Proposed Rule2024-05389
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
March 15, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on a proposed new framework for licensing space stations engaged in in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18875-18887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05389]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket Nos. 22-271, 22-272; FCC 24-21; FR ID 207048]
Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-Space
Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks
comment on a proposed new framework for licensing space stations
engaged in in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM).
DATES: Comments are due on or before April 29, 2024. Reply comments are
due on or before May 29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket Nos. 22-271
and 22-272, by any of the following methods:
<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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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>.
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#563035356366621630353578313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97f1f4f4a2a7a3d7f1f4f4b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jameyanne Fuller, Space Bureau,
Satellite Programs and Policy Division, 202-418-0945,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#711b101c1408101f1f145f17041d1d1403311712125f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3c9c2cec6dac2cdcdc68dc5d6cfcfc6d1e3c5c0c08dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in IB Docket Nos. 22-271 and 22-272; FCC
24-21, adopted February 15, 2024, and released February 16, 2024. The
full text of this document is available at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-21A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-21A1.pdf</a>.
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
[[Page 18876]]
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
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed new or 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 (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 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)), the Commission
seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and
comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' The Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential
impact of the proposed rule and policy changes contained in the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the NPRM
and a summary is included in the Procedural Matters section below.
Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking indicated on the DATES section of this document and must
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to
the IRFA.
Synopsis
1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
seeks comment on several proposed changes to part 25 of the
Commission's rules to create a new framework to license in-space
servicing, assembly, and manufacturing, or ``ISAM'' space stations,
thereby supporting the development of these novel space activities.
Specifically, the NPRM proposes to include a new definition of ``ISAM
space station'' in Sec. 25.103 of the Commission's rules drawn from
the definition in the ISAM National Strategy and proposes a new Sec.
25.126 to the Commission's rules to aggregate requirements that all
applicants for an ISAM space station license or market access grant
must fulfill and to enumerate the exemptions from other portions of
part 25 to which applicants would be entitled. It also seeks comments
on whether other rule changes might be necessary to support the
development of the ISAM industry. Additionally, it proposes to retain
the same orbital debris mitigation requirements for ISAM operators as
for other space station operators and proposes to review ISAM
operators' requests for frequency use on a case-by-case basis.
I. Introduction
2. The Commission continues its efforts to promote United States
leadership in space by adopting the NPRM to propose a new framework for
licensing space stations engaged in ISAM. Space capabilities are
expanding, opening novel economic and scientific opportunities, and
providing new tools for sustainable use of space. Effective and
efficient use of radiofrequency communications will enable these new
capabilities and the rules proposed are designed to facilitate and
support their growth. The NPRM reflects the input of commenters from
the Commission's Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on ISAM, 87 FR 56365
(September 14, 2022), which sought comment regarding where the industry
is today, how the Commission can best support its sustainable
development, and what tangible economic and societal benefits may
result from these capabilities. Taking these comments into account, the
Commission proposes to create a new framework to license ISAM space
stations, thereby supporting the development of these novel space
activities. As the ISAM industry continues to develop, the Commission
envisions taking additional steps as needed to foster innovation and
growth in this field.
II. Background
3. ISAM refers to a set of capabilities used on-orbit, on the
surface of space objects and celestial bodies, and in transit between
these regimes. The ``servicing'' aspect of ISAM includes activities
such as the in-space inspection, life extension, repair, refueling, or
alteration of a spacecraft after its initial launch, which includes but
is not limited to: visually acquire, rendezvous and/or proximity
operations, docking, berthing, relocation, upgrading, repositioning,
undocking, unberthing, release and departure, reuse, orbit transport
and transfer, and timely debris collection and removal. 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). The term ``servicing'' is also used to describe transport of a
spacecraft from one orbit to another, as well as 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
[[Page 18877]]
materials into components, products, or infrastructure in space.
4. On August 5, 2022, the Commission adopted the ISAM NOI. It
sought comment on spectrum needs and allocations; licensing processes
in general and specifically for satellite servicing operations,
assembly, manufacturing, and other activities; and international
licensing considerations. Twenty-four comments were filed by ISAM
operators, satellite operators, industry groups, and government
agencies, ten parties filed reply comments, and a number of parties
also submitted ex parte filings on the record.
5. Prior Actions Involving ISAM Activities. While many commercial
ISAM activities are still at an early stage, the Commission, in
coordination with NTIA where operations were in frequency bands shared
with the federal government, has issued licenses for space stations
conducting several types of ISAM activities, including the following:
licensing of SpaceLogistics, LLC's (SpaceLogistics) Mission Extension
Vehicle-1 (MEV-1) and Mission Extension Vehicle-2 (MEV-2); granting an
experimental license to SpaceIce to investigate freeze-casting, a
processing technique used to create a wide range of materials like
ceramics, metals, polymers, and composites, among others, in the
microgravity environment; authorizing U.S. earth station communications
to support Astroscale Ltd.'s ELSA-d testing of spacecraft capabilities
for orbital debris removal; and granting an experimental license to
NanoRacks LLC for communications to demonstrate metal-cutting in space.
6. Topics related to ISAM capabilities have also been raised in
other Commission rulemaking proceedings. In the ongoing rulemaking to
update the orbital debris rules, Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the
New Space Age, the Commission sought comment on a variety of rule
changes, including, for example, whether it should update rules
specifically to address RPO. The Commission ultimately adopted a
requirement that space station applicants disclose whether a space
station 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. At the time, the 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 (ADR), 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.
7. State of the ISAM Industry. The ISAM NOI sought information on
the state of the industry for ISAM operations. Astroscale notes that
more than 102 companies have undertaken ISAM projects or research, that
18 of those have either partially or fully operational ISAM
capabilities, and that 40 expect to be ready within the next 5 years.
Operators describe their specific work developing servicing spacecraft,
orbital transfer vehicles (OTVs), life extension vehicles, end-of-life
servicing spacecraft, refueling depots, space situational awareness
spacecraft, commercial inhabitable space stations, lunar landers, and
spacecraft conducting science experiments and manufacturing in
microgravity. While Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace) sees a ``chicken
and egg'' problem regarding a lack of serviceable satellites and a lack
of servicers, it notes that SpaceLogistic's MEVs that operate on
vehicles not designed for servicing have significantly reduced this
barrier and finds the mix of old and new satellites will expand ISAM
servicing opportunities and draw in more satellite and ISAM providers.
NTIA highlights two previous successful ISAM-related demonstrations by
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and NASA's Double
Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) to support planetary protection.
III. Discussion
A. Scope of FCC Regulations
8. The NOI queried how the FCC could support ISAM activities,
noting that the ISAM National Strategy calls for the U.S. domestic
regulatory regime to be updated to facilitate ISAM activities. The
Commission issues the NPRM in line with that call, while recognizing
that the Commission, with over 50 years of expertise in regulating
satellites, is one of several government agencies charged with
regulation and oversight of commercial activities in space.
9. The Commission's authority under the Communications Act allows
the licensing of ISAM space stations under its existing rules,
including rules that consider public interest factors. The Commission
expects to continue to rely on the expertise of its fellow agencies as
appropriate and note that its regulations on these issues are evolving
in tandem with other government efforts. The Commission also recognizes
that the United States' regulatory regime for achieving compliance with
its obligations under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty contemplates
multiple agencies authorizing and supervising the activities of non-
governmental entities in space.
