Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-23-01001/USCOURTS-caDC-23-01001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DISH Network Corporation
Appellant
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC
Intervenor for Appellee
TechFreedom
Amicus Curiae for Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 11, 2023 Decided July 12, 2024 

No. 22-1337 

INTERNATIONAL DARK-SKY ASSOCIATION, INC., 

APPELLANT

v. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 

APPELLEE

SPACE EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC, 

INTERVENOR

Consolidated with 23-1001 

On Appeals from an Order of the 

Federal Communications Commission 

Charles Lee Mudd Jr. argued the cause and filed the briefs 

for appellant International Dark-Sky Association, Inc. 

Pantelis Michalopoulos argued the cause for appellant 

DISH Network Corporation. With him on the briefs were Mark 

C. Savignac and William Travis West. 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 1 of 21
2 

James M. Carr and Rachel Proctor May, Counsel, Federal 

Communications Commission, argued the causes for appellee. 

With them on the brief was Jacob M. Lewis, Deputy General 

Counsel. 

Pratik A. Shah argued the cause for intervenor in support 

of appellee. With him on the brief were Michael Weisbuch and 

Z.W. Julius Chen. 

Corbin K. Barthold and James E. Dunstan were on the 

brief for amicus curiae TechFreedom in support of appellee. 

Before: RAO and CHILDS, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RAO. 

RAO, Circuit Judge: The Federal Communications 

Commission licensed a new satellite system owned by Space 

Exploration Holdings (“SpaceX”). DISH Network challenges 

the license on several grounds, including that the Commission 

did not adequately consider the risk of signal interference with 

other satellites. The International Dark-Sky Association also 

appeals the order, asserting that the Commission failed to 

conduct the environmental review required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Because the Commission’s order 

was lawful and reasonably explained, we affirm. 

I. 

A. 

We begin with the statutory and regulatory framework. 

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or 

“Commission”) may grant broadcast licenses, including for 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 2 of 21
3 

satellites, when it would serve the “public convenience, 

interest, or necessity.” Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. 

No. 73-416, ch. 652, § 307(a), 48 Stat. 1064, 1083 (codified as 

amended at 47 U.S.C. § 307(a)). The Commission must also 

regulate as “necessary to prevent interference between” 

satellite systems. 47 U.S.C. § 303(f). 

As relevant here, there are two types of satellite systems. 

Geostationary orbit satellites “remain in fixed positions relative 

to the earth” and transmit direct broadcast services like those 

offered by DISH. Northpoint Tech., Ltd. v. FCC, 412 F.3d 145, 

155 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Non-geostationary orbit satellites 

“continuously circle the earth” and include satellite 

constellations like SpaceX’s Starlink system. Id. When issuing 

a license, the FCC limits non-geostationary satellites to those 

that do not “cause unacceptable interference to” existing 

geostationary satellite systems. 47 C.F.R. § 25.289. 

Interference is measured in terms of “power flux-density,” 

which must remain below set limits. Id. §§ 25.103, 25.289. 

In 2017, the Commission incorporated the power fluxdensity limits set by the International Telecommunications 

Union (“ITU”) in its 2016 Radio Regulations.1 See id. 

§ 25.289; see also Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning NonGeostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related 

Matters (“2017 Order”), 32 FCC Rcd. 7809, 7843 (2017). 

Because the ITU has validation software to assess a satellite 

system’s compliance with the power limits, the FCC 

determined it was unnecessary to create a separate compliance 

1

 The ITU Constitution and Convention, a multi-national treaty to 

which the United States is a signatory, established the International 

Telecommunications Union to address signal interference. See ITU 

Convention, Dec. 22, 1992, 1825 U.N.T.S. 390, 492; Constitution of 

the ITU art. 1, ¶ 2(b), Dec. 22, 1992, 1825 U.N.T.S. 331, 333, 376. 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 3 of 21
4 

verification system and instead required applicants to use the 

ITU’s software. 2017 Order, 32 FCC Rcd. at 7822.

