Proposed Rule2022-19748
Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 14, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks comment through a Notice of Inquiry adopted by the FCC on August 5, 2022, on missions conducting in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) that may involve Commission licensing and rules, including the state of the industry, technological readiness, and what steps the Commission might take to facilitate progress and reduce barriers for ISAM missions, including clarifications, updates or modifications of rules.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56365-56372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19748]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 5, 25, and 97
[IB Docket No. 22-271; IB Docket No. 22-272; FCC 22-66; FR ID 102759]
Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-Space
Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
seeks comment through a Notice of Inquiry adopted by the FCC on August
5, 2022, on missions conducting in-space servicing, assembly, and
manufacturing (ISAM) that may involve Commission licensing and rules,
including the state of the industry, technological readiness, and what
steps the Commission might take to facilitate progress and reduce
barriers for ISAM missions, including clarifications, updates or
modifications of rules.
DATES: Comments are due October 31, 2022. Reply comments are due
November 28, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 22-271
and IB Docket No. 22-272, by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Website: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>. 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a7c79790f0a0e7a5c5959145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bafcf9f98f8a8efadcd9d994ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a> 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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f797c7c0a0f0b7f595c5c11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a4c49493f3a3e4a6c6969246d657c">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jameyanne Fuller, International
Bureau, Satellite Division, 202-418-0945, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7218131f170b131c1c175c14071e1e1700321411115c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="197378747c607877777c377f6c75757c6b597f7a7a377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Inquiry, FCC 22-66, adopted August 5, 2022, and released August 8,
2022. The full text of the Notice of Inquiry is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-opens-proceeding-servicing-assembly-manufacturing-space-0">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-opens-proceeding-servicing-assembly-manufacturing-space-0</a>.
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).
<bullet> Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS, <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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). <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
<bullet> Persons with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94f2f7f7a1a4a0d4f2f7f7baf3fbe2">[email protected]</a> 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
[[Page 56366]]
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains no proposed new and modified information
collection requirements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), no Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is required for this Notice of Inquiry.
Synopsis
In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks comment on in-space
servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) missions, including
possible spectrum allocations and licensing processes of these
missions, orbital debris implications of these missions and the
potential for ISAM to remediate existing orbital debris, special
considerations for ISAM missions taking place beyond Earth's orbit, and
what role the Commission should play in regulating these missions to
support sustainable growth of this sector of the space industry.
Notice of Inquiry
We are starting an effort to promote United States leadership in
the emerging space economy. Space activities are rapidly accelerating,
resulting in new opportunities in multiple sectors of society. In this
Notice of Inquiry, we examine the opportunities and challenges of in-
space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing--or ``ISAM''--that can
support sustained economic activity in space. In particular, we seek
comment on the status of ISAM: where the industry is today, how the
Commission can best support its sustainable development, and what
tangible economic and societal benefits may result from the development
of these capabilities.
We believe ISAM activities are poised to transform the space
economy. Missions in this category--which can include satellite
refueling, inspecting and repairing in-orbit spacecraft, capturing and
removing debris, and transforming materials through manufacturing while
in space--have the potential to build entire industries, create new
jobs, mitigate climate change, and advance our nation's economic,
scientific, technological, and national security interests. At the same
time, we also recognize that ISAM activities may raise new
opportunities and challenges for the sustainability of the outer space
environment and the space-based services on which the United States
government, businesses, and individuals rely on every day to
communicate, navigate, and perform other vital functions. As these
capabilities evolve, the norms, rules, and principles that guide outer
space activities may also require renewed attention.
This Notice of Inquiry thus seeks to develop a record on where
these capabilities are today and the steps needed to promote their
development. In particular, we seek comment through this Notice of
Inquiry on the regulatory needs related to commercial and other non-
governmental ISAM activities and whether such activities could further
the Commission's policy goals and statutory obligations. We seek
comment on ISAM activities that may involve Commission licensing and
rules, on updates or modifications of our rules or licensing processes
that might facilitate ISAM activities, on spectrum needs for ISAM
missions, and on any regulatory issues presented by ISAM activities
beyond Earth's orbit. In addition, we seek comment on space safety
issues that may be implicated by ISAM activities, including orbital
debris considerations. As part of this inquiry, for the first time, we
seek to develop a record not only on efforts to minimize the creation
of new debris in connection with ISAM, but on opportunities to leverage
these capabilities to clean up existing debris. The information
developed in this Notice of Inquiry can help position the United States
to realize the critical benefits of ISAM while ensuring space safety
and sustainability.
