[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46052-46054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11169]



[[Page 46052]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 5, 25, and 97

[IB Docket No. 22-271; IB Docket No. 18-313; DA 24-412; FR ID 219983]


Space Innovation; Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space 
Age

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Space Bureau of the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) seeks to refresh the record 
concerning the rules proposed in a 2020 Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (FNPRM) adopted in the Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the 
New Space Age rulemaking that sought comment on additional amendments 
to the Commission's rules related to satellite orbital debris 
mitigation.

DATES: Comments are due June 27, 2024. Reply comments are due July 12, 
2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 22-271 
and IB Docket No. 18-313, by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    [ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to 
[email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexandra Horn, Space Bureau, 
Satellite Programs and Policy Division, 202-418-1376, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, DA 24-412, released May 2, 2024, by the Space Bureau. The 
full text of the document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/space-bureau-seeks-refresh-record-orbital-debris-proposed-rules.

Comment Filing Requirements

    Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or 
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers. Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, 
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
     Persons with Disabilities. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) 
or 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Ex Parte Presentations

    The Commission will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document does not contain proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13, beyond those already proposed in the FNPRM. 
Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), beyond those already 
proposed in the FNPRM.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The FNPRM included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(``IRFA'') pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact on 
small entities of the Commission's proposals. The Commission invites 
parties to file supplemental comments on the IRFA in light of the 
request to refresh the record.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

    The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 
118-9, requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to 
post online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The 
required summary of the document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

[[Page 46053]]

Synopsis

    In the document, the Space Bureau seeks to refresh the record on 
rule changes pertaining to orbital debris mitigation previously 
proposed by the Commission. The Commission continues to seek to improve 
and clarify its rules taking into account the Commission's experience 
gained in the satellite licensing process, improvements in mitigation 
guidelines and practices, and in light of various market developments. 
The Commission sought comment in a 2020 FNPRM on various proposals for 
amending the Commission's orbital debris mitigation rules (85 FR 52455, 
Aug. 25, 2020). The comment period closed over three years ago in 2020. 
To ensure that the Commission has the benefit of current information, 
including any developments relating to these issues since the release 
of the underlying FNPRM, the Commission invites interested parties to 
update the record as discussed in the document.
    Background. In 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order 
(2020 Order) comprehensively updating its rules on orbital debris 
mitigation (85 FR 52422, Aug. 25, 2020). At the same time, the 
Commission adopted the FNPRM which sought comment on additional rule 
amendments and proposals related to the probability of accidental 
explosions, collision risk for multi-satellite systems, maneuverability 
requirements, and casualty risk, among other issues. In the 2020 Order, 
the Commission discussed the pace at which the industry is growing, 
noting that it expected that the regulation of orbital debris would be 
an iterative process as new research becomes available and new policies 
are developed based on experience and the evolving commercial space 
landscape.
    Since the Commission last sought comment on its orbital debris 
mitigation rules, NASA and other standards-setting bodies have made a 
number of technical and policy updates to their orbital debris 
mitigation standards and guidance documents, and industry has gained 
substantial experience in this area, potentially leading to the 
development or refinement of new industry standards and practices in 
the future. In addition, in order to maintain U.S. leadership in the 
space economy, the Commission has opened a new docket for Space 
Innovation, IB Docket 22-271, recognizing that the new space age needs 
new rules, including for orbital debris mitigation, that reflect the 
expanding proliferation of satellites and innovations in the space 
industry. Finally, the Space Bureau's own experience in satellite 
licensing and addressing associated orbital debris concerns has also 
advanced and parties have provided additional views in specific 
licensing proceedings on approaches to debris mitigation, particularly 
for large constellations.
    Based on these considerations, the document provides an opportunity 
for additional comments in order to ensure an up-to-date record.
    Request for Additional Comment. Accordingly, the Space Bureau 
invites stakeholders to update the record after reviewing the specific 
proposals, underlying analysis, and questions contained in the FNPRM, 
as well as the existing record in this proceeding. In particular, the 
FNPRM presented a number of questions and proposals regarding the 
debris mitigation practices for constellations, including specific 
considerations related to the total probability of collisions with 
large objects.
    In this context, the Commission sought comment on whether it should 
analyze collision risks based on the entire system (system-wide, or in 
the aggregate) or on individual satellites (per-satellite) within a 
multi-satellite non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) system. If the 
Commission were to opt for a system-wide approach, it sought comment on 
the process through which such collision risks should be considered and 
what factors would be relevant in performing such an analysis. The 
Commission noted that, if it adopted a system-wide safe harbor 
approach, systems that are able to demonstrate that they meet a system-
wide collision probability metric (or another suitable risk indicator) 
would be considered as adequately addressing this aspect of debris 
mitigation, but systems that exceed the threshold would be subject to 
further review. The Commission sought comment on using the U.S. Orbital 
Debris Mitigation Standard Practices' (ODMSP) 0.001 probability of 
collision metric as a threshold or safe harbor as a means of 
identifying systems that may need further review. The Commission sought 
comment on whether a safe harbor approach like the one described above 
or a bright-line rule would be preferable in this context and asked for 
specific metrics or thresholds that would be appropriate for each 
scenario.
    The Commission also identified several factors that could be 
relevant in establishing a safe harbor or bright-line rule, the 
maneuvering capabilities and reliability of the satellite(s), orbital 
lifetime, the number of satellites in the system (possibly including 
constellation replenishment rate and replacement satellites over some 
specific time period), and the size of individual satellites. The 
Commission sought comment on if these factors were relevant for 
consideration in this regard, how these factors should be evaluated, 
and whether there were any more factors that should be considered. As 
it pertains to large constellations, the Commission asked for input on 
whether it should make a bright-line distinction between large 
constellations and smaller systems in terms of the applicable metrics 
for collision risk assessment, or should it attempt to specify a 
scalable metric for both types of systems.
    The Space Bureau seeks to refresh the record on these points. In 
particular, in several ex parte presentations, commenters addressed a 
possible metric of 100 ``object-years'' for assessing the risks that 
may arise if satellites fail to complete planned disposal. ``Object-
years'' refers to the number of years each failed satellite would 
remain in orbit, summed across any other failed satellites that were 
part of the satellite system. The Space Bureau seeks comment on this 
and other approaches for addressing the reliability of post mission 
disposal, especially for constellations. Is an object-years metric 
suitable for this type of analysis, and if so, what threshold should be 
applied? The Space Bureau has used a 100 object-years metric in some 
licenses as a trigger for cases in which disposal failures would 
warrant additional Commission review of the execution of debris 
mitigation measures, and it seeks comment on whether this approach 
should be utilized more or less widely, and in which types of cases. 
Are there alternative approaches for identifying which systems may pose 
more collision risk than others? The Space Bureau asks for comment on 
such approaches, as well as any potential alternative metrics, methods 
for risk analysis, or implementation strategies for managing these 
collision risks, especially as it pertains to larger systems. 
Additionally, it seeks comment on appropriate actions should an 
operator be granted a license and then exceed a 100 object-year 
threshold, or any other metric that may be adopted. For example, should 
the operator be required to cease satellite deployment until the causes 
of the disposal failure have been identified and addressed 
sufficiently? If a cause and solution have been identified and 
successfully implemented, should the count of object years be re-set by 
removing object-years for those satellites from the operator's total 
object years? Are there other reporting conditions that could be used 
to address collision risks?

