Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

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

## NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

Adopted: March 14, 2002 Released: March 18, 2002

Comment Date: 75 Days After Publication in the Federal Register

Reply Comment Date: 105 Days After Publication in the Federal Register

By the Commission: Commissioner Copps issuing a statement

###### TABLE OF CONTENTS

**[Paragraph Number]{.underline}**

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

## BACKGROUND\.............................................................................4

A.  Technical and Scientific Aspects of Orbital
    Debris...............................4

B.  Development of U.S. Policy and Regulations Concerning Orbital
    Debris.....10

C.  International
    Aspects........................\..........................................19

## DISCUSSION..............................................................................29

A.  FCC Statutory Authority Concerning Orbital
    Debris\........................\......31

B.  Elements of Orbital Debris
    Mitigation..........................................\....36

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Control of Debris Released During Normal Operations; Selection of a
    Safe Operational
    Configuration.................................................37

2.  Minimizing Debris Generated by Accidental
    Explosions...................40

3.  Safe Flight
    Profiles...............................................................42

> *Application Filing Requirements*
> ......................................44
>
> *Rules and Practices for the Pre-operational
> Phase*......\.........\...46
>
> *On-Orbit
> Operations*.....................................................48
>
> *Coordination of
> Maneuver*..............................................52

4.  Post-Mission
    Disposal.........................................................\...53

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  Liability Issues and
    Insurance.......................................................61

D.  Scope of Proposed
    Rules.............................................................63

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
II. CONCLUSION.............................................................................65

III. ADMINISTRATIVE
     MATTERS........................................................66

APPENDIX A: US Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices

APPENDIX B: Proposed Rule Changes

APPENDIX C: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

## INTRODUCTION

1 By this Notice, we propose to adopt rules for satellite services
concerning orbital debris mitigation. 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. Growth in the
orbital debris population may limit the usefulness of space for
communications and other uses in the future, by raising the costs and
lowering the reliability of space based systems. There is an emerging
consensus, however, that consideration of orbital debris issues as a
part of spacecraft design and operation can play an important role in
preserving access to space for the long term. Consideration of orbital
debris issues also can minimize the risk of injury to humans from
debris, both in space and on the surface of the Earth.

2 The Commission has either adopted or proposed to adopt requirements
that satellite systems in three specific services describe debris
mitigation plans when applying for a license.[^1] The Commission has
also consistently indicated that it would initiate a future rule making
proceeding -- this proceeding -- to address debris mitigation issues
involving all satellite systems. For these reasons, we believe this is
an appropriate time to consider issues related to orbital debris
mitigation, and commence this rule-making proceeding to consider the
manner in which consideration of debris mitigation issues should be
incorporated into our rules and licensing processes.

3 This Notice of Proposed Rule Making begins by providing a short
discussion of the technical and scientific aspects of orbital debris. We
next provide a brief outline of the development of U.S. policies and
regulations concerning orbital debris, as well as the international
context in which those policies have developed. We then turn to our
substantive proposals, which involve adopting a requirement that
satellite systems licensed by the FCC must disclose in their requests
for authorization their debris-mitigation plans, and several other
specific rule changes to address debris mitigation. We also seek comment
on a number of issues concerning mitigation, and on whether our rules
should be modified to address those issues.

####### 

####### II. BACKGROUND

## Technical and Scientific Aspects of Orbital Debris

4 The orbital debris population consists of a wide range of objects. The
smallest and most numerous objects (in excess of a million), consist of
a large number of paint flakes, solid rocket motor slag,[^2] and
break-up debris (from the explosion of space objects). Larger objects
include operational debris (bolts, lens caps, etc), break-up debris,
solid rocket motor slag, and reactor coolant. The least numerous
objects, but the ones making up the largest percentage of mass in orbit,
are spacecraft, rocket bodies, and the largest pieces of break-up debris
from exploded spacecraft and rocket bodies.[^3]

5 Absent other influences, objects placed in orbit around the Earth will
continue in orbit indefinitely, as the momentum of the object causes it
to orbit the Earth along a trajectory determined by the Earth's
gravitation. For objects orbiting the Earth, the point in orbit that the
object is farthest from the Earth is known as its "apogee." The point in
orbit that the object is closest to the Earth is known as the object's
"perigee."

6 An object's orbit around the Earth can be affected by a number of
additional factors. Objects in Low-Earth orbit (LEO), i.e., with a
perigee relatively close to the Earth, will experience drag from
collisions with molecules of gas from the upper reaches of the Earth's
atmosphere. Atmospheric drag results in orbital decay, i.e., a gradual
lowering of the object's orbit. Eventually, orbital decay will result in
the object reentering the Earth's atmosphere.

7 Atmospheric drag on orbiting objects decreases dramatically as the
orbital altitude of the object increases. For example, from an altitude
of 250 kilometers, a typical spacecraft in a circular orbit will reenter
the Earth's atmosphere within approximately two months, and from an
altitude of 600 kilometers, it will reenter within approximately 15
years. On the other hand, orbits with a perigee above 850 kilometers
suggest an orbital lifetime typically exceeding 500 years.[^4] At the
Geostationary Earth orbit[^5] (GEO), the effects of atmospheric drag are
essentially non-existent.[^6] Objects in orbit are also affected by
gravitational forces other than the Earth's (especially lunar and solar
forces), and by solar pressure.[^7] These forces can be of particular
significance for objects in and around GEO.

8 Objects reentering the Earth's atmosphere typically burn up from the
heat generated during reentry. However, larger or particularly
heat-resistant objects may survive reentry and reach the surface of the
Earth. Approximately 75 percent of the mass launched into orbit since
the beginning of human activity in space has reentered the Earth's
atmosphere.[^8] However, because a significant number of objects remain
in orbit indefinitely, and with continuing activity to place new objects
in orbit, there has been long-term growth in the mass and number of
orbital debris.[^9]

9 In space, because of the high relative velocities involved, even some
of the smaller objects, particularly those greater than 0.1mm in
diameter, are capable of producing significant impact damage. For debris
objects larger than 1 mm in diameter, impact damage can include
significant structural damage to a satellite. Objects larger than
approximately 1 cm in diameter can produce catastrophic damage to other
space objects.[^10]

## B. Development of U.S. Policy and Regulations Concerning Orbital Debris

10 U.S. policy on orbital debris is the product of considerable work
over the years to assess the risks posed by orbital debris, and to
develop methods for mitigating those risks.[^11] This work has included
two U.S. government reports, the first in February 1989,[^12] and the
second in November 1995. [^13] The *1995 Interagency Report* recommended
that the 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.
The *1995 Interagency Report* recommended that interested U.S. agencies
then consult with the private sector to develop government/industry
design guidelines. It also recommended that such guidelines could be
used by both government and industry in the design and development of
future satellite systems.[^14] At a 1998 U.S. government workshop for
industry, draft U.S. Government guidelines were presented to industry.
The practices listed in the guidelines were control of orbital debris
released during normal operations, minimization of debris generated by
accidental explosions, selection of a safe flight profile and
operational configuration, and post-mission disposal of space
structures. Those practices have now been adopted, with some
modifications, and are applied in U.S. government missions. A copy of
these practices is attached for information as Appendix A.[^15]

11 Under the U.S. Government Standard Practices, the first objective --
controlling debris released during normal operations -- is addressed by
minimizing the amount of debris released in a planned manner during
normal operations. The second objective -- minimizing debris generated
by accidental explosions -- is addressed by limiting the risk to other
space systems from accidental explosions both during mission operations
and after completion of mission operations. For mission operations, this
is accomplished by analyzing credible failure modes and developing
methods to limit the probability they will occur. Post-mission, this is
accomplished by depleting all sources of stored energy on board the
spacecraft when they are no longer required for mission operations or
post-mission disposal. The third objective -- selecting a safe flight
profile and operational configuration -- is addressed through estimating
and limiting the probability of collision with large objects during
orbital lifetime, and the probability of disabling collisions with small
debris during mission operations.

12 The fourth objective -- providing for post-mission disposal of space
structures -- is met by planning for disposal of a spacecraft at the end
of mission life to minimize impact on future space operations. This is
accomplished through one of two options relevant here.[^16] The first
option is atmospheric reentry, *i.e.*, leaving the structure in an orbit
in which it will remain in orbit for no longer than 25 years after
mission completion. Under this option, it is also necessary to address
the expected human casualty risk from any portions of the spacecraft
that may survive atmospheric reentry. The second option is maneuvering
to a storage orbit. There are three suggested storage orbits. The first
is between low and medium Earth orbit, *i.e.*, satellite perigee
altitude above 2,000 kilometers and apogee altitude below 19,700
kilometers. The second is between medium and geosynchronous Earth orbit,
*i.e.*, perigee altitude above 20,700 kilometers and apogee altitude
below 35,300 kilometers. The third is above geosynchronous Earth orbit,
*i.e.*, perigee altitude above 36,100 kilometers (or approximately 300
kilometers above geosynchronous altitude).

13 The Government Standard Practices apply to missions operated or
procured by the U.S. government agencies. By their terms, the Government
Standard Practices require that \"programs and projects will assess and
limit\" events that could produce debris and \"will plan for\"
post-mission disposal.[^17] Government agencies retain the ability to
deviate from specific practices if necessary to address considerations
of cost or mission effectiveness. The Government Standard Practices are
not directly applicable to non-Government missions.

14 Licensing authority for non-government space activities rests with
three agencies: the Department of Transportation Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA); the Department of Commerce National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the FCC. The FAA is the U.S.
licensing authority for commercial launches, pursuant to the Commercial
Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended. [^18] The FAA regulates launches
from U.S. territory and launch activities by U.S. nationals outside the
United States. FAA regulations[^19] provide detailed launch safety and
liability insurance requirements. FAA regulations specifically indicate
that the FAA does not review "payloads"[^20] that are subject to
regulation by the FCC or NOAA.[^21] Under the Land Remote Sensing Policy
Act of 1992,[^22] NOAA is the U.S. licensing authority for commercial
remote sensing systems. The Remote Sensing Act and NOAA's implementing
regulations[^23] address national security, foreign policy and science
policy issues, other than radiocommunication matters.[^24] 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."[^25] The Remote
Sensing Act did not alter the authority of the FCC concerning licensing
of satellites transmitting radio communications.[^26] Thus, because they
use radio frequencies to transmit data collected in space back to the
Earth, commercial U.S. remote sensing satellites typically must obtain a
license from both NOAA and the FCC. Both the FAA and NOAA have issued
regulations concerning mitigation of orbital debris. In several respects
those regulations require non-governmental space missions to adopt
practices consistent with the Government Standard Practices.

