Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing, 18875-18887 [2024-05389]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18875-18887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05389]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket Nos. 22-271, 22-272; FCC 24-21; FR ID 207048]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks 
comment on a proposed new framework for licensing space stations 
engaged in in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM).

DATES: Comments are due on or before April 29, 2024. Reply comments are 
due on or before May 29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket Nos. 22-271 
and 22-272, by any of the following methods:
     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).

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in IB Docket Nos. 22-271 and 22-272; FCC 
24-21, adopted February 15, 2024, and released February 16, 2024. The 
full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-21A1.pdf.

Ex Parte Presentations

    The Commission will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different

[[Page 18876]]

deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed new or modified 
information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), the Commission 
seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

    The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 
118-9, requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to 
post online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The 
required summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at 
https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires 
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and 
comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will 
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' The Commission has prepared an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential 
impact of the proposed rule and policy changes contained in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the NPRM 
and a summary is included in the Procedural Matters section below. 
Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking indicated on the DATES section of this document and must 
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to 
the IRFA.

Synopsis

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 
seeks comment on several proposed changes to part 25 of the 
Commission's rules to create a new framework to license in-space 
servicing, assembly, and manufacturing, or ``ISAM'' space stations, 
thereby supporting the development of these novel space activities. 
Specifically, the NPRM proposes to include a new definition of ``ISAM 
space station'' in Sec.  25.103 of the Commission's rules drawn from 
the definition in the ISAM National Strategy and proposes a new Sec.  
25.126 to the Commission's rules to aggregate requirements that all 
applicants for an ISAM space station license or market access grant 
must fulfill and to enumerate the exemptions from other portions of 
part 25 to which applicants would be entitled. It also seeks comments 
on whether other rule changes might be necessary to support the 
development of the ISAM industry. Additionally, it proposes to retain 
the same orbital debris mitigation requirements for ISAM operators as 
for other space station operators and proposes to review ISAM 
operators' requests for frequency use on a case-by-case basis.

I. Introduction

    2. The Commission continues its efforts to promote United States 
leadership in space by adopting the NPRM to propose a new framework for 
licensing space stations engaged in ISAM. Space capabilities are 
expanding, opening novel economic and scientific opportunities, and 
providing new tools for sustainable use of space. Effective and 
efficient use of radiofrequency communications will enable these new 
capabilities and the rules proposed are designed to facilitate and 
support their growth. The NPRM reflects the input of commenters from 
the Commission's Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on ISAM, 87 FR 56365 
(September 14, 2022), which sought comment regarding where the industry 
is today, how the Commission can best support its sustainable 
development, and what tangible economic and societal benefits may 
result from these capabilities. Taking these comments into account, the 
Commission proposes to create a new framework to license ISAM space 
stations, thereby supporting the development of these novel space 
activities. As the ISAM industry continues to develop, the Commission 
envisions taking additional steps as needed to foster innovation and 
growth in this field.

II. Background

    3. ISAM refers to a set of capabilities used on-orbit, on the 
surface of space objects and celestial bodies, and in transit between 
these regimes. The ``servicing'' aspect of ISAM includes activities 
such as the in-space inspection, life extension, repair, refueling, or 
alteration of a spacecraft after its initial launch, which includes but 
is not limited to: visually acquire, rendezvous and/or proximity 
operations, docking, berthing, relocation, upgrading, repositioning, 
undocking, unberthing, release and departure, reuse, orbit transport 
and transfer, and timely debris collection and removal. These 
activities typically include the process of maneuvering close to and 
operating in the near vicinity of the ``client'' spacecraft, a set of 
activities often referred to as rendezvous and proximity operations 
(RPO). The term ``servicing'' is also used to describe transport of a 
spacecraft from one orbit to another, as well as debris collection and 
removal. ``Assembly'' refers to the construction of a space system 
using pre-manufactured components, and ``manufacturing'' is the 
transformation of raw or recycled

