 See, e.g., French ITU filing under the ASV network name, for the upper stages of the launch vehicle, listing 
various launch vehicle trajectories for operations from French Guiana; New Zealand ITU filing under the APOG, 
ELECTRONNZ, APSS network names.
312 Additionally, the ITU is currently studying suborbital operations and considering possible appropriate 
modifications to the radio regulations to account for spectrum use for these types of operations.  See ITU Resolution 
772 (WRC-19).
313 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7802, para. 98.
314 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7802, paras. 99-100.  NTIA coordinates with Federal spectrum users through the 
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), a committee that includes representation from different 
government agencies, and typically includes a review period of 20 business days.  Memorandum of Understanding 
Between the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (Aug. 1, 2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-385867A1.pdf (MOU).
315 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7803-04, paras. 102-03.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
41where available, in support of achieving such coordination.316  In the event the Commission adopts a non-
Federal allocation in the 2025-2110 MHz band, the FNPRM sought comment on whether to require 
commercial space launch operators to follow the same pre-application coordination process to help ensure 
that launch operations will not cause harmful interference to applicable non-Federal and Federal 
incumbents in the band, or if a different pre-application coordination, such as the process identified in 
section 87.305, should be applied.317  The FNPRM asked commenters whether the Commission should 
appoint a designated frequency coordinator to streamline such a pre-application coordination requirement 
and whether it would be in the public interest to designate the AFTRCC as the frequency coordinator.318
108. Because license terms may span several years, the FNPRM sought comment on post-
grant coordination between space launch licensees and other users of the respective bands for separate 
launch operations.  Pointing to the complicated logistics entailed in a space launch operation, as well as 
changes in the operational environment on and around Federal ranges and other sites that are likely to 
occur over time, the Commission indicated that it did not believe that a one-time coordination would be 
effective to cover all launches that occur during an operator’s license term but wanted to avoid imposing a 
coordination process that is overly burdensome or that injects uncertainty as to spectrum access and asked 
commenters to propose solutions.319  Specifically, the Commission sought comment on other coordination 
processes that are streamlined and efficient for space launch operators but would also adequately protect 
Federal operations consistent with the provisions of the Commission and NTIA’s MOU.320  Commenters 
were asked to include detailed coordination procedures in their proposals, as well as the cost and benefits 
of the proposed process.
109. As a general matter, all of the commenters in the record support the use of frequency 
coordination and spectrum deconfliction to prevent harmful interference to co-frequency non-
Federal/Federal operations and ensure the efficient use of spectrum in these bands.321  Where they differ is 
when the coordination process should take place.  While a few commenters argue in favor of a pre-license 
grant coordination approach,322 most commenters favor a post-license grant coordination and spectrum 
deconfliction process.323  ULA asserts that pre-license grant coordination is unnecessary because 
operators will be required to satisfy the service and technical rules and that post-license grant 
deconfliction and coordination through a third-party organization as has been done in the past will 
316 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7804, para. 104.
317 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7802, para. 104.
318 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7804, para. 105.
319 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7804-05, para. 106.
320 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7805, para. 107.
321 See, e.g., AIA Comments at 1; ICR Comments at 3-4; EIBASS Comments at 1-2, 7-8; Industry Participants 
Comments at 9; Axiom Comments at 3; Northrop Grumman Comments at 9-12, 17-18; NCTA Comments at 6.
322 NAB believes that to ensure incumbent broadcasters are protected, the Commission should require frequency 
coordination in the 2025-2110 MHz band prior to granting an authorization.  NAB Comments at 1.  SBE asserts that 
there should be a coordination requirement prior to and during the license term in the 2025-2110 MHz band and that 
SBE’s frequency coordination manager and local market coordinator should be involved.  SBE Comments at 16.  
AFTRCC weighed in on both pre- and post-licensing coordination, stating that pre-application frequency 
coordination, along with service and technical rules, is an effective tool in preventing interference and conflict and 
that the telemetry downlink operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band would benefit the most from pre-application 
coordination, but that post-license coordination will be necessary because the bands are heavily used by Federal 
operators and space launches occur over a limited duration — it asserts that the post-license coordination should 
resemble the STA process in which applicants are required to coordinate and schedule operations directly with 
government area frequency coordinators (AFCs).  AFTRCC Comments at 4-7.
323 See ULA Comments at 4-6; 10, ULA Reply at 5-6; Boeing Comments at 15, 18-19; Boeing Reply at 13; SpaceX 
Comments at 14-15; SpaceX Reply at 4; SIA Comments at 5; Astra Reply at 5-6.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
42provide the flexibility for space launch operations that require spectrum at similar times and locations.324  
Boeing asserts that the multi-factored variability of space launches renders a pre-licensing coordination 
process ineffective and believes that specific approval for a launch is best addressed within the post-
licensing coordination process which provides licensees the ability to amend their license if the technical 
parameters of a launch provider’s operation change.325  SpaceX does not believe it would be feasible to 
pre-coordinate launch activities under a nationwide licensing scheme, asserting instead that post-licensing 
coordination would ease the burden on Commission staff by going through NTIA and/or a coordination 
entity, depending on the degree of Federal or non-Federal presence in the band.326  SpaceX notes that 
Boeing and ULA correctly observe that variable parameters in space launches render a pre-licensing 
coordination process inefficient and points out that in advocating for a pre-licensing approach, NAB and 
SBE are failing to realize that the current 0.5 dB degradation criterion already ensures sufficient 
coordination.327  SIA points out that space launch and reentry parameters are variable to several 
uncontrollable factors thus making pre-licensing coordination not feasible, and suggests instead that third-
party coordination and deconfliction would be better executed post-license grant given that launch 
providers would still need to comply with FCC service and technical rules prior to being granted a 
license.328  Astra opposes requiring launch operators to file certifications to the FCC for every completed 
coordination because they present an unnecessary administrative burden and supports a post-licensing 
coordination approach, suggesting that showing compliance with FCC rules, including coordination, 
during the application process is sufficient.329
110. Comments submitted by Federal stakeholders emphasize the importance of coordinating 
on a case-by-case, launch-by-launch basis to ensure that Federal users in the bands are protected from 
harmful interference.  NASA supports the need for post-license grant coordination on a launch-by-launch 
basis with the details of such coordination to be the subject of a NTIA/FCC MOU covering commercial 
space launch coordination with pre-launch coordination requests to be submitted no less than 30 days 
before launch and a required response to be provided no less than 15 days after receipt.330  DoD believes 
that due to the interference potential in these bands and significant congestion in the 2025-2110 MHz and 
2200-2290 MHz bands, coordination of each use by non-Federal users is vital and required.331  Through 
this coordination DoD receives specific technical and operational details of a planned launch which 
allows DoD to assess the potential for harmful interference and adjust its operations or suggest 
324 ULA Comments at 4-6.  ULA points out that there is precedent for post-license grant coordination, citing non-
Federal fixed-satellite service (FSS) licensees who currently coordinate use of the spectrum they share with Federal 
operations after they receive their licenses but at least fourteen days before they deploy service.  ULA Comments at 
9-10.  Commenting on SBE’s request for pre-license coordination, ULA asserts that SBE is ignoring the dynamic 
nature of space launches and that the plethora of variable parameters for short-duration operations renders pre-
license coordination highly unlikely.  ULA Reply at 5-6.  ULA argues that SBE is overlooking the fact that 
traditional satellite systems have generally static parameters for long-duration operations making pre-license 
coordination of those operations feasible.  ULA Reply at 5-6.
325 Boeing Comments at 15, 18.  Boeing asserts that a pre-licensing coordination with non-Federal users could also 
raise significant anti-competitive concerns, Boeing Comments at iv, 18, but adds that while it’s against requiring 
pre-license coordination, it’s not opposed to permitting it only on a voluntary basis because it could expedite the 
inter-agency coordination process.  Boeing Reply at 13.  Boeing agrees with NASA that a post-grant launch-by-
launch coordination process grants commercial spectrum users de facto interference protection.  Boeing Reply 6.
326 SpaceX Comments at 14-15.
327 SpaceX Reply at 4.  SpaceX supports using this criterion if it facilitates coordination in the 2025-2110 MHz 
band.  Id.
328 SIA Comments at 5.
329 Astra Reply at 5-6.
330 NTIA/NASA Comments at 11, 14.
331 NTIA/DoD Comments at 18, 21.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
43mitigations such as having the non-Federal user alter its operating parameters to facilitate a successful 
coordination.332  NOAA supports coordination in both the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz 
frequency bands for each launch and notes that Federal agencies undertake extensive inter-agency 
coordination efforts to ensure compatibility within these congested frequency bands so a similar level of 
effort must be required from commercial launch operators to ensure compatibility with existing Federal 
users.333
111. Based on the record in this proceeding, we find that post-license grant coordination will 
ensure cooperation with and avoid harmful interference to co-frequency entities, both Federal and non-
Federal, operating in the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands.  We believe that post-license grant 
coordination in concert with a comprehensive nationwide, non-exclusive licensing regime will provide 
space launch operators access to the spectrum they need and relief from the administrative burdens 
associated with either a site-based licensing approval process or the current launch-by-launch STA 
regime.  Post-license grant coordination will also endow them with the operational flexibility to modify 
their launch parameters (e.g., frequency channels, antenna height, trajectory, power level) closer in time 
to the launch event and the latitude to adjust their services to accommodate demand as it arises.
112. We reach this decision based on the length of the license term (10 years) and a record that 
demonstrates the complicated logistics surrounding space launch operations, including multi-factored 
variability of launch elements that are beyond the licensee’s control, as well as changes in the operational 
environment on and around Federal ranges and other sites that are likely to occur over time.  On balance, 
these factors suggest that a one-time pre-licensing coordination would be insufficient to protect co-
frequency entities from harmful interference in spectrum bands that commenters suggest are already 
congested.334  Moreover, given the anticipated growth of space launch services, we find that a one-time 
pre-licensing coordination is unlikely to cover all the space launches that will occur over the life of an 
operator’s license nor would it be able to anticipate the introduction of new launch sites, changes in 
launch vehicles, or technological innovations that are likely to occur during those ten years.  For these 
reasons, we believe that third-party coordination and spectrum deconfliction would be better executed 
post-license grant.
113.  Post-licensing coordination affords space launch operators who are sharing these 
frequency bands (and launch facilities) the opportunity and flexibility to adjust specific areas of operation 
(site location, launch vehicle, or in-flight trajectories, etc.) as they come up with each individual launch 
event, particularly as they get closer to the scheduled launch date.  For space launch operators seeking 
launch clearance, it is critically important that their post-grant coordination requests cover the key 
elements of a launch so they can adequately complete the required per-launch coordination process.  
Consistent with our decision to adopt allocation and service rules for space launch services for two 
distinct bands, 2200-2290 MHz (space-to-earth) and 2025-2110 MHz (earth-to-space), we will adopt a 
post-license grant coordination approach that takes into account the unique characteristics of these bands.  
We will also approach coordination in a manner that reflects our decision to apply a modified 3650-3700 
MHz licensing framework335 to grant space launch operators a nationwide, non-exclusive blanket license 
332 NTIA/DoD Comments at 18.  DoD notes that coordination of each use of 2025-2110 MHz is required.  While 
DoD does not propose specific limits upon locations from which commercial space launch operations may occur, 
DoD does note that locations close to major DoD test and training ranges (excluding specific space launch ranges 
such as Vandenberg Space Force Base and Cape Canaveral Space Force Stations) may result in more challenging 
coordination scenarios due to impacts to DoD terrestrial operations.  NTIA/DoD Comments at 21-22.  DoD also 
notes that commercial space launch operations can impact more than just spectrum use, citing examples such as 
restrictions on airspace used for DoD testing, training, and exercises or DoD’s ability to operate in a Global Position 
System-denied environment due to its potential impact on space launch operations.  NTIA/DoD Comments at 22.
333 NTIA/NOAA Comments at 27.
334 See, e.g., NTIA/NASA Comments at 12; NTIA/DoD Comments at 18, 21; NTIA/NOAA Comments at 27.
335 See discussion supra at Section III.B.1.d (Licensing).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
44on the condition that they agree to cooperate with and avoid harmful interference to co-frequency entities 
and cannot operate launch sites and corresponding radio stations (earth/ground stations, stations on their 
launch vehicles, and any associated mobile stations on the ground) until they have first registered them 
under their license after completion of coordination through a third-party coordinator.336
114. We find significant efficiencies justifying the use of a third-party frequency coordinator 
in the bands at issue.  Given the variety of non-Federal and Federal stakeholders sharing this spectrum, all 
with different operational and technical needs, and the administrative burdens licensees face in having to 
submit to different coordination processes, we find it prudent to designate a single entity that will serve as 
both a clearinghouse and as an intermediary in negotiating operational parameters with SBE, NTIA, 
government AFCs, and co-frequency operators.337  Currently, space launch operators are tasked with 
determining the impact of their services on non-Federal and Federal users whose operations may or may 
not have already been coordinated by SBE to protect BAS, CARS, and LTTS in the 2025-2110 MHz 
band as well as the effect on co-frequency operators and Federal incumbents that must be protected in 
both bands.  We find that a single third-party coordinator armed with knowledge of the operational 
guidelines imposed by prior coordination can cross reference that data with new requests for coordination 
in real time and act as an intermediary with SBE and NTIA to speed up the review process and thus 
expedite deployment in the bands.  Absent the assistance of a centralized coordinator familiar with the 
operational and protection needs of non-Federal operators and Federal incumbents as well as the terms of 
previously completed launch coordination, individual space launch operators will find it far more difficult 
to navigate the requisite layers of approval in a timely fashion, particularly considering the short 
turnaround times and multi-factored variability of space launches and the fluctuating needs of Federal 
users in these heavily trafficked bands.  Having a third-party entity perform those duties on behalf of the 
operators will streamline the coordination process, offer greater flexibility to operators as they approach 
scheduled launch dates, and ensure protection for incumbent operations against harmful interference.
115. Accordingly, we hereby adopt a post-license grant coordination regime that will be 
facilitated by a third-party space launch frequency coordinator and require a two-part process: (1) for the 
336 As stated previously, space launch licensees also have an obligation to delete registrations for unused fixed, base,  
itinerant, and mobile stations.  See discussion supra at Section III.B.1.d (Licensing).
337 A number of commenters support the designation of a third-party organization to serve as a frequency 
coordinator.  AIA supports the creation of a nationwide, non-exclusive license process requiring post-license grant 
spectrum de-confliction by a neutral third-party such as AFTRCC and requiring operators to coordinate in good 
faith, even if coordination is facilitated by a neutral third-party.  AIA Comments at 1.  Stating that the Commission 
has repeatedly recognized the effectiveness of third-party frequency coordination, and noting that such an approach 
would be suitable for launch and entry operation, SIA asserts that AFTRCC or another qualified third-party 
facilitator can effectively handle the coordination process by taking on processes and capabilities to track launch pad 
and launch window availability; allow launch operators to schedule slots in anticipation of coordination; and ensure 
they schedule slots in good faith.  SIA Comments at 4-7, Letter from Tom Stroup, President, SIA, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 13-115, RM -11341, at 4 (filed Nov. 9, 2023) (SIA Ex Parte).  Astra 
advocates modernizing the coordination process by adopting an automated system or bringing in a third-party entity 
if such an approach isn’t feasible.  Astra Reply at 6-7.  Pointing out that SIA, ULA, and Boeing support its 
designation as the frequency coordinator, AFTRCC asserts that it is well qualified to serve as the frequency 
coordinator and while it does not oppose the idea of an automated portal, AFTRCC points out that a third-party 
entity would have to be designated to build and manage the portal.  AFTRCC Reply at 4-8 (citing SIA Comments at 
7, ULA Comments at 6, and Boeing Comments at 18-19).  AFTRCC states a frequency coordinator would serve as a 
single point of contact for applicants to initiate frequency coordination and licensing; verify that the applicant is 
qualified for the frequencies and that the frequency request is compliant with the allocation; verify that the requested 
frequencies will not conflict with any other proposed or existing frequency assignments within a specified area; and 
seek written concurrence from the applicable AFCs and coordinator(s) for any other non-Federal users in the shared 
bands (e.g., SBE for the 2025-2110 MHz band); and respond to the applicant in writing with the results of 
coordination including any conditions or limitations.  Letter from Stephen J. Rosen, Counsel to AFTRCC, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 13-115, RM -11341, at 12 (filed Dec. 13, 2021) (AFTRCC Ex 
Parte).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
452025-2110 MHz band, a site-specific coordination of the operator’s stations and launch parameters with 
BAS operations; and (2) for both bands, coordination on a per-launch basis with NTIA.  In practice, as 
described in more detail below, coordination processes for the two bands will be different given the 
existing 2025-2110 MHz coordination process currently conducted by the Society of Broadcast 
Engineers, Inc. (SBE) to protect BAS, CARS, and LTTS operations and previously coordinated Federal 
incumbents in the band. 
116.2025-2110 MHz Post-license Coordination (Earth-to-Space).  Once a launch operator 
registers its site and corresponding station information with the Commission in ULS and it is made 
available to the space launch frequency coordinator, the coordinator will verify that the operator is 
licensed and then contact the SBE Frequency Coordination Manager and the relevant SBE local market 
coordinator for the 2025-2110 MHz band to initiate coordination for the local launch site to protect non-
Federal incumbents.
117. For this process, we adopt an approach that mirrors the coordination approach that 
Federal users in the band must follow.  As noted in the FNPRM, Federal entities seeking to use the 2025-
2110 MHz band for TT&C uplink purposes must coordinate with all BAS and other non-Federal 
incumbents that may be affected by the Federal operation prior to submitting an application, and must 
engage the local BAS frequency coordinator(s) in support of achieving such coordination.338  In the 
context of pre-license grant coordination, the Commission sought comment on whether to require 
commercial space launch operators seeking to use the band to follow the same coordination process to 
help ensure that launch operations will not cause harmful interference to applicable non-Federal and 
Federal incumbents in the band.339  In its comments, SBE described this Federal precedent and pointed out 
that the terms of a subsequent SBE-NAB-DoD Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are currently 
being used to coordinate Federal entities seeking to use the 2025-2110 MHz band for TT&C uplink 
purposes.340  EIBASS, NAB, and SpaceX supported the use of the BAS coordination approach set forth in 
the SBE-NAB-DoD MOU.341
118. Accordingly, we adopt the same site-specific BAS coordination process (and any re-
coordination of the launch site) for commercial space launch services for our post-license grant 
coordination regime.  We find merit in SBE’s suggestion that this means that each space launch 
communications operator, through a third-party space launch frequency coordinator, should either 
complete BAS coordination for its identified sites or provide a showing to the space launch frequency 
coordinator (a) that it has previously coordinated its proposed operations with the SBE Frequency 
Coordination Manager; (b) that it has ascertained that its proposal will not constrain, preclude, nor 
interfere with incumbents in the band, including BAS, CARS and LTTS licensees; and (c) that it has 
demonstrated in a technical showing that its proposed operation will not create more than 0.5 dB increase 
in the noise threshold of a receiver at a fixed or temporary fixed electronic news gathering (ENG) receive 
site.342
119. We do not anticipate that there is a need for a subsequent per-launch coordination with 
BAS as long as the site operation for the proposed launch is consistent with the technical characteristics 
338 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7802, para. 104.
339 Id.
340 SBE indicated that footnote US92 to the Table of Frequency Allocations established a mechanism by which 
displaced Federal operations would be accommodated in the 2 GHz band without interference, and without 
constraint on the current and future deployment of BAS operations in the band and that this process has been 
effectuated by SBE, NAB, and DoD in an MOU that is in the final stages of development.  See SBE Comments at 8-
10 (citing 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US92).
341 See EIBASS Comments at 1; NAB Comments at 1, 4-7; SpaceX Reply at 4; see also SBE Comments at 8-10, 15-
17.
342 See SBE Comments at 2-3, 6-12, 18.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
46and launch parameters that were successfully coordinated previously and complies with any conditions or 
agreements resulting from such prior coordination.  In other words, there is no need to conduct a per-
launch coordination with BAS if the operator/frequency coordinator can perform the technical 
calculations to show its proposed uplink operations will meet the SBE-NAB-DoD protection criteria.343  
We find that this approach will streamline the coordination process with BAS, particularly for space 
launch operators who provide multiple launches over their license term with the same sites that were 
previously coordinated and retain the same technical and operational characteristics.  We note, however, 
that if these conditions are not met then the site must be re-coordinated pursuant to the site-specific BAS 
coordination process outlined above.
