# Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-13185

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** August 25, 2020
- **Citation:** 85 FR 52422

## Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 5, 25, and 97
[IB Docket No. 18-313; FCC 20-54; FRS 16850]
Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission adopts amendments to its rules related to satellite orbital debris mitigation, to reflect the Report and Order adopted on April 23, 2020. A proposed rule document for the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
FNPRM
or
Further Notice
) related to this Final rule document is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register
.

DATES:

The amendments to §§ 25.271 and 25.282 are effective September 24, 2020. The other rule amendments contain information collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the
Federal Register
announcing the effective date for those amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Merissa Velez, International Bureau, Satellite Division, at (202) 418-0751. For information regarding the PRA information collection requirements contained in the PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's
Report and Order
(Order), IB Docket No. 18-313, FCC 20-54, adopted on April 23, 2020, and released on April 24, 2020. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's website at
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-54A1.pdf.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to
FCC504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted in the Order.

Congressional Review Act

The Commission will send a copy of this
Order
in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

A wide range of new and existing commercial technologies depend on reliable communications with spacecraft. The cost, integrity, and reliability of these communications can be negatively affected by orbital debris, which presents an ever-increasing threat to operational spacecraft. The environment in space continues to change and evolve in the New Space Age as increasing numbers of satellites are launched and new satellite technology is developed. The regulations we adopt today are designed to ensure that the Commission's actions concerning radio communications, including licensing U.S. spacecraft and granting access to the U.S. market for non-U.S. spacecraft, mitigate the growth of orbital debris, while at the same time not creating undue regulatory obstacles to new satellite ventures. This action will help to ensure that Commission decisions are consistent with the public interest in space remaining viable for future satellites and systems and the many services that those systems provide to the public.

The Report and Order (Order) comprehensively updates the Commission's existing rules regarding orbital debris mitigation, which were adopted in 2004. Our goal is to provide the clearest possible regulatory framework for applicants for non-Federal satellite communications. We also seek comment in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) on probability of accidental explosions, collision risk for multi-satellite systems, maneuverability requirements, casualty risk, indemnification, and performance bonds tied to successful spacecraft disposal.

II. Background

There are a variety of predictions for how the space economy and space environment will evolve in the coming New Space Age, but one clear indicator of the changes to come is the unprecedented number of non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) space stations
1

for which applications have been submitted at the FCC. Some of the systems have begun preliminary operations, and we expect these activities to accelerate in the coming years. These new large constellations, many of which are designed to provide global broadband services, are likely to bring thousands of new satellites to low-Earth orbit (LEO). At the same time, there are a number of commercial systems with more than a hundred satellites that are already fully operational and providing commercial imaging and other Earth-exploration services. Additional satellite constellations, again in potentially large numbers, will be coming online to provide other innovative services such as “Internet of Things.” Moreover, the last decade has seen an exponential increase in the number of operations by small satellites with short duration missions for academic and research purposes, as the miniaturization of electronic components along with increased “rideshare” launch opportunities has led to the flourishing of “CubeSat” spacecraft missions, including launches with unprecedented numbers of satellites on board. In the meantime, operators continue to launch new, technologically-advanced communications satellites into the geostationary orbit (GSO), providing critical services across the globe.

1
Throughout this Order, we use the terms “space station,” “satellite,” and “spacecraft.” “Space station” is defined in the Commission's rules as “[a] station” located on an object which is beyond, is intended to go beyond, or has been beyond, the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere.” 47 CFR 2.1, 25.103. This is consistent with terminology used by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). ITU Radio Regulations (R.R.) 1.64. The Commission's rules define “satellite” as “[a] body which revolves around another body of preponderant mass, and which has a motion primarily and permanently determined by the force of attraction of that other body.” 47 CFR 2.1. In this Order we refer only to artificial satellites. The Commission's rules define “spacecraft” as “[a] man-made vehicle which is intended to go beyond the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere.” 47 CFR 2.1, 25.103. These terms are used interchangeably in this Order, but we observe that “satellite” and “spacecraft” are more broadly defined than “space station.”

At the same time, studies indicate that already in some regions of LEO, the number of new objects and fragments generated from collisions exceeds those removed by natural atmospheric drag. Other regions have sufficient densities of orbital debris to lead some analysts to conclude that they are close to or have already reached a “runaway” status, where the debris population will grow indefinitely due to collisions between debris objects. The predicted increase in the number of satellites in orbit requires that orbital debris mitigation be taken seriously by all operators in order to ensure the continued safe and reliable use of space for satellite

communications and other activities. The number of U.S. commercial satellites in space exceeds the number of U.S. government satellites, and the actions taken by operators today have the potential to impact the orbital environment for hundreds or thousands of years.

The Commission first adopted comprehensive rules on orbital debris mitigation in 2004 in its Mitigation of Orbital Debris Second Report and Order. The rules require disclosure of an applicant's debris mitigation plans as part of the technical information submitted to the Commission. The Commission reasoned that the disclosures would allow the Commission to examine whether a space station operator has taken orbital debris into consideration, while finding that the costs associated with disclosure would not be unduly burdensome when balanced against the public interest benefits of preserving safe and affordable access to space, and disclosure would provide flexibility for the Commission to address new developments in space station design and permit discretion when granting conditioning, or denying an authorization. As part of its 2004 Orbital Debris Order, the Commission also explained how its orbital debris rules related to certain regulations of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and regulations of the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Additionally, the Commission applied the new rules to amateur and experimental space stations, authorized under parts 97 and 5 of the Commission's rules, respectively, and considered liability issues and insurance as they related to Commission-authorized space stations.

Since 2004, there have been a variety of technical and policy updates to orbital debris mitigation standards, policy, and guidance documents. Additionally, scientific research and policy discussions on debris mitigation have continued in a wide variety of existing and new forums both in the United States and internationally.

In the United States, Space Policy Directive-3 (SPD-3), titled “National Space Traffic Management Policy,” recognized the growing threat to space activities from orbital debris, and directs the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in coordination with the Secretaries of State, Defense, Commerce, and Transportation, and the Director of National Intelligence, and in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission, to lead efforts to update the U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) and establish new guidelines for satellite design and operation. The ODMSP apply to missions operated or procured by U.S. government agencies, and “provides a reference for to promote efficient and effective space safety practices for other domestic and international operators.” SPD-3 stated that the United States should eventually incorporate appropriate standards and best practices, derived in part from the ODMSP, into Federal law and regulation through appropriate rulemaking or licensing actions, and that such guidelines should encompass protocols for all stages of satellite operation from design through end-of-life. This rulemaking is one such activity.

The updated ODMSP were issued on December 10, 2019. This represents the first update to the ODMSP since the practices were originally established in 2001. The preamble states that the revised ODMSP includes “improvements to the original objectives as well as clarification and additional standard practices for certain classes of space operations.” The revised ODMSP preamble states that the United States Government “will follow the ODMSP, consistent with mission requirements and cost effectiveness in the procurement and operation of spacecraft, launch services, and the conduct of tests and experiments in space.” The preamble goes on to state that “[w]hen practical, operators should consider the benefits of going beyond the standard practices and take additional steps to limit the generation of orbital debris.”

At the U.S. government agency level, the NASA Technical Standard (NASA Standard) and other NASA documents contain additional detail informing orbital debris mitigation measures when it comes to the development of NASA programs and projects. The NASA Standard provides specific technical requirements for limiting orbital debris generation consistent with NASA policies, and has been updated regularly, with the most recent update on April 25, 2019. The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office also develops and maintains a number of software modelling tools designed to assist with current orbital debris mitigation analysis and help better understand the evolution of the orbital environment. Several of these are available at no cost to the public. The software modeling tool that has been used by many Commission applicants is the NASA Debris Assessment Software, which provides a means of calculating, during the planning and design phase, various metrics-related debris mitigation practices such as assessing collision risk and casualty risk, which are relevant to some, but not all, of the Commission's requirements. The FAA (for launch vehicles and intact re-entry) and NOAA (for commercial remote sensing satellites) both have orbital debris-related regulations which apply to non-government (in most cases commercial) operators licensed by those agencies. Both agencies are currently considering updates to their rules, including some rules relevant to orbital debris mitigation.

Internationally, there have been a number of significant developments relevant to the mitigation of orbital debris. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), an international forum of government bodies that includes NASA and other space agencies, “for the coordination of activities related to the issues of man-made and natural debris in space[,]” issued an updated set of consensus guidelines for debris mitigation in 2007. The IADC Guidelines cover a wide range of topics including limitation of debris released during normal operations, minimization of the potential for on-orbit break-ups, post-mission disposal, and prevention of on-orbit collisions. Work by the IADC also helped to inform the development of the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which were endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 2007. As with the IADC Guidelines, the UN Guidelines established voluntary, non-binding consensus principles and guidelines for space debris mitigation. More recent developments include the IADC issuance in 2017 of a “Statement on Large Constellations of Satellites in Low Earth Orbit,” as well as the adoption by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space of a preamble and 21 consensus guidelines for the “Long-Term Sustainability of Space Activities.” Additionally, there are international standards-setting organizations, such as the International Standards Organization that have issued standards for space activities, including orbital debris mitigation.

The commercial space industry has been increasingly active in developing voluntary, consensus-based principles and guidelines through industry associations and working groups. In 2019, an organization known as the Space Safety Coalition published a set of best practices for long-term sustainability of space operations, which have been endorsed by at least 37 entities, primarily commercial space

companies. Also in 2019, the Satellite Industry Association (SIA), a trade association representing satellite operators, service providers, manufacturers, launch services providers, and ground equipment suppliers released a set of “Principles of Space Safety.” Both of these documents emphasize the importance of responsible space operations to ensure the long-term sustainability of the space environment. There have also been standards and guidance issued by organizations focusing on specific operational areas, such as the standards and recommended practices developed by the Consortium for Execution of Rendezvous and Servicing Operations for commercial rendezvous, proximity operations, and on-orbit servicing. Additionally, organizations such as the World Economic Forum's Global Future Council on Space Technologies are working toward other approaches to space debris, for example, a “Space Sustainability Rating” that would provide a score representing a mission's sustainability as it relates to debris mitigation and alignment with international guidelines.

The Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 15, 2018 (84 FR 4742 (February 19, 2019)) seeking comment on a comprehensive update to its rules relating to orbital debris mitigation. It sought comment on issues ranging from minor updates codifying established metrics into existing rules to how to assess the risks posed by constellations of thousands of satellites, as well as topics such as economic incentives for operators that would align with orbital debris mitigation best practices.