ISAM refers to a set of capabilities that are used on-orbit, in
transit, or on the surface of space bodies. Within the category of
ISAM, ``servicing'' includes activities such as use of one spacecraft
to inspect another, to dock with other spacecraft and provide support
such as maintaining the station in its orbital location in order to
extend the period of operations, or to repair or modify a spacecraft
after its initial launch. These activities typically include the
process of maneuvering close to and operating in the near vicinity of
the ``client'' spacecraft, a set of activities often referred to as
rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO). ``Servicing'' also involves
transport of a spacecraft from one orbit to another and debris
collection and removal. ``Assembly'' refers to the construction of a
space system using pre-manufactured components, and ``manufacturing''
is the transformation of raw or recycled materials into components,
products, or infrastructure in space.
While many commercial and other non-governmental ISAM activities
are still at an early stage, the Commission has played a role in
authorizing a number of missions that include technologies relevant for
ISAM or offer groundbreaking commercial servicing. Some of these
include:
<bullet> Licensing of Space Logistics, LLC's Mission Extension
Vehicle-1 (MEV-1). This spacecraft has successfully executed the first
commercial mission servicing a commercial spacecraft, in this case by
docking with and providing station-keeping support to a geostationary
orbit (GSO) communications satellite.
<bullet> Licensing of Space Logistics, LLC's second Mission
Extension Vehicle (MEV-2).
<bullet> Granting an experimental license to SpaceIce in October
2020 for a satellite designed to investigate freeze-casting in the
microgravity environment.
<bullet> Authorizing U.S. earth station communications in November
2021 to support Astroscale Ltd.'s ELSA-d testing of spacecraft
capabilities for orbital debris removal.
<bullet> Granting an experimental license to NanoRacks LLC in
November 2021 for communications with an experimental component
attached to the second stage of a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle, to
demonstrate metal-cutting in space.
Additionally, topics related to ISAM capabilities have been raised
in other Commission rulemaking proceedings. In the Commission's recent
orbital debris proceeding, Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New
Space Age, the Commission sought comment on a variety of areas for rule
updates, including, for example, whether it should update its rules
specifically to address RPO. The Commission received a number of
comments in the record, and ultimately adopted a requirement that space
station applicants disclose whether a spacecraft is capable of, or will
be, performing proximity operations, noting that this disclosure would
identify situations where such operations are planned and provide a
vehicle for further review of those operations.\1\ At the time, the
[[Page 56367]]
Commission noted the evolving and developing nature of RPO and
accordingly found that adoption of more specific technical or
operational requirements would be premature. The Commission also sought
comment on the role of spacecraft retrieval, also referred to as
``active debris removal'' as a debris mitigation strategy in certain
circumstances, and concluded that this was also an area where it would
be premature to establish more detailed regulations. Additionally, the
Commission sought comment on several topics in a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including quantifying risks associated with multi-
satellite systems and post-mission disposal performance bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rules adopted by the Commission state that applicants
must disclose planned proximity operations, if any, and address
debris generation that will or may result from the proposed
operations, including any planned release of debris, the risk of
accidental explosions, the risk of accidental collision, and
measures taken to mitigate those risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in the Commission's launch frequency proceeding,
Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal Space Launch Operations, some
commenters addressed servicing capabilities. While that proceeding was
more narrowly focused on several specific frequencies used for launch
vehicles, we sought comment on ``payload'' operations that either
utilize or could potentially utilize those frequencies, such as
vehicles used for transport to the International Space Station. We also
sought comment on cases in which an object that might otherwise
function only as a launch vehicle upper stage would continue operations
after the initial launch phase in order to support operations of
customer instruments or radios.\2\ The Commission received comments in
the record that addressed a broader range of activities, including
situations in which a spacecraft is used either to deploy or move other
spacecraft that are already in orbit. Several commenters also advocated
for a new licensing framework for on-orbit servicing (OOS) separate
from the Commission's existing part 25 and part 5 licensing regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The customer equipment is sometimes referred to as a
``payload'' or ``hosted payload'', but the meaning of the term
``payload'' in this context is generally distinct from the use of
the term ``payload'' in the launch licensing context, where the term
is used to refer to the object or objects that separate from the
launch vehicle at the end of the launch activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in June 2022, we considered ISAM operations in our annual
regulatory fee proceeding and sought comment on these nascent
operations in the context of regulatory fee obligations. Some
commenters suggested that creating a separate fee category or
categories, along with service rules for OOS and RPO operations, would
provide clarity. In the FY 2022 Notice, we observed that except for GSO
servicing missions, we expect that most OOS and RPO will be non-
geostationary orbit (NGSO) operations. We tentatively concluded that
the technology for OOS and RPO missions was too nascent, however, to
make broader determinations on the status of such operations for
regulatory fee purposes, and we sought further comment on whether and
how to assess fees for these types of spacecraft, as well as other
types of satellites servicing other satellites, including those
operating near the GSO arc.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The GSO arc lies on the plane of the Earth's equator at an
altitude of approximately 35,786 kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's ongoing work related to ISAM has dovetailed with
other major federal government action. On April 4, 2022, the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released the ISAM
National Strategy. As discussed therein, the United States plans to
support and stimulate government, academic, and commercial development
of ISAM capabilities. In particular, the ISAM National Strategy
identified six goals to advance ISAM capability development:
1. Advance ISAM research and development, including an ecosystem of
capabilities to support ISAM such as standards and systems to implement
standards.