120. With respect to protecting Federal users in the band, we will require coordination with 
NTIA on a post-grant, per-launch basis.  This process will be initiated after the operator obtains its license 
and provides applicable launch site and corresponding station information to the Commission in ULS, and 
submits this data, along with its proposed operational parameters, in a coordination request to the third-
party space launch frequency coordinator.  Given the variability of space launches, per-launch 
coordination offers an effective means of protecting co-frequency Federal users in the 2025-2110 MHz 
band from any potentially harmful interference stemming from a particular launch.  We note that per-
launch coordination is particularly well suited for accommodating the changing nature of Federal 
spectrum use.  As demonstrated by NTIA’s Federal Government Spectrum Use Reports, Federal spectrum 
uses and needs continue to evolve over time.344  The timely nature of a per-launch coordination with 
NTIA, facilitated by a third-party frequency coordinator, would account for the fluctuating needs of 
Federal TT&C used to track mobile satellites and the shifting demands of Federal mobile users that tend 
to change locations over time.  We contemplate a process that will be functionally similar to the current 
per-launch STA coordination procedures.  As noted in the record, frequency coordination has been an 
effective tool in ensuring equitable spectrum sharing by co-frequency non-Federal and Federal users 
without causing harmful interference.345  While we adopt baseline power and emissions standards to 
facilitate spectrum sharing and interoperability among Federal and non-Federal operations, as explained 
in further detail below, per-launch coordination will be critical in determining additional technical and 
operational parameters necessary to permit space launch operators to carry out missions without causing 
harmful interference to other users of the spectrum.  Given the intermittent nature of space launch 
operations as well as evolving Federal spectrum uses, this targeted per-launch approach ensures timely 
and accurate guidance closer to the launch date by affording parties the flexibility to make adjustments 
necessary to protect co-frequency Federal users.  
121.2200-2290 MHz Post-license Coordination (Space-to-Earth).  Similarly, for the 2200-
2290 MHz band, a space launch operator must identify applicable site and corresponding station 
information with the Commission in ULS and make it, along with its proposed operational details, 
available to the third-party space launch frequency coordinator, who verifies that the operator is licensed 
and that the request comports with rules, to initiate the coordination process with NTIA.  Coordination 
with NTIA will be functionally similar to the current STA coordination process (i.e., site-specific and per-
343 See EIBASS Comments at 4-5; EIBASS Reply at 6.
344 See National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Federal Government Spectrum Use Reports 
225 MHz – 7.125 GHz available on the NTIA webpage at https://ntia.gov/page/federal-government-spectrum-use-
reports-225-mhz-7125-ghz.
345 For example, noting that coordination of each use by non-Federal users is vital, DoD asserts that coordination 
provides it with specific technical and operational details that it uses to assess the potential for interference and then 
decide whether to accept the risk of interference, adjust its operations accordingly, or suggest other mitigations 
including changing the parameters of the non-Federal operations to facilitate successful coordination.  See 
NTIA/DoD Comments at 18.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
47launch coordination with NTIA and the relevant Federal offices).346  Similar to the 2025-2110 MHz band, 
the coordination process will enable any necessary adjustments regarding the operational and technical 
parameters on a per-launch basis to protect against harmful interference.   
122. We direct WTB to seek further comment on the circumstances attending the designation 
of a third-party space launch coordinator, including a mechanism for selecting a frequency coordinator.347  
As noted, WTB will issue a public notice regarding the coordination process after reviewing the record, 
which will include information regarding the third-party frequency coordinator.
2. Technical Rules for Space Launch Operations
123. As noted in the FNPRM, we seek to establish technical parameters for commercial space 
launch operations that will support the evolving interests and requirements of commercial space entities 
while minimizing harmful interference between Federal and non-Federal operations.348  We proposed that 
the current framework applicable to Federal operators would offer a predictable and tested model that 
facilitates the efficient use of spectrum while minimizing interference among users in these bands,349 and 
proposed to adopt a similar set of technical rules for non-Federal space launch operations in the 2200-
2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz bands.350  We find that adopting baseline emissions and power limits 
similar to that which currently apply to Federal operations will facilitate interoperability and greater 
predictability regarding operations in these bands.  As discussed previously, however, the variability of 
space launches and the changing needs of Federal operations may require additional or alternative 
technical requirements for a given launch as determined pursuant to the coordination process.  We 
conclude that adopting a technical framework that relies on close coordination between Federal and non-
Federal entities as well as the use of similar emissions and power limits will help users of the bands to 
avoid harmful interference while allowing commercial launch providers to benefit from the economies of 
scale inherent from using the same communications systems for both Federal agencies and commercial 
customers.351
a. 2200-2290 MHz Band
124. For non-Federal space launch operations, the 2200-2290 MHz band typically is used for 
sending telemetry data from the launch vehicle to ground controllers.  According to NTIA, Federal 
operations in the band primarily consist of tracking, telemetry, and control data communications for 
control of spacecraft, as well as foreign space agency mission spacecraft.352  NTIA explains that the band 
is used by Federal agencies in space operation, space research and Earth exploration-satellite service 
346 The FNPRM indicated that the Commission grants space launch providers special temporary authority (STA) 
under the Part 5 experimental licensing rules to use particular frequencies on a non-interference basis during their 
operations.  The Commission coordinates use of the spectrum with the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA), which consults with affected Federal agencies in order to authorize a single 
launch with the STAs covering pre-launch communications operations and communications with the space launch 
vehicle and payload during orbital and reentry phases of the operations.  The FNPRM noted that these STAs are 
issued with the condition that any future launches by the grantees would be considered on a case-by-case basis and 
that there is no expectation that experimental STAs for future launches would be approved.  See FNPRM, 36 FCC 
Rcd at 7767-68, para. 6.
347 See infra Appendix A (adopting 47 CFR § 0.331(g)).
348 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7805, para. 108.
349 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7805, para. 108.
350 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7805, para. 108.
351 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7805-06, para. 109.
352 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Federal Government Spectrum Use Reports, 
2200-2290 MHz, at 1 (Dec. 1, 2015), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/2200.00-
2290.00_01DEC15.pdf.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
48(space-to-Earth) for communications with earth stations and return links via TDRSS (space-to-space), 
which provides links between low earth orbiting spacecraft and earth stations.  Federal agencies and the 
military also use this band for terrestrial telemetry operations for aircraft, missile flight testing, land and 
maritime mobile communications, and fixed point-to-point microwave relay communications.353
125.  The FNPRM noted that space launch operations may potentially operate under a dual 
regulatory approach, and sought comment on the appropriate technical requirements under both a space 
operations and aeronautical mobile allocation.354  We asked whether these technical rules align with 
NTIA’s requirements for both Federal and non-Federal space operations and how we might promote 
consistency between and among the various, similarly situated services authorized in the band.355
126.Emission masks.  In the FNPRM, we sought comment on whether to apply NTIA rules 
that require that earth and space stations in the space operations service above 470 MHz comply with the 
emissions mask standard established in section 5.6.2 of the NTIA Manual.356  Section 5.6.2 provides that 
for frequencies offset from the assigned frequency less than the 50 percent of the necessary bandwidth, no 
attenuation is required.357  At a frequency offset equal to 50 percent of the necessary bandwidth, an 
attenuation of at least 8 dB is required,358 while frequencies offset more than 50 percent of the necessary 
bandwidth should be attenuated in accordance with a specified formula dependent on necessary 
bandwidth and frequency displaced from the center of the emission bandwidth.359
127. Further, we noted that section 5.3.9 of the NTIA Manual provides that aeronautical 
telemetry operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band must meet the emissions limits from Chapter 2 of the 
Inter-Range Instrumentation Group (IRIG) Standard 106-15, Part 1.360  Chapter 2 of IRIG Standard 106-
15, Part 1 (hereinafter IRIG Standard 106-15), in turn, includes the following aeronautical telemetry 
spectral mask:  all spectral components larger than −[55 + 10xlog(P)] dBc (i.e., larger than −25 dBm) at 
the transmitter output must be within the spectral mask calculated using the following equation: 
M(f) = K + 90 log(R) – 100 log |f-fc|; |f-fc| ≥ R/m   
where M(f) = power (dBc) at frequency f (MHz)
K = −20 for analog signals 
K = −28 for binary signals 
K = −61 for FQPSK-B, FQPSK-JR, SOQPSK-TG 
353 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Federal Government Spectrum Use Reports, 
2200-2290 MHz, at 1 (Dec. 1, 2015), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/2200.00-
2290.00_01DEC15.pdf.
354 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7807, 7808, paras. 114, 117.
355 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7807, para. 114.
356 See NTIA Manual § 5.2.2.1.
357 See NTIA Manual § 5.6.2 (“Unwanted Emission Mask”).  Necessary bandwidth is defined as follows: “For a 
given class of emission, the width of the frequency band which is just sufficient to ensure the transmission of 
information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions.”  See NTIA Manual § 6.1.1.  
Methods of calculating necessary bandwidth are provided in Annex J.  See NTIA Manual, Annex J.  We note that 
the Commission also applies the same definition for “necessary bandwidth.”  See, e.g., 47 CFR § 2.1.
358 See NTIA Manual § 5.6.2.
359 See NTIA Manual § 5.6.2.
360 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7807-08, para. 116.  See NTIA Manual, §§ 5.2.2.1, 5.3.9.  See also Telemetry Standards, 
“Transmitter and Receiver Systems,” IRIG Standard 106-15 (Part 1), Chapter 2, (July 2015) (IRIG Standard 106-
15), available at http://www.irig106.org/docs/106-15/.  The NTIA Manual provides that “aeronautical telemetering” 
in the 2200-2290 MHz band includes “telemetry associated with launch vehicles[.]” NTIA Manual § 4.3.4(2).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
49K = −73 for ARTM CPM 
fc = transmitter center frequency (MHz) 
R = bit rate (Mbps) for digital signals or (∆f +fmax)(MHz) for analog FM signals 
M = number of states in modulating signal (m = 2 for binary signals, m = 4 for quaternary signals 
and analog signals) 
∆f = peak deviation 
fmax = maximum modulation frequency361
128. The FNPRM also sought comment on alternative approaches, stating that, while the 
Commission seeks to align the technical parameters used by Federal and non-Federal operations to enable 
interoperability, we also seek to implement measures that will help licensees to simplify or streamline 
operations, while ensuring that other users in the band are protected.362  Accordingly, we requested 
comment on the utility of using a single mask for non-Federal operations in the band rather than NTIA’s 
dual emissions mask approach.363  We asked, for example, whether to apply the section 5.6.2 space 
operations emissions mask to all stages of flight, or whether alternatively to apply emissions limits set 
forth in the Commission’s rules for space stations found in Part 25364 or an alternative mask found in 
section 87.139.365
129.  There was limited comment regarding the emissions limit(s) that should be applied.  Of 
the few commenting on this issue, SpaceX supports the use of a single mask over NTIA’s dual emissions 
mask approach, arguing that “this will avoid artificial delineations and enable commercial launch 
providers to treat launch activities as a single continuum….”366  SpaceX, noting that the Commission and 
NTIA have previously utilized a “unitary approach,” argues that we should adopt the NTIA emissions 
mask for space operations for the 2200-2290 MHz band.367
130. ULA, however, supports following the NTIA’s dual mask approach with one for space 
emissions and the other for aeronautical mobile emissions, noting that launch operators build vehicle 
361 See IRIG Standard 106-15, § 2.4.6.
362 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7808, para. 117.
363 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7808, para. 117.  The FNPRM observed that similar launch telemetry services in other 
bands have been subject to a single aeronautical standard at all stages.  For example, the NTIA Manual provides that 
the 1435-1525 MHz band’s terrestrial mobile service includes launch telemetry at all stages, including all “telemetry 
associated with launching and reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere as well as any incidental orbiting prior to reentry 
of manned objects[.]”  See NTIA Manual § 4.3.4(1).  The Commission has also administered launch telemetry at all 
stages as an aeronautical mobile service.  See 47 CFR 2.106, Table of Frequency Allocations, U.S. Table, US343; 47 
CFR § 87.303(d)(1) (providing that frequencies in the 1435-1525 MHz and 2360-2395 MHz bands, with non-
Federal allocations of Mobile (aeronautical telemetry) and Mobile, respectively, are assigned in the mobile service 
primarily for aeronautical telemetry including “telemetry and associated telecommand operations associated with the 
launching and reentry into the Earth's atmosphere, as well as any incidental orbiting prior to reentry, of objects 
undergoing flight tests”).
364 See 47 CFR § 25.202(f).
365 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7808, para. 117.  Section 87.139 specifies that: (1) on any frequency removed from the 
assigned frequency by more than 50 percent, up to and including 100 percent of the authorized bandwidth, at least 
25 decibels attenuation; (2) on any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more than 100 percent, up to 
and including 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth, at least 35 decibels attenuation; and (3) on any frequency 
removed from the assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth, at least 43 + 10 
log(pY) decibels or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation.  47 CFR § 87.139.
366 SpaceX Comments at 18.
367 SpaceX Comments at 18 (referencing NTIA Manual § 4.3.4(1), 47 CFR §§ 2.106 footnote US343 and 
87.303(d)(1)).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
50designs around this method for current NTIA authorizations.368  Alternatively, ULA states that, if we opt 
to establish a uniform mask, it opposes the use of the IRIG Standard 106-15 as it would not be able to 
satisfy that standard during the space operations phase of flight.369  It argues that the IRIG Standard 106-
15 emissions mask—covering land and mobile telemetry links—is based on non-orbital, aeronautical 
telemetry systems that use spectrally efficient modulation methods.370  ULA asserts that the IRIG 
Standard 106-15 mask, therefore, does not account for orbital launch vehicle links that rely on 
government earth stations that cannot support these modulations and, as a result, cannot comply with 
the mask.371  To the extent a single mask is adopted, ULA would instead support the use of the section 
5.6.2 space operation emission mask, noting that it accommodates all launch vehicles during their orbital 
phase while protecting co-frequency spectrum users.372
131. We agree with ULA that we should adopt NTIA’s dual mask approach, and our adoption 
of a Mobile allocation for this band facilitates this approach.373  As noted, NTIA regards launch vehicles 
as undergoing two stages: an aeronautical mobile stage and a space operation stage.  The NTIA rules treat 
the telemetry system during the first stage of a launch vehicle as an aeronautical mobile system.374  The 
NTIA rules provide that after the first stage (which it views as the first 15 minutes of flight), the launch 
vehicle operates as a space operation service during the second stage or higher stages of a launch.375  As 
we have noted, we seek to align the technical parameters used by Federal and non-Federal operations to 
facilitate interoperability with respect to use of the 2200-2290 MHz band, and to provide predictability 
regarding such operations for other users of the band.  While we appreciate SpaceX’s desire to avoid 
“artificial delineations,” the application of the dual approach best accommodates operations in this band 
as it is the approach that is already being utilized and which has proven to be effective in protecting 
operations in the band.  Accordingly, we will apply the dual aeronautical mobile and space operation 
emissions masks similar to those found in the NTIA rules.
132.Power limits.  As noted in the FNPRM, the IRIG Standard 106-15 that NTIA applies to 
aeronautical telemetry in the 2200-2290 MHz band provides that the effective isotropic radiated power of 
a transmitter shall not exceed 25 watts and that the output power shall not exceed 25 watts.376  In contrast, 
NTIA’s requirements for space operations do not impose a power limit, and instead rely on a power flux-
density limit established by the ITU.377  The FNPRM sought comment on whether, consistent with the 
368 ULA Reply at 7-8.
369 ULA Comments at 30; ULA Reply at 8.
370 ULA Comments at 29-30.
371 ULA Comments at 29-30.  ULA notes that it has no ground station system of its own and relies on modulation-
limited government earth stations.
372 ULA Comments at 30.
373 See supra Section III.A.
374 NTIA Manual § 8.2.44 (stating that the telemetry system on the first stage of a launch vehicle is considered an 
aeronautical mobile system as it starts from the ground and ascends until the second stage and or any other upper 
stages of the rocket is engaged).
375 NTIA Manual § 8.2.44.
376 See IRIG Standard 106-15, Ch. 2 § 2.4.2.
377 See NTIA Manual § 8.2.36; see also NTIA Manual, Annex B, § B.1.3 (establishing procedures for assessing 
compliance with power flux-density limits).  The ITU Radio Regulations establish power flux-density limits at the 
surface of the Earth from space research, space operation, and Earth exploration-satellite services in the 2200-2290 
MHz band in order to protect the fixed and mobile services in the band.  See No. 21.16 of Article 21 of the ITU 
Radio Regulations.  No. 21.17 of the ITU Radio Regulations provides that these limits may be exceeded on the 
territory of any administration who has so agreed, thus providing individual administrations with some flexibility in 
how these limits are implemented.  See also Recommendation ITU-R SA.1273, https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
51NTIA rules, to limit first-stage operations to an effective isotropic radiated power378 of 25 watts and a 
transmitter output power of up to 25 watts, and sought comment on whether to apply a power flux-density 
limit on operations after the first stage.379  Alternatively, to the extent we adopt a power flux-density limit 
in the band, the FNPRM asked whether no further limit on power is necessary, or whether we should 
adopt an alternative to the power limit in IRIG Standard 106-15.380
133. As in the case of emissions masks, we received limited comment on this issue.  ULA 
argues that these limits are appropriate for aeronautical applications, but not for orbital launches.381  ULA 
asserts that, given real-world practicalities and what it states as NTIA’s previous acceptance of higher 
power levels, we should adopt power levels of “340 watts for the transmitter’s ERP and 55 watts for the 
transmitter’s output power.”382  ULA argues that relaxing the power limits in this manner should 
conservatively serve the needs of all launch service providers and ensure commercial interoperability with 
Federal space operations requirements.383  SpaceX, on the other hand, supports the adoption of a single 
power flux-density limit for all aspects of launch operations rather than the use of power limits.384  Such a 
limit, SpaceX argues, would eliminate the need for any additional limitations on power or for adopting 
what it describes as artificial distinctions between various launch operations, greatly simplifying 
compliance for launch providers.385
134. Upon review, we find that it is in the public interest to apply the dual stage aeronautical 
mobile and space operations approach for power limits as specified in the NTIA rules.  While we 
recognize that there may be individual launch operations that require the use of technical parameters 
outside of the norm, there is insufficient information in the record that would support deviation from 
limits currently used by NTIA during the first/ascent stage—either with respect to a power increase or to 
the use of a power flux-density limit.  Neither would serve our goal of facilitating interoperability with 
Federal launch operations.  With respect to ULA’s request to adopt much higher power limits to support 
orbital launches, we conclude that any orbital flight phase would be better governed by established space 
operation requirements, i.e. the NTIA/ITU space operation power flux-density limit.386  Further, we do not 
find the use of the space operation power flux-density limit for all phases of a launch to be appropriate 
given that, as ULA notes, launch vehicles remain too close to the Earth’s surface during the launch phase 
to comply with the limit.387  Moreover, neither commenter discusses the impact of their proposals on other 
users of the 2200-2290 MHz band.  Absent support that these proposals would not adversely affect other 
operations in the band and provide advantages to commercial space launch entities that would exceed 
r/rec/sa/R-REC-SA.1273-0-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf.  Recommendation ITU-R SA.1273 recommends similar levels as 
in Article 21, except that the reference bandwidth is 1 megahertz instead of 4 kilohertz and the level for space-to-
space links in the Space Operations Service is 3 dB higher.
378 We note that the FNPRM inadvertently specified the power limit as “effective radiated power” instead of 
“effective isotropic radiated power” at one point in paragraph 118 of the FNPRM.  However, the intent of the 
paragraph was clear as the FNPRM sought comment on the IRIG Standard 106-15 limit, which specifies “effective 
isotropic radiated power.”
379 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7808-09, para. 118.
380 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7808-09, para. 118.
381 ULA Comments at 32.
382 ULA Comments at 32-33.  We note that ULA’s comments specified “ERP” instead of “EIRP.”
383 ULA Comments at 33.
384 Space X Comments at 18.
385 SpaceX Comments at 18.
386 We note that the scope of space launch operations adopted herein is limited to the launch and recovery/reentry 
operations and generally excludes longer term orbital operations. 
387 See ULA Comments at 34.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
52those that result from being able to operate with both Federal and non-Federal launch systems, we find it 
appropriate to follow the NTIA dual stage approach.