Comments on the NPRM were due April 5, 2019, and reply comments were due May 6, 2019. We received 45 comments and 19 reply comments. A list of commenters, reply commenters, and other filers is contained in Appendix C of the Report and Order.

III. Discussion

In the discussion that follows, we first address the Commission's overall regulatory approach to orbital debris mitigation, including economic and other issues. We then discuss the need for rule modifications to address topics such as collision risk, orbit selection, trackability, and minimizing release of debris. Next, we address post-mission disposal, as well as other topics such as proximity operations, security of spacecraft commands, and orbit-raising. Then, we discuss liability issues and economic incentives, and finally, we address the scope of our rules and other miscellaneous issues raised by commenters.

A. Regulatory Approach to Mitigation of Orbital Debris

1. FCC Statutory Authority Regarding Orbital Debris

The Commission licenses radio frequency uses by satellites under the authority of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). When the Commission adopted debris mitigation rules applying to satellites across all service types, the Commission concluded that its authority to review orbital debris mitigation plans fell within its responsibilities and obligations under the Act, derived from its authority with respect to authorizing radio communications. As the Commission then noted, the Act charges the FCC with encouraging “the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.” Additionally, the Act provides for the licensing of radio communications, including satellite communications, only upon a finding that the “public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby.” These provisions of the Act have remained unchanged since the Commission's previous analysis of its authority in this area, in which it concluded that orbital debris and related mitigation issues are relevant in determining whether the public interest would be served by authorization of any particular satellite-based communications system, or by any particular practice or operating procedure of such satellite systems. The analysis undertaken by the Commission is designed to ensure that the space systems reviewed by the Commission have sufficient plans to mitigate orbital debris, consistent with the public interest. As the Commission also previously concluded, to the extent that spacecraft are controlled through radiocommunications links, there is a direct connection between the radiocommunications functions we are charged with licensing under the Act and the physical operations of the spacecraft. Rules that limit the generation of orbital debris are intended to minimize the orbital debris that would negatively affect the cost, reliability, continuity and safety of all commercial, experimental and amateur satellite operations licensed or authorized by the Commission. Orbital debris also negatively affects the availability, integrity, and capability of both incumbent and newly-authorized satellite systems, thereby raising the potential for impairing the ability of such systems to use the spectrum to the full extent that the Commission authorized.

We note that even prior to the adoption of a comprehensive set of rules on orbital debris mitigation in 2004, the Commission was reviewing the orbital debris mitigation plans of satellites and systems on a case-by-case basis. Rules requiring disclosure of plans to mitigate orbital debris were adopted for licensees in the 2 GHz mobile-satellite service in 2000, and those rules were the basis for rules applicable to all services that were adopted shortly thereafter. Thus, as part of its licensing and grant of space systems, the Commission has been reviewing the orbital debris mitigation plans of non-Federal satellites and systems for over 20 years.

The Commission sought comment on whether the 2004 order cited all relevant and potential sources of Commission authority in this area, and whether the provisions discussed, or other provisions, provide the Commission with requisite authority in this area. Several commenters agree with the Commission taking a refreshed look at its authority in this area. No commenters, however, make specific arguments questioning the Commission's statutory authority generally, express different views on the Commission's authority pursuant to the Communications Act, or offer other views on sources of Commission authority. We therefore see no reason to arrive at a different conclusion than the Commission did in 2004 with respect to the Commission's authority on review of orbital debris mitigation plans.

Some commenters emphasize that the Commission should revisit its authority considering the authority of other agencies and organizations, in the interest of avoiding duplicative requirements and standards. We recognize, as observed by the Commerce Department, that significant elements of non-Federal space operations are subject to regulation by other Federal agencies, most notably NOAA and the FAA. We continue to work closely with other agencies to ensure that our activities are not duplicative of their activities, and coordinate with other agencies in individual cases, as necessary. To the extent that commenters ask us to refresh the legal analysis of our authority in light of the evolution of international standards, we note that changes in international guidelines related to the mitigation of orbital debris can and do inform regulatory approaches, but do not have the force of law and would not alter the FCC's legal authority in this area.

A few commenters correctly observe that some of the Commission's NPRM

proposals go beyond a narrower focus on debris mitigation, such as in the ODMSP, and also relate in part to other functional areas often referred to as space situational awareness or space traffic management. These functional areas generally concern the collection and dissemination of data about objects and activities in space (space situational awareness), and the management of activities in space to ensure safe operations, through measures such as coordination and collision avoidance (space traffic management). As an example of a rule that goes beyond the guidelines in the ODMSP, the rule we codify below regarding ability of an FCC-licensed spacecraft to be tracked can improve both the ability to monitor the space environment (space situational awareness) as well as the ability of operators to coordinate amongst each other and make informed decisions to prevent collisions (space traffic management). These improvements in turn may reduce the likelihood that new debris will be created in space. We conclude that even though some of the rules we adopt in this Order may involve or relate to concepts of space situational awareness or space traffic management, because they are directly tied to the mitigation of orbital debris and will contribute to the Commission's ability to ensure that non-Federal satellite systems will serve the public interest, these rules fall within the Commission's broad authority under Title III of the Act to license radio spectrum pursuant to that public interest mandate.

2. Relationship With Other U.S. Government Activities

The Commission recognized the importance of a coordinated, effective regulatory environment that meets the dual goals of orbital debris mitigation and furthering U.S. space commerce. Specifically, in the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether there are any areas in which the proposed requirements overlap with requirements clearly within the authority of other agencies, in order to avoid duplicative activities, and whether there are any exceptions to applications of our rules that would be appropriate in specific circumstances. The NRPM also highlighted the ongoing activities of various executive branch agencies of the U.S. government related to the Space Policy Directive-3 (SPD-3), including the now-completed updating of the ODMSP. In accordance with its consultatory role described in SPD-3, the Commission has been engaged with those ongoing activities. The Commission additionally sought comment on the suitability of various orbital debris mitigation guidance and standards.

Commenters addressing these topics universally supported interagency coordination, and many mentioned the sharing of expertise regarding space operations. Commenters also generally supported application of consistent principles as well as elimination of regulatory duplication. The Commerce Department provided informative comments describing in detail many of the Commerce Department and interagency initiatives currently underway as a result of the Space Policy Directives. At this time, we are pleased to highlight the recent completion of the revisions to the ODMSP, and look forward to further work with the Commerce Department and other agencies on an evolving “whole of government” approach to space activities. Given the pace that the industry is evolving, and our responsibility to continue licensing satellites and systems on a day-to-day basis, we find that it would not be beneficial at this time to delay our rule updates. We expect that regulation of orbital debris will be an iterative process as new research becomes available and new policies are developed, and as discussions continue concerning approaches to improving the organization of the regulation of space activities. If it becomes clear through a change to the governing law that an activity the Commission is currently undertaking is instead one that another agency is charged with performing, we will modify our process and regulations accordingly.

We continue to carefully follow the rulemaking developments of other agencies, in particular those of the FAA and NOAA, as those agencies look to update their rules related to authorization of commercial space activities. The NPRM did not propose any change to the specific conclusions drawn by the Commission in 2004 with respect to the role of the Commission vis-à-vis other agencies such as the FAA and NOAA. We will continue to coordinate closely with other agencies in any cases where it appears that the other agency may have relevant expertise or in cases that present unique scenarios that implicate overlap with that agency's responsibilities.

Consistent with the coordinated approach recommended by many commenters, we look to the recent updates to the ODMSP to help inform our rules. The revised ODMSP addresses the same general topics and issues as the proposals in the Notice, and as discussed by commenters in the record developed in this proceeding. Similar to the approach that the Commission took in 2004, the organization of this Order and the Further Notice generally follows the organization of the ODMSP objectives, and in the relevant content areas we describe the revised ODMSP approach. As requested by the Commerce Department, we use, to the extent feasible, the most recent updates to the ODMSP.

A number of commenters suggested the Commission participate in international processes regarding mitigation of orbital debris. We observe that Commission representatives have participated as part of official U.S. government delegations in established international forums, such as the United Nations, IADC, and International Telecommunication Union, and will continue to participate through established channels under the guidance of the U.S. State Department or U.S. government entity with responsibility for overseeing the international activities.

3. Economic Considerations

In addition to regulatory requirements to control or mitigate orbital debris, certain commenters argue that developing mechanisms and processes that harness market forces can lead to a close alignment of private and public interests. Market-based methodologies rely upon market dynamics and economic principles that generate efficiencies not always achieved by command-and control regulation. As a growing share of space is accounted for by orbital debris, public welfare is promoted when industry participants have economic incentives to consider the public welfare benefits of reducing orbital debris as offset by any public welfare costs associated with taking measures to reduce the generation of such debris. Such benefits include decreased operational risk due to the reduced potential for collisions with space debris. Moreover, because most useful orbital altitudes are limited but also available for use by others at an effective price that does not necessarily reflect the cost each user imposes on others, they constitute a “common pool resource” such that the effective price to use space does not prevent its over-use. Given the substantial commercial sector investments in space, as noted by the increase in satellite launches and the potential concomitant increase in debris, an important challenge for regulators going forward is to adopt rules and explore economic mechanisms that promote the public

interest in the safe and sustainable use of space.

In the NPRM, the Commission included a regulatory impact analysis designed to assess various approaches to reducing debris in orbit from an economic perspective. Many of these approaches were consistent with the rule revisions proposed by the Commission in the NPRM, and others represented different means of reducing debris. To the extent that the comments directed to this section overlapped with other topics in the NPRM, we discuss those comments in the various sections below. Commenters generally disagreed with the additional approaches discussed as part of the regulatory impact analysis, such as limiting launches, and as addressed below, we decline to further address those approaches at this time. Several commenters presented views on novel approaches, at least in the space debris context, for incentivizing particular activities. For example, the New York University School of Law Institute for Policy Integrity proposed that the Commission broadly consider market-based alternatives such as different liability rules, marketable permits or offsets, and regulatory fees. Although we ultimately conclude that these approaches are not sufficiently robust on their own to address the problem of orbital debris, and thus regulation in this area is necessary, we address these and other approaches below.

Given the nature of space, some commenters raise the point that the Commission's actions in this area may be limited in value since they cannot account for activities of actors that are not subject to U.S. law and regulations. Although we address the application of our rules to non-U.S.-licensed satellites in more detail below, as an introductory matter it is worth pointing out that we have been applying, and will continue to apply, our rules on orbital debris mitigation to those operators of existing or planned non-U.S.-licensed satellites seeking access to the United States market. This means that any non-Federal satellite communicating with an earth station in the United States will be subject to an orbital debris assessment under the Commission's rules.
2

Given the interest by many satellite operators in serving the U.S. market, this provides means for our regulations to have a broader reach than if the regulations were just to apply to operators seeking a U.S. license, and helps to ensure that non-U.S. licensees do not gain competitive advantage by following less rigorous debris mitigation practices than U.S.-licensed satellites.