[[Page 18877]]

materials into components, products, or infrastructure in space.
    4. On August 5, 2022, the Commission adopted the ISAM NOI. It 
sought comment on spectrum needs and allocations; licensing processes 
in general and specifically for satellite servicing operations, 
assembly, manufacturing, and other activities; and international 
licensing considerations. Twenty-four comments were filed by ISAM 
operators, satellite operators, industry groups, and government 
agencies, ten parties filed reply comments, and a number of parties 
also submitted ex parte filings on the record.
    5. Prior Actions Involving ISAM Activities. While many commercial 
ISAM activities are still at an early stage, the Commission, in 
coordination with NTIA where operations were in frequency bands shared 
with the federal government, has issued licenses for space stations 
conducting several types of ISAM activities, including the following: 
licensing of SpaceLogistics, LLC's (SpaceLogistics) Mission Extension 
Vehicle-1 (MEV-1) and Mission Extension Vehicle-2 (MEV-2); granting an 
experimental license to SpaceIce to investigate freeze-casting, a 
processing technique used to create a wide range of materials like 
ceramics, metals, polymers, and composites, among others, in the 
microgravity environment; authorizing U.S. earth station communications 
to support Astroscale Ltd.'s ELSA-d testing of spacecraft capabilities 
for orbital debris removal; and granting an experimental license to 
NanoRacks LLC for communications to demonstrate metal-cutting in space.
    6. Topics related to ISAM capabilities have also been raised in 
other Commission rulemaking proceedings. In the ongoing rulemaking to 
update the orbital debris rules, Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the 
New Space Age, the Commission sought comment on a variety of rule 
changes, including, for example, whether it should update rules 
specifically to address RPO. The Commission ultimately adopted a 
requirement that space station applicants disclose whether a space 
station is capable of, or will be, performing proximity operations, 
noting that this disclosure would identify situations where such 
operations are planned and provide a vehicle for further review of 
those operations. At the time, the Commission noted the evolving and 
developing nature of RPO and accordingly found that adoption of more 
specific technical or operational requirements would be premature. The 
Commission also sought comment on the role of spacecraft retrieval, 
also referred to as active debris removal (ADR), as a debris mitigation 
strategy in certain circumstances and concluded that this was also an 
area where it would be premature to establish more detailed 
regulations.
    7. State of the ISAM Industry. The ISAM NOI sought information on 
the state of the industry for ISAM operations. Astroscale notes that 
more than 102 companies have undertaken ISAM projects or research, that 
18 of those have either partially or fully operational ISAM 
capabilities, and that 40 expect to be ready within the next 5 years. 
Operators describe their specific work developing servicing spacecraft, 
orbital transfer vehicles (OTVs), life extension vehicles, end-of-life 
servicing spacecraft, refueling depots, space situational awareness 
spacecraft, commercial inhabitable space stations, lunar landers, and 
spacecraft conducting science experiments and manufacturing in 
microgravity. While Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace) sees a ``chicken 
and egg'' problem regarding a lack of serviceable satellites and a lack 
of servicers, it notes that SpaceLogistic's MEVs that operate on 
vehicles not designed for servicing have significantly reduced this 
barrier and finds the mix of old and new satellites will expand ISAM 
servicing opportunities and draw in more satellite and ISAM providers. 
NTIA highlights two previous successful ISAM-related demonstrations by 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and NASA's Double 
Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) to support planetary protection.