135. The FNPRM sought comment regarding the point at which we should apply the ITU 
power-flux density limits in the event we adopt the dual aeronautical mobile and space operation service 
approach.388  We asked commenters whether the ITU power flux-density limits should apply when the 
launch vehicle is above a specified altitude, at a certain time after launch (such as after 15 minutes of 
flight), at a particular stage of operation, or based on some other launch operations criteria.389
136. ULA argues that power flux-density limits should apply only during the orbital flight 
phase.390  ULA argues that the ITU limits are aimed at satellite communications; because liftoff and 
ascent flight phases (first-stage) do not involve emissions from satellites, power flux-density limits do not 
apply and are exclusive to the orbital flight phase (second-stage).  Therefore, ULA argues that applying 
the power flux-density limits to strictly orbital flight would align with the ITU’s intent and better reflect 
technical realities.391  Rocket Lab similarly supports applying the power flux-density limit only after a 
launch vehicle reaches an orbital trajectory, arguing that it would be inappropriate to apply the power 
flex-density limit either on a time-after-launch basis or launch vehicle stage number.392  It argues that 
rapid innovation in recent years, such as non-traditional staging, re-entry and landing, means that the 
Commission risks applying a regulatory model that may be inflexible to new innovations if regulations 
are based on time or flight stage.393  Further, NASA notes that attempting to apply the power flux-density 
limits to even the second stage of a launch is problematic, and that given the short duration of telemetry 
transmissions from launch vehicles, application of these limits is not necessary.394
137. We find it appropriate to apply the NTIA aeronautical mobile power limits to first stage 
launch operations (first 15 minutes of flight) and ITU-derived space operation power flux-density limits 
to launch operations beyond the first stage.  We will adopt the NTIA approach which regards the first 
stage of a launch as an aeronautical mobile operation and treats the second stage or higher stages of a 
launch as space operations.  While Rocket Lab and NASA note the difficulties associated with defining 
the dividing line between aeronautical mobile operations and space operations according to launch stages, 
we find that doing so provides a predictable approach and permits the similar treatment of Federal and 
non-Federal space launch operations.  To the extent that this approach presents technical issues for a 
given launch (for example, the approach would require the application of the power flux-density limit too 
early in a launch), operators may seek a waiver of this provision.395  
b. 2025-2110 MHz Band
138. The 2025-2110 MHz band supports fixed and mobile services on a primary basis for non-
Federal terrestrial use.  As noted, the band is allocated to BAS and LTTS for fixed and mobile use and to 
CARS for mobile use only.  Federal operations include communications with satellites or other space 
stations, as well as between satellites or spacecraft, occurring under primary allocations for space 
operations (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space), space research (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space), or Earth 
388 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7809, para. 119.
389 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7809, para. 119.
390 ULA Comments at 33.
391 ULA Comments at 34 (noting that during liftoff and early ascent phases of flight, launch vehicles remain close 
enough to the Earth such that free space propagation losses alone will not reduce received signal power within PFD 
limits).
392 Rocket Lab Comments at 2-3.
393 Rocket Lab Comment at 2-3.
394 NTIA/NASA Comments at 14.
395 Such issues may potentially be resolved as part of the registration and coordination process for a given launch.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
53exploration-satellite service (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space).396  Federal agencies operate earth stations 
in this band for tracking and command of manned and unmanned Earth-orbiting satellites and space 
vehicles either for Earth-to-space links for satellites in all types of orbits or through space-to-space links 
using TDRSS.  In addition, NOAA operates earth stations in this band to control the Geostationary 
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) 
meteorological satellite systems.397  As a result of the relocation of military operations from the 1755-
1780 MHz band, the 2025-2110 MHz band also includes a primary Federal allocation for fixed and 
mobile services, restricted to use by the military services and subject to certain provisions codified in 
footnote US92 of the U.S. Table.398
139.  Emissions Limits.  As discussed in the FNPRM, the most analogous authorized Federal 
operation in the 2025-2110 MHz band is earth station telecommand transmissions to spacecraft, which 
operate under space operations rules.399  As discussed above, NTIA requires that earth and space stations 
in the space operations service above 470 MHz comply with the emissions mask standards established in 
section 5.6.2 of the NTIA Manual.  Section 5.6.2 provides that for frequencies offset from the assigned 
frequency less than the 50 percent of the necessary bandwidth, no attenuation is required.400  At a 
frequency offset equal to 50 percent of the necessary bandwidth, an attenuation of at least 8 dB is 
required, while frequencies offset more than 50 percent of the necessary bandwidth should be attenuated 
in accordance with a specified formula dependent on necessary bandwidth and frequency displaced from 
the center of the emission bandwidth.401  The FNPRM proposed to adopt the NTIA’s emissions mask for 
commercial space launch transmissions in the 2025-2110 MHz band, except that we proposed to apply 
attenuation requirements to the licensee’s assigned frequencies rather than requiring a separate calculation 
of necessary bandwidth.402
140.  SpaceX agrees that we should apply the emissions mask applicable to space operation 
service for operations in the 2025-2110 MHz band.403  Other than SpaceX, we received no other comment 
regarding the appropriate emissions limit for this band.  Accordingly, in line with our overall approach for 
space launch technical rules, we will apply an emissions mask using the same limit as that set forth in 
section 5.6.2 of the NTIA Manual.
396 See National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2025-2110 MHz, at 4 (March 1, 2014), 
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/2025.00-2110.00_01MAR14.pdf (listing types of 
applications and the number of assignments by agency).
397 See National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2025-2110 MHz, at 1 (March 1, 2014), 
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/2025.00-2110.00_01MAR14.pdf (listing types of 
applications by agency).
398 See 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US92; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial 
Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands, GN Docket No. 13-185, Report 
and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4610, 4689, para. 211 (2014).  Footnote US92 includes, among other provisions, a 
requirement that military fixed and mobile operations in the 2025-2110 MHz band may not cause harmful 
interference to or constrain the deployment and use of the band by BAS, CARS, or LTTS, a requirement of 
coordination in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding between Federal and non-Federal fixed and 
mobile operations, and a provision that Non-Federal licensees in the band shall make all reasonable efforts to 
accommodate military mobile and fixed operations but that the use of the band by the non-Federal fixed and mobile 
services has priority over military fixed and mobile operations.  See 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US92.
399 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7811, para. 127.
400 See NTIA Manual § 5.6.2.  Methods of calculating necessary bandwidth are provided in Annex J.  See NTIA 
Manual, Annex J.
401 See NTIA Manual § 5.6.2.
402 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7812, para. 128.
403 SpaceX Comments at 18.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
54141. Further, we will retain the provision in section 5.6.2 which specifies attenuation 
requirements based on a separate calculation of necessary bandwidth.  Although SpaceX supports the 
FNPRM’s proposal to apply attenuation requirements based on a licensee’s assigned frequencies,404 we 
find that it is more appropriate to apply the same methodology that is used currently.  Given that we seek 
to apply a technical framework that provides predictability and minimizes the risk of interference among 
users in the band, we find that applying the section 5.6.2 methodology will provide consistency and 
prevent confusion.  Accordingly, we will not adopt our proposal to permit space launch operators to 
determine applicable attenuation requirements using the licensee’s assigned frequencies.405
142.Power limits.  Section 8.2.35 of the NTIA manual requires that the EIRP transmitted in 
any direction towards the horizon by a Federal earth station in bands between 1 GHz and 15 GHz that are 
shared with stations in the fixed or mobile service, which includes the 2025-2110 MHz band, shall not 
(with limited exceptions) exceed the following limits: 
+40 dBW in any 4 kHz band for θ ≤0°
+40+3θ dBW in any 4 kHz band for 0°< θ ≤5°
where θ is the angle of elevation of the horizon viewed from the center of radiation of the antenna 
of the earth station and measured in degrees as positive above the horizontal plane and negative 
below it.406
143. As in the case with the 2200-2290 MHz band, SpaceX supports adoption of a single 
power flux-density limit for all aspects of launch operations in lieu of a specific power limit on the 
grounds that it would obviate the need for any additional limitations on power or for adopting artificial 
distinctions between various launch activities.407
144.  As we noted with respect to SpaceX’s proposal to apply a power flux-density limit to 
2200-2290 MHz band operations, SpaceX does not provide sufficient information regarding the impact to 
other users of the 2025-2110 MHz band and provides no support as to whether using the space operation 
power flux-density limit will adequately protect other operations.  Instead, SpaceX mainly argues that 
adopting a single flux-density limit for all aspects of a launch operation will simplify compliance for 
launch operators.  While we seek to adopt rules that will help space launch entities to simplify or 
streamline operations, it is necessary that any measures that we take will also ensure that other users of 
the band are protected.  Further, although SpaceX argues that ITU and NTIA regulations permit the use of 
the power flux-density limit for the 2025-2110 MHz band,408 the power limits above are the requirements 
that both ITU and NTIA specify for earth stations in bands that are shared with stations in the fixed or 
mobile service.  Accordingly, we adopt the same power limits as those set forth in section 8.2.35 of the 
NTIA Manual.
145.Compliance with technical specifications.  In its Reply Comments, Northrop Grumman 
404 SpaceX Comments at 23.
405 Both SpaceX and ULA favor applying this method to the 2200-2290 MHz band as well.  See SpaceX Comments 
at 18; ULA Comments at 30.  In the FNPRM, however, we proposed to apply attenuation requirements using a 
licensee’s assigned frequencies rather than requiring a separate calculation of necessary bandwidth only for the 
2025-2110 MHz emissions mask.
406 NTIA Manual § 8.2.35; see also Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 
GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third 
Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, Seventh Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21350, para. 33 
(2004) (noting that this provision of the NTIA Manual applies to Defense Department earth stations for tracking, 
telemetry, and commanding that operate in the 2025-2110 MHz band).  We note that, under this standard, there is no 
power limit for angles of elevation above five degrees.
407 SpaceX Comments at 18-19.
408 SpaceX Comments at 18-19.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
55notes that because launch providers operate from Federal launch sites, launch vehicles and associated 
ground stations meet applicable Federal technical requirements, including emission limits, power limits, 
and power flux-density limits.409  Northrop Grumman recommends that, to ensure consistency and to 
avoid differing standards among launch sites, the Commission permit operators to demonstrate 
compliance with either 1) any new FCC requirements adopted in this proceeding or 2) existing Federal 
requirements serving the same purpose.410  Northrop Grumman argues that the latter is necessary to ensure 
that any new rules that we apply to launch vehicle operators do not require that existing launch equipment 
be redesigned or modified or be subject to further regulatory requirements.411  Alternatively, Northrop 
Grumman argues that if we impose new technical standards, we should grandfather existing operators and 
exempt their current launch vehicles from these requirements.  Northrop Grumman asserts that this 
flexibility is necessary to ensure that the application of any new technical standards does not delay or 
impact upcoming launches or require that existing launch vehicles be modified or subject to further 
regulatory requirements.412
146. While we seek to adopt rules that will facilitate the continued growth of the commercial 
space launch sector, and avoid policies that will negatively impact launch operations, we are hesitant to 
grandfather operations that may not meet current required technical specifications.  For example, 
Northrop Grumman notes that transmitters on its launch vehicles are designed to meet IRIG Standard 
106-07, a previous IRIG Standard 106 version.413  While that standard shares many of the specifications 
as IRIG Standard 106-15,414 it is not clear that the use of IRIG Standard 106-07 or other standards meet all 
necessary technical specifications set forth here or in current NTIA requirements, and accordingly, we are 
not prepared at this juncture to grandfather all existing launch vehicles.415
c. Equipment Authorization
147. In the FNPRM,416 the Commission noted that, with certain limited exceptions, equipment 
containing Radio Frequency (RF) devices must be authorized in accordance with the appropriate 
procedures specified in 47 CFR Part 2, subpart J,417 prior to being marketed or imported into the United 
States.  Accordingly, in the FNPRM, the Commission asked whether it should require Part 2 equipment 
authorization for the RF devices that are being used to provide space launch operations and if so, which 
procedure.  The Commission also asked if there any analogous authorization models found in other any 
409 Northrop Grumman Reply at 14.
410 Northrop Grumman Reply at 14.
411 Northrop Grumman Reply at 14.
412 Northrop Grumman Reply at 14.
413 Northrop Grumman Reply at 14.
414 For example, both IRIG Standard 106-15 and IRIG Standard 106-07 require that spurious emissions are to be 
within limits specified in Military Standard MIL-STD 461.  See IRIG Standard 106-15, §2.4.4; Telemetry Standard 
RCC Document 106-07, “Transmitter and Receiver Systems,” IRIG Standard 106-07 (Part 1), Chapter 2, § 2.4.4 
(Sept. 2007) (IRIG Standard 106-07), available at http://www.irig106.org/docs/106-07/.  
415 We note that launch operators have the option to submit waiver requests demonstrating that their launch 
operations are providing the same level of protection as those we are adopting here.
416 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7815, para. 138.
417 47 CFR Part 2, Subpart J.  The Commission has two different approval procedures for equipment authorization—
Certification and Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC).  See 47 CFR § 2.901.  In some instances, a device 
may perform different functions under multiple rule parts, resulting in the device being subject to more than one 
type of approval procedure.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
56rule parts (specifically noting Parts 25, 87, and 90) that could provide additional or alternative compliance 
requirements that may be appropriate for space launch RF devices.418
148. Few comments addressed the issue of equipment authorization.  ULA and Boeing both 
oppose specific equipment authorization rules, citing, in part, the current Part 25 rules that do not include 
such requirements.419  Northrop Grumman “takes no position” on such requirements, however it does ask 
for a 5 year grandfathered period should the Commission decide to adopt rules in this regard.420
149. We shall not require that equipment used for space launch telemetry and telecommand 
during space launches under the Part 26 rules be authorized under 47 CFR Part 2, subpart J.  We expect 
that this equipment will be deployed by a limited number of licensees who will be responsible for 
ensuring that their transmitters comply with our rules.  Given the small number of licensees we do not 
believe there is utility in implementing an authorization requirement.  This decision is consistent with our 
Part 87 rules which exempt flight test transmitters used for limited periods from needing equipment 
certification.421
C. Expanded Federal Use of the non-Federal FSS and MSS Bands
150. When this proceeding began in 2013, the Commission recognized that the spectrum 
needs of the space launch industry and the commercial satellite industry are “separate, but closely related 
portions of the commercial space sector.”422  At that time, the Commission sought to address the needs of 
the space launch industry with new spectrum allocations and a licensing framework,423 and the needs of 
the commercial satellite industry’s government customers by providing for Federal earth station 
assignments in exclusively non-Federal FSS and MSS allocations.424
151. In the 2013 NPRM the Commission specifically sought comment on two proposals for 
expanding Federal use of non-Federal FSS and MSS satellites.  One proposal was to add co-primary 
Federal FSS or MSS allocations to several bands together with a footnote that limits primary Federal use 
of the bands to earth stations communicating with non-Federal space stations.425  The other proposal was 
to add a footnote to the Table of Allocations outlining circumstances under which Federal earth stations 
operating with non-Federal space stations would be entitled to interference protection.426
152. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought to refresh the record on its proposals for 
expanding Federal use of non-Federal FSS and MSS satellites, noting that in the eight years since the 
NPRM was adopted “the spectrum landscape in non-Federal FSS and MSS allocations has changed 
significantly.”427  The Commission observed that some of the bands under consideration in the NPRM 
418 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7815, para. 138.  The requirements specifying whether such equipment must 
be authorized under SDoC or receive a grant of certification from a Telecommunication Certification Body are 
found in the Commission rule part governing the service under which the equipment operates.  A device that 
performs different functions under multiple rule parts, may be subject to more than one type of approval procedure.
419 ULA Comments at 21; Boeing Comments at 35.
420 Northrop Grumman Reply at 15.
421 47 CFR § 87.145(c)(1).
422 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 6699, para. 1. 
423 Id. at paras. 65-87.
424 Id. at paras. 19-58.
425 Id. at paras. 36-46.
426 Id. at paras. 47-58.
427 R&O and FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7818, para. 148.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
57may no longer be appropriate candidates for expanded Federal FSS or MSS use, while other bands may 
support greater Federal use.428
153. We continue to believe that improvements to our policies and processes for 
communications between earth stations utilized by government agencies and commercial satellites are 
desirable and may ultimately serve the public interest.  However, we believe that this issue, while related 
to space launch operations generally, implicates different licensing processes and ultimately would 
require implementation distinct from the changes to launch frequency licensing we are adopting here.429  
Therefore, we conclude that Federal access would be better addressed through a separate proceeding 
specifically focused on communications between commercial satellites and Federal users.  Accordingly, 
we will continue to examine the record on expanded Federal earth station access to non-Federal FSS and 
MSS satellites through a separate proceeding, and we welcome continued comment and dialogue from 
both Federal and non-Federal stakeholders as we seek to address this issue, incorporating by reference the 
record to date on this issue from this proceeding. We direct OET to issue a public notice opening a new 
docket for comments on this issue and provide additional context for interested parties to provide 
additional comments.430  After receiving additional comments on this issue, OET is directed to develop a 
recommendation so as to enable Commission consideration not later than one year from the release of this 
item.
D. Federal Space Stations in the 399.9-400.05 MHz MSS Band
154. As requested by NTIA the Commission will revise footnote US319 of the Allocation 
Table to permit Federal space stations (i.e., satellites) to operate in the 399.9-400.05 MHz band.431  
Currently, U.S. Table footnote US319 prevents Federal space stations from operating in the 399.9-400.05 
MHz band even though there is a primary Federal Mobile Satellite Service allocation for this band.  NTIA 
requests that the footnote be modified to delete the 399.9 400.05 MHz band thereby allowing Federal 
satellites to operate in this band.  Footnote US319 currently states:
US319:  In the bands 137-138 MHz, 148-149.9 MHz, 149.9-150.05 MHz, 399.9-400.05 MHz, 
400.15-401 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz, and 2483.5-2500 MHz, Federal stations in the mobile-
satellite service shall be limited to earth stations operating with non-Federal space stations.432 
155. NTIA made this request to allow the 399.9-400.05 MHz band to be used for a new 
satellite system that will assume some of the non-environmental traffic currently handled by the Argos 
satellite system.  Argos is a satellite system that was established by the French Space Agency, NASA, and 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).433  Argos is used for a large number of 
applications such as monitoring the oceans at thousands of fixed and drifting buoys, tracking the 
movements of wildlife, relaying information by humanitarian agencies from remote areas, monitoring 
water resources, and tracking the locations of ships.434  The latest version of the Argos satellite system, the 
428 Id
429 Additionally, we note that numerous commenters suggest that these questions would be better addressed in a 
separate rulemaking.  See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 1-4, CTIA Comments at 4-5; AT&T Reply Comments at 3; T-
Mobile Comments at 6; see also Boeing Comments at 24 (suggesting that if the Commission cannot exempt Federal 
earth stations from Section 25.136, the question of UMFUS shared spectrum should be considered in a second 
FNPRM); Echostar Comments at 6-7 (arguing that any consideration of allocation in bands shared with UMFUS 
should be done in an FNPRM).
430 The OET Public Notice will be issued expeditiously, setting forth comment and reply comment deadlines for 
interested parties.
431 See NTIA US319 Letter at footnote 17, supra.
432 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US319.
433 Argos, About Argos, https://www.argos-system.org/about-argos/ (last visited July 28, 2023).
434 Argos, Argos Solutions, https://www.argos-system.org/solutions/ (last visited July 28, 2023).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
58Argos-4 was launched on October 7, 2022.  According to NTIA, the newly established satellite system in 
the 399.9-400.05 MHz band would allow non-environmental applications to be removed from the Argos 
system which will result in lower interference, higher capacity, and improved reliability and service for 
both the environmental applications remaining on Argos and the non-environmental applications moved 
to the new system.435
156. The Commission first made the 399.9-400.05 MHz band along with three other frequency 
bands available for MSS in 1993 to allow deployment of non-geosynchronous low Earth orbit (LEO) 
satellite systems, called “Little LEO” systems, to provide non-voice services such as data messaging and 
position determination.436  In 2019, the Commission’s International Bureau initiated a processing round 
for non-voice non-geostationary systems in this band as well as the 400.15-401 MHz band.  The 
Commission’s Space Bureau has granted market access for the 399.9-400.05 MHz band to three of these 
applicants while other applications remain pending or have been withdrawn. 437  In the past two years 
other companies have filed applications to operate in the 399.9-400.05 MHz band.438
157. The Commission received four comments and two reply comments in response to the 
FNPRM.439  Myriota Pty Ltd. (Myriota) and Fleet Space Technologies Pty. Ltd. (Fleet) express concerns 
regarding the impact to Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity and the coordination requirements needed to 
ensure there will be no interference between non-Federal and Federal space stations in the 399.9-400.05 
MHz band.440  According to Myriota, making this modification to US319 would permit an unidentified 
number of Federal satellites to operate in the band and leave commercial operators who have invested in 
the band without adequate safeguards to ensure their operations will not be constrained.441  Myriota 
suggest that if the Commission makes this modification to US319 it should adhere to the stated purpose of 
the modification by permitting only a single Argos satellite and that NTIA and NOAA should consider 
435 See NTIA US319 Letter at footnote 17, supra.
436 Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum to the Fixed-Satellite Service and 
the Mobile-Satellite service for Low-Earth Orbit Satellites, ET Docket No. 91-280, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 
1812, 1813, paras. 7, 12 (1993).  The Little LEO MSS is officially known as the non-voice, non-geostationary 
(NVNG) mobile-satellite service.