2
The requirement of providing information on orbital debris mitigation has been, and will continue to be, applicable to part 25 satellites, including those granted U.S. market access, as well as part 5 experimental and part 97 amateur satellites.

4. Other Introductory Matters

A number of commenters state that the Commission should focus its efforts on performance-based regulation, rather than prescriptive regulation (
e.g.,
regulation of satellite performance rather than regulation of design). We have endeavored throughout this Order to adopt a performance-based approach where feasible. We agree with those commenters who argue, for example, that performance metrics can enable operators to develop innovative and cost-effective solutions in many instances.

Several commenters also request that rules be based on specific metrics to ensure regulatory transparency, and that the Commission provide clear guidance on how to achieve certain metrics. In many areas we are providing metrics and identifying methodology, typically using publicly-available NASA assessment tools, which are already used by many satellite applicants.
3

In these cases, applicants may look to detailed guidance published by NASA in preparing orbital debris mitigation plans. There will continue to be some areas, such as those in which the U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices express qualitative objectives or aspirational goals, without a quantitative metric, where for now we will assess issues on a case-by-case basis. We also seek comment on adopting more quantitative rules in certain areas in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Finally, we note that a number of commenters (generally those operators planning large NGSO constellations), expressed concern as a general matter about metrics being applied on an aggregate basis to a constellation of NGSO satellites. We address these concerns in connection with individual rules, including whether in particular cases the Commission needs to consider the full factual scenario relevant to a licensing decision, including understanding of the complete scope of the risk involved with the proposed operations.

3
In some cases we provide the opportunity for applicants to use other software programs, for example, provided that those programs are of equal or higher fidelity. For example, NASA has the Debris Assessment Software, capable of calculating collision risk, casualty risk, etc., and available at no cost, but there are higher fidelity tools as well. Other organizations like the European Space Agency also have well-established software tools.
See
European Space Agency, “ESA makes space debris software available online” (June 25, 2014),
https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/ESA_makes_space_debris_software_available_online.

In our recent order adopting elective streamlined licensing procedures for qualifying small satellites, the Commission noted that the qualification criteria that we were adopting would be modified as necessary or appropriate to conform to rules adopted in this orbital debris proceeding. Accordingly, in several areas of our decision here, we adopt conforming rules for small satellites that file applications under those elective streamlined procedure. In addition, unless specified otherwise, the rules discussed below will apply to amateur satellites authorized under the procedures specified in part 97 of the Commission's rules and experimental satellites authorized under the procedures specified in part 5 of the Commission's rules.

One party, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a comment in this docket arguing that the Commission has a responsibility to consider the safety of substances used in satellite construction and operation and environmental issues associated with such operations. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility proposes that the Commission require review of technical specifications of satellites being launched and in particular to review the proposed use of toxic fuels as propellants. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility does not raise specific questions, or make specific proposals, regarding the orbital debris rules proposed in the Notice, and the issues it raised thus fall outside the scope of this proceeding.

B. Safe Flight Profiles

Our existing orbital debris rules include several disclosure requirements designed to ensure that operators are addressing the issue of potential collisions with debris or other objects. We update our rules on safe flight profiles to specify metrics that NASA applies to its missions, and adopt additional disclosures relating to orbital characteristics and maneuverability. We also seek comment on some additional issues as part of the Further Notice.

1. Collisions With Large Objects

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that applicants for NGSO satellites must state whether the probability that their spacecraft will collide with a large object during the orbital lifetime of the spacecraft will be less than 0.001 (1 in 1,000). The current NASA Standard defines a “large object” as an object larger than 10 cm in diameter. To date, many applicants have

used NASA's Debris Assessment Software to conduct the analysis for LEO spacecraft.

Most commenters addressing this issue supported our proposal, and we adopt it. Some commenters appear to have misunderstood this proposal, believing that the proposal was to require a specific threshold for maneuvers in individual instances of predicted conjunctions, for example. The particular metric adopted is intended to address the overall collision risk of a satellite during its orbital lifetime, and not individual conjunction events. In preparing the risk assessment, applicants should use the latest version of the NASA Debris Assessment Software or a higher fidelity assessment tool.

In the NPRM, the Commission also sought comment on whether, for purposes of conducting the analysis, and absent evidence to the contrary, the collision risk with large objects should be assumed zero or near zero during the period of the time when the space station is able to conduct collision avoidance maneuvers. Several commenters agreed with this approach. A number of commenters pointed out that this requires an assumption that maneuvering systems are 100% reliable, and some suggested instead incorporating the probability thresholds at which operators undertake collision avoidance maneuvers into the overall assessment of collision risk. Those thresholds vary among operators, but are typically at lower probabilities than the 0.001 metric as applied through the NASA Debris Assessment Software. As a simplifying assumption, we believe the alternative assumption of zero is warranted. However, in individual cases, to the extent there is evidence that a particular system or operator is unable to effectively maneuver or is maneuvering only at risk thresholds that raise reasonable questions about its ability to meet the 0.001 collision risk metric even with some degree of maneuverability, this assumption will not be applied.

Systems with Multiple Space Stations.
In the NPRM, the Commission also sought comment on the assessment of the collision risk presented by a system as a whole,
i.e.,
in the aggregate. Commenters expressed a variety of views on assessing probability of collision with large objects on a system-wide basis, including on what specific metrics, if any, should apply. Additionally, subsequent to the Notice, the revised ODMSP was issued, which includes a section discussing “large constellations,” and states that “in determining the successful post-mission disposal threshold [for large constellations], factors such as mass, collision probability, orbital location and other relevant parameters should be considered.” As described in the Further Notice, we seek to develop the record further on this issue and how to address multi-satellite systems, including large constellations.

GSO Satellites.
The Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace) suggests that we apply the requirement to GSO satellites as well as NGSO satellites, because GSO satellites can also be involved in collisions that would generate large amounts of un-trackable, long-term debris in the geostationary orbit (GEO) region. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed inclusion of the metric into the disclosure specifically for NGSO satellites. The NASA Standard formulation discussed in the Notice applies to “each spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stage in or passing through LEO.”
4

Currently, all space station applicants, including applicants for GSO space stations, must provide a statement that the space station operator has assessed and limited the probability of the space station becoming a source of debris by collisions with large debris or other operational space stations. We believe that continuing to apply this disclosure approach to applicants for GSO systems is sufficient, without needing to adopt a specific metric at the current time. We encourage GSO operators to provide quantitative collision risk information, but believe that requiring such analysis as part of the initial application materials is unnecessary,
5

given that GSO operators are assigned to particular orbital locations, including a specific “station keeping box,” and must comply with certain well-established disposal procedures.

4
NASA Standard, 4.5.2, at 36 (Requirement 4.5-1). Aerospace suggests that we limit the period of assessing collision probability to a finite time such as 100 years. Aerospace Comments at 8. We decline to adopt this into our rules, since we are not adopting a specific metric for GSO space stations. However, NGSO space stations not disposed of through atmosphere re-entry,
i.e.,
space stations in medium-Earth orbit (MEO) may refer to this 100-year outer limit in implementing the collision risk assessment.
See
ODMSP 3-1.

5
The Commission may request such analysis if there is an application for a particularly unique type of operation in the GEO region, or there is evidence to suggest that certain GSO operations may pose unique risks to the GEO environment.

2. Collisions With Small Objects

In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on adding a quantifiable metric to our existing rules regarding the probability of a space station becoming a source of debris by collisions with small debris or meteoroids that could cause loss of control and prevent post-mission disposal. The NPRM referenced the NASA Standard, which states that for each spacecraft, the program or project shall demonstrate that, during the mission of the spacecraft, the probability of accidental collision with orbital debris and meteoroids sufficient to prevent compliance with the applicable post-mission disposal maneuver requirements does not exceed 0.01 (1 in 100). The revised ODMSP includes a similar provision.
6

Our current rules require a statement that operators (both GSO and NGSO) have assessed and limited the probability of the satellite becoming a source of debris by collisions with small debris or meteoroids that could cause loss of control or prevent post-mission disposal. Generally, operators have provided information regarding spacecraft shielding, redundant systems, or other designs that would enable the spacecraft systems to survive a collision with small debris. Some operators have been providing the information specified in the NASA Standard, calculated using the NASA Debris Assessment Software.

6
ODMSP at 3-2. The ODMSP identifies micrometeoroids and orbital debris smaller than 1 cm.
Id.
As noted, an assessment performed using the NASA Debris Assessment Software will satisfy our rule.

Most commenters addressing this issue agreed with the inclusion of the NASA Standard-derived metric in our rules. NASA notes that this particular agency requirement, when applied to NASA missions, has been achievable and cost-effective with shielding, use of redundant systems, or other design or operational options. OneWeb disagrees with the inclusion of a separate small object collision metric, on the basis that the Commission should adopt a comprehensive deorbit reliability metric that accounts for all failure modes. In our view, adoption of this small object collision metric, along with the disposal reliability metric discussed below, sufficiently addresses potential satellite failure modes, because it takes into consideration both failures due to collisions with small debris and other potential sources of failure for post-mission disposal. We conclude that incorporating the NASA Standard-derived metric into our rules for NGSO applicants is in the public interest as it provides more certainty for operators regarding an acceptable disclosure of risk specifically related to collisions with small objects. We conclude that the benefits of this approach are worth the efforts of operators in performing an

additional calculation in preparation of their orbital debris mitigation plan, because this calculation may be completed using the NASA Debris Assessment Software or a comparable or higher fidelity assessment tool, and many applicants already conduct this assessment.

We conclude that applicants for GSO space station will also be required to include a disclosure related to this metric. In the NPRM, the Commission had proposed to add this metric to our rules for both NGSO and GSO space stations, but we received several comments suggesting that inclusion of this metric into our rules for GSO space stations would be of limited utility. One of the commenters, Boeing, seems to have changed its view on this point in supplemental comments. Additionally, while Eutelsat suggests that the risks posed to GSO satellites in this area are materially lower than the risks posed to NGSO satellites, we do not see this as a reason not to apply the metric in our rules for GSO spacecraft, since it should be easier for those spacecraft to satisfy the rule. Accordingly, we adopt our proposal.