III. Discussion

A. Scope of FCC Regulations

    8. The NOI queried how the FCC could support ISAM activities, 
noting that the ISAM National Strategy calls for the U.S. domestic 
regulatory regime to be updated to facilitate ISAM activities. The 
Commission issues the NPRM in line with that call, while recognizing 
that the Commission, with over 50 years of expertise in regulating 
satellites, is one of several government agencies charged with 
regulation and oversight of commercial activities in space.
    9. The Commission's authority under the Communications Act allows 
the licensing of ISAM space stations under its existing rules, 
including rules that consider public interest factors. The Commission 
expects to continue to rely on the expertise of its fellow agencies as 
appropriate and note that its regulations on these issues are evolving 
in tandem with other government efforts. The Commission also recognizes 
that the United States' regulatory regime for achieving compliance with 
its obligations under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty contemplates 
multiple agencies authorizing and supervising the activities of non-
governmental entities in space.
    10. Planetary Protection. The NOI discussed the issue of planetary 
protection, given that some recent ISAM-related license applications 
are focused on lunar activities and beyond. Several commenters suggest 
the Commission consider working with other agencies on planetary 
protection issues instead of separately considering or taking action in 
this proceeding. The Commission plans to continue to support other 
agencies' efforts to develop and implement planetary protection 
policies. The Commission tentatively concludes that its proposed 
licensing framework for ISAM space stations should not include 
independent review and action from the Commission on applicants' 
planetary protection plans. The Commission seeks comment on how to 
ensure that applicants work with NASA and other relevant agencies to 
address planetary protection guidance and policy considerations. The 
Commission expects that various applications might require planetary 
protection considerations, such as small spacecraft applications. The 
Commission has previously ensured that applicants work with other 
federal agencies to consider planetary protection.

B. Licensing Framework for ISAM Space Stations

    11. The NOI sought information on the best approaches to licensing 
ISAM activities. As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission 
proposes to modify its rules to create a licensing framework specific 
to ISAM space stations within its part 25 rules for licensing 
commercial space stations. The Commission also proposes to apply its 
existing orbital debris mitigation requirements to ISAM space stations 
and to address the spectrum needs of ISAM operators on a case-by-case 
basis. At the same time, the Commission proposes to maintain its part 5 
experimental licensing rules as an option for licensing ISAM space 
stations not providing commercial service.

C. Licensing Rules for ISAM Space Stations

    12. Commercial Readiness of ISAM activities. The NOI sought comment 
on possible approaches for licensing different types of ISAM 
operations, including servicing, assembly, manufacturing, and ADR. The 
record demonstrates that various ISAM

[[Page 18878]]