437 Kinéis was granted access to the U.S. market using frequencies of the NVNG MSS and earth exploration-satellite 
service (EESS) through a constellation of up to 25 small, low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites authorized by France.  
ICFS File No. SAT-PDR-20191011-00113.  Hiber’s application was granted on May 6, 2020.  ICFS File No. SAT-
PDR-20180910-00069, DA 20-491 (granted May 6, 2020).  Hiber, however, subsequently  surrendered its market 
access grant.  See Letter from Bruce Henoch, General Counsel, Hiber Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC 
(filed Sept. 24, 2021).  Myriota’s application was granted on May 29, 2020.  See Myriota, Pty. Ltd., ICFS File No. 
SAT-PDR-20190328-00020, DA 20-571 (granted May 29, 2020).  Spire also requests use of the 399.9-400.05 MHz 
band for its system, which has to date been authorized for telecommand links with Spire’s non-U.S. licensed 
satellites in the 400.02-400.05 MHz band.  See Spire Global Inc., ICFS File No. SAT-PDR-20190321-00018 (grant 
stamped Aug. 16, 2023).  The 400 MHz Processing Round also included Astro Digital, which was subject to a 
separate public notice that did not initiate a processing round.  Astro Digital’s application was granted in part and 
deferred in part.  Astro Digital, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-2017050800071 (grant stamped Aug. 1, 2018).  Within the 
frequency ranges included in the processing round, Astro Digital was authorized to use a telemetry carrier (space-to-
Earth) centered at 400.5 MHz (center frequency).  
438 Fleet Space Technologies requests authority to provide NVNG MSS in the United States with four low-Earth 
orbit, non-U.S.-licensed small satellites using the 399.9−400.05 MHz, 400.15−401 MHz, and 2020-2025 MHz 
bands.  ICFS File No. SAT-PDR-20220805-00077.  See also Space Quest, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20210503-
00058.
439 We received comments from BlackSky Global LLC (BlackSky), Department of Commerce (DoC), Myriota Pty. 
Ltd. (Myriota), and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).  We received reply 
comments from Fleet Space Technologies Pty. Ltd. (Fleet Space) and Myriota Pty. Ltd. (Myriota).
440 Myriota, Pty. Ltd Comments at 3; Fleet Space Technologies Pty. Ltd at 2,4. 
441 Myriota, Pty. Ltd Reply at 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
59whether commercial satellite operators could meet their mission requirements rather than operating 
Federal satellites in the band.442  Fleet points out that the 399.9-400.05 MHz band is the only globally 
harmonized UHF band for commercial smallsat MSS and claims that permitting Federal satellites in the 
band would disrupt the coordination among commercial satellite operators and delay deployment of 
innovative MSS applications.443  Blacksky Global supports amending footnote US319 and believes that 
allowing the band to assume some of the traffic currently handled by the Argos system would alleviate 
the pressure from Federal systems in adjacent bands and result in relaxation of the coordination 
conditions on non-Federal systems in the 401-402 MHz band.444  NTIA and DoC both emphasize the need 
to implement this modification of footnote US319 to ensure that the role of the United States in the 
Argos-4 program can proceed without any risk to its operation.445
158. We are revising US319 as NTIA requests to enable establishment of a new satellite 
system to supplement the Argos program to further the reliable provision of important services.  We 
appreciate the concerns expressed by Myriota and Fleet that the use of this band by a Federal satellite 
system may complicate the interference environment and create coordination burdens.  However, any 
Federal satellites that will operate in the band and the associated earth stations will be subject to 
coordination between NTIA and the Commission.  During this coordination process any issues regarding 
coexistence between the Federal and non-Federal systems can be addressed.  As applicants who filed 
during the processing round indicated that they are capable of sharing with current and future licensees in 
these bands,446 we are confident that at the conclusion of this coordination process the Federal satellites 
will be able to share the band with the existing systems without harmful interference occurring.  As the 
demand for spectrum continues to increase we must continue to look for opportunities to more intensively 
use spectrum where possible.  Therefore, we see no reason to reject NTIA’s request to modify US319.  
IV. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
A. NASA Footnotes
159. NTIA has requested that we add three footnotes to the Allocation Table to address the 
use of spectrum by manned and unmanned spacecraft during space missions.447  The text of these 
requested footnotes is as follows:  
USxxx  Use of the bands 2290-2293 MHz and 2297-2300 MHz by Federal and non-Federal space 
stations may be authorized on a primary basis for the specific purpose of emergency 
transmissions from manned spacecraft used in the exploration and use of outer space, including 
the Moon and other celestial bodies. This allocation is restricted to emergency transmissions from 
manned spacecraft when experiencing emergency situations. Additionally, the bands 2025-2110 
MHz and 2110-2120 MHz may also be authorized on a primary basis for transmissions of related 
commands to the spacecraft. Such operations should be conducted in accordance with 
Recommendation ITU-R SA.1863.
USyyy In the band 2213.5-2218.5 MHz, non-Federal space stations operating in the space 
operation service providing transportation service of crew to and from the International Space 
Station, may be authorized on a primary basis to transmit in the space-to-Earth direction, to 
442 Id. at 3.
443 Fleet Space Technologies Pty. Ltd. at 2-4.
444 Blacksky Global LLC Comments at 4.
445 NTIA/DoC Comments at 28. 
446 Kinéis Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Access the U.S. Market Using a Low-Earth Orbit Satellite System, ICFS 
File No. SAT-PDR-20191011-00113, Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 21-118 at 6, para. 12 (2021).
447 This request from Charles Cooper, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, to Ronald 
Repasi, Acting Chief, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, was received via e-mail on August 8, 2021.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
60authorized receiving stations, subject to such conditions as may be applied on a case-by-case 
basis. Such transmissions shall not cause harmful interference to authorized Federal stations. The 
power flux-density at the Earth's surface from such emissions from these non-Federal stations 
shall not exceed -144 to -154 dBW/m²/4 kHz, depending on the angle of arrival, in accordance 
with ITU Radio Regulation No. 21.16.
USzzz (New) In the band 2200.2-2206.2 MHz, non-Federal space stations operating in the space 
operation service may be authorized on a primary basis to transmit to the International Space 
Station (ISS) while within 30 km of the ISS, subject to such conditions as may be applied on a 
case-by-case basis. Such transmissions shall not cause harmful interference to authorized Federal 
stations. The power-flux-density of such emissions at the Earth's surface from these non-Federal 
stations shall not exceed -144 to -154 dBW/m²/4 kHz, depending on the angle of arrival, in 
accordance with ITU Radio Regulation No. 21.16. ITU Radio Regulation No. 5.392 also applies.
160. Draft footnote USxxx applies to emergency transmissions to and from manned spacecraft 
in two portions of the 2200-2290 MHz band as well as the 2025-2110 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz bands.  
We propose to add this footnote to the allocations table recognizing the importance of emergency 
communications to safeguard human life during manned space missions.  We seek comment on this 
proposal.  Because emergency communications from manned spacecraft are likely to occur infrequently 
we tentatively conclude that making this spectrum available for this purpose will not present a significant 
interference risk to other users of these bands.  As the 2200-2290 MHz band has a space operation 
allocation in the space-to-earth direction, permitting transmissions from spacecraft is appropriate.448  The 
2025-2110 MHz band has a primary Federal space operations allocation in the Earth-to-space direction 
which is consistent with making transmissions to manned spacecraft.449  The 2110-2120 MHz band has a 
primary space research service (deep space) (Earth-to-space) allocation at Goldstone California.  Given 
that use of the 2110-2120 MHz for space transmissions is currently limited to this one location, should 
USXXX have a similar limitation on use of this band?  Should any other restrictions be placed on the use 
of these bands for emergency communications for manned spacecraft to avoid harmful interference from 
occurring to other users of these bands?
161. Draft footnote USyyy applies to transmissions to ground stations by non-Federal 
spacecraft transporting crew to and from the International Space Station (ISS).  NASA currently has 
contracts with SpaceX and Boeing to shuttle crew members to the ISS.  There is currently a federal Space 
Operation space-to-Earth allocation for the 2200-2290 MHz band, but the non-federal Space Operation 
allocation for this band is limited to use for pre-launch testing and space launch operations and therefore 
does not permit transmissions by crew transport spacecraft after the launch phase of the mission.450  Given 
the importance of reliable communications in safeguarding human life during manned space missions, we 
propose to add this footnote to the Allocation Table.  We tentatively conclude that the power flux limits 
on these transmissions will prevent interference from occurring to receivers on the earth’s surface from 
these transmissions.  We seek comment on this proposal.
162. Draft footnote USzzz applies to spacecraft that are transmitting in portions of the 2200-
2290 MHz band within 30 kilometers of the ISS.  NASA has contracts with commercial companies to 
transport both supplies and crew to the ISS.  These spacecraft need to communicate with the ISS when 
they are docking.  As the Space Operation allocation for the 2200-2290 MHz band is limited to use for 
pre-launch testing and space launch operations, there is no allocation that permits these non-Federal 
spacecraft to communicate with the ISS in this band.  We propose to add this footnote to the Allocation 
Table in recognition of the importance of these space missions as well as the limited number of such 
missions which should present a minimal risk of interference occurring to other users of the band.  As 
with USyyy, we tentatively conclude that the power flux limits on these transmissions will prevent 
448 This allocation is primary for federal use and secondary for non-federal use.  47 CFR § 2.106.
449 47 CFR § 2.106.
450 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US96.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
61interference from occurring to receivers on the earth’s surface from these transmissions.  We seek 
comment on this proposal.
163. NASA has adopted a transition plan that envisions deorbiting the ISS in early 2031.451  
Prior to deorbiting the ISS, NASA intends to purchase crew time from at least two Commercial LEO 
Destinations (CLDs)—i.e., private space stations.452  As the projected lifetime of the ISS is now less than 
eight years, we seek comment on whether the new proposed footnotes USyyy and USzzz should be 
limited to spacecraft traveling to the ISS.  Should these footnotes also apply to future manned space 
stations that are operated by commercial entities?  Should they be limited to manned space stations only 
in low earth orbit or apply more generally to manned space stations anywhere beyond the Earth’s 
atmosphere?
B. Space Operation
164. In this FNPRM we continue our efforts to support the expanding activities of the 
commercial space sector that benefit the public interest.  Specifically, we focus on the question of 
spectrum allocation and licensing processes for certain post-space launch activities, particularly with 
respect to certain space operations communications currently addressed through experimental licensing, 
such as crew or cargo capsules destined for the International Space Station (ISS), or similar operations 
planned for the future, such as spectrum requirements for commercial crewed space stations.  
Commenters also raised a number of issues that overlap the topics currently being considered in the Space 
Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing proceeding.453  
This broader range of topics will be addressed separately and concurrently with that proceeding, as noted 
in the accompanying Second Report and Order.454.
165.Spectrum Allocation for Certain Post-Space Launch Payload Operations.  We seek 
further comment on whether to include new spectrum allocations in specific bands for communications 
with cargo and crew capsules and payload communications with the ISS and other crewed space stations.  
In the FNPRM we sought comment on whether there are improvements to the licensing process that could 
facilitate more routine licensing for certain payload activities currently addressed through experimental 
licensing.  Specifically, we noted the current use by SpaceX of S-band frequencies for cargo and crew 
capsules and links with the ISS as well as use by Orbital Sciences Corporation, a Northrop Grumman 
Systems Corporation Affiliate, of 2287.5 MHz (space-to-Earth) as well as 2287.5 MHz for links between 
the Cygnus spacecraft and TDRSS, and 2203.2 MHz for links between the Cygnus and the ISS.  We 
sought comment on whether any changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations being adopted or 
proposed for the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz frequency bands were needed to provide for these 
cargo and crew capsule communications, what are the spectrum requirements for such operations, and if 
there are other frequency bands that the Commission should also consider for such uses.
166. In response, SpaceX noted that it has, through the STA process, used the 2025-2110 MHz 
band for its Dragon capsule to communicate with the ISS and TDRSS, and supports an expanded 
approach for 2200-2290 MHz band, which would alleviate the need for seeking an STA to cover 
communication between SpaceX’s Dragon and the ISS and TDRSS.  Northrop Grumman also noted its 
use of the 2200-2290 MHz band for ISS-related communications and supports the inclusion of payload 
operations in the allocation for this band, which is used by its Cygnus mission.  Northrop Grumman also 
suggested that the Commission adopt a fleet licensing process for payload activities, in specific for ISS-
451 International Space Station Transition Report Pursuant to Section 303(c)(2) of the NASA Transition 
Authorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-10), NASA, at 11, 
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2022_iss_transition_report-final_tagged.pdf. 
452 Id. at 6.
453 Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing, IB Dockets 
22-271, 22-272, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 22-66 at 4, para. 7 (2022) (ISAM NOI).
454 See supra, Section III.A., B. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
62related activities, such as its Cygnus mission.
167.Other commenters supported allocations in the S-band as well as the L-band and X-band 
for OOS and RPO operations generally.  Industry Participants455 assert that slightly expanding the 2200-
2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz allocations to include RPO alongside space launch and reentry “would 
provide a safer space environment for time-critical RPO communications, where failure can result in loss 
of spacecraft, termination of a mission, and potentially loss of human lives.”456  They also note that 
commercial operators have already invested into technology that supports OOS operations in the 
S-band.457  Black Sky suggests opening the band for all on-orbit missions to put the U.S. industry on an 
equal footing with international operators.458  Spaceflight recommended that the Commission consider 
8025-8400 MHz (X-band) and 1610-1626.5 MHz (L-band) for secondary allocation for payload 
operations specifically.459 In response to Spaceflight’s suggestion for allocation in the L-band, Globalstar 
asserts that allocation for inter satellite links and space-to-space communication between a launch vehicle 
and satellites in the L-band is unnecessary and should continue to be authorized only on an experimental 
basis.460  In particular Globalstar focuses on the Big LEO band where Globalstar operates and has 
concerns of harmful interference.461  Federal agencies were generally opposed to changing the status of 
the S-band for payload operations as discussed in the accompanying Second Report and Order, however 
NTIA, NASA, DOD, and DOC note that the 2360-2395 MHz band could be used as an alternative to 
expanding allocation in 2200-2290 MHz band.462  We consider this alternative in further discussion 
below.463
168. As discussed in the accompanying Second Report and Order, we conclude that 
deliberations for providing S-band, or other possible bands (such as L-band and X-band suggestions by 
Spaceflight), allocation for OOS/RPO more generally be continued via the ongoing ISAM proceeding.  
However, we seek further comment on possible necessary changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations 
to account for space-to-space communications between a crew or cargo capsule and crewed space 
stations, including in bands outside the S-band.  Do the three footnotes requested by NTIA meet this 
need?464  Should the Commission adopt an allocation for ISS-related space-to-space communications in 
this proceeding?  Should the Commission expand such an allocation to account for future crewed space 
stations and operations not connected to the ISS?  Should the rules addressing these operations be 
included in Part 25 of the FCC’s rules?
169.Suborbital Spaceflight Operations.  Additionally, we seek further comment on spectrum 
allocation and licensing needs related to suborbital spaceflight.  Are there aspects of suborbital 
commercial spaceflight that fall outside of the definition we have adopted for space launch operations that 
require further licensing and spectrum allocation considerations?  In response to the FNPRM, Virgin 
Galactic noted its use, through experimental licensing, of the VHF band, L-band, and S-band for its 
suborbital flights and suggested that the Commission develop and adopt rules allowing allocation for 
455 Industry Participants refers to Astroscale U.S. Inc., Axiom Space Inc., Atomos Space, Sierra Space Corp., and 
SCOUT Inc. who submitted comments jointly.
456 Industry Participants Comments at 6.
457 Industry Participants Reply at 3.
458 Black Sky Comments at 2-4.
459 Spaceflight Comments at 6.
460 Globalstar Reply at 3-4.
461 Id.
462 NTIA Comments at 5; NASA Comments at 2; DOD Comments at 2, 5; DOC Comments at 2.
463 See infra Section IV. C..
464 See supra Section IV. A..Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
63commercial spaceflight operations in these bands.465  Specifically, Virgin Galactic has operated in the 
123.225 MHz, 123.275 MHz, 123.375 MHz, 123.450 MHz, and 123.525 MHz (VHF) frequencies, the 
1445.5 MHz, 1451.5 MHz, 1462.5 MHz, 1470.5 MHz 1480.5 MHz (L-band) frequencies, and the 2360-
2390 MHz (S-band) frequencies.466  Communications in these bands have included telemetry as well as 
video and voice communications.467  The Second Report and Order we adopt today has limited use of the 
S-band to telemetry and tracking communications for launch under Part 26.  Should the Commission 
establish allocations beyond experimental or STA licensing for voice or video communications for these 
types of crewed suborbital spaceflight operations?
170. In further considering communication related to crewed suborbital operations we note the 
importance of safety of life communications.468  Currently, operators who obtain experimental licensing 
approvals or STAs for these activities are communicating on a non-protected, non-interference basis and 
must cease operations in the event interference with a primary or secondary allocated operator occurs.469  
We seek comment on how the Commission should ensure a more permanent level of protection for 
suborbital spaceflight operation communications, while recognizing the need to avoid harmful 
interference with other important operations in already encumbered bands. Should any of the portions of 
the VHF, L-band, or S-band that have been authorized experimentally for communications beyond 
telemetry be allocated for suborbital spaceflight operations on a primary or secondary basis?  Are there 
other bands beyond those we are considering today that might be suitable for these operations?
C. Use of 2360-2395 MHz Band or Other Bands for Commercial Space Launch
171. Three frequencies in the 2360-2395 MHz band are available for both Federal and non-
Federal telemetry and telecommand operations of launch vehicles.470  Beyond these three frequencies, the 
band is assigned primarily for aeronautical telemetry and telecommand operations for flight testing of 
aircraft and missiles.471  In the FNPRM, we requested comment on changes that we could take in 
465 See Virgin Galactic Comments at 2-8.
466 Id. at 2-3.
467 See Virgin Galactic Ex Parte (April 18, 2022); Virgin Galactic Comments at 5-6.
468 See, e.g., ITU Convention, Art. 40 “Priority of Telecommunications Concerning Safety of Life.”
469 See 47 CFR § 5.84.
470 See 47 CFR §§ 2.106 US276, 87.187(p), 87.303(d)(1).  The three frequencies are 2364.5 MHz, 2370.5 MHz, and 
2382.5 MHz.  The 2.3 GHz allocation supporting non-Federal space launch telemetry and telecommand was adopted 
after national space policy changes in the 1980s, which shifted responsibility for launching non-Government 
payloads from Federal to non-Federal entities.  With concurrence by NTIA, the Commission concluded that the 
2310-2390 MHz band was the most suitable at the time to support space launch telemetry and telecommand use and 
it identified six channels for such use.  Portions of the aeronautical mobile telemetry band were reallocated, which 
reduced the available commercial space launch spectrum to three frequencies in the 2360-2395 MHz band.  See 
Amendment of the Frequency Allocation & Aviation Servs. Rules (Parts 2 & 87) to Provide Frequencies for Use by 
Commercial Space Launch Vehicles, GN Docket No. 89-16, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 493, 493, para. 2 (1990); 
Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, IB 
Docket No. 97-91, GN Docket No. 90-357, Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 5754, 5805-06, paras. 124-26 (1997); Amendment of Parts 2, 25, and 87 of 
the Commission’s Rules to Implement Decisions from World Radiocommunication Conferences Concerning 
Frequency Bands Between 28 MHz and 36 GHz and to Otherwise Update the Rules in this Frequency Range, ET 
Docket No. 02-305, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23426, 23441-43, paras. 37-40 (2003); Amendment of Parts 1, 
2, 15, 25, 27, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts 
of the World Radiocommunication Conference, ET Docket Nos. 12-338 and 15-99, IB Docket No. 06-123, Report 
and Order, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 4183, 4210-11, paras. 62-65 (2015); The White 
House, Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Directive on National Space Policy (Feb. 11, 1988), 
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/policy88.html.