10. Planetary Protection. The NOI discussed the issue of planetary
protection, given that some recent ISAM-related license applications
are focused on lunar activities and beyond. Several commenters suggest
the Commission consider working with other agencies on planetary
protection issues instead of separately considering or taking action in
this proceeding. The Commission plans to continue to support other
agencies' efforts to develop and implement planetary protection
policies. The Commission tentatively concludes that its proposed
licensing framework for ISAM space stations should not include
independent review and action from the Commission on applicants'
planetary protection plans. The Commission seeks comment on how to
ensure that applicants work with NASA and other relevant agencies to
address planetary protection guidance and policy considerations. The
Commission expects that various applications might require planetary
protection considerations, such as small spacecraft applications. The
Commission has previously ensured that applicants work with other
federal agencies to consider planetary protection.
B. Licensing Framework for ISAM Space Stations
11. The NOI sought information on the best approaches to licensing
ISAM activities. As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission
proposes to modify its rules to create a licensing framework specific
to ISAM space stations within its part 25 rules for licensing
commercial space stations. The Commission also proposes to apply its
existing orbital debris mitigation requirements to ISAM space stations
and to address the spectrum needs of ISAM operators on a case-by-case
basis. At the same time, the Commission proposes to maintain its part 5
experimental licensing rules as an option for licensing ISAM space
stations not providing commercial service.
C. Licensing Rules for ISAM Space Stations
12. Commercial Readiness of ISAM activities. The NOI sought comment
on possible approaches for licensing different types of ISAM
operations, including servicing, assembly, manufacturing, and ADR. The
record demonstrates that various ISAM
[[Page 18878]]
operations are developing at different rates. Some commenters recommend
that the Commission develop rules specific to categories of ISAM
activities that are at a high level of technological readiness, like
servicing, while adopting broad performance-based regulations that
could apply to categories of ISAM activities that are still developing
and could become more common in the future, like assembly and
manufacturing. The Commission agrees with commenters that
communications operations of certain ISAM activities may need to be
regulated differently, but do not propose separate rules for different
types of ISAM activities at this time. Instead, the Commission proposes
to move forward by creating a new framework for applications for U.S.
authorizations or grants of market access that applies broadly to space
stations associated with all activities that fit within the proposed
definition of ISAM. Unless indicated otherwise, when the Commission
refers to the term license or licensee in this summary and in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission also includes market
access grants or grantees. This proposed approach will allow applicants
for any type of ISAM activity to apply for a U.S. license or market
access grant pursuant to these new rules and will provide a framework
to support future regulations for specific ISAM activities that may be
necessary as the industry develops. The Commission seeks comment on
whether there are different factors of servicing, assembly, or
manufacturing activities that necessitate specific rules or a specific
framework at this time.
13. Licensing ISAM Space Stations Through Part 5 and Part 25.
Commenters note that ISAM remains nascent, and it may be five to ten
years before the industry generally shifts toward requiring part 25
licensing for commercial space stations (rather than part 5 licensing
for experimental space stations, which remains an important licensing
avenue for operators as ISAM technology develops). Some commenters
suggest updating the part 5 rules ``to more readily enable ISAM
operations.'' Others caution against rule updates to part 5, explaining
that ``[c]hanging the Part 5 rules would pose an unnecessary drain on
FCC resources and take years to complete.'' The Commission notes that
several ISAM space stations have successfully received experimental
licenses through the part 5 process, and therefore, it does not propose
to modify the part 5 experimental license rules at this time. The
Commission proposes to continue to utilize both part 5 and part 25
licensing in appropriate circumstances to provide radiofrequency
licensing to support ISAM development. and seek comment on this
proposal.
14. Definition of ISAM Space Station. As an initial matter, the
Commission proposes to include a definition of ``ISAM space station''
in Sec. 25.103 of the Commission's rules. The Commission proposes that
operators wishing to apply using its proposed framework for ISAM space
stations must plan to operate space stations that fit this definition,
although space stations that fall within the definition would not be
precluded from applying through its regular part 25 rules or through
its existing processes for small satellites or small spacecraft. The
Commission proposes to define ``ISAM space station'' as follows: ``A
space station that has the primary purpose of conducting in-space
servicing, assembly, and/or manufacturing activities used on-orbit, on
the surface of celestial bodies, and/or in transit between these
regimes. Servicing activities include but are not limited to in-space
inspection, life-extension, repair, refueling, alteration, and orbital
transfer of a client space object, including collection and removal of
debris on orbit. Assembly activities involve the construction of space
systems in space using pre-manufactured components. Manufacturing
activities involve the transformation of raw or recycled materials into
components, products, or infrastructure in space.'' The Commission
notes that this definition is drawn from the definition of ISAM in the
ISAM National Strategy. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed
definition. Specifically, should the Commission further define
``primary purpose'' and, if so, how? Are there ISAM activities that
would not be included in this definition? Conversely, is this
definition so broad that it risks creating confusion as to whether more
traditional space stations are included and, if so, how should it be
tightened?
15. Proposed Sec. 25.126. In general, the Commission proposes to
require applicants for authorization for ISAM space stations to comply
with the rules of either its regular part 25 licensing process or its
streamlined processes for small satellites and small spacecraft, with
some exemptions. The Commission notes that ISAM technologies are still
nascent, and it views its proposed approach to regulating ISAM space
stations as iterative, developing with the capabilities and needs of
the industry. The Commission believes licensing ISAM space stations
under its current rules, including rules for applications for grants of
market access and rules for modifications to operations, and reviewing
ISAM applications on a case-by-case basis, will allow us to address the
particular needs of ISAM space station operations of different
durations and in different orbits. The Commission believes this
proposed approach will provide the industry with flexibility while ISAM
capabilities develop. The Commission also believes this approach will
allow the Commission to continue to develop a record on ISAM while
gaining more experience licensing radiofrequency use for ISAM space
stations, allowing the Commission to be in the best position to propose
additional rule modifications if needed for ISAM space stations in the
future. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
16. The Commission proposes to create a new Sec. 25.126--
Applications for ISAM Space Stations--to aggregate the requirements
applicants for ISAM space stations must fulfill and enumerate the
exemptions from the Commission's typical processes they are entitled
to. The Commission believes creating a new rule section specific to
ISAM space stations will make the process transparent for the industry,
providing applicants for authorization for ISAM space stations one rule
section that details the application process and clearly indicates the
other rule sections with which applicants must comply. The Commission
proposes that applicants that fit within its proposed definition of
``ISAM space station,'' detailed above, would be able to use the
proposed framework in Sec. 25.126. The Commission proposes that
operators of ISAM space stations could apply for both U.S.
authorizations and grants of U.S. market access using the proposed
framework in this section. The Commission seeks comment on this general
approach.
17. Specifically, the proposed new Sec. 25.126 would require
applicants to submit a comprehensive proposal for Commission evaluation
on Form 312, Main Form, and Schedule S, as described in Sec. 25.114(a)
through (c), consistent with the Commission's regular part 25 licensing
and small satellite and small spacecraft licensing requirements. The
Commission proposes to allow ISAM space station operators to continue
to apply under the small satellite and small spacecraft streamlined
processes, provided they satisfy all the requirements of each
respective process. The Commission proposes that ISAM space stations
that do not meet the criteria for the small satellite or small
spacecraft processes
[[Page 18879]]
would continue to be subject to the remaining licensing requirements
for GSO or NGSO operators under the Commission's regular part 25
application process and therefore would be required to provide the
information required by its rules with their application.