operations are developing at different rates. Some commenters recommend 
that the Commission develop rules specific to categories of ISAM 
activities that are at a high level of technological readiness, like 
servicing, while adopting broad performance-based regulations that 
could apply to categories of ISAM activities that are still developing 
and could become more common in the future, like assembly and 
manufacturing. The Commission agrees with commenters that 
communications operations of certain ISAM activities may need to be 
regulated differently, but do not propose separate rules for different 
types of ISAM activities at this time. Instead, the Commission proposes 
to move forward by creating a new framework for applications for U.S. 
authorizations or grants of market access that applies broadly to space 
stations associated with all activities that fit within the proposed 
definition of ISAM. Unless indicated otherwise, when the Commission 
refers to the term license or licensee in this summary and in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission also includes market 
access grants or grantees. This proposed approach will allow applicants 
for any type of ISAM activity to apply for a U.S. license or market 
access grant pursuant to these new rules and will provide a framework 
to support future regulations for specific ISAM activities that may be 
necessary as the industry develops. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether there are different factors of servicing, assembly, or 
manufacturing activities that necessitate specific rules or a specific 
framework at this time.
    13. Licensing ISAM Space Stations Through Part 5 and Part 25. 
Commenters note that ISAM remains nascent, and it may be five to ten 
years before the industry generally shifts toward requiring part 25 
licensing for commercial space stations (rather than part 5 licensing 
for experimental space stations, which remains an important licensing 
avenue for operators as ISAM technology develops). Some commenters 
suggest updating the part 5 rules ``to more readily enable ISAM 
operations.'' Others caution against rule updates to part 5, explaining 
that ``[c]hanging the Part 5 rules would pose an unnecessary drain on 
FCC resources and take years to complete.'' The Commission notes that 
several ISAM space stations have successfully received experimental 
licenses through the part 5 process, and therefore, it does not propose 
to modify the part 5 experimental license rules at this time. The 
Commission proposes to continue to utilize both part 5 and part 25 
licensing in appropriate circumstances to provide radiofrequency 
licensing to support ISAM development. and seek comment on this 
proposal.
    14. Definition of ISAM Space Station. As an initial matter, the 
Commission proposes to include a definition of ``ISAM space station'' 
in Sec.  25.103 of the Commission's rules. The Commission proposes that 
operators wishing to apply using its proposed framework for ISAM space 
stations must plan to operate space stations that fit this definition, 
although space stations that fall within the definition would not be 
precluded from applying through its regular part 25 rules or through 
its existing processes for small satellites or small spacecraft. The 
Commission proposes to define ``ISAM space station'' as follows: ``A 
space station that has the primary purpose of conducting in-space 
servicing, assembly, and/or manufacturing activities used on-orbit, on 
the surface of celestial bodies, and/or in transit between these 
regimes. Servicing activities include but are not limited to in-space 
inspection, life-extension, repair, refueling, alteration, and orbital 
transfer of a client space object, including collection and removal of 
debris on orbit. Assembly activities involve the construction of space 
systems in space using pre-manufactured components. Manufacturing 
activities involve the transformation of raw or recycled materials into 
components, products, or infrastructure in space.'' The Commission 
notes that this definition is drawn from the definition of ISAM in the 
ISAM National Strategy. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed 
definition. Specifically, should the Commission further define 
``primary purpose'' and, if so, how? Are there ISAM activities that 
would not be included in this definition? Conversely, is this 
definition so broad that it risks creating confusion as to whether more 
traditional space stations are included and, if so, how should it be 
tightened?
    15. Proposed Sec.  25.126. In general, the Commission proposes to 
require applicants for authorization for ISAM space stations to comply 
with the rules of either its regular part 25 licensing process or its 
streamlined processes for small satellites and small spacecraft, with 
some exemptions. The Commission notes that ISAM technologies are still 
nascent, and it views its proposed approach to regulating ISAM space 
stations as iterative, developing with the capabilities and needs of 
the industry. The Commission believes licensing ISAM space stations 
under its current rules, including rules for applications for grants of 
market access and rules for modifications to operations, and reviewing 
ISAM applications on a case-by-case basis, will allow us to address the 
particular needs of ISAM space station operations of different 
durations and in different orbits. The Commission believes this 
proposed approach will provide the industry with flexibility while ISAM 
capabilities develop. The Commission also believes this approach will 
allow the Commission to continue to develop a record on ISAM while 
gaining more experience licensing radiofrequency use for ISAM space 
stations, allowing the Commission to be in the best position to propose 
additional rule modifications if needed for ISAM space stations in the 
future. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
    16. The Commission proposes to create a new Sec.  25.126--
Applications for ISAM Space Stations--to aggregate the requirements 
applicants for ISAM space stations must fulfill and enumerate the 
exemptions from the Commission's typical processes they are entitled 
to. The Commission believes creating a new rule section specific to 
ISAM space stations will make the process transparent for the industry, 
providing applicants for authorization for ISAM space stations one rule 
section that details the application process and clearly indicates the 
other rule sections with which applicants must comply. The Commission 
proposes that applicants that fit within its proposed definition of 
``ISAM space station,'' detailed above, would be able to use the 
proposed framework in Sec.  25.126. The Commission proposes that 
operators of ISAM space stations could apply for both U.S. 
authorizations and grants of U.S. market access using the proposed 
framework in this section. The Commission seeks comment on this general 
approach.
    17. Specifically, the proposed new Sec.  25.126 would require 
applicants to submit a comprehensive proposal for Commission evaluation 
on Form 312, Main Form, and Schedule S, as described in Sec.  25.114(a) 
through (c), consistent with the Commission's regular part 25 licensing 
and small satellite and small spacecraft licensing requirements. The 
Commission proposes to allow ISAM space station operators to continue 
to apply under the small satellite and small spacecraft streamlined 
processes, provided they satisfy all the requirements of each 
respective process. The Commission proposes that ISAM space stations 
that do not meet the criteria for the small satellite or small 
spacecraft processes