A license applicant must now follow a two-step process. 

First, it must certify that it will comply with the ITU’s power 

limits. 47 C.F.R. § 25.146(a). Second, it must submit power 

flux-density data to the ITU and have the ITU confirm that the 

system in fact complies with the power limits. Id. § 25.146(c). 

If the ITU issues a favorable finding, the Commission may 

issue the license. 

B. 

This case involves SpaceX’s second generation Starlink 

satellite system (“Gen2 Starlink”). SpaceX applied for a license 

to operate 29,988 low-altitude non-geostationary orbit 

satellites to deliver internet service. SpaceX first certified its 

satellites would satisfy the ITU’s power limits. It then 

submitted its data to the ITU for verification. In order to avoid 

delay from the ITU’s backlog of applications, SpaceX also 

requested the FCC grant the license while it waited for the 

ITU’s finding.

The FCC conditionally approved SpaceX’s license for 

7,500 satellites, even though the ITU determination was still 

pending. The Commission explained that licensing Gen2 

Starlink was in the public interest because the system would 

“improve[] broadband to unserved and underserved regions of 

the United States and worldwide.” And it was also in the public 

interest to approve deployment “as soon as possible” instead of 

waiting for the ITU’s finding. The Commission explicitly 

conditioned Gen2 Starlink’s continued operations on receiving 

a favorable finding from the ITU, cautioning SpaceX that it 

would need to adjust its operations to comply with the power 

flux-density limits if it failed to obtain the requisite finding. 

After the license issued, SpaceX was required to make the data 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 4 of 21
5 

it ran through the ITU software available to any party that 

requested it. 

C. 

The two appellants before us opposed SpaceX’s Gen2 

Starlink license application in the FCC proceedings.2 First, 

DISH, a satellite owner and operator and SpaceX competitor, 

petitioned the Commission to deny the license because SpaceX 

would cause unacceptable interference to DISH’s satellites. 

DISH also argued the Commission’s reliance on the ITU 

standards and verification process amounted to an unlawful 

delegation of the Commission’s licensing authority to an 

outside party. The FCC declined to consider the evidence of 

interference that DISH submitted to support its petition because 

SpaceX was required only to self-certify its compliance with 

the ITU limits. And it concluded that the ITU’s role in 

reviewing power flux-density compliance was not an unlawful 

delegation.

Second, International Dark-Sky, an environmental group 

composed of amateur astronomers and dark-sky enthusiasts, 

objected to the FCC’s decision not to perform an 

environmental review of the light pollution and atmospheric 

effects of Gen2 Starlink. International Dark-Sky maintained 

such a review was required under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (“NEPA”). See Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 

(codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.). The FCC concluded its 

2

 Licensing proceedings require public notice and an opportunity for 

comment. See 47 C.F.R. § 25.151(a), (d). Interested parties may 

submit informal objections to the license or formally petition to deny 

the license. See id. § 25.154. The FCC must examine these objections 

before deciding whether to grant the license. See id. § 25.156(a). 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 5 of 21
6 

regulations did not require an environmental review and denied 

International Dark-Sky’s request. 

Both DISH and International Dark-Sky appealed the 

Commission’s order granting SpaceX a license for its satellites.

See 47 U.S.C. § 402(b)(6). We consolidated the cases and 

granted SpaceX’s motion to intervene. 

II. 

We first address DISH’s appeal. DISH argues the 

Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by disregarding 

evidence that Gen2 Starlink will exceed the power flux-density 

limits, by deferring the ITU favorable finding requirement, and 

by withholding SpaceX’s data from public release until after 

the licensing proceeding concluded. DISH also argues the 

Commission unlawfully subdelegated its decisionmaking 

authority to the ITU. 

The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to set 

aside agency actions, including licensing decisions, that are 

arbitrary and capricious or not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706(2)(A); accord NRDC v. NRC, 823 F.3d 641, 648–49 

(D.C. Cir. 2016) (applying § 706 to licensing decisions). An 

action is arbitrary and capricious when the agency relies on 

inappropriate factors, fails to consider important aspects of the 

problem, or ignores relevant evidence. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. 

Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 

Within an agency’s lawful authority, courts will uphold agency 

action that is “reasonable and reasonably explained.” FCC v. 

Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1158 (2021). 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 6 of 21
7 

A. 

DISH first argues the Commission acted arbitrarily and 

capriciously by disregarding evidence that Gen2 Starlink will 

exceed the power flux-density limits.

After running its data through the ITU software, SpaceX 

certified that its satellites complied with the ITU’s power fluxdensity limits. DISH submitted its own analysis showing that 

Gen2 Starlink would exceed the limits. DISH attributes the 

different results to the chosen data input file. SpaceX divided 

the Gen2 Starlink power data into 18 separate files when it ran 

the ITU analysis. After self-certifying its compliance, and at 

the ITU’s request, SpaceX submitted its data to the 

Commission in a “single combined filing” to “facilitate 

preparation for ITU coordination.” DISH analyzed Gen2 

Starlink’s compliance based on the combined file rather than 

the 18 separate files. DISH maintains the Commission’s refusal 

to consider its submission fails to respond meaningfully to 

objections. 

The Commission was not required to consider DISH’s 

analysis. At the first step of the licensing process, an applicant 

must self-certify compliance with the ITU’s power limits. 47 

C.F.R. § 25.146(a). Nothing in the regulation required the FCC 

to independently verify the certification. DISH does not dispute 

that agencies may employ reasonable methods of selfcertification and need not second guess such certifications any 

time an objection is raised by a third party. 

While it is true we have held an agency cannot reasonably 

ignore “smoking gun” evidence of a fraudulent selfcertification, no such evidence was presented here. See Animal 

Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Perdue, 872 F.3d 602, 619 (D.C. Cir. 

2017). DISH does not point to any evidence beyond its study 

that indicates Gen2 Starlink is violating the power flux-density 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 7 of 21
8 

limits or that the FCC is aware of any violation. By contrast, in 

Animal Legal Defense Fund, the record included clear and 

egregious evidence contradicting the applicant’s selfcertification. The Department of Agriculture “knew that the 

[license applicants] were grossly and consistently out of 

compliance” and that they had been repeatedly cited for 

regulatory violations. Id. at 618–19. We held that “[r]eliance 

on facts that an agency knows are false at the time it relies on 

them is the essence of arbitrary and capricious 

decisionmaking.” Id. at 619 (cleaned up). 

In this case, DISH argues simply that SpaceX grouped its 

data for the analysis in a way that satisfied the ITU limits, while 

a different grouping would not. But the regulations do not 

specify how an applicant must group its data. SpaceX was 

required to certify only the results of running its data—grouped 

in whatever way—through the ITU software. SpaceX even 

“consulted ITU staff on how to present datafiles for purposes 

of [power flux-density] analysis.” SpaceX also later confirmed 

the “combined filing,” not just the separate files, “demonstrates 

compliance” with the ITU limits. DISH’s proffered evidence 

falls well short of a smoking gun that would require the FCC 

to disregard SpaceX’s self-certification. 

Relying on its self-certification licensing framework, the 

Commission reasonably explained why it declined to consider 

DISH’s alternative analysis. 

B. 

Second, DISH argues the Commission acted arbitrarily 

and capriciously by allowing SpaceX to begin operations 

before receiving a favorable finding from the ITU. See 47 

C.F.R. § 25.146(c). DISH also contends that it is internally 

incoherent, and thus unreasonable, for the Commission to rely 

on the ITU’s confirmation of SpaceX’s certification while 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 8 of 21
9 

providing an interim waiver of that favorable finding 

requirement.3 We disagree. 