18. The Commission recognizes that radiofrequency operations for
ISAM space stations seem more capable of spectrum sharing than other
commercial space stations it has authorized under its part 25 rules and
generally require shorter durations of intensive communications
operations. The Commission therefore proposes to exempt all
applications for licenses for space stations that fit its proposed
definition of ISAM space stations from processing round requirements
for NGSO-like operations under Sec. 25.157 and from first-come-first-
served requirements for GSO-like operations under Sec. 25.158,
provided they certify that operations of the space station(s) will be
compatible with existing operations in the authorized frequency bands
and submit a narrative description to demonstrate spectrum sharing
capabilities are technically possible, and that the operations will not
materially constrain future space station entrants from using the
authorized frequency band(s). These proposals and exemption criteria
would be located in new Sec. 25.126 and the corresponding Sec. Sec.
25.157 and 25.158 would be updated to reflect these exemptions. The
Commission tentatively concludes that this licensing framework will
allow greater flexibility for ISAM operators looking to operate as a
GSO or NGSO space station while protecting future and incumbent
satellite operators from interference. The Commission also proposes to
include a requirement in 25.126 for ISAM operators to provide ICFS file
numbers or call signs for any FCC-related applications or grants or a
list of International Telecommunications Union (ITU) filings and United
Nations (UN) Registration information for any related space stations
not licensed or granted market access by the United States, which the
Commission explains in more detail below. The Commission notes that its
proposal to exempt ISAM operators from its processing round and first-
come-first-served queue, given relevant showings, does not modify its
obligations to coordinate authorizations with federal operators when
spectrum shared by federal and nonfederal users is requested. The
Commission seeks comment on these proposals. It also seeks comment
regarding whether other rule changes are necessary to effectuate the
proposed approaches discussed above. Commenters should specify which
rules and explain the basis for recommending additional revisions.
19. Surety bonds. In addition to the exemptions that it proposes in
25.126, the Commission also proposes to defer the posting of surety
bonds by one year after the grant of a license for ISAM operators. This
proposal is consistent with the Commission's treatment of small
satellites and small spacecraft. Spaceflight suggests that the policy
objective underlying the Commission's surety bond requirement is to
prevent operators from warehousing spectrum for years while failing to
follow through on deploying their planned system, but many ISAM
operators would meet these objectives without a bond requirement.
Spaceflight notes that ISAM space stations are not likely to have
exclusive use of spectrum and are likely to be licensed relatively
close to launch, and a surety bond would be excessive for many ISAM
operators and disproportionate to the cost of developing the space
stations. Spaceflight says these considerations match the
considerations the Commission relied on when it decided to implement a
one-year grace period for filing of a bond for satellites authorized
under the streamlined process for small satellites and recommends the
Commission adopt a rule allowing ISAM operators to demonstrate they
meet the policy objectives of the surety bond requirement in lieu of
filing a surety bond. For operators that cannot make such a showing,
Spaceflight suggests that the Commission allow ISAM operators one year
to file a bond or meet milestone requirements, in line with the rules
for streamlined small satellites and small spacecraft. Intelsat also
notes that the Commission waived bond and milestone requirements for
SpaceLogistics's MEV-1 servicer vehicle because MEV-1 and Intelsat's
satellite were treated as one for purposes of the specific operation.
While the Commission tentatively concludes that a one-year grace period
for surety bonds for ISAM space stations is appropriate, it does not
propose to follow Spaceflight's suggestion of allowing operators to
demonstrate compliance with policy objectives of the bond requirement.
The Commission believes this type of individualized showing can be
handled through a waiver request, as the Commission may waive any rule
for good cause shown according to 47 CFR 1.3. Specifically, the
Commission proposes a one-year grace period, during which ISAM space
station operators would not have to post a bond. The grace period would
begin 30 days after the license is granted, since this is typically
when a licensee would have to post the surety bond. If within the one-
year grace period, the ISAM operator satisfies the Commission's
milestone requirement, then no bond is required. This proposal is
similar to the rules regarding surety bond requirements for small
satellites and small spacecraft. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals.
20. U.S.-Licensed Servicing and Client Operations. Starfish Space
recommends that client space stations being serviced should not need to
obtain a license modification unless the client space station will need
to use new or unlicensed frequencies during or following the servicing.
For U.S.-licensed client space stations, the Commission tentatively
agrees with Starfish that cases are limited where client operators
should be required to modify authorizations, but it does not propose to
set forth specific scenarios in which a client need not obtain a
modification. While some ISAM activities, such as inspection or repair,
might not result in changes that necessitate a modification, other
activities, including orbital transfer or mission extension, could
change the client's orbital location, which could alter the parameters
of frequency operations and orbital debris mitigation information that
was reviewed and authorized by the Commission. As ISAM capabilities are
still developing, the Commission tentatively concludes it is in the
public interest to assess whether a client space station operator
should obtain a license modification on a case-by-case basis, rather
than attempt to lay out all possible scenarios that would require
modification. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
21. To facilitate review of whether a client space station must
seek a modification, the Commission proposes to include a requirement
in its new proposed Sec. 25.126 for ISAM space station applicants to
provide a list of FCC file numbers or call signs for all related space
stations, including experimental applications and grants and other
applications and grants under part 25. This requirement is similar to
the requirement in the Commission's streamlined process for small
satellites and small spacecraft, but the Commission proposes to expand
what it considers to be ``related'' applications and grants in the
context of ISAM applications. It proposes that related applications and
grants would include not only space stations operated by the
[[Page 18880]]
same operator, but could also include client space stations, space
stations that have become debris the applicant seeks to remediate, and
other space stations the applicant plans to interact with or
collaborate with as part of its operations. The Commission proposes to
require this information from all applicants that fit within its
proposed definition of ISAM space stations, whether the operator is
applying under the Commission's regular part 25 process or its
streamlined processes under Sec. Sec. 25.122 and 25.123. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
22. International Servicing and Client Operations. The NOI asked a
number of questions regarding how to license ISAM space stations that
may plan to interact with a non-U.S.-licensed space station. When
considering U.S.-licensed space stations interacting with non-U.S.
client space stations, Blue Origin asserts that the Commission should
only seek the name of the client space station, its licensing
administration, and associated ITU filings because the client is not
seeking U.S. market access and so there should be no spectrum
management concerns to address. Despite this suggestion, the Commission
tentatively concludes that spectrum management may be implicated in
certain cases when U.S.-licensed space stations interact with or
service non-U.S. licensed space stations, given that there may be a
wide range of factual scenarios, including servicing for the purpose of
altering the location at which a client spacecraft operates or altering
other technical characteristics of operations. The Commission also
believes sufficient information concerning the proposed operations must
be available to ensure that an authorization is in the public interest.
For example, a servicing mission that contemplates facilitating client
space station operations fundamentally inconsistent with U.S.
interests, such as operations that might interfere with other U.S.
satellites, should be identified in the authorization process.
