Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing, 56365-56372 [2022-19748]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56365-56372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19748]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 5, 25, and 97

[IB Docket No. 22-271; IB Docket No. 22-272; FCC 22-66; FR ID 102759]


Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-Space 
Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
seeks comment through a Notice of Inquiry adopted by the FCC on August 
5, 2022, on missions conducting in-space servicing, assembly, and 
manufacturing (ISAM) that may involve Commission licensing and rules, 
including the state of the industry, technological readiness, and what 
steps the Commission might take to facilitate progress and reduce 
barriers for ISAM missions, including clarifications, updates or 
modifications of rules.

DATES: Comments are due October 31, 2022. Reply comments are due 
November 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 22-271 
and IB Docket No. 22-272, by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    [ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to 
[email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jameyanne Fuller, International 
Bureau, Satellite Division, 202-418-0945, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Inquiry, FCC 22-66, adopted August 5, 2022, and released August 8, 
2022. The full text of the Notice of Inquiry is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-opens-proceeding-servicing-assembly-manufacturing-space-0.

Comment Filing Requirements

    Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or 
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS, https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers. Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, 
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
     Persons with Disabilities. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) 
or 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Ex Parte Presentations

    The Commission will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a

[[Page 56366]]

method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments 
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system 
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains no proposed new and modified information 
collection requirements.
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), no Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis is required for this Notice of Inquiry.

Synopsis

    In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks comment on in-space 
servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) missions, including 
possible spectrum allocations and licensing processes of these 
missions, orbital debris implications of these missions and the 
potential for ISAM to remediate existing orbital debris, special 
considerations for ISAM missions taking place beyond Earth's orbit, and 
what role the Commission should play in regulating these missions to 
support sustainable growth of this sector of the space industry.

Notice of Inquiry

    We are starting an effort to promote United States leadership in 
the emerging space economy. Space activities are rapidly accelerating, 
resulting in new opportunities in multiple sectors of society. In this 
Notice of Inquiry, we examine the opportunities and challenges of in-
space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing--or ``ISAM''--that can 
support sustained economic activity in space. In particular, we seek 
comment on the status of ISAM: where the industry is today, how the 
Commission can best support its sustainable development, and what 
tangible economic and societal benefits may result from the development 
of these capabilities.
    We believe ISAM activities are poised to transform the space 
economy. Missions in this category--which can include satellite 
refueling, inspecting and repairing in-orbit spacecraft, capturing and 
removing debris, and transforming materials through manufacturing while 
in space--have the potential to build entire industries, create new 
jobs, mitigate climate change, and advance our nation's economic, 
scientific, technological, and national security interests. At the same 
time, we also recognize that ISAM activities may raise new 
opportunities and challenges for the sustainability of the outer space 
environment and the space-based services on which the United States 
government, businesses, and individuals rely on every day to 
communicate, navigate, and perform other vital functions. As these 
capabilities evolve, the norms, rules, and principles that guide outer 
space activities may also require renewed attention.
    This Notice of Inquiry thus seeks to develop a record on where 
these capabilities are today and the steps needed to promote their 
development. In particular, we seek comment through this Notice of 
Inquiry on the regulatory needs related to commercial and other non-
governmental ISAM activities and whether such activities could further 
the Commission's policy goals and statutory obligations. We seek 
comment on ISAM activities that may involve Commission licensing and 
rules, on updates or modifications of our rules or licensing processes 
that might facilitate ISAM activities, on spectrum needs for ISAM 
missions, and on any regulatory issues presented by ISAM activities 
beyond Earth's orbit. In addition, we seek comment on space safety 
issues that may be implicated by ISAM activities, including orbital 
debris considerations. As part of this inquiry, for the first time, we 
seek to develop a record not only on efforts to minimize the creation 
of new debris in connection with ISAM, but on opportunities to leverage 
these capabilities to clean up existing debris. The information 
developed in this Notice of Inquiry can help position the United States 
to realize the critical benefits of ISAM while ensuring space safety 
and sustainability.
    ISAM refers to a set of capabilities that are used on-orbit, in 
transit, or on the surface of space bodies. Within the category of 
ISAM, ``servicing'' includes activities such as use of one spacecraft 
to inspect another, to dock with other spacecraft and provide support 
such as maintaining the station in its orbital location in order to 
extend the period of operations, or to repair or modify a spacecraft 
after its initial launch. These activities typically include the 
process of maneuvering close to and operating in the near vicinity of 
the ``client'' spacecraft, a set of activities often referred to as 
rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO). ``Servicing'' also involves 
transport of a spacecraft from one orbit to another and debris 
collection and removal. ``Assembly'' refers to the construction of a 
space system using pre-manufactured components, and ``manufacturing'' 
is the transformation of raw or recycled materials into components, 
products, or infrastructure in space.
    While many commercial and other non-governmental ISAM activities 
are still at an early stage, the Commission has played a role in 
authorizing a number of missions that include technologies relevant for 
ISAM or offer groundbreaking commercial servicing. Some of these 
include:
     Licensing of Space Logistics, LLC's Mission Extension 
Vehicle-1 (MEV-1). This spacecraft has successfully executed the first 
commercial mission servicing a commercial spacecraft, in this case by 
docking with and providing station-keeping support to a geostationary 
orbit (GSO) communications satellite.
     Licensing of Space Logistics, LLC's second Mission 
Extension Vehicle (MEV-2).
     Granting an experimental license to SpaceIce in October 
2020 for a satellite designed to investigate freeze-casting in the 
microgravity environment.
     Authorizing U.S. earth station communications in November 
2021 to support Astroscale Ltd.'s ELSA-d testing of spacecraft 
capabilities for orbital debris removal.
     Granting an experimental license to NanoRacks LLC in 
November 2021 for communications with an experimental component 
attached to the second stage of a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle, to 
demonstrate metal-cutting in space.
    Additionally, topics related to ISAM capabilities have been raised 
in other Commission rulemaking proceedings. In the Commission's recent 
orbital debris proceeding, Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New 
Space Age, the Commission sought comment on a variety of areas for rule 
updates, including, for example, whether it should update its rules 
specifically to address RPO. The Commission received a number of 
comments in the record, and ultimately adopted a requirement that space 
station applicants disclose whether a spacecraft is capable of, or will 
be, performing proximity operations, noting that this disclosure would 
identify situations where such operations are planned and provide a 
vehicle for further review of those operations.\1\ At the time, the

