**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | IB Docket No. 02-54          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Mitigation of Orbital Debris     | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**SECOND REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: June 9, 2004 Released: June 21, 2004**

By the Commission:

**Table of Contents**

**[Para. No.]{.underline}**

I.
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................
1

II\.
BACKGROUND....................................................................................\...
2

A. Nature of Orbital
Debris...............................................................\...\....
2

B. Prior Commission Actions Regarding Orbital
Debris................................... 7

III\. DISCUSSION

A. FCC Statutory Authority Regarding Orbital
Debris.................................... 12

B. Disclosure of Orbital Debris Mitigation
Plans........................................... 15

C. Specific Elements of Orbital Debris
Mitigation......................................... 22

1\. Spacecraft Hardware Design: Control of Debris Released During Normal
Operations; Selection of a Safe Operational Configuration; Collisions
with Small
Debris..................................................................
23

2\. Minimizing Debris Generated by Accidental
Explosions..................\... 29

3\. Safe Flight Profiles: Collisions with Large
Objects........................... 34

a\. Application Information Requirements................................
35

b\. Pre-Operational
Phase................................................... 38

c\. On-Orbit
Operations...................................................\... 41

d\. Coordination of
Maneuvers............................................. 52

4\. Post-Mission
Disposal............................................................. 58

a\. GEO Space
Stations...................................................... 64

\(i\) Grandfathering................................................\...
77

b\. NGSO Space
Stations.................................................... 83

c\. Fuel
Matters...............................................................
89

D. Scope of
Rules................................................................................
92

1\. Non-U.S.-Licensed Space
Stations............................................... 92

2\. Amateur and Experimental
Licensees........................................... 98

3\. NOAA-Licensed Space
Stations................................................. 102

4\. Launch
Vehicles....................................................................
105

E. Liability Issues and
Insurance............................................................\...
109

F. Other
Matters..............................................................................\....
114

IV\.
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................
117

V. PROCEDURAL
MATTERS.........................................................................
118

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis................................................ 118

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Analysis....................................\... 119

VI\. ORDERING
CLAUSES..............................................................................
121

Appendix A -- Parties Filing Pleadings

Appendix B -- Rule Revisions

Appendix C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# introduction

1.  In this Second Report and Order, we amend Parts 5, 25, and 97 of the
    Commission's rules by adopting new rules concerning mitigation of
    orbital debris.[^1] Adoption of these rules will help preserve the
    United States' continued affordable access to space, the continued
    provision of reliable U.S. space-based services -- including
    communications and remote sensing satellite services for U.S.
    commercial, government, and homeland security purposes -- as well as
    the continued safety of persons and property in space and on the
    surface of the Earth. Under the rules as amended today, a satellite
    system operator requesting FCC space station authorization, or an
    entity requesting a Commission ruling for access to a
    non-U.S.-licensed space station under our satellite market access
    procedures, must submit an orbital debris mitigation plan to the
    Commission regarding spacecraft design and operation in connection
    with its request. This Second Report and Order provides guidance for
    the preparation of such plans. We also adopt requirements concerning
    the post-mission disposal of Commission-licensed space stations[^2]
    operating in or near the two most heavily used orbital regimes,
    low-Earth orbit (LEO),[^3] and geostationary-Earth orbit (GEO).[^4]
    Adoption of these rules will further the domestic policy objective
    of the United States to minimize the creation of orbital debris and
    is consistent with international policies and initiatives to achieve
    this goal.[^5]

# BACKGROUND

## Nature of Orbital Debris

2.  As explained in detail in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this
    proceeding (*Orbital Debris Notice* or *Notice*),[^6] orbital debris
    consists of artificial objects orbiting the Earth that are not
    functional spacecraft. It consists of a wide range of
    non-functioning man-made objects that have been placed into the
    Earth's orbit, both accidentally and on purpose. Orbital debris
    ranges in size from small objects, such as paint flakes, solid
    rocket motor slag, and break-up debris, to larger objects, such as
    discarded lens caps or ejected bolts.[^7] The largest items, in
    terms of mass, include spacecraft, rocket bodies, and the largest
    pieces of debris from exploded spacecraft and rocket bodies.[^8] The
    U.S. Department of Defense's Space Surveillance Network (SSN) has
    catalogued approximately 9,000 individual orbital debris objects
    currently in orbit and routinely tracks over 11,000 objects in orbit
    sized 10 centimeters or greater.[^9] Furthermore, it is estimated
    that there are currently in orbit more than one hundred thousand
    objects between 1.0 and 10 centimeters and several million objects
    between 0.1 and 1 centimeters.[^10]

3.  The majority of space operations take place in a limited number of
    orbital regimes. The first of these regimes is low-Earth orbit. LEO
    is used by a number of Earth observation satellites, as well as by
    global mobile-satellite telephony services such as Iridium and
    Globalstar. LEO is also used for manned spaceflight, such as the
    Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. The second regime
    is geostationary-Earth orbit. GEO is used for the majority of
    satellite video, voice, and data services, as well as for
    direct-to-home and direct broadcast satellite services. Because of
    its ability to allow a spacecraft to appear "fixed" relative to the
    Earth, GEO is a unique and limited natural resource. In addition to
    LEO and GEO, there are other orbital regimes. Medium-Earth orbit
    (MEO) utilizes altitudes between LEO and GEO, typically around
    20,200 kilometers, to provide a range of communications and
    navigational services.[^11] Space operations may also utilize highly
    elliptical orbits (HEO). HEO spacecraft typically have perigees
    (*i.e.*, the point of orbit closest to the Earth) at LEO or MEO
    altitudes and have apogees (*i.e.*, the point farthest from the
    Earth) ranging from altitudes in the vicinity of MEO, to altitudes
    above the GEO altitude.[^12]

4.  As experts have recognized for many years, orbital debris poses a
    potential risk to the continued reliable use of these orbital
    regimes for space-based services and operations, as well as to the
    continued safety of persons and property in space and on the surface
    of the Earth. The effects of collisions involving orbital debris can
    be severe. Objects in orbit move at a very high velocity.[^13]
    Because of the high relative velocities involved, collisions
    involving even very small debris objects are capable of producing
    significant impact damage.[^14] Even debris as small as one
    millimeter in diameter can cause significant structural damage to a
    functional spacecraft; for objects larger than one centimeter in
    diameter, the damage caused to functional spacecraft can be
    catastrophic.[^15] Furthermore, such collisions can produce a large
    amount of additional debris, which can be dispersed over a wide
    orbital area.[^16]

5.  In addition, the orbital lifetime of debris can be extremely long.
    Once debris is created, it remains in orbit indefinitely, absent
    other forces.[^17] Although atmospheric drag[^18] will result in
    debris being removed from orbit at low altitudes, the effect of
    atmospheric drag decreases dramatically as the orbital altitude of
    an object increases. For example, while atmospheric drag will cause
    an object with a perigee altitude of 250 kilometers to re-enter the
    Earth atmosphere within approximately two months, the same object
    will remain in orbit typically in excess of 500 years at orbits with
    perigees above 850 kilometers.[^19] At GEO, where the effects of
    atmospheric drag are virtually non-existent, objects can remain in
    orbit in excess of a million years.[^20] Although the natural
    "cleansing" of atmospheric drag results in the removal of some
    low-altitude debris, the overall trend is one of an increasing
    orbital debris population that will increase the potential for
    future collisions.[^21]

6.  Objects in orbit that re-enter the Earth's atmosphere are slowed by
    drag as they enter the atmosphere. As a result of drag, many objects
    break up and/or burn up. Objects that are particularly resistant to
    heat and the forces experienced during re-entry may survive re-entry
    and reach the surface of the Earth. Although the velocity of these
    objects, compared to objects in orbit, is very low, the kinetic
    energy of such objects is sufficient to cause damage or injury at
    the surface of the Earth. To date, however, there has never been a
    confirmed incident of injury to a human being as a result of orbital
    debris re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.

## Prior Commission Actions Concerning Orbital Debris

7.  The Commission has historically addressed issues regarding orbital
    debris and satellite systems on a case-by-case and
    service-by-service basis. In recent years, the Commission has
    adopted orbital debris mitigation disclosure obligations as part of
    the service rules for certain classes of satellite systems. For
    example, in 2000 the Commission adopted orbital debris mitigation
    rules for licensees in the 2 GHz mobile-satellite service
    (MSS),[^22] and in 2002 and 2003 the Commission adopted such rules
    for the Ku- and Ka-band non-geostationary orbit (NGSO)
    fixed-satellite service (FSS).[^23] Under these rules, applicants
    must disclose, as part of their license applications, "the design
    and operational strategies that they will use, if any, to mitigate
    orbital debris."[^24] Applicants in these services are also required
    to submit a "casualty risk assessment" that evaluates the
    probability of risk of human injury on the Earth from orbital debris
    if the operator plans to dispose of its spacecraft at end of life
    through one of the available disposal methods, atmospheric
    re-entry.[^25] In each of these instances, the Commission stressed
    that it would continue to evaluate an applicant's orbital debris
    disclosure on a case-by-case basis, but stated that it would
    initiate a separate rulemaking proceeding to consider the adoption
    of orbital debris disclosure requirements for all FCC-licensed
    satellite services, as well as other measures to mitigate orbital
    debris.[^26]

8.  The Commission initiated this rulemaking proceeding in March,
    2002.[^27] The *Orbital Debris Notice* sought comment on a wide
    range of proposals concerning ways to mitigate orbital debris
    arising from Commission-authorized space activities. Principally,
    the *Notice* proposed to adopt debris mitigation disclosure
    requirements for all types of satellite systems licensed by the
    Commission.[^28] The *Notice* also sought comment on the content of
    such debris mitigation disclosures, and whether there are debris
    mitigation practices that are sufficiently developed to warrant
    adopting these practices as Commission rules.[^29] In addition, the
    *Notice* sought comment regarding the Commission's statutory
    authority to adopt debris mitigation rules, the proper scope of such
    rules, and liability and insurance matters arising from orbital
    debris issues.

9.  Since the release of the *Orbital Debris Notice*, the FCC has
    addressed orbital debris issues in a number of proceedings. Most
    significantly, the Commission adopted disclosure requirements
    concerning orbital debris mitigation measures as part of its efforts
    to streamline the Commission's space station licensing
    procedures.[^30] Specifically, the Commission adopted a *First
    Report and Order* in this docket, in which it established default
    rules for all satellite systems that required certain classes of
    applicants to submit, as part of their license application, a
    narrative statement describing the design and operational strategies
    that they will use to mitigate orbital debris, as well as a casualty
    risk assessment if planned post-mission disposal involves
    atmospheric re-entry of the spacecraft.[^31] In addition, the
    International Bureau has addressed orbital debris mitigation issues
    in a number of other proceedings.[^32] In the absence of
    comprehensive orbital debris mitigation rules, each of these
    instances was addressed on a case-by-case basis.

10. With regards to the adoption of specific debris mitigation
    practices, the *Notice* based its proposals on the debris mitigation
    practices embodied in the U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation
    Standard Practices (U.S. Government Standard Practices).[^33] These
    practices were adopted by the U.S. Government in 2000 and apply to
    missions operated or procured by U.S. government agencies.[^34] The
    U.S. Government Standard Practices seek to control the creation of
    orbital debris by means of four practices: (1) control of debris
    during normal operations; (2) minimizing debris generated by
    accidental explosions; (3) selection of a safe flight profile and
    operational configuration; and (4) post-mission disposal of space
    structures. The *Orbital Debris Notice* examined the specifics of
    these practices and sought comment on whether each of these
    practices should be incorporated as a requirement for space station
    operators seeking Commission authorization for their space
    activities.[^35]

11. The *Orbital Debris Notice* also observed that orbital debris
    mitigation measures have been addressed internationally. For
    example, in 1993 the Radiocommunication Assembly of the
    International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R)[^36] adopted a debris
    mitigation recommendation concerning the region of space in the
    vicinity of GEO.[^37] The ITU-R recommended, among other things,
    that as little debris as possible be released into the geostationary
    Earth orbit, and that a GEO satellite at the end of its life be
    transferred, before the complete exhaustion of its propellant, to a
    storage orbit at least 300 kilometers above GEO altitude.
    Furthermore, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC) of the
    United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
    (UNCOPUOS)[^38] adopted a comprehensive report on orbital debris in
    1999.[^39] The STSC established a multi-year work plan, to be
    completed in 2005, to consider orbital debris and called for the
    Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC)[^40] to
    submit consensus debris mitigation guidelines that could be
    implemented by countries on a voluntary basis.[^41] The IADC
    presented its consensus guidelines to the STSC in February 2003. The
    IADC guidelines recognize LEO and GEO as unique orbital regions that
    must be protected from generation of orbital debris in order to
    ensure their future safe and sustainable use. The IADC guidelines
    propose specific practices to protect these regions and to mitigate
    orbital debris in general. The STSC is reviewing the guidelines and
    discussing means of endorsing their utilization.[^42] Subsequent to
    the release of the *Orbital Debris Notice*, the ITU revised its 1993
    recommendation and adopted a formula for the post-mission disposal
    of GEO satellites that follows the proposal of the IADC
    guidelines.[^43] In addition, individual nations, such as Japan,
    Russia, the Ukraine, France, Germany and India, have developed, or
    are in the process of developing, debris mitigation standards and
    practices at the national level.[^44]

# discussion

## FCC Statutory Authority Regarding Orbital Debris

12. *Background*. In the *Notice*, comment was sought on the basis of
    the Commission's statutory authority to adopt rules regarding
    orbital debris.[^45] The *Notice* observed that the Commission has
    addressed orbital debris issues in several cases,[^46] but has not,
    to date, formally addressed the scope and nature of its authority
    concerning orbital debris. The *Notice* analyzed the statutory
    responsibilities and obligations of the Commission under the
    Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act or Act)[^47] and how
    these responsibilities were related to the consideration of orbital
    debris. The *Notice* sought comment on this analysis.

13. *Discussion.* We conclude that adoption of the debris mitigation
    measures in this Second Report and Order is consistent with our
    authority and public interest obligations under the Communications
    Act. Only one commenter questions the Commission's authority to
    adopt debris mitigation rules.[^48] That commenter does not provide
    any legal analysis to support its position and does not address any
    of the analysis provided in the *Notice*. To the contrary, we find
    that orbital debris mitigation issues are a valid public interest
    consideration in the Commission's licensing process.

14. As discussed in the *Orbital Debris Notice*,[^49] the Communications
    Act provides the Commission with broad authority with respect to
    radio communications involving the United States, except for
    communications involving U.S. Government radio stations.[^50] The
    Act charges the FCC with encouraging "the larger and more effective
    use of radio in the public interest,"[^51] and provides for
    licensing of radio communications,[^52] upon a finding that the
    "public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served
    thereby."[^53] Satellite communications are an important component
    of the national and world-wide radio communications
    infrastructure.[^54] Because orbital debris could affect the cost,
    reliability, continuity, and safety of satellite operations, orbital
    debris issues have a bearing upon the "larger and more effective use
    of radio in the public interest." In addition, orbital debris can
    negatively affect the availability, integrity, and capability of new
    satellite systems and valuable services to the public. Thus, orbital
    debris and related mitigation issues are relevant in determining
    whether the public interest would be served by authorization of any
    particular satellite system, or by any particular practice or
    operating procedure of satellite systems.[^55] Furthermore, debris
    prospectively generated from satellites licensed by, or authorized
    by, the FCC could affect the public interest in protecting the
    safety of manned space flight, as well as the safety of persons and
    property on the surface of the Earth. Because robotic spacecraft are
    typically controlled through radiocommunications links, there is a
    direct connection between the radiocommunications functions we are
    charged with licensing under the Communications Act and the physical
    operations of spacecraft. Accordingly, we conclude that the actions
    taken in this Second Report and Order are within the scope of our
    authority under the Communications Act.[^56]

## Disclosure of Orbital Debris Mitigation Plans

15. *Background.* In the *Orbital Debris Notice*, the Commission
    proposed to require, as part of the licensing process, disclosure of
    orbital debris mitigation plans for all types of satellite systems
    licensed by the FCC.[^57] Specifically, the *Notice* proposed to
    adopt an orbital debris mitigation disclosure as part of the
    technical information that must be supplied pursuant to Section
    25.114 of the Commission's rules.[^58] The *Notice* also sought
    comment on whether we should establish more detailed methodologies
    for the preparation and evaluation of the debris mitigation plans
    submitted in the FCC authorization process.[^59]

16. *Discussion.* We adopt the proposal of the *Notice* and amend our
    rules to require disclosure of orbital debris mitigation plans as
    part of the technical information submitted pursuant to Section
    25.114 of the Commission's rules.[^60] Disclosure of debris
    mitigation plans will allow the Commission and potentially affected
    third parties to evaluate debris mitigation plans prior to issuance
    of an FCC approval for communications activities in space.
    Disclosure may also aid in the wider dissemination of information
    concerning debris mitigation techniques and may provide a base-line
    of information that will aid in analyzing and refining those
    techniques. Without such disclosure, the Commission would be denied
    any opportunity to ascertain whether operators are in fact
    considering and adopting reasonable debris mitigation practices.

17. Although we expect that operators in many instances have in the
    past, and will in the future, practice debris mitigation out of
    economic self-interest,[^61] especially when such practices increase
    the reliability of revenue-producing operations, these economic
    incentives alone may not be sufficient where debris mitigation
    measures either do not affect the revenue-producing operations or,
    in fact, limit such operations. We also note that economic
    incentives alone may not sufficiently motivate operators to address
    effects that, although resulting from their current operations, may
    manifest themselves decades or centuries later. By that time, the
    satellite's operator may be out of business or may have no economic
    incentive to preserve the utility of the orbital regime. Disclosure
    of an applicant's debris mitigation plans as part of the technical
    information required by Section 25.114 will allow the Commission to
    examine whether a space station operator has taken orbital debris
    mitigation into consideration, even when economic incentives may be
    absent. In addition, for the reasons explained throughout this
    Second Report and Order, mitigation of orbital debris is important
    for several public interest reasons, including U.S. homeland
    security and continued reliability of satellite radio
    communications.

18. A disclosure requirement should entail minimal costs for entities
    requesting FCC authorization. To the extent that satellite operators
    already take measures to consider debris mitigation, as comments by
    satellite operators indicate, the additional cost of disclosing
    these measures should not be significant. This conclusion is
    expressly supported by comments, which state that a disclosure
    requirement would not be onerous and could be met by operators.[^62]
    In addition, the costs of disclosure are not unduly burdensome when
    balanced against the public interest benefits of preserving safe and
    affordable access to space.

19. We also believe that disclosure of debris mitigation plans is
    useful, even though in some []{.mark}instances work is ongoing to
    develop or refine desired mitigation strategies.[^63] In this
    regard, we note that we are amending our rules as part of this
    proceeding in order to provide more concrete requirements for
    orbital debris mitigation in certain cases, such as in the disposal
    of space stations at the end of life.[^64] Where more concrete
    requirements are established, such as for the end-of-life disposal
    of GEO space stations, they will provide a basis for reviewing the
    sufficiency of an applicant's debris mitigation disclosure. We will
    continue to analyze other issues on a case-by-case basis under the
    public interest standard of the Communications Act. Disclosure is
    still useful in those situations in order to verify that operators,
    in fact, are considering debris mitigation issues and bringing the
    latest in debris mitigation techniques to bear on satellite design
    and operations. Disclosure will also provide flexibility to address
    new developments in space station design and allows the Commission
    to retain its discretion to grant, condition, or deny an
    authorization in a manner consistent with the Communications Act.

20. Accordingly, we amend our rules to require a disclosure of debris
    mitigation plans as part of the technical information required
    pursuant to Section 25.114 of the Commission's rules. We will also
    make conforming editorial changes to specific service rules
    governing the 2 GHz MSS service,[^65] the Ku-band NGSO service,[^66]
    the Ka-band NGSO service,[^67] and our default service rules for
    space stations under our streamlined space station licensing
    procedures.[^68] Since systems seeking FCC approvals in these
    services must submit the information specified in Section 25.114 of
    our rules, there is no longer a need to include a separate
    disclosure requirement for these services in the individual rule
    sections that establish service-by-service requirements. Parties
    that have requests for approval of space stations pending before the
    Commission shall have 30 days following publication of this Second
    Report and Order in the Federal Register in which to amend their
    requests by filing a disclosure of debris mitigation plans in a
    manner consistent with this Second Report and Order.

21. We decline to adopt a particular methodology for the preparation and
    evaluation of an applicant's orbital debris mitigation plans, except
    as specifically indicated in this Second Report and Order for
    individual debris mitigation practices, such as in the case of
    post-mission disposal of certain Commission-licensed space stations.
    Commenters did not propose the use of any specific methodology. As
    we observed in the *Orbital Debris Notice*,[^69] NASA has adopted a
    safety standard that provides a handbook for debris mitigation
    analysis and activities, which is available to the public.[^70]
    Unless otherwise noted in this Second Report and Order,[^71]
    applicants are encouraged, but not required, to use the NASA safety
    standard when assessing their debris mitigation plans and preparing
    these plans for submission to the Commission. Although we do not
    adopt a particular methodology for preparing debris mitigation
    plans, an applicant's debris mitigation plans -- like all other
    elements of applications for space station authorization -- must
    constitute a concrete proposal for Commission evaluation.[^72] The
    plan must identify particular methods by which a proposed satellite
    system will mitigate orbital debris, rather than presenting a
    generalized commitment to address debris mitigation at a future date
    or a catalogue of potential options. If an applicant's debris
    mitigation plans change after authorization, the changes must be
    submitted to the Commission by means of a request to modify the
    space station authorization.[^73]

## Specific Elements of Orbital Debris Mitigation

22. In addition to extending the debris mitigation disclosure
    requirement to all satellite systems authorized by the Commission,
    the *Orbital Debris Notice* identified specific elements of orbital
    debris mitigation and sought comment on issues arising under each
    element. It also sought comment on whether any measures identified
    in the U.S. Government Standard Practices are sufficiently mature to
    warrant adoption of rules requiring their use.[^74] We address each
    of the specific elements of orbital debris mitigation below.

### Spacecraft Hardware Design: Control of Debris Released During Normal Operations; Selection of a Safe Operational Configuration; Collisions with Small Debris

23. *Background.* In the *Orbital Debris Notice,* the Commission
    observed that the U.S. Government Standard Practices include two
    provisions that speak directly to the hardware design of spacecraft.
    First, the U.S. Government Standard Practices require that programs
    assess and limit the amount of orbital debris released in a planned
    manner during normal operations.[^75] Concerning this element of
    debris mitigation, the *Notice* observed that communications
    payloads approved by the FCC do not typically involve the planned
    release of any operational debris during normal operations.[^76] As
    a result, the *Notice* proposed that parties submitting an orbital
    debris mitigation showing simply confirm that there will not be any
    planned release of operational debris during normal operations of
    the space station.[^77] Second, the U.S. Government Standard
    Practices require that programs select a safe operational
    configuration. In order to address this element of debris
    mitigation, a program must assess and limit the probability that an
    operating space station will become a source of orbital debris
    through collisions with debris smaller than one centimeter in
    diameter that will cause loss of control and prevent post-mission
    disposal. This element of debris mitigation practices implicates
    hardware design insofar as it involves shielding of spacecraft
    components, placement of components, and the use of redundant
    systems. The *Notice* suggested that to address this element of
    debris mitigation, applicants could simply confirm that they have
    assessed the possibility of such collisions and have taken steps to
    limit their effects.[^78]

24. *Discussion.* We adopt the proposals of the *Orbital Debris Notice*
    regarding disclosure of debris released during normal operations and
    efforts made to limit the probability that an operating space
    station will become a source of orbital debris through collisions
    with small debris that cause loss of control and prevent
    post-mission disposal. First, the record supports the observation
    that communications space stations do not typically involve the
    planned release of orbital debris. Comments confirm that very
    little, if any, orbital debris is produced by communication
    satellites as part of normal operations.[^79] SIA states that upon
    the successful separation of the spacecraft from the launch vehicle
    and deployment, the spacecraft stays in one piece throughout its
    useful life and disposal process, absent a catastrophic event such
    as a collision with a man-made object or meteor.[^80] We conclude
    that a statement confirming that no debris will be released by the
    space station during normal operations will be sufficient to meet
    disclosure obligations. In any instances where release of
    operational debris is planned, we will examine such plans on a
    case-by-case basis and retain the discretion to seek additional
    information or to take action, through conditioning or denying
    approval, in the event that we find that such release will not serve
    the public interest.