Likewise, the Commission does not propose to presume that client space
station operators are in possession of a license, as Starfish suggests.
That approach might, for example, result in the servicing mission
facilitating an activity by the client satellite that has not been
authorized by the administration to which it is subject. Therefore, for
client space stations licensed outside of the United States, both with
or without U.S. market access grants, the Commission proposes to
require that the license applicant provide the client's ITU filings and
UN registration information, as well as a discussion of regulatory
requirements to which the client satellite and its operators are
subject, and the status of any regulatory approvals required for the
client satellite's participation in the servicing activity. This
baseline information may also facilitate any necessary coordination
with other U.S. government agencies, such as the State Department. The
Commission proposes to require this information in its proposed new
rules for applications for ISAM space stations to be located in Sec.
25.126. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
23. International Coordination. Aerospace argues that it would be
impractical and unreasonable to require an operator to undergo the
ITU's seven-year coordination process for frequencies it will use to
service a single satellite and will not use once it moves away from
that satellite. Aerospace suggests that notifying the
Radiocommunications Bureau at the ITU of a commercial ISAM mission
would be a prudent alternative and coordination could be accomplished
for TT&C operations used throughout the life of an ISAM space station.
The Commission recognizes the current ITU process poses challenges to
ISAM operators, but the ITU Radio Regulations are a treaty by which the
United States is bound, and the Commission cannot unilaterally modify
what activities and frequencies need to be coordinated with the ITU
through a rulemaking process. The Commission therefore proposes not to
accept Aerospace's suggestion that it simply notify the
Radiocommunications Bureau at the ITU of a commercial ISAM mission
instead of coordinating in accordance with ITU Radio Regulations. But
the Commission does propose, as part of ongoing work on ISAM
activities, to continue to coordinate with other federal agencies,
including the State Department, to support international servicer-
client arrangements. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
D. Orbital Debris Mitigation and ISAM Space Stations
24. The NOI sought comment on orbital debris mitigation concerns
specific to ISAM activities in general. Specifically, the Commission
sought comment on how ISAM activities might not fit into its current
orbital debris mitigation requirements, for example by storing fuel on-
orbit rather than using or depleting fuel (refueling depots), or by
creating debris as byproducts of servicing or manufacturing activities,
and how the Commission might modify its current orbital debris
mitigation requirements to account for the additional risks that ISAM
operations may pose.
25. At this time, the Commission tentatively concludes to retain
the same orbital debris mitigation requirements for ISAM operators as
for other space station operators. As stated in the NOI, the
Commission's orbital debris mitigation requirements apply to all space
station operators, including operators of ISAM space stations. The
Commission notes that its current orbital debris mitigation rules are
performance based, in that they require demonstration of results rather
than dictating specific methods operators must use to meet those
results, and so the Commission proposes that it does not need to modify
its rules for ISAM communications to accommodate requests in the record
for performance-based orbital debris mitigation requirements for ISAM
space stations. The Commission's orbital debris mitigation requirements
are also based on the United States government's Orbital Debris
Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) developed by NASA. The Commission
therefore does not propose to modify its orbital debris rules at this
time or to require additional orbital debris mitigation showings for
ISAM space stations in general. Rather the Commission proposes that
ISAM operators will either comply with orbital debris requirements
under the regular part 25 licensing process, or under the small
satellite or small spacecraft processes, if they apply under those
streamlined licensing processes. The Commission proposes to include a
requirement that applicants for ISAM space stations submit the orbital
debris mitigation information under the rules of their chosen
application process in the proposed new Sec. 25.126, as part of the
proposal to clearly lay out the application process for ISAM operators
in that section. The Commission also proposes to review any
applications for ISAM space stations on a case-by-case basis, just as
it does with other license applications, to ensure compliance with its
orbital debris mitigation requirements. The Commission believes this
approach will maximize operator flexibility and therefore allow ISAM
technologies and capabilities to develop while allowing the Commission
to ensure continued orbital safety for all operators. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposed approach.
26. ISAM Activities that May Pose Additional Risks. The Commission
notes that commenters suggest that some ISAM activities, such as
refueling, life extension, and orbital transfer
[[Page 18881]]
activities, along with assembly and manufacturing activities, might
pose additional risks for creating orbital debris by way of increased
risk of accidental explosions, increased risk of release of debris
during normal operations, increased risk of collisions, or decreased
post-mission disposal reliability, and therefore these space stations
must not be held to lesser standards than other operators and must be
examined closely by the Commission. It seeks comment on whether its
current orbital debris mitigation rules are sufficient to protect the
orbital environment from these additional risks. Are there additional
specific orbital debris showings the Commission should consider for
these activities?
E. Orbital Debris Remediation Activities
27. The NOI asked a series of questions to gain information on the
state of orbital debris remediation technologies and industry
development, including whether and how the Commission should consider
ADR as part of an applicant's orbital debris mitigation plan and what
actions the Commission could take to promote growth and innovation for
ADR. The Commission agrees with commenters that ISAM activities can
play a role in orbital debris remediation and space sustainability.
Aerospace asserts that some ADR technologies, such as tow truck,
robotics, and RPO technologies, are at a high level of readiness and
reliability, while other technologies, including for capture and
stabilization of debris with high spin or tumble rates, are at a much
lower level of technological readiness and reliability.
28. The Commission proposes that operators engaging in ADR and
similar orbital debris remediation activities could seek authorization
through the same process for ISAM space stations outlined in the NPRM,
including requiring space stations conducting ADR to demonstrate
compliance with the Commission's orbital debris rules. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal. In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should impose additional requirements on
applicants for ISAM space stations conducting debris remediation
activities to mitigate potential additional risks from these
activities.
29. In response to the NOI's queries on whether ADR should be
factored into post-mission disposal requirements or otherwise be
fostered by Commission action, commenters suggest the Commission make
clear that ADR is permitted as a means to demonstrate compliance with
the Commission's orbital debris rules and recommend that the Commission
encourage all space station operators to include navigational aids and
grappling fixtures to assist with potential ADR. The Commission agrees
that acknowledging third-party services as an option for post-mission
disposal will likely further its goals of promoting innovation and
growth of ADR and will also likely provide additional flexibility to
applicants when considering their end-of-life disposal options. To
date, the Commission's rules do not prescribe any particular method of
end-of-life disposal of NGSO space stations, and instead the Commission
reviews an applicant's orbital debris mitigation plans for such
disposals on a case-by-case basis. The Commission has previously stated
that it did not intend to dismiss or foreclose direct retrieval as a
method of end-of-life disposal and that disposal plans involving direct
retrieval would be evaluated if direct retrieval were implemented in
the future. As such, the Commission does not propose to modify its
rules to list ADR explicitly as a post-mission disposal method. The
Commission notes that the ODMSP stresses the importance of ensuring
that orbital debris remediation activities do not risk creating debris
greater than the debris the operation seeks to remediate, and the
Commission therefore proposes that plans to use ADR for post-mission
disposal will continue to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis,
including review of the risk of generating debris greater than the
debris the operation seeks to remediate and human casualty risk for
remediated debris disposed of through atmospheric reentry, along with
compliance with the Commission's other orbital debris mitigation rules.