15 Specifically, the FAA has adopted regulations concerning commercial
space launches. Those regulations include a requirement that an
applicant for a commercial launch license must demonstrate that for all
launch vehicle stages or components which reach Earth orbit, there will
be no unintended physical contact of the vehicle or its components with
its payload after payload separation.[^27] In addition, the FAA requires
measures that prevent the conversion of energy sources into energy[^28]
that fragments a vehicle or its components.[^29] As part of the
licensing process, the FAA also examines other safety matters concerning
launch vehicles, such as safe flight profiles and assessment of
associated risks.[^30] This assessment includes the assessment of risk
in the event a portion of a launch vehicle will reenter the Earth's
atmosphere after attaining orbit. In addition, the FAA undertakes a
safety review of payloads, unless the payload is owned or operated by
the U.S.Government, or subject to regulation by the FCC or NOAA.

16 The FCC has addressed issues regarding orbital debris and satellite
systems on a case-by-case and service-by-service basis, under authority
granted by the Communications Act.[^31] Until recently, the Commission's
rules did not require submission of information regarding plans for
orbital debris mitigation. However, in adopting rules for the mobile
satellite service at 2 GHz, the Commission required systems to "describe
the design and operational strategies that they will use, if any, to
mitigate orbital debris."[^32] This rule also requires 2 GHz MSS system
proponents to "submit a casualty risk assessment if planned post-mission
disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the spacecraft."[^33] The FCC
has proposed to adopt similar rules for the Ku-Band non-geostationary
orbit satellites and for Ka-Band non-geostationary orbit
satellites.[^34] The Commission has also consistently indicated in these
proceedings that it would initiate a future rule making proceeding --
this proceeding -- to address debris mitigation issues involving all
satellite systems.[^35] The number of commercial satellites on orbit or
planned for launch has increased dramatically over the last decade,
particularly as new orbits, such as LEO, and new frequency bands have
been incorporated into commercial satellite system designs.

17 Issues related to orbital debris have arisen in several cases. In
some cases, parties have raised questions concerning potential
collisions between satellites.[^36] The Commission has also sought and
received advice from NASA concerning technical issues, particularly
those relating to end-of-life disposal.[^37] Based on technical analyses
by NASA, and following coordination with a wide range of Executive
Branch agencies, the FCC's International Bureau recently authorized the
Iridium system to perform end-of-life maneuvers, when those maneuvers
become necessary in the future.[^38]

## C. International Aspects

18 Both the 1995 Interagency Report and the 1996 National Space
Policy[^39] recognized that there are important international aspects of
the debris mitigation policy. The 1995 Interagency Report noted the need
for a coordinated U.S. international strategy to encourage other nations
to adopt debris policies and practices. The National Space Policy
indicates that it is in the interest of the U.S. Government to ensure
that space debris minimization practices are applied by other
spacefaring nations. The National Space Policy also states that the U.S.
Government will take a leadership role in international fora to adopt
policies and practices aimed at debris minimization and will cooperate
internationally in the exchange of information on debris research and
the identification of debris mitigation options." Thus, the
international aspects of debris mitigation include both measures adopted
by individual countries to govern their national activities involving
the use of space, and cooperation among nations in development of debris
mitigation options and practices. In this section, we briefly examine
both international aspects. We first provide some background concerning
international treaties having some relevance to debris mitigation
issues, and associated with the international organizations in which
there have been cooperative efforts to develop debris mitigation options
and practices. We then describe development of mitigation guidelines by
national authorities in other countries, and ongoing work in
international fora to address space debris issues.

19 The United States is party to four treaties concerning activities
involving outer space, concluded under the auspices of the United
Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space ("UNCOPUOS"). These
treaties are: (1) the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of
States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and
Other Celestial Bodies, which entered into force October 10, 1967 ("the
Outer Space Treaty"); (2) the Convention on International Liability for
Damage Caused by Space Objects, which entered into force September 1,
1972 ("the Liability Convention"); (3) the Convention on Registration of
Objects Launched into Outer Space, which entered into force September
15, 1976 ("the Registration Convention"); and (4) the Agreement on the
Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects
Launched into Outer Space, which entered into force December 1968 ("the
Rescue Agreement").[^40]

20 The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international
space law. It provides that outer space is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty or other means,[^41] and that
outer space may be used by all states for peaceful purposes, and that
use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the
interests of all countries.[^42] The Outer Space Treaty also requires
that States, [i.e.]{.underline}, nations that are parties to the treaty,
be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by
governmental agencies or non-governmental entities, and that activities
by non-governmental entities require authorization and continuing
supervision by States that are parties to the treaty.[^43] Under the
Outer Space Treaty, a State is internationally liable for damage caused
by its space objects,[^44] and States must avoid harmful contamination
of space and celestial bodies.[^45]

21 The Liability Convention elaborates on Article 7 of the Outer Space
Treaty. It provides that a launching State[^46] shall be absolutely
liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space objects on the
surface of the Earth or to aircraft,[^47] and liable under a fault
standard for damage in space.[^48] The Liability Convention also
provides procedures for the settlement of claims for damages.[^49] The
Registration Convention provides that States should maintain a national
registry of objects launched into Earth orbit or beyond, and transmit
information from that registry to a registry maintained by the United
Nations.[^50] The Rescue Agreement elaborates on elements of articles 5
and 8 of the Outer Space Treaty. It provides, among other things, that
States shall, upon request, provide assistance to launching States in
recovering space objects that return to Earth outside the territory of
the Launching State.[^51]

22 These obligations have been implemented through national legislation
in a number of countries.[^52] In the United States, the Commercial
Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended,[^53] contains the principal
statutory provisions addressing the United States' obligations under the
Outer Space Treaty to supervise activities by non-government entities.
The FAA has adopted implementing regulations for that statute.[^54] The
Department of State maintains the U.S. Registry of Space Objects
required under the Registration Convention.[^55]

23 The United States is also a Member State of the International
Telecommunication Union ("ITU"), a specialized agency of the United
Nations. The U.S. is a party to the ITU Constitution, Convention, and
Radio Regulations. The FCC serves as the principal point of contact with
the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau and with other ITU Member States for
purposes of coordinating U.S. commercial satellite networks with
networks of other countries. Such coordination is designed to avoid
harmful radiofrequency interference.

24 The ITU Radiocommunication Assembly (ITU-R) adopted an orbital debris
mitgation recommendation in 1993. ITU-R recommended, among other
measures, that as little debris as possible be released into GSO, and
that a GSO satellite at the end of its life be transferred, before the
complete exhaustion of its propellant, to a storage orbit that does not
intersect with GSO.[^56]

25 Consistent with this international framework, more detailed technical
and policy means for mitigation of orbital debris have been largely
addressed at the national level. In addition to the United States,
Japan, Russia, the Ukraine, France, and India have developed or are
developing debris mitigation standards or practices.[^57] The European
Space Agency (ESA) has also developed mitigation standards.

26 Additionally, there is significant and ongoing international
consultation and technical study of orbital debris. Much progress in
this area has been facilitated by the Inter-Agency Space Debris
Coordination Committee (IADC). The IADC's members include 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. The IADC developed to enable space agencies to exchange
information on space debris research activities, to review the progress
of ongoing cooperative activities, to facilitate opportunities for
cooperation in space debris research, and to identify debris mitigation
options.[^58]

27 Orbital debris has also been studied by the Scientific and Technical
Subcommittee of UNCOPUOS (STSC). The STSC adopted a comprehensive report
on orbital debris in 1999.[^59] One conclusion of this report was that:
"In most cases, man-made space debris today poses little risk to the
successful operation of approximately 600 active spacecraft now in Earth
orbit. However, the known and assessed population of debris is growing,
and the probabilities of potentially damaging collisions will
consequently increase. Because of the difficulty of improving the space
environment with existing technologies, the implementation of some
debris mitigation measures today is a prudent step towards preserving
space for future generations." [^60] The STSC report also states that
"\[i\]n some cases, technical work remains to be done to determine the
most effective and cost-efficient solutions."[^61] As a result, the STSC
has developed a multi-year work plan that contemplates the IADC
submitting a consensus set of guidelines concerning space debris
mitigation to the STSC, in 2003.[^62]

## III. DISCUSSION

#### 

28 Based on developments in United States policy and the scientific
understanding of techniques for orbital debris mitigation, and in light
of our statutory responsibilities, we conclude that now is an
appropriate time to consider adoption of rules concerning orbital debris
mitigation by FCC licensees. We seek comment on a range of options for
addressing these issues. As a general matter, we propose to require, as
part of the licensing process, disclosure of orbital debris mitigation
plans for all types of satellite systems licensed by the FCC.[^63] We
also seek comment on whether we should specify in greater detail in our
rules the content of such showings, and whether each of the debris
mitigation practices discussed below are now sufficiently mature to
warrant adoption of a rule requiring use of the practice.

29 The discussion that follows first addresses our statutory authority
concerning orbital debris mitigation matters. We then turn to a
discussion of the individual elements of debris mitigation. That
discussion largely tracks the organization of the U.S. Government
Standard Practices, focusing first on release of debris during normal
operations, then on minimizing debris caused by accidental explosions,
then on the selection of safe flight profiles, and finally on
post-mission disposal of spacecraft.

#### **A. FCC Statutory Authority Concerning Orbital Debris**

30 Although the Communications Act of 1934 predated the advent of
satellite communications, the FCC has concluded that the Communications
Act provides authority for licensing radio frequency uses by satellite,
even though the satellite is located in space.[^64] Since the first
rules concerning satellites were adopted, the FCC satellite licensing
process has addressed aspects of the physical design and location of
satellites.[^65] The Commission has addressed orbital debris issues in
several cases,[^66] and debris-related issues have been raised in
several other cases. To date, however, the Commission has not formally
addressed the scope and nature of its authority concerning orbital
debris.[^67] The Communications Act[^68] provides the Commission with
broad authority with respect to radio communications involving the
United States, except for communications involving U.S. Government radio
stations.[^69] The Communications Act charges the FCC with encouraging
"the larger and more effective use of radio in the public
interest,"[^70] and provides for licensing of radio communications,[^71]
upon a finding that the "public convenience, interest, or necessity will
be served thereby."[^72] Orbital debris and related mitigation measures
could affect the cost, reliability, and safety of satellite operations.
Thus, orbital debris issues could affect the "larger and more effective
use of radio in the public interest." Furthermore, any debris generated
as a result of FCC-licensed activities could conceivably effect other
activities in space, including manned space flight, as well as the
safety of individuals on the surface of the earth. In addition, orbital
debris can effect the integrity and capability of new satellite systems
that we will wish to license in the future, pursuant to our existing
authority. Thus, orbital debris issues may be relevant in determining
whether the public interest would be served by any particular satellite
system, or by any particular practice or operating procedure of
satellite systems. In addition, because robotic spacecraft are typically
controlled through radiocommunication links, there would appear to be a
nexus between the radiocommunication function of FCC licensed space
stations[^73] and their physical operations. We seek comment on these
issues and this analysis.