2. In collaboration with academic and commercial ISAM stakeholders,
prioritize expanding ground infrastructure and support the development
of space-based infrastructure.
3. Accelerate the emerging ISAM commercial industry through
providing a sustained demand signal for ISAM capabilities and increased
collaboration between government stakeholders and industry.
4. Promote international collaboration and communication and
support the development of voluntary international standards, best
practices, guidelines, and norms for ISAM activities.
5. Prioritize environmental sustainability by developing and
implementing best practices, collaborating with commercial partners to
support cost-effective space debris removal, and developing new climate
science approaches.
6. Inspire the future space workforce by collaborating with
academic institutions developing ISAM-enabled research, supporting
curriculum development, and advocating for apprenticeships to foster
industry-academia collaborations.
We seek comment on Commission actions that can address the needs of
ISAM activities, including whether there are any regulatory changes the
Commission should consider to facilitate ISAM. For example, we ask
questions about spectrum needs for ISAM missions, as well as whether
there are clarification of or changes to our licensing processes that
would support these types of missions. Recognizing the potential
benefits of satellite servicing and orbital debris remediation, we also
seek comment on the particular needs of these activities and whether
they can further Commission policy goals and statutory obligations. In
addition, we seek comment on the orbital debris implications and
opportunities posed by ISAM missions, in view of the Commission's role
in reviewing orbital debris mitigation plans for non-governmental
spacecraft.
Spectrum Needs and Relevant Allocations
Generally, we seek comment on the variety of radiofrequency
communications links that could be involved in ISAM missions, on
potentially relevant international frequency allocations and
allocations in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, and on other
considerations associated with spectrum licensing. To date, some
spacecraft involved in ISAM missions have been licensed under part 25
of the Commission's rules, which generally apply to commercial and
other non-experimental operations, while other spacecraft involved in
ISAM missions have been licensed under part 5 of the Commission's
rules, which addresses experimental licensing. Communications that are
not consistent with the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations and
communications pursuant to a part 5 experimental license are authorized
on a non-interference basis and cannot claim interference protection
from authorized spectrum users.
Given the wide range of activities that could fall within the ISAM
category, we seek comment on how to define the scope of ``typical''
spectrum usage for ISAM missions, including for such functions as OOS
and RPO. While different types of ISAM missions will have different
spectrum needs, is it possible to define the scope of typical spectrum
use for these different types of missions? Are there useful sub-
categories that can be identified within ISAM when it comes to spectrum
use? What are the overall requirements for spectrum for these ISAM
activities? What are the bandwidth requirements? What are the power
requirements? To what degree are the needs short-term or episodic, or
to what degree are the
[[Page 56368]]
needs for ``always-on'' transmissions and reception?
We seek comment on relevant frequency allocations. What services,
as defined by the ITU Radio Regulations and the Commission's rules, are
most critical for ISAM capabilities? We note that in some instances
ISAM missions have been supported by communications in the space
operations service, which primarily covers telemetry, tracking, and
command (TT&C). We seek comment on whether typical usage for ISAM
missions could be considered a space operations service as currently
defined. We also note the use of sensors and imaging equipment in some
ISAM missions, equipment that may have spectrum needs distinct from the
typical needs for obtaining TT&C operations of a spacecraft. Are the
current non-Federal allocations for space operations or other relevant
services adequate to address spectrum needs for ISAM missions? If not,
what frequency ranges would be most viable to support these missions
based on current technology and mission requirements, and are there
satellite allocations in those frequency ranges? Is it reasonable to
continue in some instances to authorize communications supporting ISAM
capabilities on a non-interference, unprotected basis, particularly
where the communications may be critical to conducting an RPO mission
for example, or something similar? Are there conditions that could
facilitate coordination with incumbent users, such as geographic or
temporal limitations, thereby providing some assurance of interference-
free use, even where the status of such operations remains inconsistent
with an allocation.
