[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43711-43736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12013]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 25

[IB Docket No. 18-86; FCC 19-81, FCC 20-60; FRS 16772]


Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission is streamlining its rules to 
facilitate the deployment of a class of satellites known as small 
satellites, which have relatively short duration missions. The 
Commission also announces that the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information 
collection associated with the revisions to the Commission's rules.

DATES: Effective August 19, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merissa Velez, International Bureau, 
Satellite Division, at 202-418-0751. For additional information 
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams, 202-
418-2918, or send an email to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, IB Docket No. 18-86; FCC 19-81, adopted on August 1, 2019, 
and released on August 2, 2019. The full text of this document is 
available on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/streamlining-licensing-procedures-small-satellites-1. This document 
also includes a summary of the Commission's subsequent Order, IB Docket 
No.18-86, FCC 20-60, adopted on May 8, 2020, and released on May 11, 
2020. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's 
website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-small-satellite-rules-effective-date-clarification-order.
    This document additionally announces that, on February 27, 2020, 
OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection 
requirements relating to the part 25 rules contained in the 
Commission's Report and Order, FCC 19-81, also published in this 
document. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0678. The Commission publishes 
this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If 
you have any comment on the burden estimates listed below, or how the 
Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused 
thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. 
Please include OMB Control Number 3060-0678 in your correspondence. The 
Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].
    Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities 
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an 
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    Recent technological innovation has spurred an increasing use of 
what have been colloquially termed ``small satellites'' or ``small 
sats'' for a wide variety of missions, ranging from short-term 
experimental missions conducting scientific experiments to longer term 
commercial communications and remote sensing missions. There are a 
number of ways of defining small satellites, but they are most often 
associated with small size (some based on the ``CubeSat'' standard 
\1\), short duration missions, and relatively low cost. Many small 
satellites have been part of government missions, but an ever-
increasing number of non-governmental missions by companies, academic 
institutions, and others have used small satellites. The Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, requires the issuance of a license for 
communications to and from the United States or from any U.S. 
satellite, and applications requesting a license or authorization to 
operate with small satellites represent a growing percentage of the 
number of satellite applications received by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``CubeSat'' design is a standardized interface 
consisting of approximately 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm units. The 
scalable standard unit specification enables CubeSats to be fully 
enclosed in specifically developed deployment mechanisms and helps 
to provide greater access to launch services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We take action to make available a new, optional licensing process 
for these small satellites. This will enable small satellite applicants 
to choose a streamlined licensing procedure and thereby take advantage 
of an easier application process, a lower application fee, and a 
shorter timeline for review than currently exists for applicants. We 
will refer to this alternative as the ``part 25 streamlined small 
satellite process.'' In so doing, we limit the regulatory burdens borne 
by applicants and offer potential radiofrequency interference 
protection for critical communication links, while promoting orbital 
debris mitigation and efficient use of spectrum. This action will 
support and encourage the increasing innovation in the small satellite 
sector and will help preserve U.S. leadership in space-based services 
and operations.

II. Background

    The Commission's part 25 satellite licensing rules, primarily used 
by commercial systems, group satellites into two general categories--
geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) systems and non-geostationary-
satellite orbit (NGSO) systems--for purposes of application 
processing.\2\ This categorization is similarly reflected in the 
Commission's fee structure. As a result, an application for a single 
commercial NGSO small satellite with a planned two-year mission would 
be subject to the same application process and fee as an application 
for an NGSO communications system consisting of

[[Page 43712]]

hundreds or more satellites to be replenished on a regular basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under part 25 of the Commission's rules, applications for 
satellites and satellite systems are filed either as GSO space 
station applications or NGSO space station or constellation 
applications. See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.114(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 17, 2018 (83 FR 24064 (May 24, 2018)), the Commission 
released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM or Small Satellite NPRM) 
proposing to modify the Commission's part 25 satellite licensing rules 
to create a new category of application specific to small satellites. 
The Commission sought comment on criteria that would define this new 
category and proposed that applicants meeting the criteria could take 
advantage of a simplified application, faster processing, and lower 
fees, among other things. The proposed streamlined licensing process 
was developed based on the features and characteristics that typically 
distinguish small satellite operations from other types of satellite 
operations, such as shorter orbital lifetime and less intensive 
frequency use. The NPRM detailed this small satellite procedure, which 
would serve as an optional alternative to existing procedures for 
authorization of small satellites. The NPRM also provided background 
information on the Commission's other processes for licensing and 
authorizing small satellites, including under the experimental (part 5) 
and amateur (part 97) rules, although no changes were proposed to 
either of those parts.
    The NPRM also sought comment on topics related to spectrum use by 
small satellites. The Commission asked for comment on typical small 
satellite frequency use characteristics, how to facilitate 
compatibility with Federal operations, use of particular spectrum for 
inter-satellite links by small satellites, and other issues related to 
operations by small satellites in frequency bands including the 137-138 
MHz, 148-150.05 MHz, and 1610.6-1613.8 MHz bands.
    Finally, the NPRM sought comment on the appropriate application fee 
that would apply to the proposed optional part 25 streamlined process. 
The Commission proposed a $30,000 application fee. It noted that any 
changes to the annual regulatory fees applicable to the small 
satellites authorized under the streamlined process would be addressed 
through the separate annual proceeding for review of regulatory fees.
    On May 21, 2018 (83 FR 36460 (July 30, 2018)), the Commission 
adopted its fiscal year (FY) 2018 notice of proposed rulemaking 
addressing regulatory fees, which sought comment on whether to adopt a 
new regulatory fee category for small satellites authorized under the 
proposed streamlined part 25 process, and if a new fee category were to 
be adopted, what the regulatory fee should be. The Commission adopted 
its FY 2018 schedule of regulatory fees in a Report and Order on August 
28, 2018 (83 FR 47079 (Sept. 18, 2018)) (FY 2018 Report and Order), in 
which the Commission noted that it was deferring consideration of a new 
regulatory fee category and the appropriate regulatory fee for small 
satellites until the Commission adopted a definition of ``small 
satellites'' in the instant proceeding.

III. Report and Order

A. Adoption of a Streamlined Small Satellite and Small Spacecraft 
Process

    Commenters to the NPRM overwhelmingly support the adoption of a new 
streamlined licensing process for small satellites within part 25 of 
the Commission's rules. Commenters agree that the current part 25 
process can be overly burdensome for some companies seeking to launch 
small satellites into space.
    We adopt here a streamlined version of part 25 for small satellite 
licensing. Applicants seeking authorization of small satellites can 
choose to take advantage of this streamlined small satellite 
process,\3\ rather than using the other existing applicable licensing 
procedures. The goal of this small satellite process is to enable 
satellites that have shorter missions, less intensive spectrum use, and 
lower risk of producing orbital debris to be licensed on a streamlined 
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Wherever the context is clear, we may simply refer to this 
process as the ``small satellite process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the existing regime, some applicants may seek to operate a 
commercial system under the Commission's experimental licensing program 
because of the large cost difference between the experimental 
application fee and part 25 application fee, notwithstanding the fact 
that the experimental licensing regime is limited to non-commercial 
uses. The streamlined process adopted here avoids this issue, and is 
not limited to commercial or non-commercial applications. At the same 
time, applicants for experimental satellites whose planned operations 
fall within the scope of part 5 may continue to apply under the part 5 
experimental licensing process.
    Part 25 licenses and authorizations are typically applied for by 
commercial systems, and the adoption of this streamlined part 25 
process provides increased opportunity for commercial small satellite 
systems to apply for a part 25 license. In addition, other operators 
may apply for a streamlined part 25 small satellite license should they 
choose to do so. For example, an operator with a planned mission to 
test new technology would have the choice of applying under either part 
5 or part 25. If protection of communications links from harmful 
interference is important to the mission, that operator may choose to 
apply under part 25. Part 25 also offers the opportunity to provide 
commercial operations.
    Commenters suggest that the Commission clarify how the proposed 
rules relate to other existing licensing and authorization processes, 
particularly those under parts 5 and 97 of the rules. For example, 
several commenters questioned whether satellite applicants would be 
prevented from applying for an experimental license under part 5 once 
the new part 25 rules are adopted. We emphasize that all of the 
existing options for satellite authorization will remain available, 
including the existing part 25, part 5 experimental, and part 97 
amateur processes. No changes to those existing processes were proposed 
in the NPRM, and none are adopted here.
    We adopt the NPRM proposal to make streamlined processing available 
to entities seeking access to the United States market using a non-
U.S.-licensed space station, through a petition for declaratory 
ruling.\4\ The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) and Commercial 
Smallsat Spectrum Management Association (CSSMA) express support for 
this proposal, provided that the foreign-licensed satellite or system 
is subject to the same requirements as U.S. applicants under the 
streamlined process and applicable reciprocity market-access 
requirements under the part 25 process. No commenters disagreed with 
the proposal. Although we use the term ``license'' at various points in 
this Order, the streamlined part 25 process will also be made available 
to applicants seeking U.S. market access, and conclude that such 
applicants will be subject to the small satellite streamlined process 
rules, application and regulatory fees under the new fee categories 
adopted for small satellites,\5\ and the part 25 rules currently

[[Page 43713]]

applicable to entities requesting to access the United States market 
using a non-U.S.-licensed space station. We adopt minor revisions to 
Sec.  25.137 of our rules, addressing non-U.S.-licensed space station 
application procedures, to add references to the streamlined small 
satellite process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Entities seeking streamlined treatment would file a petition 
for declaratory ruling, rather than seeking to communicate with a 
non-U.S.-licensed space station through an earth station 
application.
    \5\ As discussed in further detail infra, we are adopting here a 
new application fee category for small satellites as part of the 
Commission's schedule of application fees, and this fee will be 
applicable to streamlined applicants petitioning for U.S. market 
access, in order to recover the costs of Commission processing of 
such applications. Similarly, we are adopting a new regulatory fee 
category for small satellites, which will include market access 
grantees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters requested that the Commission use terminology other 
than ``small satellite'' if the streamlined process includes criteria 
other than just satellite size. Given the number of criteria described 
below, it is unclear how all of these criteria could be reflected in a 
single title for the new streamlined process. As proposed, the rule 
section specifying the application procedures for the streamlined 
process, Sec.  25.122, is titled ``Applications for streamlined small 
satellite authorization.'' We also adopt a definition of ``small 
satellite'' referencing the application rule section. Since all 
satellites authorized under this process will be small compared to the 
satellites historically licensed under part 25, we see no need to alter 
this title. To help avoid any confusion, however, we have referred to 
this process as the part 25 streamlined small satellite process, to 
make it clear that this new process is within part 25 of the 
Commission's rules.
    As discussed below, we also make streamlined processing available 
to spacecraft with non-Earth orbit missions. Moon Express, Inc., the 
Commercial Spaceflight Federation, and the CSSMA suggest that if the 
streamlined process is made available to missions beyond Earth orbit, 
the Commission consider using the term ``spacecraft'' or ``small 
spacecraft,'' instead of or in addition to the term small satellite. We 
agree with using the term ``small spacecraft'' to refer to the space 
stations that will operate beyond Earth's orbit, and adopt a 
corresponding definition.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We therefore will refer to the process as the ``streamlined 
small spacecraft process'' when discussing an aspect of the 
streamlined process that would apply uniquely to these missions. 
Except as specified, see, e.g., section III.B.10, the rules adopted 
will apply to both streamlined small satellites and streamlined 
small spacecraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Characteristics of a Satellite or System Qualifying for Streamlined 
Processing

    In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a series of criteria that 
would define the types of operations that qualify for the small 
satellite process. The NPRM sought comment on these proposed 
eligibility criteria as well as any additional criteria that should be 
considered.
    We received numerous comments on specific eligibility criteria, but 
almost all commenters agreed with the general proposal to establish a 
set of criteria to categorize part 25 small satellites for processing. 
The Boeing Company (Boeing), however, recommends that small commercial 
satellites, for purposes of the streamlined licensing process, be 
defined by a ``single, controlling characteristic, the nature of their 
orbital and spectrum sharing rights and obligations.'' Boeing believes 
that so long as the underlying principle that small commercial 
satellite licensees must, to the extent technically feasible, share 
orbital and spectrum resources with all other small commercial 
satellites, the Commission is unlikely to need to adopt many additional 
regulations governing the characteristics of such satellites. In a 
later section, we discuss Boeing's specific comments on the rights and 
sharing obligations of small satellites licensed under the streamlined 
process. We do not believe, however, that having a single 
characteristic regarding orbital and spectrum sharing rights is 
sufficient to establish the category of systems that may apply under 
the streamlined process. While the ability to share with other 
operations is a characteristic that the Commission will review, and an 
important one from an application processing perspective, the other 
characteristics proposed in the NPRM and discussed below are also 
important to ensure that the applications can be reviewed in a timely 
manner and support some of the benefits of the streamlined process to 
operators.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Accordingly, in some instances we anticipate that granting 
individualized waiver requests of the qualifying criteria would 
require too much individualized analysis and slow the regulatory 
process, thereby undermining the purpose of the rule(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We summarize below the characteristics of satellites/systems that 
we have concluded may be eligible for streamlined processing. These 
characteristics support processing on a streamlined basis. For example, 
the demonstration that the requested small satellite operations are 
compatible with existing operations and do not materially constrain 
future satellite operations supports exempting these satellites from 
the Commission's processing round procedures. In the text that follows, 
we address each of these characteristics/criteria in turn, including 
the specific rationale for each.
     Ten or fewer satellites under a single license. No 
limitation on the number of applications that may be filed.
     Maximum in-orbit lifetime of any individual satellite is 
six years, including time to de-orbit the satellite.
     All operations under a license will be completed within 
six years.
     Maximum mass of any individual satellite will be 180 kg, 
including propellant (``wet mass'').
     Satellite(s) will be deployed below 600 km altitude or 
have the capability to perform collision avoidance and de-orbit 
maneuvers using propulsion.
     Satellite(s) will release no planned debris.
     Satellite operator has assessed and limited the 
probability of debris being generated due to an accidental explosion 
resulting from the conversion of energy sources on board the satellite 
into energy that fragments the spacecraft.
     Probability of in-orbit collision between any satellite 
and large objects is 0.001 or less as calculated using current National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) software or other higher 
fidelity model.
     Any individual satellite is 10 cm or larger in its 
smallest dimension.
     Satellite(s) will have a unique telemetry marker.
     Probability of casualty resulting from uncontrolled 
atmospheric re-entry of any satellite is zero, as calculated using 
current NASA software or other higher fidelity model.
     Licensees must have the capability to eliminate harmful 
interference when necessary under the terms of the license or other 
applicable regulations. In particular, satellites must have the 
capability for immediate cessation of emissions on telecommand.
     Radiofrequency operations will be compatible with existing 
operations in the requested frequency bands and not materially 
constrain future operations of other satellites in those frequency 
bands.
    We note that several of these qualifying characteristics overlap 
with issues discussed in a separate proceeding addressing the 
Commission's rules on orbital debris mitigation generally--Mitigation 
of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age. The Commission adopted a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (84 FR 4742 (Feb. 19, 2019)) (Orbital Debris 
NPRM) in that proceeding in November 2018 and comments and reply 
comments were recently filed. The criteria we adopt here are based upon 
the record developed specifically in the docket for this proceeding. In 
the event that we reassess certain orbital debris risks as part of the 
separate, dedicated orbital debris proceeding, these criteria will be 
modified as necessary or appropriate to