3. Disclosures Regarding Planned Orbit(s)

Identification of Other Relevant Satellites and Systems.
In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on revising the wording of its rule regarding identifying other space stations that are operating in similar or identical orbits in low-Earth orbit. The Commission proposed revising the rule to require that, instead of identifying satellites with similar or identical orbits, the statement must identify planned and/or operational satellites with which the applicant's satellite poses a collision risk, and indicate what steps have been taken to coordinate with the other spacecraft system and facilitate future coordination, or what other measures the operator may use to avoid collisions. The Commission also proposed to extend this rule to all NGSO satellites, rather than just those that will be launched into the LEO region, since overlap in orbits among NGSO spacecraft in other regions may also result in collisions. Several commenters supported these revisions, and we adopt them.
7

As part of the public record, this disclosure can also help to inform other operators that may be operating or plan to operate in the same region of space. Since this wording is similar to the previous rule, we find that there are unlikely to be significant additional costs from compliance with this disclosure requirement, but to the extent there are any additional costs in research and assessment of the environment in which the spacecraft will be located, we conclude they are warranted in the interest of ensuring that operators take into consideration other relevant space stations and systems when preparing orbital debris mitigation plans, and coordinate with those operators when necessary.

7
We also adopt a conforming rule that is applicable to applicants for the streamlined small satellite process in § 25.122 and streamlined small spacecraft process in § 25.123.
See
Appendix A, Final Rules.

CSSMA and LeoSat oppose a requirement that the collision analysis include analysis with respect to planned systems, arguing that planned systems change frequently and not all systems are known. We clarify that the rule will require a disclosure identifying potential systems of concern, but does not require that the applicant's calculated collision risk include such systems (which would go beyond what can be assessed using the NASA Debris Assessment Software). It is important, however, that applicants assess planned systems, what impact such systems may have on their operations, and what coordination can be completed with the operators of such systems. While not all planned systems may come to fruition and there may be systems that would be unknown to applicants, such as foreign or government systems, we expect applicants to make best efforts to analyze the environment in which their satellites will be operating
8

and specify how they plan to coordinate, to the extent possible, with other operators to ensure safe operations. Boeing asks that we clarify that the disclosure must specify only those other NGSO satellite systems “the normal operation of which” pose a risk of collision. We concur with Boeing's clarification of the rule, but decline to change the rule language since we believe that it is self-evident that an operator can only take into consideration the planned or normal operations of another operator's system.

8
Applicants may be able to assess planned systems based on filings with the Commission or International Telecommunication Union (ITU). We expect applicants to identify planned systems on a “best efforts” basis.

Orbit Selection and Other Orbital Characteristics.
In the NPRM, the Commission also proposed that any applicants planning an NGSO constellation that would be deployed in the LEO region above 650 km in altitude specify why the applicant had chosen the particular orbit and describe other relevant characteristics of the orbit. The Commission reasoned that missions deploying above 650 km altitude may represent a greater risk from a long-term orbital debris perspective, since satellites that fail above that altitude will generally not re-enter Earth's atmosphere within 25 years, and depending on the deployment altitude, may be in orbit for centuries or longer. The Commission also sought comment on whether it should require a statement concerning the rationale for selecting an orbit from operators of satellites that will remain in orbit for a long period of time relative to the time needed to perform their mission.

After review of the record, we decline to adopt these proposals. We conclude after further consideration that the long-term risks associated with deployments above 650 km are sufficiently addressed through our other rules, such as collision risk assessment, and reliability of post-mission disposal and that therefore the additional statement is not necessary. Indeed, application of the Commission's other orbital debris mitigation rules may in some instances result in an operator deciding to deploy below 650 km. While SpaceX, for example, supported the proposed disclosure regarding rationale for selecting a particular orbit, we conclude that concerns the Commission may have about risks associated with operations in a particular orbit can be adequately addressed through other measures addressed in this proceeding.

We do adopt our proposal, however, that NGSO systems disclose information regarding other relevant characteristics of the chosen deployment orbit not already covered, such as the presence of a large concentration of existing debris in a particular orbit. Boeing states that the Commission should not adopt regulation in this area, because operators are adequately incentivized to select initial orbits that are sufficiently free of hazards, or invest in other measures to facilitate the safety of their satellites. We find that this disclosure will help to ensure that operators have considered all the characteristics of the deployment and operational orbits, and are fully aware of the risks associated with operations in the particular orbit. This may not always be the case, particularly with smaller operators or operators who use a rideshare launch. If an orbit is particularly congested with debris, for example, an operator may want to consider modifying its operations slightly to avoid having to perform a large number of collision avoidance maneuvers.

4. Orbit Variance and Orbit Selection for Large NGSO Systems

The Notice sought comment on whether the Commission should adopt

an upper limit for variances in orbit for NGSO systems. “Variance” refers to the range of altitude, such as “1025 km plus or minus 10 km,” in which a satellite or constellation of satellites will operate. The Commission asked whether variance in altitude should be limited in an NGSO system in order to enable more systems to co-exist in LEO without overlap in orbital altitude, and if so, how an appropriate limit should be set. We received a number of comments related to orbital variance for large NGSO systems, and even more comments on the related topic of whether, and how, the Commission should assign orbital altitude ranges for large constellations of NGSO satellites, such that the altitudes do not overlap.

The question of whether two satellite systems can coexist in a given region of space, such as a circular LEO orbit, depends on multiple factors, including the number and size of satellites, the capabilities of the satellites such as maneuverability, costs of maneuvering (such as interruption of service), availability and timeliness of data on satellite parameters (both from telemetry and from radar or optical observations), planning cycles for maneuvers, and the time required to coordinate operations between systems, etc. Larger deployments of satellites into circular LEO orbits have been into separate orbital “shells.” As a practical matter, in cases where two planned systems propose use of the same shell, coordination typically results in one or both systems adjusting planned orbital altitudes, so that the constellations are separated, rather than in the operators coordinating their operations at the same or overlapping altitude ranges. While some commenters urge that we adopt specific requirements for separation of orbits, others argue that coordination, data sharing, and collision avoidance practices should be sufficient to avoid collisions, or that limits are not practicable for the regions in which some operators operate, particularly small satellite operators. ORBCOMM states that the operational availability of NGSO orbits appears likely to become an increasingly scarce resource, but states that it is premature to try and set rules on maximum altitude variance and orbit selections. Other commenters argue, particularly with respect to systems proposing large orbital variances, that the Commission must consider the impact of such systems on the rational, efficient, and economic use of orbital resources. At this time, we decline to adopt a maximum orbital variance for NGSO systems and decline to adopt a required separation between orbital locations, and will instead continue to address these issues case-by-case. There are a wide range of considerations in such cases, and while we are concerned about the risk of collisions between the space stations of NGSO systems operating at similar orbital altitudes, as the Commission has previously stated, we think that these concerns are best addressed in the first instance through inter-operator coordination.

As part of the disclosure of system characteristics, we note that some applicants for large systems may be asked to provide a description of the planned orbital variance, and the relationship of that variance to the system's technical capabilities and operational requirements (
e.g.,
ability to avoid collisions). Such applicants may also need to address how their system operations will accommodate spacecraft transiting through the system and other systems, large or small, operating in the same region. If operators require a large orbit variance for their system, particularly if this might substantially constrain operations by other systems, they should plan to describe why and explain whether other less impactful alternatives were considered.

5. Protection of Inhabitable Spacecraft

The Commission proposed in the NPRM that for any NGSO space station deployed above the International Space Station (ISS) and that will transit through the ISS orbit either during or following the space station's operations, the applicant provide information about any operational constraints caused to the ISS or other inhabitable spacecraft
9

and strategies used to avoid collision with such spacecraft. The Commission explained that normal operations of the ISS could be disrupted or constrained by collision avoidance maneuvers that the ISS would need to perform to avoid satellites transiting through the ISS orbit.

9
We use the term “inhabitable spacecraft” to mean any spacecraft capable of having crew aboard. Secure World Foundation points out that there may be additional human-occupied spacecraft on orbit in the coming years, and supports requirements that take these additional spacecraft into consideration. Secure World Foundation Comments at 4.

We conclude that it is in the public interest to adopt the proposed disclosure requirement.
10

The statement must describe the design and operational strategies, if any, that will be used to minimize the risk of collision and enable the operator to avoid posing any undue operational constraints to the inhabitable spacecraft. Commenters agree that special protections should be afforded to inhabitable spacecraft. We find that requiring this information will help to ensure that the applicant has taken into consideration the inhabitable spacecraft, and will provide information in the public record to help the Commission and other interested parties, such as NASA, determine if there are any potential issues with the applicant's operations vis-à-vis the ISS or other inhabitable spacecraft. NASA states that disruption to ISS operations may be lessened if a spacecraft in the process of disposal through atmospheric reentry remains active and able to maneuver until the apogee is below ISS altitude. We conclude that the benefits in assuring the safety of human life in space and minimizing disruption to the operations of inhabitable spacecraft outweighs any additional cost to applicants in preparing such a disclosure.

10
This includes transit either during the applicant space stations' mission or de-orbit phase.
See
Appendix A, Final Rules.

6. Maneuverability

Disclosure.
Maneuverability can be an important component of space debris mitigation, both by enabling space stations to engage in collision avoidance and by facilitating spacecraft disposal. The Commission proposed in the NPRM that applicants disclose the extent of maneuverability of the planned space stations. The Commission noted this could include an explanation of the number of collision avoidance maneuvers the satellite could be expected to make, and/or any other means the satellite may have to avoid conjunction events, including the period both during the satellite's operational lifetime and during the remainder of its time in space prior to disposal. The Commission tentatively concluded that this information could assist in the Commission's public interest determination, particularly regarding any burden that other operators would have to bear in order to avoid collisions and false conjunction warnings. Most commenters addressing this topic agree with the maneuverability disclosure, and we adopt this disclosure.