25. We also conclude that confirmation as part of a debris mitigation
    disclosure that the satellite system operator has considered
    possible collisions with small debris and taken steps to limit the
    effects of such collisions, such as through shielding, the placement
    of components, and the use of redundant systems, will generally be
    considered sufficient, in the absence of specific facts suggesting
    the contrary, to satisfy disclosure obligations. We do not
    anticipate that this disclosure requirement will prove burdensome
    for the majority of systems, since satellite operators assert that
    they already assess the probability of such collisions in orbit and
    take steps to limit the effects of such collisions.[^81] For
    example, Telesat confirms that it requires system redundancy as part
    of its satellite procurement process and that it requires that
    single point failures within a satellite to be minimized or
    eliminated, so that the adverse impact of such failures can be
    minimized to the maximum extent possible.[^82]

26. We are not persuaded by comments that argue either for more detailed
    Commission regulation regarding the operational configuration of
    space stations or for no Commission regulation whatsoever. UM Space
    Law Center argues that space station operators may have an economic
    incentive to omit hardening or shielding of a satellite structure
    due to the additional cost of such efforts and because the resulting
    "weight penalty" could reduce the amount of on-board
    revenue-generating payload.[^83] Accordingly, UM Space Law Center
    urges us to adopt guidelines for space station design and to require
    operators to submit a cost-benefit analysis that weighs the benefits
    of various forms of debris mitigation that can be incorporated in a
    satellite design versus the costs related to each of those
    forms.[^84] By contrast, SIA claims that it is not useful to have
    any confirmation that an operator has assessed the probability a
    spacecraft would become a source of orbital debris through
    collisions, since the Commission does not propose to set standards
    for the evaluation of such assessments and because the Commission
    has traditionally left space station design issues to the
    operator.[^85]

27. We agree with commenters that it is unlikely that a satellite
    operator would trim satellite construction costs by electing to omit
    hardening or shielding of a spacecraft, when such an action would
    expose the operator to significant risk of loss of the entire
    revenue-producing payload of that satellite.[^86] Given the economic
    self-interest of satellite operators in protecting revenue-producing
    operations from damage through in-orbit collisions, and given our
    understanding that the systems used in a typical communications
    satellite for mission operations are the same as those used for
    end-of-life disposal, we believe more detailed disclosure
    requirements are unlikely to yield any significant benefit to the
    regulatory process. However, if the spacecraft design involves use
    of a sub-system or set of sub-systems, distinct from systems used in
    connection with the primary communications mission, in order to
    accomplish end-of-life disposal, an applicant's disclosure should
    address in greater detail the measures taken specifically to analyze
    the susceptibility of that sub-system to collisions with small
    debris.

28. We disagree, however, that requiring confirmation that a space
    station operator has assessed and limited the probability that its
    spacecraft would be unable to perform end-of-life maneuvers as a
    result of collisions with small debris serves no useful purpose
    unless the Commission adopts set standards for the review of such
    assessments. Although we anticipate that the majority of satellite
    operators have an economic incentive to design their spacecraft as
    robustly as possible in order to protect revenue-producing
    operations, this may not always be true. For example, the record
    indicates that satellite system designs are emerging that involve
    large constellations of ultra-small satellites in which the
    redundancy permitted by a large number of satellites permits the
    reliability of any individual satellite in the constellation to be
    low without impacting the reliability of the constellation as a
    whole.[^87] By requiring confirmation that a space station operator
    has taken measures to ensure a safe operational configuration of its
    satellite system through hardware design, we preserve the ability to
    take action, through conditioning an authorization or denying an
    application in those instances where economic incentives may not be
    sufficient by themselves to ensure that the applicant has adequately
    taken debris mitigation into account during the design of its
    spacecraft. Although our preference is to leave spacecraft design
    decisions to space station operators, this preference does not
    foreclose the Commission from considering design issues insofar as
    they may impact the public interest.

### Minimizing Debris Generated by Accidental Explosions

29. *Background.* The prevention of accidental explosions during and
    after completion of mission operations constitutes perhaps the
    single most important debris mitigation measure in preventing
    potential damage to space assets.[^88] Explosions in space can
    produce a large number of debris fragments dispersed over a much
    wider range of orbits than the orbit of the exploded object.[^89]
    Indeed, it is estimated that fragmentation debris accounts for more
    than 40 percent of the catalogued orbital debris population, and
    that the vast majority of this fragmentation debris has been created
    by the explosive breakups of spacecraft and rocket bodies.[^90]

30. For these reasons, the *Orbital Debris Notice* proposed to require
    confirmation in orbital debris mitigation disclosures that space
    station operators have assessed and limited the probability of
    accidental explosions during and after completion of mission
    operations. The *Notice* proposed specifically that applicants
    demonstrate that "debris generation will not result from the
    conversion of energy sources on board the spacecraft into energy
    that fragments the spacecraft," and that such a demonstration should
    specifically address measures taken at the spacecraft's end of
    life.[^91] These requirements are similar to a rule adopted by the
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for launch vehicle upper
    stages.[^92] The *Notice* tentatively concluded that satellite
    operators' self-interest in ensuring spacecraft reliability provides
    incentive to design a spacecraft that does not experience accidental
    explosions during its useful life, but questioned whether operators
    have similar incentive at or near the end of a spacecraft's life,
    since an operator may have the economic incentive to continue
    income-producing activities even as a spacecraft's systems
    degrade.[^93]

31. *Discussion.* We adopt the proposal of the *Orbital Debris Notice*
    to require confirmation in orbital debris mitigation disclosures
    that space station operators have assessed and limited the
    probability of accidental explosions during and after completion of
    mission operations. Because of the particular danger that accidental
    explosions pose to safe and reliable operations, we conclude that
    requiring confirmation that space station operators have assessed
    and limited the risk of accidental explosions serves the public
    interest.

32. Such a disclosure requirement should be sufficient in most cases to
    serve the public interest. Comments support the tentative conclusion
    of the *Notice* that satellite operators' self-interest provides
    adequate incentive for the majority of operators to design
    spacecraft that do not experience accidental explosions during
    useful life.[^94] Although we agree that many satellite operators
    address the risk of accidental explosions throughout the life span
    of the satellite, it does not follow, as some commenters
    suggest,[^95] that disclosure of such assessment to the Commission
    is not useful. Given the significance of this issue for growth of
    the debris population, we think the limited disclosure we are
    seeking is justified. In addition, there may be situations where
    economic incentives, by themselves, are insufficient to ensure that
    the risk of accidental explosions is adequately addressed. For
    example, it may be the case that non-commercial operators do not
    have the same economic incentives to ensure reliability as
    commercial operators, since the financing of their activities may
    have little to do with the ability of the spacecraft to continue
    revenue-producing activity. Thus, given the serious consequences of
    accidental explosions of spacecraft in orbit, we believe that the
    public interest would be served by ensuring space station applicants
    have assessed and limited the probability of such explosions.

33. Such disclosure should not be burdensome. Comments indicate that
    satellite operators already consider the possibility of accidental
    explosions and should not experience difficulty in confirming that
    they have assessed and limited the probability of accidental
    explosions as part of their orbital debris mitigation
    disclosure.[^96] Indeed, one operator expressly states that it would
    not be onerous to require operators to confirm expressly in their
    debris mitigation disclosures that they have assessed and limited
    the risk of accidental explosions.[^97] Accordingly, we amend our
    rules as proposed in the *Notice* to require a statement, as part of
    the debris mitigation disclosure, that a space station operator has
    assessed and limited the probability of accidental explosions during
    and after mission operations.[^98] In the event that a showing
    suggests that further review may be warranted, we retain the
    discretion to seek additional information from the applicant and
    preserve the ability to take action, through conditioning an
    authorization or denying an application in those instances where
    economic incentives may not be sufficient by themselves to ensure
    that the applicant has adequately assessed and limited the risk of
    accidental explosions.

### Safe Flight Profiles: Collisions With Large Objects

34. The U.S. Government Standard Practices provide that programs and
    projects will select safe flight profiles by assessing and limiting
    the probability of operating space systems becoming the source of
    debris by collisions with man-made objects or meteoroids.[^99] More
    specifically, the guidelines provide that, when developing the
    design and mission profile for a spacecraft, a program will estimate
    and limit the probability of collision with known large objects
    during orbital lifetime. The *Notice* observed that while current
    Commission rules and international regulations have several
    provisions that impact the selection of the flight profile for a
    satellite, those rules and regulations were developed primarily to
    address radiofrequency interference concerns. Thus, for example such
    rules may not by themselves adequately address situations where
    functioning satellites operate in different frequency bands, but are
    located in similar orbits, such as the same GEO satellite orbit
    location. The *Notice* observed, however, that an applicant's
    disclosure in the licensing process of, for example, the parameters
    of the orbits its system would use, may assist third parties in
    identifying potential problems that may be caused by the proposed
    operations. It noted that in the most heavily used orbits, or in
    orbits with particularly sensitive operations, such as orbits used
    for manned space flight, additional measures may be warranted to
    avoid collision, such as coordination among the operators, or
    assignment of orbital locations designed to ensure adequate physical
    separation between operational satellites.[^100] It also inquired
    whether any changes were needed to our existing rules and practices
    in light of these considerations. We discuss below our existing
    rules and changes proposed by commenters as they relate to four
    phases of space station authorization and operations: the
    application filing; pre-operational phase; on-orbit operations; and
    coordination of maneuvers.

#### Application Information Requirements

35. *Background*. Applicants seeking a space station authorization must
    submit technical information regarding the proposed space station as
    set forth in Section 25.114 of the Commission's rules.[^101] This
    information includes the physical characteristics of the space
    station,[^102] the satellite's orbital location and the factors that
    went into selection of that location,[^103] the accuracy with which
    a GEO satellite's orbital inclination and longitudinal drift will be
    maintained,[^104] and, for non-GEO satellite systems, the number of
    space stations in the system, the inclination of the orbital
    plane(s), orbital period, apogee, perigee, the argument(s) of
    perigee, active service arc(s), and right ascension of the ascending
    node(s).[^105] The *Notice* inquired whether the information
    required to be submitted under Section 25.114 provides an adequate
    basis for potentially affected parties to evaluate proposed systems
    with respect to collision avoidance and safe flight profiles.[^106]
    Furthermore, it sought comment on whether Section 25.114 should be
    amended to require non-geostationary satellites systems to disclose
    the accuracy with which they will maintain orbital parameters such
    as apogee, perigee, period, and inclination.[^107]

36. *Discussion.* We conclude that the information requirements of
    Section 25.114, as amended today, are sufficient with respect to
    collision avoidance and safe flight profiles and to identify any
    potential issues with a proposed system that might require further
    evaluation or action. Comments broadly support this
    conclusion.[^108] We conclude that other alternatives proposed by
    commenters would not necessarily meet the same goals.[^109]

37. We also find that the public interest would be served by requiring
    NGSO systems to disclose, as part of an orbital debris mitigation
    statement, the accuracy with which orbital parameters will be
    maintained. This information is already required for GEO systems
    under Section 25.114(c)(7) of our rules, and we expect that
    disclosure of this information for NGSO systems will help interested
    third parties evaluate proposed systems with respect to collision
    avoidance and safe-flight profiles. In the event that an NGSO system
    is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, *i.e.*, it lacks a
    propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact should be
    included in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also
    indicate the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the
    proposed satellite or satellites, in order to permit third parties
    to evaluate the system with respect to collision avoidance and safe
    flight profiles.

#### Pre-Operational Phase

38. *Background.* As observed in the *Orbital Debris Notice*,[^110]
    there may be a substantial period of deployment and testing after a
    satellite separates from a launch vehicle, but before it commences
    full commercial operations. During this time, the satellite may
    operate at a location other than its permanently assigned orbit. The
    Commission has historically reviewed such operations on a
    case-by-case basis, either through a request for deployment and
    testing as part of an applicant's application for authority for
    "full" operations, or through a request for special temporary
    authority (STA) filed closer to the time of launch of the satellite
    system.[^111] The *Notice* proposed to continue this general
    practice, noting that this approach gave the Commission regulatory
    flexibility in addressing the deployment and testing phase of
    satellite operations. It observed that many activities in the
    pre-operational phase are highly transitory in nature, often
    involving a series of spacecraft maneuvers, and, therefore, it may
    be difficult to specify precise orbital parameters for those
    operations. It indicated, however, that when pre-operational
    activities involve the use of a particular orbit for an extended
    period of time, the Commission would generally expect licensees to
    specify precise orbital parameters in their requests for
    authorization, in a manner consistent with the disclosure
    requirements in connection with "normal" operations.[^112]

39. *Discussion.* We will continue our practice of reviewing
    pre-operational activities on a case-by-case basis, either through a
    request for deployment and testing as part of an applicant's
    application for authority for "full" operations, or through a STA
    request filed closer to the time of launch of the satellite system.
    Comments support this proposal,[^113] and we believe that this
    practice provides regulatory flexibility to operators without
    compromising the Commission's ability to examine whether the public
    interest is served by the grant of an authorization. Applicants must
    specify, in a manner consistent with the disclosure requirements of
    a normal application, the precise parameters of any pre-operational
    orbits that are intended to be used for an extended period.[^114]
    Applicants must also, wherever possible, include any such orbits in
    their applications for full operational authority, in order to
    ensure that any issues concerning the pre-operational phase can be
    identified at an early stage. We believe this may be of particular
    importance for NGSO systems that will seek to use "engineering" or
    "parking" orbits for satellites not involved in full system
    operations.

40. With respect to the types of transitory operations involved in
    "orbit-raising"[^115] and similar maneuvers in the pre-operational
    phase, we are adopting a new rule, Section 25.282, to make clear
    that, although such operations are of necessity at variance with the
    orbital parameters specified in the license for "full" operations,
    they are nonetheless authorized operations, provided they meet
    certain conditions designed to avoid radio-frequency
    interference.[^116]

#### On-Orbit Operations

41. *Background.* Currently, very few Commission rules exist that govern
    the physical aspects of the on-orbit operations of space stations.
    Furthermore, existing rules were designed with radiofrequency
    interference in mind, rather than debris mitigation. The *Orbital
    Debris Notice* examined the Commission's existing rules, proposed
    several amendments and additions, and sought comment on several
    additional issues that might require rule changes. We discuss each
    of these matters below.

42. *Discussion.* First, the *Notice* observed that Section 25.210(j) of
    the Commission's rules specifies that fixed-satellite service
    satellites in geostationary orbit must be designed with the
    capability of being maintained in orbit within ±0.05° of their
    assigned orbital longitude, and must be maintained in orbit at their
    assigned orbital longitude with the longitudinal tolerance specified
    by the Commission.[^117] As noted in the *Notice*, this rule
    parallels, but is generally more stringent than, the requirement in
    the ITU Radio Regulations, which requires geostationary FSS and
    broadcast satellite service (BSS) satellites to maintain their
    positions within 0.1° of their assigned positions.[^118] Because a
    geostationary satellite in the process of removal from orbit at the
    end of its mission would not comply with this rule, we proposed to
    amend the language of Section 25.210(j) to provide an explicit
    exception for such operations. In addition, we proposed to shorten
    and simplify the text of the rule and sought comment whether to
    apply the ±0.05° longitudinal tolerance applicable to
    fixed-satellite service space stations to space stations in other
    services.[^119] In this regard, we noted that longitudinal tolerance
    is much less important to radio-frequency interference for remote
    sensing and mobile-satellite systems at GEO than for fixed-satellite
    services.[^120]

43. We adopt the changes to the text of Section 25.210(j) that were
    proposed in the *Notice* to shorten and simply the text of the rule
    and to provide an explicit exception for certain end-of-life
    operations. Comments received in response to these proposals
    generally support these suggested changes. SIA favors the
    simplification of the text of Section 25.210(j) and welcomes the
    explicit exception to the ±0.05° longitudinal tolerance requirement
    in the case of post-mission disposal operations.[^121] SIA also
    indicates that satellite operators would be able to comply with the
    simplified text of Section 25.210(j), since it claims that it is
    already industry practice to maintain GEO satellites within ±0.05°
    of their assigned orbital longitude, unless otherwise authorized by
    the Commission.[^122] Other comments state that GEO satellite
    operators are generally conscientious about staying within their
    assigned longitudinal bands, although errors can inadvertently occur
    from time to time due to faulty calibration of the transponder
    ranging data that is used to determine the orbits and longitude of
    the satellite.[^123]

44. We decline, at this time, to adopt changes to Section 25.210(j) to
    specify a longitudinal tolerance of ±0.05° for all space stations,
    including MSS and remote sensing space stations. Although one
    commenter observes that precise station-keeping requirements are
    important so that adjacent or co-located satellite operators know
    that neighboring satellites have control requirements and will not
    encroach into an adjoining station-keeping box, this commenter does
    not necessarily support adopting a ±0.05° longitudinal tolerance
    requirement for all GEO space stations.[^124] Other parties, chiefly
    proponents of MSS systems, argue that a ±0.05° longitudinal
    tolerance is unnecessary and economically burdensome for MSS
    systems, particularly those operating in highly inclined
    orbits.[^125] In addition, FSS operators observe that MSS spacecraft
    frequently use FSS frequency bands for feeder links and for
    tracking, telemetry, and control operations and express concern
    that, if MSS satellites are allowed a larger station keeping
    tolerance than the ±0.05° tolerance required for FSS systems, the
    MSS operations could cause operational restrictions or
    radiofrequency interference to adjacent or co-located FSS
    spacecraft.[^126] We conclude that the record in this proceeding is
    not sufficiently developed at this time to adopt a change in our
    rules with respect to non-FSS space stations, and that the
    radiofrequency interference concerns specified by the FSS operators
    raise issues that need additional exploration in a further notice of
    proposed rulemaking in this proceeding. Accordingly, we defer this
    issue to a further notice of proposed rulemaking to be initiated at
    a later date. Our action today does not, however, alter in any way
    the obligation of space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service to
    comply with the ±0.05° longitudinal tolerance requirements of
    Section 25.210(j), as amended herein.

45. The second change proposed in the *Orbital Debris Notice* involved
    amending the text of Section 25.280 of the Commission's rules.[^127]
    Section 25.280 permits satellite operators in geosynchronous orbits
    to operate in inclined orbits[^128] without prior Commission
    authorization, subject to certain conditions, including notification
    to the Commission of such operations.[^129] The *Notice* proposed to
    amend the text of this rule by specifying that notification to the
    Commission must occur within 30 days after the last north-south
    station-keeping maneuver, and by requiring that this notification
    include a description of the post-mission disposal plans for the
    spacecraft.[^130] SIA supports our proposal as a welcome
    clarification of the rule's notification obligation.[^131]
    Accordingly, we adopt the proposed changes to Section 25.280.

46. The *Notice* also sought comment on whether to specify a required
    tolerance, akin to the GEO station-keeping rule, concerning
    maintenance of orbits for non-geostationary satellite systems, or
    whether the public interest would be better served by addressing
    tolerances for NGSO systems on a case-by-case basis.[^132] Although
    we believe a disclosure requirement concerning the tolerance within
    which an NGSO orbit will be maintained is warranted, we decline to
    specify at this time any tolerances that NGSO satellite systems must
    meet as a precondition to licensing. We agree with commenters who
    observe that the additional number of orbital parameters that NGSO
    satellite systems have to work with as compared to GEO space
    stations makes such a tolerance requirement unnecessary,[^133] and,
    as a result, NGSO systems that are not currently equipped with
    propulsion systems would suffer economic harm out of proportion to
    the public benefit gained by such a tolerance requirement.[^134]

47. Nonetheless, we believe that disclosure of the tolerance to which
    proposed NGSO systems will maintain their orbits will provide useful
    information concerning such systems. In the absence of such
    information, potentially affected parties may find it difficult to
    evaluate proposed systems and to identify potential issues. For
    example, the number of parties potentially affected by a proposed
    system, and the nature of potential concerns, are quite different if
    a satellite proposed for a "nominal" circular orbit with an altitude
    of 800 kilometers will be maintained to within 10 kilometers of that
    orbit, or within 200 kilometers. We retain discretion in any
    specific case, based upon any concerns arising in the licensing
    process, to include any needed conditions concerning the tolerance
    within which an NGSO spacecraft maintains its orbit.

48. The *Notice* also sought comment on limiting the probability of
    collisions through selection of an operating orbit, such that the
    operating orbit does not coincide too frequently with the orbit or
    orbits of other large known objects.[^135] Although the *Notice*
    anticipated that this objective would be readily attainable for the
    majority of applicants, due to the currently extremely low spatial
    density of and risk of collision with large debris objects, it
    sought comment on whether more detailed discussion of potential
    collisions may be warranted in specific cases, such as multiple LEO
    operators seeking to use identical or very similar orbits at the
    same altitude.[^136] The *Notice* proposed, however, to maintain the
    general policy of leaving the choice of orbital regime and of the
    specific orbital parameters for any particular system to the
    discretion of the operator, absent conflicting requests.

49. We continue to believe that, as regards to potential collisions with
    large objects, the choice of orbit regime and specific orbital
    parameters is best left to the discretion of the operator in the
    majority of cases. We conclude that in the majority of instances
    operators will be able to achieve the objective of selecting an
    operating orbit that does not coincide too frequently with the orbit
    or orbits of other large known objects. SIA states that satellite
    operators already evaluate collision possibilities as part of their
    due diligence prior to seeking a license or launching a
    satellite.[^137] Satellite operators indicate that, once a satellite
    is launched, they use the services of entities that can warn
    geostationary satellite operators of orbital debris and other
    objects that may enter the orbit of the spacecraft.[^138]

50. We conclude, however, that in some instances the public interest
    would be served by a more detailed discussion of how an operator
    will avoid potential collisions. The first of these instances, as
    described in the *Notice*, is where a system will be launched into a
    low-Earth orbit that is identical, or very similar, to an orbit used
    by other systems.[^139] In such an instance we believe that the
    operator should submit, as part of its debris mitigation disclosure,
    an analysis of the potential risk of collision between the LEO
    systems and a description of what measures the operator plans to
    take to avoid in-orbit collisions. If the operator is relying on
    coordination with another system, the operator should indicate what
    steps have been taken to contact, and to ascertain the likelihood of
    successful coordination of physical operations with, the other
    system.

51. The second instance involves proposals to co-locate multiple
    satellites at a single GEO orbital location. Any entity requesting
    an assignment of a GEO orbital location must assess whether there
    are any known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be
    located at, the requested orbital location, or assigned in the
    vicinity of that location such that the station keeping volumes of
    the respective satellites might overlap. If so, the entity's orbital
    debris mitigation statement must include a statement as to the
    identities of those parties and the measures that will be taken to
    prevent collisions.[^140] We observe that there are a number of
    cases in which operators have successfully located multiple
    satellites at a single location, and within the same station-keeping
    volume. These arrangements require real-time coordination. Where the
    satellites are not operated by a single company, such coordination
    may present logistical or cost considerations that render it
    undesirable as a first choice for preventing collisions.
    Furthermore, in cases where operators coordinate operations, it is
    particularly important that they use common methods of calibrating
    measurement of satellite positions, or rely on a third party to
    provide that service. In general, we will require entities that
    indicate that they plan to rely on coordination with other operators
    at the same orbital location to disclose the manner in which that
    coordination will be effected.

#### Coordination of Maneuvers

52. *Background.* The *Orbital Debris Notice* sought comment on what, if
    any, notification requirements should be adopted concerning
    maneuvers by FCC-licensed satellite systems.[^141] The *Notice*
    observed that coordination of such maneuvers may be especially
    important in connection with certain types of space assets, such as
    manned spacecraft, and that space objects that are maneuvering may
    be less predictable in their behavior, which may increase the
    difficulty in assessing the potential collision risk. The *Notice*
    observed that the Commission currently does not have a formal
    coordination or notification process for such maneuvers, but that a
    number of U.S.-licensed space station operators have in the past
    exchanged information related to maneuvers informally with
    potentially affected operators and the U.S. Strategic Command.[^142]
    It sought comment on whether such informal coordination was common
    and whether, with increases in space activities by an increasing
    number of operators, a more formal requirement is necessary. It also
    sought comment on the scope of such a coordination requirement, the
    parties that should be included in the notification, and the form of
    the notification.[^143]

53. *Discussion.* Based on our experience and the comments in response
    to the *Notice*, we conclude that existing informal notification
    procedures have been generally effective so far for avoiding
    radiofrequency interference involving maneuvering space stations.
    Satellite operators indicate that informal coordination of maneuvers
    between operators is common[^144] and that this coordination
    includes coordination with U.S. Strategic Command when
    appropriate.[^145] SIA states that, although the number of operating
    satellites has increased during recent years, the total number of
    satellite operators remains relatively small.[^146] Accordingly, SIA
    argues that existing, informal coordination of maneuvers among
    satellite operators is sufficient and there is no need for
    additional regulation in this regard.[^147] Telesat agrees that it
    is normal for satellite operators to coordinate informally whenever
    a GEO space station is maneuvered from its assigned orbital
    position.[^148] Given operators' past practice in coordinating
    informally during space station maneuvers in order to avoid
    radiofrequency interference, we conclude that informal coordination
    can also prove to be effective in minimizing the risks of on-orbit
    collisions during such maneuvers. Accordingly, we do not adopt
    formal coordination requirements at this time.