[[Page 43714]]

conform to rules that would be generally applicable to Commission-
authorized space stations, to ensure regulatory congruity.
1. Number of Satellites
    We adopt the proposal in the NPRM to limit the number of satellites 
that can be authorized under an individual streamlined part 25 license 
to 10. This number has broad support among commenters as a limit on the 
number of small satellites under a single license. And though Boeing 
argues we should allow up to 30 satellites in a single application, 
that would allow a substantially larger constellation (and require a 
more intensive review) than what most small satellite applicants appear 
to desire--and in any event could be functionally achieved by 
applicants by applying for multiple licenses at the same time.
    We also conclude that it is not necessary to place a limitation on 
the number of streamlined licenses that may be obtained by a single 
entity because of the other criteria that must be met for an applicant 
to qualify for streamlined processing. If multiple licenses are sought 
by the same entity, or an entity and affiliated entities, the 
Commission will have the opportunity to review each application to see 
if the proposed operations continue to meet the qualifications for 
streamlined processing, including, as described below, not materially 
constraining other operations in the requested frequency band. The 
grant of one application does not guarantee that subsequent 
applications will also be granted. We adopt here a requirement that 
applicants for the streamlined process identify related applications or 
grants, to help assist the Commission's understanding of a particular 
system or series of satellites or systems.
    CSSMA, Audacy Corporation (Audacy), Analytical Space, the 
Commercial Spaceflight Federation, and other commenters argue that a 
limit on the number of streamlined process applications is unnecessary 
and may stifle innovation. CSSMA, for example, states that ten 
satellites may not be sufficient for all operators that are developing 
their technology while engaging commercially with customers, and notes 
that CSSMA has members that build and/or operate satellites for others 
and might seek several licenses, one for each system, under the 
streamlined process. We agree and believe the approach we adopt here--
which does not place a limitation on the number of licenses that can be 
granted to a single entity--will accommodate innovative small satellite 
system concepts and business models.
    Some commenters such as ORBCOMM and SpaceX express concern that 
applicants could unfairly manipulate the process and create larger 
satellite constellations that would otherwise not warrant streamlined 
treatment. ORBCOMM argues that the Commission should clarify that an 
applicant cannot file for multiple small satellite system licensees, 
thereby evading the ``more rigorous review of a conventional 
application.'' ORBCOMM, SpaceX, and others further argue that failure 
to limit a single company from obtaining licenses for multiple systems 
runs the risk of greater collision and interference issues, thereby 
rendering streamlined treatment inappropriate. While a theoretical 
possibility, when viewed in the context of the criteria established for 
the small satellite licensing process, these concerns are unlikely to 
be realized in practice. In particular, the six-year orbital lifetime 
and 600-kilometer maximum altitude (absent propulsion) criteria both 
correlate with lower collision risk, and the small size of these 
satellites also correlates with lower risk. Each application will be 
considered individually and placed on public notice.
    What is more, we will require each streamlined process applicant to 
demonstrate in its application that its proposed operations can co-
exist with other operations in the requested frequency band and will 
not materially constrain future entrants seeking to use the band. If a 
satellite system begins to amass significant and ongoing operations 
through a series of streamlined applications, there may come a point at 
which the scope of those operations will start to materially constrain 
future entrants seeking to use the same frequency bands, or cause 
issues in sharing with existing operators, and at that time the 
Commission would not approve the next additional application for 
satellites that are conducting those types of operations.
    Moreover, there will be an application fee associated with each 
license application, which after a certain number of licenses will 
equal the cost of applying for a regular part 25 license. CSSMA argues, 
for example, that with a $30,000 application fee, without ability to 
replenish those satellites, the fees are still substantial, and after a 
certain number of satellites, become cost prohibitive as compared to a 
full part 25 license application, which has a 15-year term. While we 
recognize there are other benefits to the streamlined process, such as 
a grace period for the bond, we believe these benefits are unlikely to 
motivate an applicant to file numerous applications under the 
streamlined process in a situation where the cumulative filing fees are 
higher than the application fee for a regular part 25 NGSO system 
application. So long as the applicant meets the criteria of the small 
satellite streamlined process, however, we will leave it up to the 
applicant to decide what approach best fits its business model or 
desired operational parameters.
    To the extent that some commenters raise concerns regarding the 
number of small satellites in orbit as a general matter, we believe 
this issue, along with the related issue of the mitigation of orbital 
debris are better addressed through the Commission's separate 
proceeding on orbital debris.
    By declining to cap the number of satellites that may be applied 
for by a single entity under the streamlined process, the Commission 
will also limit the potential for requests to waive any cap on the 
number of satellites, which would be inconsistent with streamlined 
processing. Boeing, for example, suggested a limit of 30 satellites per 
license, but proposed that the Commission consider streamlined 
applications for modestly more numbers of small satellites if good 
cause is shown to support a particular business case. It is worth 
noting that the approach adopted here will avoid this type of 
particularized analysis or request to waive limits on the number of 
satellites in a single license, since applicants will be able to apply 
for another license for additional satellites.
    Aside from the comments on limiting the number of licenses than can 
be obtained under the streamlined process addressed above, we did not 
receive any additional comments specific to our proposal that there 
would be no limit on the number of pending applications or licensed-
but-unbuilt systems for streamlined applicants. We adopt the NPRM 
proposal that no such limits apply.
    Transition to Standard Part 25. Several commenters suggest that the 
Commission establish a transition mechanism for an operator who may 
wish to build on a larger constellation over time and switch from 
operating under the streamlined authorization process to the standard 
part 25 authorization process. We decline to specify a detailed 
mechanism for transitioning a small satellite license or licenses to a 
standard part 25 license. However, this would not preclude an operator 
from, for example, obtaining a license under the small satellite

[[Page 43715]]

licensing process, and subsequently, during the term of that license, 
applying for and obtaining a standard part 25 license under which the 
small satellite would complete the period of operations specified in 
its original license. The Commission has followed a similar approach 
involving satellites first licensed for experimental operations, but 
which later are incorporated into commercial operations under a 
standard part 25 license. The experimental license is terminated once 
commercial operations begin. An operator may use information and 
operational characteristics from its streamlined small satellite 
operations to inform and support a regular part 25 application, but 
that application will be analyzed on its own merits, and as part of a 
processing round where appropriate. We emphasize that operators may 
apply for a standard license at any time they believe it would be 
better suited to their operational or business needs.
2. Planned In-Orbit Lifetime
    We adopt a slightly modified version of the NPRM proposal, which 
was that applicants for the part 25 streamlined small satellite process 
certify that the total in-orbit lifetime is planned to be five years or 
less, including the time it takes for the satellites to deorbit. We 
will require that applicants seeking to use the streamlined process 
certify that the maximum in-orbit lifetime of any individual satellite 
in the system will be six years or less, including time to deorbit. 
While the NPRM proposed a five-year planned orbital lifetime, we find 
that adding an additional year to the satellite lifetime will provide 
some additional flexibility, requested by some commenters, while 
remaining consistent with the short duration nature of a streamlined 
authorization. As the Commission observed in the NPRM, applicants 
seeking to operate a small satellite for longer can seek a license or 
market access grant under our existing part 25 NGSO procedures, which 
provide for longer license terms.
    A number of commenters argue that the five-year limit proposed in-
orbit lifetime is too short, particularly where the five years includes 
the time for the satellite(s) to deorbit. CSSMA, for example, argues 
that orbital lifetime limits restrict launch opportunities and that an 
overly conservative limit may make the streamlined process commercially 
impracticable. CSSMA proposes a limit that leaves sufficient 
commercially practicable launches available to applicants, and that the 
in-orbit lifetime should apply on a satellite-by-satellite basis and 
not to all satellites under a given license, to allow for launch 
delays, launch spacing, and technology iteration all on one license. 
Additionally, several commenters urge us to consider the five-year in-
orbit lifetime proposal as only including the period of the satellites' 
active transmission and not the non-transmitting orbital decay period. 
Other commenters supported the five-year orbital lifetime certification 
as proposed. These commenters state that the requirement will help 
minimize the risk of orbital collisions.
    While this orbital lifetime certification may narrow the scope of 
orbital placement options for certain small satellites or shorten a 
satellite's lifetime more than what the satellite is technologically 
capable of achieving, the goal of this rulemaking has been to tailor a 
streamlined licensing process to a subset of satellite operations--
those that are of short duration and present a relatively low risk of 
creating orbital debris. As noted in the NPRM, the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) has recently identified one to three 
years to be the typical operational timeline for a CubeSat-type mission 
of short duration. The planned in-orbit lifetime certification we adopt 
of six years is twice what the ITU identified and should provide 
sufficient flexibility for a wide variety of small satellite 
operations. Adding an additional year to the proposed in-orbit lifetime 
strikes a balance between providing additional flexibility and helping 
to ensure that these satellites are out-of-orbit well within accepted 
international guidelines and that the operational timeline for these 
satellites is consistent with the relatively short-term spectrum use we 
intend to facilitate under this process. We disagree with the CSSMA's 
argument that this lifetime certification would not enable commercial 
viability for small satellite missions. Although a six-year lifetime 
limit may rule out a few launch opportunities to higher altitudes that 
would not correspond to the satellites passively deorbiting within six 
years, many small satellites currently take advantage of launch 
opportunities to altitudes from which they do deorbit within six years. 
Moreover, removal of spacecraft from the environment in a timely manner 
is an effective means for preventing in-orbit collisions. We find that 
the benefits of having these streamlined-licensed satellites removed 
from low-Earth orbit in a timely fashion outweigh any potential costs 
to operators, particularly where those operators are benefitting from 
the lower fee and faster processing associated with the streamlined 
part 25 procedures.
    Commercial Spaceflight Federation suggests that where an applicant 
chooses a satellite design that will have a lifetime beyond five years, 
the streamlined process allow for a transition to a regular part 25 
license for a long-term authorization. We decline to adopt a new 
transition process specifically to address these circumstances. While 
we understand the desire among prospective applicants for maximum 
operational and launch flexibility, the procedure is designed to cover 
applications for missions of shorter duration, less intense frequency 
use and lower risk from an orbital debris perspective, which can be 
processed in a streamlined fashion under part 25. Operations presenting 
other characteristics, such as longer duration, are more appropriately 
processed under a regular part 25 authorization.
    The NPRM sought comment on whether a satellite that would not 
passively deorbit within the proposed in-orbit lifetime could still 
satisfy the qualifying criteria if it had the capability to maneuver 
itself to a lower orbit that would ensure re-entry within the proposed 
lifetime. The certification we adopt is based upon the satellite having 
a planned in-orbit lifetime of six years, and we conclude this may be 
achieved by either placing the satellite into an orbit from which it 
will passively deorbit within six years, or through a satellite design 
that ensures deorbiting within six years by active means, such as 
propulsion. In support of the certification, we will require applicants 
to provide a description of the planned deorbit methodology in the 
application. This description will support the applicant's 
certification.
3. License Term
    We modify the NPRM proposal slightly to adopt a six-year, rather 
than five-year license term for satellites authorized through the part 
25 streamlined process. This is consistent with the six-year planned 
satellite lifetime, described above.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We clarify that the satellite in-orbit lifetime discussed in 
the last section applies to each individual satellite, whereas the 
license term applies to operations under the license. See, e.g., 
CSSMA Comments at 9. For example, for a constellation of two 
satellites, if there were only three years left in the license term 
when the second satellite begins operations, that satellite could be 
in-orbit for up to six years, including time to deorbit, but would 
need to cease its operations within three years, consistent with the 
remaining term of the license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, additional satellites covered by the same license, but 
launched at a later date, will also fall

[[Page 43716]]

into the license timeline of the first satellite's placement into 
orbit. This is consistent with the goal of this proceeding to create a 
streamlined process for short duration operations. Under the rules 
adopted, operations under any individual license will be limited to six 
years. We conclude that this shorter license term is commensurate with 
the shorter, less intensive frequency use that will be licensed in a 
streamlined fashion. Applicants seeking ongoing operations of a longer 
duration may consider the standard part 25 license process.
    CSSMA proposes that the license term for a streamlined small 
satellites commence upon ``bringing into use the authorized 
frequencies,'' consistent with ITU Radio Regulations Article 11, and 
not when a ``satellite is placed into its authorized orbit,'' as 
proposed in the NPRM. CSSMA is concerned that as proposed, the term of 
the license would begin to be calculated even where a satellite was 
rendered non-functional due to launch anomalies. We adopt our proposal 
in the NPRM with a slight modification so that the license term will be 
calculated from the time when the first satellite is placed into its 
authorized orbit and begins operating.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This is slightly different from CSSMA's proposal, as it 
includes operations of the spacecraft using any frequencies, not 
just particular Commission-authorized frequencies. There may be 
instances, for example, where a non-U.S.-licensed satellite is 
operational but has not yet used specific frequencies authorized by 
the Commission. This satellite would be considered operational for 
purposes of calculating the license term. A satellite that is non-
functional on arrival in orbit will not count toward satisfying the 
Commission's milestone requirements, as we describe below. See infra 
section III.F. The one-year grace period for posting of the bond 
begins thirty days after the license grant is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters also express concern that launch delays 
could end up shortening the license term for subsequent satellites in a 
constellation. We have not adopted a limit on the number of licenses 
that can be applied for, however. Thus, in instances where there is an 
unforeseen launch delay that would shorten the operations of subsequent 
satellites within the original license, an operator can decide whether 
it makes sense to apply for a new license for those additional 
satellites or operate them within the remaining term of the initial 
license.\10\ Some operators may choose at the outset to seek multiple 
licenses, each for one satellite operating with a six-year license 
term. This type of arrangement will give operators more flexibility, 
while allowing the Commission to assess the proposed operations under 
each license application in case operations under cumulative licenses 
begin to fall outside the scope of what was envisioned as part 25 
streamlined small satellite operations. Moreover, for coordination and 
planning purposes, other operators will know that all operations under 
a particular license will conclude within six years, regardless of 
whether the applicant has launched additional satellites under the 
license. We find that this approach is in the public interest, as it 
combines flexibility for operators with Commission oversight ensuring 
that all operations authorized in this manner are consistent with 
criteria of the streamlined process, which is designed for operations 
of short duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As with other part 25 licensees, operators of small 
satellites licensed under the streamlined process must comply with 
Sec.  25.173 of the Commission's rules, which includes a requirement 
to notify the Commission within 15 days after completing in-orbit 
testing whether a space station's measured performance is within 
authorized limits, whether the space station has been placed in its 
authorized orbit or orbital location, and whether it is capable of 
using its assigned frequencies. See 47 CFR 25.173. This reporting 
requirement applies to each licensed satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SpaceX and Iridium propose proportionally shorter license terms for 
licensees whose satellites' operational lifetime is of a significantly 
shorter duration and, in addition to ORBCOMM, raise concerns of 
increased risk of collision and orbital debris with increased numbers 
of satellites. In response to these concerns, we first note that the 
Commission will retain the discretion to specify a shorter license 
term, pursuant to Sec.  25.121(b) of the Commission's rules, which 
remains unchanged. Second, in the Orbital Debris NPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on issues related to orbit selection, including 
satellites that may remain in orbit for a long period of time relative 
to the time needed to perform its mission. This issue is not unique to 
small satellites and will be addressed more fully in the Commission's 
ongoing orbital debris proceeding. Any requirements adopted there may 
be made applicable to all applicants, including applicants under parts 
5, 25, and 97.
    License Extensions and Replacement Satellites. We adopt the 
proposal in the NPRM that licenses granted under these new rules will 
be valid only for the original satellite(s) launched and operated by 
the licensee without the possibility for replacement, e.g., 
replenishment of a constellation. Several commenters support the NPRM 
proposal not to permit replacement satellites. CSSMA and other 
commenters request, however, that the Commission allow an extension 
process and replacements for the original licensed satellites to 
account for launch delays or other events outside of the applicant's 
control. We decline to adopt a process for license extensions on a 
routine basis for launch delays, for the reasons described above, but 
we do not rule out the possibility of license extensions in other 
limited circumstances outside of the control of the applicant, such as 
a loss of a satellite due to a launch failure. Additionally, we 
envision that if a satellite is lost due to a documented launch 
failure, that satellite could be ``replaced'' within the terms of the 
license grant.\11\ Iridium argues that we should consider developing 
provisions to terminate a license to prevent additional launches of 
small satellites with designs used in satellites that have previously 
failed in space. Given the financial incentives that licensees have to 
ensure that their satellites are functional, we do not find it 
necessary to adopt a rule specific to the streamlined process that 
would terminate a license in certain instances related to prior 
satellite failures. To the extent that Iridium's concern relates to 
design reliability more generally, however, we note that that issue was 
raised as part of the Commission's Orbital Debris NPRM, and licenses 
issued through the small satellite licensing process may be subject to 
additional requirements based upon the outcome of that proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, a particular license might cover launch and 
operation of up to ten satellites. If one or more of the satellites 
is lost during a launch failure, those lost satellites would not 
count toward the total of ten, since they were never launched or 
operated. Thus, the licensee could still launch additional 
satellites to replace those that were lost without seeking 
additional authorization. This would not be a ``replacement'' 
satellite as described in Sec.  25.113(i) of the Commission's rules, 
however, since the license granted by the Commission pursuant to the 
streamlined small satellite streamlined would not include provision 
for planned replenishment of the constellation. See 47 CFR 
25.113(i); Appendix A, Final Rules. As noted in the NPRM, in-orbit 
spares would also not be authorized under a small satellite license. 
NPRM, 33 FCC Rcd at 4166, n.105. See 47 CFR 25.113(h); Appendix A, 
Final Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Deployment Orbit and Maneuverability
    We will require that applicants certify that their satellite either 
will be deployed below 600 km or have sufficient propulsion 
capabilities to perform collision avoidance maneuvers and deorbit 
within the six-year in-orbit lifetime. Based on satellite technical 
characteristics as specified in FCC part 25 and experimental licensing 
files, 600 km roughly corresponds to the maximum altitude from which it 
is feasible for a CubeSat or other small