LeoSat disagrees with the proposal, arguing that specific information related to satellite maneuverability is proprietary and competitive in nature, that public disclosure of this information as part of an application could prompt a “race to the bottom” among satellite operators, and that any information initially disclosed in an application will become stale and inaccurate as the operator's satellites age and their propulsion capacity is consumed. It does not appear that LeoSat has support among fellow

satellite operators for its proposition that satellite maneuverability information is proprietary and competitive. Further, even if such information has some potential “competitive” value, such information would likely need to be shared with another operator in the event of a potential conjunction, and all operators will be better able to make informed decisions if they have a baseline understanding of the maneuvering potential of other satellites in orbit. Moreover, it is not clear to us how disclosure would cause a “race to the bottom,” and even if information became outdated as some spacecraft were no longer able to maneuver, having initial information on what capabilities the satellites were designed with could still assist the Commission in its review of the system and also assist other operators. We find that the benefits of having information regarding maneuverability as part of the record outweigh these commenters' generalized competitive concerns. Boeing also disagrees in some respects with the proposed disclosure on the basis that the Commission has not provided guidance on the number of avoidance maneuvers that would be presumptively deemed acceptable. We plan to consider the maneuverability disclosure as factual information, and at this time do not establish a presumptive number of avoidance maneuvers that would trigger concern. We believe that on balance, this area is an appropriate one for a disclosure and provides useful information, including to other operators. We encourage operators to submit as much information as they reasonably can regarding maneuverability, ideally providing the type of information mentioned by NASA in its comments, including maneuver methods and capabilities, as well as any other mechanisms to mitigate conjunction likelihood (
e.g.,
cross-sectional area modulation). This would also include information regarding the propulsive technology itself (
i.e.,
ion thrusters, traditional chemical thrusters, etc.), thrust level, and a description of the guidance and operations scheme for determining maneuvers, where applicable. Generally speaking, operators should submit a written description of the space stations' expected capabilities, including, if possible, the expected time it would take the space station to modify its orbital location by a certain distance to avoid a collision.

Propulsion or Maneuverability Above a Certain Altitude.
The Commission also sought comment in the NPRM on whether it should require all NGSO satellites planning to operate above a particular altitude to have propulsion capabilities reserved for station-keeping and to enable collision avoidance maneuvers, regardless of whether propulsion is necessary to de-orbit within 25 years, and if so, what altitude should be adopted. A number of commenters supported some requirement along these lines, with some identifying 400 km as an altitude above which propulsion or other maneuvering capabilities should be required, generally based on the approximate operational altitude of the ISS. Other commenters disagreed with this suggestion. We seek to expand the record on this potential requirement in the Further Notice.

C. Tracking and Data Sharing

In the NPRM, the Commission observed that the successful identification of satellites and sharing of tracking data are important factors in the provision of timely and accurate assessments of potential conjunctions with other spacecraft. We continue to believe that improvements in the ability to track and identify satellites may help to reduce the risk of collisions. These factors can help to enable effective collision avoidance through coordination between operators, and improve the accuracy of conjunction warnings, whether those warnings are from a public or private entity specializing in space situational awareness and space traffic management. The Commission made several specific proposals in the Notice related to trackability, identification, and sharing of tracking data, which are discussed below. We adopt a number of our proposals in this area, while ensuring that our rules provide flexibility for the continued advancement of space situational awareness and space traffic management functions, including any transition of certain activities in the United States to a civilian entity, and the accommodation of non-governmental associations and other private sector enterprises engaged in these functions.

We also received several comments addressing improvements to the U.S. space situational awareness and space traffic management functions more generally. In this proceeding, the Commission has not considered other activities related to space situational awareness and space traffic management, such as maintaining a comprehensive catalog of space objects or providing conjunction warnings. These functions as a general matter are well beyond the type of analysis that we have historically addressed through our rules and licensing process, but we suggest that these comments be filed for consideration in the proceeding currently underway in the Commerce Department, if they have not been already, so that the comments can be taken into consideration in that context.

Relatedly, the Commerce Department notes that its Request for Information on Commercial Capabilities in Space Situational Awareness Data and Space Traffic Management Services (RFI), issued last year, will have bearing on the Commission's proposals in this proceeding, and asked us to take their RFI into consideration in this proceeding. We have reviewed the comments filed in response to the RFI, and note that in some instances they are the same in part, or similar to comments submitted to the docket file for the instant proceeding. Other comments to the RFI focus on space situational awareness and space traffic management functions, such as development of an open architecture data repository, that are not directly germane to the Commission's proposals.

1. Trackability and Satellite Identification

Trackability.
The Commission proposed in the NPRM to require a statement from an applicant regarding the ability to track the proposed satellites using space situational awareness facilities, such as the U.S. Space Surveillance Network. The Commission also proposed that objects greater than 10 cm by 10 cm by 10 cm in size be presumed trackable for LEO. For objects with any dimension less than 10 cm, the Commission proposed that the applicant provide additional information concerning trackability, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Commenters generally support the proposed approach to size as it relates to trackability. NASA recommends that the term “satellite trackability” be interpreted to mean that an object is trackable if, through the regular operation of space situational awareness assets, it can be tracked and maintained so as to be re-acquirable at will, and that the object's orbital data is sufficient for conjunction assessments. According to NASA, this will typically mean that the object possesses trackability traits (
e.g.,
sufficient size and radar/optical cross-section) to allow it to be acquired routinely by multiple space situational awareness assets in their regular modes of operation. Several commenters agree that in LEO, a 10 x 10 x 10 cm cube should meet this standard. We agree, and adopt the proposed rule stating that

space stations of this size in LEO are deemed presumptively trackable, modified slightly to cover space stations that are 10 cm or larger in their smallest dimension.
11

We clarify that this presumption covers those space stations that are 10 cm or larger in their smallest dimension excluding deployable components.
12

11
This would enable a spherical space station, for example, to presumptively satisfy the rule so long as it has a diameter of 10 cm or greater.

12
Space stations smaller than 10 cm in the smallest dimension, but which will use deployable components to enhance trackability will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

CSSMA proposes that the Commission require applicants to simply certify that they can be tracked reliably by widely available tracking technology. Swarm similarly suggests that the rules permit smaller satellite form factors pursuant to an affirmative demonstration that such spacecraft can be accurately tracked, and that size should be merely one factor in assessing trackability. Although there may be future improvements in standard space situational awareness tracking facilities, at this time we believe it is in the public interest to adopt the presumed trackable approach for space stations in LEO larger than 10 cm in the smallest dimension, and for other cases, including where a satellite is planning to use deployable devices to increase the surface area, we conclude that operators should provide more information to support their conclusion that the space station will be reliably trackable. For a spacecraft smaller than 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm, for example, some of the standard space situational awareness tracking facilities may no longer be able to track the satellite. In these instances, part of a demonstration supporting a finding of trackability may be a showing that the operator has taken on the cost of bringing the trackability back up to the level it would be for a larger spacecraft, perhaps by enlisting a commercial space situational awareness provider. CSSMA and others argue that the Commission should permit operators flexibility to choose appropriate solutions, and that ground-based space situational awareness capabilities may improve significantly in the future. We find that our approach provides operators with flexibility to satisfy the Commission's rule, because it permits a case-by-case assessment of trackability where the space station is smaller than 10 cm in the smallest diameter. Global NewSpace Operators argues that we should provide further detail on what information we are looking for in the disclosure, for example, to what accuracy and how often should tracking occur, and whether we will ask for verification from the space situational awareness provider that they can indeed track the proposed satellites. We decline to provide additional detailed guidance in our rules on this topic, as an acceptable disclosure could vary significantly depending on the trackability solution that will be used by the applicant. We expect, however, that applicants will specify the tracking solution and provide some indication of prior successful demonstrated use of the technology or service, either as part of a commercial or government venture. This would include addressing reliability of deployment of any deployable spacecraft parts that are being relied on for tracking. Tracking solutions that have not been well-established or previously demonstrated will be subject to additional scrutiny, and applicants may need to consider a back-up solution in those instances.

In addition, our rule provides flexibility for trackability demonstrations above LEO, where Aerospace states that it is not clear that a 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm object could be reliably tracked. Aerospace states that the assumed size for reliable tracking in the GEO region by the current Space Surveillance Network is one meter, done primarily with optical sensors. The Commission will address the trackability demonstration on a case-by-case basis for satellites that would operate above the LEO region, including in the GEO region, and we do not see the need at this time to include a specific size value in our rules for those space stations.

In the NPRM, the Commission inquired whether there were hardware or information sharing requirements that might improve tracking capabilities, and whether such technologies are sufficiently developed that a requirement for their use would be efficient and effective. Aerospace suggests that hardware such as transponders or other signature enhancements and data sharing would benefit trackability, but it is not clear that any commercial transponder hardware or comprehensive data sharing methods currently exist. Aerospace states that a potential rule could drive development in this area, and consider enhancements such as radar reflectors for small objects in orbits well above LEO. NASA cautions against relying on active tracking assistance that would no longer occur once the spacecraft is unpowered, and observes that at the present time, on-board tracking improvement methods such as beacons or corner cube reflectors are not sufficiently supported by space situational awareness assets to enable significant and reliable tracking improvements. Keplerian Tech suggests that the Commission should mandate the use of an independent transponder solution, such as the space beacon that it has developed. Swarm suggests that trackability can be improved through the use of active or passive signature enhancements, such as the passive radar retro reflectors that would be used by Swarm's proposed satellites. CSSMA opposes a specification of any particular type of tracking technology, and suggests that mandating use of an independent tracking solution would impose unnecessary costs on operators. According to CSSMA, the level of trackability needed to maintain a safe orbital environment can already be attained by well-established active or passive tracking methods.

We conclude that the provision of position data in addition to standard space situational awareness data, through radiofrequency identification tags or other means, may ultimately be a way to support a finding that a spacecraft smaller than 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm is trackable, but until the establishment of the commercial data repository, reliance on most alternative technologies does not appear to be readily implementable. A number of commenters oppose the adoption of any rule that would specify a particular type of tracking technology. We agree. While we encourage operators to use various means to ensure that their spacecraft is trackable and to help ensure that accurate positioning information can be obtained, we believe it is premature to require that operators use a particular tracking solution, such as an independent transponder. As technologies for obtaining spacecraft positioning information continue to evolve, however, we may revisit this issue in the future.

We do adopt the disclosure proposed in the NPRM that applicants specify whether space station tracking will be active (that is, with participation of the operator by emitting signals via transponder or sharing data with other operators) or passive (that is, solely by ground based radar or optical tracking of the object. This disclosure, in connection with the other descriptive disclosures discussed in this section, will provide a way for the Commission and any interested parties to understand the extent to which the operator is able to obtain satellite positioning information separately from information provided by the 18th Space Control Squadron or other space situational awareness facilities. We believe this

requirement presents minimal costs, since an operator will readily have access to this information based on the basic characteristics of its spacecraft (for example, will it be transmitting its Global Positioning System location information via transponder?). Operators are likely to select either active or passive means of tracking depending on the mission specifications, but it is useful for the Commission to understand as part of its holistic review of the application, the overall trackability and ability to identify the satellite.