54. We encourage space station operators, however, to engage in
    coordination discussions with other potentially affected operators
    whenever they engage in maneuvers that cause a spacecraft to move
    from an orbit used during normal operations. Absent such
    discussions, there is an increased risk that a space craft could
    physically interfere with another space station and contribute
    additional objects to the debris population.

55. We decline to adopt specific formats for such coordination. In order
    to ensure that all relevant parties are able to participate in
    coordination, Telesat proposes the creation of a centralized
    database of proposed maneuvers, which would be managed by the ITU or
    some other international agency or group.[^149] SES Americom opposes
    the creation of a centralized database since it believes that
    existing informal coordination procedures are sufficient without the
    need for additional regulation.[^150] In any event, we are not in a
    position to consider Telesat's proposal, since it would necessitate
    action by entities other than the Commission and is beyond our
    ability to adopt in this proceeding.

56. We decline to adopt a specific rule setting a minimum separation
    from inhabitable orbiting objects. Although the *Notice* observed
    that notification of space station maneuvers may be important in
    connection with certain types of space assets, such as manned
    spacecraft,[^151] the record does not include sufficient information
    to determine an appropriate minimum separation from inhabitable
    objects for FCC licensed spacecraft. Entities seeking approval for
    LEO operations should, however, address such matters in their
    disclosure statements, including the full range of measures, such as
    maintaining a minimum distance separation and coordination that will
    be undertaken to address risks to inhabitable orbiting objects.

57. We also decline to adopt Ecliptic's proposal to require Commission
    space station licensees to provide to the public the full,
    classical, Keplerian orbital elements of their spacecraft following
    launch, and periodically thereafter, in an easily usable format via
    the FCC website.[^152] We find that additional Commission action in
    this regard is unnecessary. Our existing rules already require NGSO
    applicants[^153] to submit information about their orbits that
    provides substantially the same information as full, classical
    Keplerian orbital elements, except for certain information that
    provides a temporal time frame of reference for the satellite's
    position in orbit.[^154] We do not believe that requiring the
    submission of more detailed information would, in general,
    substantially improve the usefulness of data available from the
    Commission, since an operator undertaking planning requiring such
    additional information would be well-advised to coordinate directly
    with any potentially affected satellite systems. In addition, we
    note that there are a number of public and private sources for such
    data.[^155] Given the availability of this data from other sources,
    we conclude that it is not necessary to require satellite operators
    to provide additional information about their orbital parameters
    other than that already required by our existing rules.

### Post-Mission Disposal

58. Post-mission disposal consists of measures taken at the end of a
    spacecraft's useful life that result in removal of the spacecraft
    from the Earth's orbit or relocation of the spacecraft to a
    long-term orbit that reduces the risk of interference with
    operational spacecraft. Effective disposal of non-functional
    spacecraft not only provides an immediate benefit by protecting
    operational spacecraft from accidental collisions with orbital
    debris, but can also have the long-term benefit of reducing the
    probability of non-functioning objects colliding with one another
    and creating additional debris in orbits used by functional
    spacecraft.[^156] Although non-functioning rocket bodies and
    spacecraft comprise only a small fraction of the total orbital
    debris population, they constitute the majority of its total mass
    and cross-sectional area. The sizeable cross-sectional area of
    non-functioning spacecraft presents a large "target area" for
    orbital debris strikes, and the relatively large mass of these
    objects could fragment into a large number of smaller debris pieces
    upon impact with another object.[^157] This fragmentation debris
    could be spread over a large area and could result in a significant
    increase in the overall orbital debris population.[^158]

59. The *Orbital Debris Notice* inquired whether it would be appropriate
    at this time to adopt post-mission disposal requirements for
    Commission-licensed spacecraft.[^159] The *Notice* observed that the
    U.S. Government Standard Practices provides for the disposal of
    spacecraft after completion of mission, subject to considerations of
    cost-effectiveness, by means of three alternative methods: (1)
    direct retrieval; (2); atmospheric re-entry; and (3) maneuvering
    into a storage orbit.[^160] We discuss each of these methods in
    turn.

60. *Direct Retrieval.* The first method of post-mission disposal is
    direct retrieval of the spacecraft from orbit. Although direct
    retrieval ensures that an object will not become a source of a large
    amount of orbital debris in the future, it can be expensive and has
    generally not been considered to be a cost-effective option of
    debris mitigation. Furthermore, direct retrieval has only been
    attempted at low-Earth orbits. The *Notice* noted that direct
    retrieval currently has limited relevance for post-mission disposal
    of Commission-licensed space stations.[^161]

61. *Atmospheric Re-entry*. Atmospheric re-entry is a disposal process
    by which a spacecraft is brought into the Earth's atmosphere to
    disintegrate as a result of friction with the atmosphere.
    Atmospheric re-entry is typically achieved by one of two procedures.
    The first entails using the spacecraft's propulsion system (if it is
    capable of doing so) to propel the spacecraft out of orbit into the
    Earth's atmosphere. The second is achieved by leaving a spacecraft
    in an orbit from which the natural phenomenon of atmospheric drag
    will eventually cause the spacecraft to re-enter the Earth's
    atmosphere without the use of propulsion systems. If a program or
    project selects to leave the spacecraft in an orbit from which it
    will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere without the use of propulsion,
    the U.S. Government Standard Practices call for the selection of an
    orbit from which the spacecraft will remain in orbit no longer than
    25 years after mission completion.[^162] Under the U.S. Government
    Standard Practices, programs using either procedure must address the
    human casualty risk from any portions of the spacecraft that may
    survive atmospheric re-entry.[^163] Because of the prohibitively
    large amounts of fuel that would be required to be stored and
    expended to lower the spacecraft's altitude into a re-entry orbit,
    atmospheric re-entry currently is not a feasible alternative for
    disposal of spacecraft in higher orbits, such as GEO.

62. *Storage Orbit.* A third method of post-mission disposal is
    maneuvering a spacecraft to a storage or disposal orbit where the
    spacecraft is unlikely to pose a risk to operational spacecraft in
    high value orbits.[^164] The use of a storage orbit leaves an object
    in Earth orbit, but removes it from regions where it would pose a
    direct collision hazard to functional spacecraft.[^165] The U.S.
    Government Standard Practices suggest four potential storage
    orbits: (1) between low-earth and medium-earth orbit, *i.e.*,
    satellite perigee altitude above 2000 km and apogee altitude below
    19,700 km; (2) between medium-earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit,
    *i.e.*, perigee altitude above 20,700 km and apogee altitude below
    35,300 km (500 km below geosynchronous orbit); (3) above
    geosynchronous orbit, *i.e.*, a perigee altitude above 36,100 km
    (300 km above geosynchronous orbit); and (4) removal from Earth
    orbit into a heliocentric orbit, *i.e.*, the spacecraft is removed
    to an orbit around the sun.[^166]

63. As detailed more fully below, the *Orbital Debris Notice* sought
    comment on whether to adopt these three methods as requirements for
    the post-mission disposal of Commission-licensed spacecraft.[^167]
    The *Notice* specifically sought comment on the application of these
    disposal methods to geostationary and non-geostationary spacecraft.
    It also sought comment on whether a Commission rule is necessary to
    ensure that spacecraft reserve adequate fuel to execute post-mission
    disposal maneuvers, as well as on any other matters that may affect
    the ability of a spacecraft to execute end-of-life maneuvers
    reliably.[^168] We address each of these issues below.

#### GEO Space Stations

64. *Background.* The *Orbital Debris Notice* described developments in
    recommendations concerning GEO disposal. The ITU adopted a
    recommendation in 1993, ITU Recommendation S.1003, which recommends
    that GEO spacecraft be removed at end of life to a disposal orbit
    with a minimum perigee of 300 kilometers above GEO.[^169] The U.S.
    Government Standard Practices also adopted this standard for
    disposal of GEO spacecraft. In addition, the *Notice* indicated that
    the IADC had developed a recommendation concerning GEO satellite
    disposal. That recommendation provides a formula for calculating a
    minimum disposal altitude above GEO that takes into account the
    major physical forces that act upon a spacecraft after the end of
    its useful life, and the fact that the effect of those forces may
    vary based on characteristics of the spacecraft. Since the release
    of the *Notice*, the ITU has revised Recommendation S.1003 to
    endorse use of the IADC formula for calculating minimum disposal
    altitudes for GEO spacecraft.[^170]

65. The *Orbital Debris Notice* proposed to amend the Commission's rules
    to provide GEO space station licensees with authority to dispose of
    space stations at the end of life, without the need for a
    case-by-case authorization, provided that the disposal plan meets
    specified criteria.[^171] One criterion is that the licensee
    maneuvers its spacecraft at the end-of-life into a disposal orbit
    calculated using the IADC formula. This formula is reproduced below:

    36,021 km + (1000·C~R~·A/m)

    where C~R~ is the solar radiation pressure coefficient of the
    spacecraft, and A/m is the Area to mass ratio, in square meters per
    kilogram, of the spacecraft. This formula is based on a GEO altitude
    of 35,786 kilometers and establishes a "protected region" of 200
    kilometers around GEO, plus 35 kilometers to account for the maximum
    descent of a re-orbited spacecraft due to lunar, solar, and
    geopotential perturbations. The formula then provides an additional
    term to take into account the solar radiation pressure on a
    particular spacecraft.[^172] The effects of solar radiation pressure
    vary, based on the mass of the spacecraft, but generally render the
    spacecraft's orbit more elliptical. As a result, unless this effect
    is taken into account in selecting a disposal altitude, it is
    possible for a spacecraft to drift back into the GEO protected
    region, or, in some cases, into GEO itself.

66. *Discussion.* We conclude that the public interest would be served
    by adopting rules for the post-mission disposal of
    Commission-licensed GEO space stations. Unless GEO spacecraft are
    disposed of at end of life in an effective manner, decommissioned
    spacecraft pose a risk to the continued reliable and affordable use
    of GEO. If disposed of at or near GEO, a decommissioned spacecraft
    could physically interfere with a functional spacecraft that is
    being controlled at its assigned longitudinal location at GEO. Even
    if removed from GEO, a decommissioned spacecraft can present a
    collision risk to functional spacecraft operating in orbits above
    GEO as part of a transfer maneuver to change the longitudinal
    location of that spacecraft.[^173] A collision involving a
    decommissioned satellite, or its fragments, is likely to lead to a
    degradation or total loss of the telecommunications capabilities of
    an operational spacecraft and the creation of additional debris
    fragments. Debris from such a collision will remain on orbit
    virtually forever. The wide-spread distribution of debris across GEO
    could result in the degradation of the reliability of GEO satellite
    communications for the foreseeable future. Even absent such
    collisions, the increased presence of debris in heavily-used orbits
    could force operators to incur additional expenses to increase the
    survivability of their spacecraft through additional shielding or
    through other measures designed to avoid collision. Such measures to
    avert the damage caused by collision would add to the cost of
    spacecraft operations.

67. Although it is difficult to estimate the risk of collision of
    objects in the geostationary region with any degree of
    precision,[^174] the current risk of collision is considered to be
    very low due to the relatively low spatial density of debris in the
    GEO region. For example, a report by the United Nations released in
    1999 estimates the annual risk of collision for an average
    operational satellite with other objects greater than one meter in
    diameter is 10^-5^.[^175] It is reasonable to assume, however, that
    the risk of collision will increase in the future. First, we do not
    anticipate that the population of active spacecraft in GEO is likely
    to decrease, but rather is likely to remain stable or grow
    moderately as operators replace decommissioned space stations and
    launch additional space stations to increase capacity. Second, there
    is no natural removal mechanism for spacecraft at higher orbital
    altitudes, and absent disposal maneuvers, objects will remain
    indefinitely at these altitudes once placed into orbit. As a result,
    debris will continue to accumulate, and the risk of collision will
    increase as more functional and non-functional objects are placed in
    or near GEO. Given the importance of GEO and the serious and
    potentially irreversible effects that the presence of orbital debris
    can have in the GEO region, we do not believe the public interest
    would be served by waiting until the risk to operations in this
    orbit becomes unacceptably high before taking action.

68. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal of the *Orbital Debris Notice* to
    evaluate end-of-life plans for GEO space stations according to the
    formula developed by the IADC for determining the storage altitude
    for GEO spacecraft at the end of life.[^176] We believe that
    application of this formula provides the best long-term protection
    to operational GEO spacecraft from orbital debris. Unlike the
    disposal practices for GEO spacecraft set forth by the U.S.
    Government Standard Practices, the IADC formula takes into account
    the specific characteristics of individual spacecraft, such as its
    susceptibility to the effects of solar radiation pressure, which may
    cause a spacecraft eventually to drift back into GEO. Furthermore,
    use of the IADC formula establishes a 200-kilometer "protected
    region" around GEO that provides protection to spacecraft that are
    operating above GEO either during normal station keeping operations
    or during transfer maneuvers. For example, Telesat states that it
    routinely uses orbits that are 100 kilometers above or below GEO for
    moving satellites from one orbital location to another, and that
    other operators follow similar practices.[^177] The IADC formula
    also represents an internationally developed consensus for disposal
    of GEO spacecraft, which has already been adopted into the revised
    ITU GEO disposal recommendation. []{.mark}

69. We are also adopting the proposal in the *Notice* to provide GEO
    space station licensees with authority to dispose of space stations
    at the end of life without the need for a case-by-case authorization
    from the Commission, provided that the disposal is consistent with
    the IADC disposal recommendation for GEO spacecraft.[^178] No
    commenters oppose this proposal and its adoption will promote
    administrative efficiency.

70. Commenters have sought clarification of certain terms of the IADC
    formula. For example, SIA seeks clarification that the "Area" of the
    satellite for purposes of calculating the "Area to mass ratio" is
    calculated on a deployed and on-station basis.[^179] Slabinski also
    agrees that the definition of "Area" in the IADC formula needs
    clarification and offers suggestions on how to determine this
    value.[^180] We confirm that the area of the satellite should be
    calculated using a method that reflects its deployed and on-station
    configuration. The IADC formula is designed to account for the
    physical characteristics of a spacecraft at the time of disposal. To
    the extent that antenna and solar panels remain deployed upon
    disposal, calculations under the IADC formula should account for
    this fact. The area to be calculated is the average aspect area. We
    will not specify a detailed methodology for calculating area.
    However, NASA Safety Standard NSS 1740.14 may prove instructive to
    licensees in this regard. We note that it would be entirely
    reasonable for parties to make simplifying assumptions in assessing
    aspect area, provided that such assumptions bear in mind the
    objective of ensuring that objects placed into a storage orbit do
    not re-enter the GEO protected region. Thus, we expect satellite
    operators to use assumptions which would lead to a disposal orbit in
    excess of one calculated using higher fidelity methods.

71. We conclude that the use of the IADC formula for evaluating the
    post-mission disposal plans of GEO space stations is superior to
    other methods suggested by commenters. Some commenters propose to
    allow operators the choice of using disposal orbits with an altitude
    calculated by the IADC formula or 300 kilometers above GEO,
    whichever is lower.[^181] We decline to adopt such a rule, since it
    would permit space stations that are particularly susceptible to
    solar radiation pressure to be placed in a disposal altitude of 300
    kilometers above GEO, even though this altitude may not be
    sufficient to prevent such spacecraft from re-entering into the GEO
    protected region according to the IADC formula. Furthermore, we
    disagree with commenters that suggest that requiring
    Commission-licensed space stations to be placed into a disposal
    orbit constitutes an appropriation of space in violation of the
    Outer Space Treaty. [^182] Just as an initial assignment of an
    orbital location is not an appropriation of outer space, neither is
    the use of a storage orbit at end of life, and authorization of a
    space station to use a storage orbit is consistent with provisions
    under the Outer Space Treaty that require authorization and
    continuing supervision of the activities of non-governmental
    entities in outer space.[^183] We observe that no U.S. Government
    agency in charge of implementing the Outer Space Treaty has asserted
    that use of storage orbits is inconsistent with Article II.

72. We also decline to rely solely on industry practices, as proposed by
    the majority of commercial satellite operators. We agree with
    commenters that operators have an economic incentive to maintain a
    safe environment for their revenue-producing spacecraft,[^184] and
    that this incentive extends to preserving a safe environment for
    replacement satellites.[^185] These economic incentives, however,
    may be countered by a more immediate incentive to obtain the most
    revenue from an operational satellite before decommissioning.
    Maneuvering a spacecraft to a disposal orbit imposes costs on a
    satellite operator by requiring fuel to be reserved and expended on
    re-orbiting maneuvers that otherwise could be used to prolong the
    revenue-producing operations of the spacecraft.[^186] Because the
    last few months of a satellite's operational life can be worth
    millions of dollars, operators have an economic incentive to extend
    the operational life of their space stations as long as possible.
    Furthermore, operators may respond to other short-term pressures,
    such as the need to bring into use an orbital location specified in
    an ITU filing, in order to preserve date priority in the ITU
    process.

73. It is also not clear that the economic effects of failure to dispose
    of GEO spacecraft at the end of life will be felt by, or limited to,
    the satellite operator disposing of the spacecraft. Although the
    economic incentive to maximize revenue-producing activities is
    immediate, and the consequences of failing to properly dispose of
    spacecraft at the end of life are not similarly perceived as such,
    serious ramifications exist for future space station operations that
    could have repercussions for centuries, if steps are not taken now
    to address orbital debris. This is true because of the long orbital
    lifetimes of objects at high altitudes that continue after disposal
    of the spacecraft. In addition, the consequences of an ineffective
    disposal may not be felt by the operator performing the disposal. A
    spacecraft raised to a disposal orbit will have an initial westward
    drift rate of 1.28° per day for each 100 kilometers in initial
    []{.mark}elevation above GEO, and thus the eventual effects of an
    inadequate disposal altitude, as the initial disposal orbit is
    lowered by physical forces, may be on a location well-removed from
    the location at which the satellite originated.[^187] As a result,
    operators may react by using disposal orbits that are not adequate
    for the long-term protection of GEO, but that nonetheless will
    provide minimal risk to the operator during the timeframe of its
    planned business activities.

74. The record also indicates that operators follow a wide variety of
    practices. Some operators voluntarily dispose of their GEO
    satellites at end of life in accordance with the recommendations of
    the ITU and the IADC. Others do not.[^188] Further, the record shows
    that there is substantial variation in the stated practices of
    operators concerning the minimum altitude above GEO at which
    disposal is planned, ranging from 100 kilometers above GEO[^189] to
    192 kilometers above GEO.[^190] Although operators claim that such
    minimum disposal altitudes are sufficient to protect GEO, the target
    orbits, particularly those in the lower end of this range, could, in
    fact, result in decommissioned spacecraft drifting back into
    altitudes at which active GEO communications spacecraft
    operate.[^191]

75. We do not expect that use of the IADC formula as implemented in this
    decision will be unduly burdensome to space station operators. For
    GEO spacecraft, the selection of a disposal orbit is primarily an
    economic, rather than a technical issue. Because the industry
    practice for GEO spacecraft is generally to use the same propulsion
    system for end-of-life maneuvers as is used for operational
    station-keeping, GEO satellites are equipped with the technical
    means to execute post-mission disposal maneuvers. It is simply a
    question of how much fuel is budgeted for such maneuvers. To the
    extent that operators plan to dispose of their spacecraft to an
    altitude of 300 kilometers above GEO, as recommended by the ITU in
    1993, we do not anticipate that the costs of maneuvering a
    spacecraft to a storage orbit calculated using the IADC formula will
    be significantly greater for the majority of space stations in the
    planning stage. In a number of cases, the costs may be less if the
    space station is not particularly susceptible to solar radiation
    pressure and the calculated orbit is less than 300 kilometers above
    GEO.[^192] In some instances, there will be additional costs
    involved with complying with the IADC formula for disposal of GEO
    spacecraft as compared to the costs that would be incurred under the
    1993 ITU recommendation, but we believe that these costs are
    justified when balanced against potential risk posed in these
    instances to the continued safe and reliable use of GEO. In these
    cases, the higher minimum storage altitude is directly related to
    the increased susceptibility of the spacecraft to solar radiation
    pressure, which requires that the spacecraft be placed into a higher
    storage orbit in order to reduce the probability that the spacecraft
    will re-enter GEO region and interfere with functional space
    stations. Accordingly, we believe that the additional costs are
    warranted in these instances in order to achieve the public interest
    in minimizing the hazard posed by orbital debris to the continued
    safe and reliable use of GEO.

76. Accordingly, we will require entities seeking an FCC license to
    operate a GEO space station, or requesting authorization from the
    Commission to operate with a non-U.S.-licensed space stations to
    serve the U.S. market under our foreign entry provisions, to
    demonstrate as part of its orbital debris mitigation disclosure that
    the operator will be capable of maneuvering its spacecraft at end of
    life to a disposal altitude with a perigee calculated by use of the
    IADC formula. As part of this demonstration, entities should provide
    the calculations that were used in deriving the disposal altitude.
    As discussed above, simplifying assumptions may be made when
    applying the IADC formula, provided that such assumptions lead to a
    disposal orbit in excess of one calculated using higher fidelity
    methods. Entities who plan to operate or communicate with a GEO
    spacecraft that will be disposed of at end of life in a manner
    inconsistent with IADC formula must seek a waiver of our rules as
    part of their application for Commission authorization.

####### Grandfathering

77. Many commercial operators of GEO satellites urge the Commission to
    apply GEO disposal rules only prospectively and to exempt, or
    "grandfather," all satellites that are currently on-orbit or under
    physical construction.[^193] In support of this position, these
    operators assert that application of the IADC formula to satellites
    already in orbit would constitute an impermissibly retroactive
    application of a new rule. In addition, they claim that application
    of the IADC formula to spacecraft currently on-orbit would impose
    large additional costs on operators that are not balanced by a
    corresponding benefit to the public.

78. As an initial point, we stress that application of the IADC formula
    to existing spacecraft would not be impermissible under either the
    Administrative Procedure Act or Commission precedent, as purported
    by some space station operators. Operators cite to *Bowen*[^194]and
    its progeny in support of this argument.[^195] Courts have
    clarified, however, that *Bowen* is limited to situations in which
    an agency "alter\[s\] the *past* legal consequences of past actions"
    (emphasis in original).[^196] Accordingly, application of an
    agency's rule is impermissibly retroactive when it "would impair
    rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability
    for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions
    already completed."[^197] This type of "primary" retroactivity is
    not at issue here. Application of the IADC formula would extend only
    to disposals that will occur in the future and would not alter the
    consequences or liability for disposals already completed.
    Furthermore, application of the IADC formula would not alter any
    right operators currently possess. Authorization from the Commission
    has always been required for radiocommunications involving
    FCC-licensed space stations, including those used to command
    disposal maneuvers.[^198] Our rules to date have not vested any
    right for operators to dispose of their spacecraft in a particular
    manner. We are also unaware of any authorization for a GEO space
    station currently on orbit that provides a licensee with authority
    for post-mission disposal and the maneuvers and radio transmissions
    necessary to effectuate it. Instead, we have always reviewed
    applications for post-mission disposal of FCC-licensed space
    stations on a case-by-case basis.[^199] Thus, evaluating the
    post-mission disposal plans of spacecraft already on orbit
    consistent with the IADC formula would not alter any existing right
    of operators to dispose of their spacecraft in a particular
    manner.[^200]

79. Nonetheless, we agree that, in light of the potentially significant
    financial impact of this new requirement, a transition period
    sufficient to permit operators to adjust their projections and
    operations is in the public interest. Based on comments and *ex
    parte* presentations, it appears that a number of operators
    currently plan for disposal of their GEO spacecraft at minimum
    perigee altitudes of 100-150 kilometers above GEO, which is
    significantly lower than the minimum perigee altitudes calculated by
    use of the IADC formula.[^201] Operators state that the additional
    fuel required to dispose of currently operational spacecraft at
    altitudes higher than those for which disposal of these satellites
    are planned would shorten the spacecraft's expected operational
    lifetimes by an average of one to three months compared to the use
    of a lower disposal altitude of, for example, 150 kilometers.[^202]
    Three months represents a reduction of somewhat less than two
    percent of the mission life of a satellite with a 15-year
    operational lifetime. Operators also indicate that as a result of
    lost operational lifetime, the overall cost of using the IADC
    formula to dispose of on orbit spacecraft could amount to hundreds
    of millions of dollars in lost revenue to the industry.[^203] While
    it is impossible to state the precise loss of operator revenue that
    would result from requiring on-orbit spacecraft to maneuver existing
    on-orbit spacecraft at end of life to disposal orbits calculated by
    use of the IADC formula, we accept that this loss of revenue could
    be significant and must be balanced against the public benefits of
    application of the IADC formula to all spacecraft, including those
    already on orbit.

