[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4742-4757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02230]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 5, 25, and 97

[IB Docket No. 18-313; FCC 18-159]


Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) 
proposes to amend its rules related to

[[Page 4743]]

satellite orbital debris mitigation in order to improve and clarify 
those rules based on experience gained in the satellite licensing 
process and on improvements in mitigation guidelines and practices, and 
to address various market developments.

DATES: Comments are due April 5, 2019. Reply comments are due May 6, 
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 18-313, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merissa Velez, 202-418-0751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 18-159, adopted November 15, 2018, 
and released November 19, 2018. The full text of the NPRM is available 
at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-159A1.pdf. The NPRM 
is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in 
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, 
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities, send an email to [email protected] 
or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Comment Filing Requirements

    Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or 
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS, http://apps.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.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing 
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must 
be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
     Persons with Disabilities. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) 
or 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Ex Parte Presentations

    The Commission will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains proposed new and 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. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we specifically seek comment on 
how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) represents the first 
comprehensive look at the Commission's orbital debris rules since their 
adoption in 2004. The proposed changes are designed to improve and 
clarify these rules based on experience gained in the satellite 
licensing process and on improvements in mitigation guidelines and 
practices, and to address the various market developments described 
above.
    In addition to general disclosure obligations, the Commission has 
adopted other rules related to physical spacecraft operations, such as 
requirements for the maintenance of orbital locations in the 
geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO), and for GSO inclined-orbit 
operations. In addition, the Commission has specific post-mission 
disposal requirements for both GSO and non-geostationary (NGSO) 
satellites.
    The Commission reviews these disclosures and determines, on a case-
by-case basis, whether the public interest will be served by approval 
of

[[Page 4744]]

the proposed operations. The rules adopted in 2004 provided some 
general guidance on the content of disclosures, but the Commission 
generally declined to adopt a particular methodology for the 
preparation and evaluation of an applicant's orbital debris mitigation 
plans. Both applicants and the Commission, however, have relied in a 
number of cases on standards and related assessment tools, such as the 
technical standards and related software tools developed by NASA for 
its space activities,\1\ to, respectively, prepare such orbital debris 
plans and assess their adequacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the Orbital Debris Order, the Commission observed that 
NASA had adopted publicly-available safety standards that provided a 
handbook for debris mitigation analysis and activities. See NASA 
Technical Standard, Process for Limiting Orbital Debris, NASA-STD-
8719.14A (with Change 1) (May 25, 2012), http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/871914.pdf (NASA Standard). The NASA Standard 
is ``consistent with the objectives of the U.S. National Space 
Policy of the United States of America (June 2010), the U.S. 
Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (February 
2001), the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) 
Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (October 2002), the Space and 
Missile Center Orbital Debris Handbook, Technical Report on Space 
Debris (July 2002), the space debris mitigation guidelines of the 
Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations 
Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space, (A/AC.105/720, 1999 
and A/AC.105/890, Feb 2007).'' Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Commission's orbital debris rules were adopted in 2004, 
there have been a number of significant developments with respect to 
this topic. In addition, the number of debris objects capable of 
producing catastrophic damage to functional spacecraft has increased.
    Proposed deployments of large satellite constellations in the 
intensely used LEO region, along with other satellites deployed in the 
LEO region, will have the potential to increase the risk of debris-
generating events. New satellite and deployment technologies currently 
in use and under development also may increase the number of potential 
debris-generating events, in the absence of improved debris mitigation 
practices.

Proposal Overview

    The Commission proposes a number of changes to our existing 
disclosure and operational requirements and seek comment on additional 
potential revisions. In addressing orbital debris mitigation, the 
Commission has drawn from the technical guidance and assessment tools 
developed by NASA and the modifications to our rules proposed in this 
NPRM reflect this approach. In some areas where we have proposed 
general disclosures in lieu of specific design or operational 
requirements, we believe such disclosures will provide flexibility for 
us to address ongoing developments in space station design and other 
technologies. As a general matter, however, if there are well-defined 
metrics in any of those areas that could provide a basis for a more 
specific requirement, we ask that those be identified by commenters.
    The Commission seeks comment on the suitability of various orbital 
debris mitigation guidance and standards for application to non-Federal 
satellite systems.
    With respect to the rules proposed here, the Commission revisits 
the Commission's discussion in 2004, which addressed the Commission's 
responsibilities and obligations under the Communications Act of 1934 
(the Act). The 2004 Orbital Debris Order specifically referenced the 
Commission's authority with respect to authorizing radio 
communications, including the statements in the Act that charge the FCC 
with encouraging ``the larger and more effective use of radio in the 
public interest,'' and provide for licensing of radio communications, 
upon a finding that the ``public convenience, interest, or necessity 
will be served thereby.'' Did the 2004 order cite all relevant and 
potential sources of Commission authority in this area? Do the 
provisions discussed, or other statutory provisions, provide the 
Commission with requisite legal authority to adopt the rules we propose 
today?
    The Commission seeks comment on whether there are any areas in 
which proposed requirements may overlap with requirements that are 
clearly within the authority of other agencies, so that we may seek to 
avoid duplicative activities. The Commission asks whether exceptions to 
applications of the Commission's rules as proposed or other exemptions 
may be appropriate in any particular circumstances.

Control of Debris Released During Normal Operations

    In several recent instances, applicants have sought to deploy 
satellites using deployment mechanisms that detach from or are ejected 
from a launch vehicle upper stage and are designed solely as means of 
deploying a satellite or satellites, and not intended for other 
operations. Once these mechanisms have deployed the onboard 
satellite(s), they become orbital debris. As with other manmade objects 
in space, however, such deployment devices have the potential to 
collide with other objects and thereby create additional orbital 
debris. In some instances, the deployment device itself may not require 
an application for a license from the Commission for radio 
communications, if it does not have any radio frequency (RF) 
facilities.
    In general, generation of operational debris, including from 
deployment devices, should be minimized. The Commission proposes to 
require disclosure by applicants if such devices are used to deploy 
their spacecraft, as well as a specific justification for their use. In 
addition, the Commission proposes that the disclosure include 
information regarding the planned orbital debris mitigation measures 
specific to the deployment device, including the probability of 
collision associated with the deployment device itself. Where 
appropriate, this description of orbital debris mitigation measures may 
be obtained from the operator of the deployment device. If the 
deployment device is itself the subject of a separate application for 
authorization by the Commission (e.g., SHERPA), then the entity seeking 
a license or a grant of U.S. market access for a satellite may satisfy 
this disclosure requirement by referencing the deployment device's FCC 
application or grant. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed 
informational requirement. The Commission also seeks comment on how 
this proposal might overlap with informational requirements of other 
agencies and how we might streamline and minimize informational burden 
on applicants while mitigating space debris.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To date, deployment devices that are free-flying and are 
released or detached entirely from the launch vehicle have not been 
considered upper stages for purposes of FAA regulatory review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimizing Debris Generated by Release of Persistent Liquids

    Most conventional propellant and coolant chemicals evaporate or 
dissipate if released from a spacecraft. However, certain types of 
liquids, such as low vapor pressure ionic liquids, will, if released 
from a satellite, persist in the form of droplets. At orbital 
velocities, such droplets can cause substantial or catastrophic damage 
if they collide with other objects.\3\ In the last several years, there 
has been increasing interest in the use by satellites (including small 
satellites) of alternative propellants and coolants, some of which 
would become

[[Page 4745]]

persistent liquids when released by a deployed satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A notable example of this type of debris source involves 
sodium potassium reactor coolant released from Soviet-era 
satellites. ``New Debris Seen from Decommissioned Satellite with 
Nuclear Power Source,'' NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News, Volume 
13, Issue 1 at 1-2 (January 2009), https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/odqnv13i1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission proposes to include within the rules a requirement 
to identify any liquids that if released, either intentionally or 
unintentionally, will persist in a droplet form. The Commission also 
expects that the orbital debris mitigation plan for any system 
utilizing persistent liquids should address the measures taken, 
including design and testing, to eliminate the risk of release of 
liquids, and to minimize risk from any unplanned release of liquids, 
for example through a choice of orbit that will result in any released 
liquids having a very short orbital lifetime. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal.