471 47 CFR § 87.303(d)(1).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
64administering the 2360-2395 MHz space launch rules.472  For example, we sought comment on whether 
we should administer the 2360-2395 MHz space launch use, which is currently regulated under subpart J 
of the Commission’s Part 87 rules, under the same rule part as the commercial space launch rules 
applicable to the 2200-2290 MHz band adopted in the Second R&O or retain the current Part 87 
designation.473
172. In response to the FNPRM, certain commenters filed in support of expanding space 
launch use in the 2360-2395 MHz band.  For example, SpaceX argues that uses of the band should extend 
to the full range of space operations,474 while Virgin Galactic encourages the Commission to ensure that 
any primary allocation of the band, as well as associated service and technical rules, facilitate telemetry 
and video downlink, which it states is consistent with Virgin Galactic’s use of the spectrum to monitor the 
health and safety of its spaceflight participants and crew.475  NTIA, NASA, and DOD advocate the use of 
the 2360-2395 MHz band as an alternative to the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz bands,476 arguing 
that the three existing frequencies in the 2360-2395 MHz band provide additional spectrum.477
173. AFTRCC, however, argues that there should not be an expansion of the band and urges 
the Commission to limit the allocation in that band to just the three channels already allocated for space 
launches, and avoid proposing allocations for space operations that include bands needed for flight testing 
and space launches.478  In support, AFTRCC asserts that space launches create large interference cones to 
flight test operations, and that even a few seconds of interference could disrupt the most critical portions 
of a flight test and would add a significant risk factor to aircraft flight tests in this band.479  Similarly, 
Boeing advises that the Commission should exercise caution with respect to the use of additional portions 
of the 2360-2395 MHz band for launch operations or in-orbit activities.480  Boeing asserts that the greater 
2360-2395 MHz band is heavily used to support non-federal flight test operations in locations throughout 
the United States, and that use of the band by commercial aircraft manufacturers is intensive and 
increasing.481
174. We seek further comment on expanding the use of the 2360-2395 MHz band, both in the 
context of additional uses to the band as well as expanding use in the band beyond the three frequencies 
currently designated.  While we are aware that this band is heavily used for flight test purposes and agree 
that we should proceed cautiously with respect to measures that have the potential to introduce additional 
interference to operations in the band, we also recognize that the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz 
bands may not accommodate the increasing numbers of operations in the future.  While we find that 
providing space launch operators with increased certainty regarding access to the 2200-2290 MHz and 
2025-2110 MHz band is in the public interest and that careful coordination will be effective in enabling 
use of these bands, the record supports further review of additional spectrum options.  Accordingly, we 
seek to better understand the current use of the 2360-2395 MHz band.  We seek information on how both 
472 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7814-15, paras. 136-137.
473 FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7814, para. 136.  Because the FNPRM proposed to incorporate the new commercial 
space launch rules under a new subpart in part 87, the FNPRM requested comment on whether to administer the 
2360-2395 MHz band under the new part 87 subpart.
474 SpaceX Comments at 8.
475 Virgin Galactic Comments at 7, n.16.
476 NTIA/NASA/DOD Comments at 5, 9, 12, 18, 22.
477 NTIA/NOAA Comments at 27.
478 AFTRCC Reply at 9; AFTRCC Dec. 13, 2021 Ex Parte at 1.
479 AFTRCC Dec. 13, 2021 Ex Parte at 9.
480 Boeing Reply at 5.
481 Boeing Reply at 5-6.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
65flight testing and launch operations in the band are coordinated and conducted,482 and whether there are 
measures that could help increase use by space launch operations without increasing the risk of 
interference to flight test operations.  For example, space launch operations in the band are subject to pre-
grant frequency coordination, but do not have a coordination requirement once an authorization is 
granted.  Would revising the 2360-2395 MHz band rules to apply provisions that are now applicable to 
the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz band, including the per launch coordination requirement, help 
to facilitate increased use of space launch operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band?483
175. Further, we received limited comment on how to administer rules relating to the 2360-
2395 MHz band, in particular comment regarding whether and how to harmonize existing 2360-2395 
MHz licensing and technical rules with rules now applicable to the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz 
band.484  Accordingly, we seek further comment on certain 2360-2395 MHz issues that were first raised in 
the FNPRM.485  We request additional comment on how best to administer the space launch rules for this 
band.  Should we incorporate the 2360-2395 MHz space launch use into new Part 26 or should we retain 
the Part 87 designation?  If we administer the 2360-2395 MHz space launch use under the new rule part, 
should we revise our rules to apply the same non-exclusive licensing scheme we adopt today or retain the 
existing licensing framework provided under the current Part 87 flight testing rules?  In that event, should 
we continue to apply the technical rules currently applicable to these services?  We also note that space 
launch telemetry and telecommand operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band occur under a Mobile 
allocation.486  We seek further comment on whether we should add a primary Space Operation allocation 
to the band, subject to the same restrictions as apply to such operations under the Mobile allocation as 
specified in footnote US276 of the U.S. Table.487  Further, Industry Participants state that, while they 
appreciate the suggestion of increased 2360-2395 MHz band use in light of congestion in the S-band, the 
International Table of Frequency Allocations reserves this band for Fixed Service, Mobile Service, 
Amateur, and Radiolocation services, and consequently it would be necessary to modify that allocation to 
permit use of that band at the international level.488  Industry Participants state that a failure to obtain such 
a modification would be a hardship for on-orbit operators seeking mission support from non-U.S. ground 
stations.489  We request comment regarding this issue.
176. With respect to additional spectrum options for space launch operations, Virgin Galactic 
suggests that we expand the use of the 1435-1525 MHz band for telemetry and safety of flight during 
482 For example, information on when and where flight testing generally occurs that may provide insight on technical 
measures that may help mitigate potential interference.
483 See AFTRCC Dec. 13, 2021 Ex Parte at 8 (suggesting measures, such as an enhanced scheduling mechanism, 
that would need to be implemented if expanded use is permitted).
484 See SpaceX Comments at 8 (arguing that the band should be incorporated into the new rule part); Rocket Lab 
Comments at 3 (recommending that the 2360-2395 MHz band be allocated to any new space launch operations 
regulatory framework).  See also Relativity Space Comments at 3 (opposing changes to rules governing the 2360-
2390 MHz band on the grounds that uses of the band, which are set out in footnote US276, are effectively 
coordinated through AFTRCC).
485 See FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 7814, para. 136.
486 See 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US276.
487 Footnote US276 provides: “Except as otherwise provided for herein, use of the band 2360-2395 MHz by the 
mobile service is limited to aeronautical telemetering and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of 
aircraft, missiles or major components thereof.  The following three frequencies are shared on a co-equal basis by 
Federal and non-Federal stations for telemetering and associated telecommand operations of expendable and 
reusable launch vehicles, whether or not such operations involve flight testing: 2364.5 MHz, 2370.5 MHz, and 
2382.5 MHz.  All other mobile telemetering uses shall not cause harmful interference to, or claim protection from 
interference from, the above uses.”
488 Industry Participants Reply at 11.
489 Industry Participants Reply at 11.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
66spaceflight operations.490  As in the case of the 2360-2395 MHz band, the 1435-1525 MHz band is 
assigned primarily for aeronautical telemetry and telecommand functions associated with flight testing.491  
Space launch and reentry operations are permissible uses of the band.492  AFTRCC, however, argues that 
this band is the “workhorse spectrum” for aeronautical flight testing, and that interference with sensitive 
flight test equipment risks pilot safety and the success of test maneuvers.493  Accordingly, says AFTRCC, 
this band should be reserved for aeronautical mobile telemetry uses.494  We seek comment on whether the 
1435-1525 MHz band can effectively accommodate space launch operations, or whether such use should 
be discouraged despite being permissible under our rules.  As in the case with the 2360-2395 MHz band 
above, we seek information regarding the current usage of this band, how operations are conducted and 
coordinated, and whether there are measures that may be taken to successfully integrate space launch use 
along with flight test operations.  Would per launch coordination including an enhanced scheduling 
mechanism be helpful?495  To the extent that commenters agree that space launch activities can occur 
along with flight test operations, we request that commenters also speak to any changes—similar to those 
discussed above for the 2360-2395 MHz band—we should make to harmonize any space launch use in 
this band with rules applicable to the 2200-2290 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz bands.  However, in the event 
that commenters believe that increased use of either of these bands for space launch uses should not be 
accommodated, we request comment on other spectrum bands that may be appropriate candidates.496
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Presentations
177. These proceedings shall be treated as “permit-but-disclose” proceedings in accordance 
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.497  Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after 
the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies).  Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all 
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, 
and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation.  If the presentation 
consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s 
written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to 
such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant 
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them 
in the memorandum.  Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are 
deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).  In 
proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that 
proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).  Participants in 
this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
490 Virgin Galactic Comments at 7.
491 47 CFR §§ 87.187(p), 87.303(d)(1).
492 47 CFR §§ 87.187(p), 87.303(d)(1); see also 47 CFR § 2.106 footnote US78.
493 AFTRCC Dec. 13, 2021 Ex Parte at 8.
494 AFTRCC Dec. 13, 2021 Ex Parte at 8.
495 See AFTRCC Dec. 13, 2021 Ex Parte at 8.
496 For example, Virgin Galactic suggests the use of VHF frequencies telemetry and safety of flight during 
spaceflight operations.  Virgin Galactic Comments at 7.
497 47 CFR § 1.1200 et seq.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
67B. Comment Period and Filing Procedures
178. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first 
page of this document.  For comments regarding the Second Further Notice, comments must be filed in 
ET Docket No. 13-115.  Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS).  See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
•All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission.
•Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.  
▪Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
oCommercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
oU.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L 
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or 
messenger delivered filings.  This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and 
safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.  See FCC Announces 
Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 
Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-
open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
oDuring the time the Commission’s building is closed to the general public and until 
further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a 
proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket 
or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
oAfter COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, the Commission has established that hand-carried 
documents are to be filed at the Commission’s office located at 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.  This will be the only location where hand-carried paper 
filings for the Commission will be accepted.498
C. People with Disabilities
179. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format) for people with disabilities, send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
180.Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 
requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, 
unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.”499  Accordingly, we have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Second Report and 
498 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Order, DA 20-562 (OMD 2020).
499 See 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
68Order on small entities.  The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
181.Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,500 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  The IRFA is set forth in Appendix E.  Written public comments 
are requested on the IRFA.  These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines 
for comments on the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and should have a separate and 
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.  
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
182. The Second Report and Order contains new information collection requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.  It will be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 
and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding.  In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought 
specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
183. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may contain proposed modified 
information collection requirements.  The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on 
the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.  In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), we seek specific comment on how we might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.  
F. Congressional Review Act
184. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).  The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report 
and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability office, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
G. Accessing Materials
185. The Office of Federal Register (OFR) regulations require that agencies must discuss in 
the preamble to the Federal Register summary of a final rule the ways that the materials incorporated by 
reference are reasonably available to interested parties and that interested parties can obtain the 
materials.501  In addition, OFR regulations require that the preamble to the Federal Register summary of a 
final rule summarize the material incorporated by reference.502 
186. Sections 26.302(a) and (b) of the rules adopted herein incorporate by reference Annex J, 
Guidance for Determination of Necessary Bandwidth, and Annex M, Measurement Standards, of the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Manual of Regulations and Procedures 
for Federal Radio Frequency Management (NTIA Manual), January 2021 Edition (Rev. Jan. 2022).  The 
information in these annexes provide guidance for determining the necessary bandwidth of space launch 
radiocommunication systems.  Interested parties may inspect a copy of these regulations at the FCC’s 
500 5 U.S.C. § 603.
501 1 CFR § 51.5(b)(2).
502 1 CFR § 51.5(b)(3).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
69main office.  The text of the NTIA Manual is also available online at 
https://www.ntia.gov/publications/redbook-manual. 
H. Further Information
187. For additional information on this proceeding, Nicholas Oros of the Office of 
Engineering and Technology, at Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov or 202-418-0636; contact Linda Chang of the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at Linda.Chang@fcc.gov or 202-418-1339; or Julia Malette of the 
Space Bureau, at Julia.Malette@fcc.gov or 202-418-2453.
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
188. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 301, 303(c), 
303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 
155(c), 301, 303(c), 303(f), and 303(r), and section 1.411 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.411, 
this Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS HEREBY 
ADOPTED. 
189. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments of Parts 2 and 26 of the Commission’s 
rules as set forth in Appendix A, ARE ADOPTED, effective thirty (30) days after publication in the 
Federal Register, with the exception of sections 26.106, 26.108, 26.202, and 26.301, which contain new 
or modified information collection requirements that require review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  The Commission directs the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau to announce the effective date of those information collections in a 
document published in the Federal Register after the Commission receives OMB approval, and directs the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to cause these rule sections to be revised accordingly.
190. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of the Secretary, Reference Information 
Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
191. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Second 
Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant 
to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
SecretaryFederal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
APPENDIX A
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the document, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 
0, 1, and 2 and adds 47 CFR part 26 as follows:
PART 0 – COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: 
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 0.331 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:  
§ 0.331 Authority delegated.
*****
(g) The Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is delegated authority to administer the 
Commission's space launch services programs (Part 26 of this chapter) and the issuing of space launch 
services licenses.  The Chief is delegated authority to develop specific methods that will be used to 
develop an application filing procedure for initial authorization and subsequent station registration; to 
seek comment on the circumstances attending the designation of a third-party space launch frequency 
coordinator, including a mechanism for selecting a frequency coordinator; to develop procedures 
that the space launch frequency coordinator will use to ensure compliance with the coordination 
requirements for space launch operations; and to perform other functions as needed for the administration 
of the space launch services.
PART 1 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
3. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted.
4. Revise § 1.901 to read as follows:
 § 1.901 Basis and purpose.
These rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The 
purpose of these rules is to establish the requirements and conditions under which entities may be licensed in 
the Wireless Radio Services as described in this part and in Parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 
97 and 101 of this chapter.
5. Revise § 1.902 to read as follows:
§ 1.902 Scope.
In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in this subpart and the rules set forth in Parts 13, 20, 22, 
24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of title 47, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, the 
rules in Part 1 shall govern.
6. Amend § 1.907 by revising the definitions of “Covered geographic licenses” and 
“Wireless Radio Services” to read as follows:
§ 1.907 Definitions.
*****
Covered geographic licenses.  Covered geographic licenses consist of the following services:  1.4 GHz 
Service (Part 27, subpart I of this chapter); 1.6 GHz Service (Part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and 
Digital Electronic Message Services (Part 101, subpart G of this chapter); 218-219 MHz Service (Part 95, 
subpart F, of this chapter); 220-222 MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses (Part 90, subpart T, of 
this chapter); 600 MHz Service (Part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz Commercial Services (Part 27, subparts F Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
71and H); 700 MHz Guard Band Service (part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service 
(Part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (Part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz 
Broadband Service (Part 27, subpart P); 3.45 GHz Service (Part 27, subpart Q); 3.7 GHz Service (Part 27, 
subpart O); Advanced Wireless Services (Part 27, subparts K and L); Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service 
(Commercial Aviation) (Part 22, subpart G, of this chapter); Broadband Personal Communications 
Service (Part 24, subpart E, of this chapter); Broadband Radio Service (Part 27, subpart M); Cellular 
Radiotelephone Service (Part 22, subpart H); Citizens Broadband Radio Service (Part 96, subpart C, of 
this chapter); Dedicated Short Range Communications Service, excluding public safety licenses (Part 90, 
subpart M); Educational Broadband Service (Part 27, subpart M); H Block Service (Part 27, subpart K); 
Local Multipoint Distribution Service (Part 101, subpart L); Multichannel Video Distribution and Data 
Service (Part 101, subpart P); Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (Part 90, subpart M); 
Multiple Address Systems (EAs) (Part 101, subpart O); Narrowband Personal Communications Service 
(Part 24, subpart D); Paging and Radiotelephone Service (Part 22, subpart E; Part 90, subpart P); VHF 
Public Coast Stations, including Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems (Part 80, subpart J, of 
this chapter); Space Launch Services (Part 26 of this chapter); Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
(Part 30 of this chapter); and Wireless Communications Service (Part 27, subpart D of this chapter).
*****
Wireless Radio Services. All radio services authorized in Parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 
96, 97 and 101 of this chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.
*****
PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 2.106(a) by revising the Table of Frequency Allocations, pages 26, 36, and 37 
to read as follows: 
§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
(a) * * *72272-273
SPACE OPERATION (space-to-Earth)
FIXED
MOBILE
5.254
273-312
FIXED
MOBILE
5.254
312-315
FIXED
MOBILE
Mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)  5.254  5.255
315-322
FIXED
MOBILE
5.254 G27  G100
322-328.6
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIO ASTRONOMY
5.149322-328.6
FIXED
MOBILE
US342  G27322-328.6
US342
328.6-335.4
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.258
5.259328.6-335.4
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION  5.258 Aviation (87)
335.4-387
FIXED
MOBILE
5.254
387-390
FIXED
MOBILE
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)  5.208A  5.208B  5.254  5.255335.4-399.9
FIXED
MOBILE
390-399.9
FIXED
MOBILE
5.254 G27  G100335.4-399.9
399.9-400.05
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.209  5.220399.9-400.05
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space))  US319  US320
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITESatellite Communications 
(25)
400.05-400.15
STANDARD FREQUENCY AND TIME SIGNAL-SATELLITE (400.1 MHz)
5.261  5.262400.05-400.15
STANDARD FREQUENCY AND TIME SIGNAL-SATELLITE (400.1 
MHz)
5.261 Page 26731700-1710
FIXED
METEOROLOGICAL-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
5.289  5.3411700-1710
FIXED
METEOROLOGICAL-
SATELLITE 
   (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except aeronautical 
mobile
5.289  5.341  5.384 5.341 5.341  US88
1710-1930
FIXED
MOBILE  5.384A  5.388A  5.388B1710-1761
5.341  US91  US378  US3851710-1780
FIXED
MOBILE
1761-1780
SPACE OPERATION
   (Earth-to-space)  G42
US91 5.341  US91  US378  US385
1780-1850
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE OPERATION
   (Earth-to-space)  G421780-1850
5.149  5.341  5.385  5.386  5.387  5.388
1930-1970
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
5.3881930-1970
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
Mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.3881930-1970
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
5.388
1970-1980
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
5.388
1980-2010
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.351A1850-2000
FIXED
MOBILERF Devices (15)
Personal 
   Communications (24)
Wireless Communications 
(27)
Fixed Microwave (101)
5.388  5.389A  5.389B  5.389F 2000-2020
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)Satellite Communications 
(25)
Wireless Communications 
(27)2010-2025
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B2010-2025
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
   (Earth-to-space)2010-2025
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
5.388 5.388  5.389C  5.389E 5.3881850-2025
2020-2025
FIXED
MOBILE742025-2110
SPACE OPERATION (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.391
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
5.3922025-2110
SPACE OPERATION
   (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
EARTH EXPLORATION-
SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
SPACE RESEARCH
   (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.391
5.392  US90  US92  US222  
US346
US3472025-2110
FIXED  NG118
MOBILE  5.391
Space Operation
   (Earth-to-space)  US94
5.392  US90  US92  US222
US346  US347Space Launch Services (26)
TV Auxiliary Broadcasting 
   (74F)
Cable TV Relay (78)
Local TV Transmission 
(101J)
Page 3675Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                                  2110-2483.5 MHz (UHF) Page 37
International Table United States Table
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal TableFCC Rule Part(s)
2110-2120
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (Earth-to-space)
5.3882110-2120
US2522110-2120
FIXED
MOBILE
US252
2120-2170
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B2120-2160
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.3882120-2170
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B2120-2180
FIXED
MOBILE
5.3882160-2170
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-
Earth)
5.388  5.389C  5.389E 5.388
NG41Public Mobile (22)
Wireless 
   Communications (27)
Fixed Microwave 
(101)
2170-2200
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.351A
5.388  5.389A  5.389F2120-2200
2180-2200
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-
Earth)Satellite
   Communications 
(25)
Wireless
   Communications 
(27)
2200-2290
SPACE OPERATION (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.391
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
5.3922200-2290
SPACE OPERATION (space-to-
Earth)
   (space-to-space)  US96
EARTH EXPLORATION-
SATELLITE
   (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
FIXED (line-of-sight only)
MOBILE (line-of-sight only including
   aeronautical telemetry, but excluding
   flight testing of manned aircraft) 
5.391
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth)
   (space-to-space)
5.392  US3032200-2290
US96  US303Space Launch 
Services (26)
2290-2300
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (space-to-Earth)2290-2300
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
   (space-to-Earth)2290-2300
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
   (space-to-Earth)
2300-2305
G1222300-2305
Amateur Amateur Radio (97)2300-2450
FIXED
MOBILE  5.384A
Amateur
Radiolocation2300-2450
FIXED
MOBILE  5.384A
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur2305-2310 2305-2310
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical 
mobileWireless
   Communications 
(27)
Amateur Radio (97)76US97  G122RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
US97Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
77* * * * *
(b) * * *
7. Section 2.106 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(94) and by revising paragraphs (c)(96) 
and (c)(319) to read as follows: 
(c) * * *
(94)  US94  In the band 2025-2110 MHz, the non-Federal space operation service shall be subject to the 
following conditions: 
(i) transmissions are restricted to telecommand use for pre-launch testing and space launch operations.