[[Page 18879]]

would continue to be subject to the remaining licensing requirements 
for GSO or NGSO operators under the Commission's regular part 25 
application process and therefore would be required to provide the 
information required by its rules with their application.
    18. The Commission recognizes that radiofrequency operations for 
ISAM space stations seem more capable of spectrum sharing than other 
commercial space stations it has authorized under its part 25 rules and 
generally require shorter durations of intensive communications 
operations. The Commission therefore proposes to exempt all 
applications for licenses for space stations that fit its proposed 
definition of ISAM space stations from processing round requirements 
for NGSO-like operations under Sec.  25.157 and from first-come-first-
served requirements for GSO-like operations under Sec.  25.158, 
provided they certify that operations of the space station(s) will be 
compatible with existing operations in the authorized frequency bands 
and submit a narrative description to demonstrate spectrum sharing 
capabilities are technically possible, and that the operations will not 
materially constrain future space station entrants from using the 
authorized frequency band(s). These proposals and exemption criteria 
would be located in new Sec.  25.126 and the corresponding Sec. Sec.  
25.157 and 25.158 would be updated to reflect these exemptions. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that this licensing framework will 
allow greater flexibility for ISAM operators looking to operate as a 
GSO or NGSO space station while protecting future and incumbent 
satellite operators from interference. The Commission also proposes to 
include a requirement in 25.126 for ISAM operators to provide ICFS file 
numbers or call signs for any FCC-related applications or grants or a 
list of International Telecommunications Union (ITU) filings and United 
Nations (UN) Registration information for any related space stations 
not licensed or granted market access by the United States, which the 
Commission explains in more detail below. The Commission notes that its 
proposal to exempt ISAM operators from its processing round and first-
come-first-served queue, given relevant showings, does not modify its 
obligations to coordinate authorizations with federal operators when 
spectrum shared by federal and nonfederal users is requested. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals. It also seeks comment 
regarding whether other rule changes are necessary to effectuate the 
proposed approaches discussed above. Commenters should specify which 
rules and explain the basis for recommending additional revisions.
    19. Surety bonds. In addition to the exemptions that it proposes in 
25.126, the Commission also proposes to defer the posting of surety 
bonds by one year after the grant of a license for ISAM operators. This 
proposal is consistent with the Commission's treatment of small 
satellites and small spacecraft. Spaceflight suggests that the policy 
objective underlying the Commission's surety bond requirement is to 
prevent operators from warehousing spectrum for years while failing to 
follow through on deploying their planned system, but many ISAM 
operators would meet these objectives without a bond requirement. 
Spaceflight notes that ISAM space stations are not likely to have 
exclusive use of spectrum and are likely to be licensed relatively 
close to launch, and a surety bond would be excessive for many ISAM 
operators and disproportionate to the cost of developing the space 
stations. Spaceflight says these considerations match the 
considerations the Commission relied on when it decided to implement a 
one-year grace period for filing of a bond for satellites authorized 
under the streamlined process for small satellites and recommends the 
Commission adopt a rule allowing ISAM operators to demonstrate they 
meet the policy objectives of the surety bond requirement in lieu of 
filing a surety bond. For operators that cannot make such a showing, 
Spaceflight suggests that the Commission allow ISAM operators one year 
to file a bond or meet milestone requirements, in line with the rules 
for streamlined small satellites and small spacecraft. Intelsat also 
notes that the Commission waived bond and milestone requirements for 
SpaceLogistics's MEV-1 servicer vehicle because MEV-1 and Intelsat's 
satellite were treated as one for purposes of the specific operation. 
While the Commission tentatively concludes that a one-year grace period 
for surety bonds for ISAM space stations is appropriate, it does not 
propose to follow Spaceflight's suggestion of allowing operators to 
demonstrate compliance with policy objectives of the bond requirement. 
The Commission believes this type of individualized showing can be 
handled through a waiver request, as the Commission may waive any rule 
for good cause shown according to 47 CFR 1.3. Specifically, the 
Commission proposes a one-year grace period, during which ISAM space 
station operators would not have to post a bond. The grace period would 
begin 30 days after the license is granted, since this is typically 
when a licensee would have to post the surety bond. If within the one-
year grace period, the ISAM operator satisfies the Commission's 
milestone requirement, then no bond is required. This proposal is 
similar to the rules regarding surety bond requirements for small 
satellites and small spacecraft. The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposals.
    20. U.S.-Licensed Servicing and Client Operations. Starfish Space 
recommends that client space stations being serviced should not need to 
obtain a license modification unless the client space station will need 
to use new or unlicensed frequencies during or following the servicing. 
For U.S.-licensed client space stations, the Commission tentatively 
agrees with Starfish that cases are limited where client operators 
should be required to modify authorizations, but it does not propose to 
set forth specific scenarios in which a client need not obtain a 
modification. While some ISAM activities, such as inspection or repair, 
might not result in changes that necessitate a modification, other 
activities, including orbital transfer or mission extension, could 
change the client's orbital location, which could alter the parameters 
of frequency operations and orbital debris mitigation information that 
was reviewed and authorized by the Commission. As ISAM capabilities are 
still developing, the Commission tentatively concludes it is in the 
public interest to assess whether a client space station operator 
should obtain a license modification on a case-by-case basis, rather 
than attempt to lay out all possible scenarios that would require 
modification. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
    21. To facilitate review of whether a client space station must 
seek a modification, the Commission proposes to include a requirement 
in its new proposed Sec.  25.126 for ISAM space station applicants to 
provide a list of FCC file numbers or call signs for all related space 
stations, including experimental applications and grants and other 
applications and grants under part 25. This requirement is similar to 
the requirement in the Commission's streamlined process for small 
satellites and small spacecraft, but the Commission proposes to expand 
what it considers to be ``related'' applications and grants in the 
context of ISAM applications. It proposes that related applications and 
grants would include not only space stations operated by the