[[Page 56367]]

Commission noted the evolving and developing nature of RPO and 
accordingly found that adoption of more specific technical or 
operational requirements would be premature. The Commission also sought 
comment on the role of spacecraft retrieval, also referred to as 
``active debris removal'' as a debris mitigation strategy in certain 
circumstances, and concluded that this was also an area where it would 
be premature to establish more detailed regulations. Additionally, the 
Commission sought comment on several topics in a Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including quantifying risks associated with multi-
satellite systems and post-mission disposal performance bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rules adopted by the Commission state that applicants 
must disclose planned proximity operations, if any, and address 
debris generation that will or may result from the proposed 
operations, including any planned release of debris, the risk of 
accidental explosions, the risk of accidental collision, and 
measures taken to mitigate those risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in the Commission's launch frequency proceeding, 
Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal Space Launch Operations, some 
commenters addressed servicing capabilities. While that proceeding was 
more narrowly focused on several specific frequencies used for launch 
vehicles, we sought comment on ``payload'' operations that either 
utilize or could potentially utilize those frequencies, such as 
vehicles used for transport to the International Space Station. We also 
sought comment on cases in which an object that might otherwise 
function only as a launch vehicle upper stage would continue operations 
after the initial launch phase in order to support operations of 
customer instruments or radios.\2\ The Commission received comments in 
the record that addressed a broader range of activities, including 
situations in which a spacecraft is used either to deploy or move other 
spacecraft that are already in orbit. Several commenters also advocated 
for a new licensing framework for on-orbit servicing (OOS) separate 
from the Commission's existing part 25 and part 5 licensing regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The customer equipment is sometimes referred to as a 
``payload'' or ``hosted payload'', but the meaning of the term 
``payload'' in this context is generally distinct from the use of 
the term ``payload'' in the launch licensing context, where the term 
is used to refer to the object or objects that separate from the 
launch vehicle at the end of the launch activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in June 2022, we considered ISAM operations in our annual 
regulatory fee proceeding and sought comment on these nascent 
operations in the context of regulatory fee obligations. Some 
commenters suggested that creating a separate fee category or 
categories, along with service rules for OOS and RPO operations, would 
provide clarity. In the FY 2022 Notice, we observed that except for GSO 
servicing missions, we expect that most OOS and RPO will be non-
geostationary orbit (NGSO) operations. We tentatively concluded that 
the technology for OOS and RPO missions was too nascent, however, to 
make broader determinations on the status of such operations for 
regulatory fee purposes, and we sought further comment on whether and 
how to assess fees for these types of spacecraft, as well as other 
types of satellites servicing other satellites, including those 
operating near the GSO arc.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The GSO arc lies on the plane of the Earth's equator at an 
altitude of approximately 35,786 kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's ongoing work related to ISAM has dovetailed with 
other major federal government action. On April 4, 2022, the White 
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released the ISAM 
National Strategy. As discussed therein, the United States plans to 
support and stimulate government, academic, and commercial development 
of ISAM capabilities. In particular, the ISAM National Strategy 
identified six goals to advance ISAM capability development:
    1. Advance ISAM research and development, including an ecosystem of 
capabilities to support ISAM such as standards and systems to implement 
standards.
    2. In collaboration with academic and commercial ISAM stakeholders, 
prioritize expanding ground infrastructure and support the development 
of space-based infrastructure.
    3. Accelerate the emerging ISAM commercial industry through 
providing a sustained demand signal for ISAM capabilities and increased 
collaboration between government stakeholders and industry.
    4. Promote international collaboration and communication and 
support the development of voluntary international standards, best 
practices, guidelines, and norms for ISAM activities.
    5. Prioritize environmental sustainability by developing and 
implementing best practices, collaborating with commercial partners to 
support cost-effective space debris removal, and developing new climate 
science approaches.
    6. Inspire the future space workforce by collaborating with 
academic institutions developing ISAM-enabled research, supporting 
curriculum development, and advocating for apprenticeships to foster 
industry-academia collaborations.
    We seek comment on Commission actions that can address the needs of 
ISAM activities, including whether there are any regulatory changes the 
Commission should consider to facilitate ISAM. For example, we ask 
questions about spectrum needs for ISAM missions, as well as whether 
there are clarification of or changes to our licensing processes that 
would support these types of missions. Recognizing the potential 
benefits of satellite servicing and orbital debris remediation, we also 
seek comment on the particular needs of these activities and whether 
they can further Commission policy goals and statutory obligations. In 
addition, we seek comment on the orbital debris implications and 
opportunities posed by ISAM missions, in view of the Commission's role 
in reviewing orbital debris mitigation plans for non-governmental 
spacecraft.