[[Page 43717]]

satellite to passively reenter Earth's atmosphere within six years. We 
do not adopt a requirement that small satellites without propulsion 
capabilities authorized under the streamlined process be deployed from 
or below 400 km, roughly the altitude of the International Space 
Station (ISS), at this time. We believe that issues related to all 
satellites transiting through the ISS orbit--both those licensed under 
the small satellite licensing process and those authorized under the 
regular part 25 process--can be better addressed on a more holistic 
basis in the context of Commission's current orbital debris proceeding.
    In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that satellites authorized 
under the streamlined process would either be deployed to an orbit 
below 400 km, or have propulsion. A majority of commenters suggested 
that the proposed certifications regarding deployment were too 
restrictive and either proposed alternate certifications or suggested 
that there be no deployment-related certifications as part of the 
streamlined application process. According to several commenters, the 
proposed limitations would make the streamlined process of little value 
to many commercial applicants. Some commenters suggested that there are 
alternative means for protecting the ISS, including working with the 
ISS program as technology develops to determine what should be required 
of satellites deployed above the ISS. Other commenters support the 400-
km certification. Iridium states that without adequate means of 
maneuverability, there is an increased risk of collision in more 
congested portions of low-Earth orbit, and suggests that the Commission 
may wish to require a more significant showing concerning the adequacy 
of maneuverability and deorbit systems, or process applications to 
launch small satellites under the standard part 25 licensing procedure. 
SES/O3b agrees with the proposed certification as well, and notes that 
other satellite operators may need to expend time and resources 
assessing the efficacy of alternative means of collision avoidance.
    The Commission's initial proposal for a deployment certification 
would have, in some instances, limited the lifetime of a streamlined-
licensed satellite to a period shorter than the certified maximum in-
orbit lifetime. Although some commenters support the 400-km standard 
for certifications, CSSMA notes that even with the originally proposed 
five-year orbital lifetime, many types of small satellites could go 
above 400 km and still meet the orbital lifetime requirement with 
passive or other means. In lieu of 400 km, we therefore adopt a 
deployment certification that is based on the planned orbital lifetime 
of these small satellites. This will allow the streamlined small 
satellites to deploy at altitudes up to where it is feasible that they 
meet the in-orbit lifetime requirement of six years through passive 
deorbiting--an altitude of roughly up to 600 km. Of course, the exact 
altitude can vary widely based on a number of factors, including area-
to-mass ratio, orbit, and solar activity, but we find that using 600 km 
as an upper altitude limit is a useful benchmark for now, which will in 
many instances be consistent with a six-year in-orbit satellite 
lifetime. We recognize that there may be some satellites that can 
deploy above 600 km and still re-enter the atmosphere within six years, 
but 600 km represents an upper end that is a useful reference altitude 
for purposes of streamlined processing. This maximum 600-km deployment 
certification will give operators more flexibility than the proposed 
400-km certification, but will help to ensure that the satellites 
authorized on a streamlined basis will have relatively short in-orbit 
lifetimes. Similar to the in-orbit lifetime certification, this 
deployment certification may rule out some rideshare launch 
opportunities for small satellites lacking propulsion, if those 
satellites are licensed under the streamlined process. However, we find 
that this is a reasonable trade-off to ensure that satellites licensed 
on a streamlined basis will have a shorter in-orbit lifetime.
    In response to those commenters supporting the proposed 400-
kilometer certification, we emphasize that as adopted, the streamlined 
small satellite process will only apply to qualifying applicants that 
have certified that, among other things, the authorized satellite(s) 
will deorbit within six years. Applicants will also certify that the 
risk of in-orbit collision with other large objects is 0.001 or less as 
calculated using NASA software or other higher fidelity models. These 
certifications and others applying to streamlined licensees will help 
to ensure that streamlined-licensed operations are associated with 
lower risk from an orbital debris perspective, and so we find that 
adopting a 600-kilometer certification is appropriate at this time for 
the streamlined process, pending additional discussion as part of the 
Commission's orbital debris proceeding, which would cover all 
Commission-authorized satellites.
    Additionally, SpaceX asks that the Commission adopt more rigorous 
certifications for applicants seeking streamlined processing. SpaceX 
suggests that the Commission require that in order to qualify for 
streamlined processing, a small satellite applicant must certify that 
its satellite(s) have sufficient propulsion capabilities to perform 
collision avoidance maneuvers, regardless of deployment altitude. 
SpaceX expresses concern that a large number of non-maneuverable small 
satellites could present a significant space safety concern for NGSO 
systems operating at altitudes below the ISS and complicate deployment 
of any spacecraft that transits through the sub-ISS altitudes, such as 
satellites destined for higher orbits, as well as manned missions or 
space tourism activities. According to SpaceX, a ``steady rain of 
uncontrolled deorbiting smallsats'' would present a significant 
collision concern for all of these spacecraft during operations below 
the altitude of the ISS. We conclude that we do not need to adopt 
additional, more stringent requirements to protect other operators 
specifically from streamlined-licensed satellites at this time. These 
concerns appear to go beyond simply those satellites licensed on a 
streamlined basis, and instead relate to broader concerns about a safe 
operating environment in low-Earth orbit (LEO). We conclude that these 
concerns can also be addressed as part of the Commission's separate 
proceeding on orbital debris, which makes a number of proposals and 
seeks comment on various topics related to safe operations in LEO for 
all satellites.
    In adopting an altitude certification at this time, we will 
maintain the Commission's proposal that the small satellites may be 
deployed above a particular altitude--now 600 km--if the operator 
certifies that the satellites have sufficient propulsion capabilities 
to perform collision avoidance maneuvers and deorbit within the in-
orbit lifetime term. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded 
that more limited maneuvering capabilities, such as those relying 
primarily on drag, would be insufficient to support deployment at 
higher altitudes under the streamlined small satellite process, as 
those methods will likely require closer Commission review. Numerous 
commenters argue that applicants be provided some flexibility in 
incorporating maneuverability in their satellite design, without 
specifically identifying propulsion as a requirement for streamlined 
small satellites deployed above a particular altitude. Phase Four, for 
example, suggests that the Commission use the phrase ``mobility''

[[Page 43718]]

rather than propulsion, since several subsystems work in concert to 
execute collision avoidance maneuvers, and propulsion systems are not 
the only types of systems that can change a satellite orbit. Boeing 
notes that techniques other than propulsion have been used and are 
being developed to permit small satellites to proactively maneuver 
without the use of propulsion, and thus enable collision avoidance. 
These commenters rightly point out that alternatives to propulsion are 
available, but do not address the Commission's concern that these types 
of methods are likely to require closer Commission review and analysis 
concerning effectiveness and other issues, which is antithetical to 
processing these applications on a streamlined basis. For example, 
while drag augmentation devices may increase the area-to-mass ratio of 
a space structure and consequently reduce its orbital lifetime, the 
larger collision cross-section may increase the probability of 
collision during the orbital decay period. If an operator wishes to 
undertake operations using these types of technologies above the 
deployment altitude specified here, then it should consider a regular 
part 25 authorization or other alternative licensing process where 
appropriate. We recognize that mobility technologies will continue to 
evolve, but at this juncture, we find that determining whether a 
particular satellite does or does not have propulsion is a more 
effective shorthand for purposes of streamlined processing than 
analyzing specific satellite maneuverability details. The certification 
we adopt in this proceeding does not represent a requirement that all 
small satellites have propulsion, but instead will enable the 
Commission to process applications on a streamlined basis, with the 
knowledge that the satellites will generally re-enter Earth's 
atmosphere within a short period of time.
    Our conclusion regarding the eligibility criteria for this process 
does not change our view regarding the importance of minimizing 
disruptions to the ISS and protecting crewed spacecraft. In the NPRM, 
the Commission observed that deployment of satellites lacking 
maneuvering capabilities to orbits from which they will eventually 
transit through the ISS altitude range increases the likelihood that 
the ISS will need to conduct avoidance maneuvers, potentially 
disrupting ISS operations. Accordingly, we adopt the NPRM proposal that 
applicants under the streamlined process must describe in narrative 
form the design and operational strategies that will be used to avoid 
collision with crewed spacecraft. We conclude that adopting a narrative 
informational requirement will help to ensure that small satellite 
operators take operations of the ISS and other crewed spacecraft into 
consideration in planning small satellite activities in orbit.\12\ The 
information provided will also be on the record for evaluation by any 
interested parties. We also note that the Commission sought comment on 
issues related to crewed spacecraft in the Orbital Debris NPRM, and 
will generally address further issues specific to crewed spacecraft in 
the context of that proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For streamlined applicants whose satellite or satellites 
will have any means of maneuverability, we will also retain the 
current requirement in part 25 to indicate the anticipated evolution 
over time of the orbit of the proposed satellite or satellites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Maximum Spacecraft Size
    We adopt the proposal of the NPRM for a maximum mass requirement of 
180 kg for any Earth-orbiting satellite that would be authorized under 
the streamlined process. This upper mass limit is consistent with past 
small satellite license applications and with NASA demarcation of the 
small satellite category, as discussed in the NPRM. A number of 
commenters agree with the mass standard for Earth-orbiting missions.
    Other commenters disagreed with the mass proposal or suggested that 
we should not use mass as a qualifying factor. ORBCOMM suggests that 
the Commission base its calculation on spectrum and orbit use as 
opposed to mass. It argues that a satellite with the mass of 180 kg is 
capable of using a large amount of radiofrequency spectrum and could 
create interference, especially when considering constellations of 
satellites of this mass. We disagree with this suggestion because the 
other criteria for small satellites--particularly the requirement that 
small satellites are compatible with existing operations and will not 
materially constrain future operations of other satellites in the 
requested frequency bands--will help to ensure that small satellites 
can co-exist with other operators.
    Boeing and Analytical Space argue that a maximum mass criterion is 
superfluous and unnecessary considering the other eligibility 
characteristics set forth in this proceeding. The Commercial 
Spaceflight Federation suggests using a measurement of the cross-
surface section area instead of mass for determining size, arguing this 
method is more relevant to orbital debris mitigation. We find that this 
maximum mass characteristic is useful to demarcate a particular type of 
licensee--a small satellite. Spacecraft are generally grouped according 
to their mass and mass is also easier to measure in many respects than 
cross-surface section area, which may change depending on what parts of 
the spacecraft are deployed following launch. Alongside the other 
qualifying characteristics, a maximum mass helps to act as a check on 
the types of operations that may be licensed in a streamlined fashion.
    We conclude that 180 kilograms is a good approximation of small 
satellite size for this purpose, to help filter out any systems that 
are not appropriate for streamlined processing while allowing for 
variety in spacecraft design. Consistent with how NASA describes a 
``small spacecraft'' in the document we referenced in the NPRM, we 
adopt 180 kilograms as a ``wet mass'' limit, which means that it 
includes propellant.
6. Trackability
    The Commission proposed that applicants under the streamlined 
process would certify that each authorized satellite would have 
physical dimensions greater than 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm to ensure 
trackability and that each satellite would be identifiable by unique 
telemetry markers allowing it to be distinguished from other space 
stations or objects. This size is generally consistent with the 1U (one 
unit) CubeSat form factor and the vast majority of small satellites 
launched to date have been this size or larger.\13\ All commenters 
addressing this issue support a trackability requirement, but they 
disagree on what specifically the requirement should entail. Some 
commenters argue that rather than minimum dimensions the requirement 
should be a ``functional'' trackability requirement, which could allow 
even smaller satellites to be authorized as technology advances and 
smaller space objects become more readily trackable. Others argue that 
the 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm requirement should be adopted as a ``safe 
harbor,'' but that satellites with smaller dimensions should be 
permitted if the applicant provides a demonstration of trackability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Consistent with the Commission's proposal to apply a 
minimum size generally consistent with the stowed CubeSat 
specification, i.e., 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm, we note that the minimum 
size does not include parts of the spacecraft that must be 
successfully deployed in order to increase the spacecraft size to 
the minimum specified for the streamlined process, e.g., deployable 
antennas.

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

[[Page 43719]]

    We believe that adopting a minimum size for satellites using the 
streamlined process will help ensure that small satellites are 
trackable while reducing the time needed to review and process 
applications. The 18th Space Control Squadron (18 SPCS) acknowledges 
that it currently tracks objects as small as 1U in size. We therefore 
adopt a certification requirement that each satellite authorized under 
the streamlined process must measure no less than 10 cm in its smallest 
dimension. Consequently, we do not see satisfying this requirement to 
be a substantial burden on potential applicants under the streamlined 
process. We note that the certification we adopt is a slight variant on 
the 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm minimum dimensions proposed in the NPRM, and 
requiring that the satellites be no smaller than 10 cm in their 
smallest dimension provides slightly more flexibility while achieving 
the same aim.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A spherical object with a diameter of 10 cm, for example, 
could still meet this certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not convinced by commenters who support a ``functional'' 
trackability requirement in lieu of adopting minimum dimensions. While 
we acknowledge that technologies exist that can improve the 
trackability of spacecraft, we continue to believe that assessing the 
effectiveness of these technologies will require additional review by 
the Commission, and that such review is inconsistent with a streamlined 
licensing process.
    We also adopt the Commission's proposal to require a certification 
that the spacecraft have unique telemetry markers. We clarify that we 
expect that when a spacecraft transmits telemetry data to the ground it 
will include in that transmission some marker that allows the 
spacecraft to be differentiated from other spacecraft. This signal-
based identification marker, which should be different from those of 
other objects on a particular launch, can assist with identification of 
a satellite for space situational awareness purposes. Several 
commenters support the proposal to require unique telemetry markers. 
University Small-Satellite Researchers and CSSMA seek clarification on 
the telemetry markers, with CSSMA suggesting that if they are ``merely 
a few bits of information in a satellite's telemetry it would perhaps 
not be an undue burden.''
    CSSMA further states that it is not clear what interest would be 
served by being able to distinguish between satellites licensed under 
the streamlined process and all other space objects--as other licensed 
satellites would not be distinguishable amongst each other by a unique 
telemetry marker. As an alternative, CSSMA suggests that the Commission 
require that all satellites associated with any space station licensee 
be registered along with their International Designator, as it appears 
in all Joint Space Operations Center two-line element sets, with the 
Commission, so that an object and its orbit would be locked together 
permanently. ORBCOMM and Iridium propose that small satellite operators 
be required to obtain and share real time ephemeris data with other 
operators.
    To the extent that there are additional technologies or 
methodologies available that could improve the identifiability of 
spacecraft, we encourage operators to implement such technologies, but 
will not require additional certifications at this point for an 
applicant to be eligible for the streamlined licensing process. We 
believe the issues raised by ORBCOMM and Iridium relating to sharing of 
ephemeris data, as well as other additional proposals or methodologies 
related to identification and new tracking technologies, are better 
addressed in connection with the Commission's recent NPRM regarding 
orbital debris mitigation. Although as CSSMA points out, this 
requirement will not apply to satellites other than those authorized 
under the streamlined process, we believe that measures to improve the 
identification of these small satellites are nonetheless appropriate. 
Again, the Commission is considering these topics as they relate to 
Commission-authorized satellites more generally, as part of the Orbital 
Debris NPRM.
7. Casualty Risk
    We adopt the certification requirements as proposed in the NPRM 
regarding casualty risk, specifically that applicants for the part 25 
streamlined process certify that their satellite(s) will be disposed of 
through atmospheric re-entry following conclusion of the mission, and 
certify that they have conducted a casualty risk assessment using the 
NASA Debris Assessment Software or another higher fidelity model, and 
that the assessment resulted in a human casualty risk of zero. Several 
commenters argued that a ``true zero'' casualty risk is likely 
impossible to achieve. We disagree. There are numerous instances, 
documented in FCC files, of satellites that can be reliably predicted 
to burn up completely upon re-entry. We also note, however, that the 
Commission has accepted methodologies used for assessing debris re-
entry casualty risk that consider debris as presenting a casualty risk 
only if it has a kinetic energy of 15 joules or greater. Zero casualty 
risk, particularly with this methodology for assessment, is readily 
achievable for small satellites. This certification is generally 
consistent with applications that can be processed on a streamlined 
basis, as it typically indicates that no additional factual inquiry by 
the Commission or discussion of insurance and liability arrangements, 
for example, is necessary.
    The University Small-Satellite Researchers suggest allowing case-
by-case exemptions to the zero-casualty risk requirement for 
researchers who may need to use certain metals that do not fully 
disintegrate on re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, so long as they can 
demonstrate risk mitigation and obtain third-party liability insurance 
for any potential casualty risk. We believe that the level of analysis 
that would be required to undertake such review is not consistent with 
processing on a streamlined basis and decline to adopt such an 
exemption. Other commenters suggest that the same casualty risk 
standards should be used for small satellites in this streamlined 
process that are used for all other satellites and that the adoption of 
any new standards should be made in a separate rulemaking. As discussed 
above, we believe a zero casualty risk standard is appropriate for the 
part 25 streamlined process.
8. Cessation of Emissions
    In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the proposal to 
require certification that each satellite has the ability to receive 
command signals and cease transmission upon receipt of a command. We 
conclude that applicants must certify that there will be adequate 
control of radiofrequency operations to immediately eliminate any 
harmful interference as may be necessary under the terms of our rules 
or the space station authorization. In particular, satellites must have 
the capability for immediate cessation of emissions upon receipt of a 
telecommand from the ground. The ability to immediately eliminate 
harmful interference may also require, for some operations, that 
transmissions are initiated only by ground command, where, for example, 
there are a limited number of earth stations communicating with the 
satellite or satellites.
    CSSMA proposes that streamlined applicants certify compliance with 
the Commission's current rule on cessation of emissions, Sec.  25.207, 
and provide analysis as to how they do so. Section 25.207 states that 
``[s]pace stations shall be made capable of ceasing radio emissions by 
the use of appropriate