Commercial space industry entities have previously observed that
additional spectrum may be necessary to support types of missions that
would fall under the category of ISAM. These entities also noted that
investment has already been made in technologies to support OOS and RPO
in some frequency bands. We seek comment on these issues, and on
whether there are steps that can facilitate operations to support ISAM
capabilities in frequency bands viewed by commercial and other non-
governmental entities as compatible with their needs. For example, in
frequency bands shared with Federal operations, what steps would
facilitate sharing? What steps would facilitate sharing in frequency
bands shared with terrestrial operations? To what extent is sharing
with other operators, both federal and commercial, possible, depending
on the type of ISAM mission? Are there frequency bands that could
support ISAM missions, but that have not been used for these types of
missions to date? What are the synergies, if any, between space launch
activities and associated frequency uses and ISAM operations? Are there
advances in equipment or other technologies that would allow for use of
frequency bands to support these missions, or make sharing feasible in
bands not previously utilized for space operations? What are the pros
and cons of any necessary operational changes, and how do those affect
the cost and viability of ISAM missions?
We observe that ISAM missions may involve communications links
among spacecraft within or beyond Earth's orbit, among spacecraft and
equipment or devices located on celestial bodies, or among equipment
and devices located on a celestial body. We seek comment on the
potential scope of these types of communications links and the unique
issues presented by such communications when it comes to spectrum
licensing. In so doing, we ask about the role of existing allocations
for satellite services, including inter-satellite links, in supporting
some of these communications. Inter-satellite communications may be
useful for space-based tracking assets and can enable ultra-high-speed
data transfer and quantum-encrypted communications. What are the
spectrum needs for communications activities occurring beyond Earth's
orbit, such as those between spacecraft or on or around celestial
bodies--the moon, or an asteroid, for example? How can the Commission
facilitate the development of communications networks on, or in the
orbit of, other celestial bodies? What considerations should be made in
assigning frequencies for communications on celestial bodies, such as
between equipment on the lunar surface? What are the challenges with
spectrum assignments for Earth station support for ISAM missions beyond
Earth's orbit?
Licensing Processes
Licensing Processes in General
We seek comment on any updates or modifications to the Commission's
licensing rules and processes that would facilitate ISAM capabilities.
The Commission's licensing for space stations is ``facilities-based,''
meaning that the license is associated with a specific radio station.
That station includes ``accessory equipment'' necessary to conduct
communications activities at a location. For facilities involved in
ISAM activities the licensing process would typically involve an
application filed under part 25 or part 5 of the Commission's rules.
Part 25 licenses are appropriate for commercial operations, including
licenses for NGSO and GSO space stations, small satellites, and small
spacecraft. Part 5 rules are more limited in scope to specific
categories of noncommercial operations, including, among others,
scientific experiments, communications research, product development,
and market trials. Both part 25 and part 5 also provide for special
temporary authority (STA). In general terms, the International Bureau
and/or the Office of Engineering and Technology will evaluate the
application and issue a grant, typically with conditions, upon a
finding that the grant serves the ``public interest, convenience, and
necessity.'' We seek comment on any updates to part 25 or part 5 of the
Commission's rules for application processing to accommodate and
facilitate ISAM missions.