Spectrum Needs and Relevant Allocations

    Generally, we seek comment on the variety of radiofrequency 
communications links that could be involved in ISAM missions, on 
potentially relevant international frequency allocations and 
allocations in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, and on other 
considerations associated with spectrum licensing. To date, some 
spacecraft involved in ISAM missions have been licensed under part 25 
of the Commission's rules, which generally apply to commercial and 
other non-experimental operations, while other spacecraft involved in 
ISAM missions have been licensed under part 5 of the Commission's 
rules, which addresses experimental licensing. Communications that are 
not consistent with the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations and 
communications pursuant to a part 5 experimental license are authorized 
on a non-interference basis and cannot claim interference protection 
from authorized spectrum users.
    Given the wide range of activities that could fall within the ISAM 
category, we seek comment on how to define the scope of ``typical'' 
spectrum usage for ISAM missions, including for such functions as OOS 
and RPO. While different types of ISAM missions will have different 
spectrum needs, is it possible to define the scope of typical spectrum 
use for these different types of missions? Are there useful sub-
categories that can be identified within ISAM when it comes to spectrum 
use? What are the overall requirements for spectrum for these ISAM 
activities? What are the bandwidth requirements? What are the power 
requirements? To what degree are the needs short-term or episodic, or 
to what degree are the

[[Page 56368]]

