October 1, 2026

Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20554

via ICFS Electronic Filing

In re: Application of Kuiper Systems LLC for Authority to Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System
(ICFS #: SAT-LOA-20260601-00224)
REPLY COMMENTS OF THE CENTER FOR SPACE ENVIRONMENTALISM

Pursuant to Commission rules,1 the Center for Space Environmentalism (CSE) respectfully submits these Reply Comments regarding the application of Kuiper Systems LLC (hereinafter “Amazon Leo”) to launch and operate a non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) system comprising up to 5,105 Direct-to-Device (D2D) satellites.2

In its Consolidated Opposition and Response, Amazon attempts to brush aside significant public environmental, dark-skies, and orbital safety concerns by hiding behind a 1986 administrative categorical exclusion and dismissing voluntary coordination as a substitute for binding regulatory conditions.3 Amazon’s arguments fail as a matter of law and policy. Deploying and continuously replacing 5,105 heavy D2D satellites on a seven-year lifecycle creates unprecedented cumulative impacts on Earth’s atmosphere, astronomical observation, and orbital sustainability that demand formal environmental review and mandatory license conditions.

I. Continuous Upper-Atmosphere Ablation and Pollution Constitute “Extraordinary Circumstances” Under NEPA (47 C.F.R. § 1.1307)

Amazon contends in Section VII of its Opposition that its application is categorically excluded from environmental review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)4 regulations and claims that upper-atmosphere metal ablation and ozone depletion arguments are speculative and beyond Commission jurisdiction.5 This argument relies on an outdated legal posture that directly conflicts with governing appellate precedent and Commission obligations.6

First, the D.C. Circuit has explicitly established that FCC satellite constellation licensing actions are federal agency actions subject to NEPA review.7 While 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 provides a general categorical exclusion for communications licensing, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a) explicitly mandates an Environmental Assessment (EA) whenever an action may have a significant environmental effect constituting an “extraordinary circumstance.”

Second, Amazon’s 5,105-satellite constellation is designed on a rapid seven-year replacement cycle.8 Maintaining this constellation requires deorbiting and vaporizing approximately 730 massive satellites every single year, representing thousands of metric tons of aluminum, copper, and composite materials injected directly into the mesosphere and stratosphere annually. Peer-reviewed scientific research establishes that atmospheric re-entry ablation converts satellite aluminum into conductive alumina (Al2O3) aerosols, which persist in the stratosphere for decades, catalyze ozone-depleting chlorine reactions, and alter terrestrial radiative forcing.9 Amazon has not offered any evidence to refute these research results.

Third, Amazon cannot claim that CSE failed to establish ‘extraordinary circumstances’ or dismiss atmospheric impacts as unproven when Amazon itself created the informational vacuum by refusing to publicly disclose basic physical parameters such as satellite dry mass and bounding dimensions in Confidential Appendix 2.10 Without disclosing satellite dry mass or composition, Amazon leaves the public and the Commission to guess at the precise annual tonnage of metal vaporized in the upper atmosphere. Furthermore, basic physical dimensions and mass are objective regulatory inputs, not proprietary trade secrets or complex bulk material compositions. This is demonstrated by direct peer operators (including SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital Compute, Starcloud, and Cowboy Space) who routinely disclose satellite mass and bounding dimensions on the public docket.11 An applicant cannot enforce an informational blackout on basic physical parameters and then cite the resulting uncertainty as proof that environmental harm is ‘speculative.’

Fourth, Amazon offers no contradictory scientific studies, atmospheric modeling, or empirical counter-evidence of its own to refute the peer-reviewed, published scientific research by respected experts in the record. Rather than engaging with the published scientific literature, which establishes that re-entry ablation converts satellite aluminum into stratospheric alumina aerosols that catalyze ozone depletion and alter radiative forcing, Amazon simply brushes aside empirical findings without offering a single counter-study or expert affidavit. An applicant cannot defeat uncontradicted scientific record evidence through bare, unsupported assertions.12 Under established administrative law, “conclusory statements will not suffice” to meet the standards of reasoned decision-making.13 In turn, the Commission cannot ignore unrebutted scientific evidence in reliance on an applicant’s unsupported dismissals without acting arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the APA.14 Relying on a 1986 categorical exclusion crafted decades before the advent of commercial mega-constellations to ignore tons of annual atmospheric metal ablation violates both NEPA and the Commission's public interest mandate.15