[[Page 18880]]

same operator, but could also include client space stations, space 
stations that have become debris the applicant seeks to remediate, and 
other space stations the applicant plans to interact with or 
collaborate with as part of its operations. The Commission proposes to 
require this information from all applicants that fit within its 
proposed definition of ISAM space stations, whether the operator is 
applying under the Commission's regular part 25 process or its 
streamlined processes under Sec. Sec.  25.122 and 25.123. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    22. International Servicing and Client Operations. The NOI asked a 
number of questions regarding how to license ISAM space stations that 
may plan to interact with a non-U.S.-licensed space station. When 
considering U.S.-licensed space stations interacting with non-U.S. 
client space stations, Blue Origin asserts that the Commission should 
only seek the name of the client space station, its licensing 
administration, and associated ITU filings because the client is not 
seeking U.S. market access and so there should be no spectrum 
management concerns to address. Despite this suggestion, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that spectrum management may be implicated in 
certain cases when U.S.-licensed space stations interact with or 
service non-U.S. licensed space stations, given that there may be a 
wide range of factual scenarios, including servicing for the purpose of 
altering the location at which a client spacecraft operates or altering 
other technical characteristics of operations. The Commission also 
believes sufficient information concerning the proposed operations must 
be available to ensure that an authorization is in the public interest. 
For example, a servicing mission that contemplates facilitating client 
space station operations fundamentally inconsistent with U.S. 
interests, such as operations that might interfere with other U.S. 
satellites, should be identified in the authorization process. 
Likewise, the Commission does not propose to presume that client space 
station operators are in possession of a license, as Starfish suggests. 
That approach might, for example, result in the servicing mission 
facilitating an activity by the client satellite that has not been 
authorized by the administration to which it is subject. Therefore, for 
client space stations licensed outside of the United States, both with 
or without U.S. market access grants, the Commission proposes to 
require that the license applicant provide the client's ITU filings and 
UN registration information, as well as a discussion of regulatory 
requirements to which the client satellite and its operators are 
subject, and the status of any regulatory approvals required for the 
client satellite's participation in the servicing activity. This 
baseline information may also facilitate any necessary coordination 
with other U.S. government agencies, such as the State Department. The 
Commission proposes to require this information in its proposed new 
rules for applications for ISAM space stations to be located in Sec.  
25.126. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    23. International Coordination. Aerospace argues that it would be 
impractical and unreasonable to require an operator to undergo the 
ITU's seven-year coordination process for frequencies it will use to 
service a single satellite and will not use once it moves away from 
that satellite. Aerospace suggests that notifying the 
Radiocommunications Bureau at the ITU of a commercial ISAM mission 
would be a prudent alternative and coordination could be accomplished 
for TT&C operations used throughout the life of an ISAM space station. 
The Commission recognizes the current ITU process poses challenges to 
ISAM operators, but the ITU Radio Regulations are a treaty by which the 
United States is bound, and the Commission cannot unilaterally modify 
what activities and frequencies need to be coordinated with the ITU 
through a rulemaking process. The Commission therefore proposes not to 
accept Aerospace's suggestion that it simply notify the 
Radiocommunications Bureau at the ITU of a commercial ISAM mission 
instead of coordinating in accordance with ITU Radio Regulations. But 
the Commission does propose, as part of ongoing work on ISAM 
activities, to continue to coordinate with other federal agencies, 
including the State Department, to support international servicer-
client arrangements. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