Safe Flight Profiles

    In an effort to ensure that the physical operations of both 
existing and planned systems do not contribute to the orbital debris 
environment, particularly in the heavily-used LEO region, the 
Commission proposes to update its rules.
    Quantifying Collision Risk. The Commission proposes that applicants 
for NGSO satellites must demonstrate that the probability that their 
spacecraft will collide with a large object during the orbital lifetime 
\4\ of the spacecraft will be no greater than 0.001.\5\ The Commission 
seeks comment on whether, if a spacecraft's orbital debris mitigation 
plan includes maneuvering to avoid collisions, the Commission should, 
consistent with current licensing practice, consider this risk to be 
zero or near zero during the period of time in which the spacecraft is 
maneuverable, absent contrary information. The NASA Standard applies 
the 0.001 metric on a per-spacecraft basis. The Commission invites 
comment on whether this metric should also be applied on an aggregate, 
system-wide basis, i.e., 0.001 for an entire constellation. If such a 
requirement is adopted on an aggregate basis, would it provide an 
incentive for evasion of the aggregate limit, for example, through a 
single controlling party applying for multiple satellite 
constellations, each of which meets the limit, but which collectively 
would not? Are existing procedures adequate to identify any such 
instances of evasion? The Commission also seeks comment on whether it 
should specify a size for what is considered a large object, or whether 
it should continue its current case-by-case approach, which in practice 
typically results in consideration of catalogued objects.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this NPRM and our proposed rules, ``orbital 
lifetime'' is defined as the length of time an object remains in 
orbit. Objects in LEO or passing through LEO lose energy as they 
pass through the Earth's upper atmosphere, eventually getting low 
enough in altitude that the atmosphere removes them from orbit. NASA 
Technical Standard, Safety and Mission Assurance Acronyms, 
Abbreviations, and Definitions, NASA-STD 8709.22 at 94 (with Change 
2) (October 31, 2012), http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/NS870922.pdf.
    \5\ NASA Standard at 32, Requirement 4.5-1. This is consistent 
with the Commission's recent proposal for satellites licensed 
pursuant to the proposed streamlined satellite process. Small 
Satellite NPRM, FCC 18-44 at 18, para. 37. NASA applies this metric 
to programs and projects involving spacecraft ``in or passing 
through LEO.'' Id. We propose to apply this to all NGSO satellites.
    \6\ Space-Track.org, FAQ, https://www.space-track.org/documentation#/faq (stating 10 cm diameter or ``softball size'' is 
the typical minimum size object that current sensors can track in 
LEO and that is maintained by the DoD in its catalog).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt a 
specific metric for collision with small debris, that is, debris 
consisting of small meteoroids or other small (approximately <10 cm) 
debris. The NASA Standard provides that for each spacecraft, the NASA 
program or project demonstrate that during the mission of the 
spacecraft, the probability of accidental collision with orbital debris 
and meteoroids sufficient to prevent compliance with the applicable 
post-mission disposal requirements is less than 0.01. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether it should incorporate the NASA probability 
metric into our rules, such that an applicant certify that for each 
spacecraft, the probability of accidental collision with small objects 
that would cause loss of control and prevent post-mission disposal is 
less than 0.01. In its Large Constellation Study, NASA indicated that 
the implementation of adequate impact protection from small debris can 
be an important factor in achieving high post-mission disposal 
reliability for large constellations. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether this metric should be applied on a per-spacecraft basis, or in 
the aggregate. Additionally, should the Commission limit this proposed 
requirement to operations in certain highly-populated orbits, or to 
large constellations with more than 100 satellites, for example?
    The Commission also proposes other revisions to the NGSO-related 
provisions of the existing rule regarding collision risk. The existing 
rule states that where a satellite will be launched into a LEO region 
orbit that is identical, or very similar, to an orbit used by other 
satellites, the orbital debris mitigation statement must include 
analysis of potential risk of collision, disclosures regarding whether 
a satellite operator is relying on coordination with the other system 
for collision avoidance, and what coordination measures have been or 
will be taken. First, the Commission proposes to revise the wording of 
the rule to require that, instead of identifying satellites with 
similar orbits, the orbital debris mitigation statement must identify 
the planned and/or operational satellites to which the applicant's 
satellite poses a collision risk, and indicate what steps have been 
taken or will be taken to coordinate with the other spacecraft or 
system and facilitate future coordination, or what other measures the 
operator may use to avoid collision. Second, the Commission proposes to 
extend this rule to all NGSO satellites, rather than only those that 
will be launched into the LEO region, since overlap in orbits among 
NGSO spacecraft in other regions could equally result in collision 
creating orbital debris. The Commission anticipates that in lightly-
used orbits, the statement can simply indicate that there are no other 
planned or operational spacecraft posing a collision risk.
    Orbit Selection. First, for any NGSO satellites planned for 
deployment above the International Space Station (ISS) \7\ and that 
will transit through the ISS orbit either during or following the 
satellite operations, the Commission proposes that the applicant 
provide information about any operational constraints caused to the ISS 
or other inhabitable spacecraft and strategies used to avoid collision 
with manned spacecraft.\8\ For example, will the normal operations of 
the ISS be significantly disrupted or otherwise constrained by the 
number of collision avoidance maneuvers that may be necessary as 
satellites in the constellation transit through the ISS orbit, such as 
during an uncontrolled de-orbit phase? \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The ISS operates at an altitude of approximately 400 km.
    \8\ Between 1999 and July 2015, the International Space Station 
(ISS) conducted 23 total collision avoidance maneuvers. National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Orbital Debris: Quarterly 
News, ``International Space Station Performs Two Debris Avoidance 
Maneuvers and a Shelter-in-Place,'' Vol. 19, Issue 3 at 1 (July 
2015), https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/odqnv19i3.pdf; see also J.-C. Liou, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, ``Orbital Debris Mitigation Policy and Unique 
Challenges for Cubesats,'' presentation to the 52nd Session of the 
Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, Committee on Peaceful Uses of 
Outer Space, United Nations, February 2015, at 9, available at 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150020943.pdf.
    \9\ See NASA NGSO Constellation Comments at 2 (expressing 
concern about aspect of disposal plan for SpaceX LEO constellation 
and recommending that SpaceX ``seek out creative ways to guarantee 
they can avoid the ISS and other high value assets'' for the entire 
deorbit phase of their planned spacecraft); Science Applications 
International Corporation, Orbital Traffic Management Study Final 
Report, Prepared for NASA Headquarters, at E-1-E-2 (Nov. 21, 2016) 
(SAIC Orbital Traffic Management Study) (``As debris populations 
grow in LEO, the odds of [micro-meteoroid or orbital debris] root 
cause events on ISS will become higher (i.e., worsen)[.]'' ``Recent 
analysis by the Aerospace Corporation suggests that the current 
large planned constellations could increase collision warnings with 
ISS six-fold, as the decommissioned spacecraft in those 
constellations decay through the ISS orbit.'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4746]]

    Second, the Commission proposes that an applicant planning an NGSO 
constellation that will be deployed in the LEO region above 650 km 
altitude specify why it has chosen that particular orbit given the 
number of satellites planned and describe any other relevant 
characteristics of the orbit such as the presence of existing debris. 
Satellites deployed below 650 km will typically re-enter Earth's 
atmosphere within 25 years,\10\ even absent any propulsive or other 
special de-orbit capabilities. Thus, the collision risks presented by 
such satellites are generally lower, even if the satellites fail on-
orbit and are unable to perform any affirmative de-orbiting 
maneuvers.\11\ Above this approximately 650 km threshold, a satellite 
that is not affirmatively de-orbited will remain in orbit for 
significantly longer periods of time. Accordingly, for NGSO deployments 
above the 650 km altitude, the Commission proposes that applicants 
provide a rationale for choosing a higher orbit, even if the satellites 
will have propulsive de-orbit capabilities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This is consistent with the benchmark contained in the 
current NASA Standard. NASA Standard at 37, Requirement 4.6.2.
    \11\ This altitude may vary depending upon the characteristics 
of the spacecraft and solar activity, but 650 km represents an 
average approximation. See Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination 
Committee, Support to the IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 
IADC-04-06, Rev. 5.5 at 32 (May 2014) (``It is recommended that 
orbital lifetime be reduced to less than 25 years at the end of 
mission (approximately 750 km circular orbit for A/m = 0.05 m2/kg, 
and approximately 600 km circular orbit for A/m=0.005 m2/kg, 
depending on solar activity to be more exact.''); ESA NGSO FSS 
Comments at 2 (recommending that for large constellations low 
operational orbits should be considered, noting that average orbital 
altitudes of less than 650 km for average satellites (<1 ton) are 
normally still compatible with a natural decay within 25 years).
    \12\ As explained in the Orbital Debris Order, the U.S. 
Government Orbital Debris Standard Practices call for the selection 
of an orbit from which the spacecraft will remain in orbit no longer 
than 25 years after mission completion, if the planned disposal 
method is re-entry into Earth's atmosphere through means of natural 
atmospheric drag, without the use of propulsion systems. Orbital 
Debris Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 11592, para. 61; U.S. Government Orbital 
Debris Standard Practices 4-1, available at https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/usg_od_standard_practices.pdf 
(U.S. Government Standard Practices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Commission seeks comment on whether we should also 
require a statement concerning the rationale for selecting an orbit 
from operators of satellites that will remain in orbit for a long 
period of time relative to the time needed to perform their mission. 
One example of an alternative guideline is that operators select orbits 
such that orbital lifetime exceed mission lifetime by no more than a 
factor of two. The Commission seeks comment on this metric, or 
alternative metrics that could be incorporated into our rules.
    Fourth, certain areas of space are more populated with debris, such 
as that from the Cosmos 2251/Iridium 33 collision. It may be in the 
public interest for new constellations to avoid deployment in such 
areas to minimize risk, or, stated differently, to design 
constellations to operate in regions of space where the density of 
objects is lower, and consequently where the risk of collisions with 
debris objects is lower.\13\ The Commission asks whether to require 
applicants to include an additional disclosure regarding orbit 
selection based on such risks, or to provide assurances on how the 
applicant plans to reduce these risks. The Commission also asks whether 
we should seek additional information or assurances from applicants in 
more narrow circumstances, for example, where they seek to deploy a 
large constellation in certain sun-synchronous orbits that have an 
increased likelihood of congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NASA NGSO Constellation Comments at 2-3 (NASA expressed 
some concerns regarding proposed orbit of Theia Holdings A, Inc., 
NGSO satellite constellation, because of the location of other 
government satellites nearby and the high percentage of Iridium-33/
Cosmos-2251 and Fengyun-1C debris in that region).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, in lieu of an informational requirement, should the 
Commission require all NGSO satellites planning to operate above a 
particular altitude to include propulsion capabilities reserved for 
station-keeping and to enable collision avoidance maneuvers, regardless 
of whether propulsion is necessary to de-orbit within 25 years? If so, 
above what altitude?
    Finally, the Commission asks whether we should adopt a maximum 
limit for variances in orbit for NGSO systems. That is, should the 
Commission limit the variance in altitude above or below the 
operational orbit specified in an application for an NGSO system,\14\ 
in order to enable more systems to co-exist in LEO without overlap in 
orbital altitude, and if so, how should an appropriate limit be set? If 
such a limit is adopted, should it apply only to near-circular obits, 
or also to elliptical orbits? The Commission seeks comment on these 
questions, as well as on any additional changes to our rules and 
policies that may help operators avoid collisions and ultimately reduce 
the risk of debris generation in heavily-used or otherwise critical 
orbits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As an example of the discussion of issues related to 
variances in orbital altitude for a particular system, SpaceX 
expressed concern regarding the proposed operational range for 
OneWeb's planned NGSO system. See Letter from William M. Wiltshire, 
Counsel to SpaceX, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 2-4, 
IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20161115-00118 and SAT-LOA-20170301-00027 
(filed Dec. 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tracking and Data Sharing. As an initial matter, the Commission 
proposes to require a statement from the applicant regarding the 
ability to track the proposed satellites using space situational 
awareness facilities, such as the U.S. Space Surveillance Network.\15\ 
The Commission proposes that objects greater than 10 cm by 10 cm by 10 
cm be presumed trackable for any altitude up to the geostationary 
region,\16\ although the Commission seeks comment on whether a larger 
size should be presumed at higher altitudes given any tracking 
limitations at such altitudes. For objects with any dimension less than 
10 cm, the Commission proposes that the applicant provide additional 
information concerning trackability, which will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis. The Commission also proposes that applicants for NGSO 
systems disclose, as part of their orbital debris mitigation plans, 
whether satellite tracking will be active and cooperative (that is, 
with participation of the operator by emitting signals via transponder 
or sharing data with other operators) or passive (that is, solely by 
ground-based radar or optical tracking of the object). The Commission 
also asks whether applications should certify that the satellite will 
include a unique telemetry marker allowing it to be readily 
distinguished from other satellites or space objects. The Commission 
further seeks comment on whether there are hardware or information 
sharing requirements that might improve tracking capabilities, and 
whether such technologies are sufficiently developed that a requirement 
for their use would be efficient and effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Space situational awareness facilities track satellites and 
other space objects using radar and other means.
    \16\ In the Small Satellite NPRM, the Commission proposed that 
small satellites using the streamlined review process be no smaller 
than 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm, which would help the Commission to 
process those systems in a streamlined fashion. Small Satellite 
NPRM, FCC 18-44 at 18-19, para. 38.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4747]]