The Commission believes its proposal to review use of ADR for post-
mission disposal on a case-by-case basis is in line with its proposal
to review all ISAM space stations, including ISAM space stations
conducting ADR activities, on a case-by-case basis and will allow
maximum flexibility for operators, thereby fulfilling the Commission's
goal of promoting growth in the industry. The Commission seeks comment
on this approach.
30. Additionally, the Commission believes that Aerospace's
suggestion that the Commission require ADR plans as a back-up for large
constellations' post-mission disposal plans has merit for
consideration. In cases of large constellations, as Aerospace points
out, numerous defunct satellites could be left in orbit even while
meeting the Commission's current post-mission disposal requirements.
Given that the technology for ADR is still nascent and developing,
however, the Commission does not propose to adopt rules on this issue
at this time, but it expects to consider this possibility in the
future.
31. The NOI asked specifically whether an operator bond associated
with removal would be an appropriate mechanism for ensuring ADR.
Commenters responding to the NOI present a range of views regarding
potential bonds associated with post-mission disposal reliability, from
support for the proposal, to requests for further study, to concerns
that a bond would chill innovation and be less effective than strong
orbital debris mitigation requirements. The Commission agrees that
further consideration of this issue is warranted, but as it is also
continuing to consider post-mission disposal bonds in general in its
orbital debris proceeding, it defers this issue as related to ISAM and
debris remediation to a later time when it can consider it more fully.
32. Finally, despite the suggestions of some commenters, the
Commission defers proposals to modify regulatory and application fees
to appropriate regulatory or application fee proceedings in the future.
The Commission is required by the Communications Act to collect
application fees and regulatory fees. The Communications Act provides
specific exemptions from application fees and regulatory fees.
Moreover, the Commission's authority to waive application fees or
regulatory fees is limited to specific instances and the Commission has
consistently rejected consideration of waiving such fees for classes of
applicants or regulatees. As this proceeding progresses, the Commission
will propose any relevant regulatory fee or application fee updates for
ISAM space stations as part of future Commission's regulatory and
application fee proceedings.
F. Radiofrequency Spectrum To Support ISAM
33. The Commission tentatively concludes that various communication
activities in support of ISAM can potentially operate within several
existing service allocations, and it proposes to review ISAM operators'
requests for frequency use on a case-by-case basis, consistent with its
process for reviewing requests for frequency use for small satellites
and small spacecraft. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
34. Communication Operations and Service Allocations. ISAM space
station operations will require the use of telemetry, tracking, and
command (telecommand) (TT&C), as several
[[Page 18882]]
commenters note. Numerous commenters also explain that ISAM space
stations may, at times, require other communications for limited
duration, such as video, imaging, location sensing information, other
status information, and other data downlink and suggest that TT&C
allocations alone will not cover all stages of most ISAM operations.
Commenters also raise the need for communications between space
stations, such as between a servicing space station and a client or
between multiple space stations supporting a common and complex
assembly or manufacturing mission and note that these communications
may likely occur at low power given the proximity of the space stations
involved. Commenters indicate that ISAM frequency use will need to be
agile, changing to communicate with client satellites or to avoid
interfering with GSO satellites as an ISAM space station transits close
to the GSO arc. NTIA and Aerospace also note that ISAM space stations
could utilize relay satellites or satellite networks for data downlink
and other communications.
35. Numerous commenters suggest that the space operation service
(defined in 47 CFR 2.1(c)), fits well with some aspects of ISAM
operations, particularly TT&C needs, but several also note that the
space operation bands are already encumbered by federal users and
others assert that some communications needs for ISAM space stations
may not fit in this service. Some suggest that space research service,
fixed-satellite service (FSS), mobile-satellite service (MSS), inter-
satellite service, or even Earth-exploration satellite service (EESS)
allocations (all defined in Sec. 2.1(c) of the Commission's rules), as
well as experimental licensing and other flexible options could be
construed to allow for certain ISAM operations. The Commission's rules
define service allocations according to the ITU definitions, and the
Commission relies on these definitions as it considers requests for
frequency authorization as part of its licensing process. The
Commission tentatively concludes that various ISAM operations could fit
within numerous service allocation definitions. For example, the
Commission need not read the definition of space research services, ``a
radiocommunications service in which spacecraft or other objects in
space are used for scientific or technological research purposes,'' to
be fundamentally at odds with commercial satellite operations given
that the plain language of the definition does not exclude commercially
based scientific or technological research operations. Additionally,
the Commission proposes that the space operation service, which is
``concerned exclusively with the operation of spacecraft, in particular
space tracking, space telemetry, and space telecommand,'' need not be
as narrowly construed as some commenters seem to suggest. For example,
CONFERS states that the space operation service ``is not meant for
downlinking ISAM payload data.'' However, the Commission tentatively
concludes that at least some ISAM operations could fall within the
scope of the space operation definition, especially if the data in
question is related to ``the operation of spacecraft.'' At the same
time, the Commission notes that certain service allocations, such as
EESS which is focused on ``[i]nformation relating to the
characteristics of the Earth and its natural phenomena, including data
relating to the state of the environment,'' appear to be dedicated to
operations that are not typically consistent with ISAM operations.
36. The Commission proposes not to limit service allocation
designations that might be possible for ISAM operations so long as the
requested operations can justifiably fit within the service allocation
definition. As such, the Commission proposes to continue its current
practice of assessing whether an applicant's proposed ISAM operations
fall within the applicant's desired service allocation(s) on a case-by-
case basis. This proposal is consistent with the Commission's
considerations for small satellites, where the Commission recognized
small satellite operators may engage in a variety of operations. Here,
the Commission tentatively proposes to maintain as much flexibility as
possible for ISAM operators to gain authorization for their operations
so long as this does not interfere with other radiocommunications and
justifiably fits within service allocation definitions. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also notes that current
satellite services offer some flexibility of use and operation. For
example, in certain cases, FSS operators are permitted to provide
service to earth stations in motion (ESIM). Similarly, a single
satellite constellation can be licensed to provide both FSS and MSS.
Given the current state of ISAM development, and the variety of
communications needs that ISAM operators may have, the Commission
believes that continuing to work within available service allocations,
with the modifications to the licensing process proposed in the NPRM,
can address many of the frequency demands for ISAM in the near term.
The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
37. Proposed Exemptions Consistent with Spectrum Sharing
Capabilities. In keeping with its proposal to provide flexibility in
considering frequency authorization, the Commission proposes to exempt
applicants for ISAM space station authorizations from NGSO-like
processing rounds and from the GSO-like first-come-first-served queue,
which they could otherwise be subject to under the current regular part
25 satellite licensing regime. This proposal is largely consistent with
the Commission's approach for NGSO small satellites and small
spacecraft, which are exempt from processing rounds where spectrum
sharing (that is, not materially constraining other operations in the
requested frequency band(s)) is shown to be possible. Commenters have
indicated that spectrum sharing is likely possible for many aspects of
ISAM operations as well. However, here the Commission expands its
proposal to include an exemption for GSO-like space station processes
as well as NGSO because the Commission recognizes that ISAM space
stations could seek to be authorized as a GSO-like space station,
whereas the Commission's small satellite process focused on NGSO-only.