(ii) subject to coordination with NTIA prior to each launch.
(iii) subject to coordination with non-federal fixed and mobile stations.
* * * * *
(96)  US96  The band 2200-2290 MHz is allocated to the space operation service (space-to-Earth) and 
mobile service on a secondary basis for non-Federal use subject to the following conditions.  Non-Federal 
stations shall be:
(i) Restricted to use for pre-launch testing and space launch operations, except as provided under US303; 
and
(ii) Subject to coordination with NTIA prior to each launch.
* * * * *
(319)  US319  In the bands 137-138 MHz, 148-149.9 MHz, 149.9-150.05 MHz, 400.15-401 MHz, 
1610-1626.5 MHz, and 2483.5-2500 MHz, Federal stations in the mobile-satellite service shall be limited 
to earth stations operating with non-Federal space stations.
* * * * * 
3. Add part 26 to read as follows:
PART 26 – SPACE LAUNCH SERVICES
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 301, 303, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A – GENERAL INFORMATION
Sec.
26.1 Basis and purpose.
26.2 Frequencies.
26.3 Scope of Service.
26.4 Other applicable rule parts. 
26.5 Terms and definitions. 
Subpart B – APPLICATIONS AND LICENSES
Sec.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
7826.101 Eligibility. 
26.102 License period; Renewal. 
26.103 Licensing.
26.104 Regulatory Status.
26.105 Authorization required.
26.106 Submission and Filing of Applications.
26.107 Restrictions on the Operation of Stations.
26.108 Content of applications; Registration of Stations.
26.109 Assignment and Transfer.
Subpart C – FREQUENCY COORDINATION
Sec.
26.201 Policies governing the assignment of frequencies.
26.202 Frequency coordinator requirements.
Subpart D -- TECHNICAL STANDARDS
Sec.
26.301 Authorized Bandwidth.
26.302 Emission masks.
26.303 Power limits.
26.304 Antenna Structures; air navigation safety.
26.305 Incorporation by Reference.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. sections 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A -- GENERAL INFORMATION
§ 26.1 Basis and purpose.
This section contains the statutory basis for this part of the rules and provides the purpose for which this 
part is issued.
(a) Basis. The rules for Space Launch Services in this part are promulgated under the provisions of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that vest authority in the Federal Communications Commission 
to regulate radio transmission and to issue licenses for radio stations.  All rules in this part are in accordance 
with applicable treaties and agreements to which the United States is a party.
(b) Purpose. This part states the conditions under which spectrum is made available and licensed for the 
provision of Space Launch Services.  These rules do not govern the licensing of radio systems belonging 
to and operated by the United States.
§ 26.2 Frequencies.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
79The following frequencies are available for assignment on a nationwide, non-exclusive basis for Space 
Launch Services:
(a) 2025-2110 MHz; and
(b) 2200-2290 MHz.
§ 26.3  Scope of Service. 
(a) Space launch stations are restricted to the following uses: 
(1) 2025-2110 MHz band. The use of Space Launch Services licenses in the 2025-2110 MHz band is 
restricted to ground-to-launch vehicle telecommand uses necessary to support space launch operations.
(2) 2200-2290 MHz band. The use of Space Launch Services licenses in the 2200-2290 MHz band is 
restricted to launch vehicle-to-ground communications associated with telemetry and tracking operations.
(b) Telemetry, tracking and telecommand functions permissible as space launch operations include, but are 
not limited to, (1) pre-launch testing, such as pre-flight checks, ground testing, and telemetry; (2) vehicle 
tracking, including the transmission of parameter data from a launch vehicle to ground; (3) telecommand 
signals for propulsive maneuvering of a launch vehicle and separation of payload from launch vehicle; and 
(4) telecommand signals for propulsive maneuvering of a reentry vehicle for return and recovery.
(c) The use of Space Launch Services licenses for on-orbit communications after a launch vehicle separates 
from its payload are not permitted, provided that a space launch station may be used for telemetry, tracking, 
and telecommand activities for the incidental orbiting of a launch vehicle before or after it has separated 
from its payload.  The use of Space Launch Services licenses for such incidental orbiting are permitted only 
to the extent necessary for space launch operations.
§ 26.4 Other applicable rule parts.
Other FCC rule parts applicable to the Space Launch Services include the following:
(a) Part 0. This part describes the Commission’s organization and delegations of authority. Part 0 of this 
chapter also lists available Commission publications, standards and procedures for access to Commission 
records, and location of Commission Field Offices.
(b) Part 1. This part includes rules of practice and procedure for license applications, adjudicatory 
proceedings, procedures for reconsideration and review of the Commission’s actions; provisions 
concerning violation notices and forfeiture proceedings; competitive bidding procedures; and the 
environmental requirements that, together with the procedures specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if 
applicable, must be complied with prior to the initiation of construction. Subpart F includes the rules for 
the Wireless Radio Services and the procedures for filing electronically via the Universal Licensing System 
(ULS).
(c) Part 2.  This part contains the Table of Frequency Allocations and special requirements in international 
regulations, recommendations, agreements, and treaties. This part also contains standards and procedures 
concerning the marketing and importation of radio frequency devices, and for obtaining equipment 
authorization.
(d) Part 5.  This part contains rules prescribing the manner in which parts of the radio frequency spectrum 
may be made available for experimentation.
(e) Part 15.  This part sets forth the requirements and conditions applicable to certain radio frequency 
devices.
(f) Part 17.  This part contains requirements for the construction, marking and lighting of antenna towers, 
and the environmental notification process that must be completed before filing certain antenna structure 
registration applications.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
80(g) Part 25.  This part contains the requirements for satellite communications, including satellite DARS.
(i) Part 74.  This part sets forth the requirements and conditions applicable to experimental radio, auxiliary, 
special broadcast and other program distributional services.
(j) Part 87.  This part sets forth the requirements and conditions applicable to aviation services.
§ 26.5 Terms and definitions.
Base station. A station at a specified site authorized to communicate with mobile stations.
Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP). The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the 
antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna (absolute or isotropic gain).
Expendable launch vehicle.  A launch vehicle whose propulsive stages are used only once.
First stage of a launch.  The first 15 minutes of flight.
Fixed service. A radio communication service between specified fixed points.
Fixed station. A station in the fixed service.
Frequency coordination. The process of obtaining the recommendation of a frequency coordinator for a 
frequency(ies) that will most effectively meet the applicant’s needs while minimizing interference to 
licensees already operating within a given frequency band.
Frequency coordinator. An entity or organization that has been certified by the Commission to recommend 
frequencies for use by licensees in the Space Launch Services.
Harmful interference. For the purposes of resolving conflicts between stations operating under this part, 
any emission, radiation, or induction which specifically degrades, obstructs, or interrupts the service 
provided by such stations.
Itinerant Operation. Operation of a radio station at unspecified locations for varying periods of time.
Launch vehicle.  A vehicle built to place a payload or human beings from Earth in a suborbital trajectory, 
in Earth orbit, or otherwise in outer space. 
Mobile service. A radio communication service between mobile and land stations, or between mobile 
stations.
Mobile station. A station in the mobile service intended to be used while in motion or during halts at 
unspecified points.
Reentry vehicle.  A vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth substantially intact.  
A reentry vehicle is regarded as a launch vehicle in the context of a space launch operation only to the 
extent that it is being used for launch purposes.
Reusable launch vehicle.  A launch vehicle that is designed to return to Earth substantially intact and may 
be launched more than one time or that contains vehicle stages that may be recovered by a launch operator 
for future use.
Space launch operations.  Any activity that places a launch vehicle, whether an expendable launch vehicle 
or a reusable launch vehicle or reentry vehicle used for launch, and any payload or human being from Earth 
in a suborbital trajectory, in Earth orbit, or otherwise in outer space, including pre-launch testing and 
recovery or reentry of the launch vehicle.
Telecommand. The transmission of non-voice signals for the purpose of remotely controlling a device.
Telemetry. The transmission of non-voice signals for the purpose of automatically indicating or recording 
measurements at a distance from the measuring instrument.  In the context of space launch operations, 
telemetry is diagnostic information, transmitted from the launch vehicle to ground controller stations during 
the flight, which allows the ground controller station to track the performance of the launch vehicle.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
81Universal Licensing System (ULS). The consolidated database, application filing system and processing 
system for all Wireless Telecommunications Services. The ULS offers Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau (WTB) applicants and the general public electronic filing of all applications requests, and full public 
access to all WTB licensing data.
Subpart B -- APPLICATIONS AND LICENSES
§ 26.101 Eligibility.  
(a) The following entities are eligible for Space Launch Services licenses:
(1) A non-Federal entity that conducts space launch operations; or
(2) A parent of such entity or a subsidiary of such entity if either conducts space launch operations.
§ 26.102 License period; Renewal.
Licenses for stations in the Space Launch Services will be issued for a term of ten years from the date of 
original issuance, or renewal.  Prior to expiration of the term of a license, the space launch licensee shall 
submit to the Commission an application for the renewal in accordance with Part 1, subpart F of this chapter.  
Such renewal application shall certify that, during the preceding license term, the licensee operated and 
continues to operate consistent with Commission rules and the terms of its existing authorization, including 
the operation of stations consistent with the terms of frequency coordination performed during its license 
term.
§ 26.103 Licensing.
The 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands are authorized on a non-exclusive nationwide basis for 
Space Launch Services.  Non-exclusive nationwide licenses will serve as a prerequisite for registering 
launch sites and individual fixed, base, itinerant and mobile stations, as well as individual coordinated 
launches.  A Space Launch Services licensee cannot operate a launch site and corresponding fixed, base, 
itinerant or mobile stations before registering it under its license and may only operate a station after that 
station has been cleared to operate in a particular frequency band in connection with a particular launch  
pursuant to the post-grant frequency coordination process set forth in Subpart C of this part.  Space Launch 
Services licensees must delete registrations for unused launch sites and unused fixed, base, itinerant and 
mobile stations to maintain database integrity and facilitate coordination with other users of the 2025-2110 
MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands.
§ 26.104 Regulatory Status.
Licensees are permitted to provide services on a non-common carrier basis. A licensee may render 
communications services consistent with the regulatory status in its license and with the Commission’s 
rules applicable to the Space Launch Services.
§ 26.105 Authorization required.
(a) General rule.  Stations in the Space Launch Services must be used and operated only in accordance with 
the service rules set forth in this part, including the terms of the frequency coordination performed pursuant 
to subpart C of this part, and with a valid authorization granted by the Commission under the provisions of 
this part, except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Restrictions. The holding of an authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, conditions 
and period specified in the authorization.  Authorizations may be granted upon proper application, provided 
that the Commission finds that the applicant is qualified in regard to citizenship, character, financial, Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
82technical and other criteria, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served.  See 47 
U.S.C. §§ 301, 308, 309, and 310.
§ 26.106 Submission and Filing of Applications.
(a) Applications for authorizations in the Space Launch Services must be filed in the Universal Licensing 
System (ULS) in accordance with Part 1, subpart F of this chapter.  All modifications or renewals of 
licenses, assignments or transfers of control of licenses or any rights thereunder, and waiver requests 
associated with any of the foregoing shall be granted only upon an application filed pursuant to Part 1, 
subpart F as well.  Applicants should also refer to the Commission rules regarding the payment of statutory 
charges (subpart G of Part 1) and the use of the FCC Registration Number (FRN) (see subpart W of Part 1).
(b) Electronic filing.  All applications and other filings using the application and notification forms listed 
in Part 1, subpart F of this chapter or associated schedules must be filed electronically in accordance with 
the electronic filing instructions provided by ULS.  The Commission will announce by public notice the 
deployment date of the service in ULS and provide corresponding filing instructions.
§ 26.107 Restrictions on the Operation of Stations.
Stations in the Space Launch Services may operate in a particular frequency band only if they have been 
registered pursuant to § 26.108 and cleared to operate in that frequency band by the space launch frequency 
coordinator using the frequency coordination process set forth in subpart C of this part.
§ 26.108 Content of Applications; Registration of stations.
(a) Application for authorization.  Each application for authorization required by this part shall be specific 
and complete with regard to the information requested by the application forms in Part 1, subpart F of this 
chapter and associated public notice(s).  Applicants must provide any additional information requested by 
NTIA or the frequency coordinator to complete the frequency coordination process set forth in subpart C 
of this part.
(b) Station Registration.  Once authorization is granted, Space Launch Services licensees must register in 
ULS each launch site and each corresponding station (fixed, base, itinerant, or mobile) that will be used in 
their space launch operations, as well as each individual launch that has completed the frequency 
coordination process set forth in subpart C of this part.  
(c) Space Launch Services licensees have a continuing obligation to update their licenses and corresponding 
site and station registration data as soon as the operational or technical details of a launch  changes to ensure 
proper coordination.
§ 26.109 Assignment and Transfer.
Licensees may assign or transfer their non-exclusive nationwide licenses upon application to and prior 
approval from the Commission, and any stations registered under those licenses will remain associated with 
those licenses unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties to the assignment or transfer and approved by 
the Commission.
Subpart C – FREQUENCY COORDINATION
§ 26.201 Policies governing the assignment of frequencies.
(a) Frequencies assigned to Space Launch Services stations are available on a shared basis only and will 
not be assigned for the exclusive use of any licensee.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
83(b) Any base, fixed, itinerant, or mobile station operating in the band must comply with the frequency 
coordination requirements set forth in § 26.202.
(c) All applicants and licensees shall cooperate in the selection and use of frequencies for Space Launch 
Services and comply with the frequency coordination requirements in order to minimize the potential for 
interference and make the most effective use of the authorized facilities.  Information regarding registered 
launch sites, stations and launches that have completed the frequency coordination process set forth in 
subpart C of this part will be available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls.  Licensees should examine this 
information before registering individual launch operations, and make every effort to ensure that their 
planned launch operations will not interfere or conflict with previously registered operations.  Licensees of 
stations suffering or causing harmful interference are expected to cooperate and resolve this problem by 
mutually satisfactory arrangements.
§ 26.202 Frequency coordinator requirements.
Once an application for a new Space Launch Services authorization is granted, each Space Launch Services 
licensee must submit, for each proposed launch operation, the applicable launch site and corresponding 
fixed, base, itinerant, and mobile stations consistent with § 26.108 and submit their technical and 
operational parameters to the space launch frequency coordinator to initiate post-grant frequency 
coordination.  Any changes to the technical and operational parameters for a launch event that occur after 
completion of post-grant frequency coordination also require coordination, and these changes shall be 
provided to initiate an updated post-frequency grant coordination.
(a) The space launch frequency coordinator may request, and Space Launch Services licensees are required 
to provide, all appropriate technical information, system requirements, and justification for requested 
station parameters when such information is necessary to identify and recommend the most appropriate 
frequency.
(b) In the 2025-2110 MHz band:
(1) Site-based Local Coordination.
(A) The space launch frequency coordinator must initiate a post-grant coordination request for site-
specific coordination with the local Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) frequency coordinator, including 
the provision of all necessary technical and operational parameters for each space launch licensee, to protect 
BAS, Cable Television Relay Service (CARS), and Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS) 
operations, as well as Federal entities that have completed coordination with the BAS frequency 
coordinator.
(B) The space launch frequency coordinator is not required to initiate a post-grant coordination 
request for site-specific coordination with the local BAS frequency coordinator if the Space Launch 
Services licensee provides a showing to the space launch frequency coordinator that (a) it has previously 
coordinated its proposed launch operations with the appropriate local BAS frequency coordinator and 
continues to comply with any conditions or agreements resulting from such prior coordination, or that it 
has entered into applicable coordination agreements with co-frequency entities; (b) it has ascertained that 
its proposal will not constrain, preclude, nor interfere with incumbents in the band, including BAS, CARS 
and LTTS licensees and previously coordinated Federal operations; and (c) it has demonstrated in a 
technical showing that its proposed operation will not create more than 0.5 dB increase in the noise 
threshold of a receiver at a fixed or temporary fixed electronic news gathering (ENG) receive site.
(C) Upon request, the space launch frequency coordinator and/or the Space Launch Services 
licensee must provide any additional information requested by the local BAS frequency coordinator 
regarding a pending recommendation that it has processed but has not yet been granted.
(D) It is the responsibility of the space launch frequency coordinator to ensure that its frequency 
recommendations do not conflict with the frequency recommendations of the local BAS frequency 
coordinator.  Should a conflict arise, the affected coordinators are jointly responsible for taking action to Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
84resolve the conflict, up to and including notifying the Commission and NTIA that a launch request must be 
denied.
(2) Per-Launch Coordination with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA).
(A) To protect Federal users in the band, the space launch frequency coordinator shall conduct a 
post-grant, per-launch coordination with NTIA by providing the Space Launch licensee’s site and station 
registration with their corresponding technical and operational parameters to initiate the coordination 
process for each proposed launch. 
(B) To assist NTIA’s review, the space launch frequency coordinator may provide a showing that 
the operational and technical parameters of a proposed launch are consistent with a prior successful 
coordination and that the space launch licensee continues to comply with any conditions or agreements 
resulting from such prior coordination or that its proposed launch is covered by an applicable coordination 
agreement(s) with co-frequency entities.
(c) In the 2200-2290 MHz band:
(1) Per-Launch Coordination with NTIA.
(A) To protect Federal users in the band, the space launch frequency coordinator shall conduct a 
post-grant, per-launch coordination with NTIA by providing the Space Launch Services licensee’s site and 
station registration with their corresponding technical and operational parameters to initiate the 
coordination process for each proposed launch.
(B) To assist NTIA’s review, the space launch frequency coordinator may provide a showing that 
the operational and technical parameters of a proposed launch are consistent with a prior successful 
coordination and that the space launch licensee continues to comply with any conditions or agreements 
resulting from such prior coordination or that its proposed launch is covered by an applicable coordination 
agreement(s) with co-frequency entities.
Subpart D -- TECHNICAL STANDARDS
§ 26.301 Authorized Bandwidth.
The Commission shall issue licenses in the Space Launch Services with bandwidths up to and including 5 
megahertz, provided that the Commission may issue licenses with a maximum bandwidth exceeding 5 
megahertz upon adequate justification from a license applicant explaining why the requested bandwidth is 
necessary for specific space launch operations, including an explanation of why the applicant’s operations 
cannot be satisfied using a bandwidth of 5 megahertz or less.
§ 26.302 Emission Masks.
(a) 2025-2110 MHz.  For frequencies offset from the assigned frequency less than the 50 percent of the 
necessary bandwidth, no attenuation is required.  At a frequency offset equal to 50 percent of the necessary 
bandwidth, an attenuation of at least 8 dB is required.  Frequencies offset more than 50 percent of the 
necessary bandwidth shall be attenuated by the following mask:
40×log(2 × |fd|
Bn)+ 8  dBsd
Where f d is the frequency displaced from the center of the emission bandwidth.
Necessary bandwidth (B n) is determined in accordance with Annex J of the NTIA Manual of 
Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (NTIA Manual) (incorporated 
by reference, see § 26.305).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
85dBsd is dB attenuation in a 4 kHz bandwidth, relative to the maximum power in any 4 kHz bandwidth 
within the necessary bandwidth (0 dBsd).
Attenuation in this sense refers to the reduction in level relative to the reference, 0 dBsd, unless 
otherwise specified.