II. Voluntary Private Coordination Is Legally Inadequate to Mitigate Aggregate Optical Skyglow and Astronomy Impacts

In Section III of its Opposition, Amazon argues that its voluntary enrollment in the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) Operational Data Sharing system and informal dialogue with the astronomy community satisfy all concerns regarding dark and quiet skies.16 While CSE appreciates the voluntary dialog that Amazon has engaged in with NRAO and NSF, we note that preliminary measurements by astronomers have shown that Amazon’s current megaconstellation satellites do not meet17 the recommended brightness limits from the International Astronomical Union18. Amazon further asserts that because the Commission has not adopted binding numeric optical brightness rules, no mandatory conditions can be imposed.19

This response conflates voluntary corporate gestures with enforceable administrative oversight:

1. D2D satellites require extraordinarily large solar arrays and phased-array antenna architectures to close links with unmodified terrestrial smartphones. Because of their large surface area and lower operational orbits, these spacecraft reflect significant sunlight, routinely exceeding the visual magnitude threshold (7th magnitude) required to prevent interference with naked-eye astronomy and wide-field optical surveys like the Vera C. Rubin Observatory.20

2. Non-binding operational data sharing does not reduce the physical photon flux reflected into optical telescopes, nor does it address aggregate diffuse skyglow caused by thousands of orbiting reflective surfaces21.

3. Under Section 309(a) of the Communications Act,22 the Commission has an affirmative statutory duty to protect the public interest. The Commission cannot outsource environmental and scientific protection to voluntary private arrangements. The Space Bureau must condition any operational authorization on Amazon maintaining an optical brightness that meets IAU recommendations23 during all operational, LEOP, and disposal phases.
   

III. Accelerated seven-year Replacement Cycles Amplify Orbital Debris and Collision Risks Across Low Earth Orbit

In Section VI.A of its Consolidated Opposition and Response, Amazon claims full compliance with the Commission's space safety rules.24 However, Amazon's business model relies on a continuous seven-year launch-and-dispose cycle, resulting in an endless stream of thousands of maneuvering and decaying spacecraft in LEO.25

This aggressive replacement frequency exponentially increases the probability of conjunction events and orbital debris generation. First, continuously cycling thousands of heavy satellites through low orbits while raising to operating altitude and lowering to disposal altitude creates massive operational overhead for space situational awareness networks and increases collision risks with other active NGSO constellations and space debris. Second, as demonstrated in CSE's concurrent procedural motions, Amazon has withheld the raw NASA Debris Assessment Software (DAS) activity logs in Confidential Appendix 2, denying the public and independent researchers the ability to audit its casualty and collision models.26 And third, self-certifications of compliance do not satisfy administrative due process under the APA.27 The Commission must require full public disclosure of debris inputs before making any public interest determination under 47 U.S.C. § 309(a).

IV. Prayer for Relief

Amazon’s request to launch 5,105 heavy D2D satellites without environmental review or mandatory optical limits poses severe, unaddressed risks to Earth's atmosphere, astronomical research, and orbital safety.

WHEREFORE, the Center for Space Environmentalism respectfully requests that the Commission:

1. Order the preparation of a formal Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4332; 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)) to evaluate the cumulative upper-atmosphere ablation pollution, ozone impacts, and radiative forcing caused by Amazon's seven-year constellation replacement cycle;

2. Impose mandatory, enforceable license conditions requiring all Amazon Leo D2D satellites to maintain an optical brightness fainter than visual magnitude 6.0 across all operational profiles; and

3. Withhold action on the underlying application until Amazon publicly discloses its complete NASA DAS input parameters and raw activity logs pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(d)(14).
   
   

1 47 C.F.R. § 1.45.

2 Application of Kuiper Systems LLC for Authority to Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260601-00224 (filed July 24, 2026) (hereinafter the “Application”).