The Commission tentatively concludes that ISAM-related communications
licensing would not require processing rounds for NGSO operators or a
first-come-first-served queue for GSO space stations if applicants can
demonstrate that the proposed operations are technically able to share
spectrum and not materially constrain future use of the band. Specific
showings would be laid out in the proposed Sec. 25.126, as described
above. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on any
alternate approaches it should consider.
38. Authorizing Frequency Consistent with Client Space Station
Allocations. The Commission recognizes commenters' interest in the
possibility of ISAM space stations receiving frequency authorization
consistent with a client's authorization, also known as frequency
``piggybacking.'' Under the Commission's current rules the MEV-1 and
MEV-2 licenses allowed for frequency ``piggybacking'' with the client
satellite for certain frequencies. For example, MEV-1, which is
attached to and provides life extension services to the Intelsat 901
satellite, is authorized to provide TT&C consistent with Intelsat 901's
licensed frequencies and parameters. NTIA notes that ``[o]ne of the
more straightforward opportunities for ISAM spectrum access is for ISAM
[[Page 18883]]
missions servicing [FSS and MSS]'' and asserts that those missions
could use ``the same spectrum used by the `client' satellite'' as was
done for the MEV-1. The Commission recognizes that such an approach may
only be an option for a small portion of ISAM space stations, because
the space stations would need to be designed with specific
communications capabilities to match operational frequencies of client
or partner satellites and may likely only fit with those providing
servicing missions, like life-extension and repair. CONFERS also
highlights that the option of relying on client frequencies will not
work for operators engaged in debris removal. Given the identified
limitations on this model, the Commission does not propose
``piggybacking'' as an overall solution for ISAM-related frequency
authorization; rather it notes that this option has been authorized
under its existing rules in the past, without requiring a change to the
Commission's rules.
39. Specific Frequency Bands. The Commission views its regulation
of radiofrequency in support of ISAM as an iterative process, and the
Commission proposes to continue case-by-case review of frequency
authorization, as opposed to proposing specific frequency bands for
ISAM-related communications' use. In doing so, the Commission
recognizes the benefit of expanding its experience with authorizing
communications operations in support of ISAM missions. The Commission
believes that creating a process for operators to identify as ISAM
space stations will allow the Commission to gather important data and
understanding regarding the future spectrum needs of ISAM operators.
Additionally, the Commission recognizes that operators are already
thinking creatively about various frequencies and service allocations
that may be able to accommodate ISAM communication needs, as discussed
above. Many commenters responding to the NOI are in favor of
identifying spectrum to support ISAM operations on a protected basis
(e.g., exclusive or co-primary). The Commission also notes that it
deferred consideration of specific frequency bands that could be used
for certain ISAM-related operations, such as RPO, from the Commission's
space launch spectrum proceeding. Yet it does not wish to prematurely
limit creativity and innovation for ISAM operators, and tentatively
conclude that a case-by-case review will allow flexibility at this time
as the Commission and other regulating bodies continue to evaluate the
spectrum ecosystem holistically. The Commission's proposal to require
frequency use authorization on a case-by-case basis is also consistent
with its treatment of small satellite and small spacecraft, with the
understanding that these operations would be carried out on a non-
exclusive, shared basis, and would not cause interference to incumbent
operators. The Commission therefore does not propose specific bands at
this time and seeks comment on this proposal.
40. Less Traditional Spectrum Use. Finally, the Commission notes
that innovation in spectrum use may open new pathways for ISAM-related
frequency use in the future. Commenters provide a range of examples and
suggestions of less traditional spectrum use, such as increased use of
inter-satellite links, in-space radar systems to be used during
proximity operations, and unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum for servicer-to-
client satellite communications, especially when in close proximity,
e.g., during docking activities. These creative suggestions are
evidence of the innovative nature of ISAM operations, but the
Commission tentatively concludes that these suggestions will require
further study or changes at an international level, and it does not
propose any changes to its current rules in relation to these novel
suggestions.
G. Digital Equity and Inclusion
41. The NOI sought comment on ``any equity-related considerations
and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the topics
discussed'' in the NOI. Aerospace provided several comments addressing
digital equity and inclusion in the ISAM industry. Aerospace states,
``[m]aintaining satellite connectivity that is both consistent and
affordable is becoming more essential to remote regions that include
tribal lands and rural areas, as well as urban centers of typically
underserved populations disadvantaged by socioeconomic factors.'' The
Commission agrees that promoting growth of the ISAM industry could
create a safer and more sustainable space environment, which will allow
for more options for broadband service for unserved and underserved
areas.
42. Aerospace suggests that to promote digital equity and inclusion
in the ISAM industry, the Commission should encourage inclusive
business practices through incentive programs, such as reduced or
waived regulatory fees and application filing fees for federally
recognized small disadvantaged ISAM businesses and reduced or waived
fees for debris-mitigating ISAM activities. Aerospace notes that loss
of satellite connectivity caused by debris or interference could mean a
complete internet blackout for rural and other unserved and underserved
areas which lack ground connectivity infrastructure, and therefore the
Commission should work to incentivize ISAM activities which mitigate
debris. Aerospace is correct to note the importance of satellite
connectivity, particularly in unserved and underserved regions, and
ISAM activities, particularly servicing capabilities and debris
remediation, have the potential to strengthen these networks to better
serve these populations. As discussed above, however, the Commission
does not propose to reduce or eliminate fees for space stations that
adopt ISAM-compatible technology because the Commission is required to
collect application filing and regulatory fees by Congress, and the
Commission lacks authority to waive fees for whole categories of payors
or to assess fees on factors other than cost of processing filings or
regulatory burden.
43. Aerospace also proposes specific regulations for the FCC to
consider regarding spectrum which it states would benefit unserved and
underrepresented populations. Specifically, Aerospace suggests that the
``FCC could propose spectrum sharing schemes that pool spectrum for
Small Disadvantaged Businesses developing or supporting ISAM technology
dedicated to public interest efforts specific to underserved customers
or for use by academia with underrepresented student populations.'' The
Commission seeks additional comment regarding this proposal. It
recognizes the Small Business Administration has regulations and
programs for small disadvantaged businesses in the federal contracting
space. Specifically, how might the Commission categorize ``small
disadvantaged businesses'' in this context? Are there other categories
of businesses, organizations, or academic institutions that such a
program would be appropriate for? More broadly, how would such a
program work? What would the benefits and drawbacks be?
44. Finally, Aerospace suggests that the Commission consider
regulatory changes to protect educational spectrum as a public good by
requiring that educational spectrum licenses only be sold to other
educational entities. Aerospace also recommends the Commission limit
the number of leasing agreements for spectrum to prevent hording of
spectrum that could be used for ISAM operations which will benefit
unserved and underserved populations, as well as regulations preventing
[[Page 18884]]
harmful interference to spectrum users from vulnerable groups, such as
farmers, coastal fishers, and gulf states during hurricane season,
relying on accurate weather data. The Commission views these
suggestions to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which is focused
on developing rules to most effectively license ISAM space stations to
nurture growth in the industry and ultimately benefit the public
interest, and therefore it does not propose to incorporate Aerospace's
suggestions into the proposed rule changes in this proceeding.