80. We conclude that the risks resulting from grandfathering, such as
    increased risks of collision or risks associated with other
    fragmentation events occurring in the GEO region, currently are not
    sufficient to outweigh the potential financial hardships involved in
    applying the IADC formula to all GEO spacecraft currently on orbit.
    The record does not demonstrate the amount of increased risk that
    would result from a finite number of existing on-orbit spacecraft
    being disposed of at altitudes below those calculated by use of the
    IADC formula, but at an altitude from which the disposed spacecraft
    would not pose a risk to normally station-kept satellites.[^204]
    Given the existing low spatial density of the GEO regions, there is
    insufficient evidence on the record at this time to conclude that
    this increase in risk would be significant.

81. Accordingly, we will grandfather all on orbit GEO spacecraft that
    were launched as of the release of the *Notice* in this
    proceeding.[^205] We will not, however, grandfather all GEO
    spacecraft currently on-orbit or under construction as of the
    release of this Second Report and Order, as urged by some
    commenters. Operators generally agree that notice of our intent to
    implement the IADC formula was provided by the release of the
    *Orbital Debris Notice*.[^206] Thus, equity concerns that support
    the exemption of satellites launched prior to the release of the
    *Notice* are not present with those satellites launched after the
    release when operators were on notice of the possible use of the
    IADC formula to evaluate the post-mission disposal of GEO
    spacecraft.[^207] Operators that launched satellites after the
    release of the *Notice* were on notice of our intent to use the IADC
    formula. Furthermore, the long expected lifetimes of satellites
    launched since the release of the *Orbital Debris Notice* should
    allow operators reasonable time to take the IADC formula into
    account when planning for the disposal of their spacecraft.

82. Finally, we will not specify a minimum altitude for disposal of
    grandfathered satellites. The stated current practice of several
    U.S. operators is, barring catastrophic hardware failures, to
    execute end-of-life maneuvers that result in a disposal altitude no
    less than 150 kilometers above GEO.[^208] Some non-U.S. operators
    have indicated a disposal perigee altitude range of 100-192
    kilometers above GEO.[^209] We urge operators to continue to
    evaluate the safety of any such practice in light of developing
    knowledge about risks in GEO and the surrounding region, and in
    light of the conditions of any particular spacecraft.[^210] We also
    urge operators to exercise the highest standards, and applaud those
    who have voluntarily adopted practices, involving substantial
    margins of safety, designed to protect the unique and important
    geostationary-Earth orbit resource.[^211]

#### NGSO Space Stations 

83. *Background.* The *Orbital Debris Notice* sought comment on whether
    to adopt the U.S. Government Standard Practices as rules applicable
    to the post-mission disposal of new low-Earth orbit systems and to
    replacement satellites for such existing systems.[^212] In
    particular, it noted that the U.S. Government Standard Practices
    calls for the disposal of LEO satellites at end of life either
    through immediate atmospheric re-entry or through the placement of a
    spacecraft into an orbit from which it will re-enter the Earth's
    atmosphere within 25 years. The *Notice* observed that the U.S.
    Government Standard Practices, if strictly applied, could have a
    significant impact on the deployment of spacecraft in certain
    orbital regimes or using certain types of technologies.
    Specifically, the *Notice* noted that spacecraft operating with
    circular orbits in the region of approximately 1000 to 1600
    kilometers would be required to budget a substantial amount of fuel
    in order to either lower the spacecraft's perigee orbit to an
    altitude from within which it would re-enter the Earth's atmosphere
    within 25 years, or to boost the spacecraft into a storage orbit
    between low-Earth orbit and medium earth orbit.[^213] In addition,
    it noted that many small satellite systems are currently deployed
    with only minimal on-board maneuvering capabilities. Thus, the
    *Notice* indicated that adoption of the U.S. Government Standard
    Practices into the Commission's rules could effectively preclude
    operations of such spacecraft at higher orbital altitudes. Finally,
    the *Notice* sought comment concerning the end-of-life disposal of
    spacecraft involving atmospheric re-entry.[^214]

84. *Discussion.* As a result of the disclosure requirements we are
    adopting, we will receive information concerning end-of-life
    disposal for NGSO satellites. We intend to examine such disclosures
    on a case-by-case basis in light of the U.S. Government Standard
    Practices and the IADC Guidelines. In particular, we intend to
    examine such disclosures to determine, for spacecraft with orbits
    either wholly within, or passing through, the LEO region, whether
    the spacecraft will be disposed of at end of life either through
    immediate atmospheric re-entry, through the placement of a
    spacecraft into an orbit from which it will re-enter the Earth's
    atmosphere within 25 years, or through boosting the spacecraft into
    an orbit with a perigee above the LEO region.[^215] As a general
    matter, these methods of post-mission disposal suggest that the
    space station will operate consistent with the public interest. We
    have already been evaluating the post-mission disposal plans of
    Commission-licensed LEO space stations based on this practice on a
    case-by-case basis.[^216] If a disclosure indicates that a space
    station will not use one of these methods, the Commission may be
    required to seek further information, or ultimately to condition or
    withhold approval for the space station.

85. We recognize that changes in the design and operation of certain
    types of LEO spacecraft may be necessary in order to follow these
    practices and may limit an operator's ability to deploy spacecraft
    in certain orbital regimes or use certain spacecraft designs. On
    balance, however, we believe closer adherence to these practices is
    warranted in order to limit the growth of orbital debris in LEO.
    Without such disposal practices, objects could remain in low-Earth
    orbit for decades or centuries after the end of their useful lives
    and could become the source of collisions that produce additional
    debris spread over a wide area. By requiring LEO space stations to
    be removed from orbit within 25 years of the completion of their
    mission, the probability that such spacecraft will contribute to the
    creation of additional orbital debris is greatly diminished. The
    IADC Guidelines specifically note that an IADC study examined the
    effect of post-mission orbital lifetime limitations on collision
    rates and debris population growth and found 25 years to be a
    reasonable and appropriate lifetime limit.[^217] None of the
    commenters raising concerns about adherence to LEO end-of-life
    practices takes issue with the general desirability of limiting
    debris growth. While closer adherence to these practices may require
    changes in spacecraft design, choice of a different orbit, or other
    changes, it appears that such changes would serve the public
    interest, and would help to ensure long-term, affordable access to
    space, as well as the continued availability, reliability, and
    continuity of space-based services for U.S. consumers.

86. We decline to adopt as rules the stricter disposal requirements for
    certain classes of LEO space stations, as recommended by some
    commenters in this proceeding. For example, Ecliptic proposes that
    large microsat constellations, consisting of 100 or more spacecraft,
    be limited to orbital altitudes from which they will re-enter the
    Earth's atmosphere within five years of mission completion, due to
    their lack of propulsion systems and low rate of reliability of
    individual spacecraft.[^218] Ecliptic also recommends that all
    microsats, regardless of constellation size, be limited to altitudes
    of no higher than 625 kilometers at perigee.[^219] L'Garde also
    suggests placing limits on the altitudes at which microsats can
    operate.[^220] Both Ecliptic and L'Garde suggest that microsats, and
    other NGSO satellites lacking propulsion, be required to incorporate
    methods, such as the use of inflatable devices, to decrease their
    orbital lifetimes by means of atmospheric drag.[^221] Although we
    agree that each of the measures proposed would appear to be a
    reasonable means by which a space station operator could mitigate
    debris under the circumstances presented by the commenters, we do
    not believe that adopting detailed rules of this type is appropriate
    at this time. We anticipate that as experience with debris
    mitigation measures grows, it may be possible to provide more
    detailed guidelines of this type. For now, however, we believe it is
    appropriate to address cases involving NGSO disposal as they arise.
    In light of concerns raised about the low rate of reliability of
    individual spacecraft, however, we note that it may be appropriate
    in some instances to address this issue as part of a debris
    mitigation showing, particularly with respect to satellite designs
    having known and significant failure rates, or where a satellite has
    been designed with an acceptable failure rate well below commercial
    industry norms. Reliability may be relevant to both assessment of
    whether the satellite will meet end-of-life goals, and to assessment
    of whether the public interest benefits arising from the satellite's
    activities will, in fact, be provided.

87. We will also continue to evaluate post-mission disposal plans for
    space stations in orbits that do not pass through LEO or GEO, such
    as highly elliptical or medium Earth orbits, on a case-by-case
    basis. The IADC Guidelines call for the end-of-life maneuvering of
    space stations that are using orbits other than LEO or GEO in order
    to reduce their orbital lifetimes to the 25 year timeframe for
    post-mission disposal of LEO spacecraft, or for relocation of such
    space stations into storage orbits if they cause interference with
    highly utilized orbit regions.[^222] The IADC Guidelines do not,
    however, provide detailed recommendations for accomplishing these
    objectives. We note that technical studies are on-going to evaluate
    the long-term stability of disposal orbits in MEO.[^223] Entities
    relying on such orbits should indicate with specificity what orbit
    will be used for disposal, and whether that orbit has been analyzed
    to determine its long-term stability.

88. Finally, the *Orbital Debris Notice* proposed to continue to require
    applicants proposing to dispose of spacecraft by means of
    atmospheric re-entry to provide an assessment of the risk of human
    casualty from such atmospheric re-entry. The *Notice* observed that
    the U.S. Government Standard Practices provide that any such
    disposal of a spacecraft should present a risk of human casualty of
    no more than 1 in 10,000.[^224] The *Notice* observed that this
    assessment has been required in previous Commission case-by-case
    licensing decisions and is based on standards established by NASA
    Safety Standard NSS 1740.14 for debris re-entry and incorporated in
    the U.S. Government Standard Practices.[^225] We will continue to
    require entities proposing to dispose of spacecraft by means of
    atmospheric re-entry to assess the risk of human casualty from such
    atmospheric re-entry and will review these assessments on a
    case-by-case basis.[^226] No party to this proceeding opposed the
    continued evaluation of the human casualty risk assessment according
    to the standards of the NASA and U.S. Government Standard Practices.
    Entities may wish to look to the U.S. Government Standard Practices
    and NASA Safety Standard NSS 1740.14 (and any revisions to that
    standard) as a guide when preparing their assessment and
    certification.[^227]

#### Fuel Matters 

89. *Background.* The *Orbital Debris Notice* sought comment whether an
    FCC rule is necessary to ensure that spacecraft reserve adequate
    fuel supplies at the end of useful life to execute post-mission
    disposal maneuvers, such as de-orbiting or removal to storage
    orbits.[^228] The *Notice* noted that the reservation and
    expenditure of fuel for post-mission disposal maneuvers comes at the
    expense of income-producing activities, and sought comment whether
    measures might be necessary to ensure that spacecraft maintain
    adequate fuel at end of life, such as requiring operators to report
    the availability of fuel adequate to execute planned disposal
    maneuvers.[^229] In this regard, it observed that one group of
    experts has recommended the adoption of reporting requirements for
    satellites reaching end of life, concerning fuel reserves and
    end-of-life plans.[^230] The *Notice* also sought comment on any
    other matters, including any technological developments, which might
    affect end-of-life procedures.

90. *Discussion.* We agree with commenters that it is unnecessary at
    this time for the Commission to mandate specific fuel levels for
    post-mission disposal maneuvers.[^231] In the case of GEO
    spacecraft, we have specified that the IADC formula should be used
    to calculate the minimum perigee for an appropriate storage orbit
    for satellites launched subsequent to the release of the *Notice*.
    Satellite operators are in the best position to apply the IADC
    formula and determine the corresponding amount of fuel that must be
    reserved for a particular spacecraft in order to achieve the
    corresponding minimum perigee altitude. Likewise, operators of NGSO
    systems are also in the best position to determine how they will
    dispose of their spacecraft at the end of life and the corresponding
    amount of fuel to reserve to achieve disposal, if in fact the
    spacecraft plans to use propulsion as a means of disposal. We
    believe that operators have adequate incentive to reserve adequate
    fuel supplies to comply with our post-mission disposal requirement
    without the need for additional Commission mandates regarding fuel
    supplies.[^232]

91. We conclude, however, that the public interest would be served by
    having space station operators disclose, as part of applications for
    Commission authorizations, the quantity of fuel -- if any -- they
    intend to reserve for post-mission disposal of their spacecraft, as
    well as the methodology used to derive that quantity, including the
    methods used to determine and address fuel gauging uncertainty. We
    conclude that such a requirement serves the public interest by
    demonstrating, prior to receiving Commission authority, that the
    space station operator has adequately planned for the post-mission
    disposal of its spacecraft. While this disclosure requirement does
    not eliminate the possibility of inadequate disposal as the result
    of operator error or unforeseen emergencies, as noted by one
    commenter,[^233] it does provide reasonable assurance that an
    operator has addressed post-mission disposal as part of its
    operational plans.

## Scope of Rules

### Non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations

92. *Background*. The FCC has adopted procedures to facilitate provision
    of satellite services in the United States using space stations
    licensed by Administrations other than the United States pursuant to
    the commitments of the United States under the World Trade
    Organization (WTO) Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services
    (WTO Telecom Agreement) and the General Agreement on Trade in
    Services (GATS).[^234] Such non-U.S.-licensed space stations[^235]
    can provide service to earth stations located in the United States
    through the provisions outlined in Section 25.137 of the
    Commission's rules.[^236] A party following this procedure must
    submit the same technical information concerning the space station
    involved as is required to be submitted by U.S. space station
    license applicants.[^237] The *Orbital Debris Notice* proposed to
    require submission of debris mitigation plans as part of such
    submissions of technical information.[^238] In addition, the
    *Notice* sought comment on whether it should be deemed sufficient
    for non-U.S.-licensed space station operators to submit evidence
    that the satellite system's debris mitigation plans are subject to
    direct and effective regulatory oversight by the satellite system's
    national licensing authority, and on the proper scope of any such
    showing.[^239]

93. *Discussion.* We conclude that the public interest is served by
    requiring entities that request a Commission ruling for access to a
    non-U.S.-licensed space station to serve the U.S. market to submit
    the same information concerning the orbital debris mitigation plans
    of the non-U.S-licensed space station as that submitted by
    U.S.-licensed space stations. As we observed in the *Orbital Debris
    Notice*, some consideration of whether a space station serving the
    United States will employ reasonable debris mitigation measures is
    appropriate, regardless of the licensing Administration, in order to
    ensure that the satellite communications activity that we authorize
    does not involve substantial safety concerns or activities that may
    be detrimental to space operations.[^240] Most importantly, a
    categorical exemption for any class of satellites serving the United
    States would undermine the legitimate public policy objective of
    mitigating orbital debris, and thereby promoting continued
    affordable access to space, continued provision of reliable
    space-based services, and the safety of persons and property in
    space and on the surface of the Earth.

94. By requiring entities that request Commission approval to access the
    U.S. market via non-U.S.-licensed space stations to submit technical
    information concerning orbital debris mitigation, we are simply
    ensuring that foreign operators that seek access to the U.S. market
    for commercial reasons meet the same public interest requirements as
    U.S.-licensed operators. As comments point out,[^241] this approach
    comports with our policy of requiring non-U.S. satellite operators
    to submit the same type of technical information that we require of
    U.S. space station licensees. [^242] We observe that orbital debris
    mitigation plans are not unique in this regard, but are like a
    number of technical regulatory policy areas, such as compliance with
    FCC two-degree spacing policies, in which we seek technical
    information about non-U.S.-licensed space station systems relevant
    to the authorization of earth station operations in the United
    States.[^243] Our review of the debris mitigation plans of all
    systems, whether involving U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.-licensed space
    stations, will be based on objective and transparent criteria set
    forth in this proceeding that have been designed to be no more
    burdensome than necessary to protect the public interest in
    mitigating orbital debris. Furthermore, these criteria have been
    developed in a manner consistent with the recommendations of
    international organizations, such as the ITU, which has recommended
    orbital debris mitigation measures since at least 1993.[^244]
    Accordingly, we have no reason to believe that non-U.S.-licensed
    space stations will have any greater difficulty complying with our
    debris mitigation disclosure requirements than U.S.-licensed space
    stations.

95. Regarding the nature of the proposed debris mitigation showing by
    non-U.S.-licensed space stations, we conclude that the disclosure
    requirement can be satisfied by showing that the satellite system's
    debris mitigation plans are subject to direct and effective
    regulatory oversight by the satellite system's national licensing
    authority. This conclusion is supported by those parties that
    submitted comments on this question.[^245] One method of making this
    showing is to submit an English language version of the debris
    mitigation rules or regulations of the national licensing authority
    and to indicate the current status of the national licensing
    authority's review of its debris mitigation plans.

96. We do not agree with comments that claim that requiring a
    non-U.S.-licensed space station to submit its orbital debris
    mitigation plan constitutes a "unilateral" or "extraterritorial"
    imposition of Commission rules.[^246] Our review of orbital debris
    mitigation plans of non-U.S.-licensed space stations applies only to
    those non-U.S. space station operators that for commercial reasons
    request to provide service to the U.S. market. As observed in the
    *Notice*,[^247] this review does not give the Commission any ability
    to take direct enforcement action concerning a non-U.S. licensed
    space station; rather, Commission actions are limited to withholding
    or withdrawal of authority of U.S.-licensed earth stations to
    communicate with non-U.S.-licensed space stations. Thus, our review
    of debris mitigation plans as part of requests for Commission
    authorization in no way expands our existing authority regarding the
    ability of non-U.S.-licensed space stations to serve the U.S.
    market.

97. To the extent that our policy leads other countries to adopt orbital
    debris mitigation requirements of their own, as Telesat
    suggests,[^248] we believe such a development would be desirable and
    fully consistent with our overall goal of mitigating orbital
    debris.[^249] Because the debris mitigation rules that we adopt
    herein are consistent with the consensus recommendations of
    international institutions and the leading space-faring
    nations,[^250] we anticipate that measures for mitigating orbital
    debris that may be adopted by other countries are likely to be
    consistent with those measures we adopt today.[^251] Furthermore,
    although Telesat suggests that other nations may use orbital debris
    mitigation rules as a means to prevent entry of foreign satellite
    service providers,[^252] we do not believe that the theoretical
    possibility that other countries could take ill-considered actions,
    at variance with international norms, in any way should prevent the
    Commission from adopting objective and transparent measures
    concerning orbital debris mitigation that serve that public
    interest.

### Amateur and Experimental Licensees 

98. *Background.* The Commission's rules include provisions in Parts 97
    (amateur) and 5 (experimental) concerning satellites. The *Orbital
    Debris Notice* observed that amateur and experimental spacecraft can
    present the same public interest concerns as operations under other
    rule parts.[^253] As a result, the *Notice* proposed to amend Parts
    5 and 97 to require amateur and experimental space station licensees
    to submit the same disclosure regarding orbital debris mitigation
    plans as that submitted by operators subject to Part 25.[^254]
    Specifically, the *Orbital Debris Notice* proposed to amend the
    texts of Sections 5.63 and 97.207(g) of the Commission's rules to
    require experimental and amateur satellite licensees to submit a
    description of the design and operational strategies that will be
    used to mitigate orbital debris -- including a casualty risk
    assessment if planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric
    re-entry of a spacecraft -- and to demonstrate that debris
    generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources on
    board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the
    spacecraft.[^255]

99. *Discussion.* No comments oppose requiring amateur service and
    experimental radio service licensees to disclose their orbital
    debris mitigation plans as part of their applications for Commission
    authorization. We also note that AMSAT states that a disclosure
    requirement can be met by builders of amateur radio
    satellites.[^256] For these reasons, we adopt our proposal to amend
    Sections 5.63 and 97.207(g) of the Commission's rules to require
    amateur service and experimental satellite licensees to submit a
    description of the design and operational strategies that will be
    used to mitigate orbital debris as part of their applications for
    Commission authorization. We will review the debris mitigation
    disclosures of amateur service and experimental space station
    licensees on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the
    licensee's proposed system will be consistent with requirements and
    policies adopted in this Second Report and Order, including measures
    for the post mission disposal of spacecraft. To the extent the
    information disclosed raises operational or orbital debris
    mitigation concerns, the Commission may seek further information,
    condition the authorization, or withhold approval, as necessary.

100. Some comments argue that either a temporary or permanent exception
     is warranted for amateur service space stations because of the
     allegedly high cost of compliance with mitigation requirements and
     the limited resources of amateur radio operators.[^257] Other
     comments indicate that amateur service space station licensees
     should be exempt from such requirements because the amateur service
     has played an important role in the development and use of
     satellite technologies.[^258] We decline to exempt amateur service
     space stations categorically from any need to address orbital
     debris mitigation because some amateur service space stations in
     low Earth orbit have expected post-mission orbital lifetimes that
     exceed the 25 year time period recommended by the U.S. Government
     Standard Practices and the IADC guidelines[^259] and because the
     long orbital lifetimes of such amateur service satellites increases
     the probability that collisions between objects will occur thereby
     resulting in more orbital debris. For these reasons, we believe
     amateur service space stations pose the same public interest
     concerns with regard to orbital debris as space stations subject to
     other parts of our rules. We recognize that because most amateur
     service space craft are LEO spacecraft, post-mission disposal
     requirements may necessitate modifications in the current design
     and operation, either through the addition of propulsion systems or
     other strategies to cause a spacecraft to re-enter the Earth's
     atmosphere within 25 years of end of life, or by foregoing
     operations at higher orbital altitudes where the effects of
     atmospheric drag are not sufficiently strong by themselves to
     remove the space station from orbit within this 25-year time
     period. We believe, however, that the costs involved with these
     modifications are justified when balanced against the public
     interest in mitigating orbital debris.

101. Recently, AMSAT filed a proposal to modify the notification
     procedures for the licensing of amateur service satellites.[^260]
     Our licensing rules for amateur service satellites currently
     require a license grantee of an amateur service space station to
     make written notifications of its proposed operations to the
     International Bureau prior to commencing operations. The first of
     these written notices is required no less than 27 months prior to
     initiating space station transmissions and must provide the
     technical characteristics of the space station required by Appendix
     4 and Resolution No. 642 of the ITU Radio Regulations.[^261] The
     second notice is required no less than five months prior to the
     initiation of space station transmissions and must provide the
     information regarding spurious emissions required by Appendix 3 and
     Resolution No. 642 of the ITU Radio Regulations.[^262] AMSAT
     proposes to change the written notification requirements to provide
     for shorter notification periods and more streamlined information
     requirements.[^263] The current notification periods, if followed
     by amateur applicants,[^264] should generally provide sufficient
     time for Commission staff to review the orbital debris mitigation
     plans of amateur space stations prior to their launch and operation
     and should provide adequate time for applicants to correct any
     deficiencies revealed as a result of this review. We have recently
     commenced a rulemaking proceeding to consider proposals to shorten
     or otherwise alter the licensing process for amateur space
     stations.[^265] As part of this rulemaking, we have sought comment
     on what actions the Commission should take if it is presented with
     an orbital debris mitigation plan that raises concerns as to the
     debris mitigation practices of an amateur service space station, as
     well as on any alternative licensing processes that may help us to
     evaluate whether the launch and operation of particular amateur
     space stations are consistent with the public interest.[^266]

### NOAA-Licensed Space Stations 

102. *Background.* As described in the *Orbital Debris Notice*,[^267]
     commercial remote sensing satellites are subject to regulation by
     both National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
     FCC. The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Remote Sensing
     Act)[^268] designated the Secretary of Commerce as the U.S.
     licensing authority for commercial remote sensing systems. Because
     commercial remote sensing satellites use radio frequencies to
     transmit data collected in space back to Earth, commercial remote
     sensing satellites typically must also obtain a separate license
     from the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act for the spectrum
     usage.[^269] Thus, commercial remote sensing satellites hold NOAA
     licenses regarding the operation of the satellite, such as
     provisions regarding the resolution of the imagery, as well as from
     the FCC regarding spectrum use.