    The Commission seeks comment on whether we should adopt an 
operational rule requiring NGSO satellite operators to provide certain 
information to the 18th Space Control Squadron or any successor 
civilian entity,\17\ including, for example information regarding 
initial deployment, ephemeris, and any planned maneuvers. As an 
example, communication with the Air Force's 18th Space Control Squadron 
may be particularly important in the case of a multi-satellite 
deployment, to assist in the identification of the satellite.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Space Policy Directive 3, Section 6(d)(ii) (``[T]he 
Secretary of Commerce will make the releasable portions of the 
catalog [of space objects], as well as basic collision avoidance 
support services, available to the public, either directly or 
through a partnership with industry or academia.'').
    \18\ See CubeSat Recommendations at 1 (noting that there were 
challenges associated with the ORS-3 mission, launching 37 CubeSats, 
and the DNEPR rocket, launching 31 CubeSats, both in late 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also proposes that applicants for NGSO systems 
certify that, upon receipt of a conjunction warning, the operator of 
the satellite will take all possible steps to assess and, if necessary, 
to mitigate collision risk, including, but not limited to: Contacting 
the operator of any active spacecraft involved in such warning; sharing 
ephemeris data and other appropriate operational information directly 
with any such operator; and modifying spacecraft attitude and/or 
operations. The Commission seeks comment on this approach as one 
designed to reduce collision risks and enhance certainty among 
operators and asks whether any different or additional requirements 
should be considered regarding the ability to track and identify 
satellites in NGSO or respond to conjunction warnings.
    Maneuverability. The Commission also proposes that applicants for 
NGSO satellite authorizations describe the extent of any 
maneuverability. For example, the description could include an 
explanation of the number of collision avoidance maneuvers the 
satellite could be expected to make, and/or any other means the 
satellite may have to avoid conjunction events. The Commission proposes 
that the description include a discussion of maneuverability both 
during satellite's operational lifetime and during the remainder of its 
time in space prior to disposal. The Commission tentatively concludes 
that such information can assist us in our public interest 
determination, in particular regarding any burden that other operators 
would have to bear in order to avoid collisions and false conjunction 
warnings. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion and note 
that, as proposed, this is an informational requirement, and would not 
require that all satellites have propulsion or maneuverability. In 
addition, the Commission observes that some applications have been 
granted based on an assessment of information regarding differential 
drag maneuvers. Recognizing that this is an emerging area from the 
perspective of collision avoidance, the Commission seeks comment 
concerning effectiveness and suitability of this or other particular 
maneuvering technologies under real world conditions, and on whether it 
should implement any specific disclosure requirements with respect to 
this or other types of emerging maneuvering technology.
    Multi-Satellite Deployments. A single deployment of a number of 
satellites from a launch vehicle or free-flying deployment device could 
result in some heightened risk of collision between objects, or on a 
longer-term basis due to the similarity of orbits for the released 
objects. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should include in 
our rules any additional informational requirements regarding such 
launches.\19\ Are there mitigation measures that are commonly employed 
that mitigate such risks, for example through use of powered flight 
during the deployment phase and/or through phasing of deployment, that 
the Commission should consider adopting as requirements under some 
circumstances? In seeking comment, the Commission recognizes that an 
applicant for a Commission license or authorization may not have access 
to information regarding other satellites that will be deployed, and 
ask whether an applicant could obtain general information from the 
launch provider or aggregator that would assist the Commission in 
evaluating the risk of collision presented by the deployment itself, 
even if the launch manifest has not been finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Spaceflight, Inc., IBFS File No. SAT-STA-20150821-0006 
(analysis of ``within-plane'' collision risk for 91 objects planned 
for deployment in a single launch).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Design Reliability. The Commission seeks comment on whether it 
would be appropriate to impose a design and fabrication reliability 
requirement, for example, 0.999 per spacecraft, if a NGSO satellite 
constellation involves a large number of satellites or will be 
initially deployed at higher altitudes in LEO. Deployment of large 
numbers of satellites increases the spatial density of objects in the 
region of space where the satellites are deployed, and provides an 
indicator of potential collision risk. The Commission considers a 
deployment of 100 satellites over a typical 15-year license term to be 
a deployment of a large number of satellites but seek comment on 
whether a different number may be appropriate. The Commission considers 
higher altitudes to be those with a perigee above 600-650 km.\20\ From 
these orbits, spacecraft will typically remain in orbit for several 
decades to centuries, and present a long-term collision risk, unless 
active measures are taken to shorten orbital lifetimes. The Commission 
also seeks comment and suggestions on other possible metrics, and 
methods for verifying and assessing compliance with any such metric. 
Further, the Commission is cognizant that technology continues to 
develop rapidly in the satellite design arena and seek to avoid 
potential requirements that may wed designers to a current conception 
of technological limits that could be changed in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For objects orbiting the Earth, the point in orbit that the 
object is closest to the Earth is known as the object's ``perigee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post-Mission Disposal

Probability of Success of Disposal Method

    Incorporation of Disposal Reliability Metrics. The Commission 
proposes to require that applicants provide information concerning the 
expected reliability of disposal measures involving atmospheric re-
entry, and the method by which that expected reliability was derived. 
The Commission also seeks comment on the metric by which such 
information should be evaluated; for example, should the Commission 
specify a probability of success of no less than a set figure, such as 
0.90? \21\ The Commission also invites comment as to whether, when 
assessing the reliability of disposal, it should do so on an aggregate, 
system-wide basis as well as on a per-satellite basis, and on whether, 
for large constellation deployments, where due to large numbers of 
spacecraft aggregate effects could be more damaging to the space 
environment, a more stringent metric should apply. A recent NASA study 
of large constellations concluded, for

[[Page 4748]]