The Commission’s decision to grant SpaceX’s license 

while waiting for the ITU’s determination was reasonable and 

reasonably explained. The Commission can waive its rules “for 

good cause shown,” id. § 1.3, including when “strict 

compliance” would be “inconsistent” with its statutory 

mandate to act in the public interest, AT&T Wireless Servs. v. 

FCC, 270 F.3d 959, 965 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (cleaned up). The 

FCC here found it was “in the public interest to ... allow 

[SpaceX] to begin deployment as soon as possible to bring 

next-generation [internet] service to unserved and underserved 

areas of the country and globally.” It relied on many of the 

same factors that justified granting an interim waiver to license 

SpaceX’s first generation satellite system. Reviewing that 

license, this court held the interim waiver was reasonable 

because the FCC sought to avoid the harm resulting from “long 

delays in the provision of internet service to Americans who 

remain totally unserved by other broadband solutions.” Viasat, 

Inc. v. FCC, 47 F.4th 769, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). 

We reach the same conclusion here. 

Moreover, the Commission’s interim waiver is not 

inconsistent with its reliance on the ITU providing a favorable 

finding. The waiver does not relieve SpaceX of its regulatory 

obligation. SpaceX must still obtain a favorable finding, and 

the Commission clearly stated that any deployment in the 

interim was “at SpaceX’s own risk.” If SpaceX ultimately fails 

to secure a favorable finding, it will need to “adjust its 

3

 The parties refer to this as a “partial waiver,” but it is merely an 

interim waiver. The FCC continued to require SpaceX to receive a 

favorable finding from the ITU; it just granted the license 

provisionally before the finding was made. 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 9 of 21
10 

operations accordingly to come into compliance” with the 

power flux-density limits. 

The Commission’s decision to grant SpaceX’s license 

before the ITU made its compliance determination was 

reasonable and consistent with previous decisions of this court. 

C. 

Third, DISH argues the Commission unreasonably and 

unlawfully withheld SpaceX’s data from public release until 

after the conclusion of the licensing proceeding. DISH 

maintains it had a due process right and a right under the 

Commission’s regulations to review SpaceX’s data. Because 

the data was not part of the administrative record, DISH argues 

it could not adequately participate in the licensing proceeding. 

Ex parte communications between an agency and a license 

applicant are prohibited when the communications are 

“inconsisten[t] ... with the notion of a fair hearing and with the 

principles of fairness implicit in due process.” U.S. Lines, Inc. 

v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 584 F.2d 519, 539 (D.C. Cir. 1978). An 

ex parte communication must not “deprive the public of the 

right to participate meaningfully in the decisionmaking 

process.” Id. at 540. 

Withholding SpaceX’s data did not deprive DISH of an 

opportunity to participate meaningfully in the licensing 

proceeding because the Commission did not evaluate SpaceX’s 

data at either stage of the licensing process.4 At the first step, 

SpaceX was required only to self-certify, which by definition 

did not involve agency analysis. And at the second step, the 

4

 Because DISH was able to fully participate in the proceeding, we 

need not decide whether DISH had a due process interest in 

SpaceX’s license. 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 10 of 21
11 

ITU independently analyzed the data and made a finding, so 

there was no opportunity for DISH to participate. Neither step 

required the FCC to independently evaluate SpaceX’s data, and 

so DISH’s participation in the process was not impeded by the 

unavailability of that data. 

DISH fares no better with its claim of a regulatory right to 

SpaceX’s data. Commission rules require public disclosure of 

a “written ex parte presentation” that is “directed to the merits 

or outcome of a proceeding.” 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1206(a), (b)(2), 

1.1202(a). But the regulation explicitly exempts records 

“prepared in connection with coordination” of satellite systems 

under the ITU Radio Regulations. Id. § 0.457(d)(1)(vii)(B). 

The Commission explained that the exemption applied because 

SpaceX’s data submission was used only “to facilitate ITU 

coordination.” DISH provides no reason to doubt the 

Commission’s explanation of how it used (or did not use) 

SpaceX’s data, nor does DISH offer any evidence to overcome 

the presumption of regularity we afford to agencies. See 

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P. v. Abraham, 347 

F.3d 315, 320 (D.C. Cir. 2003). We find the Commission 

reasonably explained why the data was exempt from public 

disclosure under its regulations. 