103. The Remote Sensing Act requires that a licensee "upon termination
     of operations under the license, make disposition of any satellites
     in space in a manner satisfactory to the President."[^270] NOAA has
     interpreted this requirement to mean that a licensee shall assess
     and minimize the amount of orbital debris released during the
     post-mission disposal of its satellite.[^271] Accordingly, NOAA
     requires applicants subject to its jurisdiction to provide, at the
     time of application for NOAA authorization, a plan for the
     post-mission disposal of remote sensing satellites, which is
     reviewed on a case-by-case basis.[^272] Because NOAA already
     examines the post-mission disposal of remote sensing satellites,
     the *Orbital Debris Notice* tentatively concluded not to address
     matters involving post-mission disposal of NOAA-licensed satellites
     as part of its examination of the debris mitigation disclosures of
     remote sensing satellites.[^273]

104. *Discussion.* We adopt the proposal of the *Notice*. There is no
     additional benefit to reviewing the post-mission disposal plans of
     commercial remote sensing satellite applicants when such plans are
     already subject to effective regulatory review by NOAA.
     Accordingly, to the extent that a remote sensing satellite
     applicant has submitted its post-mission disposal plans to NOAA for
     review and approval, we will not require submission of such
     information. Nonetheless, with respect to elements of debris
     mitigation other than post-mission disposal, and for which NOAA has
     not received information necessary for review and approval, we will
     require FCC remote sensing satellite applicants to submit such
     information as part of an application for Commission authority, and
     will review any such aspects of a remote sensing applicant's debris
     mitigation plans that are outside the scope of NOAA review.[^274]

### Launch Vehicles 

105. *Background.* In the *Orbital Debris Notice*, the Commission sought
     comment on whether there are any matters involving launch vehicles
     that the FCC has authority to consider as part of its review of an
     orbital debris mitigation disclosure.[^275] The *Notice* observed
     that Congress appointed the Department of Transportation to be the
     U.S. licensing authority for commercial launch operators pursuant
     to the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended,[^276] and
     that the Department of Transportation, through a delegation of
     authority to the Federal Aviation Administration, has already
     adopted detailed launch safety requirements that include measures
     to mitigate orbital debris and regulations requiring launch
     liability insurance.[^277] The Commission has not required
     applicants for FCC space station licenses to submit information
     regarding debris mitigation plans for the launch vehicle that will
     be used to launch the space station, nor have we reviewed this
     information even if it is submitted.[^278] The *Notice* did not
     propose to change this practice, but rather observed that matters
     addressed under the Commercial Space Launch Act and its
     implementing regulations are most appropriately addressed by the
     FAA.[^279]

106. The *Orbital Debris Notice* inquired, however, whether the
     Commission would have the authority to consider launch-related
     matters that appear to be outside the scope of the Commercial Space
     Launch Act and FAA jurisdiction. For example, although FAA
     authorization is required for all launches from U.S. territory and
     for launches by U.S. citizens outside the United States,[^280] the
     FAA does not regulate launches by non-U.S. citizens outside the
     United States. In the case where a company is seeking a FCC license
     and procuring its launch from a launch provider that is not subject
     to FAA jurisdiction, we sought comment on whether the Commission
     could consider orbital debris issues involving the launch vehicle
     used to launch the satellite system, if asked to do so.[^281]

107. *Discussion.* Arianespace, a non-U.S. provider of launch services,
     opposes any consideration of launch vehicles as part of the
     Commission's licensing process. It asserts that the Commission
     lacks statutory authority under either the Commercial Space Launch
     Act or the Communications Act to consider matters relating to
     launch vehicles.[^282] Arianespace also claims that FCC
     consideration of matters related to non-U.S. launch vehicles would
     constitute an extraterritorial and unilateral extension of FCC
     authority, which would undermine negotiations conducted by U.S.
     Executive branch agencies in multilateral bodies, such as the IADC
     and UNCOPOUS.[^283] Finally, Arianespace argues that submitting
     non-U.S. launch vehicles to the Commission's debris mitigation
     requirements would subject non-U.S. launch providers to duplicative
     and dual regulation, since Arianespace claims that it will be
     subject to the debris mitigation regulations of France and the
     European Space Agency.[^284] Even if the Commission adopts orbital
     debris mitigation rules similar to those imposed by other nations,
     Arianespace asserts that a non-U.S. launch provider would still
     incur additional costs by having to participate in the Commission
     licensing process on behalf of its customer and would face the
     market uncertainty of whether its orbital debris mitigation plans
     are acceptable to the Commission.[^285]

108. We see no reason to alter our current practice of not requiring
     information about the launch vehicle used to launch a
     Commission-authorized space station into orbit. We agree with
     Arianespace that it is highly unlikely that there would be any
     significant public interest concerns regarding orbital debris that
     would arise from the use of a particular launch vehicle due to the
     highly regulated nature of the launch industry, both within the
     United States and abroad,[^286] and the active participation of the
     launch vehicle industry in the formulation of debris mitigation
     measures. We disagree with Arianespace, however, that the
     Commission lacks the authority to address these concerns, insofar
     as they involve a non-U.S. licensed launch provider, should they be
     brought to our attention in a specific space station licensing
     case. The Communications Act requires the Commission to ascertain
     that the grant of an authorization to construct, launch and
     implement a space station serves the public interest and makes no
     exemption or distinction for public interest concerns related to
     the launch vehicle used as part of the launch of that space
     station. While we do not anticipate that we will need to consider
     such concerns due to the commitment of the launch industry, and of
     a wide range of responsible authorities in the major space-faring
     nations, to mitigate orbital debris, we retain the discretion to
     consider such concerns in the event that they are brought to our
     attention as part of a request for Commission authorization of a
     particular space station. For example, commenters observe that
     upper stages of launch vehicles sometimes carry secondary payloads
     and experiments that are designed not to separate from the upper
     stage, including amateur radio satellites.[^287] In such a case,
     the upper stage of the launch vehicle effectively becomes part of
     the space station that is seeking Commission authorization to
     operate. To the extent that the debris mitigation disclosure
     certifies that the debris mitigation plans of the launch vehicle
     upper stage have been, or will be, reviewed by the FAA, no further
     FCC examination of the debris mitigation plans of the upper stage
     will be required. We anticipate that the same deference will be
     extended to entities who demonstrate that the debris mitigation
     plans of the utilized upper stage are subject to direct and
     effective regulatory control by another national regulatory agency
     and the entity certifies that the upper stage will conform to the
     orbital debris mitigation practices adopted by the national
     regulatory agency.

## Liability Issues and Insurance

109. *Background.* The *Orbital Debris Notice* sought comment on the
     role that liability considerations and insurance should play in
     decisions regarding debris mitigation measures. As observed in the
     *Notice*,[^288] the United States is party to two international
     treaties that address liability arising from activities in outer
     space.[^289] The Outer Space Treaty requires that State Parties
     bear international responsibility for national activities in space,
     whether carried out by governmental agencies or non-governmental
     entities.[^290] Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty provides
     that, "Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the
     launching of an object into outer space ... is internationally
     liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its
     natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts
     on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including the Moon
     and other celestial bodies."[^291] The definition of "space object"
     includes "component parts of a space object" and thus may, at least
     arguably, incorporate orbital debris resulting from satellite
     operations. The Convention on International Liability for Damage
     Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention) elaborates on
     Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty and provides that a
     "launching state shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for
     damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or
     to aircraft flight."[^292] In the event of damage being caused
     elsewhere than on the surface of the Earth to a space object of one
     launching State or to persons or property on board such a space
     object by a space object of another launching State, the Liability
     Convention states that the launching state "shall be liable only if
     the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it
     is responsible."[^293] A "launching state" is defined as either (1)
     a State which launches or procures the launching of a space object,
     or (2) a State from whose territory or facility a space object is
     launched.[^294]

110. Accordingly, under international law, the United States government
     could potentially be presented with a claim under the Liability
     Convention for certain damage that may result from private space
     station operations, including disposal, maneuvering, and the
     generation of orbital debris. Congress has adopted a comprehensive
     statutory regime to address liability issues arising from the
     launch of spacecraft by private entities.[^295] Under that statute,
     the FAA requires its launch licensees to obtain insurance for
     potential liability to third parties resulting from launch
     mishaps.[^296] These insurance requirements do not, however,
     address post-launch issues arising from damages caused by a space
     station payload after a nominal launch is concluded.[^297] The
     *Notice* sought comment on whether there are circumstances in which
     Commission-licensed space stations should be required to obtain
     insurance in order to protect the United States and its taxpayers
     from exposure to third-party liability arising from orbital debris,
     or in order to provide economic incentives for operators to adopt
     debris mitigation strategies that reduce risk and lower insurance
     premiums.[^298] The *Notice* also sought comment on whether
     different types of risk may differ with respect to whether they can
     be appropriately addressed through insurance, as well as the
     Commission's authority to require such insurance.[^299]

111. *Discussion.* We agree with comments that state that there may be
     cases where requiring operators to obtain insurance would not be
     unreasonable given the potential risk assumed by the U.S.
     government under international law, and that insurance can, in some
     instances, provide an economic incentive for operators to undertake
     debris mitigation measures.[^300] We have found in the past that
     the existence of insurance policies to address orbital debris risks
     was a relevant public interest factor in approving an applicant's
     plans to dispose of its space stations at the end of life by means
     of atmospheric re-entry.[^301] SIA agrees that insurance
     requirements may be necessary with respect to satellites that will
     be disposed of through atmospheric re-entry, since there is a
     potential risk of damage and insurance has proven to be available
     in the past for such disposal.[^302] We anticipate that insurance
     and liability issues will continue to play a role in the
     determination of whether approval of a particular debris mitigation
     plan serves the public interest, particularly when the plan involve
     activities such as atmospheric re-entry, which may involve more
     immediate and substantial risks to persons and property on the
     surface of the Earth.

112. With respect to other potential activities that might be the
     subject of any insurance requirement, we indicated in the *Notice*
     that debris objects have potentially very long orbital
     lifetimes.[^303] Those lifetimes may range into the hundreds or
     thousands of years. Thus, the period for insurance coverage against
     damage caused by orbital debris may exceed the period of time
     typically covered by commercially available insurance policies. We
     conclude that such risks are not ones that may be addressed through
     insurance requirements. As for risks that occur during the normal
     operation of the space station, comments indicate that many
     operators already obtain insurance for such operations.[^304] We
     decline to adopt a specific requirement with regards to insurance
     for such normal operations, but note that in specific cases the
     existence of, or availability of, insurance may be considered as a
     factor in our public interest determinations.

113. With respect to liability issues, we stress that our examination of
     debris mitigation and post-mission disposal plans is restricted to
     an inquiry as to whether a space station operator has taken debris
     mitigation measures into account during the design and operation of
     its spacecraft and as to whether such designs and operations might
     raise obvious public interest concerns. Our review of an
     applicant's debris mitigation plan, or a grant of authority to
     dispose of a space station at the end of life, does not address,
     nor is it intended to alter, any liability of the space station
     applicant or any other private company in connection with the
     commissioning, operation, or de-commissioning of its satellite
     system.[^305]

## Other Matters

114. *Background.* In response to the *Orbital Debris Notice*, certain
     proposals were made in addition to those raised by the *Notice*. In
     particular, Slabinski proposes that space station licensees in the
     geostationary-Earth orbit be required to post a one-million dollar
     bond per space station to the FCC or some other agency before
     launch, which would be refunded only after the space station is
     disposed at end of life to a proper disposal orbit.[^306] The bond
     amount would be forfeited if the space station is not properly
     disposed of at end of life, or the amount would be returned on a
     pro-rated basis if the actual disposal orbit was raised only part
     way to the minimum required disposal orbit.[^307] Slabinski argues
     that the posting of such a bond would provide additional economic
     incentive to space station licensees to ensure that their space
     stations are properly disposed of at the end of life. In addition,
     Slabinski urges adoption of a requirement that all space station
     licensees should procure and maintain comprehensive, up-to-date and
     readily available documentation that explains the spacecraft
     idiosyncrasies and end-of-life maneuver procedures.[^308] This
     documentation would include reports of all operational
     anomalies.[^309] Although Slabinski does not expressly state the
     purpose of this documentation, it can be inferred that it would be
     to preserve a record for the decisions made with regard to the
     post-mission disposal of a space station, which could occur a
     decade or more after launch.

115. *Discussion.* We decline at this time to impose a bond requirement
     for post-mission disposal of geostationary-Earth orbit satellites.
     Although we recently adopted a milestone performance bond
     requirement as part of the recent reform of our space station
     licensing procedures,[^310] we do not find that a similar bond
     requirement is appropriate at this time with regard to post-mission
     disposal of GEO space stations. The rules that we adopt regarding
     post-mission disposal of Commission-licensed space stations should
     provide incentive for operators to dispose of their spacecraft at
     the end of life in a manner consistent with orbital debris
     mitigation objectives. Although we disagree with commenters that it
     would be prohibitively difficult to administer such a bond
     requirement,[^311] we do not believe that the public interest would
     be served by requiring Commission licensees to post a bond which
     would not be returnable to the licensee for fifteen years or more,
     based on the current operational lifetimes of GEO communications
     satellites.[^312] To the extent that Slablinski's proposal is
     intended to ensure that operators exercise their best efforts to
     properly perform end-of-life measures, we note that, if an operator
     fails to meet goals for proper end-of-life measures, the Commission
     has the authority to investigate the reasons for that failure, and
     take further regulatory measures, including enforcement action in
     appropriate cases.

116. We also decline to adopt additional document maintenance
     requirements for Commission space station licensees, as suggested
     by Slabinski. Slabinski has not provided any evidence to support
     the contention that space station licensees are not adequately
     maintaining records concerning their spacecraft, or that record
     maintenance is a direct influence on orbital debris creation or
     mitigation. Accordingly, we do not perceive any public interest
     benefit in adopting requirements regarding record retention and
     format of spacecraft documentation.

# Conclusion

117. Orbital debris mitigation measures are an important part of
     satellite operations in the public interest. Accordingly, we amend
     our rules to require disclosure of orbital debris mitigation plans
     as part of the technical information submitted pursuant to Section
     25.114 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, a satellite system
     operator requesting FCC space station authorization, or an entity
     requesting a Commission ruling for access to a non-U.S.-licensed
     space station under our satellite market access procedures, must
     submit an orbital debris mitigation plan to the Commission
     regarding spacecraft design and operation in connection with its
     request. In addition, we provide guidance on the preparation of
     these plans and adopt post-mission disposal requirements for
     certain Commission-licensed space stations in the GEO and LEO
     orbital regimes. We will also initiate a further notice of proposed
     rulemaking to consider amending Section 25.210(j) to provide an
     explicit extension of an ±0.05° longitudinal tolerance to all
     Commission space stations, including MSS and remote sensing space
     stations. The actions that we take today will help ensure the
     continued affordable access to space, the continued provisions of
     reliable space-based communications services, and the continued
     safety of persons and property on the surface of the Earth.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

118. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
     (RFA),[^313] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
     incorporated in the *Orbital Debris Notice*.[^314] The Commission
     sought written public comment on the proposals in the *Orbital
     Debris Notice*, including comment on the IRFA. The comments
     received are discussed below. Pursuant to the RFA, [^315] a Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) is contained in Appendix
     C.[^316]

## Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

119. This document does not contain new or modified information
     collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
     1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission obtained OMB approval
     for the information collection requirements specified in the Second
     Report and Order. The OMB Control Number for the approved
     information collection is 3060-1013.

120. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order in a
     report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office
     (GAO) pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
     801(a)(1)(A).

# Ordering clauses

121. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 301, 303,
     308, 309 and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
     U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 301, 303, 308, 309 and 310, that this Second
     Report and Order in IB Docket No. 02-54 is hereby ADOPTED.

122. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 5, 25 and 97 of the Commission's
     rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B.

123. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consumer Information Bureau,
     Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second
     Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
     Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

**Appendix A -- Parties Filing Pleadings**

[Comments]{.underline}

AON Space, Inc.

Arianespace Inc.

Ecliptic Enterprises Corp.

L'Garde, Inc.

Nickolaus E. Leggett

Orbcomm LLC

PanAmSat Corp.

Radio Amateur Satellite Corp. (AMSAT)

Satellite Industry Association (SIA)

Telesat Canada

University of Mississippi School of Law National Remote Sensing and
Space Law Center (UM Space Law Center)

Victor J. Slabinski

[Reply Comments]{.underline}

Radio Amateur Satellite Corp.

SES Americom, Inc.

Telesat Canada

Victor J. Slabinski

[Late-Filed Comments & Ex Parte Communications]{.underline}

Boeing Company

EADS Astrium

EchoStar Satellite LLC

Inmarsat Ventures Ltd.

Intelsat Global Services Corp.

Iridium Satellite LLC

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (MIT Lincoln
Labs)

PanAmSat Corp.

Satellite Industry Association

SES Americom, Inc.

Telesat Canada

**APPENDIX B -- Rule Revisions**

For the reasons discuss above, the Federal Communications Commission
amends title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 5, 25, and 97,
as follows:

**PART 5 \-- EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE (OTHER THAN BROADCAST)**

1\. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 302, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C.
154, 302, 303. Interpret or apply sec. 301, 48 Stat. 1081, as amended;
47 U.S.C. 301.

2\. Add new paragraph (e) to § 5.63 to read as follows:

[§ 5.63 Supplementary statements required.]{.underline}

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) Except where the satellite system has already been authorized by
the FCC, applicants for an experimental authorization involving a
satellite system must submit a description of the design and operational
strategies the satellite system will use to mitigate orbital debris,
including the following information:

\(1\) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and
limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal
operations, and has assessed and limited the probability of the 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;

\(2\) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and
limited the probability of accidental explosions during and after
completion of mission operations. This statement must include a
demonstration that debris generation will not result from the conversion
of energy sources on board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the
spacecraft. Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic
energy. This demonstration should address whether stored energy will be
removed at the spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and
leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system,
leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any
remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent
procedures specifically disclosed in the application;

\(3\) 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.
Where a space station will be launched into a low-Earth orbit that is
identical, or very similar, to an orbit used by other space stations,
the statement must include an analysis of the potential risk of
collision and a description of what measures the space station operator
plans to take to avoid in-orbit collisions. If the space station
operator is relying on coordination with another system, the statement
must indicate what steps have been taken to contact, and ascertain the
likelihood of successful coordination of physical operations with, the
other system. The statement must disclose the accuracy -- if any -- with
which orbital parameters of non-geostationary satellite orbit space
stations will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, inclination, and
the right ascension of the ascending node(s). In the event that a system
is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, *i.e.*, it lacks a
propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact should be included
in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also indicate the
anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed satellite
or satellites. Where a space station requests the assignment of a
geostationary-Earth orbit location, it must assess whether there are any
known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be located at,
the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that
location, such that the station keeping volumes of the respective
satellites might overlap. If so, the statement must include a statement
as to the identities of those parties and the measures that will be
taken to prevent collisions;

\(4\) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the
space station at end of life, including the quantity of fuel -- if any
-- that will be reserved for post-mission disposal maneuvers. For
geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement must disclose
the altitude selected for a post-mission disposal orbit and the
calculations that are used in deriving the disposal altitude. The
statement must also include a casualty risk assessment if planned
post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the space
station. In general, an assessment should include an estimate as to
whether portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and reach the
surface of the Earth, as well as an estimate of the resulting
probability of human casualty.

**PART 25 \-- SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS**

3\. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301,
302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless otherwise
noted.

4\. Add new paragraph (d)(14) to § 25.114 to read as follows:

**[§ 25.114 Applications for Space Station
Authorizations.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \* \* \*

\(14\) A description of the design and operational strategies that will
be used to mitigate orbital debris, including the following information:

\(i\) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and
limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal
operations, and has assessed and limited the probability of the 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;

\(ii\) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and
limited the probability of accidental explosions during and after
completion of mission operations. This statement must include a
demonstration that debris generation will not result from the conversion
of energy sources on board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the
spacecraft. Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic
energy. This demonstration should address whether stored energy will be
removed at the spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and
leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system,
leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any
remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent
procedures specifically disclosed in the application;

\(iii\) 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.
Where a space station will be launched into a low-Earth orbit that is
identical, or very similar, to an orbit used by other space stations,
the statement must include an analysis of the potential risk of
collision and a description of what measures the space station operator
plans to take to avoid in-orbit collisions. If the space station
operator is relying on coordination with another system, the statement
must indicate what steps have been taken to contact, and ascertain the
likelihood of successful coordination of physical operations with, the
other system. The statement must disclose the accuracy -- if any -- with
which orbital parameters of non-geostationary satellite orbit space
stations will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, inclination, and
the right ascension of the ascending node(s). In the event that a system
is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, *i.e.*, it lacks a
propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact should be included
in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also indicate the
anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed satellite
or satellites. Where a space station requests the assignment of a
geostationary-Earth orbit location, it must assess whether there are any
known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be located at,
the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that
location, such that the station keeping volumes of the respective
satellites might overlap. If so, the statement must include a statement
as to the identities of those parties and the measures that will be
taken to prevent collisions;

\(iv\) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the
space station at end of life, including the quantity of fuel -- if any
-- that will be reserved for post-mission disposal maneuvers. For
geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement must disclose
the altitude selected for a post-mission disposal orbit and the
calculations that are used in deriving the disposal altitude. The
statement must also include a casualty risk assessment if planned
post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the space
station. In general, an assessment should include an estimate as to
whether portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and reach the
surface of the Earth, as well as an estimate of the resulting
probability of human casualty.

\* \* \* \* \*

5\. Revise § 25.143(b)(1) to read as follows:

**[§ 25.143 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite
service and 2 GHz mobile-satellite service.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) *Qualification Requirements -* (1) *General Requirements.* Each
application for a space station system authorization in the 1.6/2.4 GHz
Mobile-Satellite Service or 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service shall
describe in detail the proposed satellite system, setting forth all
pertinent technical and operational aspects of the system, and the
technical and legal qualifications of the applicant. In particular, each
application shall include the information specified in § 25.114.
Non-U.S. licensed systems shall comply with the provisions of § 25.137.

\* \* \* \* \*

6\. Remove and reserve § 25.145(c)(3) to read as follows:

**[§ 25.145 Licensing conditions for the Fixed-Satellite Service in the
20/30 GHz bands.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(3\) \[reserved.\]

\* \* \* \* \*

7\. Remove and reserve § 25.146(i)(4) to read as follows:

**[§ 25.146 Licensing and operating authorization provisions for the
non-geostationary satellite orbit fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) in
the bands 10.7 GHz to 14.5 GHz.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(i\) \* \* \*

\(4\) \[reserved.\]

\* \* \* \* \*

8\. Revise § 25.210(j) to read as follows:

**[§ 25.210 Technical requirements for space stations in the
Fixed-Satellite Service.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(j\) Space stations operated in the geostationary satellite orbit must
be maintained within 0.05^o^ of their assigned orbital longitude in the
east/west direction, unless specifically authorized by the Commission to
operate with a different longitudinal tolerance, and except as provided
in Section 25.283(b) (End-of-life Disposal).

\* \* \* \* \*

9\. Remove and reserve § 25.217 (d) to read as follows:

**[§ 25.217 Default Service Rules.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \[reserved.\]

\* \* \* \* \*

10\. Revise § 25.280 to read as follows:

**[§ 25.280 Inclined Orbit Operations.]{.underline}**

\(a\) Satellite operators may commence operation in inclined orbit mode
without obtaining prior Commission authorization provided that the
Commission is notified by letter within 30 days after the last
north-south station keeping maneuver. The notification shall include:

\(1\) The operator\'s name;

\(2\) The date of commencement of inclined orbit operation;

\(3\) The initial inclination;

\(4\) The rate of change in inclination per year; and

\(5\) The expected end-of-life of the satellite accounting for inclined
orbit operation, and the maneuvers specified under Section 25.283 of the
rules.

\(b\) Licensees operating in inclined-orbit are required to:

\(1\) Periodically correct the satellite attitude to achieve a
stationary spacecraft antenna pattern on the surface of the Earth and
centered on the satellite\'s designated service area;

\(2\) Control all electrical interference to adjacent satellites, as a
result of operating in an inclined orbit, to levels not to exceed that
which would be caused by the satellite operating without an inclined
orbit;

\(3\) Not claim protection in excess of the protection that would be
received by the satellite network operating without an inclined orbit;
and

\(4\) Continue to maintain the space station at the authorized longitude
orbital location in the geostationary satellite arc with the appropriate
east-west station-keeping tolerance.