[[Page 43720]]

devices (battery life, timing devices, ground command, etc.) that will 
ensure definition cessation of emissions.'' According to CSSMA, this 
rule already provides a more flexible standard for cessation of 
emissions and achieves the same end as the proposed NPRM requirement. 
CSSMA and Boeing suggest that there are more reliable approaches to 
cessation of emissions than ground transmitting commands and argue that 
it may be appropriate to permit a small satellite to transmit for a 
certain period of time and refrain from resuming transmissions until 
the satellite receives another affirmative command from a ground 
station. SES/O3b does not object to retaining Sec.  25.207 in its 
current state, but opposes further requirements that would prohibit 
transmissions absent an active command, instead suggesting that it is 
more important to know that under any failure mode the satellite will 
cease transmission after a certain period.
    We note that Sec.  25.207 of the Commission's rules has not been 
updated since it was adopted in 1965 and varies slightly from the 
current ITU Radio Regulation No. 22.1, which states that ``[s]pace 
stations shall be fitted with devices to ensure immediate cessation of 
their radio emissions by telecommand, whenever such cessation is 
required under the provisions of these Regulations.'' We are not 
modifying Sec.  25.207 as a general matter in this proceeding. However, 
we find that it is appropriate to require that small satellites 
licensed under the streamlined process have the capability to 
immediately eliminate harmful interference when necessary, which must 
include the ability to cease radio emissions by telecommand. Depending 
on the system design, other means may also be necessary to ensure the 
immediate elimination of harmful interference, such as those described 
by CSSMA and Boeing, and operators should design their systems 
accordingly in order to satisfy the qualifying criterion for 
streamlined processing, although we will not prescribe specific 
designs.
    We thus do not adopt the NPRM proposal that applicants in all 
instances operate via a ``passively safe'' system. We conclude that 
this broader standard of eliminating harmful interference allows for 
design flexibility alongside the backstop requirement to cease 
emissions by telecommand. The ability to eliminate harmful interference 
is important in any system, and particularly so in these systems which 
must share with existing operators and not materially constrain future 
operators in any particular frequency band.
9. Streamlined Small Spacecraft Process
    We adopt the NPRM proposal to allow small spacecraft with planned 
non-Earth orbiting missions, such as commercial lunar missions, to file 
under the streamlined process. All commenters addressing the issue 
support the inclusion of a small spacecraft streamlined licensing 
process. Commenters provided various suggestions for changes to the 
eligibility requirements for the streamlined process in order to allow 
for successful small spacecraft missions while maintaining a 
streamlined administrative process. These suggestions include 
increasing the maximum mass, allowing deorbit by means other than 
atmospheric re-entry, and increased operational lifetimes.
    Based on the record, we conclude that it is appropriate to exempt 
small spacecraft with planned non-Earth orbiting missions from several 
of the certifications required for most applicants under the 
streamlined process and make modifications to others. Specifically, 
applicants for these missions will be exempt from the certifications 
regarding disposal by atmospheric re-entry and deployment altitude. 
While we will not require a qualifying certification related to 
spacecraft disposal by atmospheric re-entry, we will ask that 
applicants for a streamlined small spacecraft license provide a brief 
description of their disposal plan, since there are multiple potential 
disposal scenarios. In addition, we modify the mass certification to 
specify a maximum mass for these spacecraft, including fuel, of 500 
kilograms. This is consistent with the comments we received suggesting 
that we adopt a higher mass limit for non-Earth-orbiting small 
spacecraft systems.
    We also received comments proposing that spacecraft applying under 
the small spacecraft streamlined process be subject to different 
license terms, for example, 10 or 25 years. SIA, on the other hand, 
proposed that there should not necessarily be different license terms 
for non-Earth-orbiting missions, as such missions are limited by 
component life, the deep space environment, and the initial launch 
trajectory. It is unclear whether such non-Earth-orbiting missions 
would in fact need a longer license term, and so we decline to adopt a 
different license term or spacecraft lifetime certification for small 
spacecraft at this time, and apply a maximum six-year license term. 
This maximum six-year license term and spacecraft lifetime, as 
described above, can be considered generally commensurate with short 
duration operations.\15\ We may revisit this topic in the future once 
we have additional experience authorizing these missions, but at this 
time missions seeking longer license terms may apply under the 
Commission's other existing licensing processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We reserve the right to issue a license with a shorter 
license term for planned operations of less than six years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Operational Debris and Collision Risk
    In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that applicants for the 
streamlined process certify (1) that their satellite(s) will release no 
operational debris; (2) that the satellite operator has assessed and 
limited the probability of accidental explosions, including those 
resulting from the conversion of energy on board the satellite into 
energy that fragments the spacecraft; and (3) that the probability of 
an in-orbit collision between each satellite and any other large object 
\16\ during the orbital lifetime of the space station is less than 
0.001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A ``large object'' will be considered to be a space object 
larger than 10 cm in diameter. See NASA Standard at 4.5-1. NASA's 
Debris Analysis Software, for example, will calculate probability of 
accidental collision with space objects larger than 10 cm in 
diameter. See NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, Debris Assessment 
Software User's Guide, Version 2.1 at 3.5 (October 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the first two certifications--release of 
operational debris and accidental explosions--all the commenters 
addressing these topics agreed with the proposed certifications. We 
therefore adopt the certifications as proposed in the NPRM, limiting 
eligibility for the streamlined licensing process to those satellites 
that release no operational debris during mission lifetime and 
requiring a certification from applicants that the satellite operator 
has assessed and limited the probability of accidental explosions, 
including those resulting from the conversion of energy sources on 
board the space station into energy that fragments the spacecraft. The 
NPRM also sought comment on whether a certification alone was adequate 
with respect to the probability of accidental explosions or on whether 
there may be circumstances in which a more detailed disclosure and 
review is appropriate. We did receive some comments relevant to this 
question of what demonstrations should be submitted to the Commission, 
specifically whether an Orbital Debris Assessment Report should be 
included with each streamlined application, and those comments are 
addressed in the section of this Order on application requirements.

[[Page 43721]]

    We also adopt the third proposed applicant certification on this 
topic, specifically that the probability of each satellite's risk of 
in-orbit collision with large objects is less than 0.001, noting that 
this certification is consistent with the technical guidance developed 
by NASA for its space missions. In the NPRM, we sought comment on 
whether the 0.001 metric was appropriate for satellites under the 
streamlined process, or whether a more stringent standard may be 
appropriate. A number of commenters agreed with a 0.001 probability of 
risk of in-orbit collision certification proposed in the NPRM. CSSMA 
agrees with the 0.001 risk of collision certification, but argues that 
the Commission should adopt this certification in lieu of limiting the 
orbital altitude or requiring propulsive capability. As described in 
the previous sections, the orbital altitude certification, and 
corresponding certification that streamlined-licensed satellites above 
that altitude must have propulsion, help to ensure that the operations 
authorized under the streamlined process are limited in duration and 
that the satellites will not remain in low-Earth orbit for long periods 
of time following the end of their useful lives. Although a low 
collision risk as calculated using available modeling tools is an 
important part of orbital debris mitigation, the other qualifying 
criteria we adopt also decrease the probability that such spacecraft 
will contribute to the creation of orbital debris, consistent with the 
public interest in the continued viability of operations in LEO.
    In its comments, ORBCOMM suggests that there should be updates to 
the Commission's rules more broadly on the topic of orbital debris and 
space traffic management. ``Given the limits of using models to 
forecast potential collision risks,'' ORBCOMM states, the Commission 
should adopt robust space traffic management obligations that would 
apply to small satellite system operators and other NGSO satellite 
system operators. The Center for Space Standards and Innovation (CSSI) 
suggests that we consider reviewing the risk of collision in aggregate, 
rather than for each individual satellite. As noted, subsequent to the 
release of the Small Satellite NPRM, the Commission adopted the Orbital 
Debris NPRM, seeking comment on a wide variety of topics related to 
orbital debris and operations under part 25, among other things. The 
issues raised by both CSSI and ORBCOMM are discussed more broadly in 
the Orbital Debris NPRM. For purposes of this proceeding, we therefore 
adopt the certification regarding satellite risk of in-orbit collision 
with large objects as it was proposed in the NPRM, including that the 
certification will be on an individual satellite basis. This 
certification for streamlined small satellites may be modified, 
however, based on the outcome of the Orbital Debris NPRM.
11. Other Characteristics
    Scope of Frequency Use. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment 
on the typical frequency use characteristics of small satellites that 
would be authorized under the proposed streamlined process, and on the 
type and quantity of spectrum that would be needed for small satellites 
to operate and the extent to which transmissions requiring larger 
bandwidth could be conducted via inter-satellite links or alternatives 
such as optical links. CSSMA responded to the Commission's inquiry with 
fairly extensive information regarding typical current and future 
frequency use characteristics of small satellites, based on what it 
describes as its own internal review, taking into consideration its 
members' business plans and experiences. SpaceX suggests that we 
consider specifying bandwidth and power limits for systems seeking 
streamlined consideration to correspond with the expectations expressed 
by the Commission in the NPRM. Also, ORBCOMM suggests that the 
Commission should consider establishing a streamlined processing 
qualification envelope based more concretely on spectrum and orbit use.
    We do not find that it is necessary, however, even given the 
potential capabilities of a 180 kg satellite and some of the upper 
ranges of data rates, power levels, and bandwidths described by CSSMA, 
to adopt generalized limitations on spectrum use for streamlined small 
satellites, other than the sharing requirements that have already been 
described. Contrary to the suggestions of SpaceX and ORBCOMM, we 
believe the other qualifying criteria of the streamlined process are 
sufficiently rigorous even without a limitation on bandwidths or power 
levels. Specifically, concerns regarding potential interference from a 
streamlined applicant, such as those expressed generally by ORBCOMM, 
can be addressed through the application process described, wherein an 
applicant must certify and describe how its operations can share with 
existing operations in the requested frequency band and not materially 
constrain future operations. So long as an applicant can make a 
sufficient demonstration that it can satisfy those qualifying 
characteristics, we do not see a reason to adopt a rule limiting the 
power or bandwidth that can be used by streamlined licensees as a 
general matter. Depending on the system design and frequency band 
requested, a satellite that will operate at a higher power and use a 
larger bandwidth than what might now be considered typical for a small 
satellite may have difficulty sharing with other operations. In that 
case, such a satellite would not be able to be licensed under the 
streamlined process. In other instances, perhaps there are system 
characteristics that would permit sharing despite the fact that a 
satellite would be operating at a relatively higher power and/or using 
a larger bandwidth.
    Efficiency of Spectrum Use. SpaceX proposes that the Commission 
consider efficiency of spectrum use as an additional criterion for 
small satellite applicants seeking streamlined treatment, and suggests 
that the Commission give applicants proposing more spectrally-efficient 
systems ``more expedited consideration'' under the streamlined process. 
SpaceX expresses concern that some of the examples of indicia of 
sharing that the Commission listed in the NPRM, such as small 
satellites operating at only certain times during the day or only at 
specific geographic locations, would hamper another satellite system 
that sought to operate at the same times or in the same locations. 
SpaceX suggests that, within the streamlined process, the Commission 
prioritize what SpaceX describes as technologically innovative 
approaches such as use of phased array antennas, and adaptive beam-
forming strategies allowing for satellites to target narrow coverage 
areas more precisely and reuse spectrum many times over to maximize 
throughput.
    We decline to adopt a separate ``spectrum efficiency'' qualifying 
characteristic or to prioritize certain types of sharing within the 
streamlined process. We agree with SpaceX that spectral efficiency is 
important. However, the approach SpaceX identifies appears to relate to 
more general concerns applicable beyond the streamlined small satellite 
process, including the processing of NGSO-like applications in 
processing rounds. We continue to believe that more limited types of 
operations should be the focus of this proceeding. We do not believe 
anything would be gained by establishing some type of prioritization 
within the streamlined process for systems with certain types of 
technological capability related to spectrum efficiency, although we 
expect

[[Page 43722]]

that such systems will be more readily able to establish that they can 
operate without materially constraining other operators.

C. Application Requirements

    We adopt our proposal from the NPRM to use the Form 312 and 
Schedule S as the basis for applications filed under the part 25 
streamlined process. Commenters who addressed this issue generally 
support our proposals.
    CSSMA suggests that we also consider allowing applicants to provide 
a range of operational altitudes and inclinations with their 
applications and to submit representative worst-case gain contour plots 
for antennas. SES/O3b opposed CSSMA's proposal, arguing that orbital 
parameters and antenna gain contour plots are necessary for existing 
operators to conduct an analysis of the potential for interference 
posed by the small satellite system. We decline to adopt CSSMA's 
proposal to relax the Schedule S requirements for small satellites. 
While we think that it is appropriate to streamline certain parts of 
our rules, we continue to believe that the requirements of Form 312 and 
Schedule S provide necessary basic information that allows the 
Commission to assess the suitability of the applicant for licensing and 
allows other operators to assess the risk of interference posed by the 
system, and we decline to make modifications to Schedule S. In the 
event that an applicant under the streamlined process has concerns or 
questions about how to fill out a certain part of Schedule S, the 
applicant may file a supplement explaining how it completed the form or 
otherwise inquire with staff about how best to proceed.
    Additionally, several commenters suggested that we specifically 
require the submission of an Orbital Debris Assessment Report. An 
Orbital Debris Assessment Report is a report intended to document 
compliance with orbital debris mitigation requirements, using a format 
developed for NASA missions. It is described in the NASA Standard as 
having fourteen sections, some of which relate to the launch vehicle. 
Some applicants for experimental and part 25 licenses currently submit 
a version of an Orbital Debris Assessment Report with their application 
materials, consisting of information relevant to an FCC evaluation. The 
information typically contained in an Orbital Debris Assessment Report 
is submitted to satisfy the Commission's existing orbital debris 
disclosure requirements, and some information in an Orbital Debris 
Assessment Report may be beyond what is currently required by the 
Commission's rules. The Orbital Debris Assessment Report usually 
contains, for example, a section on assessment of spacecraft debris 
released during normal operations, which would include descriptive 
information on any object expected to be released, a section on 
potential for explosions, which would provide detailed plans regarding 
passivation and other issues, and a section on potential for in-orbit 
collisions, which would include a calculation using the NASA Debris 
Assessment Software. While the Orbital Debris Assessment Report format 
often includes sufficient information to satisfy FCC disclosure 
requirements, particularly for non-maneuverable spacecraft, it does not 
solicit information about some aspects of satellite operations, such as 
``flight plans'' or the maintenance of orbital parameters via 
propulsion, that are identified in FCC rules. CSSMA and SIA suggest 
that we ask streamlined applicants to submit an Orbital Debris 
Assessment Report, ``prepared in a manner consistent with existing part 
25 rules.'' CSSMA states that preparation of an Orbital Debris 
Assessment Report is not a significant burden to a satellite operator 
and provides all other operators and the Commission with detailed 
analysis of how the requirements are met. It notes that the free NASA 
Debris Assessment Software is available to assist with such analysis, 
and that the analysis is a critical element of ensuring the orbital 
debris mitigation guidelines are met. SIA notes that an Orbital Debris 
Assessment Report requirement would allow the Commission and other 
operators to review the assumptions and analysis that goes into the 
certifications. Relatedly, CSSI expresses concern that the standard 
applicant will not have the technical familiarity and subject matter 
expertise to certify their ability to assess collision probability. 
CSSI also states that the Commission should allow sophisticated 
applicants to use a higher fidelity approach to determining probability 
of collision in certain instances.
    We adopt the certification process proposed in the NPRM. We decline 
to specify a single format, such as the Orbital Debris Assessment 
Report, for submitting information in response to orbital debris 
mitigation requirements, since we want to provide applicants with 
flexibility. However, certifications should not be made casually, and 
applicants should ensure that certifications are made only after 
appropriate planning and analysis. For that reason, it is advisable for 
applicants to prepare an Orbital Debris Assessment Report or similar 
document outlining the process used to verify the accuracy of 
certifications. We expect that all applicants will use the NASA Debris 
Assessment Software or other higher fidelity modeling tools to perform 
the calculations necessary to address the various certifications and 
will maintain documentation associated with each of the certifications 
for inclusion in the public application file upon request. Furthermore, 
because the certifications will not in all circumstances address all 
required disclosures under our debris mitigation rules, applicants will 
need to submit narrative information in addition to certifications.