3 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260601-00224, § III at 23–35, § VI.A at 75–78, § VII at 82–84 (filed Sept. 28, 2026).

4 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306.

5 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 3, § VII at 82–84.

6 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.

7 Viasat, Inc. v. FCC, 47 F.4th 769, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (holding that FCC satellite constellation licensing actions are federal agency decisions subject to NEPA review and rejecting arguments that environmental impacts in space fall outside NEPA’s procedural scope).

8 Application, supra note 2, Form 312 Schedule S, Item S1.c (specifying a seven-year estimated operational lifetime); see also id., Exhibit C (Technical Attachment and ODAR) at 3–5.

9 See, e.g., J.P. Ferreira et al., Potential Ozone Depletion From Satellite Demise During Atmospheric Reentry in the Era of Mega-Constellations, 51 Geophysical Res. Letters 2024GL109280 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL109280; Christopher M. Maloney et al., Investigating the Potential Atmospheric Accumulation and Radiative Impact of the Coming Increase in Satellite Reentry Frequency, 130 J. Geophysical Res.: Atmospheres e2024JD042442 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD042442; Robert G. Ryan et al., Impact of Rocket Launch and Space Debris Air Pollutant Emissions on Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate, 10 Earth's Future e2021EF002612 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002612; S.P. Sharma, Impact of Spaceflight on Earth's Atmosphere: Climate, Ozone, and the Upper Atmosphere, NASA/TM-20240013276 (2024), https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240013276; see also Comments of the Center for Space Environmentalism, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260601-00224, § II.B at 4–5 & nn. 20–21 (filed Sept. 16, 2026).

10 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 3, § VI.B at 79–81.

11 See, e.g., Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260108-00016, at 7–8 (filed Sept. 16, 2026); Blue Origin, LLC, Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260310-00118, at 1–3 (filed Sept. 18, 2026); Orbital Compute Inc., Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260624-00251, at 1–3 (filed Sept. 11, 2026); Cowboy Space Corp., Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260323-00135, at 1–3 (filed Sept. 18, 2026); Starcloud, Inc., Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260202-00073, at 1–3 (filed Sept. 16, 2026).

12 Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593, 604 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (holding that agency action based on “bare assertions unsupported by any actual evidence” lacks substantial evidence and is arbitrary and capricious); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487–88 (1951) (holding that substantial evidence review under the APA requires evaluating the record as a whole, including evidence that fairly detracts from the agency's or applicant's position).

13 Amerijet Int'l, Inc. v. Pistole, 753 F.3d 1343, 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (explaining that “conclusory statements will not suffice” to satisfy the APA's reasoned decision-making requirement).

14 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989) (holding that NEPA requires federal agencies to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences prior to taking action and to ensure that environmental risk data is made available to the public); Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983) (holding that NEPA mandates an agency to consider the cumulative environmental impacts of its licensing decisions and ensure that potential environmental hazards are fully evaluated rather than ignored); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

15 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 47 U.S.C. § 309(a).

16 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 3, § III at 23–35.

17 Anthony Mallama et al., Brightness Characterization and Modeling for Amazon Leo Satellites, arXiv (Jan. 12, 2026), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.07708.

18 Aaron Boley et al. IAU CPS Satellite Optical Brightness Recommendation: Rationale. 9 Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 60 (2025) http://doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/adc12f

19 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 3, § III at 30–34.

20 J. Anthony Tyson et al., Mitigation of LEO Satellite Brightness and Trail Effects on the Rubin Observatory LSST, 160 Astron. J. 226 (2020) (establishing the 7th-magnitude brightness limit as the critical threshold below which the observatory’s data pipeline can mathematically correct for electronic crosstalk and avoid destructive pixel saturation).

21 O. Hainaut Large or bright satellite constellations: Effects on observations, including background sky brightness. 712 Astron. & Astrophys. 241 (2026), http://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202660006

22 47 U.S.C. § 309(a).

23 Boley et al., supra note 18.

24 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 3, § VI.A at 75–78.

25 Application, supra note 2, Form 312 Schedule S, Item S1.c; see also id., Exhibit C at 3–5.

26 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.459, 25.114(d)(14).