The unwanted emission mask rolls off at 40 dB per decade to a maximum attenuation of 60 dBsd, at 
which point it continues on both sides of the carrier for all frequencies beyond this point.  See Annex 
M of the NTIA Manual regarding measurement requirements (incorporated by reference, see § 26.305).  
For any narrowband or single frequency unwanted emission which is not spread by the modulation 
process, the required attenuation shall be at least 60 dBc, where dBc is  attenuation below the mean 
transmit power, rather than the dBsd value determined above.
(b) 2200-2290 MHz.
(1) During the first stage of a launch, all spectral components larger than −[55 + 10xlog(P)] dBc (i.e., 
larger than −25 dBm) at the transmitter output must be within the spectral mask calculated using the 
following equation: 
M(f) = K + 90 log(R) – 100 log |f-fc|; |f-fc| ≥ R/m   
where M(f) = power (dBc) at frequency f (MHz)
K = −20 for analog signals
K = −28 for binary signals
K = −61 for FQPSK-B, FQPSK-JR, SOQPSK-TG
K = −73 for ARTM CPM
fc = transmitter center frequency (MHz)
R = bit rate (Mbps) for digital signals or (∆f +fmax)(MHz) for analog FM signals
M = number of states in modulating signal (m = 2 for binary signals, m = 4 for quaternary signals 
and analog signals)
f = peak deviation  
fmax = maximum modulation frequency 
(2) After the first stage of a launch, the emission mask set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall 
apply.
§ 26.303 Power Limits.
(a) 2025-2110 MHz.  The equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) transmitted in any direction 
towards the horizon by an earth station in the 2025-2110 MHz band of the Space Launch Services shall not 
(with limited exceptions) exceed the following limits:
+40 dBW in any 4 kHz band for θ ≤0°
+40+3θ dBW in any 4 kHz band for 0°< θ ≤5°
where θ is the angle of elevation of the horizon viewed from the center of radiation of the antenna of the 
earth station and measured in degrees as positive above the horizontal plane and negative below it.
(b) 2200-2290 MHz.  During the first stage of a launch, the EIRP of any station in the 2200-2290 MHz 
band of the Space Launch Services shall not exceed 25 Watts and the transmitter output power shall not 
exceed 25 Watts.  In addition, the power flux-density at the Earth’s surface produced by emissions from a 
transmitter operating after the first stage of a launch for all conditions and for all methods of modulation 
shall not exceed the following limits:Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
86–154 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz for angles of arrival less than 5° above the horizontal plane;
–154 + 0.5 (δ – 5) dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz for angles of arrival δ (degrees) between 5° and 25°
above the horizontal plane;
–144 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz for angles of arrival between 25° and 90° above the horizontal plane.
§ 26.304 Antenna structures; air navigation safety.
A licensee that owns its antenna structure(s) must not allow such antenna structure(s) to become a hazard 
to air navigation. In general, antenna structure owners are responsible for registering antenna structures 
with the FCC if required by Part 17 of this chapter, and for installing and maintaining any required marking 
and lighting. However, in the event of default of this responsibility by an antenna structure owner, the FCC 
permittee or licensee authorized to use an affected antenna structure will be held responsible by the FCC 
for ensuring that the antenna structure continues to meet the requirements of Part 17 of this chapter. See § 
17.6 of this chapter.
(a) Marking and lighting. Antenna structures must be marked, lighted and maintained in accordance with 
Part 17 of this chapter and all applicable rules and requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. 
For any construction or alteration that would exceed the requirements of section 17.7 of this chapter, 
licensees must notify the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA Form 
7460–1) and file a request for antenna height clearance and obstruction marking and lighting specifications 
(FCC Form 854) with the FCC, WTB, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325.
(b) Maintenance contracts. Antenna structure owners (or licensees and permittees, in the event of default 
by an antenna structure owner) may enter into contracts with other entities to monitor and carry out 
necessary maintenance of antenna structures. Antenna structure owners (or licensees and permittees, in the 
event of default by an antenna structure owner) that make such contractual arrangements continue to be 
responsible for the maintenance of antenna structures in regard to air navigation safety.
§ 26.305 Incorporation by Reference.
Certain standards listed in this section are incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.  The approved 
material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 45 L Street NE, 
Reference Information Center, Room 1.150, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270, and is available from 
the sources indicated below.  It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA).  For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email 
fedreg.legal@nara.gov.  This material is available at www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html. The text of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 
regulations is also available online at https://www.ntia.gov/publications/redbook-manual.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
87APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(FNPRM) released in April 2021 in this proceeding.2  The Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comments on the 
IRFA.  No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.  This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order
2. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission continued its efforts to reform and 
streamline regulation of U.S. space commerce in order to ensure commercial companies can continue to 
drive U.S. space leadership.  In furtherance of these objectives, the Commission adopted a new rule Part 
26 for commercial space launch services, added a secondary non-Federal Space Operation allocation to 
the 2025-2110 MHz band, added a secondary non-Federal Mobile allocation to the 2200-2290 MHz band, 
removed the restriction on use of the secondary non-Federal Space Operation allocation to four channels, 
adopted a ten-year license term for commercial space launch operation, and established an application 
process modeled after space launch services’ licensing framework for the 3650-3700 MHz band. 
3. The new Part 26 rules adopted by the Commission contain the licensing, operation and 
service rules for space launch services and serve to both clarify the rules as well as improve the ability of 
those seeking guidance in this regulatory area to more easily reference the applicable rules.  The space 
launch licensees will receive non-exclusive nationwide licenses with a ten-year term, which will provide 
both certainty and flexibility for space launch providers.  Upon receiving their licenses, licensees may 
register their launch site and corresponding fixed, base, and itinerant stations as well as their mobile 
stations associated with the launch vehicles.  The newly adopted Part 26 technical rules are similar to the 
current framework applicable to Federal operators in these bands, and also include emission mask and 
power limits that are consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s 
(NTIA) rules applicable to these bands.  
4. The addition of a secondary Space Operation allocation to the 2025-2110 MHz band 
enables the Commission to issue licenses for use of this band during commercial space launches.  This 
spectrum, which is regularly used by commercial space launch providers for sending control signaling to 
launch vehicles, will be subject to the same coordination requirements that currently apply to Federal 
users and will also sufficiently address the regulatory needs of the commercial space launch industry 
while ensuring the protection of incumbents.  This band requires coordination of its use, as it is utilized 
by Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) licensees as well as 
Federal agencies.  
5. The Second Report and Order also removes the current four channel restriction for 
secondary non-Federal Space Operation allocation for the 2200-2290 MHz band.  This change enables the 
availability of the entire band for non-Federal space launch operations.  However, the other restrictions 
regarding use of the band, such as limiting use to pre-launch testing and space launch operations and 
requiring coordination with NTIA prior to each launch, will remain in place.  
6. Additionally, adopting the secondary Mobile allocation for the 2200-2290 MHz band will 
1 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2 Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal Space Launch Operations, ET Docket No. 13-115, Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd 7764 (11), Appendix E (2021).
3 5 U.S.C. § 604.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
88facilitate the Commission’s adoption of technical rules for space launch telemetry, which follows the 
same approach NTIA applies to Federal launches.4  The Commission has determined that it is important 
to have the flexibility to adopt technical rules that are in harmony with the technical standards applied to 
Federal launches, because many launch vehicles are used for both Federal and non-Federal launches and 
many non-Federal launches occur at Federal launch facilities.  Further, the secondary Mobile allocation 
for the 2200-2290 MHz will be subject to the same restrictions as the non-Federal Space Operation 
allocation in the band.  The non-Federal Mobile allocation will be restricted to use during pre-launch 
testing and space launch operations and are subject to coordination for each launch.  
7. Lastly, space launch licensees will be required to comply with post-license grant 
coordination requirements for each launch.  The post-license grant coordination regime will be facilitated 
by a third-party space launch frequency coordinator in a two-part process: (1) for the 2025-2110 MHz 
band, a site-specific coordination of the operator’s stations and launch parameters with BAS operations 
that requires the operator to submit its registered sites and stations to a designated third-party coordinator 
to initiate a launch coordination request(s), and (2) for both the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz 
bands, coordination on a per-launch basis with NTIA unless not required by applicable coordination 
agreements with co-frequency entities or prior coordination.  This will protect BAS, CARS, and Local 
Television Transmission Service (LTTS) operations and previously coordinated Federal incumbents 
which share these bands.  In short, the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order provide much-
needed updates to spectrum allocation and licensing for commercial space launch operations that will 
enable the fostering of innovation, investment and growth in the United States commercial space launch 
industry.  
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
8. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed 
in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
9. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the 
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.5
10. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this 
proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will 
Apply
11. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.6  The RFA generally defines 
the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," 
and "small governmental jurisdiction."7  In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as 
the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.8  A small business concern is one that: 
4 NTIA treats telemetry systems during the first stage of a launch as an aeronautical mobile system and the second 
and later stages as a space operation system. See NTIA Manual § 8.2.44. 
5 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
6 Id. at 604(a)(4).
7 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
8 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 
the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
89(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the SBA.9
12.Satellite Telecommunications.  This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”10  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.11  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
firms in this industry operated for the entire year.12  Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.13  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
satellite telecommunications services.14  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.15  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.  
13.All Other Telecommunications.  This industry is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation.16  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.17  Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.18  
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small.19  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more 
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 
Federal Register.”  5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
9 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).
10 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
11 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.  
12 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
13 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
14 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 
15 Id.
16 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810). Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
90operated for the entire year.20  Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.21  Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be 
considered small. 
14.Commercial Space Transportation.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard for commercial space transport.  Nonscheduled Charter 
Passenger Air Transportation22 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard.  This U.S. 
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing air transportation of passengers or 
passengers and cargo with no regular routes and regular schedules.23  This industry also includes air taxi 
services, aircraft charter passenger services and charter air passenger services which would encompass air 
space transportation.24  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as 
small if it has 1,500 employees or less.25  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 indicates there were 1,148 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.26  Of this number 1,129 firms had less than 250 
employees.27  Thus, the major of Nonscheduled Charter Passenger Air Transportation firms can be 
considered small. We note however, that this category encompasses various types of commercial air 
transportation firms and does not exclusively represent the number of firms engaged in passenger space 
transport.  
15. The FCC believes that the following business entities are the principle entities currently 
comprising the commercial space transportation launch operator industry in the United States: Blue 
Origin, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrup Grumman, Space Exploration Technologies (Space X), 
The Boeing Company, and Virgin Galactic.  In May 2020, Space Exploration Technologies with NASA 
astronauts in a commercially built and operated spacecraft launched from American soil to the 
International Space Station for the first time in history.28  More recently, in July 2021, Virgin Galactic and 
Blue Origin both successful launched manned space flights.29  Additionally, The Boeing Company has 
20 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
21 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
22 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “481211 Nonscheduled Charter Passenger Air Transportation,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=481211&year=2017&details=481211.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 481211.
26 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 481211, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=481211&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
27 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
28 See NASA Astronauts Launch from America in Historic Test Flight of SpaceX Crew Dragon (dated May 30, 
2020), https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-astronauts-launch-from-america-in-historic-test-flight-of-spacex-
crew-dragon.
29 On July 11, 2021, Virgin Galactic completed the first test flight with a full crew onboard in the commercial space 
industry. See https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-reservations-one-small-step.html; On July 20, 
2021, Blue Origin successfully launched the first commercial space flight with four private citizens onboard.  See 
https://www.blueorigin.com/news/first-human-flight-updates. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
91been working with NASA on its commercial Starliner spacecraft to incorporate various lessons learned as 
it prepares for its second unmanned launch of the Starliner - Orbital Flight Test (OFT-2).30
16. The commercial space industry is a nascent industry and the Commission does not have 
data on the size of these entities. We therefore cannot reach definite conclusions as to the number of small 
entities that will be affected by our actions in this proceeding, but we shall assume that a significant 
number of small entities will be affected.  NASA has agreements with two companies to design and 
develop human space flight capabilities: Space Exploration Technologies, and The Boeing Company.31
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
17. The rules adopted in the Second Report and Order will impose new or modified 
reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on certain small and other entities.  We adopt 
a streamlined application framework for Space Launch Service licenses, thus reducing compliance 
burdens for small and other entities.  For example, applications for licenses in the Space Launch Service 
must be filed electronically in the Universal Licensing System (ULS) at http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls.  All 
modifications or renewals of licenses, assignments or transfers of control of licenses, and waiver requests 
associated will be granted only upon a filed application.  Space Launch Service licensees have an 
obligation to update their license and corresponding site and station registration data as soon as the 
operational or technical details of a launch changes to ensure proper coordination.
18. Additionally, the adopted rules require Space Launch Service licensees to conduct a post-
grant, per-launch coordination directly with NTIA by providing NTIA with its site and station registration 
along with their corresponding technical and operational parameters.  In addition, for the 2025-2110 MHz 
band, the licensee must submit technical and operational parameters to a space launch frequency 
coordinator to initiate post-grant frequency coordination.  The space launch frequency coordinator will 
then coordinate with the local BAS frequency coordinator. 
19. The Commission does not have sufficient information on the record to determine whether 
the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order will require small entities to hire professionals to 
comply with its decisions or to quantify the cost of compliance for small entities.  We note, however, that 
the Commission anticipates the approaches it has taken to implement the requirements should have 
minimal cost implications, as the adopted rules are largely implementing an application framework that 
utilizes elements of existing processes small entities are already familiar with, such as the 3650-3700 
MHz licensing framework or use of FCC Form 601 for applicant qualification for non-exclusive 
nationwide wireless licenses. 
F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
20. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken 
to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities…including a statement of the factual, 
policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the 
other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities 
was rejected.”32
21. The Commission has considered the economic impact on small entities in reaching its 
final conclusions and through the actions we have taken in this proceeding.  For example, the Second 
30 See Starliner Program Manager Shares Team’s North Star (dated July 29, 2021), 
https://www.boeing.com/features/2021/07/starliner-program-manager-shares-teams-north-star.page. 
31 See NASA Astronauts Launch from America in Historic Test Flight of SpaceX Crew Dragon (dated May 30, 
2020), https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-astronauts-launch-from-america-in-historic-test-flight-of-spacex-
crew-dragon; Boeing, CST-1000 Starliner, https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/ (last visited July 28, 2023).
32 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
92Report and Order adopted an allocation in the 2025-2110 MHz band and expanded the previous 
allocation for the 2200-2290 MHz band, as well as permitted the Commission to issue licenses for 
commercial space launches to use these bands.  We considered proposed alternatives that would limit 
space launch operations for the use of the 2025-2210 MHz band to specified geographic sites and pre-
licensing coordination.33  However, the actions we have taken in this proceeding will provide more 
efficient use of spectrum in those ranges, create a more certain regulatory regime, protect incumbent users 
from harmful interference and provide economic growth opportunities to small and other launch providers 
utilizing the bands.  
22. Additionally, the Second Report and Order adopted licensing and technical rules 
governing spectrum requirements for Space Launch Services.  Prior to the adoption of these rules, the 
Commission had granted special temporary authority (STA) under the Part 5 experimental licensing rules 
for each individual launch.  Rather than retaining a site-by-site STA process, which are only valid for a 
single launch and expire after six months, our decision to adopt a nationwide, non-exclusive licensing 
approach provides small and other space launch operators the efficiency of only having to file one license 
to cover a host of launch sites that are shared by multiple co-frequency operators.  Further, small entities 
who manufacture and/or develop launch vehicles and spacecraft or conduct launches will benefit because 
they will be able to obtain licenses for spectrum to use during launches instead of being subject to the 
added burden and uncertainty of having to obtain STA licenses for each launch.  Consequently, adopting 
these allocations will provide only a benefit to small entities and will have no significant harmful 
economic impact on any small entity.  
23. Lastly, with the adoption of these rules, the Commission can now provide launch 
providers with ten-year term licenses, which serve the Commission’s goals of minimizing administrative 
burdens to small and other entities and encouraging long-term investment in these services, while still 
allowing the Commission to retain proper oversight over commercial space launch operations.  We gave 
consideration to comments suggesting a 15-year term; however, we rejected such an approach as 
inefficient, given the congested nature of the bands at issue.  While coordination of each launch will still 
be required because of the other Federal and non-Federal operations in these bands, the adopted rules take 
the step of establishing a coordination process that should streamline the process of providing access to 
spectrum during space launches, which will provide an economic benefit to small entities with limited 
human and economic resources that would otherwise have to navigate a more inefficient approach to 
launch coordination.
G. Report to Congress
24. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, 
in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.34  In addition, the Commission will 
send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the SBA.  A copy of the Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.35
33 SBE Comments at 17; NAB Comments at 5.
34 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
35 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
93APPENDIX C
List of Commenters
FNPRM Comments
Aerospace and Flight Test Coordinating Radio Council (AFTRCC)
Aerospace Industries Association
Astroscale U.S. Inc.
Axiom Space Inc., Atmos Space, Sierra Space Corp., Scout Inc. (Industry Participants)
Axiom Space Inc.
BlackSky Global LLC
Boeing
CTIA
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
EchoStar
EIBASS
Industry Coalition Response (ICR)
Iridium Communications inc.
Myriota PYT LTD
NASA
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
NCTA
NTIA
Relativity Space Inc.
Rocket Lab USA Inc.
Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE)
Spaceflight Inc.
SpaceX
T-Mobile USA Inc.
United Launch Alliance LLC (ULA)
Verizon
Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc.
Wi-Fi AllianceFederal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
94FNPRM Reply Comments
AFTRCC
Astra Space Inc.
AT&T
Axiom
Boeing
Consortium for the Execution of Rendezvous and Servicing (CONFERS)
CTIA
EIBASS
Fleet Space Technologies PYT LTD
Globalstar Inc.
Industry Participants
Momentus Inc.
Myriota
Northrop Grumman
Open Technology Institute at New America and Public Knowledge
Spaceflight Inc.
SpaceX
TechFreedom
T-Mobile
ULA
VerizonFederal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
95APPENDIX D
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the document, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 
47 CFR part 2 as follows:
PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 2.106(a) by revising the Table of Frequency Allocations, pages 36 and 37 to 
read as follows:
§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
(a) * * *961700-1710
FIXED
METEOROLOGICAL-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
5.289  5.3411700-1710
FIXED
METEOROLOGICAL-
SATELLITE 
   (space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except aeronautical 
mobile
5.289  5.341  5.384 5.341 5.341  US88
1710-1930
FIXED
MOBILE  5.384A  5.388A  5.388B1710-1761
5.341  US91  US378  US3851710-1780
FIXED
MOBILE
1761-1780
SPACE OPERATION
   (Earth-to-space)  G42
US91 5.341  US91  US378  US385
1780-1850
FIXED
MOBILE
SPACE OPERATION
   (Earth-to-space)  G421780-1850
5.149  5.341  5.385  5.386  5.387  5.388
1930-1970
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
5.3881930-1970
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
Mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.3881930-1970
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
5.388
1970-1980
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
5.388
1980-2010
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.351A1850-2000
FIXED
MOBILERF Devices (15)
Personal 
   Communications (24)
Wireless Communications 
(27)
Fixed Microwave (101)
5.388  5.389A  5.389B  5.389F 2000-2020
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)Satellite Communications 
(25)
Wireless Communications 
(27)2010-2025
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B2010-2025
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE 
   (Earth-to-space)2010-2025
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
5.388 5.388  5.389C  5.389E 5.3881850-2025
2020-2025
FIXED
MOBILE972025-2110
SPACE OPERATION (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.391
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
5.3922025-2110
SPACE OPERATION
   (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
EARTH EXPLORATION-
SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
SPACE RESEARCH
   (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.391
5.392  US90  US92  US222  
US346
US347  USxxx2025-2110
FIXED  NG118
MOBILE  5.391
Space Operation 
   (Earth-to-space) US94
5.392  US90  US92  US222
US346  US347  USxxxSpace Launch Services (26)
TV Auxiliary Broadcasting 
   (74F)
Cable TV Relay (78)
Local TV Transmission 
(101J)
Page 3698Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                                  2110-2483.5 MHz (UHF)Page 37
International Table United States Table
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal TableFCC Rule Part(s)
2110-2120
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (Earth-to-space)
5.3882110-2120
US252  USxxx2110-2120
FIXED
MOBILE
US252  USxxx
2120-2170
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B2120-2160
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.3882120-2170
FIXED
MOBILE  5.388A  5.388B2120-2180
FIXED
MOBILE
5.3882160-2170
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-
Earth)
5.388  5.389C  5.389E 5.388
NG41Public Mobile (22)
Wireless 
   Communications (27)
Fixed Microwave 
(101)
2170-2200
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.351A
5.388  5.389A  5.389F2120-2200
2180-2200
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-
Earth)Satellite
   Communications 
(25)
Wireless
   Communications 
(27)
2200-2290
SPACE OPERATION (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
FIXED
MOBILE  5.391
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
5.3922200-2290
SPACE OPERATION (space-to-
Earth)
   (space-to-space)  US96
EARTH EXPLORATION-
SATELLITE
   (space-to-Earth) (space-to-space)
FIXED (line-of-sight only)
MOBILE (line-of-sight only including
   aeronautical telemetry, but 
excluding
   flight testing of manned aircraft) 
5.391
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth)
   (space-to-space)
5.392  US303  USyyy  USzzz2200-2290
US96  US303  USyyy  USzzz
2290-2300
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (space-to-Earth)2290-2300
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
   (space-to-Earth)
USxxx2290-2300
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space)
   (space-to-Earth)
USxxx 
2300-2450
FIXED2300-2450
FIXED2300-2305
G1222300-2305
Amateur Amateur Radio (97)99MOBILE  5.384A
Amateur
RadiolocationMOBILE  5.384A
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur2305-2310
US97  G1222305-2310
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical 
mobile
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
US97Wireless
   Communications 
(27)
Amateur Radio (97)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
1003. Amend § 2.106 by adding (c)(96)(i) through (iii) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(96) * * *
(i) USxxx Use of the bands 2290-2293 MHz and 2297-2300 MHz by Federal and non-Federal space 
stations may be authorized on a primary basis for the specific purpose of emergency transmissions from 
manned spacecraft used in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial 
bodies. This allocation is restricted to emergency transmissions from manned spacecraft when experiencing 
emergency situations. Additionally, the bands 2025-2110 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz may also be authorized 
on a primary basis for transmissions of related commands to the spacecraft. Such operations should be 
conducted in accordance with Recommendation ITU-R SA.1863.