D. Application Processing

    There is general support in the record for the proposal to exempt 
streamlined small satellites from the NGSO processing round procedures. 
We adopt our proposals related to streamlined application processing 
based on our understanding of the characteristics and scope of 
operations that generally define small satellites. In particular, as 
noted in the NPRM, a small satellite is typically designed to serve its 
purpose within a limited, relatively short period of time, and these 
satellites have more limited frequency use characteristics than more 
traditional operations licensed under part 25. An applicant under the 
streamlined process will not be subject to processing round procedures 
or default service rules.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 47 CFR 25.157 (consideration of applications for NGSO-
like satellite operation); 47 CFR 25.127 (default service rules). 
ORBCOMM states that the NPRM proposed to use ``first-come, first-
served'' approach for streamlined small satellites. ORBCOMM Comments 
at 6. While the new process is a first-come, first-served process in 
the sense that applications will be processed without establishing 
the ``cut-off'' dates used in processing rounds, the approach 
proposed and adopted here differs in some respects from the 
Commission's first-come, first-served procedures as applied in the 
geostationary-orbit satellite (GSO) context. See 47 CFR 25.158. In 
that context, FCC rules preclude subsequent operators seeking to 
operate at or close to the same particular orbital location with the 
same coverage and in the same frequency band. See, e.g., Amendment 
of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Polices, First 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC 
Rcd 10760, 10795, para. 79 (2003) (68 FR 51499 (Aug. 27, 2003) and 
68 FR 53702 (Sept. 12, 2003)); compare Orbcomm License Corp., 23 FCC 
Rcd 4804, at n. 26 and para. 23 (applying a first-come first served 
approach, subject to accommodation of new licensees). By contrast, 
here there are no ``orbital locations'' as there are in GSO, and a 
small satellite operator filing subsequent to another small 
satellite operator in the same frequency bands will not be 
precluded, since the initial filer (and all subsequent filers) will 
have certified that its operations will not materially constrain 
future operators in the requested frequency bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, we adopt the following qualifying requirement, generally 
as

[[Page 43723]]

proposed in the NPRM, designed to support the exemption for these small 
satellites from the part 25 processing round. An applicant will be 
required to (a) certify that operations of its satellites will not 
interfere with those of existing operators, (b) certify that it will 
not materially constrain future operators from using the assigned 
frequency band(s), and (c) provide a brief narrative description 
illustrating the methods by which both current and future operators 
will not be materially constrained. We expect that the spectrum demands 
of systems qualifying for the streamlined process will differ 
substantially from the requirements for full-time system availability 
that characterize the NGSO systems typically processed through a 
processing round. Examples of applications that might satisfy these 
sharing requirements may include scenarios in which a satellite 
operates with a limited number of earth stations and downlinks during 
relatively short periods of time, with the ability to effectively 
schedule transmissions such that future satellite entrants can be 
accommodated. Applications that fail to adequately satisfy the sharing 
demonstration will be subject to dismissal, without prejudice to 
refiling for processing under regular part 25 procedures. We note that 
even if an applicant's demonstration does satisfy this qualifying 
criteria for streamlined processing, that does not automatically mean 
the application for the requested frequency bands will be granted--the 
proposed radiofrequency (RF) operations will be subject to further 
review for compliance with the Commission's rules and policies, as with 
a regular part 25 application, and may require coordination with other 
operations in the band, whether those operations are commercial 
(including satellite and non-satellite) or Federal in nature, and may 
be subject to additional conditions as necessary.
    We note that in the NPRM the Commission proposed that small 
satellite applicants be required to certify and demonstrate that they 
would not ``unreasonably preclude'' future operators from using the 
assigned frequency band(s). In comments, Boeing expresses concern that 
the ``unreasonably preclude'' certification standard may impose little 
or no practical obligation on licensees. We agree, and we find that 
requiring that applicants' planned operations not ``materially 
constrain'' future entrants from using the frequency band(s) imposes a 
clearer obligation on licensees vis-[agrave]-vis a future satellite 
operator in the same band(s). For example, under an ``unreasonably 
preclude'' standard an applicant could have sought to operate in such a 
way that would make it impractical for future entrants to operate in 
the frequency band, but may argue that the preclusion is somehow 
``reasonable.'' Under a review of whether that same applicant would 
impose material constraints on future entrants into the frequency band, 
however, it would be clear that such operations would be imposing 
material constraints, and the applicant would not be able to argue that 
it satisfies the required certification. Thus, we find that the 
``materially constrain'' standard provides more clarity to applicants 
in what the Commission will consider as an adequate certification and 
demonstration supporting exemption from the processing round 
procedures. In the NPRM, the Commission described an example scenario, 
where a satellite operates with a limited number of earth stations for 
purposes of downlinking sensing data during relatively short periods of 
time, but still may be able to accommodate future entrants using the 
same frequency bands. The Commission could find that such operations 
would not materially constrain future entrants from using the frequency 
bands, even if new entrants might be unable to use the frequencies for 
certain periods of time at certain locations when the earlier-licensed 
operator is communicating with its earth stations, and so would satisfy 
the requirements we adopt here.
    Boeing further argues that even following authorization, a 
streamlined licensee should be required to make ``technically 
feasible'' changes to its system if required to facilitate sharing of 
scarce orbital and spectrum resources with other small commercial 
satellites. In Boeing's view, non-streamlined NGSO licensees are 
arguably subject to a higher standard of sharing with other operators 
than ``unreasonable preclusion,'' in that they are required to 
``discuss their technical operations in good faith with an aim to 
accommodating both systems.'' So long as the applicant has provided the 
required certifications and narrative that describes the methodology by 
which the system is capable of sharing with other operations and will 
not materially constrain future entrants in the requested frequency 
band, we see no reason to impose additional generalized obligations--
specifically the inclusion of a ``technically feasible'' requirement, 
as Boeing suggests, in addition to the proposed certifications. It is 
important to note, however, that we expect the methodology for sharing 
to include coordination in good faith with other operators, including, 
if necessary, acceptance of new constraints on operations, because 
failing to do so would in effect be ``materially constraining'' other 
operations. We expect that the system design will also provide a basis 
for capability to share, alongside the fact that no more than 10 
satellites will be authorized under a single license and the total term 
for all operations under a license will not exceed six years.
    Several commenters suggest criteria for examining the sufficiency 
of certifications concerning impact on other operations. Iridium states 
that eligible small satellite applicants should not be able to obtain a 
license based on conclusory assertions that they will operate on a non-
interference, unprotected basis but should be required to explain the 
technical basis for their determination that there will be no harmful 
interference. We agree. The narrative statement supporting 
certification will require more than a conclusory assertion. A 
commitment to cease transmissions if interference is reported is not 
sufficient by itself. Instead, the narrative should provide a technical 
analysis to support the applicant's certification. Of course, the 
content and length of the narrative may vary depending on what 
frequency band is requested. The radio frequency environment in a 
particular requested frequency band, as well as the scope and type of 
operations contemplated by the applicant, will inform the content of 
the narrative description, including whether coordination is necessary 
with incumbent operators. Relatedly, ORBCOMM urges the Commission to 
require any new small satellite system applicant to complete spectrum 
and orbit resource coordination before any such applicant is authorized 
to operate any satellites under the streamlined procedures. In a 
frequency band where the only viable way to share with an existing 
operator is through operator-to-operator coordination, we would expect 
that the applicant would describe the status of that coordination 
process and reserve the right to grant the application only after that 
coordination is completed.
    Additionally, SIA proposes that the Commission allow applicants for 
the streamlined process to identify ground station requirements or 
ground station options, rather than specify a complete ground station 
plan in the narrative. According to SIA, once an applicant knows its 
ground station plan, it can provide the plan in a supplemental filing 
and/or through direct communications with other operators

[[Page 43724]]

during the coordination process. We decline to adopt SIA's suggestion 
and will require that applicants provide ground station information 
along with their application. We appreciate SIA's interest in providing 
applicants with flexibility and recognize that ground station plans can 
sometimes change as system design evolves. However, ground station 
plans are an important part of the coordination process, including with 
Federal users. Other operators are likely to be interested in ground 
station plans as well, and therefore this information is an important 
part of the public record for a streamlined small satellite 
application. We believe that this information should be made available 
at the outset to the fullest extent possible, even if in some instances 
it may need to later be revised.
    We received several comments suggesting that the Commission modify 
public notice procedures to its standard application review processes 
for small satellite applications. CSSMA proposes a reduction in the 
public notice period for the streamlined process to 15 days and 
proposes that the nature of comments be limited to only those that 
challenge the qualifications of an operator to use the streamlined 
process. We decline to adopt these proposals. Under our current part 25 
rules, once public notice has been issued announcing that an 
application has been accepted for filing, interested parties have up to 
30 days to file a petition to deny, petition for other form of relief 
or other objections or comments. We conclude that the amount of time 
gained from reducing the public notice period would not be worth 
establishing an entirely separate set of timelines for the comment 
period on these streamlined applications, and might unreasonably 
restrict the opportunity for meaningful comment on applications.
    We also decline to limit the scope of issues that comments can 
address as requested by CSSMA. If an interested party has a concern 
about something outside the scope of the streamlined characteristics, 
for example, the orbital parameters of a particular system, or seeks 
clarification on what it views as an inconsistency within an 
application, that interested party should be able to raise those issues 
within the public notice process. We also note that applications will 
include narrative information that addresses matters other than 
eligibility for the small satellite licensing process. Restricting 
comment concerning this information and any issues it may raise would 
be unreasonable.
    CSSMA further requests that we institute a period of 45 days for 
comments to be resolved between operators following the end of the 
public notice period, and that in the absence of an agreement, the 
Commission must act to dismiss the application or dismiss the petition 
to deny. We believe adding this formal timeline is also unnecessary. As 
the Commission has stated in various arenas, including for example, in 
the context of NGSO operator-to-operator coordination, we expect 
parties to coordinate in good faith. If questions arise as to whether a 
party is coordinating in good faith to resolve an issue, the matter may 
be quickly brought to the attention of the Commission, and we will 
intervene to make a decision. We do not find it necessary to adopt a 
rule on this topic, however, since the circumstances will differ for 
each individual scenario.
    Additionally, the University Small-Satellite Researchers and CSSMA 
ask that we provide additional transparency by instituting a process to 
enable application tracking, following the submission of an application 
to the Commission, for example, through the International Bureau Filing 
System (IBFS), for both the streamlined process and regular part 25 
applications. While we understand the desire for timely feedback both 
on any technical issues with an application as well as on application 
status, we believe that our existing system is adequate and decline to 
make changes to our application tracking systems as part of this 
proceeding.

E. Interference Protection Status

    The NPRM proposed that systems authorized under the streamlined 
process would typically receive the level of interference protection 
they are entitled to under the relevant service allocation in the U.S. 
Table of Frequency Allocations (U.S. Table). In bands where part 25 
licensees have been authorized pursuant to a non-streamlined process, 
i.e., through a processing round, the Commission proposed that 
licensees under the streamlined process would be subject to some 
limitations on a frequency-band specific basis, including, in 
appropriate circumstances, that operations are on a non-interference 
basis with respect to part 25 systems authorized in a processing round. 
The Commission also sought comment on the interference protection 
status of streamlined small satellites vis-[agrave]-vis non-satellite 
services.
    Commenters generally support adoption of the Commission's proposal 
that systems authorized under the streamlined process would typically 
receive the level of interference protection they are entitled to under 
the relevant service allocation in the U.S. Table of Frequency 
Allocations (U.S. Table), and we adopt this proposal. Small satellites 
authorized through the streamlined procedure will in general have 
status consistent with the relevant service as allocated in the U.S. 
Table and will be subject to the same rules as a regular part 25 
licensee with respect to sharing with systems operating in frequencies 
allocated to other services, including non-satellite services. However, 
we will evaluate small satellite applications filed under the 
streamlined procedure on a case-by-case basis, and if necessary, may 
impose certain other conditions to minimize adverse effects of such 
operations on current or potential future use of the relevant bands by 
satellite and non-satellite services, including the protection of, or 
acceptance of interference from, satellite and non-satellite services. 
In evaluating the effects of small satellite operations on current or 
potential use of the relevant bands by other services, we will evaluate 
the proposed operations as we would those of any other system filed 
under Part 25. For operations in bands shared with Federal users, 
conditions may also be imposed as required per coordination of the 
requested operations with Federal users.
    With respect to the status of streamlined licensees vis-[agrave]-
vis regular part 25 licensees, we also adopt the Commission's proposal 
that streamlined small satellites will operate on a non-interference 
basis relative to regularly-authorized part 25 satellites \18\ 
operating in the same service. Some commenters state that streamlined 
small satellite licensees should be required to protect all regularly 
authorized part 25 licensees operating in any service, even if they are 
operating in a service with a lower allocation status. In the unlikely 
event that a streamlined small satellite licensee is operating in a 
service that has a higher status afforded by the U.S. Table than a 
service being used by a regularly-authorized part 25 operator, however, 
we would not expect that the

[[Page 43725]]

small satellite would be required to, for example, accept harmful 
interference from the regular part 25 operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ There is support in the record for requiring streamlined 
licensees to protect regular part 25 licensees or market access 
grantees operating in the same service, including those processed 
through a processing round, as well as those authorized through 
first-come, first-served procedures or granted waivers related to 
application processing. See, e.g., Boeing Comments at 6. Thus, 
``regularly-authorized'' part 25 licensees or grantees will be any 
satellites or systems authorized under part 25 not through the 
streamlined small satellite process. To the extent that any operator 
has concerns about interference to its authorized part 25 system, 
that operator may raise concerns regarding the application through 
the standard public notice process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Revised Bond Requirement

    The NPRM sought comment on the proposal to adopt a one-year ``grace 
period,'' applicable to small satellite streamlined licensees, during 
which the licensees would not need to post the surety bond required 
under the Commission's rules. We adopt the NPRM proposal. As proposed 
and adopted, this grace period would begin 30 days after the license 
was granted. Under the existing rules, licensees for most NGSO systems 
are required to have a surety bond on file no later than 30 days 
following grant of a license or request for market access. The surety 
bond must initially require payment of $1 million in the event of 
default, and the amount payable under the bond must steadily escalate, 
to a maximum of $5 million. Under the rules, a licensee will be 
considered to be in default with respect to the bond if it fails to 
satisfy certain milestone requirements or surrenders its license before 
meeting an applicable milestone requirement. The part 25 milestone 
rules require that a recipient of an initial authorization for an NGSO 
system must launch 50% of the maximum number of space stations 
authorized for service, place them in their assigned orbits, and 
operate them in accordance with the station authorization no later than 
6 years after the grant of the authorization. As adopted here for 
streamlined small satellite systems, if by the end of the one-year 
grace period this milestone has been met then no bond is required.
    While several commenters agree with our proposal to modify the bond 
requirement by adopting a grace period for streamlined small 
satellites, a number of commenters argue that the bond requirement 
should be eliminated altogether for small satellites authorized under 
the streamlined process. Many of these commenters contend that spectrum 
``warehousing'' is not implicated by the streamlined process, since 
spectrum would be authorized on a non-exclusive basis, and therefore 
there is no need for the bond and milestone requirements as a deterrent 
to speculative applications.
    We are not convinced by the argument that there is no value to 
having any type of bond requirement for these systems. As the 
Commission recently noted in a separate proceeding, unused 
authorizations for spectrum-orbit resources can create unnecessary 
coordination burdens and uncertainty for other operators. This is true 
even where, as under the streamlined process, the satellite operators 
have effectively the same status relative to each other, and the 
frequency assignments are non-exclusive. While some commenters allege 
that the application fee presents a sufficient deterrent to speculative 
applications in this area, we disagree, since some applicants could 
view a Commission license grant as an asset worth the now-reduced 
application fee, even though their satellite or system is far from 
launch.
    Boeing suggests that if we do decide to retain the bond for 
streamlined small satellite licensees, the grace period should be 
extended to two years. Boeing states that satellite operators may order 
long-lead items such as radio transmitters and receivers only after 
securing Commission authorization for particular frequency bands, and 
that the manufacturing time for these items combined with spacecraft 
assembly, testing, and scheduling of launch can easily exceed 12 
months. We decline to extend the grace period to more than one year, as 
we believe the one-year time period provides a benefit to operators 
qualifying for the streamlined process and is consistent with the 
typically shorter development timelines for these satellites, while 
deterring speculative filings. Before the one-year mark, we believe a 
licensee should be able to assess if and when it will realistically be 
able to begin operations. Thus, we adopt the one-year grace period 
before an operator must file a bond.
    Consistent with the NPRM proposal, we also conclude that following 
the one-year grace period, operators that have met the 50% milestone 
may still launch and operate additional satellites, provided that the 
satellite(s) can still satisfy the criteria for the streamlined 
process, including deorbit within the six-year license term. Licensees 
failing to begin operations during the one-year grace period may 
surrender their license to avoid the bond requirement, and would not be 
precluded from filing another license application. Finally, licensees 
launching and operating one or more satellites within the one-year 
grace period, but failing to launch and operate 50% of their authorized 
satellites within that period, may choose to either post a bond and be 
subject to the standard NGSO bond and milestone requirements,\19\ or in 
the case of licenses that specify multiple satellites, accept an 
automatic reduction in the number of authorized satellites to the 
number actually in orbit as of the close of the grace period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The applicable NGSO milestones and bond amount will be 
calculated from the time of license grant, thus, while a licensee 
has a one-year grace period from filing the bond, the licensee must 
secure a bond in the amount that is required one year into its 
license grant. See 47 CFR 25.165(a)(1). Similarly, the applicable 
milestone will be calculated beginning on the date of license grant. 
See 47 CFR 25.164(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Technical Rules

    We adopt the proposal from the NPRM that the existing generally 
applicable technical rules in part 25 also apply to small satellites 
authorized under the streamlined process. No commenters disagreed with 
this proposal.