31 We also specifically seek comment on the scope and nature of the
Commission's authority with respect to non-U.S. licensed space
stations[^74] that seek to operate using earth stations licensed by the
FCC.[^75] With respect to earth stations communicating with non-U.S.
licensed space stations, we believe some consideration of whether the
space station will employ reasonable debris mitigation measures is
appropriate in order to ensure that the satellite communications
activity we authorize does not involve substantial safety concerns or
activities that may be detrimental to space operations. We note that,
for non-U.S. licensed space stations, the radiocommunications necessary
to control the spacecraft may be performed from a non-U.S. earth
station, and thus the communications activity the FCC authorizes would
not directly involve the licensing of radiocommunication used for
controlling the spacecraft.

32 We also seek comment on whether there are any matters involving
launch vehicles that we have authority to consider. To date, the FCC has
not required license applicants to submit information regarding debris
mitigation plans for the launch vehicle that will be used to launch a
satellite, nor have we reviewed that information even if it is
submitted.[^76] We are not proposing to change that practice, and the
proposals in this notice address only spacecraft, and not launch
vehicles. We observe that matters addressed under the Commercial Space
Launch Legislation and its implementing regulations are most
appropriately addressed by the FAA. Because Congress has specifically
established a statutory regime governing such matters we believe it
would be generally inappropriate to address such issues in the FCC
licensing process, unless requested to do so by the FAA. We seek
comment, however, on whether the FCC would have authority to consider
launch-related matters that appear to be outside the scope of the
Commercial Space Launch Legislation and its implementing regulations.
For example, if a company is seeking an FCC license and procuring its
launch from a foreign country, could the FCC consider orbital debris
issues involving that launch, if asked to do so?

33 We also seek comment on whether the Commission would have authority
to either adopt a rule, or, in an individual case, to impose a license
condition, that would require licensees to obtain insurance to address
debris mitigation or related issues.[^77]

34 We also observe that, because NOAA has explicit statutory authority
to address post mission disposal of remote sensing systems, we do not
anticipate addressing in the FCC licensing process matters involving
post-mission disposal of NOAA-licensed satellites.

#### **B. Elements of Orbital Debris Mitigation**

35 The U.S. Government standard practices identify four broad objectives
and a number of practices designed to achieve those objectives. We ask a
number of specific questions concerning these practices below. In
addition, we seek comment generally on the relationship between economic
incentives and the likelihood that FCC-licensed satellite systems will
adopt and carry out debris mitigation measures voluntarily. What impact
do either normal business pressures, such as market incentives for
profit maximization, or more extraordinary pressures, such as
insolvency, have on incentives to adopt debris mitigation measures, or
on related issues?[^78] We seek comment on these issues.

1.  Control of Debris Released During Normal Operations; Selection of a
    Safe Operational Configuration

36 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 provide that programs will assess and
limit the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal
operations. The communications payloads licensed by the FCC have not
typically involved the planned release of any operational debris
following the launch phase of operations. While we believe it is
appropriate for applicants to confirm in any orbital debris mitigation
showing that this is the case, we do not anticipate that addressing this
guideline presents any significant issues for typical communications
missions. We seek comment on this conclusion.

37 Second, the U.S. Government standard practices also provide that
programs and projects will select a safe operational configuration, i.e.
the project must assess and limit the probability that an operating
spacecraft will become a source of debris through collisions with
man-made objects or meteors. Particularly for collisions with smaller
objects, this practice involves consideration of spacecraft shielding,
placement of components, and use of redundant systems such that a
collision will not cause a loss of spacecraft control that would prevent
post-mission disposal. We propose to require an applicant to confirm in
its orbital debris mitigation showing that it has made such an
assessment. We anticipate that for communications missions, the
operator's economic interest in ensuring reliability will generally
provide ample incentive for designing each spacecraft as robustly as
possible, since the systems used to control the spacecraft for
end-of-life disposal are typically the same as those used in normal
operations. We seek comment on this proposal.

38 We also seek comment on whether there are emerging satellite system
designs that might call into question the adequacy of economic
incentives alone. In particular, we note that there is substantial
interest in satellite system designs that involve large numbers of small
spacecraft. Among the potential benefits of such spacecraft often cited
are their low cost, and the ability to enhance reliability by using
multiple satellites, thus minimizing the impact of the loss of any
individual satellite. While the redundancy afforded by the use of large
numbers of small satellites may adequately address operator's concerns
with the potential for economic losses, the U.S. Government standard
practices focus on ensuring the ability to perform post-mission
disposal. Thus, for purposes of addressing this guideline, the use of
multiple spacecraft would not appear to be an adequate substitute for
the more traditional method of hardening individual spacecraft.

2.  Minimizing Debris Generated By Accidental Explosions

> 39 The U.S. Government standard practices provide that programs and
> projects will assess and limit the probability of accidental explosion
> during and after completion of mission operations. This is perhaps the
> single most important debris mitigation measure regarding potential
> damage to space assets. When an object explodes in space, it can
> produce a large number of debris objects, and the objects produced
> typically disperse over a much wider range of orbits than the orbit of
> the object that exploded.[^79] The U.S. government standard practices
> provide that programs will assess possible failure modes that could
> result in explosions, and adopt operational procedures to limit the
> probability they will occur. In addition, the U.S. government standard
> practices provide that all sources of stored energy on-board a
> spacecraft "should be depleted or safed" when they are no longer
> required for mission operations or post-mission disposal.

40 We propose to require an applicant to confirm in its orbital debris
mitigation showing that it has made such an assessment. We anticipate
that for typical communications missions, the operator's economic
interest in ensuring reliability will provide ample incentive for
designing a spacecraft that does not experience accidental explosions
during its useful life. We seek comment on this proposal. With respect
to procedures at or near the end of a spacecraft's life, similar
incentives may not apply, and, in fact, the operator may have economic
incentives to continue potentially income-producing activities even as a
spacecraft's systems degrade, potentially to the point where the
reliability of energy depleting measures is compromised. We seek comment
on this conclusion. We also note that the FAA has adopted a rule
implementing this guideline for launch vehicle upper stages.[^80] We
propose to adopt a similar rule for space stations licensed by the FCC.
[^81] We note, however, that, once a launch vehicle upper stage delivers
a payload to orbit, there is typically little or no economic value that
can be derived from delaying energy depleting measures. On the other
hand, end-of-life measures for a communication satellite are taken at
the expense of income-producing activity. Therefore, we seek comment on
whether additional measures, such as requiring reporting concerning
availability of fuel adequate to execute planned end-of-life maneuvers,
might be appropriate in connection with communications satellites.[^82]

3\. Safe Flight Profiles

> 41 The U.S. Government guidelines provide that programs and projects
> will assess and limit the probability of operating space systems
> becoming a source of debris by collisions with man-made objects or
> meteoroids. Thus, 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 development of safe flight profiles for
> FCC-licensed satellite systems presents a number of issues. While
> current FCC rules and international regulations have several
> provisions that impact the selection of the flight profile for a
> satellite, these rules were developed primarily to address radio
> frequency interference concerns. Thus, these 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. However, an
> applicant's disclosure in the licensing process of, for example, the
> parameters of orbits its system would use, may assist third parties in
> identifying potential problems that may be caused by the proposed
> operations. In the most heavily used orbits or in orbits with
> particular 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.
>
> 42 In the following paragraphs, we outline current rules and licensing
> practices that have some bearing on limiting the probability of
> collisions with large known objects, and we seek comment on whether it
> is necessary to change these rules and practices.
>
> 43 *Application Filing Requirements.* Section 25.114 of the
> Commission's rules establishes the information that an applicant must
> submit in an application for a space station authorization.[^83]
> Section 25.114 (c)(12) requires the applicant to submit information
> regarding the physical characteristics of the space station. Section
> 25.114 (c)(6) requires applicants for GSO satellites to specify the
> satellite's orbital location, and discussion of factors relevant to
> selection of orbital location. Section 25.114 (c)(9) also requires
> applicants for GSO satellites to specify the accuracy with which the
> satellite's orbital inclination[^84] and longitudinal drift[^85] will
> be maintained. For non-geostationary satellite systems, Section 25.114
> (c)(6) requires applicants to specify the number of space stations,
> the number and inclination of orbital planes, orbital period, apogee,
> perigee, the argument(s) of perigee, and right ascension of the
> ascending node(s).
>
> 44 We note that a common FCC practice in authorizing space stations is
> to condition authorization on operations consistent with the technical
> specifications set forth in the application. Thus, upon authorization,
> this information becomes a material term of the license. We seek
> comment on whether the information typically provided in an
> application, particularly with respect to orbital parameters, provides
> an adequate basis for potentially affected parties to evaluate
> proposed systems with respect to collision avoidance and safe flight
> profiles. We also seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to
> require non-geostationary satellite systems to disclose the accuracy
> with which they will maintain orbital parameters such as apogee,
> perigee, period, and inclination.
>
> 45 *Rules and Practices for the Pre-operational Phase.* Following
> separation from a launch vehicle, but prior to commencing full
> commercial operations, there may be a substantial period of deployment
> and testing in which a satellite does not operate in its assigned
> orbit. To date, we have reviewed such operations on a case-by-case
> basis. To the extent an applicant seeks authority to transmit in
> connection with deployment and testing as part of its application for
> authority for "full" operations, we address that request in connection
> with licensing the satellite or satellite constellation as a
> whole.[^86] In a number of cases, however, we have addressed this
> pre-operational phase by issuing a special temporary authority. For
> example, we have in a number of instances granted special temporary
> authority for the testing of geostationary satellites at orbital
> locations other than those specified in their licenses.[^87]
>
> 46 We propose to continue these general practices. We believe it is
> beneficial to maintain regulatory flexibility in addressing the
> deployment and testing phase of satellite operations. We seek comment
> on this proposal. We also seek comment on the level of specificity of
> disclosure, regarding such "pre-operational" operations, that we
> should require in the licensing process. Most such operations are
> highly transitory in nature, often involving a series of spacecraft
> maneuvers, and, therefore, it may be difficult to specify precise
> orbital parameters for the operations. If, on the other hand, the
> operations involve the use of a particular orbit for an extended
> period of time, such as a geostationary satellite orbital location
> used for in-orbit testing, or, for a non-geostationary satellite, use
> of an "engineering" orbit in which satellites are tested and
> maintained prior to deployment in "mission" orbits, we would generally
> expect licensees to specify precise orbital parameters. The parameters
> specified should be consistent with the requirements for disclosure in
> connection with normal operations.[^88] We seek comment on this, or
> alternate, approaches.