11\. Add § 25.282 to subpart D to read as follows:

**[§ 25.282 Orbit Raising Maneuvers.]{.underline}**

\(a\) A space station authorized to operate in the geostationary
satellite orbit under this Part is also authorized to transmit in
connection with short-term, transitory maneuvers directly related to
post-launch, orbit-raising maneuvers, provided that the following
conditions are met:

\(1\) Authority is limited to those tracking, telemetry, and control
frequencies in which the space station is authorized to operate once it
reaches its assigned geostationary orbital location;

\(2\) In the event that any unacceptable interference does occur, the
space station licensee shall cease operations until the issue is
rectified;

\(3\) The space station licensee is required to accept interference from
any lawfully operating satellite network or radio communication system.

12\. Add § 25.283 to subpart D to read as follows:

**[§ 25.283 End-of-Life Disposal.]{.underline}**

\(a\) *Geostationary orbit space stations.* Unless otherwise explicitly
specified in an authorization, a space station authorized to operate in
the geostationary satellite orbit under this Part shall be relocated, at
the end of its useful life, barring catastrophic failure of satellite
components, to an orbit with a perigee with an altitude of no less than:

36,021 km + (1000·C~R~·A/m)

where C~R~ is the solar pressure radiation coefficient of the
spacecraft, and A/m is the Area to mass ratio, in square meters per
kilogram, of the spacecraft.

\(b\) A space station authorized to operate in the geostationary
satellite orbit under this Part may operate using its authorized
tracking, telemetry and control frequencies, and outside of its assigned
orbital location, for the purpose of removing the satellite from the
geostationary satellite orbit at the end of its useful life, provided
that the conditions of subsection (a) are met, and on the condition that
the space station's tracking, telemetry and control transmissions are
planned so as to avoid electrical interference to other space stations,
and coordinated with any potentially affected satellite networks.

\(c\) *All space stations.* Upon completion of any relocation authorized
by subsection (b), or any relocation at end-of-life specified in an
authorization, or upon a spacecraft otherwise completing its authorized
mission, a space station licensee shall ensure, unless prevented by
technical failures beyond its control, that all stored energy sources on
board the satellite are discharged, by venting excess propellant,
discharging batteries, relieving pressure vessels, and other appropriate
measures.

\(d\) The minimum perigee requirement of subsection (a) shall not apply
to space stations launched prior to March 18, 2002.

**PART 97 \-- AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE**

13\. The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C.
151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.

14\. Revise § 97.207(g) to read as follows:

[§ 97.207 Space station.]{.underline}

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) The license grantee of each space station must make two written
pre-space station notifications to the International Bureau, FCC,
Washington DC 20554. Each notification must be in accord with the
provisions of Articles S9 and S11 of the ITU Radio Regulations.

\(1\) The first notification is required no less than 27 months prior to
initiating space station transmissions and must specify the information
required by Appendix S4 and Resolution No. 642 of the International
Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations. The first notification shall
also include a description of the design and operational strategies the
space station will use to mitigate orbital debris, including the
following information:

\(i\) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and
limited the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal
operations, and has assessed and limited the probability of the 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;

\(ii\) A statement that the space station operator has assessed and
limited the probability of accidental explosions during and after
completion of mission operations. This statement must include a
demonstration that debris generation will not result from the conversion
of energy sources on board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the
spacecraft. Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic
energy. This demonstration should address whether stored energy will be
removed at the spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and
leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system,
leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any
remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent
procedures specifically disclosed in the application;

\(iii\) 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.
Where a space station will be launched into a low-Earth orbit that is
identical, or very similar, to an orbit used by other space stations,
the statement must include an analysis of the potential risk of
collision and a description of what measures the space station operator
plans to take to avoid in-orbit collisions. If the space station
operator is relying on coordination with another system, the statement
must indicate what steps have been taken to contact, and ascertain the
likelihood of successful coordination of physical operations with, the
other system. The statement must disclose the accuracy -- if any -- with
which orbital parameters of non-geostationary satellite orbit space
stations will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, inclination, and
the right ascension of the ascending node(s). In the event that a system
is not able to maintain orbital tolerances, *i.e.*, it lacks a
propulsion system for orbital maintenance, that fact should be included
in the debris mitigation disclosure. Such systems must also indicate the
anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed satellite
or satellites. Where a space station requests the assignment of a
geostationary-Earth orbit location, it must assess whether there are any
known satellites located at, or reasonably expected to be located at,
the requested orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that
location, such that the station keeping volumes of the respective
satellites might overlap. If so, the statement must include a statement
as to the identities of those parties and the measures that will be
taken to prevent collisions;

\(iv\) A statement detailing the post-mission disposal plans for the
space station at end of life, including the quantity of fuel -- if any
-- that will be reserved for post-mission disposal maneuvers. For
geostationary-Earth orbit space stations, the statement must disclose
the altitude selected for a post-mission disposal orbit and the
calculations that are used in deriving the disposal altitude. The
statement must also include a casualty risk assessment if planned
post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the space
station. In general, an assessment should include an estimate as to
whether portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and reach the
surface of the Earth, as well as an estimate of the resulting
probability of human casualty.

\(2\) The second notification is required no less than 5 months prior to
initiating space station transmissions and must specify the information
required by Appendix S4 and Resolution No. 642 of the Radio Regulations.

**APPENDIX C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^317] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of
Mitigation of Orbital Debris (*Orbital Debris Notice*).[^318] The
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
*Orbital Debris Notice*, including comment on the IRFA. The comments
received are discussed below. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^319]

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

Orbital debris consists of artificial objects orbiting the Earth that
are not functional spacecraft. Since human activity in space began,
there has been a steady growth in the number and total mass of orbital
debris. The risks presented by orbital debris consist primarily of the
risk of collisions between orbital debris and functional spacecraft, and
the risk of damage to persons and property on the surface of the Earth
in cases where a debris object survives reentry into the Earth's
atmosphere. While these risks are small and are likely to remain so for
the near term, continued and unmitigated growth in the orbital debris
population may limit the usefulness of space -- particularly high-value
orbits such as low-Earth orbit (LEO)[^320] and geostationary-Earth orbit
(GEO)[^321] -- for communications and other uses in the future, by
raising the costs and lowering the reliability of space-based systems.

This Second Report and Order adopts rules to minimize the creation of
orbital debris by FCC-authorized satellites. Minimizing the creation of
orbital debris will help to ensure continued affordable access to space
by the United States, the continued provision of U.S. space-based
communications, and the continued safety of persons and property in
space and on the surface of the Earth. In addition, the adoption of
orbital debris mitigation rules by the FCC furthers the long-standing
policy of the United States to minimize the creation of orbital debris,
and is consistent with international policies and initiatives to
mitigate orbital debris.

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

Two parties submitted comments that specifically responded to the IRFA.
The Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT)[^322] contends that it
and its constituent members qualify as "small entities" that must be
considered in the Commission's formulation of any new rules that may be
applicable to the amateur-satellite service. In addition, the University
of Mississippi National Remote Sensing and Space Law Center (UM Space
Law Center)[^323] proposes that, although threshold requirements for
orbital debris mitigation should be set by the FCC, the orbital debris
mitigation plans of small entities should be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis and that small entities should be able to seek exemptions from
orbital debris mitigation reporting or compliance requirements if
specific reasons for the exemption can be shown.

There is no significant economic impact on AMSAT or its constituent
members under the RFA. AMSAT is a non-profit scientific and educational
organization that represents individuals who hold amateur radio licenses
under Part 97 of the FCC rules, 47 C.F.R. § 97, and who operate or
communicate with amateur space stations. Because only individuals may
hold amateur licenses and amateur licensees are precluded from operating
for commercial purposes, neither AMSAT nor individual amateur licensees
fit the definition of small entity, as defined by the SBA.[^324]
Nonetheless, the Second Report and Order has addressed the proposal of
AMSAT and other commenters to exempt categorically amateur space
stations from orbital debris mitigation requirements and found such
proposals to be inconsistent with the purpose and object of such
requirements.[^325]

Furthermore, the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order are
consistent with the proposals of the UM Space Law Center. Under the new
rules, the elements of the orbital debris mitigation plans of all
parties -- not just small entities -- are reviewed on a case-by-case
basis in the majority of instances. Where the rules adopt rules in lieu
of case-by-case review, such as for the post-mission disposal of GEO
satellites, parties are permitted under existing FCC rules to seek
waivers of such requirements for specific good cause shown.[^326] In
addition, the Second Report and Order exempts, or "grandfathers,"
in-orbit GEO satellites that were launched prior to the release of the
*Orbital Debris Notice* on March 18, 2002 from the minimum post-mission
disposal altitude requirement that are adopted by the Commission.[^327]
Comments indicated that the financial impact of the post-mission
disposal rules for GEO spacecraft would be greatest for this class of
satellites, including any that may be operated by small entities.

> **C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
> the Proposed Rules May Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^328] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^329] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^330] A small business concern is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^331] A small
organization is generally \"any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.\"[^332] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^333] \"Small governmental jurisdiction\" generally
means \"governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000.\"[^334] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such
jurisdictions in the United States.[^335] This number includes 38,978
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have
populations of fewer than 50,000.[^336] The Census Bureau estimates that
this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities.
Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91
percent) are small entities. Below, we further describe and estimate the
number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the proposed
rules, if adopted.

The rules proposed in this Second Report and Order would affect
satellite operators, if adopted. The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities applicable to satellite operators.
Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is generally the
definition under the SBA rules applicable to Satellite
Telecommunications.[^337] The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Satellite Telecommunications, which consists of all such
firms having \$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^338] According
to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this category there was a total of
324 firms that operated for the entire year.[^339] Of this total, 273
firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional
twenty-four firms had receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^340]
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small.

In addition, Commission records reveal that there are approximately 240
space station operators licensed by this Commission. We do not request
or collect annual revenue information, and thus are unable to estimate
of the number of licensees that would constitute a small business under
the SBA definition. Small businesses may not have the financial ability
to become space station licensees because of the high implementation
costs associated with satellite systems and services.

D.  **Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements**

Under the rules as amended by the Second Report and Order, a satellite
system operator requesting FCC space station authorization, or an entity
requesting a Commission ruling for access to a non-U.S.-licensed space
station under the FCC's satellite market access procedures, must submit
an orbital debris mitigation plan to the Commission regarding spacecraft
design and operation in connection with its request. The Second Report
and Order provides guidance for the preparation of such plans. The
Second Report and Order also adopt requirements concerning the
post-mission disposal of Commission-licensed space stations operating in
or near the two most heavily used orbital regimes, low-Earth orbit and
geostationary-Earth orbit.

As discussed below in Section E, all parties requesting Commission
authorization to operate a space station or a ruling for access to a
non-U.S.-licensed space station must already demonstrate under existing
FCC rules that they have the technical and legal ability to conduct such
operations as a prerequisite to grant of an FCC authorization.[^341]
Because the preparation and disclosure of orbital debris mitigation
plans utilizes the same engineering and legal resources as those used
for space station operations, it is expected that all parties --
including small entities -- will have the resources to prepare and
disclose orbital debris mitigation plans.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities,**

**and Significant Alternatives Considered**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^342]
Each is discussed in turn below.

\(1\) *Differing compliance or reporting requirements*. The Second
Report and Order requires all satellite operators to disclose plans to
mitigate orbital debris as part of their requests for Commission
authorization. The timetable for the disclosure of orbital debris
mitigation plans is tied to submission of a request for Commission
licensing or authorization, the timing of which is subject to the
control of the applicant. As a result, the timetable for the disclosure
can be adjusted by any applicant -- including small entities -- without
the need for specific exemptions in the Commission's rules. In addition,
differing compliance requirements for small entities are unnecessary
because all parties requesting Commission authorization to operate a
space station or a ruling for access to a non-U.S.-licensed space
station must already demonstrate under existing FCC rules that they have
the technical and legal ability to conduct such operations as a
prerequisite to grant of an FCC authorization.[^343] Because the
preparation and disclosure of orbital debris mitigation plans utilizes
the same engineering and legal resources as those used for space station
operations, it is expected that all parties -- including small entities
-- will have the resources to prepare and disclose orbital debris
mitigation plans. Furthermore, authorizing space station operations by
small entities, which pose the same public interest concerns as those
posed by large entities, without any consideration of whether the
proposed space station operations will contribute unreasonably to the
creation of orbital debris would undermine the policy object of the
Commission and the United States Government in mitigating orbital
debris.

\(2\) *Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements*. The Second Report and Order clarifies,
consolidates, and/or simplifies several existing compliance or reporting
requirements regarding the operation of FCC-licensed space stations that
will benefit all authorized space station operators, including small
entities.

\(3\) *Use of performance, rather than design, standards*. The Second
Report and Order establishes its debris mitigation requirements in terms
of performance standards and does not adopt design standards for any
class of entities, including small entities.

\(4\) *Exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
small entities*. Authorizing space station operations by small entities,
which pose the same public interest concerns as those posed by large
entities, without any consideration of whether the proposed space
station operations will contribute to the creation of orbital debris
would undermine the policy object of the Commission and the United
States Government in mitigating orbital debris. A categorical exemption
from debris mitigation rules was considered in the context of amateur
space station licenses -- even though amateur space station licensees
are not small entities as defined by the RFA -- and was rejected as
inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the rules.[^344] In
addition, any operator -- including a small entity -- is permitted under
existing FCC rules to seek waivers of debris mitigation requirements for
specific good cause shown.[^345] In addition, the Second Report and
Order exempts, or "grandfathers," all in-orbit GEO satellites that were
launched prior to the release of the *Orbital Debris Notice* on March
18, 2002 from the minimum post-mission disposal altitude requirement
that are adopted by the Commission.[^346] Comments indicated that the
financial impact of the post-mission disposal rules for GEO spacecraft
could be significant for this class of satellites in the absence of
grandfathering.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules**

Remote sensing satellite systems are licensed by both the FCC and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department
of Commerce. The Second Report and Order waives disclosure requirements
concerning post-mission disposal of spacecraft for remote sensing
satellites when those disposal plans have been reviewed and approved by
NOAA as part of its licensing process.

**G. Report to Congress**

The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.[^347] In addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Second Report and Order
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.[^348]

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. Parts 5 \[Experimental Radio Service\], 25 \[Satellite
    Communications\], and 97 \[Amateur Radio Service\] (2002).

[^2]: As used in this Second Report and Order, the term "space station"
    has the meaning given in the International Telecommunication Union
    (ITU) Radio Regulations, *i.e.*, one or more transmitters or
    receivers or a combination of transmitters and receivers necessary
    for carrying on a radiocommunication service, and located on an
    object which is beyond, is intended to go beyond, or has been
    beyond, the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere. *See* ITU Radio
    Regulations S1.61 and S1.64.

[^3]: For purposes of this Second Report and Order, the term LEO is used
    to refer to the orbits at altitudes below 2,000 kilometers.

[^4]: GEO is a circular orbit along the plane of the Earth's equator at
    an altitude of approximately 35,786 kilometers. A spacecraft in
    geostationary-Earth orbit can be maintained at a constant
    longitudinal position relative to the Earth, thus allowing the
    satellite to be "seen" continuously from, and at a fixed orientation
    to, any given point on the Earth's surface. *See* [Physical Nature
    and Technical Attributes of the Geostationary Orbit]{.underline},
    Study Prepared by the Secretariat, United Nations Committee on the
    Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UN Document A/AC.105/404 (January 13,
    1988). (Copy available in the docket file of this proceeding).

[^5]: For further discussion of U.S. and international policies
    regarding orbital debris, see Section II.B., *infra*.

[^6]: *Mitigation of Orbital Debris*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB
    Docket No. 02-34, FCC 02-80, 17 FCC Rcd 5586 (2002).

[^7]: *Id.* at 5588. The term "slag" is used here to refer to material,
    often aluminum oxide, ejected from solid rocket motors as a
    by-product of the burning of solid rocket propellants.

[^8]: Nicholas L. Johnson "Overview of NASA Orbital Debris Program,"
    slides presented 27 January 1998 at the U.S. Government Orbital
    Debris Workshop for Industry. (Copy available in the docket file of
    this proceeding.) National Research Council Committee on Space
    Debris, Aeronautics and Engineering Board, Commission on Engineering
    and Technical Systems, [Orbital Debris: A Technical
    Assessment]{.underline} (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
    1995) at 199 ([Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment]{.underline}).
    Available online via
    [www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov](http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/).

[^9]: United States Space Command website, available on-line at
    [http://www.spacecom.mil/factsheetshtml/
    reentryassessment.htm](http://www.spacecom.mil/factsheetshtml/reentryassessment.htm).

[^10]: *See* White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,
    Interagency Report on Orbital Debris (1995) (*1995 Interagency
    Report*) at 6, Table 2.

[^11]: For example, the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) operates at
    altitudes of approximately 20,000 kilometers, and the Russian Global
    Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) operates at altitudes around
    19,000 kilometers.

[^12]: Use of HEO spacecraft was pioneered by the Soviet "Molniya"
    communications satellites, and as a result HEO is sometimes
    colloquially referred to as a "Molniya" orbit. *See 1995 Interagency
    Report* at 4. Sirius Satellite Radio, a licensee in the Satellite
    Digital Audio Radio Service, is an example of a Commission-licensed
    satellite system utilizing highly elliptical orbits with perigee
    altitudes of a little less than 24,500 kilometers and apogee
    altitudes of about 47,000 kilometers. *See* Satellite CD Radio,
    Inc., Application to Modify Authorization, File No.
    SAT-MOD-19981211-00099 (filed December 11, 1998).

[^13]: Orbital velocities are directly related to altitude; that is,
    objects in lower orbits travel faster than objects in higher orbits.
    Objects in LEO orbits have orbital velocities in the range of 7-8
    kilometers per second (km/s). For objects in GEO, the orbital
    velocity is about 3 km/s. The velocity of objects in HEO varies
    throughout their orbits, with perigee velocities greater than
    objects in circular LEO orbits and with apogee velocities slower
    than objects in circular GEO orbits. Impact velocities for objects
    in circular orbits range from 0 km/s for objects colliding in
    virtually the same orbit, to twice the orbital velocity for head-on
    collisions. *See* [Orbital Debris: A Technical
    Assessment]{.underline} at 89.

[^14]: For purposes of illustration, it is estimated that a one
    centimeter aluminum sphere with a mass of about 1.4 grams moving at
    13 km/s would have a kinetic energy equivalent to 56 grams of TNT; a
    ten centimeter aluminum sphere moving at the same speed would have
    the equivalent of 56 kilograms of TNT. *See* [Orbital Debris: A
    Technical Assessment]{.underline} at 93.

[^15]: *1995 Interagency Report* at 8.

[^16]: Fragments resulting from a collision will be dispersed at a wide
    range of velocities, which will place them into a range of new
    orbits. *See* [Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment]{.underline}
    at 92.

[^17]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5588.

[^18]: Atmospheric drag is produced when molecules of gas from the
    Earth's atmosphere collide with the surface of the orbiting object,
    causing the object to lose velocity and eventually re-enter the
    Earth's atmosphere. *See id.* at 5588.

[^19]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5589. These figures were
    derived using NASA's debris assessment software, which is available
    on-line at
    [www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/mitigate/das/das.html](http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/mitigate/das/das.html).
    They were based on an assumed spacecraft area to mass ration of .01
    m^2^/kg. *See id.* at 5589 n.4.

[^20]: *1995 Interagency Report* at 8; American Institute of Aeronautics
    and Astronautics, [6^th^ International Space Cooperation
    Workshop]{.underline} (March 2001) (*AIAA 2001 Report*) at 14. (Copy
    available in the docket file of this proceeding).

[^21]: *See* [Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment]{.underline} at 20,
    Figure 1-2; Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United
    Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Technical Report
    on Space Debris, UN Document A/AC.105/720 (1999) (*STSC Technical
    Report on Space Debris*) at 14, Figure II; *1995 Interagency Report
    on Orbital Debris* at 18, Figure 11.

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(b).

[^23]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.145(c)(3) and 25.146(i)(4).

[^24]: *The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band*, Report and Order, IB Docket
    No. 99-81, FCC 00-302, 15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16188 (2000) (*2 GHz MSS
    Order*); *The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in the
    Ku-band*, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 01-96, FCC 02-123, 17 FCC Rcd 7841,
    7865-66 (para. 81) (2002) (*NGSO FSS Ku-Band Order*); *The
    Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in the
    Ka-Band*, IB Docket No. 02-19, FCC 03-137, 18 FCC Rcd 14708,
    14725-26 (para. 55) (2003) (*NGSO FSS Ka-Band Order*).

[^25]: *See, e.g., 2 GHz MSS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16188.

[^26]: *2 GHz MSS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16188 (para. 138); *NGSO FSS
    Ku-Band Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 7866 (para. 81); *NGSO FSS Ka-Band
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 14725-26 (para. 55).

[^27]: *See generally* *Orbital Debris Notice*.

[^28]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5598.

[^29]: *Id*.

[^30]: *Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and
    Policies, Mitigation of Orbital Debris*, First Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket No. 02-34, First
    Report and Order in IB Docket No. 02-54, FCC 03-102, 18 FCC Rcd
    10760 (2003) (*First Report and Order*).

[^31]: The default service rules, including the default orbital debris
    mitigation requirements, apply only to applications in service bands
    for which the Commission has not adopted service-specific service
    rules. *See id.* at 10784-85 (para. 53)(NGSO-like systems) and 10808
    (para. 120)(GEO-like systems). This step was taken because, as part
    of the streamlining actions taken in our Space Station Licensing
    Reform proceeding, we will now approve non-GEO space stations prior
    to adoption of service rules. Therefore, we sought to ensure that
    basic information concerning debris mitigation measures is provided
    prior to any such approval.

[^32]: *See, e.g.,* *EchoStar Satellite Corp.*, Order and Authorization,
    DA 03-2559, 18 FCC Rcd 15862 (Int'l Bur. 2003)(addressing EchoStar's
    compliance with any FCC orbital debris mitigation requirements as
    part of its request to modify its Ka-band license to include a
    C-band payload authorized by a foreign administration);
    *Applications of The Boeing Company*, Order and Authorization, DA
    03-2073, 18 FCC Rcd 12317 (Int'l Bur. 2003)(reviewing Boeing's
    proposed orbital debris mitigation plans as part of its request for
    modification of its 2 GHz MSS license); *Orbital Communications
    Corp.*, Order and Authorization, DA 02-772, 17 FCC Rcd 6337 (Int'l
    Bur. 2002)(conditioning grant of licensee's request to increase the
    orbital altitude of a portion of its satellite constellation upon
    the licensee taking steps to reduce the orbital lifetime of those
    satellites to no more than 25 years after end of life). *See also*
    PanAmSat Corporation, Special Temporary Authorization for the Galaxy
    IIIR Satellite, File No. SAT-STA-20030324-00039 (authorization
    conditioned on maintaining a satellite's capability to de-orbit to
    an altitude no less than 300 kilometers above GEO) (*Galaxy IIIR STA
    Grant*).

[^33]: A copy of the U.S. Government Standard Practices is attached as
    Appendix A to the *Orbital Debris Notice*.

[^34]: The U.S. Government Standard Practices were adopted in response
    to an interagency U.S. Government report published in November 1995.
    *See generally 1995 Interagency Report*. The *1995 Interagency
    Report* recommended that that National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) jointly
    develop draft design guidelines that could serve as a baseline for
    agency requirements for future spacecraft. It also recommended that
    interested U.S. agencies then consult with the private sector to
    develop government/industry design guidelines. A draft of the U.S.
    Government Standard Practices was presented to industry at a 1998
    U.S. government workshop for industry. *See Orbital Debris Notice*,
    17 FCC Rcd at 5590.

[^35]: *Id.* at 5601-10. A list of parties filing pleadings in response
    to the *Notice* is provided as Appendix A.

[^36]: The ITU is a specialized agency of the United Nations. The United
    States is a Member State of the ITU and is a party to the ITU
    Constitution, Convention, and Radio Regulations.

[^37]: ITU-R S.1003, "Environmental Protection of the
    Geostationary-Satellite Orbit," ITU-R Recommendations, 1994 S Series
    Volume: Fixed Satellite Service, International Telecommunication
    Union, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994 at pp. 364-367.

[^38]: UNCOPUOS was established pursuant to the Treaty on Principles
    Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
    Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (The
    Outer Space Treaty), which entered into force October 10, 1967. The
    United States is a party to the Outer Space Treaty. Over 98
    countries have ratified the treaty as of January, 2003. A full text
    of the Outer Space Treaty is available on-line at
    [http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html.]{.underline}

[^39]: *See generally* *STSC Technical Report on Space Debris*.