DISH also contends that, if it is true the Commission did 

not rely on SpaceX’s data, its decision to license SpaceX’s 

satellites was unsupported. But as we have already explained, 

the FCC was not required to analyze the data because the 

regulations require only a license applicant’s self-certification 

and the ITU’s confirmation. Accordingly, failing to rely on 

SpaceX’s data does not undermine the decision to grant the 

license. 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 11 of 21
12 

The Commission did not violate due process or its 

regulations by declining to release SpaceX’s data before the 

license approval. 

D. 

Finally, DISH argues the Commission has unlawfully 

subdelegated its statutory authority by incorporating the ITU’s 

power limits and assigning the ITU responsibility for verifying 

compliance. We disagree. 

When Congress confers regulatory authority on an agency, 

subdelegation of that authority “to outside parties [is] assumed 

to be improper absent an affirmative showing of congressional 

authorization.” U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 565 

(D.C. Cir. 2004). Not all third-party involvement in the 

regulatory process is such a delegation, however. We have 

recognized “three specific types of legitimate outside party 

input into agency decision-making processes: (1) establishing 

a reasonable condition for granting federal approval; (2) fact 

gathering; and (3) advice giving.” Id. at 566. 

We need not consider whether Congress has authorized the 

FCC to subdelegate to the ITU because there has been no 

subdelegation of decisionmaking authority here.5 The 

Commission’s use of the ITU power flux-density limits is a 

5

 The FCC has statutory authority to align its regulations with the 

ITU’s power flux-density limits, a point DISH does not dispute. 

Congress directed the FCC to “[m]ake such rules and 

regulations ... as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 

of ... any international radio or wire communications treaty or 

convention.” 47 U.S.C. § 303(r). The ITU’s Radio Regulations, 

which set the power flux-density limits, are incorporated into the ITU 

Constitution and Convention and “binding on all Members.” See 

Constitution of the ITU art. 4, ¶ 3, 1825 U.N.T.S. at 335. 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 12 of 21
13 

type of legitimate outside party input. An agency may permit 

outside parties to perform “nondiscretionary activities such as 

compiling, hearing, and transmitting technical information.” 

Id. at 567 (cleaned up). The ITU limits are highly technical and 

based on the threshold at which conflicting radio waves begin 

to interfere with satellite performance. Cf. Amerada Hess 

Pipeline Corp. v. FERC, 117 F.3d 596, 601 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 

(holding an agency may adopt technical standards 

“promulgated by an independent organization” without 

“surrender[ing] its responsibility for adopting” standards). 

An agency may “turn to an outside entity for advice and 

policy recommendations, provided the agency makes the final 

decisions itself.” U.S. Telecom Ass’n, 359 F.3d at 568. The 

FCC retains all decisionmaking authority to set the power limit. 

The Commission’s regulations are not indexed to the ITU’s 

determinations, but rather incorporate a particular set of 

limits—namely those in the ITU’s 2016 Radio Regulations. 

See 47 C.F.R. § 25.108(c)(2). The ITU therefore cannot 

unilaterally change the limits applicable in an FCC licensing 

proceeding. Any change to the ITU standards would be 

incorporated only if the FCC chose to revise its regulation. See 

ITU Convention, Dec. 22, 1992, 1825 U.N.T.S. 390, 492 (“Nor 

shall the United States of America be deemed to have 

consented to be bound by revisions of the Administrative 

Regulations ... adopted subsequent to the date of signature.”). 

Furthermore, tasking the ITU with verifying an applicant’s 

compliance with the power limits is legitimate outside party 

input because it is nondiscretionary “fact gathering.” U.S. 