example, that a 0.99 spacecraft post-mission disposal reliability is 
needed to mitigate the serious long-term debris generation potential 
from large constellations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See NASA Standard at 41, Requirement 4.6.3.n (specifying 
that for NASA missions, the probability of success of post-mission 
disposal operations should be no less than 0.90). This probability 
metric would apply where post-mission disposal operations will lead 
to atmospheric reentry or maneuvering the spacecraft into a storage 
orbit. See id. Consistent with the Commission's discussion in the 
2004 Orbital Debris Order, the Commission does not propose to 
foreclose direct retrieval of the spacecraft from orbit as a means 
of post-mission disposal. Orbital Debris Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 11591, 
para. 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other Requirements for Satellites with Planned Operations in LEO. 
First, the Commission proposes that the applicant certify that all 
satellites that will operate at an altitude of 650 km or above will be 
initially deployed into orbit at an altitude below 650 km and then, 
once it is determined that the satellite has full functionality,\22\ be 
maneuvered up to their planned operational altitude. This would help to 
ensure that if satellites are found to be non-functional immediately 
following deployment, such that they will be unable to perform any 
maneuvers, they will re-enter the atmosphere within 25 years and not 
persist in LEO for longer periods of time. The Commission posits here 
that the benefits of the continued viability of the LEO region may 
outweigh the costs of orbit-raising and seeks comment on the costs and 
benefits associated with this proposal. Relatedly, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether it should require that applicants for large 
constellations test a certain number of satellites in a lower orbit for 
a certain number of years before deploying larger numbers, in order to 
resolve any unforeseen flaws in the design that could result in 
generation of debris.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For example, communications with the satellite have been 
established and the major satellite systems are operational in 
accordance with the design, such that the satellite would be able to 
perform de-orbit maneuvers.
    \23\ As an example, Telesat Canada, the recipient of a grant of 
access to the U.S. market for a planned NGSO constellation of 117 
satellites, is using prototype satellite(s) for testing and design 
verification purposes. Telesat Canada, Petition for Declaratory 
Ruling, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00108, Telesat LOI, Exh. 3 at 
5 (granted Nov. 2, 2017). The ESA NGSO FSS comments noted that 
critical components inducing break-ups are sometimes identified only 
years after the satellite has been operational, which could result 
in a large problem with large numbers of satellites, particularly 
with short production times involved. ESA NGSO FSS Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission proposes that applicants seeking to operate 
NGSO satellite systems provide a statement that spacecraft disposal 
will be automatically initiated in the event of loss of power or 
contact with the spacecraft, or describe other means to ensure that 
reliability of disposal will be achieved, such as internal 
redundancies, ongoing monitoring of the disposal function, or automatic 
initiation of disposal if communications with the spacecraft become 
limited.
    The Commission recognizes that these design features have some 
associated costs. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and 
benefits associated with this proposed requirement. The Commission also 
asks whether it should simply require the design to include automatic 
disposal by a de-orbiting device in the event of loss of power, and on 
whether any such requirement would provide adequate flexibility for 
operators to react, for example, if the particular failure mode results 
in further propulsive maneuvers running a high risk of explosive 
fragmentation. Are there other technologies that can be used to ensure 
that satellite disposal is completed, even in the event of a major 
anomaly, and should the Commission require use of those technologies 
for satellites that will operate in particular regions? The Commission 
proposes that these two requirements would apply to satellites that 
will operate above 650 km and below 2,000 km, in other words, in the 
higher portion of LEO. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any 
requirements should only apply to LEO satellite constellations of a 
certain size or greater or whether they should apply to all LEO 
satellites that will operate in the area described.
    Means of LEO Spacecraft Disposal. Additionally, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether there are other rule changes it should 
consider related to the disposal of spacecraft from the LEO region. 
Should the Commission adopt a rule that disposal of spacecraft in the 
LEO region must be by either atmospheric re-entry or direct retrieval? 
In assessing whether a post-mission disposal plan is sufficiently 
reliable, what weight, if any, and under what circumstances, should the 
Commission give to proposals to directly retrieve the spacecraft from 
orbit at its end of life? \24\ Should direct retrieval be considered as 
a valid debris mitigation strategy, for example, only if the retrieval 
spacecraft are presented for licensing as part of or contemporaneously 
with the constellation license?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Direct retrieval of satellites implicates the need to 
assess rendezvous and proximity operations, and any risk of debris 
generation from those operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, there are a number of specific technologies under 
development for direct spacecraft retrieval, although generally these 
are nascent technologies and the Commission is not aware of any planned 
deployments for commercial applications thus far. Direct spacecraft 
retrieval involves rendezvous and proximity operations, but with 
potentially the additional challenge of a target spacecraft that is 
``non-cooperative,'' i.e., is spinning, is not providing any telemetry, 
etc. In the context of orbital debris mitigation, testing is ongoing 
for technologies such as nets and harpoons, and there are numerous 
other technologies under discussion such as robotic arms and magnetic 
capture mechanisms. The Commission seeks comment on the status of these 
and other technologies for spacecraft direct retrieval, including 
potential future commercial applications. Are there any aids to future 
use of direct retrieval, such as spacecraft reflective markers or 
attachment points, that could be adopted now or in the near future?
    Disposal of NGSO Satellites In Orbits Above LEO. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether to modify its existing rules regarding 
end-of-life disposal for satellites to include additional provisions 
concerning disposal of certain NGSO satellites operating in orbits 
above LEO. As a general matter, there appear to be two types of 
approaches to post-mission disposal above LEO. One approach is to 
remove a satellite from its operational orbit to another, relatively 
stable orbit that is sufficiently distinct from those orbits that are 
currently used or expected to be used for regular operations, so as to 
eliminate the risk of collisions with such operating satellites.\25\ 
Another approach is to place a satellite into an unstable orbit, i.e., 
one in which gravitational forces and solar radiation pressure force a 
growth in the eccentricity of the orbit, ultimately resulting in 
lowering of the satellite's perigee and re-entry into the 
atmosphere.\26\ The Commission seeks comment on whether these practices 
are sufficiently developed to formalize in our rules. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether there are any specific guidelines we 
should include in our rules with respect to these approaches, or with 
respect to any particular type of orbit.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Satellite CD Radio Inc., IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-
20091119-00123, Attachment A at 3-7; O3b Limited, IBFS File No. SES-
LIC-20100723-00952, Technical Information to Supplement Schedule S 
at 37-40; Karousel, LLC, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20161115-00113, 
Letter from Monish Kundra, Karousel LLC, to Jose P. Albuquerque, 
Chief, Satellite Division, International Bureau, FCC (April 11, 
2017) at 7-8. The geostationary disposal requirement in the 
Commission's rules, intended for satellites orbiting at inclinations 
of approximately 15 degrees or less, can be viewed as an example of 
this type of disposal.
    \26\ Space Norway AS, IBFS File No. SAT-PDR-20161115-00111, 
Technical Information to Supplement Schedule S at 15-18. This 
approach appears to be more readily available for satellites 
operating at higher inclinations.
    \27\ End-of-life Disposal in Inclined Geosynchronous Orbits, 
Luciano Anselmo & Carmen Pardini, Proceedings of the 9th IAASS 
Conference, International Association for the Advancement of Space 
Safety, 2017, pp. 87-94 (outlining modified version of the IADC 
formula for geostationary satellite disposal, to address satellites 
in highly-inclined geosynchronous orbits and resulting orbital 
perturbations).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4749]]

    Post-Mission Lifetime. The Commission asks whether the 25-year 
disposal guideline contained in the NASA Standard remains a relevant 
benchmark.\28\ That is, does the guideline that a spacecraft reenter 
the atmosphere no more than 25 years after the completion of the 
spacecraft's mission permit spacecraft designs that result in a longer 
disposal period than may be in the public interest for a particular 
satellite mission? Should the disposal guideline instead be 
proportional to mission lifetime, or specific to the orbital altitude 
where the spacecraft will be deployed? Solar activity can influence the 
re-entry periods of satellites in LEO,\29\ and future solar activity 
may vary from predictions. In what manner, if any, should the 
Commission account for variations in solar activity in our rules and in 
crafting conditions on the grant of specific licenses? Should satellite 
operators planning disposal through atmospheric re-entry be required to 
continue obtaining spacecraft tracking information, for example by 
using radio facilities on the spacecraft, to the greatest extent 
possible following the conclusion of the primary mission? In addition 
to these questions, the Commission seeks comment generally on how to 
prevent satellites from becoming sources of orbital debris during the 
period following their mission lifetime and before disposal through 
atmospheric re-entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ NASA Standard at 37, Requirement 4.6.2. The NASA Standard 
provides the option that, for a spacecraft with a perigee altitude 
below 2,000 km that will be disposed of through atmospheric re-
entry, the operator shall leave the space structure in an orbit in 
which natural forces will lead to atmospheric reentry within 25 
years after the completion of mission but no more than 30 years 
after launch. Id.
    \29\ Relatively weak solar activity can result in a decrease of 
the atmospheric drag on satellites in LEO, causing longer re-entry 
periods for retired spacecraft, including beyond a 25-year predicted 
re-entry period. For a brief summary of satellite drag and its 
causes, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Space 
Weather Prediction Center, Satellite Drag, http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impacts/satellite-drag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Casualty Risk Assessment. In order to assist in evaluating the 
spacecraft design with respect to human casualty risk, the Commission 
proposes two specific informational requirements for satellites with a 
planned post-mission disposal of uncontrolled atmospheric re-entry.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For missions planning controlled reentry, the Commission 
anticipates evaluating such plans on a case-by-case basis, 
consistent with the NASA Standard. See NASA Standard at 44, 
Requirement 4.7.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Commission proposes that the human casualty risk 
assessment include all objects that would have an impacting kinetic 
energy in excess of 15 joules. This is consistent with the NASA 
Standard, wherein the potential for human casualty is assumed for any 
object with an impacting kinetic energy in excess of 15 joules.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. The 15-joule limit has been determined to be the limit 
above which any strike on a person will require prompt medical 
attention. NASA Standard, at 45, Requirement 4.7.3.c. The 1:10,000 
standard does not account for sheltering, as it is estimated that as 
much as 80% of the world's population is either unprotected or in 
lightly-sheltered structures for purposes of protecton from a 
falling object with a kilojoule-level kinetic energy. NASA Standard, 
at 45, Requirement 4.7.3.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission proposes that where the calculated risk of 
human casualty from surviving debris is determined to be greater than 
zero, as calculated using either the NASA Debris Assessment Software or 
a higher fidelity model,\32\ the applicant must provide a statement 
indicating the actual calculated human casualty risk, as well as the 
input assumptions used in modelling re-entry. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that these additional specifications ill enable 
it to better evaluate whether the post-mission disposal plan is in the 
public interest and seek comment on this approach. The Commission 
further invites comment on whether, when assessing human casualty risk, 
it should do so on an aggregate, system-wide basis as well as on a per-
satellite basis, and, if so, what metric should be used to evaluate 
aggregate risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Debris Assessment modeling software is available for 
use without charge from the NASA Orbital Debris Program office at 
https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/mitigation/das.html. The NASA 
Standard notes that the re-entry risk assessment portion of Debris 
Assessment Software contains a simplified model which does not 
require expert knowledge in satellite reentry analyses and is 
designed to be somewhat conservative. NASA Standard at 46, 
Requirement 4.7.4.d. The use of a simplified model may result in a 
higher calculated casualty risk than models employing higher 
fidelity calculations and inputs. See, e.g., NASA Orbital Debris 
Program Office, Orbital Debris Object Reentry Survival Analysis 
Tool, https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/reentry/orsat.html (last 
visited Oct. 22, 2018) (explaining that the Object Reentry Survival 
Analysis Tool (ORSAT) is frequently used for a higher-fidelity 
survivability analysis after the Debris Assessment Software has 
determined that a spacecraft is possibly non-compliant with the NASA 
Safety Standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part 25 GSO Satellite License Term Extensions. Operators of GSO 
satellites routinely request that the Commission grant license 
modifications to extend their authorized satellite operations beyond 
the initial license terms.\33\ The Commission proposes to codify our 
current practice of requesting certain types of information from GSO 
licensees requesting license term extensions. The rule would specify 
that applicants should state the duration of the requested license 
extension and the estimated total remaining satellite lifetime, certify 
that the satellite has no single point of failure or other 
malfunctions, defects, or anomalies during its operations that could 
affect its ability to conduct end-of life procedures as planned, that 
remaining fuel reserves are adequate to complete deorbit as planned, 
and that telemetry, tracking, and command links are fully functional. 
In the event that the applicant is unable to make any of the 
certifications, the Commission proposes that the applicant provide a 
narrative description justifying the extension. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The license terms for grants under part 25 are specified in 
Sec.  25.121 of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 25.121. With some 
exceptions, licenses are typically issued for a period of 15 years. 
See id. The Commission will continue to assess requests for license 
term extensions for NGSO satellite systems on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission proposes to continue to assess the duration of the 
license term extension on a case-by-case basis, but proposes to limit 
extensions to no more than five years in a single modification 
application for any satellite originally issued a 15-year license term. 
The Commission tentatively concludes that five years may be an 
appropriate upper limit for a single modification to help ensure 
reasonable predictions regarding satellite health while affording 
operators some flexibility. Additionally, if subsequent extensions are 
sought, the Commission would have the opportunity to review those 
extension requests in intervals of five years or less. The Commission 
seek comment on this tentative conclusion. The Commission also seeks 
comment on what approach it should take with respect to satellites with 
initial license terms of less than 15 years.
    The Commission further seeks comment on whether there are certain 
types of satellite buses \34\ that may warrant heightened scrutiny for 
purposes of license extensions. In addition, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether, apart from the review undertaken when a license is 
extended, there are types or categories of anomalies that should 
trigger immediate reporting, in order to assess whether reliability of 
post-mission disposal has been compromised to the