needs for ``always-on'' transmissions and reception?
    We seek comment on relevant frequency allocations. What services, 
as defined by the ITU Radio Regulations and the Commission's rules, are 
most critical for ISAM capabilities? We note that in some instances 
ISAM missions have been supported by communications in the space 
operations service, which primarily covers telemetry, tracking, and 
command (TT&C). We seek comment on whether typical usage for ISAM 
missions could be considered a space operations service as currently 
defined. We also note the use of sensors and imaging equipment in some 
ISAM missions, equipment that may have spectrum needs distinct from the 
typical needs for obtaining TT&C operations of a spacecraft. Are the 
current non-Federal allocations for space operations or other relevant 
services adequate to address spectrum needs for ISAM missions? If not, 
what frequency ranges would be most viable to support these missions 
based on current technology and mission requirements, and are there 
satellite allocations in those frequency ranges? Is it reasonable to 
continue in some instances to authorize communications supporting ISAM 
capabilities on a non-interference, unprotected basis, particularly 
where the communications may be critical to conducting an RPO mission 
for example, or something similar? Are there conditions that could 
facilitate coordination with incumbent users, such as geographic or 
temporal limitations, thereby providing some assurance of interference-
free use, even where the status of such operations remains inconsistent 
with an allocation.
    Commercial space industry entities have previously observed that 
additional spectrum may be necessary to support types of missions that 
would fall under the category of ISAM. These entities also noted that 
investment has already been made in technologies to support OOS and RPO 
in some frequency bands. We seek comment on these issues, and on 
whether there are steps that can facilitate operations to support ISAM 
capabilities in frequency bands viewed by commercial and other non-
governmental entities as compatible with their needs. For example, in 
frequency bands shared with Federal operations, what steps would 
facilitate sharing? What steps would facilitate sharing in frequency 
bands shared with terrestrial operations? To what extent is sharing 
with other operators, both federal and commercial, possible, depending 
on the type of ISAM mission? Are there frequency bands that could 
support ISAM missions, but that have not been used for these types of 
missions to date? What are the synergies, if any, between space launch 
activities and associated frequency uses and ISAM operations? Are there 
advances in equipment or other technologies that would allow for use of 
frequency bands to support these missions, or make sharing feasible in 
bands not previously utilized for space operations? What are the pros 
and cons of any necessary operational changes, and how do those affect 
the cost and viability of ISAM missions?
    We observe that ISAM missions may involve communications links 
among spacecraft within or beyond Earth's orbit, among spacecraft and 
equipment or devices located on celestial bodies, or among equipment 
and devices located on a celestial body. We seek comment on the 
potential scope of these types of communications links and the unique 
issues presented by such communications when it comes to spectrum 
licensing. In so doing, we ask about the role of existing allocations 
for satellite services, including inter-satellite links, in supporting 
some of these communications. Inter-satellite communications may be 
useful for space-based tracking assets and can enable ultra-high-speed 
data transfer and quantum-encrypted communications. What are the 
spectrum needs for communications activities occurring beyond Earth's 
orbit, such as those between spacecraft or on or around celestial 
bodies--the moon, or an asteroid, for example? How can the Commission 
facilitate the development of communications networks on, or in the 
orbit of, other celestial bodies? What considerations should be made in 
assigning frequencies for communications on celestial bodies, such as 
between equipment on the lunar surface? What are the challenges with 
spectrum assignments for Earth station support for ISAM missions beyond 
Earth's orbit?

Licensing Processes

Licensing Processes in General

    We seek comment on any updates or modifications to the Commission's 
licensing rules and processes that would facilitate ISAM capabilities. 
The Commission's licensing for space stations is ``facilities-based,'' 
meaning that the license is associated with a specific radio station. 
That station includes ``accessory equipment'' necessary to conduct 
communications activities at a location. For facilities involved in 
ISAM activities the licensing process would typically involve an 
application filed under part 25 or part 5 of the Commission's rules. 
Part 25 licenses are appropriate for commercial operations, including 
licenses for NGSO and GSO space stations, small satellites, and small 
spacecraft. Part 5 rules are more limited in scope to specific 
categories of noncommercial operations, including, among others, 
scientific experiments, communications research, product development, 
and market trials. Both part 25 and part 5 also provide for special 
temporary authority (STA). In general terms, the International Bureau 
and/or the Office of Engineering and Technology will evaluate the 
application and issue a grant, typically with conditions, upon a 
finding that the grant serves the ``public interest, convenience, and 
necessity.'' We seek comment on any updates to part 25 or part 5 of the 
Commission's rules for application processing to accommodate and 
facilitate ISAM missions.
    Which of the Commission's current processes are suited for 
licensing different types of ISAM missions? As ISAM capabilities 
develop and are increasingly offered as commercial services, part 5 
licensing may no longer be appropriate. Should ISAM missions generally 
be licensed under part 25 of the Commission's rules, or will part 5 
experimental licensing continue to be appropriate in some instances, 
and under what circumstances? \4\ Do such activities need a new 
licensing framework based on their needs, perhaps addressed under a new 
part of the Commission rules, or is continuation of the current 
approach, distinguishing between commercial and experimental uses, 
generally useful?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We again note that part 5 experimental licensees must 
operate on a non-interference basis, meaning they are prohibited 
from causing harmful interference to other authorized operators and 
are not entitled to interference protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the Commission's ``facilities-based'' approach to licensing, 
we also seek comment on characteristics of ISAM activities and relevant 
considerations affecting Commission licensing that might be addressed 
through part 25 of the Commission's rules. What are the challenges, if 
any, presented by current Commission processes for missions of variable 
duration or missions exhibiting evolving characteristics? How should 
the Commission consider variable locations in space such as transition 
between orbital altitudes and inclinations? Are there other 
considerations the Commission should take into account regarding 
individual missions versus multiple, different missions? What 
application requirements best account for the evolving nature of ISAM