Telecom Ass’n, 359 F.3d at 566. DISH attempts to characterize 

the ITU’s role as more than fact gathering, suggesting that the 

ITU made the final determination as to “whether SpaceX may 

operate it[s] system.” But the ITU merely uses its software to 

calculate a satellite system’s power flux-density, compares that 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 13 of 21
14 

value to the ITU limits, and reports to the Commission whether 

the value satisfies the limits. The ITU’s fact gathering is not 

regulatory decisionmaking. 

Importantly, a favorable finding by the ITU does not 

automatically yield a license. The Commission must consider 

a variety of factors, including satellite interference, to 

determine whether a license is in the public interest. After 

receiving the ITU’s compliance finding, the Commission 

makes the final decision about whether to grant a license. 

The Commission incorporates the ITU standards and relies 

on the ITU for fact finding, but the agency retains its 

decisionmaking authority. We therefore reject DISH’s 

subdelegation challenge. 

* * * 

The Commission’s decision to license SpaceX’s Gen2 

Starlink satellites was lawful and reasonable. We therefore 

reject DISH’s appeal. 

III. 

We next address International Dark-Sky’s appeal 

challenging the Commission’s refusal to conduct an 

environmental review before approving SpaceX’s license. 

International Dark-Sky has standing; however, it has failed to 

demonstrate the Commission’s actions were arbitrary, 

capricious, or contrary to law. 

A. 

International Dark-Sky asserts both associational and 

organizational standing, which SpaceX contests. Because we 

conclude International Dark-Sky has associational standing, 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 14 of 21
15 

we need not consider whether it would also have organizational 

standing. 

At the outset, International Dark-Sky has demonstrated 

that it is a genuine membership organization. It submitted 

declarations from two members who alleged injury from the 

licensing of new SpaceX satellites and affirmed that 

International Dark-Sky represented their interests. One 

member, James Lowenthal, an astronomy professor, explained 

the negative effects of light pollution on his professional 

research and teaching, as well as on his personal interest in 

viewing the night sky. Another member, Diana Umpierre, 

explained the harm from light pollution and from not having 

the results of an environmental assessment to educate the 

public about the impact of SpaceX’s satellites. When “an 

organization has identified members and represents them in 

good faith, our cases do not require further scrutiny into how 

the organization operates.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. 

v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141, 2158 

(2023). 

To establish associational standing, an organization must 

show that “(1) its members would otherwise have standing to 

sue in their own right; (2) the interests it seeks to protect are 

germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) neither the 

claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation 

of individual members in the lawsuit.” Ctr. for Sustainable 

Econ. v. Jewell, 779 F.3d 588, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned 

up). 

International Dark-Sky has demonstrated its members 

would have standing to sue in their own right. For the 

procedural harm alleged here, there must be an injury in fact, 

but the standards for redressability and causation are relaxed. 

“[E]nvironmental plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 15 of 21
16 

when they aver that they use the affected area and are persons 

‘for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will 

be lessened’ by the challenged activity.” Friends of the Earth, 

Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 183 

(2000) (cleaned up). International Dark-Sky alleges its 

members are stargazers and astronomers who “use” the sky and 

whose aesthetic and recreational activities will be inhibited by 

light pollution from the satellites. And it submitted declarations 

from its members to that effect. This suffices to allege an injury 

in fact. 

International Dark-Sky has also satisfied the causation and 

redressability requirements. For a procedural injury, an 

organization “need demonstrate only that the procedural step 

was connected to the substantive result, not that the agency 

would have reached a different substantive result but for the 

alleged procedural error.” Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 59, 

65 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). The alleged procedural harm 

here was linked to the approval of SpaceX’s satellite license. If 

the Commission switched course and performed an 

environmental review, “the Commission could change its 

position and deny” the license on remand, reducing the alleged 

harms. Id. at 67. 

Second, this environmental challenge is germane to 

International Dark-Sky’s purpose. “The germaneness 

requirement mandates pertinence between litigation subject 

and organizational purpose.” Ctr. for Sustainable Econ., 779 

F.3d at 597 (cleaned up). International Dark-Sky exists 

primarily to provide information and education to the public. 