D. Orbital Debris Mitigation and ISAM Space Stations

    24. The NOI sought comment on orbital debris mitigation concerns 
specific to ISAM activities in general. Specifically, the Commission 
sought comment on how ISAM activities might not fit into its current 
orbital debris mitigation requirements, for example by storing fuel on-
orbit rather than using or depleting fuel (refueling depots), or by 
creating debris as byproducts of servicing or manufacturing activities, 
and how the Commission might modify its current orbital debris 
mitigation requirements to account for the additional risks that ISAM 
operations may pose.
    25. At this time, the Commission tentatively concludes to retain 
the same orbital debris mitigation requirements for ISAM operators as 
for other space station operators. As stated in the NOI, the 
Commission's orbital debris mitigation requirements apply to all space 
station operators, including operators of ISAM space stations. The 
Commission notes that its current orbital debris mitigation rules are 
performance based, in that they require demonstration of results rather 
than dictating specific methods operators must use to meet those 
results, and so the Commission proposes that it does not need to modify 
its rules for ISAM communications to accommodate requests in the record 
for performance-based orbital debris mitigation requirements for ISAM 
space stations. The Commission's orbital debris mitigation requirements 
are also based on the United States government's Orbital Debris 
Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) developed by NASA. The Commission 
therefore does not propose to modify its orbital debris rules at this 
time or to require additional orbital debris mitigation showings for 
ISAM space stations in general. Rather the Commission proposes that 
ISAM operators will either comply with orbital debris requirements 
under the regular part 25 licensing process, or under the small 
satellite or small spacecraft processes, if they apply under those 
streamlined licensing processes. The Commission proposes to include a 
requirement that applicants for ISAM space stations submit the orbital 
debris mitigation information under the rules of their chosen 
application process in the proposed new Sec.  25.126, as part of the 
proposal to clearly lay out the application process for ISAM operators 
in that section. The Commission also proposes to review any 
applications for ISAM space stations on a case-by-case basis, just as 
it does with other license applications, to ensure compliance with its 
orbital debris mitigation requirements. The Commission believes this 
approach will maximize operator flexibility and therefore allow ISAM 
technologies and capabilities to develop while allowing the Commission 
to ensure continued orbital safety for all operators. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposed approach.
    26. ISAM Activities that May Pose Additional Risks. The Commission 
notes that commenters suggest that some ISAM activities, such as 
refueling, life extension, and orbital transfer

[[Page 18881]]

activities, along with assembly and manufacturing activities, might 
pose additional risks for creating orbital debris by way of increased 
risk of accidental explosions, increased risk of release of debris 
during normal operations, increased risk of collisions, or decreased 
post-mission disposal reliability, and therefore these space stations 
must not be held to lesser standards than other operators and must be 
examined closely by the Commission. It seeks comment on whether its 
current orbital debris mitigation rules are sufficient to protect the 
orbital environment from these additional risks. Are there additional 
specific orbital debris showings the Commission should consider for 
these activities?