[[Page 46054]]

    The Space Bureau recognizes that many factors, including orbital 
altitude and maneuvering capabilities, may impact collision risk 
analyses. In the FNPRM, the Commission was specifically interested in 
understanding the role of maneuvering capabilities in mitigating 
collision risk and the extent to which their reliability should be 
factored into collision risk assessments. The Commission sought comment 
on how to evaluate the likelihood of individual satellite maneuvering 
failures within a multi-satellite system. Additionally, the Commission 
requested input on how to assess the collision risk associated with 
failed satellites, including what the assumed location of the 
maneuvering failure should be (i.e., in the deployment orbit, the 
worst-case collision risk orbit, a combination of both, or a range of 
orbits representing the expected range and duration of satellite 
operations), and if there are any methods by which the Commission could 
apply historical data concerning the typical point in a satellite 
mission where failures occur in order to refine the analysis. The FNPRM 
requested comment on this approach and on other alternatives for 
assessing an expected failure rate on a more detailed basis. The Space 
Bureau now requests additional comment on these issues, especially how 
they relate to mitigating collision risks with large objects.
    In the event a safe harbor approach is adopted, the FNPRM sought 
comment on the review process for systems that did not meet the 
established safe harbor criteria. The Commission invited comment on 
options such as allowing applicants to demonstrate a lower actual 
failure rate for their maneuvering capabilities than the assumed rate 
used in the safe harbor assessment. For larger systems with multiple 
deployments, the Commission also asked commenters to provide feedback 
on the possibility of implementing a license condition requiring the 
applicant to provide additional demonstrations if the actual failure 
rate for the initial deployments is substantially higher than the 
expected failure rate expressed in its application.
    For NGSO systems that could not meet the safe harbor, if adopted, 
the FNPRM also sought comment on other aspects of a more detailed 
review process, such as asking operators to provide additional detail 
on alternative satellite designs that were considered during 
development or additional measures that will be taken to reduce the 
total collision risk. To this end, the Commission sought input on what 
additional measures may correlate with lower risk and if there were 
specific measures that can be specified with a goal of minimizing the 
need for a case-by-case approach.
    The Space Bureau encourages interested parties to submit new or 
additional relevant information related to these and other questions 
laid out in the FNPRM, as well as information about the present state 
of the orbital debris environment and the satellite industry at large, 
including the types of mission profiles or additional considerations 
that may have arisen with more prominence since the FNPRM was first 
adopted. The Space Bureau recognizes that the satellite industry is 
rapidly evolving, and that issues or concerns may have arisen that were 
not expressly considered at the time the FNPRM was adopted, or that 
stakeholders now feel have otherwise rendered some of the initial 
considerations and proposals in the FNPRM obsolete or infeasible. 
Accordingly, the Space Bureau invites interested parties to provide 
additional specific recommendations or alternative proposals, supported 
by relevant experience and source material that may not have been 
available prior to the release of the document, as it pertains to the 
issues raised here and presented in the FNPRM.

Federal Communications Commission.
Troy Tanner,
Deputy Chief, Space Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2024-11169 Filed 5-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P