[[Page 4750]]

point that immediate actions may be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ A satellite ``bus'' is the colloquial term sometimes used 
to describe a satellite design (structure, power and propulsion 
systems, etc.) developed by a manufacturer and adapted for specific 
missions in response to individual customer requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proximity Operations

    The Commission proposes that applicants be required to disclose 
whether the spacecraft is capable of, or will be, performing any space 
rendezvous or proximity operations. The statement would indicate 
whether the satellite will be intentionally located or maneuvering near 
another spacecraft or other large object in space. The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether the proposed notification requirement 
regarding maneuvers, described above, is sufficient in the context of 
proximity operations, or whether the rules should include anything more 
specific regarding information sharing about proximity operations with 
the Air Force's 18th Space Control Squadron or any successor civilian 
entity. Such operations present a potential collision risk, and 
operators will need to address that risk, as well as any risk of 
explosions or generation of operational debris that might occur through 
contact between spacecraft, as part of debris mitigation plans. 
Accordingly, the Commission proposes a disclosure requirement regarding 
these types of operations.

Operational Rules

    Orbit Raising. Because orbit-raising maneuvers are performed by 
satellites intended for non-geostationary orbits as well as for the 
geostationary orbit, and the number of satellites engaging in orbit-
raising maneuvers may increase if other proposals in this NPRM are 
adopted, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on expanding the 
provision to include NGSO system operations.
    In addition, similar to the provisions for maneuvering at the end-
of-life for a GSO satellite,\35\ the Commission proposes to require 
such telemetry, tracking, and command operations to be coordinated 
between satellite operators as necessary to avoid interference events, 
rather than require the operations to be performed on a non-
interference basis. The Commission tentatively concludes that it is in 
the public interest that these types of telemetry, tracking and command 
communications, critical to effective spacecraft maneuvering, be 
coordinated as necessary to avoid interference, rather than being 
authorized only on an a non-harmful-interference, unprotected basis. 
The Commission seeks comment on revising its existing rule regarding 
orbit raising maneuvers to require coordination of such operations to 
avoid interference events and to extend the application of the rule to 
NGSO satellites as well as GSO satellites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 47 CFR 25.283(b) (providing for a space station to operate 
using its authorized tracking, telemetry, and control frequencies 
for the purpose of removing the satellite from the geostationary 
orbit at the end of its useful life, ``on the condition that the 
space station's tracking, telemetry, and control transmissions are 
planned so as to avoid electrical interference to other space 
stations, and coordinated with any potentially affected satellite 
networks.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maintaining Ephemeris Data. The Commission proposes that NGSO 
operators be required to maintain ephemeris data for each satellite 
they operate and share that data with operators of other systems 
operating in the same region of space, as well as with the U.S. 
governmental entity responsible for the civilian space object database 
and cataloging. Specifically, the Commission proposes to require that 
operators share ephemeris data with any other operator identified in 
its disclosure described above of any operational space stations that 
may pose a collision risk. The Commission believes this requirement 
will help to facilitate communications between operators, even before a 
potential conjunction warning is given. The Commission also proposes 
that the information be shared by means mutually acceptable to the 
parties involved, to allow for flexibility and efficiency in sharing of 
information. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed revision to 
include these proposed requirements regarding availability of NGSO 
satellite ephemeris data. The Commission also seeks comment on 
including similar requirements in the rules for experimental and 
amateur satellites.
    Telemetry, Tracking, and Command Encryption. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether to include any provisions in our rules concerning 
encryption for telemetry, tracking, and command communications for 
satellites with propulsion capabilities, and propose to add a 
requirement to our operational rules. Should this rule be applicable 
only to satellites having propulsion systems with certain capabilities, 
for example, certain [Delta]V capability? More generally, should the 
Commission consider such a requirement, regardless of propulsion 
capabilities, recognizing that other possible harms, such as radio-
frequency interference, could result from such scenarios? The 
Commission anticipates that this rule will have no practical impact for 
most satellites and systems, which already encrypt communications, and 
seek comment on whether any burden that would result from adoption of 
such a rule is justified by the resulting improvements to the security 
of satellite control operations. Additionally, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether, if such a rule is adopted, there are any criteria 
that should be identified with respect to the sufficiency of encryption 
methods.

Liability Issues and Economic Incentives

    The Commission seeks comment on whether Commission space station 
licensees should indemnify the United States against any costs 
associated with a claim brought against the United States related to 
the authorized facilities. Given the potential risk of a claim being 
presented to the United States under international law, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether an indemnification by these U.S.-licensed 
private operators is appropriate. Such an indemnification could take 
the form of an indemnity agreement, for example, created in 
consultation with interagency partners, including the U.S. Department 
of State, to establish the parameters of such an agreement, including 
the scope of the indemnification and the means to execute the 
agreement, including by an appropriate U.S. government agency. In the 
event that a requirement was established, what would be the appropriate 
form and content of such an agreement?
    The Commission further seeks comment on whether the indemnification 
agreement would in most cases be completed following grant of a space 
station license within thirty days. If no indemnification agreement has 
been approved within thirty days following grant, the space station 
license would be terminated. In order to ensure that the agreement is 
approved well in advance of launch of the space station, the Commission 
also seeks comment on whether the agreement would be required to be 
completed no fewer than 90 days prior to the planned date of launch. In 
rare instances, this may require applicants to begin the agreement 
process prior to grant. The Commission seeks comment on these timing 
matters, including on whether the timeline should be based on the date 
on which the satellite is integrated into the launch vehicle in 
preparation for launch, rather than launch date. Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether any such requirement should be 
limited to U.S.-licensees, as U.S. licensees generally have a manifest 
connection to the United States, or whether there are any circumstances 
in which non-U.S. licensees should also provide indemnification.

[[Page 4751]]

    Related to liability, the Commission also seeks comment generally 
on the costs and benefits of insurance as an economic incentive for 
orbital debris mitigation. The Commission seeks comment on how 
insurance might serve as an economic incentive by incentivizing 
operators to adopt debris mitigation strategies that reduce risk and 
lower insurance premiums. How might this impact the amount of insurance 
that might be required? Could insurance requirements in fact encourage 
industry to be licensed by or launch from the United States rather than 
other countries? In the context of insurance, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether there are any distinctions that might be made 
between different types of operations that are higher or lower risk. 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether any distinctions could be 
made between on-orbit liability and spacecraft re-entry liability, 
since on-orbit liability is addressed through a fault regime and re-
entry liability is addressed through a strict liability regime under 
the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space 
Objects (Liability Convention). For example, should small satellites 
applying under the new streamlined process proposed in the Small 
Satellite NPRM be exempt from an insurance requirement, since space 
stations in that category would be relatively lower risk from an 
orbital debris perspective? As another example, the Commission asks 
whether GSO space station licensees should be exempt from an insurance 
requirement since they may present less risk in the post-mission 
disposal process since they do not typically re-enter Earth's 
atmosphere.
    The Commission further invites comment generally on what economic 
approaches might be feasible and effective in creating incentives such 
that appropriate launch vehicle and satellite design choices are made, 
and appropriate decisions regarding the number of satellites launched 
are made as well. That is, recognizing debris creation as a negative 
externality, what approaches might induce private decisions on these 
design and launch choices to be consistent with the public interest in 
limiting the growth of orbital debris? Would, for example, a bond 
requirement, similar to the Commission's performance bond for satellite 
deployment but applied with respect to successful completion of end of 
life disposal, provide such an incentive?