Relatedly, we also adopt the NPRM proposal that operators certify that their space station will have a unique telemetry marker allowing it to be distinguished from other satellites or space objects. This is the same as the certification we have previously adopted for small satellites applying under the streamlined process, and is unlikely to pose any additional costs for most operators, since the vast majority of operators already distinguish their satellite's signal from other signals through use of unique signal characteristics. Few commenters addressed this issue, and some expressed support or sought clarification. As we clarified in the Small Satellite Order, we expect that when a spacecraft transmits telemetry data to the ground it will include in that transmission some marker that allows the spacecraft to be differentiated from other spacecraft. This signal-based identification marker, which should be different from those of other objects on a particular launch, can assist with identification of a satellite for space situational awareness purposes. Boeing argues that the Commission does not need to verify whether an active telemetry marker will be unique since satellite operators have adequate incentives to distinguish their own telemetry beacons from those of other satellites, but we disagree, because smaller-scale operators may not have these incentives or know that they should implement this type telemetry marker to help identify their satellite.

Identification.
Additionally, the Commission sought comment on whether applicants should be required by rule to provide information about the initial deployment to the 18th Space Control Squadron or any successor civilian entity. We noted that, as an example, communications with the 18th Space Control Squadron may be particularly important in the case of a multi-satellite deployment to assist in the identification of a particular satellite. We adopt a rule requiring that applicants disclose how the operator plans to identify the space station(s) following deployment, for example, how the operator plans to obtain initial telemetry.
13

We expect that for most operators this disclosure will be fairly straightforward, but requesting this information, alongside the other information requested on satellite trackability, will help the Commission and any other interested parties to understand whether the satellite poses a risk of being misidentified following deployment, for example, in the case of a multi-satellite deployment. As Global NewSpace Operators suggests, we will consider favorably in an application the use of radiofrequency transponder tags or other unique telemetry markers that can support the identification of objects once in orbit. Overall, we want to emphasize the importance of operators planning for satellite identification in advance so that they are able to troubleshoot potential issues, particularly for multi-satellite deployments. Also, as the Secure World Foundation suggests, we encourage additional research in this area on how identification aids may help distinguish one satellite from another early after payload separation.

13

See
Appendix A, Final Rules. We also adopt a conforming rule in § 25.122 that is applicable to small satellites and small spacecraft applying under the streamlined processes.
See id.

We also adopt a requirement that applicants must disclose whether the satellite will be registered with the 18th Space Control Squadron or successor civilian entity. At this time, the typical registration process for new operators includes contacting the 18th Space Control Squadron via email with information on the satellite common name, launch date and time window, launch location and launching agency, the satellite owning organization and operating organization, the contact information for the operations center, and any usernames for the website
Space-Track.org.
A number of established operators also maintain ongoing relationships with the 18th Space Control Squadron, either directly or through intermediary organizations, such as the Space Data Association, and routinely exchange information about upcoming launch activities. It is possible that this process may change in the future, but we adopt a disclosure requirement broad enough to accommodate “registration” generally, even if the process changes. We conclude that the costs associated with the disclosure, to the extent they are not already routinely followed by most established operations, are outweighed by the importance of operators sharing information with a central entity that can provide space situational awareness support. Additionally, the operators themselves benefit from the services that are provided at no charge by the 18th Space Control Squadron, and so the burden of operators disclosing whether they are in fact benefiting from these services is minimal.

2. Ongoing Space Situational Awareness

Sharing Ephemeris and Other Information.
In addition to the sharing of information related to initial identification of a satellite included in the NPRM, the Commission also proposed that space station operators share ephemeris and information on any planned maneuvers with the 18th Space Control Squadron or any successor civilian entity. The Commission sought comment on whether this should be a requirement implemented through a rule. The Commission also sought comment on whether NGSO operators should be required to maintain ephemeris data for each satellite they operate and share that data with any other operator identified in its disclosure of any operational space stations that may raise a collision risk. The Commission observed that this requirement would help to facilitate communications between operators even before a potential conjunction warning is given.

Most commenters agreed with the goals of the proposed requirements. Some commenters argue that data sharing exchanges should respect owner/operator intellectual property and proprietary information and should be limited to only the information necessary to describe explicit maneuvers, initial deployment, or conjunction avoidance. Several commenters also seek flexibility to share maneuverability and status data using any reasonable method identified by the providing operator. After consideration of the record on this issue, we adopt a disclosure requirement regarding sharing of ephemeris and other data. Specifically, we adopt a rule stating that applicants must disclose the extent to which the space station operator plans to share information regarding initial deployment, ephemeris, and/or planned maneuvers with the 18th Space Control Squadron or successor entity, or other entities that engage in space situational awareness or space traffic management functions, and/or other operators. This also includes disclosure of risk thresholds for when an operator will deem it appropriate to conduct a collision avoidance maneuver. This disclosure provides an opportunity for the Commission to assess the extent to

which the operator is actively engaging with space situational awareness facilities, keeping in mind that the need for such engagement may vary depending on the scale of the system.
14

We observe that for certain types of systems, for example, those using electric propulsion, sharing of ephemeris data is particularly critical in preventing collisions, and so we would look for a detailed description of those plans when assessing the application for those systems. The disclosure will also assist other operators in understanding how they may be able to best coordinate with the applicants' system and provide flexibility for operators to demonstrate how their plans for sharing information will facilitate space safety. As one example, a particular operator may decide to share ephemeris information with the private Space Data Association, which would be indicated in its disclosure. This also addresses any operator's concerns regarding proprietary information and security, since operators concerned with these issues could take them into consideration as part of their plan for how to share ephemeris.
15

14
We also adopt a conforming edit in § 25.122 to the rules applicable to small satellite and small spacecraft applicants for streamlined processing.
See
Appendix A, Final Rules.

15
We would expect, however, that if there are significant limitations on ways in which information that is being shared, or the quantity of information shared, the operator will demonstrate that it is not compromising space safety.

We also extend this disclosure to experimental and amateur systems at the authorization stage. As with the rule updates discussed above, we believe the benefits of this disclosure in encouraging space safety and coordination outweigh any costs to the operator in specifying the extent to which, and how, it will share ephemeris and other information during operations.

Tyvak suggests that requiring licensees to submit information pertaining to planned maneuvers is not conducive to the flexibility of agile space, but we do not see how submission of information in advance of planned maneuvers would have any significant impact on an operator's ability to perform such spacecraft maneuvers, and may provide other operators with useful information about the planned scope of operations that will facilitate coordination. Although we are adopting a disclosure requirement rather than an operational requirement, if this information changes during the course of the system's operations, the operator will need to update the file for its license or grant by specifying how it has changed.

We conclude that this disclosure is more beneficial than a more specific requirement, as it provides flexibility for operators to use a combination of different resources, including private sector space situational awareness resources, as well as accommodate potential changes in the U.S. entity responsible for space situational awareness and space traffic management functions relevant to non-Federal operators. In the near term, we encourage all operators to engage with the 18th Space Control Squadron, either directly or through intermediary organizations, and avail themselves of the space situational awareness and space traffic management functions that the 18th Space Control Squadron provides. At this time, we do not adopt a separate operational requirement regarding sharing of information with the 18th Space Control Squadron or other operators whose systems may pose a collision risk. We conclude that requirement is unnecessary given the application disclosure requirement we adopt here as well as the separate certification that upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the operator will review and take all possible steps to assess the collision risk, and will mitigate the collision risk if necessary—and that the assessment and potential mitigation should include, as appropriate, sharing ephemeris data and other relevant operational information.

Conjunction Warnings.
The Commission proposed that applicants for NGSO space stations certify that, upon receipt of a conjunction warning, the operator of the satellite will take all possible steps to assess and, if necessary, to mitigate collision risk, including, but not limited to: Contacting the operator of any active spacecraft involved in such warning; sharing ephemeris data and other appropriate operational information directly with any such operator; and modifying spacecraft attitude and/or operations. The Commission also sought comment on whether any different or additional requirements should be considered regarding the ability to track and identify satellites in NGSO or respond to conjunction warnings.

As discussed below, based on the record, we adopt the proposal from the NPRM. We believe this certification will enhance certainty among operators, and thereby help to reduce collision risk. Most commenters addressing this issue agreed generally with the Commission's proposal, although some commenters had varying views on implementation of the proposed requirement. NASA and Aerospace recommend that applicants submit information outlining plans that they intend to follow operationally in order to minimize collision risk. Global NewSpace Operators suggests that the Commission simply require the applicant to have an operational procedure and process for a conjunction warning, rather than a certification. We see the potential benefits of having applicants outline operational steps to minimize collision risk, but we believe that the information that would be included in this type of submission is already addressed by other aspects of the rules. As described above, we will request information on maneuverability of the satellites, and applicants will be required to disclose how they have coordinated or plan to coordinate with other operators whose satellites may pose a collision risk, as well as disclose how they plan to share ephemeris and other information during the course of the spacecraft operations.

Other commenters suggest modifications to the language of the proposed rule to provide operators with some additional flexibility when responding to conjunction warnings. The Commission's proposed rule stated that the space station operator “must certify that upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the operator will review the warning and take all possible steps to assess and, if necessary, to mitigate collision risk, including, but not limited to: Contacting the operator of any active spacecraft involved in such a warning; sharing ephemeris data and other appropriate operational information with any such operator; modifying space station attitude and/or operations.” Several commenters, including SIA, Telesat, and others, were concerned that the use of the term “all possible steps” would not give operators enough flexibility to decide how to respond, and proposed the language “appropriate steps” instead. Taking into consideration the concerns expressed in the record, we adopt a slightly different formulation of the certification. Specifically, the rule we adopt states that the space station operator must certify that upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the operator will review and take all possible steps to assess the collision risk, and will mitigate the collision risk if necessary. As appropriate, steps to assess and mitigate the collision risk should include, but are not limited to: Contacting the operator of any active spacecraft involved in such a warning; sharing ephemeris data

and other appropriate operational information with any such operator; and modifying space station attitude and/or operations. We believe that the terms “if necessary” and “as appropriate” provide sufficient flexibility for operators to determine what is appropriate in individual cases. Finally, Boeing suggests that this requirement may be unnecessary, because operators already have sufficient incentives to avoid collision risks. We conclude, however, that this certification is useful in ensuring that all space actors, in particular new space actors, are aware of and have planned responses to conjunction warnings, consistent with responsible space operations.