H. Fees

    Application Fees. We adopt the NPRM proposal and set an application 
fee for applicants under the part 25 streamlined process at $30,000. At 
this time, we believe this application fee is a reasonable estimate of 
the cost of processing these types of applications. Under a recent 
amendment to the Communications Act (the Act), the RAY BAUM'S Act of 
2018, which became effective October 1, 2018, the Commission is 
directed to ``amend the schedule of application fees . . . if the 
Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment . . . so 
that such schedule reflects the consolidation or addition of new 
categories of applications.'' The Act states that ``[t]he Commission 
shall assess and collect application fees at such rates as the 
Commission shall establish in a schedule of application fees to recover 
the costs of the Commission to process applications.'' Our preliminary 
estimate of the cost of processing these types of applications is 
approximately $30,000. Processing these applications will include, 
among other things, review of the Form 312 and Schedule S, as well as 
review of the certifications and narrative for acceptability for 
filing, preparation of public notices, review of the applications on 
the merits and preparation of grant documents, including development of 
grant conditions. Applications will also require submission of ITU 
filings, and prior to grant many applications are likely to require 
coordination either with other Commission bureaus or offices and/or 
with Federal users. As more experience in processing these new 
streamlined small satellite applications is acquired, this fee may be 
reviewed in the future and adjusted as necessary. However, our 
expectation is that review of satellite applications filed under the 
proposed streamlined process will be less resource-intensive than the

[[Page 43726]]

review of a regular part 25 NGSO application, given the streamlined 
application process we adopt here, including lack of processing rounds.
    As noted, we are adopting our proposal to make streamlined 
processing available for entities seeking access to the U.S. market 
using foreign-licensed satellites through a declaratory ruling. While 
in the past application fees have not applied to foreign-licensed 
entities seeking access to the U.S. market through a declaratory 
ruling, here we are adopting an entirely new regulatory process 
designed for small satellites, and a fee category pursuant to the 
recent amendments to the Act. As noted, section 8 of the Act, as 
revised, requires that the Commission assess and collect application 
fees at such rates as to ``recover the costs of the Commission to 
process applications.'' This represents a change from the prior version 
of section 8 of the Act, which established a schedule of fees, 
including specific fee categories, by statute, and did not give the 
Commission authority to establish new categories of application fees. 
Here, where we are adding a new category to the fee schedule, pursuant 
to our authority under section 8 as revised, the new fee we are adding 
should recover the processing costs associated with such applications, 
which will include petition for declaratory ruling applications from 
entities seeking to access the U.S. market using foreign-licensed 
satellites through the small satellite process. These filings will 
include the same information as applications for U.S. licenses, and can 
be expected to incur comparable processing costs. Therefore, in order 
to comply with the statute as revised, we conclude that the $30,000 
application fee will apply to entities seeking market access for small 
satellites under the streamlined process. The amendment of the fee 
schedule for small satellites and small spacecraft within the NGSO 
category is an amendment to the schedule as defined in section 8(c) of 
the Act, which, pursuant to section 9a(b)(2), must be submitted to 
Congress at least 90 days before it becomes effective.
    In adopting this new application fee category and application fee 
amount as part of this proceeding, we make an important observation. 
The Commission will be undertaking, as part of a separate proceeding, a 
comprehensive review of its application fees, which may consider, among 
other things, the appropriate methodologies for calculating application 
fees. We believe it is nonetheless appropriate to adopt a fee here, as 
it will permit us to begin processing applications under the small 
satellite process--which should ultimately yield more data on what 
Commission resources are required for application processing in this 
area. We understand there is additional work to be undertaken in this 
area regarding specific methodologies for calculating fees, and that, 
as noted above, modifications may be necessary to the $30,000 fee 
adopted here as such methodologies are implemented, and the Commission 
gains experience processing these types of applications. The existing 
fee for NGSO part 25 systems, $471,575.00, is plainly not an 
appropriate fee for much-less-resource-intensive review required for 
these systems.
    No commenter opposed the proposed fee, and several commenters 
argued that there were powerful policy reasons for adopting a lower fee 
for small satellite applications. We recognize these policy rationales, 
while noting that the basis of our adoption of the $30,000 fee is the 
estimated cost of processing the application. The University Small-
Satellite Researchers would have the Commission go further, and urge us 
to make the streamlined process viable for educational and scientific 
missions and to place the application fees for small satellite 
applicants from educational institutions on par with the fee structure 
for part 5 experimental licenses. The University Small-Satellite 
Researchers contend that the Commission should consider holistically 
the aggregate impact of both the application fee and multiple years of 
regulatory fees on small satellite missions. According to the 
University Small-Satellite Researchers, aggregating the proposed 
application fee along with the proposed regulatory fee for a two-year 
mission could result in a fee that could represent more than 15 percent 
of the budget of an educational satellite mission. They suggest that 
these costs are likely to be prohibitive for even well-resourced 
missions and therefore the additional interference protections and 
other benefits of the streamlined part 25 process will not be 
sufficient to enable educational institutions to shoulder the 
additional costs. We emphasize that the part 5 experimental licensing 
process will remain available for academic and research missions. We 
appreciate that even the much-reduced $30,000 application fee can be 
significant for research missions, but we disagree with the suggestion 
that the Commission create a separate application fee category for a 
subset of licensees, such as educational institutions, within the NGSO 
streamlined small satellite fee category. Under section 8 of the Act, 
the Commission is directed to set application fees that cover the costs 
of the Commission to process applications, and unlike in section 9 of 
the Act, addressing regulatory fees, there is no general exemption from 
application fees for a nonprofit entity. No commenters argue that the 
Commission's cost in processing a certain educational or research 
subset of the part 25 streamlined applications will be significantly 
less than for a different type of small satellite streamlined 
application.
    SIA proposes that the Commission reevaluate the streamlined process 
application fees one year after the process takes effect, and consider 
a lower application fee for those providing a non-commercial service at 
that time. ORBCOMM expresses concerns that the $30,000 fee is 
disproportionately low as compared with the regular NGSO satellite 
system fee, but similarly suggests that the Commission commit to re-
evaluating the application filing fees once it has gained experience 
under the new streamlined processing rules, and notes that the lower 
fee may be acceptable in the interim. EchoStar/Hughes also suggests 
that once the fee is selected, the Commission revisit it within a year 
to determine if it properly reflects the costs of application review 
and processing. As noted, the Commission will be undertaking a review 
of application fees Commission-wide, which will provide an opportunity 
to reassess, if necessary, the fee amount we adopt here.
    Regulatory Fees. The NPRM also noted that entities authorized to 
operate NGSO systems under part 25 must pay an annual regulatory fee, 
and proposed that comments regarding regulatory fees, as applicable to 
small satellites, be filed in the proceeding(s) conducted for annual 
review of those fees. Regulatory fees are reviewed by the Commission on 
an annual basis. In the regulatory fee proceeding for FY 2018, the 
Commission sought comment on a new regulatory fee category for small 
satellites and the appropriate fee associated with that category. The 
Commission proposed a fee that would be 1/20th of the regulatory fee 
applicable to part 25 NGSO systems. The Commission received a number of 
comments regarding the proposed category and regulatory fee as part of 
the FY 2018 regulatory fee proceeding. In the FY 2018 Report and Order 
addressing regulatory fees, the Commission deferred consideration of a 
new regulatory fee category, and the appropriate regulatory fee, for 
small satellites until a definition of ``small

[[Page 43727]]

satellites'' was adopted in this proceeding.
    On May 8, 2019 (84 FR 26234 (June 5, 2019)), we adopted a notice of 
proposed rulemaking addressing the assessment and collection of 
regulatory fees for FY 2019. Since the definition of ``small 
satellites'' had not yet been adopted, we did not propose a category 
for ``small satellites'' in the FY 2019 NPRM. In this proceeding we 
have established a definition of small satellites, and we also define 
and establish the new regulatory fee category applicable to such 
``small satellites.'' The regulatory fee for part 25 space stations 
applies to licensed and operational geostationary orbit space stations 
and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems. The new ``small 
satellite'' subcategory would apply to licensed and operational 
satellite systems authorized under the new process adopted in this 
proceeding.\20\ Since we are creating a new category in the regulatory 
fee schedule that is separate from the existing fee categories, the 
regulatory fee will also apply to grantees of U.S. market access, 
similar to the small satellite application fee. Historically, the 
Commission has not applied regulatory fees to non-U.S.-licensed space 
stations granted access to the U.S. market. RAY BAUM's Act of 2018 
revised section 9, effective October 1, 2018. The new category we adopt 
for small satellites is created pursuant to this new version of section 
9. In creating a new category, we thus establish that the existing 
regulatory fee for ``Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)'' will 
not apply to the operations authorized under the small satellite 
process. This adoption of a fee subcategory for small satellites within 
the NGSO category is an amendment to the schedule as defined in section 
9(d) of the Act, which, pursuant to section 9a(b)(2), must be submitted 
to Congress at least 90 days before it becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Accordingly, this new category would include small 
spacecraft non-Earth orbit missions as well. See section III.A. 
(noting that we refer to the ``small satellite'' process for 
practical purposes, but we adopt both a streamlined ``small 
satellite'' and streamlined ``small spacecraft'' process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We defer consideration of the regulatory fee amount for this new 
category to the Commission's future regulatory fee proceedings for 
several reasons. First, the Commission is charged with ensuring that 
regulatory fees will result in the collection of an amount that can 
reasonably be expected to equal amounts appropriated by Congress for 
each fiscal year. Unlike application fees, with regulatory fees the 
Commission allocates the total amount to be collected among the various 
regulatory fee categories, and a change in the regulatory fee schedule 
applicable to one category may affect the regulatory fees applicable to 
other categories. The future regulatory fee proceeding will also 
address how the regulatory fee will be calculated and applied to market 
access grantees. Second, as a practical matter there will still be 
ample time to assess and adopt the appropriate fee amount in the 
separate proceeding before any small satellites authorized under the 
small satellite process would be required to pay regulatory fees. For 
example, the annual regulatory fees due and payable in September of 
this year (the FY 2019 regulatory fees) for space stations must only be 
paid for space stations or systems that were both licensed and 
operational on or before the first day of the fiscal year (October 1, 
2018). It is unlikely that any space stations authorized under the 
streamlined small satellite process will be licensed and operational on 
or before the first day of FY 2020 (October 1, 2019). As such, the 
earliest such operators are likely to be subject to regulatory fees is 
FY 2021--fees which would be due and payable in September 2021.

I. Frequency Considerations for Small Satellites

1. Compatibility and Sharing With Federal Users
    In the NPRM, the Commission noted that many of the frequency bands 
where small satellites have been authorized, and where there are non-
Federal allocations for services such as earth exploration-satellite 
service (EESS) and space operations, are shared with Federal users. The 
U.S. Table is divided into the Federal Table of Frequency Allocations 
and the non-Federal Table of Frequency Allocations, and some bands are 
allocated to both Federal and non-Federal uses. Additionally, some 
footnotes to the U.S. Table specify that use of a particular frequency 
band is subject to successful coordination with Federal uses of the 
band. As noted in the NPRM, there are procedures that generally guide 
frequency coordination with Federal users. The Commission sought 
comment on any rules that could be adopted by the Commission specific 
to these frequency bands that would better enable small satellite 
operators to consider, in advance of coordination, whether they may be 
able to operate in these bands while still protecting Federal 
operations. The Commission sought comment on any approaches that could 
streamline sharing and on how the establishment of rules or other 
requirements on a band-specific basis might help to facilitate 
compatibility among separate systems and development of new types of 
shared and efficient uses of space and spectrum resources. The 
Commission noted that such rules would not necessarily replace the need 
to coordinate with Federal systems on a case-by-case basis, but could 
potentially help to streamline sharing.
    In response to the Commission's inquiry, CSSMA and SIA offered 
several suggestions for improving coordination with Federal users, 
including:
     Creation of a database, on a band-by-band basis, that 
would reflect the ``knowable'' information about spectrum usage in each 
band.
     Mandatory pre-coordination meetings between applicants and 
representatives of all Federal agencies affected by a newly-filed 
application with the Commission.
     Formal coordination beginning concurrently with public 
notice.
    CSSMA and SIA argue that failure of Federal agencies to act in a 
timely manner prejudices commercial companies by causing missed 
launches, lower service levels to customers, and time-to-market 
disadvantages.
    These suggestions go beyond service rules or other requirements on 
a band-specific basis and contain broader suggested changes regarding 
processes, not currently the subject of part 25 rules and in large part 
involving the processes of other agencies. The suggestions also go 
beyond processes affecting small satellites and would potentially 
affect other satellite license applicants as well. We therefore decline 
to address these processes through rule changes within this small-
satellite focused rulemaking proceeding.
    CSSMA also argues that if there is not meaningful change to the 
coordination process, then it recommends that critical bands be divided 
into sub-bands, with one sub-band available exclusively to the Federal 
side of U.S. Table and one sub-band available exclusively to the non-
Federal side of the U.S. Table. We do not have enough information at 
this time to thoroughly consider CSSMA's recommendation regarding 
division of frequency bands into sub-bands. Such a proposal would need 
to be addressed on a frequency band-specific basis, likely through a 
separate rulemaking proceeding or proceedings, and as such, is beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking.
2. Spectrum Assignments for Streamlined Small Satellites
    The Commission sought comment on whether the proposed streamlined 
process should be limited to specific

[[Page 43728]]