[[Page 56369]]

missions and activities? How can the Commission effectively regulate to 
anticipate variations in vehicle designs and mission capabilities 
depending on mission and stage of development? For missions that face 
multiple points of variability in mission type, duration, and spectral 
needs, such as servicers that may service multiple spacecraft, what are 
the challenges with licensing under existing rules, if any? For 
example, should these missions be handled under a single license that 
is modified as needed, or through multiple licenses or some other way? 
What are alternative ways to account for potential risks and different 
missions that such spacecraft may encounter? How should the licensing 
process accommodate spacecraft that provide more typical communications 
services, but may also be involved to some extent in ISAM activities? 
Are fixed-satellite service or mobile-satellite service allocations, to 
the extent that they include in-band space operations, sufficiently 
flexible to accommodate ISAM activities? If additional frequencies are 
required or desirable for the ISAM activities, and those activities 
occur at a different time than the regular communications operations, 
should there be some reporting required on the changes in the 
operations of the spacecraft to reflect changes in the use of the 
licensed frequencies? What are the ITU filing considerations associated 
with multi-part or complex missions?
    Under part 25 of the Commission's rules, space stations are 
categorized as GSO or NGSO, and processed accordingly. In most cases, 
space stations involved in ISAM activities will likely be NGSO, but in 
some cases they could be engaged in activities near the GSO arc, or 
even co-located or attached to a GSO space station. How should these 
types of spacecraft be categorized for licensing purposes? \5\ GSO 
space station applications are processed on a first-come, first-served 
basis, associated with particular frequencies and a specific orbital 
location in the GSO arc, whereas servicing or other similar missions in 
the GSO arc seem likely to move between orbital locations, and may or 
may not be engaged in more typical satellite communications services, 
such as fixed-satellite service. What are the key considerations in 
categorizing those types of missions as between GSO and NGSO? Are there 
additional flexibilities that should be built into the Commission's 
procedures to reflect these unique cases? Given the apparent need for 
flexibility, should spacecraft involved in ISAM missions be treated 
like NGSO applications in all cases? In such a regime, how should those 
planning to operate at the GSO arc be treated? NGSO applications, 
unless they are filed under the small satellite or small spacecraft 
process, are, absent a rule waiver, assessed as part of a processing 
round. Is it appropriate to exempt certain types of operations 
associated with ISAM missions from the Commission's processing round 
rules, or are their certain types of missions that might be categorized 
as or facilitate ISAM, such as in-space data relay networks, that would 
require the type of continuous, active spectrum use the Commission's 
processing round framework is designed to manage? Should the Commission 
consider process changes under part 25, similar to the streamlined 
process for small satellites and small spacecraft, to license space 
stations involving certain types of ISAM activities? What key 
requirements should the Commission consider?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that the Commission's fee schedules for application 
and regulatory fees also make this distinction between GSO and NGSO 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on the Commission's current technical disclosures, 
such as those in the Schedule S form required for part 25 space station 
license applications and the technical showings required under sections 
25.114(c) and 25.114(d) of the Commission's rules. Are the required 
technical disclosures sufficient to capture the specifications of ISAM 
missions? If not, what other technical disclosures should be required? 
Similarly, for any ISAM missions that fit under the Commission's 
streamlined processes for small satellites and small spacecraft, are 
the technical showings required by these processes sufficient to 
capture the specifications of ISAM missions, and if not, what 
modifications to these required technical showings would better 
accommodate ISAM missions? Is the Schedule S format appropriate for 
ISAM missions? How might the Commission modify its Schedule S form or 
update the other disclosure requirements in its rules to accommodate 
ISAM missions?
    Additionally, we seek comment on licensing processes for earth 
stations supporting ISAM missions. Are there updates or modifications 
to the earth station process that would facilitate ISAM missions?
    Based on the wide array of ISAM operations, how can the Commission 
provide guidance on its application processes? Are there additional 
ways that the Commission can offer guidance such as public notices, FCC 
Fact Sheets, etc.?