We also encourage operators to reference industry-recognized best practices in addressing conjunction warnings. NASA, for example, notes that there are currently industry-recognized best practices of submitting ephemerides to the 18th Space Control Squadron for screening, examining and processing all resultant conjunction warnings from each conjunction screening, mitigating high-interest events at a level consistent with the mission's risk mitigation strategy, and explicit conjunction avoidance screening by the 18th Space Control Squadron of ephemerides that include any risk mitigation maneuvers prior to maneuver execution.

D. Topics Related to Creation of Debris During Operations

The Commission's existing orbital debris rules require disclosure of debris released during normal operations. This has been a longstanding requirement, and is consistent with the revised U.S. Government Standard Practices objective regarding “Control of Debris Released During Normal Operations.” The Commission observed in 2004 that communications space stations do not typically involve the release of planned debris. Although there are some unique experiments on space stations today that do potentially involve the planned release of debris, we observe that most communications space stations still do not typically release debris absent some type of anomaly. Where there is a planned release of debris, however, we examine such plans on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the Commission did not propose to update our general rule in this area, as it has functioned well for the past 15 years. In the Notice, the Commission did propose to update its rules, however, in two specific areas related to the release of debris, discussed below, which reflect evolving satellite and launch technologies.

1. Deployment Devices

In the NPRM, the Commission observed that in several instances applicants sought to deploy satellites using deployment mechanisms that detach from or are ejected from a launch vehicle upper stage and are designed solely as a means of deploying a satellite or satellites, and not intended for other operations—and that once these mechanisms have deployed the onboard satellite(s), they become orbital debris. In one example, the Commission received applications for communications with deployment devices designed to deploy smaller spacecraft after the devices separating from the launch vehicle. In another example, the Commission received an application for an experimental satellite that would be released from a tubular cylinder deployer, using a spring mechanism. There are also more well-established uses of deployment devices, such as a separation ring used to facilitate the launch of geostationary satellites. Several commenters explain the advantages of use of deployment devices such as rings or other deployment vehicles, sometimes referred to as “free-flyers,” stating, for example, that such devices can allow safe, reliable deployment of multiple spacecraft. Spaceflight posits that deployment devices contribute to a safe space environment, where such devices allow spacecraft to be placed into orbit using well-established launch services and well-designed and planned deployment missions.

The Commission proposed in the NPRM to require disclosure by applicants if “free-flying” deployment devices are used to deploy their spacecraft, as well as requiring a specific justification for their use. We adopt our proposal, and require that applicants for a Commission license disclose whether they plan to have their spacecraft deployed using a deployment device. This includes disclosure of all devices, defined as separate deployment devices, distinct from the space station launch vehicle, regardless of whether they will be authorized by the Commission.
16

Although in some instances it is difficult to draw a clear line between a launch vehicle and deployment device, for purposes of this rule, as explained below, we consider a deployment device to be a device not permanently physically attached to or otherwise controlled as part of the launch vehicle. For purposes of this discussion, we distinguish between consideration of orbital debris mitigation issues involving such free-flying deployment devices and consideration of orbital debris mitigation issues involving multi-satellite deployments generally, including use of deployment devices that are part of or remain attached to the launch vehicle.

16
For Commission-authorized devices, as explained below, this can be disclosed by referencing the deployment device application file number. Devices not authorized by the Commission could include, for example, deployment devices not requiring an authorization for radiocommunications, or obtaining an authorization for radiocommunications from an administration other than the United States.

We have considered the arguments of Eutelsat, University Small-Satellite Researchers, and Boeing, who suggest that it would be burdensome for space station applicants to disclose information regarding free-flying or uncoupled deployment devices. Eutelsat states that satellite operators are not responsible for launch procedure and do not choose the specific deployment device used for launch of their satellite, which may not be determined until after the space station application is submitted. Some commenters suggest that information regarding a free-flying deployment device should be outside the scope of the Commission's purview, either for jurisdictional or practical reasons. We disagree with these points. It is reasonable to consider objects with limited purpose, other than launch vehicles, as part of the deployment or operations of a Commission-licensed spacecraft. Free-flying deployment devices are, in terms of their effect on the orbital debris environment, indistinguishable from lens covers, tie-down cables, and other similar devices, in that they fulfill a limited function and then become debris. In some instances, the required disclosure may be as straightforward as incorporating by reference the information contained in a separate Commission application that has been submitted by the operator of the deployment device. In other instances, the space station operator will need to obtain the information regarding the deployment device from the operator and/or manufacturer of that device. The space station operator will be able to obtain this information, since the space station will be using the deployment device. Second, our experience has been that FAA launch-related analyses do not include consideration of free-flying or separated deployment devices, since such devices are not considered part of the launch vehicle. In this sense, depending on the factual scenario, the devices can be considered either “spacecraft” or “operational debris” related to the

authorized space stations.
17

Our goal is to avoid a regulatory gap in which the orbital debris issues associated with a particular deployment device are not under review by any government entity. We will continue to coordinate with the FAA as needed, and in any case where an applicant believes that the deployment device would be under the FAA's authority, the applicant should make us aware so we can coordinate with the FAA in the particular case and avoid overlapping review. Eutelsat points out that in some instances the launching entity may not even be within U.S. jurisdiction or regulatory authority. In these instances, the operator should still provide information regarding use of any free-flying or separated deployment devices, consistent with our policy to require same information related to orbital debris mitigation from market access applicants as from U.S. license applicants. For example, it would not be in the public interest for us to authorize market access for a non-U.S.-licensed satellite where the satellite meets our orbital debris mitigation requirements, but will be deployed by a free-flying device that has a 200-year on-orbit lifetime and presents a significant collision risk. Although, as Eutelsat states, market access may be requested long after the satellite is launched, that fact has not prevented us from applying our orbital debris regulations to such satellites in the past.

17
In the
NPRM,
we proposed that the rule cover any separate deployment devices “not part of the space station launch.” 33 FCC Rcd at 11396, Appendix A, Proposed Rules. In an effort to clarify the scope of the rule, we adopt a slightly different formulation here, which states that the rule covers any separate deployment devices that are “distinct from the space station launch vehicle,that may become a source of orbital debris.”
See
Appendix A, Final Rules.

We will continue to largely assess these on a case-by-case basis at this time, since the individual facts can vary widely and so it is difficult to assess specific disclosure rules for each different type of device that may be used.
18

Consistent with the NPRM proposal, we will require that applicants disclosing the use of a deployment device also provide an orbital debris mitigation disclosure for any separate deployment devices. The information provided by applicants should address basic orbital debris principles, such as the orbital lifetime of the device, and collision risk associated with the device itself. Where applicable, the information should also address the method, sequencing, and timing by which the spacecraft be deployed into orbit. Boeing opposes the adoption of an information disclosure requirement absent “clear and objective criteria articulating when the use of such devices is permissible.” There are a variety of facts to assess in connection with use of deployment device and potential for contribution to the orbital debris environment. In some uses, a deployment device may become debris, but serve to decrease the collision risk associated with the individual deployed objects. In the case of well-established deployment practices, such as use of a detachable separator ring for a GSO deployment, the disclosure should be relatively straightforward, and we would not expect operators to provide significant detail regarding utilization of such a deployment practice. In other instances, use of a deployment device may increase the risk of collision among satellites deployed from the device, as compared to other means of deployment, even where the device itself may present a low risk. The different factual scenarios presented here illustrate the difficulty in making a “one-size-fits-all” rule when it comes to determining what is an acceptable use of a deployment device. We conclude the more effective approach at this time is to adopt a disclosure requirement, and to continue to assess the specific uses on a case-by-case basis. Disclosure in this instance provides flexibility to address new developments in space station design and facilitates the Commission identifying facts to support decisions to grant, condition, or deny an authorization in a manner consistent with the Communications Act.

18
In
ex parte
filings, SIA expresses concern with the Commission's review of deployment devices on a case-by-case basis without identifying any criteria for their permissible use, such as required number of years for disposal.
See
Letter from Tom Stroup, President, Satellite Industry Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket No. 18-313, Attach. at 4 (email to Tom Sullivan, Chief of the International Bureau, FCC) (filed April 15, 2020) (SIA Apr. 15, 2020
Ex Parte
). We would have concerns regarding use of a deployment device if the device constitutes a debris object that exceeds 25 years on orbit in the LEO region, or exceeds the 0.001 collision risk probability that would be assessed if it were an otherwise functional spacecraft, for example, as indicia associated with negatively contributing to the debris environment.
See also
Letter from Bruce A. Olcott, Counsel to the Boeing Company, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket No. 18-313, at 3 (filed April 16, 2020) (Boeing Apr. 16, 2020
Ex Parte
). Boeing argues that deployment devices should be addressed in the Further Notice,
see id.,
but we find that the disclosure-based approach adopted here is appropriate for the limited number of cases and variety of factual scenarios involved.

We also received a number of comments related to the best means in which to evaluate collision risk specifically associated with the deployment of multiple satellites from a deployment device (
e.g.,
re-contact analysis). We expect that recontact analysis will be conducted by operators, and that information will be provided to the Commission, but we do not adopt specific rules in this Order on how to conduct a re-contact analysis in the instance where a deployment device is deploying multiple satellites. Free-flying deployers releasing multiple satellites are still relatively new, and there is not consensus on what constitutes an adequate analysis of re-contact risk, and the extent to which re-contact risk is different from typical collision risk in terms of likelihood of creating debris. Accordingly, we will continue to assess this issue on a case-by-case basis in the context of a particular mission profile. In addition to compiling information regarding collision risk, however, we encourage operators of free-flying deployment devices to adopt practices that will help reduce risks associated with multi-satellite deployments—including formulating a deployment sequence that minimizes re-contact risks and making other operators with satellites nearby aware and updated on the scope of the deployment.
19

19
In this context, re-contact is the potential for two or more satellites or released as part of a multi-satellite deployment to subsequently collide with each other or with any free-flying deployment devices that may be used for the deployment.

Additionally, we do not adopt rules in this Order related to multi-satellite launches more generally,
i.e.
multi-satellite launches not involving separate, free-flying deployment devices. In the Notice, the Commission also sought comment on whether we should include in our rules any additional information requirements for satellite applicants that will be part of a multi-satellite launch. A number of commenters suggested that these issues should be handled by the launch licensing authority and/or that there would be other difficulties involved in requiring additional information regarding launch and deployment from an FCC applicant. We observe that there are a number of established practices for multi-satellite deployment that are associated with low risk of re-contact, or otherwise a low risk of debris creation since any recontact would occur at low velocities. While we decline to adopt any rules related to this topic at this time, we may revisit this issue in the future.