frequency bands, whether the Commission should adopt a non-exclusive 
list of frequencies available for streamlined processing, or whether 
the Commission should simply consider small satellite frequency 
assignments on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind the relevant 
frequency allocations. The NPRM highlighted several frequency bands for 
potential identification for use by streamlined small satellites (137-
138 MHz, 148-150.05 MHz, and 1610.6-1613.8 MHz), and sought comment on 
the accommodation of small satellites in those bands, as well as 
frequency bands that could be identified for small satellite inter-
satellite links.
    We decline in this proceeding to adopt any new limitation on or 
lists of available frequencies and will consider frequencies on a case-
by-case basis, subject to the same analysis for compliance with 
Commission rules and policies as other part 25 applicants. We 
anticipate, however, that applications for small satellite systems 
under the streamlined procedures generally will be limited to bands 
where there currently is an allocation for satellite services in the 
U.S. Table of Allocations and in the International Table of 
Allocations, and that applications for other bands would require a 
request for waiver and an accompanying justification, as described 
below. Further, if such waiver requests are granted, these systems 
would be authorized on a non-interference basis. To the extent that any 
commenters argue for limitations on the frequency bands available for 
the streamlined process, they generally argue that frequency bands 
subject to a processing round or otherwise used by NGSO fixed-satellite 
service (FSS), mobile-satellite service (MSS), or other operations 
requiring full-time uninterrupted availability of spectrum should not 
be listed as available for streamlined processing. SpaceX and SES/O3b 
argue that the complexities of operations in these bands yield limited 
or nonexistent ability to share spectrum with all existing and future 
operators. On the other hand, EchoStar/Hughes does not object to small 
satellites operating in frequency bands allocated for FSS operations, 
so long as they are required to operate on a secondary, non-harmful 
interference basis with respect to other satellite operations. CSSMA 
argues that applicants should be able to apply for any frequency band 
that matches their category of service.
    We disagree with commenters who argue that small satellites should 
be per se excluded from operating in frequency bands where a processing 
round has occurred or where there is an allocation for FSS or MSS or 
another service in which systems typically require full-time 
availability of the assigned spectrum. We do not think it is productive 
to adopt an outright limitation on applications requesting operations 
in those bands in case sharing can in some instances be accomplished 
because of the limited nature of the small satellite operations or 
other factors. We also received a number of comments on the topic of 
whether we should create a non-exclusive list of frequencies available 
for streamlined small satellites. Several commenters suggest that a 
list of frequencies available for small satellite could be useful 
either in the rules or in a different format to provide guidance and 
flexibility, but CSSMA argues that a non-exclusive list of frequencies 
could be potentially misleading. We agree with CSSMA that such a list 
could be potentially misleading if applicants were to view those 
frequencies as quick or guaranteed options for authorization, when in 
fact the frequency bands most often used by small satellites to date 
often require coordination with Federal users and other operators. We 
believe operations authorized under this process may represent more 
varied and potentially more unique scenarios in terms of spectrum use 
as compared with operations we have historically authorized under part 
25, but note that applicants' proposed radiofrequency obligations will 
be subject to Commission rules and policies, including applicable 
coordination obligations and potential conditions, and thus qualifying 
for the small satellite process does not guarantee that requested 
operations will be granted.
    Commenters raised concerns with designation of specific frequencies 
for use by small satellite systems, and we conclude that a case-by-case 
approach, analyzed under the Commission's rules and policies on a band-
specific basis, is best suited to address the varied factual scenarios 
that may be presented under the new process. Accordingly, we are not 
adopting any changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations at this time 
or other rule modifications regarding use of specific frequencies. 
Given the different types of operations that may be undertaken by 
``small satellites,'' we believe that in this instance it would be 
premature to adopt the rule changes prior to updates at the ITU. We are 
not foreclosing future proceedings, however, to implement ITU spectrum 
allocations.
    Drawing on our experience with small satellites to date, including 
experiments that may transition to commercial operations, we expect 
that in some instances small satellite license applications may request 
operations not consistent with the current International Table of 
Allocations. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that there may be 
benefits associated with such operations by small satellites in certain 
circumstances. Under current rules, a part 25 application is deemed not 
acceptable for filing if it requests authority to operate a space 
station in a frequency band that is not allocated internationally for 
such operations under the ITU Radio Regulations, regardless of whether 
a waiver is requested. We modify this rule to provide an exception, so 
that such streamlined small satellite applications requesting to 
operate in bands not allocated internationally, and which include an 
appropriate waiver request, can be considered on their merits without 
being deemed unacceptable for filing. There may be cases where, for 
example, an operator is using equipment that has been shown to 
successfully operate on a non-interference basis under a previous 
experimental license or licenses. We anticipate that we may see 
requests for inter-satellite link operations between small satellites 
and the satellites in the Globalstar or Iridium systems, for example. 
We will continue to treat applications for these or other space-to-
space operations as non-conforming with respect to the Table of 
Allocations where the applicant requests to operate in satellite 
frequency bands allocated only for operations in the space-to-Earth or 
Earth-to-space directions, noting that this matter is under additional 
study at the ITU.
    If an applicant were to request authorization for a non-conforming 
operation, that applicant would be required to submit a request for a 
waiver of the Table of Allocations, Sec.  2.106, along with sufficient 
justification to support that waiver request. This process is not 
intended to alter the allocation status in these bands. We would also 
expect applicants to provide a sufficient electromagnetic compatibility 
analysis to support an FCC finding that the intended use of the 
frequency assignment will not cause harmful interference to all other 
stations operating in conformance with the ITU Radio Regulations. The 
applicant must also state its willingness to accept an assignment on a 
non-interference, unprotected basis. Status as a small satellite for 
purposes of streamlined processing in no way guarantees that a waiver 
of the Table of Allocations will be granted. We anticipate that these 
types of uses under part 25 would be

[[Page 43729]]

extremely limited and we would expect that such applicants would be 
engaged contemporaneously in activities to work toward modification of 
the International Table of Allocations at the ITU. Similarly, if an 
applicant were to request authorization for a small satellite system in 
a band where there is no satellite allocation in the U.S. Table of 
Allocations, such applications would require a waiver request and an 
accompanying justification. For administrative efficiency, we encourage 
entities that are considering making a request for authorization for a 
non-conforming operation to discuss the request with Commission staff 
prior to filing.

J. Other Issues

    Responsibility for Securing Licenses. SpaceX asks the Commission to 
make clear that small satellite operators and their agents bear the 
responsibility for securing all necessary licenses prior to launch, and 
for providing accurate information to launch providers as to the status 
of such licenses. In its comments, SpaceX describes the role that 
parties such as small satellite aggregators, rideshare coordinators, or 
satellite integrators increasingly play in making launch arrangements 
on behalf of small satellite customers. SpaceX notes that as a launch 
services provider, its contracts with these types of aggregators 
require that all of the small satellite payloads subject to that 
contract have secured all relevant licenses, and that it must be able 
to rely on such assurances from the aggregators. This topic appears to 
go beyond the scope of this part 25-specific rulemaking, and relate to 
authorization of satellites generally, whether those satellites are 
authorized under the part 25 streamlined process or not. Thus, we 
decline in this proceeding to adopt any rules relating to this issue. 
We note, however, that the Commission sought comment on issues related 
to multi-satellite deployments as part of its recent NPRM on orbital 
debris mitigation, including whether we should include in our rules any 
additional information requirements regarding these launches.
    Rules Concerning Amateur and Experimental Satellites. The 
Commission did not seek comment in the NPRM on any modifications or 
updates to the rules governing experimental or amateur satellite 
licensing. The streamlined part 25 small satellite process adopted in 
the Report and Order is an alternative to existing license processes 
and does not replace or modify the authorization procedures for 
satellites currently contained in part 5, 25, or 97 of the Commission's 
rules. Nevertheless, we received a number of comments in response to 
the NPRM, particularly regarding the rules applicable to amateur 
satellite operations, suggesting that aspects of those rules be 
improved or clarified. These comments address topics outside the scope 
of this proceeding, and we decline to adopt any of the requested rule 
modifications or updates at this time.

IV. Procedural Matters

    Regulatory Flexibility Act.--Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), the Commission's 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the Report and Order is 
attached as Appendix B.
    Paperwork Reduction Act.--This document contains modified 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, other Federal agencies, and the general public are 
invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements 
contained in this document. In addition, we note that pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the 
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    In this document, we have assessed the effects of reducing the 
application burdens of small satellite applicants, and find that doing 
so will serve the public interest and is unlikely to directly affect 
businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
    In addition, this document contains proposed modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    Congressional Review Act.--The Commission has determined [and the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, concurs] that these rules are non-
major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
Commission will send a copy of the Report & Order to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

V. Ordering Clauses

    It is ordered, pursuant to pursuant to sections 4(i), 7, 8, 9, 301, 
303, 308, and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 158, 159, 301, 303, 308, 309, that the Report and 
Order is adopted, the policies, rules, and requirements discussed 
herein are adopted, and parts 1 and 25 of the Commission's rules are 
amended as set forth in Appendix A.
    It is further ordered that the Report and Order contains new or 
modified information collection requirements that require review and 
approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, and will become effective after the Commission publishes 
a document in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the 
relevant effective date, except for the amendments to the schedules of 
application and regulatory fees. The amendments to the application fee 
schedule will become effective no earlier than 90 days following 
notification to Congress, in accordance with 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2). The 
amendment to the regulatory fee schedule will become effective 
following the adoption of a fee amount for the category as part of a 
separate Commission rulemaking proceeding, and no earlier than 90 days 
following the subsequent notification to Congress, in accordance with 
47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
    It is further ordered that the Commission shall notify Congress of 
the amendments to the application fee schedule and regulatory fee 
schedule pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 158(c) and 47 U.S.C. 159(d), see 47 
U.S.C. 159A(b)(2).
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of the 
Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the

[[Page 43730]]

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) released in 
April 2018 in this proceeding. No comments were filed addressing the 
IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    The Report and Order adopts a number of proposals relating to the 
Commission's rules and policies regarding the licensing of small 
satellites. Adoption of these changes will, among other things, make 
the licensing process more accessible, decrease processing times, limit 
regulatory burdens, and offer protection for critical communication 
links, while promoting orbital debris mitigation and efficient use of 
spectrum.
    The Report and Order adopts several changes to 47 CFR parts 1 and 
25. Principally, it:
    (1) Establishes a new, optional licensing and market access process 
within part 25 for ``small satellites'' and ``small spacecraft.'' 
Satellites and systems licensed under this new streamlined process will 
meet several qualifying criteria, which are consistent with the goals 
of enabling faster review of applications in order to facilitate the 
deployment and operation of these systems.
    (2) Modifies the Commission's part 25 processing procedures 
applicable to qualifying small satellite systems, so that unlike most 
part 25 NGSO satellite systems, qualifying small satellite systems will 
not be subject to processing rounds.
    (3) Amends the Commission's satellite surety bond policies to 
provide a one-year grace period, applicable to small satellite 
streamlined licensees, during which the licensees would not need to 
post the surety bond required under the Commission's rules.
    (4) Adopts a new application fee category for the streamlined small 
satellite license and market access applicants in the amount of 
$30,000, and adopts a new regulatory fee category for streamlined small 
satellite licensees and market access grantees.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    No comments were filed that specifically addressed the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 
RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), 
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed 
rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any 
comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. 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 final rules.
Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications
    The rules would affect some providers of satellite 
telecommunications services. 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 ``All 
Other Telecommunications.'' Under both categories, a business is 
considered small if it had $32.5 million or less in average annual 
receipts.
    The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications 
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications 
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite 
telecommunications.'' For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 
show that there were a total of 333 satellite telecommunications firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual 
receipts of under $25 million, and 12 firms had receipts of $25 million 
to $49,999,999.
    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 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 2012 show that there were a total of 1,442 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,415 firms had 
annual receipts of under $25 million. Some of these ``Other 
Telecommunications firms,'' which are small entities, are earth station 
applicants/licensees, but since we do not adopt changes to our 
licensing rules specific to earth stations, we do not anticipate that 
these entities would be affected.
    We anticipate that our rule changes may have an impact on some 
space station applicants and licensees. While traditionally space 
station applicants and licensees only rarely qualified under the 
definition of a small entity, some small satellite applicants and 
licensees applying under the streamlined process adopted in the Report 
and Order may qualify as small entities.

E. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    The Report and Order adopts several rule changes that would affect 
compliance requirements for space station operators. As noted above, 
some of these parties may qualify as small entities.
    The rules adopted generally lower the compliance burden on all 
affected entities, including small entities. The streamlined small 
satellite process adopted in the Report and Order is optional, and so 
will not create any

[[Page 43731]]

additional burden in terms of compliance requirements. Entities seeking 
to apply under existing procedures may do so. The streamlined small 
satellite process lowers the compliance burden by, among other things, 
giving qualifying applicants the opportunity to provide information by 
certifications rather than by narrative in many instances, and to 
obtain an exemption from the Commission's processing round procedures. 
The Report and Order also decreases the part 25 application fees 
applicable to qualifying small satellites and establishes a new 
category for small satellite regulatory fees.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include 
the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment 
of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that 
take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for 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.''
    In the Report and Order, the Commission relaxes or removes 
requirements on NGSO satellite operators who qualify for the 
streamlined small satellite process. Applicants may submit information 
in the form of certifications, rather than providing detailed narrative 
information, in a number of instances. The application requirements for 
applicants seeking to apply under the streamlined small satellite 
process have been moved to a new rule section for easier reference. The 
Report and Order considers the various qualifying characteristics 
proposed in the NPRM, as well as possible alternatives proposed in the 
comments. In several instances, based on the record, the Report and 
Order adopts relaxed qualifying criteria. Further, small satellite 
applicants will not be subject to the Commission's processing round 
procedures, and small satellite operators will have a grace period 
before they must post a surety bond. The Report and Order also adopts 
an application fee for streamlined small satellite applicants that is 
significantly reduced from the fees that would be currently applicable 
to applicants and licensees for NGSO systems currently under part 25.

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

    None.

Small Satellite Rules Effective Date Clarification Order

    The Order clarifies the effective date of certain rule changes 
adopted as part of the Report and Order released by the Commission on 
August 2, 2019 in the proceeding Streamlining Licensing Procedures for 
Small Satellites.
    The Report and Order established that the effective date for the 
amendment to the application fee schedule, Sec.  1.1107, would be ``no 
earlier than 90 days following notification to Congress,'' in 
accordance with 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2). On October 28, 2019 the 
Commission notified Congress of the amendment to the Commission's 
application fee schedule, as provided in the Report and Order. The 90-
day notification period, as specified in 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2), 
concluded on January 27, 2020.
    Given the satisfaction of the Congressional notification period, it 
is ordered that the amendment to the application fee schedule specified 
in the Report and Order will be effective 30 days after the upcoming 
publication of the Report and Order in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act OMB Approval

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB 
approval on February 27, 2020, for the information collection 
requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules 
in 47 CFR part 25.
    Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB 
Control Number.
    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply 
with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 
Control Number is 3060-0678.
    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents 
are as follows:
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0678.
    OMB Approval Date: February 27, 2020.
    OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2023.
    Title: Part 25 of the Federal Communications Commission's Rules 
Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage By, Commercial Earth 
Stations and Space Stations.
    Form Number: FCC Form 312, FCC Form 312-EZ, FCC Form 312-R and 
Schedules A, B and S.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and Not-for-
profit institutions.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,524 respondents; 6,573 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-80 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, one time, and annual reporting 
requirements; third-party disclosure requirement; recordkeeping 
requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The 
Commission has statutory authority for the information collection 
requirements under 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 
332, 605, and 721.
    Total Annual Burden: 44,992 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: $16,612,586.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for 
confidentiality pertaining to the information collection requirements 
in this collection.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Needs and Uses: On August 2, 2019, the Commission released a Report 
and Order, FCC 19-81, in IB Docket No. 18-86, titled ``Streamlining 
Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites'' (Small Satellite Report and 
Order). In this Report and Order, the Commission adopted a new 
alternative, optional licensing process for small satellites and 
spacecraft, called the ``Part 25 streamlined small satellite process.'' 
This new process allows qualifying applicants for small satellites and 
spacecraft to take advantage of an easier application process, a lower 
application fee, and a shorter timeline for review than currently 
exists for applicants under the Commission's existing part 25 satellite 
licensing rules. The Commission limited the regulatory burdens borne by 
applicants, while promoting orbital debris mitigation and efficient use 
of spectrum. The Commission's action supports and encourages the 
increasing innovation in the small satellite sector and helps to 
preserve U.S. leadership in space-based services and operations. This 
information collection will provide the Commission and the public with 
necessary information about the operations of this growing area of

[[Page 43732]]

satellite operations. While this information collection represents an 
overall increase in the burden hours, the increase is due to an 
anticipated overall increase in number of applications as a result of 
additional applications being filed under the streamlined process 
adopted in the Small Satellite Report and Order. This information 
collection represents a decrease in the paperwork burdens for 
individual operators of non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellites who 
may now qualify for streamlined processing as small satellites, and 
serves the public interest by streamlining the collection of 
information and allowing the Commission to authorize small satellites 
and spacecraft under the new process established in the Report and 
Order.
    Specifically, FCC 19-81 contains new or modified information 
collection requirements listed below:
    (1) Space station application requirements for qualifying small 
satellites and small spacecraft have been specified in new Sec. Sec.  
25.122 and 25.123, respectively. These new sections, including the 
certifications, incorporate some existing information requirements from 
other sections, but eliminate the need for small satellite and 
spacecraft applicants to provide much of the information that part 25 
space station applicants would typically be required to provide in 
narrative format under Sec.  25.114(d). The new or modified 
informational requirements in Sec. Sec.  25.122 and 25.123 are listed 
as follows:
    a. For small satellite applications filed under Sec.  25.122, a 
certification that the space stations will operate in non-geostationary 
orbit, or for small spacecraft applications filed under Sec.  25.123, a 
certification that the space station(s) will operate and be disposed of 
beyond Earth's orbit.
    b. A certification that the total in-orbit lifetime for any 
individual space station will be six years or less.
    c. For small satellite applications filed under Sec.  25.122, a 
certification that the space station(s) will either be deployed at an 
orbital altitude of 600 km or below, or will maintain a propulsions 
system and have the ability to make collision avoidance and deorbit 
maneuvers using propulsion. This certification will not apply to small 
spacecraft applications filed under Sec.  25.123.
    d. A certification that each space station will be identifiable by 
a unique signal-based telemetry marker distinguishing it from other 
space stations or space objects.
    e. A certification that the space station(s) will release no 
operational debris.
    f. A certification that the space station operator has assessed and 
limited the probability of accidental explosions resulting from the 
conversion of energy sources on board the space station(s) into energy 
that fragments the spacecraft.
    g. A certification that the probability of a collision between each 
space station and any other large object (10 centimeters or larger) 
during the orbital lifetime of the space station is 0.001 or less as 
calculated using current NASA software or other higher fidelity model.
    h. For small satellite applications filed under Sec.  25.122, a 
certification that the space station(s) will be disposed of through 
atmospheric re-entry, and that the probability of human casualty from 
portions of the spacecraft surviving re-entry and reaching the surface 
of the Earth is zero as calculated using current NASA software or 
higher fidelity models. This certification will not apply to small 
spacecraft applications filed under Sec.  25.123.
    i. A certification that operations of the space station(s) will be 
compatible with existing operations in the authorized frequency band(s) 
and will not materially constrain future space station entrants from 
using the authorized frequency bands.
    j. A certification that the space station(s) can be commanded by 
command originating from the ground to immediately cease transmissions 
and the licensee will have the capability to eliminate harmful 
interference when required under the terms of the license or other 
applicable regulations.
    k. A certification that each space station is 10 cm or larger in 
its smallest dimension.
    l. For small satellite applications filed under Sec.  25.122, a 
certification that each space station will have a mass of 180 kg or 
less, including any propellant. For small spacecraft applications filed 
under Sec.  25.123, a certification that each space station will have a 
mass of 500 kg of less, including any propellant.
    m. A description of means by which requested spectrum could be 
shared with both current and future operators (e.g., how ephemeris data 
will be shared, antenna design, earth station geographic locations) 
thereby not materially constraining other operations in the requested 
frequency bands.
    n. For space stations with any means of maneuverability, including 
both active and passive means, a description of the design and 
operation of maneuverability and deorbit systems, and a description of 
the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed 
satellite or satellites.
    o. In any instances where spacecraft capable of having crew aboard 
will be located at or below the deployment orbital altitude of the 
space station seeking a license, a description of the design and 
operational strategies that will be used to avoid in-orbit collision 
with such crewed spacecraft shall be furnished at the time of 
application. This narrative requirement will not apply to space 
stations that will operate beyond Earth's orbit.
    p. A list of the FCC file numbers or call signs for any known 
applications or Commission grants related to the proposed operations 
(e.g., experimental license grants, other space station or earth 
station applications or grants).
    (2) The informational requirements listed in Sec.  25.137 for 
requests for U.S.-market access through non-U.S.-licensed space 
stations were also modified to refer to Sec. Sec.  25.122 and 25.123, 
for those applicants seeking U.S. market access under the small 
satellite or spacecraft process.
    This collection is also used by staff in carrying out United States 
treaty obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic 
Telecom Agreement. The information collected is used for the practical 
and necessary purposes of assessing the legal, technical, and other 
qualifications of applicants; determining compliance by applicants, 
licensees, and other grantees with Commission rules and the terms and 
conditions of their grants; and concluding whether, and under what 
conditions, grant of an authorization will serve the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity.
    As technology advances and new spectrum is allocated for satellite 
use, applicants for satellite service will continue to submit the 
information required in 47 CFR part 25 of the Commission's rules. 
Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to 
permit respondents to provide telecommunication services in the United 
States. Therefore, the Commission would be unable to fulfill its 
statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and the obligations imposed on parties to the WTO 
Basic Telecom Agreement.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure.