Satellite Servicing Missions

    We seek comment on any additional licensing considerations unique 
to satellite servicing missions. Servicing missions typically consist 
of multiple spacecraft. In some cases, servicing missions may involve a 
single operator or licensee that is operating more than one spacecraft. 
We expect, however, that servicing missions will also involve multiple 
spacecraft that are owned and operated by different entities. We seek 
comment on the licensing process for these, or similar missions. Our 
approach to date has been to treat both the servicer and client 
spacecraft as needing to be licensed for the scope of radio-frequency 
activities involved in the servicing operations. Should the licensing 
process require the servicer alone to be responsible for obtaining a 
Commission license for communications associated with the servicing 
activities? Alternatively, should the client operator (i.e., the 
operator of the space station being serviced) also obtain 
authorization, either because the client space station may need to 
undertake radio-frequency operation at variance from what was 
originally granted in the client's license, or simply to address the 
additional scope of activity involving servicing? Should this be 
decided based on a preconceived set of criteria, or would this decision 
require a case-by-case analysis of individual service activities to 
better suit the diversity of scenarios? If a case-by-case analysis is 
considered appropriate, how can the Commission apply additional 
guidance, such as public notices, to provide clarity to commercial 
operators seeking licenses for OOS operations? If only the servicer 
obtains an authorization, what confirmation from the client should be 
required by the Commission to ensure that the scope of operations is 
fully agreed-upon by the client and servicer entities? Additionally, in 
some cases, either the client or servicer may not be a U.S.-licensed 
spacecraft, and may or may not have U.S. market access. In those 
instances, what information should the Commission require from the 
applicant (client or servicer)? Are there special considerations 
involved where there may be multiple administrations licensing the 
spacecraft and how should those considerations be taken into account in 
the Commission's licensing process?

Assembly, Manufacturing and Other Activities

    We seek comment on any special considerations in licensing of 
assembly and manufacturing missions. Are

[[Page 56370]]

existing part 5 and part 25 licensing frameworks sufficient for these 
missions or subsets of these missions? Are there any limitations 
resulting from existing Commission licensing rules for these missions? 
If so, how should the Commission consider revising its rules to 
facilitate the specific needs of these missions?

International Considerations

    ISAM missions also raise the possibility of interactions between 
operators under the jurisdiction of multiple nations. Servicing and 
debris remediation missions, in particular, could involve operators or 
objects outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Assembly 
activities may also involve these concerns, to the extent assembly 
involves objects under the supervision of different countries. We seek 
comment on whether and how to take this into account in the 
Commission's licensing process. Would such a relationship be governed 
by a regulatory framework analogous to the U.S. market access 
framework, enabling non-U.S.-licensed space stations to access the U.S. 
satellite marketplace? Would documentation of consent from the non-U.S. 
operator or administration be appropriate? If so, what kind of 
documentation should the Commission require?
    In the majority of countries with developing ISAM capabilities, 
both government and non-government entities have established 
partnerships with at least one other entity located in another country. 
What international coordination is needed for U.S.-licensed servicing 
of non-U.S. satellites, for example, and vice versa? How can the 
Commission ensure that operators and/or Administrations are in 
agreement on the scope of certain activities involving non-U.S. 
spacecraft? Are there circumstances in which the Commission should 
consult with the State Department to help ensure mutual understanding 
between Administrations, and if so, should such a process be 
formalized?

Orbital Debris Mitigation

    The Commission's orbital debris mitigation rules apply to all space 
station operators seeking license and authorization under the 
Commission's rules, including operators of ISAM missions. All 
applicants, including applicants for operations involving ISAM 
activities, must provide a description of their orbital debris 
mitigation design and operational strategies consistent with the 
Commission's orbital debris mitigation rules, including, among other 
requirements, addressing release of debris during normal operations, 
risk of accidental explosions, and collision risk, casualty risk, and 
post-mission disposal reliability.
    As the scope of commercial and other non-governmental in-space 
activities expands, some ISAM activities may present fact patterns that 
have not been specifically contemplated by current orbital debris 
mitigation rules and adopted practices. For example, the current 
practices focus on a ``use or deplete'' approach to stored energy.\6\ 
Plans for utilizing in-space fuel storage for refueling operations, on 
the other hand, contemplate at least a temporary location in which 
energy remains stored in space when not being utilized. Are there 
additional risks of debris generation implicated in such operations, 
and if so, what steps can be taken to mitigate such risks? As another 
example, are there potentially byproducts from in-space assembly and 
manufacturing, such as small debris from cutting or manipulation of 
materials, or risks of unplanned release of objects that are not 
adequately addressed currently in the Commission's rules for which 
mitigation measures might be developed with greater specificity? \7\ 
Are there other ISAM activities that do not fit with the typical 
mission profiles for which standard practices for mitigation, or 
standard disclosures about mitigation strategies that have to date not 
been developed? In general, are there updates to the Commission's 
orbital debris mitigation rules that would help to address such risks, 
through modified disclosure requirements, for example, that would 
facilitate Commission consideration of whether grant of a license would 
serve the public interest? If so, what would be the relevant changes to 
the Commission's rules to cover the additional risks, if any, presented 
by such activities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Space station applicants are required to provide a statement 
that the operator has assessed and limited the probability of 
accidental explosions during and after the completion of mission 
operations. This statement must include a demonstration that debris 
generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources on 
board the spacecraft into energy that fragments the spacecraft. 
Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic energy. This 
demonstration needs to address whether stored energy will be removed 
at the spacecraft's end of life, by depleting residual fuel and 
leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system, 
leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing 
any remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent 
procedures specifically disclosed in the application.
    \7\ The Commission's rules require that space station applicants 
provide a statement that the operator has assessed and limited the 
amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orbital Debris Remediation