27 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (holding that an agency must examine the relevant factual data and articulate a rational connection between the record and its choice, a duty that cannot be satisfied by accepting an applicant's unverified self-certifications)

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 47 C.F.R. § 0.461 AND MOTION TO STAY COMMENT DEADLINE

The Center for Space Environmentalism (CSE), pursuant to Commission rules,1 hereby submits this Reply to the Consolidated Opposition filed by Kuiper Systems LLC (“Amazon Leo”).2 Amazon’s Opposition fails to establish that physical spacecraft dimensions, mass, solar array area, and raw NASA Debris Assessment Software (DAS) activity logs qualify as trade secrets under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 43 or Commission regulations.4 Crucially, Amazon’s confidentiality claims are directly contradicted by standard commercial space industry practice, as demonstrated by recent public disclosures from five direct peer constellation operators on the Commission's docket.

I. Physical Spacecraft Parameters Are Objective Environmental Safety Inputs, Not Trade Secrets Under FOIA Exemption 4

Amazon contends that Confidential Appendix 2, which contains the underlying NASA DAS activity log, contains proprietary engineering designs and trade secrets protected under Commission rules5 and federal statute.6 This argument fundamentally mischaracterizes physical environmental safety metrics.7

Under Commission rules, applicants must demonstrate that spacecraft disposal and reentry pose acceptable casualty and collision risks.8 The inputs required by NASA DAS (specifically satellite mass, bus cross-sectional area, solar array dimensions, structural composition, and orbital decay lifetimes) are objective physical attributes required to assess environmental safety and orbital sustainability, not just for the filing operator, but for all users of Low Earth Orbit. We maintain that objective physical properties of objects placed into low-Earth orbit do not constitute trade secrets or confidential commercial information under governing Supreme Court precedent.9

II. Peer Operator Disclosures Demonstrate That Physical Parameters Are Customarily Public Across the Satellite Sector

Under Commission regulations, an applicant seeking confidential treatment bears the burden of proving that the information is of a commercial nature that is customarily and actually treated as private within the industry.10 We contend that Amazon cannot satisfy this burden.

In August 2026, the Space Bureau issued formal inquiry letters to major large-constellation applicants requesting specific physical parameters, including maximum spacecraft cross-sectional area, solar array area, satellite bus area, mass, and orbital collision probabilities. In response, five direct peer operators publicly disclosed these exact parameters on the ICFS public docket without requesting confidential treatment:

1. Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX) publicly disclosed its complete physical envelope for its 1-million satellite Starmind constellation, listing total solar array area (< 1,500 m2), radiator area (< 200 m2), satellite bus area (< 21 m2), satellite mass (< 4,000 kg), and full-satellite passive decay collision probabilities directly on the public record.11

2. Blue Origin, LLC publicly submitted detailed operational parameters, Launch and Early Orbit Phase (LEOP) durations, and duty cycle allocations for its 51,600-satellite Project Sunrise constellation.12

3. Orbital Compute Inc. publicly disclosed its spacecraft check-out sequences, mass-to-area operational parameters, and orbital decay lifetimes.13

4. Cowboy Space Corp. publicly disclosed its satellite LEOP, post-mission disposal, and emergency Telemetry, Tracking, and Command (TT&C) duty cycle operational profiles.14

5. Starcloud, Inc. publicly disclosed its complete LEOP sequencing, automated safe-hold states, and operational parameters.15

Amazon stands alone among major constellation applicants in claiming that basic physical dimensions and debris logs constitute proprietary trade secrets. Because industry custom across commercial satellite licensing routinely treats physical spacecraft dimensions and debris inputs as public regulatory data, Amazon's confidentiality request fails as a matter of law.16

III. Amazon Failed Its Mandatory Statutory Duty to Segregate Non-Confidential Data Under 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(5)

Under Commission rules,17 an applicant requesting confidentiality must explicitly show that the request is narrowly tailored and that non-confidential information cannot be segregated from proprietary details. Yet Amazon withheld Confidential Appendix 2 in its entirety.18 Even assuming arguendo that specific proprietary component model numbers or material suppliers were contained within the NASA DAS activity log, basic mass numbers, cross-sectional dimensions, and atmospheric decay rates are easily segregable. By enforcing an all-or-nothing cloak of secrecy over Confidential Appendix 2, Amazon violated regulatory segregation requirements.