Scope of Rules

    Amateur and Experimental Operations. The Commission continues to 
believe that it is appropriate for amateur licensees and experimental 
applicants to provide a similar amount of disclosure regarding debris 
mitigation plans as will be required of commercial satellites under any 
of the changes to Part 25 discussed above that are adopted by the 
Commission. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The 
Commission also seeks comment on the ephemeris data requirement and 
indemnification and insurance issues as they relate to experimental 
licensees and authorized amateur operators.
    Non-U.S.-Licensed Satellites. The Commission generally proposes 
that the new and amended rules discussed in this NPRM should be 
applicable to non-U.S.-licensed satellites seeking access to the U.S. 
market. In other words, an entity seeking access to the U.S. market 
must continue to submit the same technical information concerning the 
satellite involved as is required to be submitted by U.S. satellite 
license applicants. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    In some instances, the Commission notes that applicants have sought 
approval to engage in very limited transmission and reception 
activities between non-U.S.-licensed space stations and earth stations 
in the United States, such as communications exclusively for telemetry, 
tracking, and command. Although applicants seeking approval for 
communications such as telemetry, tracking, and command only may have a 
limited commercial connection to the United States, there is 
nonetheless a commercial reason those applicants are seeking to 
transmit and/or receive from a U.S. earth station. Therefore, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether these applicants should be subject 
to the same public interest requirements as a U.S.-licensed satellite 
operating with a U.S. earth station.
    The Commission further proposes that non-U.S.-licensed satellites 
may continue to satisfy the disclosure requirement by showing that the 
satellite system's debris mitigation plans are subject to direct and 
effective regulatory oversight by the satellite system's national 
licensing authority. Recognizing that in other countries authority over 
radiofrequency communications and authority over space operations are 
often addressed by different entities, in order to satisfy our orbital 
debris mitigation disclosure requirements, the Commission would expect 
information showing that the operator has received a license from the 
entity overseeing space operations, or has initiated that process. This 
would include information about whether or not that administration is 
expected to register the space object with the United Nations Register 
of Objects Launched into Outer Space.\36\ The Commission seeks comment 
on whether it is appropriate to continue assessing the direct and 
effective oversight of a foreign licensing authority on a case-by-case 
basis. Under this approach, approval of foreign oversight for a system 
design in one case will not necessarily imply similar approval for a 
different system design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The United Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer 
Space is maintained by the United Nations Office for Outer Space 
Affairs. The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs reports 
that 92% of all satellites and other spacecraft launched into 
Earth's orbit and beyond have been registered. United Nations Office 
for Outer Space Affairs, Space Object Register, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/spaceobjectregister/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    In this section, the Commission seek comment on whether regulation 
of U.S. Commission-licensed space stations will help to limit such 
debris and result in a net benefit, even if it may give rise to some 
regulatory costs.
    The Commission seeks comment on six approaches to reducing debris 
in orbit, which include the proposals discussed in the individual rule 
sections above:
    Fewer Launches. One method of reducing orbital debris would be for 
the Commission to adopt rules that would have the effect of reducing 
the overall number of satellites launched.
    Changes in Satellite Design. Another method of reducing orbital 
debris would be for the Commission to regulate how satellites or 
satellite system are designed.
    Changes in operations and disposal procedures. This is the approach 
proposed in the individual rule sections above.
    Use of Economic Incentives. In this NRPM, the Commission asks 
whether there are other economic incentives available that the 
Commission could offer that would help achieve the public interest in 
this area.
    Active Collision Avoidance. The Commission could also potentially 
reduce orbital debris by requiring all operators to engage in active 
collision avoidance, which would involve coordination and maneuvering 
of spacecraft by operators to limit collisions with other objects in 
space.
    Active Debris Cleanup. Another alternative to the rules proposed in 
this

[[Page 4752]]

NPRM is for the Commission to consider requiring operators to engage in 
active debris removal. The Commission asks questions about this 
disposal method in this NPRM.
    More broadly, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate role 
of the Commission given the various stakeholder agencies and other 
entities. As discussed above, there are a number of agencies and 
entities with expertise and interest in mitigating the growth of 
orbital debris. With various entities playing a role, how does the 
Commission ensure an appropriate, coordinated approach that avoids 
duplication of efforts? How can the Commission ensure clarity regarding 
the roles that various entities can or should play? What agency or 
entity has the greatest expertise when it comes to the technical, 
engineering, mathematic, and scientific expertise needed to address 
orbital debris? Additionally, the Commission provides opportunity for 
comment on the impact of any potential legislation or other 
developments related to the Commission's role, that may arise during 
the pendency of this proceeding.
    The Commission seeks comment on this proposed regulatory impact 
analysis. In connection with this analysis, it also seeks comment on 
the relative costs and benefits of performance-based regulation versus 
prescriptive regulation in the context of orbital debris mitigation.
    In connection with this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the 
benefits and costs of various combinations of these approaches. In 
addition, to the extent feasible, the Commission identify alternative 
options, as described in this NPRM.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present 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 this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines specified in the NPRM for comments. The 
Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    The Commission originally adopted comprehensive rules relating to 
the mitigation of orbital debris in 2004. Consideration of orbital 
debris issues remains an important part of preserving access to space 
for the long term, as well as the safety of persons and property in 
space on the surface of the Earth. This NPRM represents the first 
comprehensive update to our rules on orbital debris mitigation since 
their adoption. The basis for these revisions and additions to those 
rules includes the Commission's experience gained in the licensing 
process, updates in mitigation guidelines and practices, and market 
developments. The Commission's objective is to ensure that space 
stations applying for a license or grant of market access, or otherwise 
authorized by the Commission, including experimental and amateur 
satellite systems, provide a statement concerning plans for orbital 
debris mitigation that enables the Commission to fully evaluate whether 
the proposed operations are in the public interest.
    With this in mind, this NPRM seeks comment on a number of proposals 
revising the Commission's rules and policies for limiting orbital 
debris. Adoption of the proposed changes would modify 47 CFR parts 5, 
25, and 97 to, among other things:
    (1) Require satellite applicants to demonstrate compliance with 
certain metrics developed for assessing orbital debris mitigation plans 
by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
    (2) Require additional disclosures to the Commission regarding risk 
of collision, trackability, maneuverability, proximity operations, if 
any, choice of orbit, and impact on manned spacecraft, if any.
    (3) Require information regarding the probability of success for 
the chosen disposal method, where disposal is planned by atmospheric 
re-entry.
    (4) Require satellite applicants with planned operations in certain 
orbits to make certifications related deploying at a lower orbit and 
then raising the satellite(s) for operations.

Legal Basis

    The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 301, 303, 
307, 308, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 310.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules May Apply

    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 adoption of proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). Below, we describe and estimate the number of 
small entity licensees that may be affected by adoption of the proposed 
rules.

Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications

    The rules proposed in this NPRM would affect some providers of 
satellite telecommunications services, if adopted. Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. Since 2007, the SBA has recognized two census 
categories for satellite telecommunications firms: ``Satellite 
Telecommunications'' and ``Other Telecommunications.'' Under both 
categories, a business is considered small if it had $32.5 million or 
less in annual receipts.
    The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point 
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.'' For this category, Census 
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite 
communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
482 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
    The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised of 
entities ``primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily

[[Page 4753]]

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. Establishments providing internet services or 
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.'' 
For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a 
total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.
    We anticipate that our proposed rule changes may have an impact on 
space station applicants and licensees, including in some instances 
small entities.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities

    The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on a number of rule changes 
that would affect reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements for space station operators. Each of these changes is 
described below.
    The NPRM proposes to require several disclosures specifying 
compliance with several metrics established by NASA, such as 
probability of collision between the spacecraft and large objects. Many 
of the entities, for example, experimental licensees, that would be 
affected by these proposed rules already use a format for their orbital 
debris mitigation plans that is consistent with the NASA Orbital Debris 
Assessment Report (ODAR). The ODAR format includes several of the 
proposed NASA metrics that are incorporated into the proposed rules 
such as calculations related to re-entry casualty risk. Thus, to the 
extent that these entities already use the ODAR format, there would be 
no change to their existing recordkeeping and compliance requirements 
as a result of these proposed changes. For other entities that have not 
or would not use the ODAR format to report their orbital debris 
mitigation plans, some of these changes will involve some additional 
proposed calculations to provide the appropriate certifications, such 
as certifying that the probability of collision between a space station 
and another large object is less than 0.001 and that the probability of 
collision with small debris or meteoroids that would cause loss of 
control and prevent post-mission disposal is less than 0.01.
    Given the engineering associated with development of a spacecraft, 
we expect that these calculations will be a natural outgrowth of work 
already being performed in designing and planning space station(s) 
operations. The NPRM also proposes to require that collision risk 
information be provided in the aggregate, that is, for the space 
station constellation as a whole. Since most small entities do not 
launch and operate large satellite constellations, we do not anticipate 
that this requirement to provide a collision risk assessment in the 
aggregate will be burdensome. In addition, we note the new requirement 
for demonstration that the probability of reliability for a particular 
disposal method is no less than 0.90, calculated on an aggregate basis. 
We anticipate that most small entities will be planning disposal of 
their spacecraft by atmospheric re-entry. So long as the spacecraft is 
deployed into a low altitude orbit, which most small entities' 
spacecraft are, atmospheric re-entry will be virtually guaranteed 
within a certain amount of time.
    The NPRM also proposes to require that applicants for a space 
station license or authorization provide disclosures regarding 
methodologies used for tracking and certifications related to space 
situational awareness, as well as disclosures regarding choice of orbit 
and potential impact to manned spacecraft. Information regarding 
tracking and sharing of data for purposes of space situational 
awareness should be readily available to applicants and operators. We 
anticipate that disclosures relating to choice of orbit and potential 
impacts to manned spacecraft should be an extension of analysis 
undertaken by a space station operator as part of selection of a launch 
vehicle and operational orbit.
    In addition, the NPRM proposes that operators of spacecraft make 
ephemeris data available to all operators of operational satellite 
systems identified as potentially raising a collision risk with its 
system. We anticipate that small entities will generally be operating 
only a few spacecraft, and so will only need to address this ephemeris 
data requirement for a limited number of space stations.
    We do not expect that the any of the proposed changes relating to 
the operation of geostationary-orbit (GSO) space stations would affect 
small entities, since GSO space stations generally cost hundreds of 
millions of dollars to construct, launch, and operate. Similarly, we do 
not expect that the proposed requirements applicable to NGSO space 
stations operating between 650 km and 2,000 km will apply to small 
entities, since we expect that most lower-cost space systems are 
deployed at lower altitudes.
    The NPRM also proposes that U.S. space station licensees or 
grantees submit an executed agreement indemnifying the United States 
against any costs associated with a clam brought against the United 
States related to the authorized facilities. This proposal would apply 
to experimental licensees and authorized amateur space station license 
grantees, and would likely increase the compliance requirements for 
some entities. The NPRM also seeks comment on possible insurance 
requirements for space station licensees/grantees.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    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 rules for such 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 such small 
entities.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the additional orbital debris mitigation plan 
disclosure requirements described above, we believe that the 
disclosures will in most instances be consistent with, or a natural 
outgrowth of, analysis that is already being conducted by space station 
applicants and/or operators. These additional disclosures should be 
consistent with the types of operations that are in the space station 
operator's best interest, such as avoiding collision with other 
spacecraft. In several instances, certifications are proposed, but in 
other instances, we believe that a descriptive disclosure is superior 
to a certification alternative, to provide the applicant with an 
opportunity to fully explain its plans for Commission evaluation. As an 
alternative to the disclosures, we could propose not to require any 
additional information, but as described in the NPRM, the public 
interest in mitigating orbital debris and ensuring the long-term 
viability of the space environment may weigh in favor of the additional 
disclosures. Several of the proposals apply only to space