47 *On-orbit Operations.* Section 25.210(j) of the Commission's rules
specifies station-keeping requirements for fixed satellite service
satellites in the geostationary satellite orbit. The rule requires that
such satellites must be designed with the capability of being maintained
in orbit within 0.05^o^ of their assigned orbital longitude, and must be
maintained in orbit at their assigned orbital longitude within the
longitudinal tolerance specified by the Commission.[^89] The FCC rule
parallels, but is generally more stringent than, the requirement in the
ITU Radio Regulations.[^90] Because a geostationary satellite in the
process of removal from orbit at the end of its mission would not comply
with this rule, we propose to modify the rule to provide an explicit
exception for such operations. In addition, we also propose changes to
shorten and simplify the text of the rule, so that it simply indicates
that GSO satellites must be maintained within .05 degrees of their
assigned orbital longitude, unless otherwise authorized by the
Commission. [^91] We seek comment on whether these rules, adopted for
the purpose of avoiding harmful radio interference, are nonetheless
useful as basic "rules of the road" for the purpose of limiting the
probability of collision with other large objects, particularly with
respect to potential collisions between functional spacecraft at
geostationary orbit. As a related question, we seek comment on whether
the longitudinal tolerance applicable to the fixed satellite service
should be applied to space stations in other services, such as the
mobile satellite service or remote sensing satellites.[^92]

48 The FCC Rules also provide for operation of GSO satellites in
inclined orbit, [i.e.]{.underline}, without the so-called "north-south"
station-keeping maneuvers that correct for solar and lunar gravitational
forces.[^93] This rule provides authority for such operations, provided
that the Commission is notified, and subject to conditions designed to
avoid radio frequency interference to other satellites. We propose
several changes to this rule to clarify the date by which the
notification required by the rule must occur, and to address
post-mission disposal issues.[^94]

49 For non-geostationary satellites, neither the FCC's rules nor the ITU
Radio Regulations specify a tolerance within which orbital parameters
must be maintained. We tentatively conclude that non-geostationary
satellite systems should disclose in license applications the tolerances
within which orbital parameters would be maintained, so that potentially
affected third parties can evaluate any collision risk.[^95] We also
seek comment on whether it is appropriate to specify a required
tolerance within which orbital parameters must be established and
maintained, or whether, alternatively, tolerances should be addressed on
a case-by-case basis.

50 We also seek 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.[^96] Given the currently extremely low spatial density of
and risk of collision with large debris objects, this guideline would
appear to be readily attainable, almost by definition, for virtually all
missions. In specific cases, however, more detailed discussion of
potential collisions may be warranted. For example, if two operators are
proposing to launch a large number of LEO satellites into identical or
very similar orbits, such as circular orbits at the same altitude, the
risk of collision may be sufficiently large that adjustments to the
operations of the two systems, or coordination of operations, would be
appropriate. We propose, however, to make no change in our general
policy of leaving the choice of orbital regime (LEO, MEO, GEO), or of
the specific orbital parameters for any particular system, to the
discretion of the operator, in the absence of conflicting requests. We
seek comment on this proposal.

51 *Coordination of Maneuvers.* As a final matter concerning limiting
the probability of collisions and safe flight profiles, we seek comment
on what, if any, notification requirements we should adopt concerning
maneuvers by FCC-licensed satellite systems. Such notifications may be
particularly important in connection with certain types of space assets,
such as manned spacecraft.[^97] Space objects that are not maneuvering
may be more predictable in their behavior, and it may be more
technically feasible to assess potential collision risks based on their
orbits. Maneuvering spacecraft, on the other hand, are not similarly
predictable. We are aware of a number of U.S. space operators that have
exchanged information related to maneuvers with United States Space
Command in appropriate circumstances and encourage operators to continue
doing so. Although United States Space Command neither approves nor
directs the actions of these operators, the exchange of information
regarding the location of space objects can mitigate the risk associated
with the maneuvers. We also anticipate that operators informally
coordinate maneuvers with each other on an as-needed basis. We seek
comment on whether, in fact, such coordination is common. We also seek
comment on whether, with increases in space activity by an increasing
number of operators, it is appropriate to consider a more formal
requirement. If so, what is the appropriate scope of such a requirement?
Should it include all maneuvers, or only those that involve particularly
critical orbits? If the latter, what criteria should be used to
determine whether an orbit is particularly critical? If applied at the
geostationary orbit, should this requirement apply only to maneuvers
outside a station's current location and station keeping tolerance? We
also seek comment on the parties that should receive any such
notification, and on the form of the notification. Should other
operators receive notification of planned maneuvers? Would posting of
those plans on a web site or an electronic bulletin board provide a
means for operators to adequately notify each other of planned
maneuvers, such that any potential collision concerns could be
identified and addressed? Are there currently mechanisms in place as a
result of operators' informal coordinations that may be instructive as
to how a more formal requirement might work?

4\. Post-Mission Disposal

52 The U.S. Government guidelines provide for post-mission disposal of
space structures, bearing in mind considerations of cost-effectiveness.
Programs and projects must plan for disposal of a spacecraft at the end
of mission life to minimize impact on future space operations. This is
accomplished through one of three options. The first option is
atmospheric reentry. This can be accomplished either by using the
spacecraft's propulsion system (if it is capable of doing so) to propel
the spacecraft out of orbit and into the Earth's atmosphere, or by
leaving the spacecraft in an orbit from which it will remain in orbit
for no longer than 25 years after mission completion. Under this option,
it is also necessary to address the human casualty risk from any
portions of the spacecraft that may survive atmospheric reentry. The
second option is direct retrieval of the spacecraft from orbit. Direct
retrieval and atmospheric reentry are the most effective methods of
ensuring that an object will not, through collisions with other objects,
become a source of a large number of orbital debris in the future.
Direct retrieval can be expensive, however, and unless the retrieval is
performed using a reusable launch vehicle, the retrieval process has the
potential to place additional mass, such as launch vehicle upper stages,
into orbit. Thus, direct retrieval has generally not be considered a
cost-effective option unless the object being retrieved has substantial
economic or scientific value.

53 The third post-mission disposal option is maneuvering to a storage
orbit. There are four storage orbits suggested in the U.S. Government
Standard Practices. The first is between low and medium Earth orbit,
*i.e.*, satellite perigee altitude above 2,000 kilometers and apogee
altitude below 19,700 kilometers ([i.e.]{.underline} approximately 500
kilometers below semi-synchronous altitude).[^98] The second storage
orbit is between medium and geosynchronous Earth orbit, *i.e.*, perigee
altitude above 20,700 kilometers and apogee altitude below 35,300
kilometers ([i.e.]{.underline}, approximately 500 kilometers below the
GSO altitude). The third storage orbit is above geosynchronous Earth
orbit, *i.e.*, perigee altitude above 36,100 kilometers (or
approximately 300 kilometers above geosynchronous altitude). The fourth
suggested storage orbit is to maneuver the spacecraft to remove it from
Earth orbit, into a heliocentric orbit, [i.e.]{.underline}, an orbit
around the sun. The three "protected" regions \-- LEO, the
semi-synchronous orbit, and GEO \-- were chosen because, according to
the NASA safety standard, they are "high value regions of space."[^99]
The U.S. Government standard practices also provide that, because of
fuel gauging uncertainties near the end of mission, a program should use
a maneuver strategy that reduces the risk of leaving the structure near
an operational orbit regime. While the use of a storage orbit leaves the
space object in orbit indefinitely, and, thus, is a less effective
mitigation method than removal of the object from orbit, the use of a
storage orbit may mitigate the effects of growth in the debris
population by preserving specific regions of space for future use. The
storage orbit option is important for a number of orbits, such as GEO,
where removal of the space object entirely from orbit is impracticable.

54 We seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt the
post-mission disposal guideline, or portions of the guideline, as FCC
rules. With respect to GEO, we note that the ITU has adopted a disposal
recommendation, which, like the U.S. Government Standard Practices,
specifies a disposal orbit with a perigee of 300 kilometers above GEO
altitude. The IADC has recently developed a more detailed formula for
deriving an appropriate storage orbit above GEO; that formula takes into
account spacecraft characteristics that may affect the longer-term
stability of the end-of-life orbit. We propose to use the IADC formula
for purposes of evaluating end-of-life plans for GEO systems, although
we seek comment on whether the ITU recommendation, or some other
guideline for end-of-life disposal at GEO, may be preferable. We also
specifically propose to amend our rules to provide GEO licensees with
authority, as part of their licenses, to dispose of space stations at
end-of-life, without the need for specific Commission authorization,
provided the disposal plan comports with the IADC recommendation. We
seek comment on this proposal.

55 In addition, we seek comment on whether an FCC rule is necessary
concerning fuel gauging or other matters that may affect the ability of
a spacecraft to execute end-of-life procedures reliably. We note 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.[^100] We also seek comment on
technological developments that may affect end-of-life procedures,
including development of alternative thruster technologies, such as ion
propulsion. For such technologies, is availability of adequate fuel the
primary constraint on the performance of end-of-life maneuvers, or do
other factors, such as the reliability of other satellite subsystems,
take on increased significance?