(ii) USyyy In the band 2213.5-2218.5 MHz, non-Federal space stations operating in the space 
operation service providing transportation service of crew to and from the International Space Station, may 
be authorized on a primary basis to transmit in the space-to-Earth direction, to authorized receiving stations, 
subject to such conditions as may be applied on a case-by-case basis. Such transmissions shall not cause 
harmful interference to authorized Federal stations. The power flux-density at the Earth's surface from such 
emissions from these non-Federal stations shall not exceed -144 to -154 dBW/m²/4 kHz, depending on the 
angle of arrival, in accordance with ITU Radio Regulation No. 21.16.
(iii) USzzz  In the band 2200.2-2206.2 MHz, non-Federal space stations operating in the space 
operation service may be authorized on a primary basis to transmit to the International Space Station 
(ISS) while within 30 km of the ISS, subject to such conditions as may be applied on a case-by-case basis. 
Such transmissions shall not cause harmful interference to authorized Federal stations. The power-flux-
density of such emissions at the Earth's surface from these non-Federal stations shall not exceed -144 to -
154 dBW/m²/4 kHz, depending on the angle of arrival, in accordance with ITU Radio Regulation No. 
21.16. ITU Radio Regulation No. 5.392 also applies.
* * * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
103APPENDIX E
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM).  
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments in the Second FNPRM.  The Commission will 
send a copy of the Second FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).2  In addition, the Second FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will 
be published in the Federal Register.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission proposes to add three footnotes requested by NTIA 
to the Allocation Table.  The footnotes, titled USxxx, USyyy and USZZZ, will address manned and 
unmanned spacecraft use of spectrum during space missions.  Draft footnote USxxx addresses emergency 
transmissions involving manned spacecraft in two portions of the 2200-2290 MHz band as well as the 
2025-2110 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz bands; draft footnote Uyyy is applicable to ground station 
transmissions by non-Federal spacecraft transporting crew to and from the International Space Station 
(ISS); and draft footnote USzzz is applicable to spacecraft that are transmitting in portions of the 2200-
2290 MHz band within 30 kilometers of the ISS and serves to provide an allocation for commercial 
companies transporting supplies and crew to the ISS.  
3. In addition to the proposed footnotes, the Commission also seeks comment on (1) 
whether to include new spectrum allocations in specific bands for communications with cargo and crew 
capsules and payload communications with the International Space Station (ISS) and other crewed space 
stations; (2) possible necessary changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations to account for space-to-
space communications between a crew or cargo capsule and crewed space stations, including in bands 
outside the S-band; (3) allowing a spectrum allocation for commercial spaceflight operations and 
licensing needs related to suborbital spaceflight; (4) expanding the use of the 2360-2395 MHz band in the 
context of additional uses to the band as well as expanded beyond the three frequencies currently 
designated for use by launch vehicles; and (5) whether 2360-2395 MHz space launch use of 2360-2395 
MHz should be incorporated into the new Part 26 or instead be retained in Part 87.
4. The Commission also seeks to gain information that would support our objectives of 
providing efficient spectrum allocation and licensing processes for the commercial space sector.  Of 
particular interest to the Commission are comments relating to: 
•Spectrum Allocation for Certain Post-Space Launch Payload Operations.  Whether payload 
operations should include new spectrum allocation in specific bands for communications with 
cargo and crew capsules and payload communications with the ISS and other crewed space 
stations.
•Suborbital Spaceflight Operations. Specific spectrum allocation and licensing needs in 
relation to suborbital spaceflight.  
1 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
1045. The Commission also seeks further comment on expanding the use of the 2360-2395 
MHz band, both in the context of additional uses to the band as well as in expanding use in the band 
beyond the three frequencies currently designated for Federal and non-Federal telemetry and 
telecommand operations of launch vehicles.  Lastly, in the Second FNPRM, we seek comment as to 
whether the 1435-1525 MHz band can effectively accommodate space launch operations, or if such use 
should be discouraged despite being permissible under our rules.  Of interest are comments discussing the 
current use of the band and what changes would be needed to harmonize space launch use of the band 
with the rules applicable to 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz.  
B. Legal Basis
6. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 
and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 301, 
303(c), 303(f), and 303(r), and section 1.411 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.411.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of, 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.4  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”5  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.6  A small business 
concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; 
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.7
8.Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our actions, over 
time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.8  First, while there are 
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, 
according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a 
small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.9  These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million 
businesses.10
9. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”11  The 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual 
4 5 U.S.C § 603(b)(3).
5 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
6 See id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 
15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
7 15 U.S.C. § 632.
8 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
9 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “What’s New With Small Business?,”
https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Whats-New-Infographic-March-2023-508c.pdf. (Mar. 2023)
10 Id.
11 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
105electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.12  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.13 
10. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally 
as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.”14  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of 
Governments15 indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States.16  Of this number, there were 36,931 
general purpose governments (county,17 municipal, and town or township18) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts19 with enrollment 
12 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction.  Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number of 
small organizations in this small entity description.  See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations – Form 990-N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,”
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-
form-990-n-e-postcard.  We note that the IRS data does not provide information on whether a small exempt 
organization is independently owned and operated or dominant in its field.
13 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region,” 
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-
exempt/non-profit organizations.  The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1-Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840) that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.  This data does not include information for 
Puerto Rico.
14 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
15 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7”.  See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cog/about.html. 
16 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2.  Local Governments by Type and 
State: 2017 [CG1700ORG02], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).  See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 
Table Notes Local Governments by Type and State_2017. 
17 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05],  
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) 
governments.  
18 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. 
19 See id. at tbl.10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also tbl.4.  Special-Purpose Local 
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
106populations of less than 50,000.20  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”21
11.Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”22  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.23  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
firms in this industry operated for the entire year.24  Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.25  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
satellite telecommunications services.26  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 
42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.27  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size 
standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.  
12.All Other Telecommunications.  This industry is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation.28  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.29  Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.30  
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
20 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census 
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
category.
21 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments - 
independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls. 5, 6 & 10.
22 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
23 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.  
24 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
25 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
26 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. 
27 Id.
28 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919.
29 Id.
30 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
107or less as small.31  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year.32  Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.33  Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be 
considered small.
13.Commercial Space Transportation.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard for commercial space transport.  Nonscheduled Charter 
Passenger Air Transportation34 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard.  This U.S. 
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing air transportation of passengers or 
passengers and cargo with no regular routes and regular schedules.35  This industry also includes air taxi 
services, aircraft charter passenger services and charter air passenger services which would encompass air 
space transportation.36  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small 
if it has 1,500 employees or less.37  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 indicates there were 1,148 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year.38  Of this number 1,129 firms had less than 250 
employees.39  Thus, the major of Nonscheduled Charter Passenger Air Transportation firms can be 
considered small.  We note however, that this category encompasses various types of commercial air 
transportation firms and does not exclusively represent the number of firms engaged in passenger space 
transport.  
14. The FCC believes that the following business entities are the principle entities currently 
comprising the commercial space transportation launch operator industry in the United States: Blue 
Origin, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrup Grumman, Space Exploration Technologies (Space X), 
The Boeing Company, and Virgin Galactic.  In May 2020, Space Exploration Technologies with NASA 
astronauts in a commercially built and operated spacecraft launched from American soil to the 
International Space Station for the first time in history.40  More recently, in July 2021, Virgin Galactic and 
31 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810). 
32 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
33 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
34 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “481211 Nonscheduled Charter Passenger Air Transportation,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=481211&year=2017&details=481211.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 481211.
38 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 481211, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=481211&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
39 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
40 See NASA Astronauts Launch from America in Historic Test Flight of SpaceX Crew Dragon (dated May 30, 
2020), https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-astronauts-launch-from-america-in-historic-test-flight-of-spacex-
crew-dragon.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
108Blue Origin both successful launched manned space flights.41  Additionally, The Boeing Company has 
been working with NASA on its commercial Starliner spacecraft to incorporate various lessons learned as 
it prepares for its second unmanned launch of the Starliner - Orbital Flight Test (OFT-2).42
15. The commercial space industry is a nascent industry and the Commission does not have data 
on the size of these entities.  We therefore cannot reach definite conclusions as to the number of small 
entities that will be affected by our actions in this proceeding, but we shall assume that a significant 
number of small entities will be affected.  NASA has agreements with two companies to design and 
develop human space flight capabilities: Space Exploration Technologies, and The Boeing Company.43
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
16. Many of the rule changes which the Second FNPRM proposes or seeks comment on 
would, if adopted, involve making changes to the table of frequency allocations for a number of different 
frequency bands.  These particular proposed changes would not involve making changes to the licensing 
and technical rules for any of these bands, and do not involve any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
compliance requirements.  However, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on expanding the use of the 
2360-2395 MHz band for space launches and whether the 1435-1525 MHz band can be used for space 
launches.  Either of these proposals, if adopted, could potentially impact current users of these bands 
because of the need to coordinate use with the space launch activities.
17. At this time, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether, if adopted, our 
proposals and the matters upon which we seek comment will require small entities to hire professionals to 
comply, and cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the potential rule changes discussed in the 
Second FNPRM.  We anticipate the information we receive in comments including where requested, cost 
and benefit analyses, will help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for 
small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that may result from the proposals and 
inquiries made in the Second FNPRM.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
18. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following 
four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements 
or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of 
the rule, or any part thereof for small entities.”44
19. Through the proposals contained in the Second FNPRM, we have taken steps to 
encourage further development of the domestic commercial space launch sector, while protecting 
41 On July 11, 2021, Virgin Galactic completed the first test flight with a full crew onboard in the commercial space 
industry. See https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-reservations-one-small-step.html; On July 20, 
2021, Blue Origin successfully launched the first commercial space flight with four private citizens onboard.  See 
https://www.blueorigin.com/news/first-human-flight-updates. 
42 See Starliner Program Manager Shares Team’s North Star (dated July 29, 2021), 
https://www.boeing.com/features/2021/07/starliner-program-manager-shares-teams-north-star.page. 
43 See NASA Astronauts Launch from America in Historic Test Flight of SpaceX Crew Dragon (dated May 30, 
2020), https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-astronauts-launch-from-america-in-historic-test-flight-of-spacex-
crew-dragon; Boeing, CST-1000 Starliner, https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/ (last visited June 11, 2020).
44 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
109incumbent users from harmful interference and minimizing significant economic impact to small entities.  
One way the Commission has sought to accomplish these objectives is to take the step of including 
proposals that provide a benefit to the industry, while causing minimal, if any, economic or regulatory 
burdens.  For example, we propose to add three footnotes to the Allocation Table as well as make a 
number of other Allocation Table modifications.  As none of these actions would involve changing the 
licensing and technical rules for these bands, these actions would not change the regulatory burdens on 
Commission licensees.  Commission licensees will continue to follow the same licensing procedures and 
be subject to the existing technical rules when operating in these bands.  Therefore, the proposed footnote 
additions would not have a significant economic impact on small entities.  
20. In proposing an expansion of the use of the 2360-2395 MHz band for space launches or 
in making the 1435-1525 MHz band available for space launches as discussed in the Second FNPRM, we 
acknowledge that such an approach, if adopted, could impact current users of these bands, which are 
primarily used for flight testing of aircraft.  Based on industry feedback, we have considered declining to 
expand the use of the band, due to potential concerns of interference during flight tests.45  Alternatively, 
we also considered and seek comment on what actions could promote increased usage by space launch 
operations without increasing the risk of interference.  Additionally, in developing these proposals, we 
have considered any significant economic impact relating to coordination of flight testing and launch 
operations.  At present, use of these bands is on a shared coordinated basis—i.e. there are no exclusive 
rights to use of the bands.  As use of the band currently requires coordination, having to coordinate with 
increased space launch activities is not expected to present a significant economic impact on other users 
of the band.  We seek comment from small and other entities concerning this issue.
21. Further, the Commission seeks comment on alternatives to its proposals as well as 
consider any questions raised that can help identify whether small entities face any special or unique 
issues that would require certain accommodations or additional time to comply.  The Commission also 
seeks comment on modifications that could be made to our rules regarding administrative processes in 
order to reduce the economic impacts of the proposed rule changes on small entities.  By specifically 
targeting small entities, we hope to obtain the requisite data to allow it to evaluate the most cost-effective 
approach to minimize the economic impact for such entities, while achieving our statutory objectives.
22. Additionally, to assist with the Commission’s evaluation of the economic impact on 
small entities that may result from the actions and alternatives that have been proposed in this proceeding, 
the Second FNPRM seeks alternative proposals and requests information on the potential costs of such 
alternatives to licensees.  The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small 
entities following its review of comments filed in response to the Second FNPRM, including costs and 
benefits information.  Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters could help the Commission 
further minimize the economic impact on small entities.  The Commission’s evaluation of the comments 
filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and 
the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may 
occur on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
23. None.
45 See AFTRCC Reply at 9; AFTRCC Dec. 13, 2021 Ex Parte at 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
110STATEMENT OF
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal Space Launch Operations, Amendment of Part 2 of the 
Commission’s Rules for Federal Earth Stations Communicating with Non-Federal Fixed Satellite 
Service Space Stations, Federal Space Station Use of the 399.9-400.05 MHz Band; ET Docket No. 
13-115, RM-11341; Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(September 21, 2023)
Six weeks ago, I had the honor of visiting Kennedy Space Center.  I met with NASA 
Administrator Bill Nelson and scientists throughout the complex.  The highlight of the trip was meeting 
the Artemis II crew who will soon become the first people to visit the moon in over half a century—
including, I should add, the first woman and the first person of color.  The rush of this trip was unlike 
anything I had ever experienced.  
Why did I feel that way?  I think it is because space exploration reminds us of what is best in us.  
It reminds us that we are a Nation that pushes boundaries and purses discoveries.  We do this, as President 
Kennedy so famously said last week in 1962, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.  Because the 
skies inspire us to push the limits of human achievement, communicate in new ways, and understand our 
own planet like never before.  In this country we have done it before, and we are working to do it again.
What is so exciting about the future of United States space exploration is that the Artemis mission 
is far from the only major endeavor we are working on.  Coming up, NASA will launch its Psyche 
mission with a commercial operator, sending a spacecraft to land on an asteroid orbiting the Sun between 
Mars and Jupiter.  This kind of commercial space activity is multiplying.  The number of space launches 
is growing—fast.  
Our policies need to keep up.  We need to ensure that providers have a more consistent and 
reliable way to get the bandwidth they need for communications during space launches.  Historically, this 
agency provided access to airwaves for space launch activity using special temporary authority.  But this 
cobbled-together approach is not well-suited to an era where commercial launches are a happening with 
far greater frequency.  So today we allocate airwaves specifically to support commercial space launch 
activity.  It will make our process simpler and more open to new entrants.  It will better facilitate 
coordination with our federal partners through the use of a frequency coordinator.  Launches are nail-
biting undertakings under ideal conditions, so this will help make them easier and also boost competition.  
I want to thank our colleagues at the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration and the Department of Defense working collaboratively with us on this effort.  I know 
they join us in supporting United States leadership in the new space age.
Thank you to the staff responsible for this effort: Damian Ariza, David Duarte, Michael Ha, Nick 
Oros, Siobahn Philemon, Jamison Prime, Ronald Repasi, and Tom Struble from the Office of Engineering 
and Technology; Linda Chang, Mark DeSantis, David Hu, John Lockwood, Roger Noel, Paul Powell, 
Arpan Sura, Joel Taubenblatt, and Peter Trachtenberg from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; 
Joseph Hill, Julie Kearney, Karl Kensinger, Julia Malette, Kathyrn Medley, and Merissa Velez from the 
Space Bureau; David Konczal, Chin Yoo, Deborah Broderson, David Senzel, Anjali Singh, and Jeffrey 
Steinberg from the Office of General Counsel; Nicolas Copeland, Patrick Sun, and Aleks Yankelevich 
from the Office of Economics and Analytics; Gregory Baker, Nese Guendelsberger, Dante Ibarra, and 
Ethan Lucarelli from the Office of International Affairs; Jeffrey Neumann from the Media Bureau; Jason 
Koslofsky, Jeremy Marcus, Paul Noone, Josh Zeldis from the Enforcement Bureau; Michael Gussow and Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
111Joy Ragsdale from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities; and Nicole Ongele from the 
Office of Managing Director.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-76
112STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS
Re: Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal Space Launch Operations; Amendment of Part 2 of the 
Commission’s Rules for Federal Earth Stations Communicating with Non-Federal Fixed Satellite 
Service Space Stations; and Federal Space Station Use of the 399.9-400.05 MHz Band, Second 
Report and Order in ET Docket No. 13-115 and RM Docket No. 11341, and Second Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 13-115 and RM Docket No. 11341
Just moments ago, we voted an item to streamline our satellite licensing rules, and earlier this 
year, we adopted a spectrum framework to spur entry by new NGSO systems.  Those were important 
steps that will drive innovation and competition in commercial space.  But if we truly want to be 
successful, we can’t just focus on what happens in orbit.  We also need to account for the precious few 
minutes it takes to get an object into space.  That means our efforts must start at the launch.
There’s plenty of opportunity for progress.  For years, launch providers have relied on cramped 
and uncertain spectrum access authorized piecemeal by special temporary authority.  While that band-aid 
approach may once have proved adequate, it’s no match for the new cadence of a frothy commercial 
space industry—where days, not weeks or months, now separate each launch on average.  Remember that 
each launch costs millions to execute and carries many millions more in terms of the value of the payload.  
So if we want to make it attractive to invest in new and greater commercial space opportunities, a more 
efficient and more predictable launch clearance process is a great place to start.
In 2021, we made a downpayment on fixing the problem.  Today, we reach for liftoff.  Consistent 
with bipartisan legislation on the issue, we expand access to the 2200-2290 MHz band and identify 
additional launch spectrum in 2025-2110 MHz.  We also stay ahead of a potential growth in demand by 
seeking comment on ways to free up the 2360-2395 MHz band, and on ways to support the spectrum 
needs of emerging endeavors like commercial crew and cargo missions.  Equally important, we establish 
a predictable licensing regime that will move providers away from tedious launch-by-launch 
authorizations, while fully protecting other federal agencies and facilitating the process of coordinating 
with them.  Combined with our larger space agenda, these efforts will help us eliminate unnecessary 
barriers that make it harder to get into space.
A special thanks belongs to leaders in Congress who created a blueprint for today’s action with 
efforts like the Launch Communications Act.  I’d especially like to thank Senators Hickenlooper and 
Schmitt, and Representatives Soto and Dunn, for their leadership on this issue.  I’d also like to extend my 
thanks to the Chairwoman for bringing this item to the floor, and to our Office of Engineering and 
Technology for their hard work.  This item has my full support.