[^40]: The IADC is an inter-governmental committee developed to enable
    spacefaring nations to exchange information on orbital debris
    research activities, to review the progress of ongoing cooperative
    activities, to facilitate opportunities for cooperation in orbital
    debris research, and to identify debris mitigation options. Members
    of the IADC includes the space agencies of Europe, France, Germany,
    India, Italy, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Russia,
    Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States. *See* IADC
    website, available at
    [http://www.iadc-online.org](http://www.iadc-online.org/).

[^41]: Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on its
    thirty-eighth session, UN Document A/AC.105/761 (2001) at para. 130.

[^42]: Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on its
    fortieth session, Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UN
    Document A/AC.105/804 (March 5, 2003).

[^43]: *See* ITU Recommendation S.1003, Environmental Protection of the
    Geostationary-satellite Orbit (revised Jan. 2004), available at
    www.itu.org.

[^44]: Nicholas Johnson, Trends and Options in the Disposal of Launch
    Vehicle Orbital Stages, 52^nd^ International Astronautical Congress
    (Toulouse, France 2001). *See also* National research on space
    debris, safety of space objects with nuclear power sources on board
    and problems relating to their collision with space debris, Addendum
    to Note by the Secretariat, United Nations Committee on the Peaceful
    Uses of Outer Space, UN Document A/AC.105/789/Add.1 (March 17, 2003)
    (presenting Germany's "Space debris end-to-end service" project).

[^45]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5598-99.

[^46]: *Id.* at 5598 (citing *The Boeing Company*, Order and
    Authorization, DA 01-1631 16 FCC Rcd 13691 (Int'l Bur. 2001);
    *Celsat America, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, DA 01-1632, 16 FCC
    Rcd 13712 (Int'l Bur. 2001); *Constellation Communications Holdings,
    Inc*., Order and Authorization, DA 01-1633, 16 FCC Rcd 13724 (Int'l
    Bur./OET 2001); *Globalstar, L.P.*, Order and Authorization, DA
    01-1634, 16 FCC Rcd 13739 (Int'l Bur./OET 2001); *ICO Services
    Ltd.*, Order and Authorization, DA 01-1635, 16 FCC Rcd 13762 (Int'l
    Bur./OET 2001); *Iridium LLC*, Order and Authorization, DA 01-1636,
    16 FCC Rcd 13778 (Int'l Bur. 2001); *Mobile Communications Holdings,
    Inc.*, Order and Authorization, DA 01-1637, 16 FCC Rcd 13794 (Int'l
    Bur./OET 2001); *TMI Communications and Co.*, Order and
    Authorization, DA 01-1638, 16 FCC Rcd 13808 (Int'l Bur. 2001);
    *Space System Licensee, et al.*, Memorandum Opinion, Order and
    Authorization, DA 02-307, 17 FCC Rcd 2271 (Int'l Bur. 2002)).

[^47]: Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 *et seq*.

[^48]: Ecliptic Comments at 4 (stating that it would be a "far reach" to
    relate orbital debris mitigation measures to the Commission's
    mandate under the Communications Act).

[^49]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5598-99.

[^50]: 47 U.S.C. § 305(a). The Commerce Department's National
    Telecommunication and Information Administration is responsible for
    assignment of frequencies for use by U.S. Government stations.

[^51]: 47 U.S.C. § 303(g).

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 301.

[^53]: 47 U.S.C. § 307(a).

[^54]: *First Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 10764 (para. 2)(observing
    that the satellite industry is a "crucial component of the global
    communications marketplace").

[^55]: Courts have held that the Commission may consider public safety
    factors as part of its licensing procedures. *Se*e *Simmons v. FCC*,
    145 F.2d 578, 579 (D.C. Cir. 1944)(finding that the "public
    interest, convenience and necessity clearly require the Commission
    to deny applications for construction which would menace air
    navigation"); *Deep South Broadcasting Co. v. FCC*, 278 F.2d 264,
    267 (D.C. Cir. 1960)(confirming FCC authority to consider structural
    aspects of a radio tower as a "clearly relevant public interest
    consideration"). For a discussion of the FCC's legal authority
    concerning orbital debris, *see also* [MEO/LEO Constellations: U.S.
    Laws, Policies, and Regulations on Orbital Debris
    Mitigation]{.underline}, American Institute of Aeronautics and
    Astronautics Special Project No. SP-016-2-1999 (1999).

[^56]: We address questions raised in the *Notice* concerning the scope
    of our authority with respect to launch activities, satellites
    licensed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA), and non-U.S. licensed satellites in Section III.D., *infra*.

[^57]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5598.

[^58]: *Id* at 5611.

[^59]: *Id.* at 5610.

[^60]: Pursuant to Section 25.137 of the Commission's rules, the same
    technical information required by Section 25.114 for U.S.-licensed
    space stations must also be submitted by entities requesting to
    operate with a non-U.S.-licensed space station to serve the United
    States. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.137. For a more detailed discussion of
    the scope of our orbital debris mitigation rules and
    non-U.S.-licensed space stations, see Section III.D.1., *infra*.

[^61]: SIA Comments at 3-5; PanAmSat Comments at 2; SES Americom Reply
    at 2-4.

[^62]: Telesat Comments at 4, 6; AMSAT Comments at 10.

[^63]: Some commenters argue that the lack of "precise standards" or
    "clear parameters" for assessing a debris mitigation plan could lead
    to arbitrary application of our rules or the reduction of the plan
    to "just an administrative burden" on the operator. *See* Orbcomm
    Comments at 3; SIA Comments at 7.

[^64]: *See* Section III.C. *infra.*

[^65]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(b).

[^66]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.146(i)(4).

[^67]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.145(c)(3).

[^68]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.217(d). *See also supra*, note 31.

[^69]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5610.

[^70]: NASA Safety Standard, Guidelines and Assessment Procedures for
    Limiting Orbital Debris, NSS 1740.14 (August 1995). (Copy available
    at
    [http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nas.gov](http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nas.gov/).).

[^71]: For example, applicants are required to use the standards
    established by the NASA guidelines when performing a casualty-risk
    assessment for the re-entry of space craft into the Earth's
    atmosphere at the end of life. *See* Section III.C.4.b., *infra*.

[^72]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(b).

[^73]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.117.

[^74]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5598.

[^75]: *Id.* at 5601.

[^76]: *Id*.

[^77]: *Id*.

[^78]: *Id*.

[^79]: SIA Comments at 6; Telesat Comments at 4.

[^80]: SIA Comments at 6.

[^81]: SIA Comments at 6; Telesat Comments at 4.

[^82]: Telesat Comments at 3-4.

[^83]: UM Space Law Center Comments at 2.

[^84]: *Id*.

[^85]: SIA Comments at 6-7 (citing *Amendment of the Commission's Rules
    to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile-Satellite
    Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands*, Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 1094 (1994))(*Big LEO NPRM*)).
    *See also* SES Americom Reply at 4.

[^86]: Telesat Reply at 4*;* SES Americom Reply at 4.

[^87]: *See* Ecliptic Comments at 7.

[^88]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5602.

[^89]: For a more detailed discussion of explosions and other satellite
    fragmentation events, see [History of On-Orbit Satellite
    Fragmentations]{.underline}, available on-line at
    [http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov](http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/).

[^90]: [Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment]{.underline} at 138;
    *STSC* *Technical Report on Orbital Debris* at 32 (para. 98).

[^91]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5602.

[^92]: *Id.* at 5602-03. The FAA regulation, codified at 14 C.F.R. §
    415.39, reads:

    > To obtain safety approval, an applicant must demonstrate for any
    > proposed launch that for all launch vehicle stages or components
    > that reach earth orbit --
    >
    > \(a\) There will be no unplanned physical contact between the
    > vehicle or its components and the payload after payload
    > separation;
    >
    > \(b\) Debris generation will not result from the conversion of
    > energy sources into energy that fragments the vehicle or its
    > components. Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic
    > energy; and
    >
    > \(c\) Stored energy will be removed by depleting residual fuel and
    > leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system,
    > leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing
    > any remaining source of stored energy. Other equivalent procedures
    > may be approved in the course of the licensing process.

[^93]: *Id.* at 5602.

[^94]: SIA states that operators already routinely conduct a failure
    mode verification analysis (FMVA) as part of the satellite design
    review to ensure that failure of a component aboard the satellite
    does not lead to an accidental explosion. *See* SIA Comments at 9.
    Furthermore, Telesat claims that satellite operators have economic
    incentive to design spacecraft that do not experience accidental
    explosions during or after mission operations so that the spacecraft
    does not threaten the ability of the operator to operate a
    replacement satellite at the same orbital position, or to use an
    aging satellite as an on-orbit spare or to lease the satellite to a
    third-party near the end of life. *See* Telesat Comments at 5.

[^95]: SIA Comments at 9.

[^96]: SIA Comments at 9; Telesat Comments at 5.

[^97]: Telesat Comments at 6.

[^98]: SIA states that satellite operators and manufacturers treat their
    failure mode verification analyses as confidential business
    information, and implies that our disclosure requirement threatens
    the confidentiality of such analyses. *See* SIA Comments at 9. Since
    we do not anticipate requiring applicants to submit those analyses
    in the ordinary course, but rather simply to confirm that that such
    an analysis has been undertaken, we do not anticipate that this will
    be a routine issue. In the event such a submission is required, our
    rules provide protections for any documents that warrant
    confidential treatment. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.

[^99]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5603.

[^100]: *Id*.

[^101]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.114. Subsequent to the release of the *Orbital
    Debris Notice*, Section 25.114 was substantially amended as a result
    of our adoption of a standardized form for space station license
    applications. *See Amendment of the Commission's Space Station
    Licensing Rules and Policies, 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review --
    Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's
    Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite
    Network Earth Stations and Space Stations*, Third Report and Order
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket Nos.
    02-34 and 00-248, FCC 03-154, 18 FCC Rcd 13486 (2003) (*Space
    Station Licensing Third Report and Order*). As a result, the
    subsection numbers referenced in this Second Report and Order may
    differ from the numbers referenced in the *Notice*.

[^102]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(c)(10).

[^103]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(c)(5).

[^104]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(c)(5)(iii) and (5)(iv). As noted in the
    *Orbital Debris Notice*, without so-called "north-south"
    station-keeping, the inclination of a GEO satellite will gradually
    increase from zero degrees (equatorial orbit) to a maximum of
    approximately 14.6 degrees. *See Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd
    at 5603 n.84. In addition to maintaining the accuracy of its
    inclination, a GEO satellite must execute station-keeping maneuvers
    to maintain longitudinal accuracy in order to prevent a naturally
    occurring drift to the east or to the west due to small variations
    in the Earth's gravity, unless the spacecraft is located at one of
    the two "gravity wells" on the geostationary arc. *See id.* at 5604
    n.85.

[^105]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(c)(6).

[^106]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5604.

[^107]: *Id*.

[^108]: SIA Comments at 10 (current information is sufficient to enable
    operators to evaluate the potential for collisions and safe-flight
    profiles); Ecliptic Comments at 7-8 (FCC rules requiring applicants
    to provide orbital information are generally helpful in minimizing
    the probability of collisions).

[^109]: SIA refers to a proposal raised in another FCC rulemaking
    proceeding, in which it proposed that we amend our licensing rules
    to require applicants to submit only the technical information
    required by ITU Appendix 4, which sets forth the technical
    characteristics of a satellite network that must be submitted to the
    ITU for advance publication and the initiating of coordination of
    satellite networks. *See* SIA Comments at 10. SIA argues that this
    information would also be sufficient to determine safe-flight
    profiles because the technical information submitted pursuant to
    Appendix 4 includes, among other things, the orbital characteristics
    of the satellite network. We have, however, already considered and
    rejected SIA's proposal in our Space Station Licensing Rules and
    Policies proceeding. *See Space Station Licensing Third Report and
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 13491 (observing that reliance on ITU
    submissions alone does not serve the public interest, because the
    Commission's technical and regulatory requirements are not the same
    as the ITU requirements and because there is no guarantee that ITU
    rules will be adequate for U.S. operations). As a result, SIA's
    proposal is moot and need not be considered here.

[^110]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5604.

[^111]: *Id*.

[^112]: *Id*.

[^113]: SIA Comments at 10.

[^114]: Examples of extended pre-operational activities include the use
    of a geostationary satellite orbital location for in-orbit testing
    that is different from the one authorized for use by the satellite
    operator, or the use of an "engineering" orbit by an NGSO satellite
    in which satellites are tested and maintained prior to deployment in
    "mission" orbits. *See Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5605.

[^115]: As used in this Second Report and Order, "orbit raising" refers
    to the process by which a satellite is maneuvered after launch
    typically from a lower initial orbit into a higher permanent
    operational orbit.

[^116]: *See* Appendix B.

[^117]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(j).

[^118]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5605.

[^119]: *Id.* (seeking comment on applicability of FSS longitudinal
    tolerance to other services, such as mobile-satellite service or
    remote sensing satellites); *see id.* at n.89 (noting that the rules
    for DBS, which at the time of the release of the *Orbital Debris
    Notice* were contained in Part 100 of the Commission's rules, were
    in the process of being consolidated into Part 25). Since release of
    the *Notice*, the rules for DBS have been consolidated into Part 25.
    *See Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service*,
    Report and Order, IB Docket No. 98-21, FCC 02-110, 17 FCC Rcd 11331
    (2002).

[^120]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5606 n.92.

[^121]: SIA Comments at 11.

[^122]: SIA Comments at 11.

[^123]: MIT Lincoln Laboratories Comments at 2.

[^124]: Telesat Comments at 7.

[^125]: *See, e.g.,* Letter from Bruce Olcott, Counsel for The Boeing
    Company, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated December 23, 2003;
    Letter from Alexander Hoehn-Saric, Counsel for Inmarsat Ventures
    Ltd., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated December 23, 2003;
    Letter from John Janka, Counsel for Inmarsat Ventures Ltd., to
    Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated January 9, 2004; Letter from
    John Janka, Counsel for Inmarsat Ventures Ltd., to Marlene Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, dated January 16, 2004; Letter from Christian
    Pietrowski, VP -- Telecommunications Marketing & Sales, EADS
    Astrium, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated March 8, 2004.

[^126]: *See* Letter from Kalpak Gude, Vice President of Government and
    Regulatory Affairs and Associate General Counsel, PanAmSat Corp.,
    *et al.* to the Hon. Michael Powell, Chairman, FCC, dated January
    13, 2004 (FSS Operators January 13 Ex Parte) at 1. In reply, Boeing
    asserts that MSS spacecraft are unlikely to cause radiofrequency
    interference to FSS systems, arguing that co-located FSS and MSS
    systems are generally not authorized to operate in the same
    frequency bands and, in any event, that the relatively low transmit
    power and large gateway earth stations used by MSS systems makes it
    unlikely that MSS transmissions would interfere with FSS operations.
    *See* Letter from Bruce Olcott, Counsel for The Boeing Company, to
    Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated January 22, 2004 at 2.

[^127]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5606.

[^128]: That is, the space station will operate without "north-south"
    station-keeping maneuvers that correct for solar and lunar
    gravitational forces. Absent such maneuvers, the inclination of a
    GEO satellite will gradually increase from zero degrees (equatorial
    orbit) to a maximum of approximately 14.6 degrees.

[^129]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.280. These conditions are intended to ensure that
    a satellite operating in an inclined orbit causes no more radio
    frequency interference to adjacent satellites than would be the case
    of a satellite operating without an inclined orbit.

[^130]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5606 and Appendix B
    (Proposed Rule Changes).

[^131]: SIA Comments at 11.

[^132]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5606.

[^133]: SIA Comments at 12 (observing that, unlike GEO space stations
    that are separated only by longitudinal separation, NGSO satellite
    systems are separated by multiple orbital parameters, such as
    orbital altitude, period, and inclination).

[^134]: Ecliptic Comments at 9; Leggett Comments at 4; AMSAT Comments at
    8.

[^135]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5606.

[^136]: *Id.* at 5606-07.

[^137]: SIA Comments at 12.

[^138]: SIA Comments at 12-13; Telesat Comments at 14.

[^139]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5607.

[^140]: This statement should address any licensed FCC systems, or any
    systems applied for and under consideration. The statement need not
    address every filing with the ITU that meets these criteria. The
    operator should, however, assess and address any systems reflected
    in ITU filings that are in operation or that it believes may be
    progressing toward launch, for example, by the appearance of the
    system on a launch vehicle manifest.

[^141]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5607.

[^142]: *Id*.

[^143]: *Id*.

[^144]: SIA Comments at 13; Telesat Comments at 7; SES Americom Reply at
    4.

[^145]: SIA Comments at 13; Telesat Comments at 7.

[^146]: SIA Comments at 13.

[^147]: *Id*.

[^148]: Telesat Comments at 7. Telesat indicates that its current
    practice is to routinely transmit current orbital elements for each
    of the satellites that it operates to the United States Strategic
    Command, and, when performing a relocation, to inform all "in-band"
    operators over the orbital arc in question, and provide those
    operators with frequency plans and power levels, points of contact,
    and a summary of the relocation plan.

[^149]: Telesat Comments at 7-8.

[^150]: SES Americom Reply at 5.

[^151]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5607 n.97 (noting FAA
    regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 431.43(c), which requires a collision
    avoidance analysis for reusable launch vehicles in order to maintain
    at least a 200 kilometer separation from any inhabitable orbiting
    object).

[^152]: Ecliptic Comments at 7-8. *See also* AMSAT Comments at 7-8.

[^153]: For GEO satellites, the assignment of an orbital location and
    the station-keeping requirements in our rules necessarily imply a
    range of Keplerian elements. Thus, Ecliptic\'s proposal to require
    periodic reports of this information is not warranted with respect
    to GEO satellite licensees.

[^154]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(c)(6)(requiring satellites in
    non-geostationary orbits to file applicable information relating to
    the number of orbital planes, the inclination of the orbital
    plane(s), the orbital period, the apogee, the perigee, the
    argument(s) of perigee, active service arc(s), and right ascension
    of the ascending node(s)). Classical Keplerian elements include a
    few elements that are not expressly required by Section 25.114(c):
    epoch, eccentricity, mean motion, and mean anomaly. Eccentricity can
    be calculated from the information supplied about the perigee and
    apogee of the orbit. Likewise, the orbital period can be used to
    calculate the mean motion, since the period is simply the reciprocal
    of mean motion. While epoch and mean anomaly require information
    about the satellite within a frame of reference which is only
    available after the satellite has been tracked, we note that
    Schedule S, adopted in the *Space Station Licensing* *Third Report
    and Order*, requires NGSO applicants to specify an \"orbit epoch
    date,\" at the time they file their application. *See* *Space
    Station Licensing* *Third Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 13542. We
    recognize that this information does not represent the true epoch;
    however, the use of a nominal epoch with respect to which satellites
    in a constellation are referenced facilitates modeling the
    constellation for radiofrequency and debris mitigation purposes.

[^155]: For example, NASA's Orbital Information Group (OIG) makes
    available unclassified satellite orbital data that has been received
    from U.S. Government sources. *See* OIG website, available at
    http://oig1.gsfc.nasa.gov/. In addition, we observe that there are
    numerous private companies that provide databases of the orbital
    parameters of objects in Earth orbit.

[^156]: [Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment]{.underline} at 167.

[^157]: *Id*.

[^158]: *Id.* at 161.

[^159]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5608.

[^160]: *Id.* at 5607-08.

[^161]: *Id.* at 5591 n.16. One commenter argues that we should not
    dismiss direct retrieval as a long-term possibility for post-mission
    disposal and proposes that we promote an economic incentive in
    direct retrieval by adopting a rule that allows the salvage of
    non-functioning U.S.-licensed spacecraft by U.S. nationals. *See* UM
    Space Law Center Comments at 3. We stress that we did not intend to
    dismiss or in any way foreclose direct retrieval. If direct
    retrieval is implemented in the future, we will have the opportunity
    to revisit this issue at that time. Any such commercial mission
    would require radio-frequency authorization, and, in connection with
    any such FCC authorization we will, as a result of the rules adopted
    in this proceeding, have an opportunity to evaluate public interest
    considerations, including the benefits of removing debris, as well
    as any possible debris generation, that may result from a direct
    retrieval mission. Any issues related to salvage that are within the
    scope of our authority can be addressed at that time.

[^162]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5608.

[^163]: *Id*.

[^164]: *Id*.

[^165]: [Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment]{.underline} at 148.

[^166]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5608.

[^167]: *Id*.

[^168]: *Id.* at 5609.

[^169]: *Id.* at 5608-09. The recommendation suggests, in pertinent
    part, that a GEO satellite at the end of its life should be
    transferred before complete exhaustion of its propellant, to a
    "supersynchronous graveyard orbit that does not intersect the
    \[GEO\]," with GEO defined as the mean earth radius of 42,164
    kilometers plus or minus 300 kilometers. The recommendation also
    notes that what constitutes "an effective graveyard orbit" requires
    further studies. In this regard, we note that orbital perturbations
    due to solar and lunar gravitation, solar radiation pressure, or
    other sources, may, over time, result in an inactive satellite's
    orbit intersecting the GEO, as defined by the ITU recommendation,
    even if the initial disposal altitude does not intersect the GEO.

[^170]: See *supra* note 43 and accompanying text.

[^171]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5609.

[^172]: Solar radiation pressure is momentum imparted to the spacecraft
    by the absorption and re-radiation of the sun's radiation.

[^173]: By increasing altitude, a spacecraft decreases its velocity
    relative to the Earth and the GEO arc, which results in a change of
    location of the spacecraft on the GEO arc. Generally speaking, the
    greater the increase in altitude, the faster this change of location
    will occur. For example, a transfer of one degree per day requires
    an orbital increase of approximately 78 kilometers above GEO. For a
    transfer of two degrees per day requires an increase of double this
    amount, or roughly 156 kilometers above GEO.

[^174]: This difficulty is due to existing limitations in assessing the
    debris population at these altitudes. Currently, only objects with a
    diameter of one meter or greater are routinely catalogued at GEO.

[^175]: *STSC Technical Report on Space Debris* at 28. The report
    cautions, however, that additional orbital debris measurements in
    GEO are needed before more accurate risk assessments can be
    performed. *See id.* Other studies indicate that the annual risk of
    collision may be significantly greater. *See, e.g.,* Leclair and
    Sridharan, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, "Probability of Collision in the
    Geostationary Orbit," in the Proceedings of the Third European
    Conference on Space Debris (October 2001) (estimating the annual
    risk of collision for an average operational satellite with other
    objects greater than one meter in diameter at 2.0x10^-4^).

[^176]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5609.

[^177]: Telesat Comments at 7.

[^178]: *See* Appendix B.

[^179]: SIA Comments at 14.

[^180]: Slabinski Reply at 2-3.

[^181]: SIA Comments at 14; PanAmSat Comments at 5; SES Americom Reply
    at 6.

[^182]: UM Space Law Center Comments at 4 (suggesting that formalizing
    the routine use of a storage orbit in national legislation and
    regulations could be construed as appropriating space by use or
    occupation through the means of national legislation in violation of
    Article II of the Outer Space Treaty).

[^183]: Outer Space Treaty, Article VI.

[^184]: SIA Comments at 2; PanAmSat Comments at 3; SES Americom Reply at
    2; Telesat Reply at 4.

[^185]: PanAmSat Comments at 3; SIA Comments at 3; SES Americom Reply at
    2. Commenters point to the Commission's general policy of granting
    applications for replacement satellites at the same orbital location
    so long as the applicant remains qualified to operate its proposed
    satellite. *See, e.g.*, SIA Comments at 3 (citing *Licensing Space
    Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service*, Report and Order,
    FCC 85-395, 58 Rad. Reg. 2d. 1267, 1277-79 (1985); *Assignment of
    Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite
    Service*, Report and Order, FCC 88-373, 3 FCC Rcd 6972 n.31 (1988)).

[^186]: The fuel requirement to re-orbit a GEO satellite 100 kilometers
    above GEO is estimated at 1.69 kilograms of propellant per 1000
    kilograms of mass of the spacecraft. *See* *1995 Interagency Report*
    at 36. It has been estimated that the amount of fuel required to
    maneuver a spacecraft to 300 kilometers above GEO is comparable to
    three months of lost revenue-producing operations. *See id.*

[^187]: 1993 ITU Recommendation S.1003 at 3.