56 With respect to LEO end-of-life procedures, we seek comment on
whether we should adopt the U.S. Government standard practices as rules
applicable to new systems and to replacement satellites for existing
systems. We note that the U.S. government guidelines, if strictly
applied, could have a significant impact on the deployment of systems in
LEO, particularly for certain orbital regimes or types of technologies.
For example, spacecraft operating with circular orbits in the region
between approximately 1,000 and 1,600 kilometers would be required to
budget a substantial amount of fuel in order to achieve the guidelines'
objective of either lowering the spacecraft's perigee to an altitude (of
roughly 600 kilometers, depending on the characteristics of the
spacecraft) from which it would reenter the Earth's atmosphere in 25
years, or boosting the spacecraft's perigee to an altitude above 2,000
kilometers. To cite another example, many small satellite systems are
currently deployed with only minimal on-board maneuvering capabilities.
Adoption of the guideline as a rule may effectively preclude operations
of such spacecraft at higher orbital altitudes in the LEO region.

57 These concerns are in part based on the limits of the technology
currently used for commercial space operations. We seek comment on
whether technological developments, such as more advanced propulsion
systems, may render these concerns less substantial. We also seek
comment on whether the use of orbits or technical capabilities that
would facilitate meeting the U.S. Government guidelines' objectives
would necessarily hamper a system's ability to provide service. Finally,
we seek comment on the public interest benefits of adopting a rule, as
opposed to addressing end-of-life disposal on case-by-case basis.

58 We also seek comment concerning the end-of-life disposal of a
spacecraft involving atmospheric reentry. Such a disposal method may
present special safety considerations, particularly if, due to the size
of the spacecraft or the materials used in its construction, there is a
possibility that portions of the spacecraft may survive the substantial
friction generated during reentry, and reach the surface of the Earth.
The U.S. Government standard practices provide that, if a space
structure is to be disposed of by reentry into the Earth's atmosphere,
the risk of human casualty will be less than 1 in 10,000.[^101] We have
recently begun to apply this guideline in our case-by-case licensing
decisions.[^102] We propose to continue doing so. We seek comment on
this proposal.

59 *Methodology for Analysis and Criteria for Evaluation of Showings.*
We also seek comment on whether we should establish more detailed
methodologies for preparation of showings submitted in the FCC
authorization process. We note that the U.S. Government practices are
modeled in part on a NASA safety standard that provides a handbook for
debris mitigation analysis and activities.[^103] We seek comment on
whether the methodologies outlined in that standard may provide
satellite systems with greater certainty in planning their activities.
On the other hand, we do not wish to preclude the use of other
methodologies that may be equally or more suitable to address debris
mitigation by FCC licensees. We also seek comment as to whether there
are any criteria for the evaluation of those showings submitted that
should be included in our rules, such that they would become a threshold
qualification requirement.

**D. Liability Issues and Insurance**

60 As discussed above,[^104] the Liability Convention imposes liability
on the United States and other States that are parties to the treaty for
damage caused by its space objects. For such damage caused on the
surface of the Earth there is strict liability. For damage in space,
liability is based on fault. Thus, the activities of private space
station operators could result in liability for the United States
government, as a launching state, if the operator's space station causes
damage to another country. For U.S. launches, the U.S. Congress has
adopted a comprehensive statutory regime to address liability
issues.[^105] Under that statute, the FAA requires its launch licensees
to obtain insurance for potential losses caused by launch mishaps. Those
insurance requirements do not, however, address post-launch issues
arising from damages caused by a payload.

61 We seek comment on the role that liability considerations and
insurance should play in our decisions concerning debris mitigation
measures.[^106] For example, we seek comment on whether, assuming that
the FCC has authority to require insurance,[^107] there are any
circumstances in which requiring an FCC licensed space station to obtain
insurance might protect the United States and its taxpayers from
exposure to potential liability, or provide economic incentives for
operators to adopt debris mitigation strategies that reduce risk and
lower insurance premiums. We specifically seek comment on whether
different types of risks may differ with respect to whether they can be
appropriately addressed through insurance. For example, it may be
difficult or impossible to obtain insurance for damages that may arise
long after a spacecraft has reached its end-of-life. We seek comment on
these issues.

**E. Scope of the Proposals**

62 Space stations licensed by Administrations other than the United
States can provide service to earth stations located in the United
States through the processes outlined in Section 25.137 of our
rules.[^108] Under that rule, a party seeking approval for the provision
of such service must submit information concerning the space station
involved. Our proposed rules would require such parties to submit
information regarding orbital debris mitigation plans for such space
stations. We believe it is reasonable to examine debris mitigation plans
for space stations serving the United States, regardless of the
Administration that licensed the space station. Some consideration of
whether the space station will employ reasonable debris mitigation
measures is appropriate in order to ensure that the satellite
communications activity we authorize does not involve substantial safety
concerns or activities that may be detrimental to space operations. We
seek comment on this proposal. We note, however, that this type of
review generally provides the FCC with an opportunity to review the
broad outlines of a space station's mitigation plans prior to issuance
of an earth station authorization, and that the earth station
authorization may be issued to a party unaffiliated, except as a
customer, with the operator of the space station involved. Thus, by
undertaking such a review the FCC may gain no ability to take direct
enforcement action concerning a non-U.S. licensed space station that,
for example, subsequently altered its operations or mitigation plans,
other than through denial or revocation of a license issued to a
potentially unaffiliated party. We note that orbital debris mitigation
plans are not unique in this regard, but are like a number of technical
policy areas, such as compliance with FCC two degree spacing policies,
in which we seek technical information relevant to the authorization of
earth station operations in the United States. We also seek comment on
whether it should be deemed sufficient for parties utilizing the
processes in Section 25.137 of our rules 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.

63 We are also proposing to amend Parts 5 and 97 of our rules,
concerning experimental satellite and amateur satellite authorizations,
so that licensees under those Parts are subject to the same disclosure
requirements as licensees under Part 25 \[and 100\] of our rules.
Operations pursuant to Parts 5 and 97 can present the same public
interest concerns as operations under other rule parts, and therefore we
believe it is appropriate to provide a similar amount of disclosure
regarding debris mitigation plans for such systems. We seek comment on
this proposal.[^109]

##### IV. CONCLUSION

64 We propose to amend our rules to address orbital debris mitigation,
and seek comment on a number of issues. While the immediate risk
presented by orbital debris is minimal, prudent measures adopted now are
important to ensure continued affordable access to space, the continued
provision of reliable space based communications services, and the
continued safety of persons and property on the surface of the Earth.
Orbital debris mitigation measures are therefore an important part of
operations in the public interest by FCC licensees.

##### ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

## 

## A. *Ex Parte* Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

65 This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making
proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in
Commission rules.[^110]

## B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

66 As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 603,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible impact on small entities of the proposals in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*.* The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C.
Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must
be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and they must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau,
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.[^111]

## C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

67 This NPRM seeks comment on a proposed information collection. As part
of the Commission's continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we
invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same
time as other comments on this NPRM and must have a separate heading
designating them as responses to the Initial Paperwork Reduction
Analysis (IPRA). OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication
of this NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a)
whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of
any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be
submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804,
445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to
\<<jboley@fcc.gov>\> and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room
10236 NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via the
Internet to \<<edward.springer@omb.eop.gov>\>.

## D. Comment Dates

68 Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's Rules,[^112] interested parties may file
comments on or before \[75 days after publication in the Federal
Register\] and re­ply comments on or before \[105 days after publication
in the Federal Register\]. Comments and reply comments should be filed
in IB Docket No. 02-54. All relevant and timely comments will be
considered by the Commission before final action is taken in this
proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding, interested parties must
file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and
supporting comments. If interested parties want each Commissioner to
receive a personal copy of their comments, they must file an original
plus nine copies. Interested parties should send comments and reply
comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, Room TW-A325, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554, with a copy to Stephen Duall, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.

69 Comments may also be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS).[^113] Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent
as an electronic file via the Internet to
\<<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>\>. Generally, only one copy of
an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal
screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service
mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties
may also submit an electronic comment by Internet E-Mail. To obtain
filing instructions for E-Mail comments, commenters should send an
e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should include the following words in the
body of the message: "get form \<your E-Mail address\>." A sample form
and directions will be sent in reply.

70 Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
during regu­lar business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257,
at the Federal Communica­tions Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of comments and reply comments are
available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: International
Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 1231 20^th^ Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 857-3800.

# **E. Ordering Clauses**

71 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 301,
303, 308, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Sections §§ 151, 154(i), 301, 303, 308, 309, and 310, this Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED.

72 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.

###### FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

####### 

####### 

####### 

####### William Caton

> Acting Secretary
>
> **Appendix A**

## US Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > OBJECTIVE                                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > 1\. CONTROL OF DEBRIS RELEASED DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS             |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
| >                                                                     |
| > Programs and projects will assess and limit the amount of debris    |
| > released in a planned manner during normal operations.              |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
| >                                                                     |
| > **MITIGATION STANDARD PRACTICES**                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
|                                                                       |
| 1-1. *In all operational orbit regimes:* Spacecraft and upper stages  |
| should be designed to eliminate or minimize debris released during    |
| normal operations. Each instance of planned release of debris larger  |
| than 5 mm in any dimension that remains on orbit for more than 25     |
| years should be evaluated and justified on the basis of cost          |
| effectiveness and mission requirements.                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > OBJECTIVE                                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > 2\. MINIMIZING DEBRIS GENERATED BY ACCIDENTAL EXPLOSIONS            |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
| >                                                                     |
| > Programs and projects will assess and limit the probability of      |
| > accidental explosion during and after completion of mission         |
| > operations.                                                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
| >                                                                     |
| > **MITIGATION STANDARD PRACTICES**                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
|                                                                       |
| 2-1. *Limiting the risk to other space systems from accidental        |
| explosions during mission operations:* In developing the design of a  |
| spacecraft or upper stage, each program, via failure mode and effects |
| analyses or equivalent analyses, should demonstrate either that there |
| is no credible failure mode for accidental explosion, or, if such     |
| credible failure modes exist, design or operational procedures will   |
| limit the probability of the occurrence of such failure modes.        |
|                                                                       |
| 2-2. *Limiting the risk to other space systems from accidental        |
| explosions after completion of mission operations:* All on-board      |
| sources of stored energy of a spacecraft or upper stage should be     |
| depleted or safed when they are no longer required for mission        |
| operations or postmission disposal. Depletion should occur as soon as |
| such an operation does not pose an unacceptable risk to the payload.  |
| Propellant depletion burns and compressed gas releases should be      |
| designed to minimize the probability of subsequent accidental         |
| collision and to minimize the impact of a subsequent accidental       |
| explosion.                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > OBJECTIVE                                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > 3\. SELECTION OF SAFE FLIGHT PROFILE AND OPERATIONAL CONFIGURATION  |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
| >                                                                     |
| > Programs and projects will assess and limit the probability of      |
| > operating space systems becoming a source of debris by collisions   |
| > with man-made objects or meteoroids.                                |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
| >                                                                     |
| > **MITIGATION STANDARD PRACTICES**                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
|                                                                       |
| 3-1. *Collision with large objects during orbital lifetime:* In       |
| developing the design and mission profile for a spacecraft or upper   |
| stage, a program will estimate and limit the probability of collision |
| with known objects during orbital lifetime.                           |
|                                                                       |
| 3-2. *Collision with small debris during mission operations:*         |
| Spacecraft design will consider and, consistent with cost             |
| effectiveness, limit the probability that collisions with debris      |
| smaller than 1 cm diameter will cause loss of control to prevent      |
| post-mission disposal.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| 3-3. *Tether systems* will be uniquely analyzed for both intact and   |
| severed conditions.                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > OBJECTIVE                                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > 4\. POSTMISSION DISPOSAL OF SPACE STRUCTURES                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
| >                                                                     |
| > Programs and projects will plan for, consistent with mission        |
| > requirements, cost effective disposal procedures for launch vehicle |
| > components, upper stages, spacecraft, and other payloads at the end |
| > of mission life to minimize impact on future space operations.      |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
| >                                                                     |
| > **MITIGATION STANDARD PRACTICES**                                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\ |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** |
|                                                                       |
| 4-1. *Disposal for final mission orbits:* A spacecraft or upper stage |
| may be disposed of by one of three methods:                           |
|                                                                       |
| a\. Atmospheric reentry option: Leave the structure in an orbit in    |
| which, using conservative projections for solar activity, atmospheric |
| drag will limit the lifetime to no longer than 25 years after         |
| completion of mission. If drag enhancement devices are to be used to  |
| reduce the orbit lifetime, it should be demonstrated that such        |
| devices will significantly reduce the area-time product of the system |
| or will not cause spacecraft or large debris to fragment if a         |
| collision occurs while the system is decaying from orbit. If a space  |
| structure is to be disposed of by reentry into the Earth's            |
| atmosphere, the risk of human casualty will be less than 1 in 10,000. |
|                                                                       |
| b\. Maneuvering to a storage orbit: At end of life the structure may  |
| be relocated to one of the following storage regimes:                 |
|                                                                       |
| > I. Between LEO and MEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude  |
| > above 2000 km and apogee altitude below 19,700 km (500 km below     |
| > semi-synchronous altitude                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > II\. Between MEO and GEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee         |
| > altitude above 20,700 km and apogee altitude below 35,300 km        |
| > (approximately 500 km above semi-synchronous altitude and 500 km    |
| > below synchronous altitude.)                                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > III\. Above GEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above   |
| > 36,100 km (approximately 300 km above synchronous altitude)         |
| >                                                                     |
| > IV\. Heliocentric, Earth-escape: Maneuver to remove the structure   |
| > from Earth orbit, into a heliocentric orbit.                        |
|                                                                       |
| Because of fuel gauging uncertainties near the end of mission, a      |
| program should use a maneuver strategy that reduces the risk of       |
| leaving the structure near an operational orbit regime.               |
|                                                                       |
| c\. Direct retrieval: Retrieve the structure and remove it from orbit |
| as soon as practical after completion of mission.                     |
|                                                                       |
| > 4-2. *Tether systems* will be uniquely analyzed for both intact and |
| > severed conditions when performing trade-offs between alternative   |
| > disposal strategies.                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**APPENDIX B: Proposed Rule Changes**

**Proposed Rule Changes to 47 C.F.R. Part 25**

1\. Section 25.114 is proposed to be amended by adding new paragraphs
(xx) and (xx2) to read as follows:

**25.114 Applications for Space Station Authorizations**

\*\*\*\*\*

\(xx\) 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 the
spacecraft.

(xx2) 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.

\*\*\*\*\*

2\. Section 25.143 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b)
as follows:

25.143 Licensing Provisions for the 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service
and 2 GHz mobile-satellite service.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(b\) *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, legal, and financial
qualifications of the applicant. In particular, each application shall
include the information specified in Section 25.114 . Non-U.S. licensed
systems shall comply with the provisions of Sec. 25.137.

\(2\) \*\*\*

\*\*\*

3\. Section 25.210 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (j)
as follows:

**25.210 Technical requirements for space stations in the
Fixed-Satellite Service.**

\*\*\*\*\*

\(j\) 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 25.282 (End-of-life disposal).

\*\*\*\*\*

4\. Section 25.280 is proposed to be amended in its entirety, as
follows:

**§ 25.280 Inclined Orbit Operations**

\(a\) 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 25.282 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.

5\. A new section 25.282 is proposed to be added, as follows:

**§ 25.282 End-of-Life Disposal**

\(a\) 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 following conditions are met:

\(i\) the satellite is capable of being removed to, and the operations
at variance from the assigned orbital location are designed to maneuver
the satellite 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.

\(ii\) all stored energy sources on board the satellite are discharged,
by venting excess propellant, discharging batteries, relieving pressure
vessels, and other appropriate measures.

\(iii\) tracking, telemetry and control transmissions are planned so as
to avoid electrical interference to other satellites, and coordinated
with any potentially affected satellite networks.

**Proposed Rule Change to 47 C.F.R. Part 5**:

1\. Section 5.63 is proposed to be amended by adding a new paragraph (e)
to read as follows:

§ 5.63 Supplementary statements required.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(e\) 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 a casualty risk assessment if planned post-mission disposal
involves atmospheric re-entry of the spacecraft. The applicant must also
submit 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. Other equivalent
procedures may be approved in the course of the licensing process.

**Proposed Rule Change to 47 C.F.R. Part 97** :

1\. Section 97.207 is proposed to be amended by modifying paragraph (g)
as follows:

§ 97.207 Space station

\*\*\*\*\*

\(g\) 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 a casualty
risk assessment if planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric
re-entry of the spacecraft. The notification must also 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.

\(2\) 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: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^114] the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
provided above in Section V. The Commission will send a copy of the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. *See* 5 U.S.C. §
603(a). In addition, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. *See*
*id.*

**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 an 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 for communications and other uses in
the future, by raising the costs and lowering the reliability of
space-based systems.

U.S. policy on orbital debris is the product of considerable work over
the years to assess the risks posed by orbital debris, and to develop
methods for mitigating those risks. Since 1988, mitigation of orbital
debris has been a formal goal of national space policy. In 1995, an
Interagency Report drafted under the direction of the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy recommended that the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of
Defense jointly develop draft design guidelines that could serve as a
baseline for agency requirements for future spacecraft. The Interagency
Report recommended that the guidelines could be used by both government
and industry in the design and development of future satellite systems.
In January 1998, draft U.S. Government Standard Practices were issued
for consideration by agencies and industry. The practices listed were
control of orbital debris released during normal operations,
minimization of debris generated by accidental explosions, selection of
a safe flight profile and operational configuration, and post-mission
disposal of space structures. Those practices have now been adopted,
with some modifications, and are applied in U.S. government missions.
Some of those practices are also applied by the Federal Aviation
Administration for licensing of launch vehicles, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for licensing of remote sensing
satellites. In addition, other space-faring nations are either
considering or have adopted standards or practices concerning debris
mitigation.

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposes to adopt a requirement that
satellite systems seeking an FCC license, including experimental and
amateur satellite systems, must provide a statement concerning the
measures the system will take to mitigate orbital debris. In addition,
the NPRM seeks comment on whether portions of the U.S. Government
Standard Practices should be incorporated into the FCC's rules.
Alternatively, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should
evaluate such showings on a case-by-case basis, and poses a number of
questions concerning how to address such showings. The NPRM also
proposes several rule changes concerning disposal of geostationary
spacecraft.

###### B. Legal Basis

The proposed action is supported by Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f),
303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r).

**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.[^115] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity \" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^116] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^117] 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).[^118] A small
organization is generally \"any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.\"[^119] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^120] \"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.\"[^121] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such
jurisdictions in the United States.[^122] This number includes 38,978
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have
populations of fewer than 50,000.[^123]^0^ 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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.[^124]^1^ This definition provides that a small
entity is expressed as one with \$11.0 million or less in annual
receipts.[^125]^2^ 1997 Census Bureau data indicate that, for 1997, 273
satellite communication firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million.
In addition, 24 firms had receipts for that year of \$10 million to
\$24,999,990.[^126]^3^

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**

The proposed rule would require disclosure in an application for an FCC
authorization of a satellite system's orbital debris mitigation plans.
The Notice of Proposed Rule Making seeks comment on the degree of
specificity that should be required in such reports, and on possible
methodologies for developing such reports.

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

**and Significant Alternatives Under Consideration**

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. 5 U.S.C.
§ 603(c).

The NPRM identifies several alternatives designed to minimize any
significant economic impact on all entities, including small entities.

First, although the NPRM seeks comment on requiring debris mitigation
practices by rule, it proposes as an alternative that the FCC proceed on
a case-by-case basis in analyzing debris mitigation plans. Under a
case-by-case method, the Commission could consider exemptions or other
methods for minimizing any impact on small entities.

Second, the NPRM also seeks comment on whether to require that an
applicant for an earth station license, to be used for communications
with a non-U.S. licensed satellite, should submit information concerning
debris mitigation plans for the satellite system. As an alternative, the
NPRM seeks comment on whether a showing concerning direct and effective
regulation by a foreign administration should be considered.

Third, the NPRM seeks comment on post-mission disposal of spacecraft
from low Earth orbit, and on alternatives to using orbits that may
experience a substantial economic impact under the U.S. Government
Recommended Practices. Those alternatives could include use of different
portions of low Earth orbit.

**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 NPRM proposes to waive disclosure requirements
concerning post-mission disposal of spacecraft for remote sensing
satellites licensed by NOAA.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER

MICHAEL J. COPPS

*RE: Mitigation of Orbital Debris, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*

I want to commend the International Bureau for its hard work on this
item, and Chairman Powell and International Bureau Chief Don Abelson for
issuing such a forward-looking item.

It is important as the United States' expert agency in communications
that we sometimes look over the horizon and try to head off problems
before they occur, rather than waiting for the problems find us
unprepared. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and if we
come up with the right orbital debris mitigation rules now, we can head
off a potentially very costly problem with far less costly precautions.