2. Minimizing Debris Generated by Release of Persistent Liquids

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to update the rules to cover the release of liquids that, while not presenting an explosion risk, could nonetheless, if released into space,

cause damage to other satellites due to collisions. Specifically, the Commission proposed to include a requirement to identify any liquids that if released, either intentionally or unintentionally, will persist in droplet form. The Commission observed that there has been increasing interest in use by satellites (including small satellites) of alternative propellants and coolants, some of which would become persistent liquids when released by a deployed satellite. The NPRM also stated our expectation that the orbital debris mitigation plan for any system using persistent liquids should address the measures taken, including design and testing, to eliminate the risk of release of liquids and to minimize risk from any unplanned release of liquids.

Some commenters addressing this issue disagreed with the Commission adopting a rule to address this issue, with most expressing concern that there was not sufficient evidence that release of certain propellants, for example, would result in persistent droplets or create any additional risk in the orbital environment. Along these lines, Aerospace states that it is important to distinguish between releases that could result in droplets or solids that could be a collision threat and those that dissipate or are too small to cause damage on impact. Aerospace points out, for example, that there are a number of beneficial operations including venting or using excess propellant and oxidizer that constitute release of liquids that are less likely to cause impact damage. Aerospace recommends that the Commission's proposed rule be clarified to explicitly permit the venting of volatile liquids and pressurants that could create future risk of fragmenting the spacecraft if not released, but will not form hazardous droplets. We agree that it is important to distinguish between those releases that could result in a long-term risk to the orbital environment and those that are unlikely to create any significant additional risks, such as release of volatile propellants that are soon dispersed through natural processes. Additionally, we have long recognized the importance of operators limiting the risk of accidental explosions, including by venting pressurized systems at a spacecraft's end of life.
20

20

See also
47 CFR 25.114(d)(14)(ii);
2004 Orbital Debris Order,
19 FCC Rcd at 11580-82, paras. 29-33. Boeing asks that we update our rules regarding removal of stored energy at the spacecraft's end-of-life to acknowledge that stored energy sources can be “safed.” Boeing Feb. 14, 2020
Ex Parte
at 7-8. It is unclear exactly what Boeing requests, but to the extent that Boeing is concerned that the existing rule does not adequately address removal of stored energy, we note that our existing rules leaves various options for stored energy to be discharged or removed, including by indicating that “other equivalent procedures” or “other appropriate measures” may be used in addition to the enumerated examples provided in §§ 25.114(d)(14)(ii) and 25.283(c) of the Commission's rules, respectively. 47 CFR 25.114(d)(14)(ii), 25.283(c). We view our provisions on this topic as consistent with the ODMSP. Should an applicant seek to use measures not specifically listed in §§ 25.114(d)(14)(ii) and 25.283(c), we would expect that the applicants would provide documentation regarding the chosen method, consistent with the types of documentation that listed in the NASA Standard regarding eliminating stored energy sources.
See
NASA Standard 4.4.4.2.

We adopt our proposed disclosure requirement, but clarified to require that applicants must specify only the release of those liquids that may in fact persist in the environment and pose a risk.
21

Thus, the applicant will determine whether any liquids have a chemical composition that is conducive to the formation of persistent droplets. If so, then the applicant will disclose that fact to the Commission.
22

The main consideration in making this determination is whether the liquid, if released into space, will disperse through evaporation, or remain in droplet form, as is typical of some ionic liquids, such as NaK droplets. If the applicant determines that released liquids will not persist due to evaporation or chemical breakdown, for example, then the applicant need not address the release of such liquids.
23

We conclude that asking applicants—who have the most information regarding the operational profile of the mission and characteristics of the potentially released substances—to assess the risk will address the commenters' concerns that such a requirement may be overinclusive or premature. We clarify that this rule would apply to any liquids, not just propellants. In addition, we clarify that this rule will apply equally to release of liquids throughout the orbital lifetime. We further conclude that the benefit of identifying potential risks associated with use of certain liquids, if such liquids could become long-term debris objects, outweighs any costs to operators in assessing the chemical composition of any liquids to determine the physical properties of such liquids following release into the orbital environment.

21
According to Boeing, the Commission must ensure that an adequate mechanism is in place to permit the submission of information regarding such liquids on a confidential basis, since satellite manufacturers treat their propellants as highly proprietary. Boeing Comments at 9. Similar to other contexts, we point out that there are means for applicants to submit information confidentially, in instances where they are able to justify confidential treatment under the Commission's rules.
See
47 CFR 0.459.

22
Boeing states that the Commission should provide clear and objective guidance regarding when the use of such liquids would be permitted. Boeing Comments at 9; Boeing Feb. 14, 2020
Ex Parte
at 13. SIA similarly expresses concern with a case-by-case approach for reviewing these matters. SIA Apr. 15, 2020
Ex Parte
Letter, Attach. at 4-5. Here, we believe a disclosure requirement should entail minimal costs for most operators and will provide flexibility to address new developments in space station design. As Boeing points out, there may be tradeoffs associated with use of certain new types of propellants in terms of orbital debris mitigation, and we believe these tradeoffs are best addressed on a case-by-case basis.
See
Boeing Comments at 10. Relevant considerations in cases involving use of persistent liquids may include, for example, design and testing of methods for containment of the liquid and prevention of release in space in droplet form. In a later
ex parte
filing, Boeing asks that we consider these issues in the Further Notice.
See
Boeing Apr. 16, 2020
Ex Parte
at 3. For the reasons specified here, however, we believe that a case-by-case approach is sufficient at this time to address this relatively unique issue.

23
Boeing asks that we state that the use of liquids that would result in persistent droplets if released is presumptively appropriate if reasonable measures are taken to prevent their release. Boeing Comments at 10. If the operator discloses that such liquids would present a risk to the orbital environment if accidentally released, then we would ask operators to describe the measures that are taken to prevent such accidental release. If unintentional release of the liquids would present a significantly greater risk to the orbital environment that would be otherwise posed by an accidental explosion of the spacecraft (not taking into account release of the liquids), for example, then the operator should expect to provide additional information to the Commission regarding measures taken to prevent release as well as potential alternatives.

E. Post-Mission Disposal

Post-mission disposal is an integral part of the mitigation of orbital debris, and the commercial space industry has increasingly recognized the importance of not leaving defunct objects in orbit after their useful life. In 2004, the Commission established specific rules for GSO space station disposal based on U.S. and international guidance, and in the absence of an anomaly, Commission-authorized space station operators have complied with those rules. In this Order, we adopt specific rules for disposal of NGSO space stations, and address reliability of post-mission disposal for NGSO space stations as well. As in 2004, we base these rules on updated sources of guidance, including the revised ODMSP, adapted for the commercial and otherwise non-governmental context.

The orbital lifetime of a particular space station affects the collision risk it presents and reduction in post-mission orbital lifetime reduces collision risk. Spacecraft that are unable to complete post-mission disposal, particularly when left at higher altitudes where they may persist indefinitely, will contribute to increased congestion in the space environment over the long-term and increase risks to future space operations.

1. Post-Mission Orbital Lifetime

In the NPRM, the Commission inquired whether the 25-year benchmark for completion of NGSO post-mission disposal by atmospheric re-entry remains a relevant benchmark, as applied to commercial or other non-Federal systems. The 25-year benchmark has been applied in Commission licensing decisions for NGSO systems. The NASA Standard and ODMSP specify a maximum 25-year post-mission orbital lifetime, with the revised ODMSP stating that for spacecraft disposed of by atmospheric reentry, the spacecraft shall be “left in an orbit in which, using conservative projections for solar activity, atmospheric drag will limit the lifetime to as short as practicable but no more than 25 years.” Most commenters supported a reduction in the 25-year benchmark as applicable to non-Federal systems, but disagreed on the length of time, and on whether a single benchmark was appropriate for all missions.

As a practical matter, space stations that conduct collision avoidance maneuvers would achieve the main goal of limitations on orbital lifetime—avoiding collisions with large objects. Even with no maneuver capability, spacecraft deployed to and operating below 400 km generally re-enter Earth's atmosphere as a result of atmospheric drag within, at most, several years. For such satellites, when functioning normally, specification of a maximum post-mission orbital lifetime may be unnecessary. We examine in the Further Notice a maneuverability requirement for satellites operating above 400 km. Given the practical reality that satellites with maneuvering capabilities are likely to meet the objectives of limitations on post-mission orbital lifetime, the need to incorporate a separate provision into our rules regarding post-mission orbital lifetime will depend on whether we adopt a maneuverability requirement, and therefore will be addressed in the Further Notice.

At this time, we will require that applicants planning disposal by atmospheric re-entry specify the planned time period for post-mission disposal as part of the description of disposal plans for the space station. We maintain the Commission's existing rule requiring a statement detailing post-mission disposal plans for the space station at end of life. The Commission also sought comment on whether we should account for solar activity in our rules or grant conditions. We note that the NASA Debris Assessment Software takes into consideration solar flux that may affect atmospheric drag, among other environmental factors. To the extent that the operator plans to rely on atmospheric drag for re-entry, reliance on NASA Debris Assessment Software or a higher fidelity assessment tool will meet the requirement on specifying the time period for post-mission disposal.

The Commission also sought comment on whether operators planning disposal through atmospheric re-entry should be required to continue obtaining spacecraft tracking information, for example by using radio facilities on the spacecraft to the greatest extent possible following the conclusion of the primary mission. Boeing argues that satellite operators should not be required to maintain communication links and active tracking with the satellite following the end of the missions unless they had initially indicated in the application that active tracking, rather than passive tracking, would be used to monitor the location of the spacecraft. Boeing also states that satellite operators should be required to continue to obtain spacecraft tracking information for retired satellites only if the satellite operator's original calculations regarding acceptable collision risk as the satellite's orbit decays depend upon the operator's ability to conduct collision avoidance. Iridium, on the other hand, suggests that satellites should be controlled all the way through atmospheric re-entry. We do not adopt a specific regulation specifying the extent to which an operator should be required to maintain communications links or otherwise obtain spacecraft tracking information following the conclusion of the satellite's main mission at this time, since absent any particular requirements to maintain maneuvering capabilities, for example, operators are likely to have a wide range of capabilities in this area such that it would not be reasonable to adopt a “one-size-fits all” rule absent other requirements such as requiring active tracking capabilities, which we decline to adopt above. We do, however, encourage all operators to maintain communications links for tracking, control, and collision avoidance purposes for as long as possible following the conclusion of the spacecraft's primary operations, even below 400 km, and to continue to provide location information to the 18th Space Control Squadron and other operators for as long as possible, in accordance with the

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-13185. Public record. Not legal advice.