Which of the Commission's current processes are suited for
licensing different types of ISAM missions? As ISAM capabilities
develop and are increasingly offered as commercial services, part 5
licensing may no longer be appropriate. Should ISAM missions generally
be licensed under part 25 of the Commission's rules, or will part 5
experimental licensing continue to be appropriate in some instances,
and under what circumstances? \4\ Do such activities need a new
licensing framework based on their needs, perhaps addressed under a new
part of the Commission rules, or is continuation of the current
approach, distinguishing between commercial and experimental uses,
generally useful?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We again note that part 5 experimental licensees must
operate on a non-interference basis, meaning they are prohibited
from causing harmful interference to other authorized operators and
are not entitled to interference protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the Commission's ``facilities-based'' approach to licensing,
we also seek comment on characteristics of ISAM activities and relevant
considerations affecting Commission licensing that might be addressed
through part 25 of the Commission's rules. What are the challenges, if
any, presented by current Commission processes for missions of variable
duration or missions exhibiting evolving characteristics? How should
the Commission consider variable locations in space such as transition
between orbital altitudes and inclinations? Are there other
considerations the Commission should take into account regarding
individual missions versus multiple, different missions? What
application requirements best account for the evolving nature of ISAM
[[Page 56369]]
missions and activities? How can the Commission effectively regulate to
anticipate variations in vehicle designs and mission capabilities
depending on mission and stage of development? For missions that face
multiple points of variability in mission type, duration, and spectral
needs, such as servicers that may service multiple spacecraft, what are
the challenges with licensing under existing rules, if any? For
example, should these missions be handled under a single license that
is modified as needed, or through multiple licenses or some other way?
What are alternative ways to account for potential risks and different
missions that such spacecraft may encounter? How should the licensing
process accommodate spacecraft that provide more typical communications
services, but may also be involved to some extent in ISAM activities?
Are fixed-satellite service or mobile-satellite service allocations, to
the extent that they include in-band space operations, sufficiently
flexible to accommodate ISAM activities? If additional frequencies are
required or desirable for the ISAM activities, and those activities
occur at a different time than the regular communications operations,
should there be some reporting required on the changes in the
operations of the spacecraft to reflect changes in the use of the
licensed frequencies? What are the ITU filing considerations associated
with multi-part or complex missions?
Under part 25 of the Commission's rules, space stations are
categorized as GSO or NGSO, and processed accordingly. In most cases,
space stations involved in ISAM activities will likely be NGSO, but in
some cases they could be engaged in activities near the GSO arc, or
even co-located or attached to a GSO space station. How should these
types of spacecraft be categorized for licensing purposes? \5\ GSO
space station applications are processed on a first-come, first-served
basis, associated with particular frequencies and a specific orbital
location in the GSO arc, whereas servicing or other similar missions in
the GSO arc seem likely to move between orbital locations, and may or
may not be engaged in more typical satellite communications services,
such as fixed-satellite service. What are the key considerations in
categorizing those types of missions as between GSO and NGSO? Are there
additional flexibilities that should be built into the Commission's
procedures to reflect these unique cases? Given the apparent need for
flexibility, should spacecraft involved in ISAM missions be treated
like NGSO applications in all cases? In such a regime, how should those
planning to operate at the GSO arc be treated? NGSO applications,
unless they are filed under the small satellite or small spacecraft
process, are, absent a rule waiver, assessed as part of a processing
round. Is it appropriate to exempt certain types of operations
associated with ISAM missions from the Commission's processing round
rules, or are their certain types of missions that might be categorized
as or facilitate ISAM, such as in-space data relay networks, that would
require the type of continuous, active spectrum use the Commission's
processing round framework is designed to manage? Should the Commission
consider process changes under part 25, similar to the streamlined
process for small satellites and small spacecraft, to license space
stations involving certain types of ISAM activities? What key
requirements should the Commission consider?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We note that the Commission's fee schedules for application
and regulatory fees also make this distinction between GSO and NGSO
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on the Commission's current technical disclosures,
such as those in the Schedule S form required for part 25 space station
license applications and the technical showings required under sections
25.114(c) and 25.114(d) of the Commission's rules. Are the required
technical disclosures sufficient to capture the specifications of ISAM
missions? If not, what other technical disclosures should be required?
Similarly, for any ISAM missions that fit under the Commission's
streamlined processes for small satellites and small spacecraft, are
the technical showings required by these processes sufficient to
capture the specifications of ISAM missions, and if not, what
modifications to these required technical showings would better
accommodate ISAM missions? Is the Schedule S format appropriate for
ISAM missions? How might the Commission modify its Schedule S form or
update the other disclosure requirements in its rules to accommodate
ISAM missions?
Additionally, we seek comment on licensing processes for earth
stations supporting ISAM missions. Are there updates or modifications
to the earth station process that would facilitate ISAM missions?
Based on the wide array of ISAM operations, how can the Commission
provide guidance on its application processes? Are there additional
ways that the Commission can offer guidance such as public notices, FCC
Fact Sheets, etc.?
Satellite Servicing Missions
We seek comment on any additional licensing considerations unique
to satellite servicing missions. Servicing missions typically consist
of multiple spacecraft. In some cases, servicing missions may involve a
single operator or licensee that is operating more than one spacecraft.