While our satellite communications system is not immediately threatened
by orbital debris, if we don't act I believe that the threat will become
real. Other government agencies are moving ahead with regard to
government systems. Given the long planning and construction periods for
satellite fleets, the rules we set in place now will affect satellites
that will not be deployed for years to come. So moving ahead
expeditiously is a prudent course.

[^1]: [Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in
    the 2 GHz Band]{.underline}, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 99-81,
    15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16205 (2000) ("[2 GHz MSS Order]{.underline}");
    [Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for Non-Geostationary
    Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in Ku-Band]{.underline},
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making, IB Docket No. 01-96, 16 FCC Rcd
    9680, ¶¶ 66-67 (2001); [Establishment of Policies and Service Rules
    for Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in
    the Ka-Band]{.underline}, FCC 02-30, ¶43 (released February 6,
    2002).

[^2]: 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.

[^3]: Nicholas L. Johnson "Overview of NASA Orbital Debris Program,"
    slides presented 27 January 1998 at the U.S. Government Orbital
    Debris Workshop for Industry (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), p. 199 ("[Orbital Debris: A Technical
    Assessment")]{.underline}. Available online at
    [http://sn-callisto.jsc.nasa.gov.]{.underline}

[^4]: These figures derive from the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's Debris assessment software, available at
    [http://sn-callisto.jsc.nasa.gov/mitigate/mitigation.html]{.underline}.
    They are based on an assumed spacecraft area to mass ratio of .01
    m^2^/kg. There are substantial variations in the amount of drag at
    any given altitude due to variations in solar activity. As solar
    activity increases through the 11 year sun spot cycle, the Earth's
    atmosphere is heated, and it expands, thus increasing the density of
    drag-producing gases at any given altitude.

[^5]: The geostationary earth orbit is a circular orbit at an altitude
    of approximately 35,786 kilometers (km). A spacecraft in a
    geostationary earth orbit is maintained at a constant longitudinal
    position relative to the Earth, thus allowing the satellite to be
    "seen" continuously from a fixed point on the Earth's surface. For a
    detailed description of the geostationary orbit, *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 (13 January 1988) (Copy available in the docket file of
    this proceeding). GEO is also sometimes referred to as the
    geosynchronous satellite orbit, or "GSO." Examples of GEO satellite
    systems licensed by the FCC include the Panamsat and Intelsat
    satellite systems.

[^6]: ^?^ American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, [6^th^
    International Space Cooperation Workshop Report]{.underline} (March
    2001) at 14. (Copy available in the docket file).

[^7]: The absorption and re-radiation by a spacecraft of the sun's
    radiation creates a small amount of momentum. Solar pressure is the
    momentum created thereby. Solar pressure tends to render more
    elliptical the typically or nearly circular orbits of objects in the
    vicinity of the GEO.

[^8]: *See* Nicholas L. Johnson, "Overview of NASA Orbital Debris
    Program," slides presented 27 January 1998 at the U.S. Government
    Orbital Debris Workshop for Industry (available in the docket file
    of this proceeding).

[^9]: *Id.* *See also*, Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the
    United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, [Technical
    Report on Space Debris]{.underline}, Figure II (1999)("*STSC
    Technical Report on Space Debris"*); National Research Council,
    [Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment]{.underline}, Figure 1-2
    (1995); White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,
    [Interagency Report on Orbital Debris]{.underline}, Figure 7 (1995)
    ("*1995 Interagency Report*").

[^10]: *1995 Interagency Report* at 8.

[^11]: For a detailed chronology focusing on U.S. efforts to address
    orbital debris issues, see David S.F. Portree and Joseph P. Loftus,
    Jr., [Orbital Debris: A Chronology,]{.underline} NASA/TP-1999-208856
    (January 1999)(available through [www.sti.nasa.gov)]().

[^12]: [Report on Orbital Debris for the National Security
    Council]{.underline} (1989).

[^13]: *1995 Interagency Report*.

[^14]: Shortly thereafter, the President adopted a National Space Policy
    calling for, among other things, measures seeking to "minimize the
    creation of space debris." Available online at
    [**http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/fs/fs-5.html**](http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/fs/fs-5.html).
    The 1996 National Space Policy continued a national policy, first
    stated in 1998, favoring U.S. actions to minimize the creation of
    space debris, and encourage other spacefaring nations to adopt
    policies and practices aimed at debris minimization. [Presidential
    Directive on National Space Policy]{.underline}, February 11, 1988.
    Excerpts available at
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/policy88.html.

[^15]: Also available at
    [http://sn-callisto.jsc.nasa.gov](http://sn-callisto.jsc.nasa.gov/)[.]{.underline}

[^16]: A third option, direct retrieval of the spacecraft, appears to
    have limited relevance. We are not aware of any instance in which a
    commercial communications mission has been designed for end of life
    disposal using direct retrieval.

[^17]: See Appendix A. See also the 1996 National Space Policy (\"NASA,
    the Intelligence community, and the DoD, in cooperation with the
    private sector, will develop design guidelines for future government
    procurements of spacecraft, launch vehicles, and services. The
    design and operation of space tests, experiments and systems, will
    minimize or reduce accumulation of space debris consistent with
    mission requirements and cost effectiveness.\").

[^18]: 49 U.S.C. § 70101 [et.]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

[^19]: 14 C.F.R. § 400 [et.]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}. The FAA is
    the U.S. licensing authority for commercial launches, pursuant to
    the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §
    70101 [et.]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

[^20]: 14 C.F.R. § 415.39 (2001). A "payload" is defined as "an object
    that a person undertakes to place in outer space by means of a
    launch vehicle, including components of the vehicle specifically
    designed or adapted for that object." 14 C.F.R. § 401.5 (2001).

[^21]: 14 C.F.R. §§ 415.7, 415.53.

[^22]: 15 U.S.C. § 5601 [et.]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline} ("Remote
    Sensing Act").

[^23]: [Licensing of Private Land Remote-Sensing Space
    Systems]{.underline}, (Interim Final Rule) 65 Fed.Reg. 46822 (July
    31, 2000).

[^24]: 15 U.S.C. §§ 5625(e), 5656.

[^25]: 15 U.S.C. § 5622(b)(4).

[^26]: 15 U.S.C. § 5625(e).

[^27]: 14 C.F.R. § 415.39 (2001).

[^28]: One example of such a conversion would be the explosion of
    residual propellants.

[^29]: *Id.*

[^30]: 14 C.F.R. § 415.35 (acceptable flight risk). *See* *also* 14
    C.F.R. § 431.43(c)(1) (200 kilometer separation from inhabitable
    orbiting objects during launch and reentry); Licensing and Safety
    Requirements for Launch (Notice of Proposed Rule Making), 65
    Fed.Reg.63922, 63951 (October 25, 2000).

[^31]: The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151
    [et.]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline} ; [2 GHz MSS
    Order]{.underline}, 15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16198 (adopting 2 GHz service
    rules pursuant to, [inter alia]{.underline}, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and
    303(r)); [In re Applications of Space System Licensee,
    et.al.]{.underline}, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, DA
    02-307, ¶ 56 (released February 8, 2002)(reviewing and approving
    satellite end of life plan and approving transfer of control, based
    on, [inter alia]{.underline}, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309, and 310(d)).

[^32]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(b)(1), as amended by [2 GHz]{.underline} [MSS
    Order]{.underline}, 15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16205 (2000).

[^33]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(b)(1), as amended by the [2 GHz MSS
    Order]{.underline}, 15 FCC Rcd at 16205.

[^34]: [Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for
    Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in
    Ku-Band]{.underline}, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, IB Docket No.
    01-96, 16 FCC Rcd 9680, ¶¶ 66-67 (2001); [Establishment of Policies
    and Service Rules for Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed
    Satellite Service in the Ka-Band]{.underline}, FCC 02-30, ¶43
    (released February 6, 2002).

[^35]: *Id.*; [2 GHz MSS Order]{.underline}, 15 FCC Rcd at 16188 ¶ 138.

[^36]: *See, e.g.,* File No. 194-SAT-ML-97 (potential collisions between
    satellites in the Orbcomm and Iridium constellations; subsequently
    resolved through coordination between the system operators).

[^37]: *See*, *e.g.,* Letter dated February 11, 1998, from Daniel S.
    Goldin, Administrator, NASA, to William Kennard, Chairman, FCC
    (addressing technical cooperation between NASA and the FCC on
    orbital debris matters); *see also* Letter dated March 4, 1998, from
    Nicholas L. Johnson, NASA Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris, to
    Karl Kensinger, FCC International Bureau (addressing projected
    orbital lifetimes of satellites in the Orbcomm system) (both letters
    available in the docket file of this proceeding).

[^38]: ­[In re Applications of Space System Licensee,
    et.al.]{.underline}, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, DA
    02-307 (released February 8, 2002).

[^39]: *See supra,* n. 13.

[^40]: Full texts of the treaties are available on-line at
    http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html.

[^41]: Outer Space Treaty, Article II.

[^42]: Outer Space Treaty, Articles I, III, and IV.

[^43]: Outer Space Treaty, Article VI.

[^44]: Outer Space Treaty, Article VII.

[^45]: Outer Space Treaty, Article IX.

[^46]: A "launching state" is defined in Article I of the Liability
    Convention as "(i) A State which launches or procures the launching
    of a space object; (ii) A State from whose territory or facility a
    space object is launched. "

[^47]: Liability Convention, Article II.

[^48]: Liability Convention, Article III.

[^49]: Liability Convention, Articles IX-XX.

[^50]: Registration Convention, Articles II-IV.

[^51]: Rescue Treaty, Article V.

[^52]: For English language texts of national legislation from a number
    of countries, *see*
    <http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/national/index.html>. For an
    overview of national legislation, *see* [Review of existing national
    space legislation illustrating how States are implementing, as
    appropriate, their responsibilities to authorize and provide
    continuing supervision of non-governmental entities in outer
    space]{.underline}, Note by the Secretariat, UN Committee on
    Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Document Number A/AC.105/C.2/L.224 (22
    January 2001).

[^53]: 49 U.S.C. § 70101 [et.]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

[^54]: 14 C.F.R. § 400.1 [et.]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

[^55]: *See* <http://www.state.gov/g/oes/sat/>.