    A specific sub-category of ISAM missions are those performing a 
remediation or removal function for preexisting space debris, including 
defunct satellites, satellite fragments, and material released during 
normal operations. We look forward to the continued advancement of 
technologies that would enable remediation and removal of debris, and 
how the Commission can facilitate or support advancement of these 
technologies. What is the current reliability and technical readiness 
of these technologies? What is the state of the art in active debris 
remediation or removal technologies? Which technological approaches to 
address active debris remediation or removal are developed or being 
developed? What actions can the Commission take to promote continued 
growth, innovation, and development in debris remediation and removal?
    We seek comment on whether and how the Commission should consider 
active debris removal as part of an operator's orbital debris strategy. 
Are these active disposal efforts, in particular retrieval of defunct 
satellites or related debris, at or close to a technological level that 
the Commission can consider them as part of an operator's orbital 
debris strategy for post-mission disposal or backup post-mission 
disposal? Would the Commission's consideration of active debris removal 
or remediation as part of its orbital debris mitigation review help to 
drive innovation in this sector? To ensure a sustainable space 
environment, should operators be required to utilize active debris 
removal if the primary post-mission disposal maneuvers fail? If used as 
a secondary or backup method, how much investment should operators be 
required to devote to the technological adaptation for disposal 
methods? What approaches to implement this requirement are possible? 
For example, to ensure active debris removal, would an operator bond 
associated with removal be appropriate? \8\ Should space stations be 
required to have technical specifications compatible with active debris 
removal technology? What would these specifications look like (e.g.,

[[Page 56371]]

commercially adaptable docking components)? Are there standardization 
efforts currently underway for these types of systems/components and 
activities? Is it reasonable to expect that there could be one or more 
standards available for operators in the near term or longer term? How 
might such standards evolve? Are there any actions the Commission could 
and should take to support the future success of active debris 
remediation or removal technologies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We note that the Commission proposed a bond associated with 
successful spacecraft post-mission disposal in the Orbital Debris 
FNPRM. That proposal for a bond remains pending. A bond to 
incentivize active debris removal could potentially be tied to a 
general bond associated with successful post-mission disposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What industry adaptations could facilitate active debris removal 
with consideration to return on investment (e.g., fuel costs, weight, 
import costs, procurement)? Are there generic technical requirements 
that could facilitate active debris removal across the industry (e.g., 
with no consideration to orbit, service, or country of registration) or 
would requirements vary depending on the client and the servicer?