45. ISAM is a nascent industry, and as such, the Commission is
seeking additional comments on ways the Commission can continue to
incentivize the growth of the ISAM industry through the proposals in
the NPRM and beyond. Furthermore, as part of the Commission's
continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people
of color, people 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, it continues to invite comment on any equity-related
considerations raised by the proposals made in the NPRM. Specifically,
the Commission continues to 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.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
46. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission requests written
public comments on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses
to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines provided on the first
page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM,
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
47. The Commission advances the leadership role of the United
States in space with a new framework for licensing space stations
engaged in in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing, known as
(ISAM), proposed in the NRPM. The NPRM reflects comments the Commission
received in response to a Notice of Inquiry on ISAM (ISAM NOI), which
requested comment on the current state of the industry, how the
Commission can best support the sustainable development of the
industry, and what tangible economic and societal benefits can result
from the expansion of capabilities facilitating the sustainable use of
space. The Commission seeks comment on several proposals relating to
changes to the Commission's rules and policies for radiofrequency
communication to foster the advancement of in-space servicing,
assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) operations. The Commission believes
effective radiofrequency communications will enable expansion of
capabilities for space use and has proposed rules designed to
facilitate and support growth.
48. The licensing framework rules the Commission proposed in the
NPRM would accommodate authorization under part 25 of the Commission's
rules for commercial space stations engaged in ISAM operations.
Adoption of the proposed changes would modify 47 CFR part 25 of the
Commission's rules to make communication authorization for ISAM
missions more accessible while promoting efficient use of spectrum. The
ability of ISAM space station operators to apply under the existing
small satellite and small spacecraft streamlined processes would be
available to ISAM space station operators that meet the requisite
requirements for the applicable process. Licensing under part 5 of the
Commission's experimental licensing will also continue to be an option
for licensing ISAM space stations that do not provide commercial
service. The Commission's proposed approach in the NPRM to license ISAM
space stations under its current rules, and to review ISAM applications
on a case-by-case basis, will provide the industry with flexibility
while ISAM capabilities develop, and will enable the Commission to
continue developing a record on ISAM while gaining further experience
licensing radiofrequency use for ISAM space stations.
B. Legal Basis
49. The proposed action is authorized under 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).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
50. 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
SBA.
51. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``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.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than half of these
providers can be considered small entities.
52. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments 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
[[Page 18885]]
of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications
from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services (e.g., dial-up
ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
53. The NPRM seeks public comment on proposed revisions to the
Commission's rules governing satellite and earth station applications
under 47 CFR part 25. Specifically, the NPRM proposes and seeks comment
on several rule changes that will affect ISAM communications
authorization procedures, reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements for space station operators. The Commission
believes the proposed changes would decrease the burden in various
regards for small entities that plan to launch and operate ISAM space
stations.
54. The NPRM proposes to add a new section to the Commission's
rules, Sec. 25.126 Application for ISAM Space Stations, which
clarifies application requirements for ISAM space stations in a single
section. These proposals include documentation requirements largely
consistent with those already established for an applicant under part
25 of the Commission's rules. In proposed Sec. 25.126(a), applicants
that meet the proposed definition of ``ISAM space station'' are
directed to seek authorization and submit the requisite application
information and materials either through the Commission's regular part
25 process or through the streamlined processes for small satellites
and small spacecraft. As such, ISAM space station license applicants,
including small entities, that also meet the requirements to seek
authorization under the Commission's current streamlined processes for
small satellites or small spacecraft will be able to submit the
information and certification required in Sec. 25.122 or Sec. 25.123
rather than the regular part 25 authorization process.
55. In the new Sec. 25.126(b), the Commission proposes to exempt
small entities and other operators that meet the definition of ISAM
space stations from non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) processing rounds
and/or the first-come-first-served queue for geostationary orbit (GSO)
operators, provided the applicant certifies that the operations of the
space station(s) will be compatible with existing operations in the
authorized frequency band(s), and submits a narrative to demonstrate
spectrum sharing capabilities are technically possible, and that the
operations will not materially constrain future space station entrants
from using the authorized frequency band(s). While the exemption
contains a certification and narrative submission requirement, the
proposal is designed to provide more flexibility to small and other
operators who may want to operate as a GSO or NGSO space station, while
simultaneously providing interference protection for incumbent and
future satellite operators. The proposed rule would also reduce the
procedural requirements for small entities and other applicants.
56. Pursuant to proposed Sec. 25.126(c), ISAM space station
license applicants, including small entities, would need to provide the
International Communications Filing System (ICFS) file number for any
applications or Commission grants related to proposed operations (e.g.,
experimental license grants, other space station or earth station
applications or grants), including but not limited to client space
stations, space stations that have become debris the applicant seeks to
remediate, and other space stations the applicant plans to interact
with or collaborate with as part of its operations. Additionally, ISAM
applicants working with space stations not licensed or granted market
access by the United States would need to provide relevant information
related to those operations, including ITU file numbers and a narrative
description. However, since the international-related filing
requirements would only pertain to operators working with space
stations that are not licensed or granted market access by the United
States, the requirement for applicants who do not have such working
relationships is largely to provide the appropriate file numbers.
Therefore, the Commission does not believe the inclusion of the
proposed filing requirements in Sec. 25.126(c) will increase the
procedural compliance burdens for small entities.
57. As a mechanism for fostering the growth of the burgeoning ISAM
industry the licensing framework proposal includes a one-year grace
period for surety bonds for small and other ISM applicants, just as the
Commission has done for operators applying through the small satellite
and small spacecraft rules. The Commission seeks comment on whether any
of the burdens associated with complying with the filing,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in its proposed licensing
framework can be further minimized for small entities. Due to the
proposed approach to license ISAM space stations under the Commission's
current rules including allowing applicants to seek authorization under
the Commission's current streamlined processes for small satellites or
small spacecraft, the Commission does not expect that small entities
will need to hire professionals to comply with any of the requirements
for ISAM space station authorization. With regard to the compliance
costs for small entities, at this time the Commission cannot quantify
the compliance costs for small entities. The Commission therefore
expects the information it received in comments to include cost and
benefit analysis data which should help the Commission assess
compliance costs. Industry input should also allow the Commission to
identify and evaluate additional matters, and burdens relevant to small
entities that may result from the proposals and inquiries it makes in
this proceeding.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
58. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
59. The Commission's consideration of rule revisions to reflect
changes and advances in the commercial space industry includes
proposals in the licensing framework that would assist in reducing the
economic impact for small entities such as exempting ISAM applicants
from the surety bond requirement for one year after an ISAM license is
granted, and not subjecting applications for ISAM space stations to
[[Page 18886]]
NGSO processing round procedures or the GSO operator queue. These
proposals are designed to lower the regulatory burden involved in
licensing ISAM operations and reduce application processing times,
thereby lessening the burden of compliance on small entities with more
limited resources than larger entities. The Commission considered not
providing these exemptions, which would require ISAM operators,
including small entities, applying under the Commission's regular part
25 process to engage in a more lengthy and complex procedural process.
ISAM applicants for example, could be placed in a processing round or
required to submit requests for waiver, which the Commission believes
may have a greater impact on small entities than the NPRM's proposal to
exempt ISAM operators from these processes so long as they provide the
requisite demonstrations for spectrum sharing. In the formulation of
its surety bond requirement proposal, the Commission considered a
recommendation that ISAM operators be allowed to demonstrate compliance
with the policy objectives of the surety bond requirements in place of
filing an actual surety bond. Implementation of this recommendation
would introduce additional review into the licensing process on a
larger scale than allowing individual applications to demonstrate such
showings through a waiver request, which is currently an available
avenue for applicants under the Commission's general waiver rules,
therefore the Commission did not include this in the proposal.