Its self-described mission is “to encourage communities, parks, 

and protected areas around the world to preserve and protect 

dark skies through responsible lighting practices and public 

education.” Environmental assessments produce the type of 

information relevant to an educational organization’s purpose. 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 16 of 21
17 

Third, participation by International Dark-Sky’s 

individual members is not necessary. The appeal turns on 

whether the FCC complied with its statutory obligations, and 

the relief sought is vacatur of the license and remand for an 

environmental review. Neither the legal claims nor the relief 

sought involve individualized grievances. See id.

We therefore hold that International Dark-Sky has 

satisfied this court’s requirements for associational standing. 

B. 

International Dark-Sky maintains the Commission’s 

decision to grant SpaceX a license without performing an 

environmental review was arbitrary and capricious and not in 

accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of 

their decisions on the human environment before acting. See 42 

U.S.C. § 4332. When applicable, such review would require a 

license applicant to prepare an environmental assessment of its 

proposed action. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1308(b). But there are 

“categories of actions that normally do not have a significant 

effect on the human environment, ... and therefore do not 

require preparation of an environmental assessment.” 40 

C.F.R. § 1501.4(a). The FCC has determined in its NEPA 

regulations that, subject to a few exceptions not relevant here, 

all FCC actions (including granting licenses) “are deemed 

individually and cumulatively to have no significant effect on 

the quality of the human environment and are categorically 

excluded from environmental processing.” 47 C.F.R. 

§ 1.1306(a). The only way to overcome this categorical 

exemption is if the FCC “determines that the action may have 

a significant environmental impact.” Id. § 1.1307(c). 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 17 of 21
18 

SpaceX’s license falls within the categorical exclusion, so 

an environmental assessment was required only if the FCC 

determined that the license may have a significant 

environmental impact. The FCC reasonably concluded that no 

such impact was present here, and International Dark-Sky’s 

arguments to the contrary are unavailing. 

1. 

First, International Dark-Sky argues the FCC acted 

arbitrarily and capriciously because its determination that Gen2 

Starlink would have no significant environmental impact was 

conclusory and lacked record support. In particular, 

International Dark-Sky maintains the FCC failed to respond 

adequately to a report showing that SpaceX’s satellite system 

would cause significant atmospheric effects from rocket 

launches and reentry as well as light pollution from orbiting 

satellites. 

Relying on two European Space Agency studies, the FCC 

reasonably concluded that the volume of atmospheric material 

emanating from satellite launch and reentry would not 

comprise a significant environmental impact. The FCC 

concluded the studies were “the most relevant evidence in the 

record” and “sufficiently persuasive ... to conclude that there 

would not be a significant environmental impact associated 

with a constellation of 7,500 Gen2 Starlink satellites.” 

Moreover, the Commission explained it relied on these studies 

because they “focus[] specifically on atmospheric effects of 

reentering spacecrafts,” while the report relied on by 

International Dark-Sky emphasized the limited scientific 

understanding of satellite constellation emissions. The FCC 

further discounted the alternative report because it considered 

the effects of all 29,988 satellites, but the Commission licensed 

only a fraction of that number. 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 18 of 21
19 

We find the Commission adequately responded to 

International Dark-Sky’s comments and reasonably explained 

its reliance on the European Space Agency studies. 

2. 

Second, International Dark-Sky argues the FCC cannot 

rely on SpaceX’s mitigation efforts when assessing the 

significance of the satellites’ environmental impact. 

But an agency may consider mitigation when weighing the 

significance of potential environmental effects. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1501.4(b)(1); see also Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d 

1147, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“[A] project with a potentially 

significant impact will not require [environmental review] if 

changes or safeguards sufficiently reduce the impact.” (cleaned 

up)). The FCC reasonably concluded SpaceX’s mitigation 

efforts would help minimize any environmental impact. 