We expect, however, that servicing missions will also involve multiple
spacecraft that are owned and operated by different entities. We seek
comment on the licensing process for these, or similar missions. Our
approach to date has been to treat both the servicer and client
spacecraft as needing to be licensed for the scope of radio-frequency
activities involved in the servicing operations. Should the licensing
process require the servicer alone to be responsible for obtaining a
Commission license for communications associated with the servicing
activities? Alternatively, should the client operator (i.e., the
operator of the space station being serviced) also obtain
authorization, either because the client space station may need to
undertake radio-frequency operation at variance from what was
originally granted in the client's license, or simply to address the
additional scope of activity involving servicing? Should this be
decided based on a preconceived set of criteria, or would this decision
require a case-by-case analysis of individual service activities to
better suit the diversity of scenarios? If a case-by-case analysis is
considered appropriate, how can the Commission apply additional
guidance, such as public notices, to provide clarity to commercial
operators seeking licenses for OOS operations? If only the servicer
obtains an authorization, what confirmation from the client should be
required by the Commission to ensure that the scope of operations is
fully agreed-upon by the client and servicer entities? Additionally, in
some cases, either the client or servicer may not be a U.S.-licensed
spacecraft, and may or may not have U.S. market access. In those
instances, what information should the Commission require from the
applicant (client or servicer)? Are there special considerations
involved where there may be multiple administrations licensing the
spacecraft and how should those considerations be taken into account in
the Commission's licensing process?
Assembly, Manufacturing and Other Activities
We seek comment on any special considerations in licensing of
assembly and manufacturing missions. Are
[[Page 56370]]
existing part 5 and part 25 licensing frameworks sufficient for these
missions or subsets of these missions? Are there any limitations
resulting from existing Commission licensing rules for these missions?
If so, how should the Commission consider revising its rules to
facilitate the specific needs of these missions?
International Considerations
ISAM missions also raise the possibility of interactions between
operators under the jurisdiction of multiple nations. Servicing and
debris remediation missions, in particular, could involve operators or
objects outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Assembly
activities may also involve these concerns, to the extent assembly
involves objects under the supervision of different countries. We seek
comment on whether and how to take this into account in the
Commission's licensing process. Would such a relationship be governed
by a regulatory framework analogous to the U.S. market access
framework, enabling non-U.S.-licensed space stations to access the U.S.
satellite marketplace? Would documentation of consent from the non-U.S.
operator or administration be appropriate? If so, what kind of
documentation should the Commission require?
In the majority of countries with developing ISAM capabilities,
both government and non-government entities have established
partnerships with at least one other entity located in another country.
What international coordination is needed for U.S.-licensed servicing
of non-U.S. satellites, for example, and vice versa? How can the
Commission ensure that operators and/or Administrations are in
agreement on the scope of certain activities involving non-U.S.
spacecraft? Are there circumstances in which the Commission should
consult with the State Department to help ensure mutual understanding
between Administrations, and if so, should such a process be
formalized?
Orbital Debris Mitigation
The Commission's orbital debris mitigation rules apply to all space
station operators seeking license and authorization under the
Commission's rules, including operators of ISAM missions. All
applicants, including applicants for operations involving ISAM
activities, must provide a description of their orbital debris
mitigation design and operational strategies consistent with the
Commission's orbital debris mitigation rules, including, among other
requirements, addressing release of debris during normal operations,
risk of accidental explosions, and collision risk, casualty risk, and
post-mission disposal reliability.
As the scope of commercial and other non-governmental in-space
activities expands, some ISAM activities may present fact patterns that
have not been specifically contemplated by current orbital debris
mitigation rules and adopted practices. For example, the current
practices focus on a ``use or deplete'' approach to stored energy.\6\
Plans for utilizing in-space fuel storage for refueling operations, on
the other hand, contemplate at least a temporary location in which
energy remains stored in space when not being utilized. Are there
additional risks of debris generation implicated in such operations,
and if so, what steps can be taken to mitigate such risks? As another
example, are there potentially byproducts from in-space assembly and
manufacturing, such as small debris from cutting or manipulation of
materials, or risks of unplanned release of objects that are not
adequately addressed currently in the Commission's rules for which
mitigation measures might be developed with greater specificity? \7\
Are there other ISAM activities that do not fit with the typical
mission profiles for which standard practices for mitigation, or
standard disclosures about mitigation strategies that have to date not
been developed? In general, are there updates to the Commission's
orbital debris mitigation rules that would help to address such risks,
through modified disclosure requirements, for example, that would
facilitate Commission consideration of whether grant of a license would
serve the public interest? If so, what would be the relevant changes to
the Commission's rules to cover the additional risks, if any, presented
by such activities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Space station applicants are required to provide a statement
that the operator has assessed and limited the probability of
accidental explosions during and after the completion of mission
operations. This statement must include a demonstration that debris
generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources on
board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the spacecraft.
Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy. This
demonstration needs to address whether stored energy will be removed
at the spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and
leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system,
leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing
any remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent
procedures specifically disclosed in the application.
\7\ The Commission's rules require that space station applicants
provide a statement that the operator has assessed and limited the
amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orbital Debris Remediation
A specific sub-category of ISAM missions are those performing a
remediation or removal function for preexisting space debris, including
defunct satellites, satellite fragments, and material released during
normal operations. We look forward to the continued advancement of
technologies that would enable remediation and removal of debris, and
how the Commission can facilitate or support advancement of these
technologies. What is the current reliability and technical readiness
of these technologies? What is the state of the art in active debris
remediation or removal technologies? Which technological approaches to
address active debris remediation or removal are developed or being
developed? What actions can the Commission take to promote continued
growth, innovation, and development in debris remediation and removal?
We seek comment on whether and how the Commission should consider
active debris removal as part of an operator's orbital debris strategy.
Are these active disposal efforts, in particular retrieval of defunct
satellites or related debris, at or close to a technological level that
the Commission can consider them as part of an operator's orbital
debris strategy for post-mission disposal or backup post-mission
disposal? Would the Commission's consideration of active debris removal
or remediation as part of its orbital debris mitigation review help to
drive innovation in this sector? To ensure a sustainable space
environment, should operators be required to utilize active debris
removal if the primary post-mission disposal maneuvers fail? If used as
a secondary or backup method, how much investment should operators be
required to devote to the technological adaptation for disposal
methods? What approaches to implement this requirement are possible?
For example, to ensure active debris removal, would an operator bond
associated with removal be appropriate? \8\ Should space stations be
required to have technical specifications compatible with active debris
removal technology? What would these specifications look like (e.g.,
[[Page 56371]]
commercially adaptable docking components)? Are there standardization
efforts currently underway for these types of systems/components and
activities? Is it reasonable to expect that there could be one or more
standards available for operators in the near term or longer term? How
might such standards evolve? Are there any actions the Commission could
and should take to support the future success of active debris
remediation or removal technologies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We note that the Commission proposed a bond associated with
successful spacecraft post-mission disposal in the Orbital Debris
FNPRM. That proposal for a bond remains pending. A bond to
incentivize active debris removal could potentially be tied to a
general bond associated with successful post-mission disposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What industry adaptations could facilitate active debris removal
with consideration to return on investment (e.g., fuel costs, weight,
import costs, procurement)? Are there generic technical requirements
that could facilitate active debris removal across the industry (e.g.,
with no consideration to orbit, service, or country of registration) or
would requirements vary depending on the client and the servicer?
Activities Beyond Earth's Orbit
We seek comment on specific considerations for ISAM missions that
go beyond Earth's orbit and the Commission's role in planetary
protection. ISAM activities beyond Earth's orbit could include a wide
range of operations, including missions to the Moon and asteroids.
In general, we seek comment on any updates to the Commission's
rules that might facilitate licensing ISAM missions beyond Earth's
orbit. The Commission recently adopted a set of rules designed for
missions beyond Earth's orbit in the part 25 ``small spacecraft''
rules, but these rules were not adopted with a specific focus on ISAM
activities. Are these rules sufficient for ISAM missions beyond Earth's
orbit, or are there changes either generally or specific to ISAM
activities that would be beneficial? Are there any changes to the
Commission's part 5 experimental or regular part 25 processing rules
that would facilitate the licensing of ISAM missions beyond Earth's
orbit?
Planetary Protection. Planetary protection typically encompasses
the policies and practices designed to protect celestial bodies from
contamination by Earth life, and protect the Earth's biosphere from
potential contamination from returning spacecraft. Article IX of the
Outer Space Treaty states that, ``States Parties to the Treaty shall
pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial
bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful
contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth
resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter.'' Planetary
protection guidelines have historically been developed in the United
States by National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's)
Office of Planetary Protection and internationally by the Committee on
Space Research (COSPAR). For commercial missions, oversight of
planetary protection compliance has been undertaken through Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) payload review, which includes
consultations with the Department of State and NASA. For civil space
missions, planetary protection is largely coordinated by the Office of
Planetary Protection, following NASA regulations.