47 CFR Part 25

    Communications equipment, Earth stations, Radio, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Satellites.


[[Page 43733]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 25 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend the table in Sec.  1.1107, under ``9. Space Stations (NGSO),'' 
by redesignating paragraphs ``b'' through ``f'' as paragraphs ``c'' 
through ``g'' and adding a new paragraph ``b'' to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1107   Schedule of charges for applications and other filings 
for the international services.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Service                         FCC Form No.          Fee amount          Payment type code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
9. Space Stations (NGSO):
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
    b. Application (license or market    312 Main & Schedule S &         30,000.00  CLW
     access for small satellite or        159.
     small spacecraft system).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.  25.103 by adding the definition of ``Small satellite'' 
and ``Small spacecraft'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  25.103   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Small satellite. An NGSO space station eligible for authorization 
under the application process described in Sec.  25.122.
    Small spacecraft. An NGSO space station operating beyond Earth's 
orbit that is eligible for authorization under the application process 
described in Sec.  25.123.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  25.112 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.112   Dismissal and return of applications.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The application requests authority to operate a space station 
in a frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such 
operations under the Radio Regulations of the International 
Telecommunication Union, unless the application is filed pursuant to 
Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  25.113 by revising paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.113   Station construction, deployment approval, and operation 
of spare satellites.

* * * * *
    (h) An operator of NGSO space stations under a blanket license 
granted by the Commission, except for those granted pursuant to the 
application process in Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123, need not apply for 
license modification to operate technically identical in-orbit spare 
satellites in an authorized orbit. However, the licensee must notify 
the Commission within 30 days of bringing an in-orbit spare into 
service and certify that its activation has not exceeded the number of 
space stations authorized to provide service and that the licensee has 
determined by measurement that the activated spare is operating within 
the terms of the license.
    (i) An operator of NGSO space stations under a blanket license 
granted by the Commission, except for those granted pursuant to the 
application process in Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123, need not apply for 
license modification to deploy and operate technically identical 
replacement satellites in an authorized orbit within the term of the 
system authorization. However, the licensee must notify the Commission 
of the intended launch at least 30 days in advance and certify that its 
operation of the additional space station(s) will not increase the 
number of space stations providing service above the maximum number 
specified in the license.

0
7. Amend Sec.  25.114 by revising paragraph (d) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  25.114   Applications for space station authorizations.

* * * * *
    (d) The following information in narrative form shall be contained 
in each application, except space station applications filed pursuant 
to Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123:
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  25.117 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.117   Modification of station license.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) Except as set forth in Sec.  25.118(e), applications for 
modifications of space station authorizations shall be filed in 
accordance with Sec.  25.114 and/or Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123, as 
applicable, but only those items of information listed in Sec.  25.114 
and/or Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123 that change need to be submitted, 
provided the applicant certifies that the remaining information has not 
changed.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  25.121 by revising paragraph (a)(1), adding paragraph 
(a)(3), revising paragraph (d)(2), and adding paragraph (d)(3) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  25.121   License term and renewals.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Except for licenses for DBS space stations, SDARS space 
stations and terrestrial repeaters, 17/24 GHz BSS space stations 
licensed as broadcast facilities, and licenses for which the 
application was filed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  25.122 and 25.123, 
licenses for facilities governed by this part will be issued for a 
period of 15 years.
* * * * *
    (3) Licenses for which the application was filed pursuant to Sec.  
25.122 or Sec.  25.123 will be issued for a period of

[[Page 43734]]

6 years, without the possibility of extension or replacement 
authorization.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) For non-geostationary orbit space stations, except for those 
granted under Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123, the license period will 
begin at 3 a.m. Eastern Time on the date when the licensee notifies the 
Commission pursuant to Sec.  25.173(b) that operation of an initial 
space station is compliant with the license terms and conditions and 
that the space station has been placed in its authorized orbit. 
Operating authority for all space stations subsequently brought into 
service pursuant to the license will terminate upon its expiration.
    (3) For non-geostationary orbit space stations granted under Sec.  
25.122 or Sec.  25.123, the license period will begin at 3 a.m. Eastern 
Time on the date when the licensee notifies the Commission pursuant to 
Sec.  25.173(b) that operation of an initial space station is compliant 
with the license terms and conditions and that the space station has 
been placed in its authorized orbit and has begun operating. Operating 
authority for all space stations subsequently brought into service 
pursuant to the license will terminate upon its expiration.
* * * * *

0
10. Add Sec.  25.122 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.122   Applications for streamlined small space station 
authorization.

    (a) This section shall only apply to applicants for NGSO systems 
that are able to certify compliance with the certifications set forth 
in paragraph (c) of this section. For applicants seeking to be 
authorized under this section, a comprehensive proposal for Commission 
evaluation must be submitted for each space station in the proposed 
system on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S, as described in Sec.  
25.114(a) through (c), together with the certifications described in 
paragraph (c) of this section and the narrative requirements described 
in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (b) Applications for NGSO systems may be filed under this section, 
provided that the total number of space stations requested in the 
application is ten or fewer.
    (1) To the extent that space stations in the satellite system will 
be technically identical, the applicant may submit an application for 
blanket-licensed space stations.
    (2) Where the space stations in the satellite system are not 
technically identical, the applicant must certify that each space 
station satisfies the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section, and 
submit technical information for each type of space station.
    (c) Applicants filing for authorization under the streamlined 
procedure described in this section must include with their 
applications certifications that the following criteria will be met for 
all space stations to be operated under the license:
    (1) The space station(s) will operate only in non-geostationary 
orbit;
    (2) The total in-orbit lifetime for any individual space station 
will be six years or less;
    (3) The space station(s):
    (i) Will be deployed at an orbital altitude of 600 km or below; or
    (ii) Will maintain a propulsion system and have the ability to make 
collision avoidance and deorbit maneuvers using propulsion;
    (4) Each space station will be identifiable by a unique signal-
based telemetry marker distinguishing it from other space stations or 
space objects;
    (5) The space station(s) will release no operational debris;
    (6) The space station operator has assessed and limited the 
probability of accidental explosions, including those resulting from 
the conversion of energy sources on board the space station(s) into 
energy that fragments the spacecraft;
    (7) The probability of a collision between each space station and 
any other large object (10 centimeters or larger) during the orbital 
lifetime of the space station is 0.001 or less as calculated using 
current National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) software 
or other higher fidelity model;
    (8) The space station(s) will be disposed of post-mission through 
atmospheric re-entry. The probability of human casualty from portions 
of the spacecraft surviving re-entry and reaching the surface of the 
Earth is zero as calculated using current NASA software or higher 
fidelity models;
    (9) Operation of the space station(s) will be compatible with 
existing operations in the authorized frequency band(s). Operations 
will not materially constrain future space station entrants from using 
the authorized frequency band(s);
    (10) The space station(s) can be commanded by command originating 
from the ground to immediately cease transmissions and the licensee 
will have the capability to eliminate harmful interference when 
required under the terms of the license or other applicable 
regulations;
    (11) Each space station is 10 cm or larger in its smallest 
dimension; and
    (12) Each space station will have a mass of 180 kg or less, 
including any propellant.
    (d) The following information in narrative form shall be contained 
in each application:
    (1) An overall description of system facilities, operations, and 
services and an explanation of how uplink frequency bands would be 
connected to downlink frequency bands;
    (2) Public interest considerations in support of grant;
    (3) A description of means by which requested spectrum could be 
shared with both current and future operators, (e.g., how ephemeris 
data will be shared, antenna design, earth station geographic 
locations) thereby not materially constraining other operations in the 
requested frequency band(s);
    (4) For space stations with any means of maneuverability, including 
both active and passive means, a description of the design and 
operation of maneuverability and deorbit systems, and a description of 
the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed 
satellite or satellites; and
    (5) In any instances where spacecraft capable of having crew aboard 
will be located at or below the deployment orbital altitude of the 
space station seeking a license, a description of the design and 
operational strategies that will be used to avoid in-orbit collision 
with such crewed spacecraft shall be furnished at time of application. 
This narrative requirement will not apply to space stations that will 
operate beyond Earth's orbit.
    (6) A list of the FCC file numbers or call signs for any known 
applications or Commission grants related to the proposed operations 
(e.g., experimental license grants, other space station or earth 
station applications or grants).

0
11. Add Sec.  25.123 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.123   Applications for streamlined small spacecraft 
authorization.

    (a) This section shall only apply to applicants for space stations 
that will operate beyond Earth's orbit and that are able to certify 
compliance with the certifications set forth in paragraph (b) of this 
section. For applicants seeking to be authorized under this section, a 
comprehensive proposal for Commission evaluation must be submitted for 
each space station in the proposed system on FCC Form 312, Main Form 
and Schedule S, as described in Sec.  25.114(a) through (c), together 
with the certifications described in paragraph (b) of this section and 
the requirements described in paragraph (c) of this section.

[[Page 43735]]

    (b) Applicants filing for authorization under the streamlined 
procedure described in this section must include with their 
applications certifications that the following criteria will be met for 
all space stations to be operated under the license:
    (1) The space station(s) will operate and be disposed of beyond 
Earth's orbit;
    (2) The total lifetime from deployment to spacecraft end-of-life 
for any individual space station will be six years or less;
    (3) Each space station will be identifiable by a unique signal-
based telemetry marker distinguishing it from other space stations or 
space objects;
    (4) The space station(s) will release no operational debris;
    (5) No debris will be generated in an accidental explosion 
resulting from the conversion of energy sources on board the space 
station(s) into energy that fragments the spacecraft;
    (6) The probability of a collision between each space station and 
any other large object (10 centimeters or larger) during the lifetime 
of the space station is 0.001 or less as calculated using current NASA 
software or higher fidelity models;
    (7) Operation of the space station(s) will be compatible with 
existing operations in the authorized frequency band(s). Operations 
will not materially constrain future space station entrants from using 
the authorized frequency band(s);
    (8) The space station(s) can be commanded by command originating 
from the ground to immediately cease transmissions and the licensee 
will have the capability to eliminate harmful interference when 
required under the terms of the license or other applicable 
regulations;
    (9) Each space station is 10 cm or larger in its smallest 
dimension; and
    (10) Each space station will have a mass of 500 kg or less, 
including any propellant.
    (c) Applicants must also provide the information specified in Sec.  
25.122(d) in narrative form.

0
12. Amend Sec.  25.137 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.137   Requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S.-
licensed space stations.

* * * * *
    (b) Any request pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must be 
filed electronically through the International Bureau Filing System and 
must include an exhibit providing legal and technical information for 
the non-U.S.-licensed space station of the kind that Sec.  25.114 or 
Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123 would require in a license application for 
that space station, including but not limited to, information required 
to complete Schedule S. An applicant may satisfy this requirement by 
cross-referencing a pending application containing the requisite 
information or by citing a prior grant of authority to communicate via 
the space station in question in the same frequency bands to provide 
the same type of service.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Recipients of U.S. market access for NGSO-like satellite 
operation that have one market access request on file with the 
Commission in a particular frequency band, or one granted market access 
request for an unbuilt NGSO-like system in a particular frequency band, 
other than those filed or granted under the procedures in Sec.  25.122 
or Sec.  25.123, will not be permitted to request access to the U.S. 
market through another NGSO-like system in that frequency band. This 
paragraph (d)(5) shall not apply to recipients of U.S. market access 
applying under Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123.
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  25.156 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.156   Consideration of applications.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) Applications for NGSO-like satellite operation will be 
considered pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sec.  25.157, except 
as provided in Sec.  25.157(b) or (i), as appropriate.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  25.157 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph 
(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.157   Consideration of applications for NGSO-like satellite 
operation.

    (a) This section specifies the procedures for considering license 
applications for ``NGSO-like'' satellite operation, except as provided 
in paragraphs (b) and (i) of this section. For purposes of this 
section, the term ``NGSO-like satellite operation'' means:
    (1) Operation of any NGSO satellite system; and
    (2) Operation of a GSO MSS satellite to communicate with earth 
stations with non-directional antennas.
* * * * *
    (i) For consideration of license applications filed pursuant to the 
procedures described in Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123, the application 
will be processed and granted in accordance with Sec. Sec.  25.150 
through 25.156, taking into consideration the information provided by 
the applicant under Sec.  25.122(d) or Sec.  25.123(c), but without a 
processing round as described in this section and without a queue as 
described in Sec.  25.158.

0
15. Amend Sec.  25.159 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.159   Limits on pending applications and unbuilt satellite 
systems.

* * * * *
    (b) Applicants with an application for one NGSO-like satellite 
system license on file with the Commission in a particular frequency 
band, or one licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in a 
particular frequency band, other than those filed or licensed under the 
procedures in Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123, will not be permitted to 
apply for another NGSO-like satellite system license in that frequency 
band. This paragraph (b) shall not apply to applicants filing under 
Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  25.165 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and 
(e)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.165  Surety bonds.

    (a) For all space station licenses issued after September 20, 2004, 
other than licenses for DBS space stations, SDARS space stations, space 
stations licensed in accordance with Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123, and 
replacement space stations as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, 
the licensee must post a bond within 30 days of the grant of its 
license. Space station licensed in accordance with Sec.  25.122 or 
Sec.  25.123 must post a bond within one year plus 30 days of the grant 
of the license. Failure to post a bond will render the license null and 
void automatically.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Is authorized to operate at an orbital location within 0.15[deg] of the assigned location of a GSO space station to be 
replaced or is authorized for NGSO operation and will replace an 
existing NGSO space station in its authorized orbit, except for space 
stations authorized under Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123;
* * * * *

0
17. Amend Sec.  25.217 by revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding 
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.217   Default service rules.

    (b)(1) For all NGSO-like satellite licenses, except as specified in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, for which the application was filed 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sec.  25.157 after August 27, 
2003, authorizing operations in a frequency band for which the 
Commission has not

[[Page 43736]]

adopted frequency band-specific service rules at the time the license 
is granted, the licensee will be required to comply with the technical 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section, 
notwithstanding the frequency bands specified in these sections: 
Sec. Sec.  25.143(b)(2)(ii) (except NGSO FSS systems) and (iii), 
25.204(e), and 25.210(f) and (i).
* * * * *
    (4) For all small satellite licensees, for which the application 
was filed pursuant to Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123, authorizing 
operations in a frequency band for which the Commission has not adopted 
frequency-band specific service rules at the time the license is 
granted, the licensee will not be required to comply with the technical 
requirements specified in this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-12013 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P