[[Page 4754]]

stations with planned deployment altitudes between above 650 km. This 
650 km altitude is based upon anticipated on-orbit lifetimes, as 
described in the NPRM, and we anticipate will not be applicable to most 
small entities' space stations. That specific altitude was proposed to 
address orbits where deployments may be of particular concern, without 
burdening operators planning to deploy in lower orbits. We seek comment 
in the NPRM on the costs and benefits of the proposed requirements 
applying to space stations deployed above 650 km.
    The Commission seeks comment on liability issues related to space 
station authorizations. In the discussion regarding insurance, for 
example, the NPRM asks whether distinctions might be made between 
different types of operations that are higher or lower risk. We note 
that some small entities may be associated with lower risk systems.
    The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. Small entities 
are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific 
concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM. The 
Commission expects to consider any economic impact on small entities, 
as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in reaching 
its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 5, 25, and 97

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 5, 25, and 97 
as follows:

PART 5--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE

0
1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 336.

0
2. Amend Sec.  5.64 by revising paragraph (b)(1), redesignating 
paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) as (b)(3) through (5), adding new 
paragraph (b)(2), revising newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(3) through 
(b)(5) and adding (c), and (d), to read as follows:


Sec.  5.64  Special provisions for satellite systems.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and 
limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal 
operations. Where applicable, this statement must include an orbital 
debris mitigation disclosure for any separate deployment devices not 
part of the space station launch that may become a source of orbital 
debris;
    (2) A statement indicating whether the space station operator has 
assessed in the aggregate and limited the probability to 0.01 or less 
that the space station(s) will become a source of debris by collision 
with small debris or meteoroids that would cause loss of control and 
prevent post-mission disposal;
    (3) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and 
limited the probability of accidental explosions or release of liquids 
that could become debris during and after completion of mission 
operations. This statement must include a demonstration that debris 
generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources on 
board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the spacecraft. Energy 
sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy and debris 
includes liquids that persist in droplet form. This demonstration 
should address whether stored energy will be removed at the 
spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and leaving all 
fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system, leaving all 
batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any remaining 
source of stored energy, or through other equivalent procedures 
specifically disclosed in the application;
    (4) A statement that the space station operator has assessed in the 
aggregate and limited the probability of the space station(s) becoming 
a source of debris by collisions with large debris or other operational 
space stations, including the following information:
    (i) Where the application is for an NGSO space station or 
constellation:
    (A) The statement must indicate whether the probability in the 
aggregate of a collision between the space stations(s) and another 
large object during the total orbital lifetime of the constellation, 
including any de-orbit phase, is less than 0.001.
    (B) The statement must identify any planned and/or operational 
space stations that may raise a collision risk, and indicate what 
steps, if any, have been taken to coordinate with the other spacecraft 
or system, or what other measures the operator plans to use to avoid 
collision. This includes disclosure of any planned proximity 
operations. If the planned space station operational orbit is above 650 
kilometers, the statement must specify why the planned orbit was 
chosen, and if the space station will transit through the orbit of the 
International Space Station (ISS) or orbit of any other manned 
spacecraft, at any time during the space station's mission or de-orbit 
phase, and the statement must describe the potential impact to the ISS 
or other manned spacecraft, if any, including design and operational 
strategies that will be used to avoid collision with manned spacecraft.
    (C) The statement must disclose the accuracy--if any--with which 
orbital parameters will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, 
inclination, and the right ascension of the ascending node(s). In the 
event that a system is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, i.e., 
it lacks a propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact should 
be included in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also 
indicate the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the 
proposed satellite or satellites. All systems should describe the 
extent of satellite maneuverability, whether or not the space 
station(s) design includes a propulsion system; and
    (D) In addition, the statement must include a description of the 
means for tracking the spacecraft, including whether tracking will be 
active or passive. The space station operator must certify that upon 
receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the 
operator will review the warning and take all possible steps to assess 
and, if necessary, to mitigate collision risk, including, but not 
limited to: Contacting the operator of any active spacecraft involved 
in such warning; sharing ephemeris data and other appropriate 
operational information with any such operator; modifying spacecraft 
attitude and/or operations.
    (ii) Where a space station requests the assignment of a 
geostationary-Earth orbit location, it must assess whether there are 
any known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be located 
at, the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that 
location, such that the station keeping volumes of the respective 
satellites might overlap or touch. If so, the statement must include a 
statement as to the identities of those parties and the measures that 
will be taken to prevent collisions; and

[[Page 4755]]

    (5) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the 
space station at end of life, including the quantity of fuel--if any--
that will be reserved for post-mission disposal maneuvers. In addition, 
the following specific provisions apply:
    (i) For geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement 
must disclose the altitude selected for a post-mission disposal orbit 
and the calculations that are used in deriving the disposal altitude.
    (ii) For spacecraft terminating operations in an orbit in or 
passing through the low-Earth orbit region below 2,000 km altitude, the 
statement must indicate whether the spacecraft will be disposed of 
either through atmospheric re-entry within 25 years following the 
completion of the spacecraft's mission, or by direct retrieval of the 
spacecraft.
    (iii) Where planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-
entry of the space station(s):
    (A) The statement must include a demonstration that the probability 
of success for the disposal method will be no less than 0.90, 
calculated on an aggregate basis.
    (B) For space stations with a planned operational altitude between 
650 km and 2,000 km, the statement should include a certification that 
the satellites will be deployed at an altitude below 650 km, and 
describe the means that will be used to ensure reliability of disposal, 
such as through automatic initiation of disposal in the event of loss 
of power or contact with the space station.
    (C) The statement must also include a casualty risk assessment. In 
general, an assessment should include an estimate as to whether 
portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry, including all objects 
that would impact the surface of the Earth with a kinetic energy in 
excess of 15 joules, as well as an estimate of the resulting 
probability of human casualty. Where the risk of human casualty from 
surviving debris is greater than zero, as calculated using either the 
NASA Debris Assessment Software or a higher fidelity model, a statement 
must be provided indicating the actual calculated human casualty risk 
as well as the input assumptions used in the model.
    (c) As a condition of their licenses for experimental satellite 
facilities, licensees must submit an executed agreement indemnifying 
the United States against any costs associated with a claim brought 
against the United States related to the authorized facilities. The 
agreement, or an updated version thereof, must be submitted no later 
than 30 days after the grant of the license, an assignment of the 
license, or a transfer of control of the licensee, or at least 90 days 
prior to planned launch of the space station, whichever is sooner.
    (d) For space stations that include onboard propulsion systems, 
operators must encrypt telemetry, tracking, and command communications 
with the space station.

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

0
4. Amend Sec.  25.114 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(14)(i);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(14)(ii) through (v) as paragraphs (iii) 
through (vi);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (d)(14)(ii); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (d)(14)(iii) through (v).
    The addition and revisions to read as follows.


Sec.  25.114  Applications for space station authorizations.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (14) * * *
    (i) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and 
limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal 
operations. Where applicable, this statement must include an orbital 
debris mitigation disclosure for any separate deployment devices not 
part of the space station launch that may become a source of orbital 
debris;
    (ii) A statement indicating whether the space station operator has 
assessed in the aggregate and limited the probability to 0.01 or less 
that the space station(s) will become a source of debris by collision 
with small debris or meteoroids that would cause loss of control and 
prevent post-mission disposal;
    (iii) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and 
limited the probability of accidental explosions or release of liquids 
that could become debris during and after completion of mission 
operations. This statement must include a demonstration that debris 
generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources on 
board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the spacecraft. Energy 
sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy and debris 
includes liquids that persist in droplet form. This demonstration 
should address whether stored energy will be removed at the 
spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and leaving all 
fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system, leaving all 
batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any remaining 
source of stored energy, or through other equivalent procedures 
specifically disclosed in the application;
    (iv) A statement that the space station operator has assessed in 
the aggregate and limited the probability of the space station(s) 
becoming a source of debris by collisions with large debris or other 
operational space stations, including the following information:
    (A) Where the application is for an NGSO space station or 
constellation:
    (1) The statement must indicate whether the probability in the 
aggregate of a collision between the space station(s) and another large 
object during the total orbital lifetime of the constellation, 
including any de-orbit phases, is less than 0.001;
    (2) The statement must identify any planned and/or operational 
space stations that may raise a collision risk, and indicate what 
steps, if any, have been taken to coordinate with the other spacecraft 
or system, or what other measures the operator plans to use to avoid 
collision. This includes disclosure of any planned proximity 
operations. If the planned space station operational orbit is above 650 
kilometers, the statement must specify why the planned orbit was 
chosen, and if the space station will transit through the orbit of the 
International Space Station (ISS) or orbit of any other manned 
spacecraft, at any time during the space station's mission or de-orbit 
phase, and the statement must describe the potential impact to the ISS 
or other manned spacecraft, if any, including design and operational 
strategies that will be used to avoid collision with manned spacecraft;
    (3) The statement must disclose the accuracy--if any--with which 
orbital parameters will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, 
inclination, and the right ascension of the ascending node(s). In the 
event that a system is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, i.e., 
it lacks a propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact must be 
included in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also 
indicate the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the 
proposed satellite or satellites. All systems must describe the extent 
of satellite maneuverability, whether or not the space station(s) 
design includes a propulsion system; and

[[Page 4756]]