IV. Summary Output Metrics Do Not Satisfy Administrative Due Process Under 47 C.F.R. § 0.461

Amazon argues that because Exhibit C provides narrative summary claims (e.g., casualty risk < 10-6 and collision probability < 10-4), the public has received all information necessary to evaluate the application.19 This argument collapses under foundational principles of administrative law.20 In the context of Amazon’s application, the Space Bureau cannot fulfill its State Farm obligation to examine the relevant data if it merely accepts an applicant's bottom-line conclusions while allowing the applicant to hide the underlying empirical inputs and software activity logs from public and scientific audit.

The purpose of requiring NASA DAS logs under Commission rules is to allow the Commission and interested public stakeholders to audit the underlying mathematical and physical assumptions.21 Withholding raw input parameters deprives CSE and independent orbital safety researchers of the ability to verify whether Amazon's debris models accurately account for tumbling cross-sections, atmospheric drag variations, or composite material demise rates. If the Commission grants Amazon's application based solely on summary self-certifications without reviewing or disclosing the raw NASA DAS inputs (mass, dimensions, drag coefficients), any resulting order is vulnerable to being overturned under State Farm for failing to fully examine the underlying record facts.

V. A Stay or Supplemental Comment Window Is Necessary to Reestablish Procedural Due Process

Amazon argues that CSE suffered no prejudice from the withholding of Confidential Appendix 2 because CSE managed to file a public comment by September 17, 2026.22 This logic is self-defeating. Filing an initial comment based on an incomplete public record does not waive a party's right to inspect the complete filing under Commission disclosure rules.23

To cure this procedural defect, the Space Bureau must order the immediate unredacted disclosure of Confidential Appendix 2 (or a segregated public version containing all physical input/output parameters) and provide a 30-day supplemental comment window for public review.24

VI. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, the Center for Space Environmentalism respectfully requests that the Commission:

1. Grant CSE's Motion for Disclosure pursuant to Commission rule 47 C.F.R. § 0.461 and order Amazon to place the complete NASA DAS activity log and physical spacecraft bounding dimensions from Confidential Appendix 2 on the public ICFS docket;

2. Require Amazon to immediately segregate and publicly disclose all physical spacecraft parameters (mass, bus dimensions, solar array area, cross-sectional area, decay lifetimes) pursuant to Commission rule 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(5); and

3. Grant a 30-day supplemental public comment period running from the date full public disclosure is made.

1 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.461, 1.45.

2 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260601-00224, § VI.B at 79–81 (filed Sept. 28, 2026).

3 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).

4 47 C.F.R. § 0.457(d).

5 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.

6 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 0.457(d).

7 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 2, § VI.B at 79–81.

8 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(d)(14).

9 Food Mkt. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2363 (2019) (establishing that commercial or financial information is “confidential” within the meaning of FOIA Exemption 4 only if it is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy).

10 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(3).

11 Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260108-00016, at 7–8 (filed Sept. 16, 2026).

12 Blue Origin, LLC, Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260310-00118, at 1–3 (filed Sept. 18, 2026).

13 Orbital Compute Inc., Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260624-00251, at 1–3 (filed Sept. 11, 2026).

14 Cowboy Space Corp., Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260323-00135, at 1–3 (filed Sept. 18, 2026).

15 Starcloud, Inc., Response to Request for Additional Information, ICFS File No. SAT-LOA-20260202-00073, at 1–3 (filed Sept. 16, 2026).

16 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(3).

17 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(5).

18 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 2, § VI.B at 79–81.

19 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 2, § VI.B at 79–81.

20 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (establishing the core standard for reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it fails to “examine the relevant data” or articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”)

21 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(d)(14).

22 Consolidated Opposition and Response of Kuiper Systems LLC, supra note 2, § VI.B at 79–81.

23 47 C.F.R. § 0.461.

24 Id.