[^188]: For example, of the thirteen GEO spacecraft that reached end of
    life in 2002, only five were disposed of following the IADC formula;
    the remaining eight spacecraft were re-orbited in a manner that will
    probably interfere with GEO in the future, or were otherwise
    disposed of in a manner inconsistent with the IADC formula. *See* C.
    Hernández and R. Jehn, *Classification of Geosynchronous Objects*,
    Issue 5, European Space Agency, European Space Operations Centre,
    Darmstadt, Germany (2003) at 102-103. Of the five U.S.-licensed
    satellites that reached end of life in 2002, only two were
    re-orbited according to the IADC formula. *See id.* In 2001, only
    two of fourteen GEO spacecraft that reached the end of life were
    disposed of following the IADC formula. *See id.*, Issue 4 (2002) at
    98-99. Only one of four U.S.-licensed GEO spacecraft that reached
    end of life during 2001 was disposed of following the IADC formula.
    *See id.* This has led the authors of these reports to conclude that
    "the reorbiting recommendations which are issued by many national
    and international organizations since many years are widely ignored"
    and that a "more rigorous control of the reorbiting practices in GEO
    is required to protect this unique resource." *See i*d.

[^189]: Telesat Comments at 8.

[^190]: Inmarsat December 23, 2003, Ex Parte at 1.

[^191]: As indicated by the IADC guideline, orbital perturbations due to
    gravitational effects and solar radiation pressure can, depending
    upon a spacecraft's physical characteristics, result in changes of
    satellite orbits by as much as 235 kilometers, although such changes
    for communications satellites typically range from 60 to 90
    kilometers. Communications spacecraft typically operate, with normal
    station-keeping parameters, at altitudes up to 25 kilometers above
    GEO. Thus, a spacecraft disposed to 100 kilometers above GEO could
    re-enter the region in which operational GEO spacecraft reside.

[^192]: For example, an analysis of a typical Boeing 601 spacecraft,
    with solar panel fully deployed, results in an area-to-mass ratio of
    approximately 0.0166m^2^/kg (average aspect area, 41m^2^, and dry
    mass, 2477kg). Using the IADC formula with an assumed spacecraft
    solar radiation pressure coefficient of 1.5 kg/m (value ranges from
    1 to 2), the post-mission disposal altitude for this spacecraft is
    approximately 260 km above GEO.

[^193]: *See* SIA Comments at 15 (disposal rules should not apply to
    satellites in orbit at the time the rule is adopted); PanAmSat
    Comments at 6 (disposal rules should not apply to any satellite that
    is already in orbit); SES Americom Reply Comments at 6 (new
    regulations should only apply prospectively); EchoStar January 30,
    2004 Ex Parte at 2 (Commission should grandfather satellites in
    orbit as of the effective date of disposal rule); Inmarsat February
    4, 2004 Ex Parte at 2 (rules should not apply to spacecraft that are
    in-orbit or currently under physical construction).

[^194]: *Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital*, 488 U.S. 204 (1988).

[^195]: *See* PanAmSat Comments at 6 (citing *Bowen* and *National
    Mining Assoc. v. United States Dept. of Interior*, 177 F.3d 1 (D.C.
    Cir. 1999)); EchoStar January 30, 2004 Ex Parte at 2.

[^196]: *See Celotronix Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC*, 272 F.3d 585, 588 (D.C.
    Cir. 2001) (*Celotronix*) (citing *Bowen*, 488 U.S. at 219 (Scalia,
    J., concurring)).

[^197]: *Celotronix*, 272 F.3d at 588 (citing *Landgraf v. USI Film
    Products*, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994)).

[^198]: 47 U.S.C. § 301. Furthermore, an FCC-licensed GEO space station
    license requires a licensee to operate within certain station
    keeping parameters. Operations outside of these parameters, such as
    during maneuvers to a storage orbit at end of life, are not
    typically included in an operator's space station license and
    require specific additional authorization from the Commission to
    effectuate.

[^199]: *See* Section II.B, *infra*. In a number of cases, staff has,
    particularly in recent years as information has become available
    concerning variations in disposal practices of GEO spacecraft,
    included conditions in authorizations requiring disposal of GEO
    spacecraft consistent with the ITU recommendation, or requiring that
    licensees maintain the capability to dispose of their spacecraft
    consistent with the ITU recommendation. *See, e.g., PanAmSat
    Licensee Corp.*, File No. SAT-STA-20030805-00141 (filed August 18,
    2003); *Galaxy IIR STA Grant* (conditioning grant of special
    temporary authority on licensee maintaining the capability to
    dispose of spacecraft at an altitude with a perigee of no less than
    300 kilometers above GEO).

[^200]: Even if adoption of a post-mission disposal requirement alters
    the expectations of space station operators, the Commission has held
    that licensees have no vested right to an unchanged regulatory
    scheme throughout their license term. *See* Amendment of Part 1 of
    the Commission's Rules -- Competitive Bidding Procedures, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, FCC 00-274, 15 FCC Rcd 15293, 15396 (2000), *pet.
    for recon. denied*, 18 FCC Rcd 10180 (2003). Furthermore, it is
    undisputed that the Commission has the power to alter existing
    licenses by a rulemaking procedure such as this. *See Celotronix*,
    272 F.3d at 589 (citing *United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co.*,
    351 U.S. 192, 205 (1956); *National Broadcasting Co. v. United
    States*, 319 U.S. 190, 225 (1943); *Committee for Effective Cellular
    Rules v. FCC*, 53 F.3d 1309, 1319-20 (D.C. Cir. 1995); *WBEN, Inc.
    v. FCC*, 396 F.2d 601, 617-18 (2d Cir. 1968)).

[^201]: *See* Telesat Comments at 8; Echostar January 30, 2004, Ex Parte
    at 1; SES Americom January 14, 2004, Ex Parte at 3; PanAmSat January
    8, 2004, Ex Parte at 2.

[^202]: *See* SES Americom January 15 Ex Parte at 3. Other filings in
    the record support this conclusion. Telesat states that about one
    month of operational lifetime is lost in order to maneuver to a
    storage altitude 100-150 kilometers above GEO and that "two to three
    times" as much fuel is necessary to maneuver to 300 kilometers above
    GEO. *See* Telesat Comments at 8. EchoStar states that approximately
    four months of service life is lost by maneuvering to 300 kilometers
    above GEO. *See* EchoStar January 30 Ex Parte at 2.

[^203]: SIA February 4 Ex Parte at 1. *See also* SES Americom January 14
    Ex Parte at 6 (claiming \$77 million in lost revenue from
    application of the IADC disposal formula to its existing on-orbit
    GEO fleet); PanAmSat January Ex Parte at 2 (claiming \$140 million
    in lost revenue).

[^204]: We estimate that there are approximately 80 or fewer
    FCC-licensed GEO spacecraft that would be eligible for
    grandfathering.

[^205]: The *Orbital Debris Notice* was released on March 18, 2002.

[^206]: *See* SES Americom January 14 Ex Parte at 3 (stating that
    release of the *Notice* "marks the first time the Commission
    indicated that it would replace industry self-regulation with new
    rules"). *See also* SIA February 4, 2004 Ex Parte at 2 (stating
    that, "At a minimum, spacecraft launched prior to the release of the
    \[*Notice*\] should be grandfathered.").

[^207]: EchoStar argues that release of the *Notice* did not provide
    sufficient notice to justify "retroactive" application of disposal
    rules. *See* EchoStar January 30 Ex Parte at 2. EchoStar's argument,
    however, is based on the premise that application of rules to future
    disposal is contrary to the APA and Supreme Court's decision in
    *Bowen*. Since that is not the case, as discussed above, EchoStar's
    argument is not persuasive.

[^208]: A number of operators have exceeded this minimum, *see, e.g.,*
    Letter from Karis A. Hastings, Counsel for SES Americom, to Marlene
    H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated February 12, 2004 (reporting the
    deorbit of the GSTAR4 satellite to an altitude more than 300
    kilometers above GEO), and at least one U.S. licensed operator
    (Intelsat) has, barring catastrophic failure, retired spacecraft
    consistent with the IADC recommendation in recent years. *See* C.
    Hernández and R. Jehn, *Classification of Geosynchronous Objects*,
    Issue 6, European Space Agency, European Space Operations Centre,
    Darmstadt, Germany (2004) at 109.

[^209]: Telesat Comments at 8; Inmarsat Dec. 23, 2003, Ex Parte at 1.

[^210]: For example, it may be preferable to dispose of a spacecraft in
    the GEO region, if that spacecraft faces a known and high risk of
    explosion in connection with thruster firings, because the
    consequences of an explosive fragmentation of the spacecraft
    considerably outweigh the future collision risk associated with
    disposal in GEO of an intact spacecraft.

[^211]: Note that our grandfathering action is not intended to address
    any issues of liability that may arise as a result of grandfathered
    spacecraft*.* *See* *The T.J. Hooper et.al. v. Northern Barge
    Corporation, et.al.,* 60 F.2d 737 (2^nd^ Cir., 1932) (adoption by
    some ships of a practice of carrying radio sets to receive weather
    reports, even though not required by statute, considered relevant in
    assessing liability).

[^212]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5609.

[^213]: *Id*.

[^214]: *Id*.

[^215]: The IADC Guidelines, unlike the U.S. Government Standard
    Practices, do not explicitly provide for the "boost" method of
    end-of-life disposal. However, because this method would remove the
    spacecraft from the LEO region, it would meet the primary goal of
    protecting this highly utilized region. Any such disposal plan
    should address, and will be analyzed, consistent our discussion,
    *infra*, concerning MEO disposal, to determine whether the disposal
    orbits chosen would be sufficiently stable to remain out of LEO and
    GEO, and to avoid physical interference with highly utilized MEO
    orbits.

[^216]: *See, e.g., Orbital Communications Corp.*, Order and
    Authorization, DA 02-772, 17 FCC Rcd 6337 (2002) (conditioning
    approval of an increase in the proposed orbital altitude of a
    licensee's Little LEO satellite constellation on measures being
    taken to reduce the orbital lifetime of the satellites).

[^217]: IADC Guidelines at Section 5.3.2.

[^218]: Ecliptic Comments at 7.

[^219]: *Id*.

[^220]: L'Garde Comments at 5.

[^221]: Ecliptic Comments at 7; L'Garde at 6.

[^222]: IADC Guidelines at Section 5.3.3.

[^223]: *See, e.g.,* C.C. Chao and R.A. Gick, "Long-Term Evolution of
    Navigation Satellite Orbits: PS/GLONASS/GALILEO"
    (COSPAR02-A-02858)(PEDAS1-B1.4-0051-02).

[^224]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5610.

[^225]: *Id*.

[^226]: In general, an assessment should include an estimate as to
    whether portions of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and reach
    the surface of the Earth, as well as an estimate of the resulting
    probability of human casualty.

[^227]: These documents and software tools that may prove useful in
    completing debris mitigation statements, including any casualty risk
    assessment, can be found at the NASA orbital debris website,
    [www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov](http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/).

[^228]: *Id.* at 5609.

[^229]: *Id.* at 5602-03.

[^230]: *Id.* at 5609 (citing *AIAA 2001 Report* at 12).

[^231]: SIA Comments at 9-10, 16.

[^232]: In this respect, we agree with comments that argue that fuel
    gauging requirements are unnecessary if there are adequate penalties
    for non-compliance with disposal requirements. *See* MIT Lincoln
    Laboratories Comments at 3. We acknowledge that fuel gauging is "not
    an exact science," *see* SIA Comments at 10, and do not anticipate
    taking action against improper disposal of Commission-licensed space
    stations that result from fuel levels calculations that prove to be
    erroneous, but that are nonetheless made in good faith.

[^233]: Slabinski Comments at 1.

[^234]: The WTO came into being on January 1, 1995, pursuant to the
    Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the
    Marrakesh Agreement). 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994). The Marrakesh Agreement
    includes multilateral agreements on trade in goods, services,
    intellectual property, and dispute settlement. The GATS is Annex 1B
    of the Marrkesh Agreement. 33 I.L.M. 1167 (1994). The WTO Telecom
    Agreement was incorporated into the GATS by the Fourth Protocol to
    the GATS (April 30, 1996). 36 I.L.M. 354 (1997).

[^235]: The term "non-U.S.-licensed space station" refers to a space
    station that is authorized by a country other than the United
    States, and for which the United States is not the administration
    that has assumed responsibility for notification, coordination, and
    other relevant matters under the ITU Radio Regulations. *See Orbital
    Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5599 n.74.

[^236]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.137. The Commission's foreign entry framework was
    adopted in the *DISCO II* proceeding. *See* *Amendment of the
    Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed
    Satellites Providing Domestic and International Service in the
    United States*, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 96-111, FCC 97-399,
    12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997) (*DISCO II Order* or *DISCO II*), *recon.*
    15 FCC Rcd 7207 (1999) (*DISCO II First Reconsideration Order*),
    *recon. denied* 16 FCC Rcd 19794 (2001) (*DISCO II Second
    Reconsideration Order*). For a detailed summary of the *DISCO II*
    framework, we refer the reader to the *DISCO II First
    Reconsideration Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7209-10 (paras. 4-5).

[^237]: Until recently, operators of non-U.S.-licensed space stations
    were not required to submit certain technical information concerning
    the satellite if they had completed international coordination.
    *See* *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24175 (para. 189). As part of
    our Space Station Licensing Reform proceeding, however, we concluded
    that, in order to better determine whether a non-U.S.-licensed space
    station meets the Commission's technical requirements,
    non-U.S.-licensed space station operators seeking access to the U.S.
    market must provide the same information as U.S. satellite license
    applicants, regardless of whether they have completed international
    coordination. *See First Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 10872
    (para. 300).

[^238]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5611.

[^239]: *Id.* at 5611-12.

[^240]: *Id.* at 5600, 5611.

[^241]: SIA Comments at 18; SES Americom Reply at 7.

[^242]: We note that the Commission has previously found that requiring
    prospective foreign entrants to meet the same qualification
    requirements, including technical requirements, that apply to U.S.
    applicants is consistent with the United States' obligations under
    the GATS. *See DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24163.

[^243]: *See* *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5611.

[^244]: As noted previously, the ITU, a specialized agency of the United
    Nations, has adopted a recommendation for the disposal of GEO space
    stations and has revised this recommendation to closely comport with
    the disposal guidelines proposed by the IADC. *See supra*, note 43.

[^245]: SIA Comments at 18; UM Space Law Center Comments at 4.

[^246]: Telesat Comments at 9.

[^247]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5611.

[^248]: Telesat Comments at 9.

[^249]: To the extent that our actions provide incentive for other
    spacefaring nations to adopt comparable orbital debris mitigation
    measures for their commercial satellite operators, our actions are
    consistent with the policy expressed in the 1996 National Space
    Policy, which states that it is in the interests of the U.S.
    Government to ensure orbital debris mitigation practices are applied
    by other spacefaring nations and international organizations.

[^250]: In this respect, Telesat's desire that we rely on debris
    mitigation measures developed through an international process
    appears to have been addressed.

[^251]: Furthermore, as the Commission has previously found, the chance
    that other countries may adopt licensing requirements for U.S.
    satellite operators seeking to provide service in that country is,
    on balance, a minimal burden when compared to the possibility that
    unrestricted entry by foreign-licensed satellites would vitiate our
    orbit efficiency policies. *See DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    24163.

[^252]: Telesat Comments at 9.

[^253]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5612.

[^254]: *Id*. We also proposed to update references in the current rules
    to ITU documents concerning space station notifications, so that
    those references reflect current ITU documents. *See id.* at n.109.

[^255]: *Id.*, Appendix B \[Proposed Rule Changes\].

[^256]: AMSAT Comments at 10.

[^257]: Leggett Comments at 2-3; Ecliptic Comments at 11-12 (stating
    that amateur and experimental licensees are the "most cost
    constrained" class of licensees); AMSAT Comments at 6-8; AMSAT Reply
    at 5 (stating that compliance with debris mitigation rules could
    impose costs on amateur satellite operations, either through the
    additional cost of adding propulsion systems to amateur space
    stations or through a reduction of the visible "footprint" of a
    propulsion-less satellite by restricting its operations to lower
    altitudes from which it will re-enter the Earth's within 25 years).

[^258]: Ecliptic Comments at 12-13.

[^259]: For example, the "Quakesat" microsatellite that was launched in
    June 2003 is expected to have an orbital lifetime of more than 41
    years. This lifetime is derived using the NASA Orbital Debris
    Assessment Software (DAS version 1.5), which is available at
    [http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov](http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/).
    It is based on an orbit with apogee of 833 kilometers and perigee of
    817 kilometers and on an area-to-mass ratio of 0.0542 m^2^/kg
    (0.1626 m^2^/3kg). The orbital characteristics of the Quakesat are
    published in NASA Satellite Situation Report, Volume 44, Number 9
    (September 30, 2003). The nominal operational lifetime for Quakesat
    has been estimated at one year. *See* Quakesat website, which is
    available at <http://www.quakefinder.com/quakesat>.

[^260]: *See* Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation Petition For Rule
    Making (filed December 2, 2002) (AMSAT Petition). The petition was
    placed on public notice on December 18, 2002. *See* *Public Notice*,
    Report No. 2589 (rel. Dec. 18, 2002).

[^261]: 47 C.F.R. § 97.207(g)(1).

[^262]: 47 C.F.R. § 97.207(g)(2).

[^263]: AMSAT Petition at 2 (proposing amending section 97.202(g) to
    provide for a single notification to the International Bureau 30
    days after the amateur licensee obtains a launch commitment for the
    satellite and to limit the information provided to that described in
    Appendix 4 of the ITU Radio Regulations).

[^264]: We note that it is our experience that amateur space station
    licensees have not consistently submitted notifications to the
    Commission in the timely manner set out by Section 97.207(g).

[^265]: *Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules Governing the
    Amateur Radio Services*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket
    No. 04-140, FCC 04-79, 19 FCC Rcd 7293 (paras. 73-77) (2004)
    (proposing, among other things, to require that pre-space
    notification be submitted within 30 days after the launch vehicle
    used to launch the amateur space station is determined, but no later
    than 90 days before the space station is integrated into the launch
    vehicle).

[^266]: *See id.* at para. 77.

[^267]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5592.

[^268]: 15 U.S.C. § 5601 *et seq*.

[^269]: 15 U.S.C. § 5625(e) (stating that Remote Sensing Act does not
    affect the authority of the FCC concerning the licensing of
    satellites transmitting radio communications).

[^270]: 15 U.S.C. § 5622(b)(4).

[^271]: *Licensing of Private Land Remote-Sensing Space Systems*,
    Interim Final Rule, 65 Fed. Reg. 46822 (July 31, 2000).

[^272]: *Id.*

[^273]: 15 U.S.C. § 5601 *et seq*. The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act
    requires that a licensee, "upon termination of operations under the
    license, make disposition of any satellites in space in a manner
    satisfactory to the President." *See id.* § 5622(b)(4).

[^274]: Should NOAA elect to receive and approve the orbital debris
    mitigation plans of remote sensing satellite applicants beyond
    post-mission disposal, we would consider waiver of our review of
    those elements already approved by NOAA.

[^275]: *Orbital Debris Notice,* 17 FCC Rcd at 5600.

[^276]: 49 U.S.C. § 70101 *et seq.*

[^277]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5592-93. The FAA's
    implementing regulations are codified at 14 C.F.R. Ch. III, § 400
    *et seq*. The FAA's authority over payloads does not extend to
    payloads subject to regulation by the FCC or NOAA, and the FAA's
    authority does not cover space activities conducted by and for the
    U.S. Government. *See* 49 U.S.C. § 70117(b) and (g).

[^278]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5600 (citing *The Boeing
    Company*, Order and Authorization, DA 01-1631, 16 FCC Rcd 13691,
    13704(para. 33) (2001)).

[^279]: *Id*.

[^280]: 49 U.S.C. §§ 70102 and 70104. Section 70102(1) of the Commercial
    Space Launch Act defines "citizen of the United States" to mean:
    "(A) an individual who is a citizen of the United States; (B) an
    entity organized or existing under the laws of the United States; or
    (C) an entity organized or existing under the laws of a foreign
    country if the controlling interest...is held by an individual or
    entity described in subclause (A) or (B). . . ."

[^281]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5600.

[^282]: Arianespace Comments at 3.

[^283]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^284]: *Id.* at 6.

[^285]: *Id.* at 7-8.

[^286]: *Id.* at 7 (observing that Arianespace launch vehicles are
    subject to debris mitigation guidelines promulgated by France's
    Centre National des Études Spatiales (CNES) and the European Space
    Agency (ESA)).

[^287]: AMSAT Comments at 5.

[^288]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5595.

[^289]: Full text of the U.N. treaties are available on-line at
    <http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html>.

[^290]: Outer Space Treaty, Article VI.

[^291]: Outer Space Treaty, Article VII.

[^292]: Liability Convention, Article I.

[^293]: Liability Convention, Article II.

[^294]: Liability Convention, Article I.

[^295]: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §
    70101 *et seq.*

[^296]: 14 C.F.R. § 440.1 *et seq.*

[^297]: Under FAA regulations, third-party liability insurance is
    required to remain in effect only for 30 days after the later of
    vehicle ignition or payload separation. *See* 14 C.F.R. § 440.11.

[^298]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5611.

[^299]: *Id*.

[^300]: UM Space Law Center Comments at 5.

[^301]: *See Space System Licensee, et al.*, Memorandum Opinion, Order
    and Authorization, DA 02-307, 17 FCC Rcd 2271 (Int'l Bur. 2002).

[^302]: SIA Comments at 17.

[^303]: *Orbital Debris Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5611.

[^304]: AON Space Comments at 4-5.

[^305]: *See Space System Licensee, et al.*, 17 FCC Rcd at 2291 n.132.

[^306]: Slabinski Comments at 1.

[^307]: *Id*.

[^308]: *Id.* at 3.

[^309]: *Id*. Slabinski also urges that this documentation be maintained
    in paper form, given that technology is likely to change over the 15
    years or more of a space station's functional lifetime, and
    electronic copies of documentation may not be readable by the end of
    a space station's life.

[^310]: *First Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 10825 (para. 167).

[^311]: SES Americom Reply at 5 (arguing that a bond requirement raises
    numerous questions about the proper amount of any bond and how the
    Commission would determine whether the bond conditions have been
    satisfied).

[^312]: By contrast, the bond requirement adopted as part of our space
    station licensing reform is extent only for the relatively short
    period of time between licensing of the space station and the
    commencement of service via the licensed system. *See First Report &
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 10825 (para. 167).

[^313]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^314]: *See Mitigation of Orbital Debris*, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 02-54, FCC 02-80, 17 FCC Rcd 5586, 5613
    (2002).

[^315]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^316]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^317]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^318]: *See Mitigation of Orbital Debris*, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 02-54, FCC 02-80, 17 FCC Rcd 5586, 5613
    (2002).

[^319]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^320]: For purposes of the Second Report and Order, the term LEO is
    used to refer to the orbits at altitudes below 2,000 kilometers.

[^321]: GEO is a circular orbit along the plane of the Earth's equator
    at an altitude of approximately 35,786 kilometers. A spacecraft in
    geostationary-Earth orbit can be maintained at a constant
    longitudinal position relative to the Earth, thus allowing the
    satellite to be "seen" continuously from, and at a fixed orientation
    to, any given point on the Earth's surface.

[^322]: Comments of the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation Regarding
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, IB Docket No. 02-54 (filed
    July 17, 2002).

[^323]: Response of the University of Mississippi National Remote
    Sensing and Space Law Center to Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, IB Docket No. 02-54 (filed July 16, 2002).

[^324]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(6) ("small entity" has same meaning as
    "small business" under RFA).

[^325]: *See Second Report and Order* at paras. 89-92*.*

[^326]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^327]: *See* *Second Report and Order* at Section III.D.4.i.

[^328]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^329]: *Id*. § 601(6).

[^330]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^331]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^332]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^333]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^334]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^335]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^336]: *Id*.

[^337]: \"This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
    providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other
    establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries
    by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
    satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.\" Small
    Business Administration, 1997 NAICS Definitions, NAICS 513340.

[^338]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAIC code 517410 (changed from 513340 in
    October 2002).

[^339]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 513340 (issued October 2000).

[^340]: *Id.*

[^341]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140-146 (requiring applicants in various
    satellite services to demonstrate technical qualifications as a
    prerequisite to receiving Commission authorization for space station
    operations).

[^342]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).

[^343]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140-146 (requiring applicants in various
    satellite services to demonstrate technical qualifications as a
    prerequisite to receiving Commission authorization for space station
    operations).

[^344]: *See Second Report and Order* at para. 91.

[^345]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^346]: *See* *Second Report and Order* at Section III.D.4.i.

[^347]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^348]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).