The extent of planetary protection policies needed for an
individual mission are determined by categorizing the mission based on
the type of celestial body it will encounter (i.e., how likely that
body is to support life), and the nature of the encounter (e.g., flyby,
orbiting, or landing). For example, a Category I mission (e.g., a flyby
of an asteroid) will have minimal requirements relative to a Category
IV mission (e.g., a landing on Mars). ISAM operators must only consider
planetary protection implications for missions performing a flyby,
orbit, or landing on a celestial body. There are no planetary
protection implications for on-orbit operations.
We seek comment on what, if any, role the Commission should play in
reviewing planetary protection plans and implications for ISAM
missions. What are the planetary protection implications of ISAM
capabilities? Are there contractual mechanisms or governmental
processes that ensure adequate supervision of missions with respect to
planetary protection policies? What, if any, steps can the Commission
take to facilitate planetary protection review? Are there any statutory
limits for the Commission's involvement in ensuring that the United
States meet its treaty obligations and international commitments? How
can the commission best ensure our authorizations for these missions
serve the public interest?
With respect to manufacturing missions, in-situ resource
utilization (ISRU) is currently being considered for use in missions to
the asteroids, the Moon, and Mars. Landing spacecraft at these
destinations have varying degrees of planetary protection
considerations: undifferentiated, metamorphosed asteroids are Category
I; other asteroids and the Moon are Category II; and Mars is Category
IV. Are there unique or specific planetary protection concerns for
space resource utilization? What role should be appropriate for the
Commission to play in overseeing such missions from a planetary
protection perspective?
The ISAM National Strategy calls for the U.S. domestic regulatory
regime to be updated as ISAM technologies mature to facilitate ISAM
activities. How can the Commission's regulations, or the Commission's
coordination with other government agencies, facilitate ISAM activities
beyond Earth's orbit, including on other celestial bodies? What should
be the extent of oversight by the Commission of objects remotely
controlled via an FCC-licensed station?
Encouraging Innovation and Investments in ISAM
We also seek comment on ways to facilitate development of and
competition in ISAM activities, provide a diversity of on-orbit service
options, and promote innovation and investment in the ISAM field. Are
there any regulatory barriers that may increase cost or prevent entry
that can be removed or modernized to facilitate innovation and
investment in ISAM in the public interest? How can the Commission
encourage new operators to enter into the marketplace to provide
commercial ISAM services as well as those wishing to expand their
market access? What actions can the Commission take to promote
continued growth, innovation, and development in ISAM operations?
Moreover, how can we promote innovation and investment in ISAM without
simultaneously reducing incentives for compliance with our rules for
orbital debris mitigation, such as rules that encourage post-mission
disposal?
The costs of commercial space activity are extensive and there are
not necessarily immediate returns on investment opportunities for
operations such as orbital debris remediation efforts. Aside from the
incentives provided to ISAM operators, we seek to analyze the current
state of ISAM technology and understand its economic impact on space-
based services. To better understand this emerging market segment, we
ask for comment on where ISAM fits within the broader satellite
communications services sector. What firms currently supply ISAM
services? What entities demand ISAM services? We also seek comment on
the nature of the cost structure of firms supplying ISAM activities.
How important are economies of scale in production? We seek comment on
the current and future state of ISAM technology and its economic impact
on space-based services. How does innovation in such technologies and
services impact the space-based industry when evaluated
[[Page 56372]]
through long-term projections (e.g., a five-year projection or a ten-
year projection)?
What regulatory incentives can be provided to ISAM operators and
developers to encourage innovation and growth in this field? What
regulatory incentives can be provided to ISAM clients to encourage use
of ISAM technology? What are ISAM operators' concerns with respect to
the Commission's regulatory processes regarding their operations? How
can the Commission address these concerns while also maintaining access
to spectrum and a safe space environment for all operators?
Digital Equity and Inclusion
Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with the topics discussed herein. Specifically, we seek
comment on how the topics discussed and any related proposals may
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility, as well as the scope of the Commission's relevant legal
authority.
Procedural Matters
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), no Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is required for this Notice of Inquiry.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 301,
302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r),
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19748 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 14, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.