SpaceX demonstrated that it was changing its software and 

hardware between its first and second generation systems to 

decrease the satellites’ brightness. It also confirmed it was 

collaborating with many of the groups that raised reflectivity 

concerns—including NASA and the National Science 

Foundation—to optimize its mitigation efforts. The FCC 

explained that Gen2 Starlink satellites orbit lower than 

previous satellites, which reduces reflectivity at night, and that 

SpaceX’s satellite tracking system allows astronomers to 

account for and avoid the satellites when observing the night 

sky. While there may still be effects from the Gen2 Starlink 

satellites, the Commission concluded the conditions it imposed 

on SpaceX, “in addition to SpaceX’s planned mitigation 

efforts, are sufficient to avoid significant environmental 

effects, and therefore environmental review under NEPA is not 

warranted.” The Commission’s approach is well within its 

regulatory discretion. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c). 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 19 of 21
20 

International Dark-Sky also suggests the Commission’s 

reliance on SpaceX’s mitigation efforts is evidence there would 

be significant environmental effects from the license. But 

recognizing the need for, and value of, mitigation cannot be the 

standard for finding a substantial environmental impact. 

Otherwise, as the Ninth Circuit noted in a similar NEPA 

challenge, if proposed mitigation strategies “trigger the need to 

prepare” an environmental assessment, agencies will be 

incentivized “to leave out important conditions on permits for 

fear that the presence of the conditions would preclude the 

availability of the categorical exclusion.” Alaska Ctr. for the 

Env’t v. U.S. Forest Serv., 189 F.3d 851, 860 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, the Commission reasonably imposed mitigation 

measures and considered those measures when concluding 

there was no significant environmental impact from SpaceX’s 

satellites. 

3. 

Finally, International Dark-Sky maintains the FCC’s 

reliance on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) 

programmatic environmental assessment cannot be reconciled 

with 47 C.F.R. § 1.1311(e). An agency action based on a 

flawed interpretation of a statute or regulation is contrary to 

law. See CREW v. FEC, 993 F.3d 880, 892 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

An applicant “need not ... submit[]” an environmental 

assessment to the FCC “if another agency ... has assumed 

responsibility for determining whether [the action] ... will 

have a significant effect on the” environment. 47 C.F.R. 

§ 1.1311(e). Following this regulatory directive, the FCC 

concluded that it “need not conduct an environmental review 

of the Gen2 Starlink satellite launch activity” because the FAA 

had already completed a review and concluded the launches 

“would not significantly affect the quality of the human 

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 20 of 21
21 

environment.” Moreover, SpaceX was involved in the FAA’s 

programmatic environmental assessment. The Commission 

expressed its “confidence the FAA ha[d] conducted, and will 

continue to conduct as necessary, thorough environmental 

reviews of SpaceX’s launch activities.”

International Dark-Sky argues the Commission could not 

rely on the FAA’s assessment because the FAA did not assume 

responsibility for the environmental review of SpaceX’s 

satellite license, the agency action at issue here, and the FAA 

was required to “assum[e] responsibility” as a precondition of 

the Commission’s reliance. We decline to adopt this overly 

literal reading of the NEPA regulations. The Commission 

relied on the FAA’s assessment only when considering the 

environmental impact of SpaceX’s rocket launches. And the 

FAA in fact conducted an environmental review of those 

launches, pursuant to its statutory authority. See 51 U.S.C. 

§ 50901(b)(3). The Commission’s reliance on the FAA’s 

environmental review was therefore reasonable and consistent 

with its regulatory requirements. 

In sum, we reject International Dark-Sky’s claims because 

the FCC’s determination that Gen2 Starlink would not have a 

significant environmental impact was reasonable, reasonably 

explained, and consistent with the Commission’s legal 

obligations. 

* * * 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the FCC’s order 

licensing SpaceX’s Gen2 Starlink satellites. 

So ordered.

USCA Case #23-1001 Document #2064317 Filed: 07/12/2024 Page 21 of 21