60. Small entities and other operators meeting the proposed
definition of an ISAM space station would be required to include some
additional information with their application by providing the ICFS
file numbers for related applications or grants of authority, if this
proposed rule is adopted. This requirement may ultimately lower the
impact on small entities and other operators however, since providing
the file numbers up front could lower the need for, and costs
associated with additional follow-up and review at a later stage of the
application process. Similarly, the Commission believes that the
proposed requirement for ISAM applicants to provide relevant
international filings for related space stations not licensed or
granted market access by the United States while creating some
additional steps on the front end, will ultimately lead to a smoother
review process for small entities and other applicants who may be
servicing or partnering with foreign-licensed space stations as part of
their operations.
61. Although the Commission ultimately proposed to continue the use
of part 5 and 25 rules for the ISAM space station operation licensing
framework, it considered various alternatives for the framework
proposal. The Commission assessed for example the use of different
licensing requirements for different types of ISAM activities. Rather
than proposing to adopt different regulatory requirements, the
Commission chose to propose a broad licensing framework for space
stations that could be applicable to all activities that fall within
the proposed definition of ISAM. The proposed licensing framework
provides small entities and other ISAM space station applicants with
several options to use to apply for authorization. The option available
for small entities meeting the process requirements to utilize the
Commission's existing streamlined processes for small satellites and
small spacecraft as described in the NPRM should reduce the impact for
these applicants because of the reduced burden of the streamlined
processes. Small entities seeking Commission authorization as ISAM
space station operators may already have experience, and familiarity
with the existing processes, and have cost-effective and efficient
internal procedures in place to execute the streamlined processes. To
the extent a small entity does not meet the requirements for the
streamlined processes for small satellites and small spacecraft and
seeks authorization through the regular part 25 process, the proposed
exemptions and reduced regulatory burdens discussed above will result
in a less arduous and costly approach than would be available in the
absence of the new section and other proposed rule changes. Small
entities may also benefit from the continuation of the part 5 process
as a means of authorization since several ISAM space stations have
secured experimental licenses using this process. Similarly, the part 5
process may be of assistance to small entity ISAM applicants with an
interest in market trials.
62. In response to the ISAM NOI, comments were filed involving
spectrum regulation impacting small disadvantaged businesses. The
Commission considered these comments which suggest the Commission
propose spectrum sharing arrangements to pool spectrum impacting small
disadvantaged businesses that develop, or support ISAM technology
targeting underserved customers, or academic institutions with
underrepresented student populations, and in the NPRM the Commission
requested additional comment on this proposal, including how such
arrangements would work, and the benefits and drawbacks of such
arrangements. The Commission expects to consider this, and other issues
discussed herein, as well as the economic impact on, and alternatives
for small entities, based on its review of any comments filed in
response to the NPRM and the IRFA.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
63. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
64. 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), the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
65. It is further ordered that, the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, and shall cause it to be published in the Federal
Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure, Earth stations, Satellites
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 25 as follows:
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
1. 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
2. Amend Sec. 25.103 by adding the definition of ``ISAM Space
station'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 25.103 Definitions.
* * * * *
ISAM Space station. A space station which has the primary purpose
of conducting in-space servicing, assembly, and/or manufacturing
activities used on-orbit, on the surface
[[Page 18887]]
of celestial bodies, and/or in transit between these regimes and which
are supported by radiofrequency operations. Servicing activities
include but are not limited to in-space inspection, life extension,
repair, refueling, alteration, and orbital transfer of a client space
object, including collection and removal of debris on orbit. Assembly
activities involve the construction of space systems in space using
pre-manufactured components. Manufacturing activities involve the
transformation of raw or recycled materials into components, products,
or infrastructure in space. ISAM space stations are eligible for
authorization under the application process described in Sec. 25.126.
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec. 25.126 to read as follows:
Sec. 25.126 Applications for ISAM Space stations.
(a) This section shall only apply to applicants for ISAM space
stations as defined in Sec. 25.103. Applicants seeking authorization
for ISAM space stations must submit a comprehensive proposal for
Commission evaluation on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S, as
described in Sec. 25.114(a) through (c), together with the information
required in Sec. 25.114(d)(14) or, if the applicant is seeking
authorization under the streamlined processes for small satellites or
small spacecraft, the information required in Sec. 25.122(c) and (d)
or Sec. 25.123(b) and (c).
(b) Applicants for ISAM space stations will not be placed in a
processing round for NGSO-like operations under Sec. 25.157 or placed
in a queue for GSO-like operations under Sec. 25.158, provided:
(1) The applicant certifies 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 band(s); and
(2) The applicant submits a narrative 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).
(c) Applicants for ISAM space stations must also provide the
following:
(1) A list of the FCC file numbers or call signs for any
applications or Commission grants related to the proposed operations
(e.g., experimental license grants, other space station or earth
station applications or grants), including but not limited to client
space stations, space stations that have become debris the applicant
seeks to remediate, and other space stations the applicant plans to
interact with or collaborate with as part of its operations.
(2) A list of the International Telecommunications Union filings
and United Nations Registration information for any space stations not
licensed or granted market access by the United States that are related
to the proposed operations, including but not limited to client space
stations, space stations that have become debris the applicant seeks to
remediate, and other space stations the applicant plans to interact
with or collaborate with as part of its operations.
(3) For all related space stations included under paragraph (c)(2)
of this section, a narrative description of the regulatory requirements
to which these related space stations are subject and the status of
licenses of these related space stations.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.137 by revising paragraph (b) 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 Communications 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. Sec. 25.114, 25.122, 25.123 or Sec. 25.126 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.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 25.157 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.157 Consideration of applications for NGSO-like satellite
operation.
* * * * *
(i) For consideration of license applications filed pursuant to the
procedures described in Sec. Sec. 25.122, 25.123, or Sec. 25.126 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. Sec. 25.122(d), 25.123(c), or
Sec. 25.126(b) but without a processing round as described in this
section and without a queue as described in Sec. 25.158.
0
6. Amend Sec. 25.158, by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.158 Consideration of applications for GSO-like satellite
operation.
(a) * * *
(2) The procedures prescribed in this section do not apply to an
application for authority to launch and operate an ISAM space station
that meets the relevant criteria in Sec. 25.126(b). The procedures
prescribed in this section also do not apply to an application for
authority to launch and operate a replacement space station that meets
the relevant criteria in Sec. 25.165(e)(1) and (e)(2) and that will be
launched before the space station to be replaced is retired from
service or reasonable time after the loss of a space station during
launch or due to premature failure in orbit.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 25.165 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.165 Surety bonds.
(a) For all space station licenses issued after September 20, 2004,
other than licenses for SDARS space stations, space stations licensed
in accordance with Sec. Sec. 25.122, 25.123, or Sec. 25.126, 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 stations licensed in accordance with Sec. Sec. 25.122,
25.123, or Sec. 25.126 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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-05389 Filed 3-14-24; 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 March 15, 2024.
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.