    (4) In addition, the statement must include a description of the 
means for tracking the spacecraft, including whether tracking will be 
active or passive. The space station operator must certify that upon 
receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the 
operator will review the warning and take all possible steps to assess 
and, if necessary, to mitigate collision risk, including, but not 
limited to: Contacting the operator of any active spacecraft involved 
in such warning; sharing ephemeris data and other appropriate 
operational information with any such operator; modifying space station 
attitude and/or operations.
    (B) Where a space station requests the assignment of a 
geostationary-Earth orbit location, it must assess whether there are 
any known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be located 
at, the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that 
location, such that the station keeping volumes of the respective 
satellites might overlap or touch. If so, the statement must include a 
statement as to the identities of those parties and the measures that 
will be taken to prevent collisions; and
    (v) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the 
space station at end of life, including the quantity of fuel--if any--
that will be reserved for post-mission disposal maneuvers. In addition, 
the following specific provisions apply:
    (A) For geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement 
must disclose the altitude selected for a post-mission disposal orbit 
and the calculations that are used in deriving the disposal altitude.
    (B) For spacecraft terminating operations in an orbit in or passing 
through the low-Earth orbit region below 2,000 km altitude, the 
statement must indicate whether the spacecraft will be disposed of 
either through atmospheric re-entry within 25 years following the 
completion of the spacecraft's mission, or by direct retrieval of the 
spacecraft.
    (C) Where planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-
entry of the space station(s):
    (1) The statement must include a demonstration that the probability 
of success for the disposal method will be no less than 0.90, 
calculated on an aggregate basis.
    (2) For space stations with a planned operational altitude between 
650 km and 2,000 km, the statement should include a certification that 
the satellites will be deployed at an altitude below 650 km, and 
describe the means that will be used to ensure reliability of disposal, 
such as through automatic initiation of disposal in the event of loss 
of power or contact with the space station.
    (3) The statement must also include a casualty risk assessment. In 
general, an assessment should include an estimate as to whether 
portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry, including all objects 
that would impact the surface of the Earth with a kinetic energy in 
excess of 15 joules, as well as an estimate of the resulting 
probability of human casualty. Where the risk of human casualty from 
surviving debris is greater than zero, as calculated using either the 
NASA Debris Assessment Software or a higher fidelity model, a statement 
must be provided indicating the actual calculated human casualty risk 
as well as the input assumptions used in the model.
    (D) Applicants for space stations to be used only for commercial 
remote sensing may, in lieu of submitting detailed post-mission 
disposal plans to the Commission, certify that they have submitted such 
plans to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 
review.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  25.121 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.121  License term and renewals.

* * * * *
    (f) Geostationary Satellite License Term Extensions. For 
geostationary space stations issued license term under Sec.  
25.121(a)(1), license term extensions authorized by grant of a 
modification application are limited to five years or less.
0
6. Amend Sec.  25.161 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.161  Automatic termination of station authorization.

* * * * *
    (e) The failure to file an executed indemnification agreement in 
accordance with Sec.  25.166.
0
7. Add Sec.  25.166 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.166  Indemnification.

    As a condition of their licenses, space station licensees must 
submit an executed agreement indemnifying the United States against any 
costs associated with a claim brought against the United States related 
to the authorized facilities. The agreement, or an updated version 
thereof, must be submitted no later than 30 days after the grant of the 
license, an assignment of the license, or a transfer of control of the 
licensee, or at least 90 days prior to planned launch of the space 
station, whichever is sooner.
0
8. Amend Sec.  25.271 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.271  Control of Transmitting Stations.

* * * * *
    (e) An NGSO licensee or market access recipient must ensure that 
ephemeris data for its space station or constellation is available to 
all operators of operational satellite systems identified pursuant to 
Sec.  25.114(d)(14)(iv)(A)(2) that may raise a collision risk and to 
the U.S. governmental entity responsible for the civilian space object 
database and cataloging.
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec.  25.282 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.282  Orbit raising.

    A space station may operate in connection with short-term, 
transitory maneuvers directly related to post-launch, orbit-raising 
maneuvers, in the telemetry, tracking, and command frequencies 
authorized for operation at the assigned orbital position. Such orbit-
raising operations must be coordinated on an operator-to-operator basis 
with any potentially affected satellite networks.
0
10. Add Sec.  25.290 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.290  Telemetry, tracking, and command encryption.

    For space stations that include onboard propulsion systems, 
operators must encrypt telemetry, tracking, and command communications 
with the space station.

PART 97--AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE

0
11. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.

0
12. Amend Sec.  97.207 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(i),
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) through (v) as paragraphs 
(g)(1)(iii) through (vi)
0
c. Adding new paragraph (g)(1)(ii);
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(1)(iii) through (vi); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i).
    The revisions and additions to read as follows:


Sec.  97.207  Space station.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed and 
limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal 
operations. Where applicable, this statement must include an orbital 
debris mitigation disclosure for any separate deployment devices not 
part of the space station launch that may become a source of orbital 
debris;

[[Page 4757]]

    (ii) A statement indicating whether the space station operator has 
assessed in the aggregate and limited the probability to 0.01 or less 
that the space station(s) will become a source of debris by collision 
with small debris or meteoroids that would cause loss of control and 
prevent post-mission disposal;
    (iii) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed and 
limited the probability of accidental explosions or release of liquids 
that could become debris during and after completion of mission 
operations. This statement must include a demonstration that debris 
generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources on 
board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the spacecraft. Energy 
sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy and debris 
includes liquids that persist in droplet form. This demonstration 
should address whether stored energy will be removed at the 
spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and leaving all 
fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system, leaving all 
batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any remaining 
source of stored energy, or through other equivalent procedures 
specifically disclosed in the notification;
    (iv) A statement that the space station licensee has assessed in 
the aggregate and limited the probability of the space station(s) 
becoming a source of debris by collisions with large debris or other 
operational space stations, including the following information:
    (A) Where the space station is a NGSO space station or 
constellation:
    (1) The statement must indicate whether the probability in the 
aggregate of a collision between the space station(s) and another large 
object during the total orbital lifetime of the constellation, 
including any de-orbit phases, is less than 0.00;1
    (2) The statement must identify any planned and/or operational 
space stations that may raise a collision risk, and indicate what 
steps, if any, have been taken to coordinate with the other spacecraft 
or system, or what other measures the operator plans to use to avoid 
collision. This includes disclosure of any planned proximity 
operations. If the planned space station operational orbit is above 650 
kilometers, the statement must specify why the planned orbit was 
chosen, and if the space station will transit through the orbit of the 
International Space Station (ISS) or orbit of any other manned 
spacecraft, at any time during the space station's mission or de-orbit 
phase, and the statement must describe the potential impact to the ISS 
or other manned spacecraft, if any, including design and operational 
strategies that will be used to avoid collision with manned spacecraft;
    (3) The statement must disclose the accuracy--if any--with which 
orbital parameters will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, 
inclination, and the right ascension of the ascending node(s). In the 
event that a system is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, i.e., 
it lacks a propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact must be 
included in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also 
indicate the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the 
proposed satellite or satellites. All systems must describe the extent 
of satellite maneuverability, whether or not the space station(s) 
design includes a propulsion system; and
    (4) In addition, the statement must include a description of the 
means for tracking the spacecraft, including whether tracking will be 
active or passive. The space station licensee must certify that upon 
receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the 
licensee or operator will review the warning and take all possible 
steps to assess and, if necessary, to mitigate collision risk, 
including, but not limited to: Contacting the operator of any active 
spacecraft involved in such warning; sharing ephemeris data and other 
appropriate operational information with any such operator; modifying 
space station attitude and/or operations.
    (B) Where a space station requests the assignment of a 
geostationary-Earth orbit location, it must assess whether there are 
any known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be located 
at, the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that 
location, such that the station keeping volumes of the respective 
satellites might overlap or touch. If so, the statement must include a 
statement as to the identities of those parties and the measures that 
will be taken to prevent collisions; and
    (v) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the 
space station at end of life, including the quantity of fuel--if any--
that will be reserved for post-mission disposal maneuvers. In addition, 
the following specific provisions apply:
    (A) For geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement 
must disclose the altitude selected for a post-mission disposal orbit 
and the calculations that are used in deriving the disposal altitude.
    (B) For spacecraft terminating operations in an orbit in or passing 
through the low-Earth orbit region below 2,000 km altitude, the 
statement must indicate whether the spacecraft will be disposed of 
either through atmospheric re-entry within 25 years following the 
completion of the spacecraft's mission, or by direct retrieval of the 
spacecraft.
    (C) Where planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-
entry of the space station:
    (1) The statement must include a demonstration that the probability 
of success for the disposal method will be no less than 0.90, 
calculated on an aggregate basis.
    (2) For space stations with a planned operational altitude between 
650 km and 2,000 km, the statement should include a certification that 
the satellites will be deployed at an altitude below 650 km, and 
describe the means that will be used to ensure reliability of disposal, 
such as through automatic initiation of disposal in the event of loss 
of power or contact with the space station.
    (3) The statement must also include a casualty risk assessment. In 
general, an assessment should include an estimate as to whether 
portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry, including all objects 
that would impact the surface of the Earth with a kinetic energy in 
excess of 15 joules, as well as an estimate of the resulting 
probability of human casualty. Where the risk of human casualty from 
surviving debris is greater than zero, as calculated using either the 
NASA Debris Assessment Software or a higher fidelity model, a statement 
must be provided indicating the actual calculated human casualty risk 
as well as the input assumptions used in the model.
    (vi) If any material item described in this notification changes 
before launch, a replacement pre-space notification shall be filed with 
the International Bureau no later than 90 days before integration of 
the space station into the launch vehicle.
* * * * *
    (h) At least 90 days prior to planned launch of the space station, 
the license grantee of each space station must submit an executed 
agreement indemnifying the United States against any costs associated 
with a claim brought against the United States related to the 
authorized facilities.
    (i) For space stations that include onboard propulsion systems, 
operators must encrypt telemetry, tracking, and command communications 
with the space station.

[FR Doc. 2019-02230 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P