Activities Beyond Earth's Orbit

    We seek comment on specific considerations for ISAM missions that 
go beyond Earth's orbit and the Commission's role in planetary 
protection. ISAM activities beyond Earth's orbit could include a wide 
range of operations, including missions to the Moon and asteroids.
    In general, we seek comment on any updates to the Commission's 
rules that might facilitate licensing ISAM missions beyond Earth's 
orbit. The Commission recently adopted a set of rules designed for 
missions beyond Earth's orbit in the part 25 ``small spacecraft'' 
rules, but these rules were not adopted with a specific focus on ISAM 
activities. Are these rules sufficient for ISAM missions beyond Earth's 
orbit, or are there changes either generally or specific to ISAM 
activities that would be beneficial? Are there any changes to the 
Commission's part 5 experimental or regular part 25 processing rules 
that would facilitate the licensing of ISAM missions beyond Earth's 
orbit?
    Planetary Protection. Planetary protection typically encompasses 
the policies and practices designed to protect celestial bodies from 
contamination by Earth life, and protect the Earth's biosphere from 
potential contamination from returning spacecraft. Article IX of the 
Outer Space Treaty states that, ``States Parties to the Treaty shall 
pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial 
bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful 
contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth 
resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter.'' Planetary 
protection guidelines have historically been developed in the United 
States by National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) 
Office of Planetary Protection and internationally by the Committee on 
Space Research (COSPAR). For commercial missions, oversight of 
planetary protection compliance has been undertaken through Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) payload review, which includes 
consultations with the Department of State and NASA. For civil space 
missions, planetary protection is largely coordinated by the Office of 
Planetary Protection, following NASA regulations.
    The extent of planetary protection policies needed for an 
individual mission are determined by categorizing the mission based on 
the type of celestial body it will encounter (i.e., how likely that 
body is to support life), and the nature of the encounter (e.g., flyby, 
orbiting, or landing). For example, a Category I mission (e.g., a flyby 
of an asteroid) will have minimal requirements relative to a Category 
IV mission (e.g., a landing on Mars). ISAM operators must only consider 
planetary protection implications for missions performing a flyby, 
orbit, or landing on a celestial body. There are no planetary 
protection implications for on-orbit operations.
    We seek comment on what, if any, role the Commission should play in 
reviewing planetary protection plans and implications for ISAM 
missions. What are the planetary protection implications of ISAM 
capabilities? Are there contractual mechanisms or governmental 
processes that ensure adequate supervision of missions with respect to 
planetary protection policies? What, if any, steps can the Commission 
take to facilitate planetary protection review? Are there any statutory 
limits for the Commission's involvement in ensuring that the United 
States meet its treaty obligations and international commitments? How 
can the commission best ensure our authorizations for these missions 
serve the public interest?
    With respect to manufacturing missions, in-situ resource 
utilization (ISRU) is currently being considered for use in missions to 
the asteroids, the Moon, and Mars. Landing spacecraft at these 
destinations have varying degrees of planetary protection 
considerations: undifferentiated, metamorphosed asteroids are Category 
I; other asteroids and the Moon are Category II; and Mars is Category 
IV. Are there unique or specific planetary protection concerns for 
space resource utilization? What role should be appropriate for the 
Commission to play in overseeing such missions from a planetary 
protection perspective?
    The ISAM National Strategy calls for the U.S. domestic regulatory 
regime to be updated as ISAM technologies mature to facilitate ISAM 
activities. How can the Commission's regulations, or the Commission's 
coordination with other government agencies, facilitate ISAM activities 
beyond Earth's orbit, including on other celestial bodies? What should 
be the extent of oversight by the Commission of objects remotely 
controlled via an FCC-licensed station?

Encouraging Innovation and Investments in ISAM

    We also seek comment on ways to facilitate development of and 
competition in ISAM activities, provide a diversity of on-orbit service 
options, and promote innovation and investment in the ISAM field. Are 
there any regulatory barriers that may increase cost or prevent entry 
that can be removed or modernized to facilitate innovation and 
investment in ISAM in the public interest? How can the Commission 
encourage new operators to enter into the marketplace to provide 
commercial ISAM services as well as those wishing to expand their 
market access? What actions can the Commission take to promote 
continued growth, innovation, and development in ISAM operations? 
Moreover, how can we promote innovation and investment in ISAM without 
simultaneously reducing incentives for compliance with our rules for 
orbital debris mitigation, such as rules that encourage post-mission 
disposal?
    The costs of commercial space activity are extensive and there are 
not necessarily immediate returns on investment opportunities for 
operations such as orbital debris remediation efforts. Aside from the 
incentives provided to ISAM operators, we seek to analyze the current 
state of ISAM technology and understand its economic impact on space-
based services. To better understand this emerging market segment, we 
ask for comment on where ISAM fits within the broader satellite 
communications services sector. What firms currently supply ISAM 
services? What entities demand ISAM services? We also seek comment on 
the nature of the cost structure of firms supplying ISAM activities. 
How important are economies of scale in production? We seek comment on 
the current and future state of ISAM technology and its economic impact 
on space-based services. How does innovation in such technologies and 
services impact the space-based industry when evaluated

[[Page 56372]]

through long-term projections (e.g., a five-year projection or a ten-
year projection)?
    What regulatory incentives can be provided to ISAM operators and 
developers to encourage innovation and growth in this field? What 
regulatory incentives can be provided to ISAM clients to encourage use 
of ISAM technology? What are ISAM operators' concerns with respect to 
the Commission's regulatory processes regarding their operations? How 
can the Commission address these concerns while also maintaining access 
to spectrum and a safe space environment for all operators?

Digital Equity and Inclusion

    Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the topics discussed herein. Specifically, we seek 
comment on how the topics discussed and any related proposals may 
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility, as well as the scope of the Commission's relevant legal 
authority.

Procedural Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), no Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is required for this Notice of Inquiry.

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 
302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r), 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19748 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P