[^56]: *See* Rec. ITU-R S.1003, "Environmental Protection of the
    Geostationary --Satellite Orbit," [ITU-R Recommendations, 1994 S
    Series Volume: Fixed Satellite Service]{.underline}, International
    Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994 pp. 364-367. The
    recommendation suggests, in pertinent part, that a geostationary
    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 GSO," with GSO 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 pressure, or other sources, may, over time,
    result in an inactive satellite's orbit intersecting the GSO, as
    defined by the ITU recommendation, even if the initial disposal
    altitude does not intersect the GSO.

[^57]: Nicholas Johnson, Trends and Options in the Disposal of Launch
    Vehicle Orbital Stages, 52^nd^ International Astronautical Congress
    (Toulouse, France 2001).

[^58]: *See* [www.iadc-online.org](http://www.iadc-online.org/).

[^59]: [UN Technical Report on Space Debris]{.underline}. *See also*
    [Disposal of satellites in geosynchronous orbit,]{.underline}

    Report by the Secretariat, UN COPUOS, document No. A/AC.105/734 (17
    December 1999).

[^60]: ^?^ *STSC Technical Report on Space Debris*[,]{.underline} p. 42.

[^61]: *Id.*

[^62]: [Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on its
    thirty-eighth session]{.underline} (2001) UN Document No.
    A/AC.105/761, at pages 21-22.

[^63]: We propose, however, to waive this requirement with respect to
    disclosure of post-mission spacecraft disposal plans for remote
    sensing systems licensed by NOAA.

[^64]: [Establishment of Domestic Communication-Satellite Facilities by
    Nongovernmental Entities]{.underline}, 22 FCC 2d 86, Appendix
    C-Memorandum on Legal Issues (1970).

[^65]: *Id.*, at Appendix D-Technical Appendix (requiring an
    approximately geostationary orbit, outlining required separations
    between satellites, and requiring that satellites be capable of
    reasonable shifts in orbital longitude).

[^66]: *See,* [The Boeing Company]{.underline}, DA 01-1631 (Int'l Bur.,
    rel. July 17, 2001); [Celsat America, Inc]{.underline}., DA 01-1632
    (Int'l Bur., rel. July 17, 2001); [Constellation Communications
    Holdings, Inc]{.underline}., DA 01-1633 (Int'l Bur./OET, rel. July
    17, 2001); [Globalstar, L.P]{.underline}., DA 01-1634 (Int'l
    Bur./OET, rel. July 17, 2001); [ICO Services Limited]{.underline},
    DA 01-1635 (Int'l Bur./OET, rel. July 17, 2001); [Iridium
    LLC]{.underline}, DA 01-1636 (Int'l Bur., rel. July 17, 2001);
    [Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc]{.underline}., DA 01-1637
    (Int'l Bur./OET, rel. July 17, 2001); [TMI Communications and
    Company]{.underline}, DA 01-1638 (Int'l Bur., rel. July 17, 2001); .
    [Space System Licensee, et. al.]{.underline}, DA 02-307 (released
    February 8, 2002).

[^67]: For a discussion of the FCC and other governmental agencies'
    legal authority concerning orbital debris, *see* [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).

[^68]: The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151
    [et.]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

[^69]: The Communications Act provides that "radio stations belonging to
    and operated by the United States" are not subject to licensing by
    the FCC. 47 U.S.C. § 305(a). The Commerce Department's National
    Telecommunication and Information Administration is responsible for
    assignment of frequencies for use by such government stations.

[^70]: 47 U.S.C. § 303(g).

[^71]: 47 U.S.C. § 301.

[^72]: 47 U.S.C. § 307(a).

[^73]: As used in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the term "space
    station" has the meaning given in the 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.

[^74]: We use the term "non-U.S. licensed space station" to refer 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.

[^75]: *See, infra Section III.D.*

[^76]: *See, e.g.* [The Boeing Company]{.underline}, DA 01-1631, at ¶33
    (July 17, 2001).

[^77]: *See,* Section III.D., *infra.* (Liability Issues and Insurance).

[^78]: *See, e.g.,* Section III.D., *infra.* (Liability Issues and
    Insurance).

[^79]: 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://sn-callisto.jsc.nasa.gov/measure/sat_frag_update.html#new>.

[^80]: 14 C.F.R. § 415.39.

[^81]: *See* Appendix B.

[^82]: *See, infra,* ¶ 52.

[^83]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.114 (2001).

[^84]: 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.

[^85]: Because of small variations in the Earth's gravitation, a
    geostationary satellite, unless located at one of two "gravity
    wells" on the geostationary arc, will in the absence of
    station-keeping maneuvers drift east or west from its assigned
    orbital longitude.

[^86]: *See, e.g.,* [2 GHz MSS Order]{.underline}, 15 FCC Rcd 16127,
    16176 (2000) (FCC may authorize pre-operational testing in
    connection with a license grant, if such authority is requested in
    the application).

[^87]: *See, e.g.,* File No. SAT-STA-20010612-00061 (granting Intelsat
    901 authority for in orbit testing, following completion of
    coordination to prevent harmful radiofrequency interference); *see
    also* [Public Notice]{.underline}, SAT-00078 (August 7, 2001)
    (accepting application for authority for temporary deployment of
    Intelsat 901).

[^88]: *See supra ¶*40.

[^89]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(j). The rule also provides that the Commission
    may authorize operations at assigned orbital longitudes offset by
    0.05^o^ or multiples thereof from the nominal orbital location
    specified in the station authorization. *Id.* While the FCC rules
    for the Direct Broadcast Satellite service, contained in 47 C.F.R.
    Part 100 do not directly address station-keeping requirements for
    Direct Broadcast Satellites, the FCC has proposed to consolidate its
    Part 100 DBS rules with its Part 25 rules. *See* [Policies for the
    Direct Broadcast Satellite Service]{.underline}, Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making, IB Docket No. 98-21, 13 FCC Rcd 6907 (1998). *See also*
    ITU Radio Regulations, APS30, Annex 5, Section 3.11 (Space stations
    in the broadcasting-satellite service at 11.7-12.7 GHz must be
    maintained in position with an accuracy equal to or better than
    ± 0.1° in the E-W directions), APS30, Annex 3, Section 4.13, and
    Annex 7, Section B (describing the grouping of the space stations in
    nominal orbital positions of + 0.2° and -- 0.2° from the center of a
    cluster of orbital positions, one position for right-hand polarized
    channels and the other position for left-hand polarized channels).

[^90]: The ITU Radio Regulations provide as follows:

    **S22.6** 1) Space stations on board geostationary satellites which
    use any frequency band allocated to the fixed-satellite service or
    the broadcasting-satellite service^7^:

    **S22.7** *a)* shall have the capability of maintaining their
    positions within ± 0.1° of the longitude of their nominal positions;

    **S22.8** *b)* shall maintain their positions within ± 0.1° of
    longitude of their nominal positions; *but*

    **S22.9** *c)* experimental stations on board geostationary
    satellites need not comply with No. **S22.7** nor No. **S22.8**, but
    shall maintain their positions within ± 0.5° of longitude of their
    nominal positions;

    **S22.10** *d)* however, space stations need not comply with No.
    **S22.8** nor No.** S22.9** as appropriate as long as the satellite
    network to which the space station belongs does not cause
    unacceptable interference to any other satellite network whose space
    station complies with the limits given in Nos. **S22.8** and
    **S22.9**.

[^91]: *See* Appendix B (Proposed Rules).

[^92]: For remote sensing and mobile satellite systems at GEO, the
    tolerance within which a satellite's orbital position is maintained
    tends to have much less significance with respect to radio-frequency
    interference.

[^93]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.280 (2001). Without 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.

[^94]: *See* Appendix B (Proposed Rule Changes).

[^95]: In addition, we note that such disclosure may facilitate analysis
    of potential radio frequency interference.

[^96]: In the only known instance in which two "catalogued objects"
    (objects large enough to be regularly tracked by the United States
    Space Command), one controlled and the other uncontrolled, have
    accidentally collided, the French Cerise satellite and a piece of an
    exploded Ariane upper stage collided, severing the stabilizing boom
    of the Cerise satellite. *See* [History of On Orbit
    Fragmentations]{.underline}, at 316. The two objects were in very
    similar, near-polar orbits.

[^97]: *Cf.* 14 C.F.R. § 431.43(c)(1)(required separation from
    inhabitable objects).

[^98]: A semi-synchronous orbit is one with an orbital period of 12
    hours. A semi-synchronous satellite with a circular orbit will
    operate at an altitude of approximately 20,200 km.

[^99]: *See* [Guidelines and Assessment Procedures for Limiting Orbital
    Debris]{.underline}, NSS 1740.14 (August 1995), at 6-1.

[^100]: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
    International Activities Committee, [6^th^ International Space
    Cooperation Workshop Report,]{.underline} at 12 (March 2001).

[^101]: *See also* NASA Safety Standard NSS 1740.14, providing detailed
    guidance on methods for computing casualty risk.

[^102]: *Iridium LLC*, DA 01-1636 (released July 17, 2001).

[^103]: NSS 1740.14.

[^104]: *See, supra,* section II.C.

[^105]: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §
    70101 [et.]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

[^106]: To date, the FCC has not required that any licensee obtain
    insurance. In one case, the FCC's International Bureau noted the
    existence of insurance policies designed to address debris risks as
    a relevant factor in approving an applicant's end-of-life disposal
    plans. [Space System Licensee, et. al.]{.underline}, DA 02-307
    (released February 8, 2002).

[^107]: *See supra,* ¶ 34.

[^108]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.137 (b).

[^109]: *See* Appendix B. With respect to Part 97 of the Rules, we also
    propose to update references to ITU documents contained in the
    current rules concerning space station notifications, so that those
    references reflect current ITU documents.

[^110]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206.

[^111]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^112]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^113]: *See* [Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
    Proceedings]{.underline}, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).

[^114]: ^1^ *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, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^115]: ^2^ 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^116]: ^3^ *Id*. § 601(6).

[^117]: ^4^ 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).

[^118]: ^5^ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^119]: ^6^ 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^120]: ^7^ 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).

[^121]: ^8^ 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^122]: ^9^ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census
    of Governments.\"

[^123]: ^10^ *Id*.

[^124]: ^11^ \"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.

[^125]: ^12^ 13 C.F.R. § 120.121, NAICS code 513340.

[^126]: ^13^ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Service:
    Information, \"Establishment and Firm Size,\" Table 4, NAICS 513340
    (Issued Oct. 2000).