E. Orbital Debris Remediation Activities

    27. The NOI asked a series of questions to gain information on the 
state of orbital debris remediation technologies and industry 
development, including whether and how the Commission should consider 
ADR as part of an applicant's orbital debris mitigation plan and what 
actions the Commission could take to promote growth and innovation for 
ADR. The Commission agrees with commenters that ISAM activities can 
play a role in orbital debris remediation and space sustainability. 
Aerospace asserts that some ADR technologies, such as tow truck, 
robotics, and RPO technologies, are at a high level of readiness and 
reliability, while other technologies, including for capture and 
stabilization of debris with high spin or tumble rates, are at a much 
lower level of technological readiness and reliability.
    28. The Commission proposes that operators engaging in ADR and 
similar orbital debris remediation activities could seek authorization 
through the same process for ISAM space stations outlined in the NPRM, 
including requiring space stations conducting ADR to demonstrate 
compliance with the Commission's orbital debris rules. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal. In particular, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether it should impose additional requirements on 
applicants for ISAM space stations conducting debris remediation 
activities to mitigate potential additional risks from these 
activities.
    29. In response to the NOI's queries on whether ADR should be 
factored into post-mission disposal requirements or otherwise be 
fostered by Commission action, commenters suggest the Commission make 
clear that ADR is permitted as a means to demonstrate compliance with 
the Commission's orbital debris rules and recommend that the Commission 
encourage all space station operators to include navigational aids and 
grappling fixtures to assist with potential ADR. The Commission agrees 
that acknowledging third-party services as an option for post-mission 
disposal will likely further its goals of promoting innovation and 
growth of ADR and will also likely provide additional flexibility to 
applicants when considering their end-of-life disposal options. To 
date, the Commission's rules do not prescribe any particular method of 
end-of-life disposal of NGSO space stations, and instead the Commission 
reviews an applicant's orbital debris mitigation plans for such 
disposals on a case-by-case basis. The Commission has previously stated 
that it did not intend to dismiss or foreclose direct retrieval as a 
method of end-of-life disposal and that disposal plans involving direct 
retrieval would be evaluated if direct retrieval were implemented in 
the future. As such, the Commission does not propose to modify its 
rules to list ADR explicitly as a post-mission disposal method. The 
Commission notes that the ODMSP stresses the importance of ensuring 
that orbital debris remediation activities do not risk creating debris 
greater than the debris the operation seeks to remediate, and the 
Commission therefore proposes that plans to use ADR for post-mission 
disposal will continue to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, 
including review of the risk of generating debris greater than the 
debris the operation seeks to remediate and human casualty risk for 
remediated debris disposed of through atmospheric reentry, along with 
compliance with the Commission's other orbital debris mitigation rules. 
The Commission believes its proposal to review use of ADR for post-
mission disposal on a case-by-case basis is in line with its proposal 
to review all ISAM space stations, including ISAM space stations 
conducting ADR activities, on a case-by-case basis and will allow 
maximum flexibility for operators, thereby fulfilling the Commission's 
goal of promoting growth in the industry. The Commission seeks comment 
on this approach.
    30. Additionally, the Commission believes that Aerospace's 
suggestion that the Commission require ADR plans as a back-up for large 
constellations' post-mission disposal plans has merit for 
consideration. In cases of large constellations, as Aerospace points 
out, numerous defunct satellites could be left in orbit even while 
meeting the Commission's current post-mission disposal requirements. 
Given that the technology for ADR is still nascent and developing, 
however, the Commission does not propose to adopt rules on this issue 
at this time, but it expects to consider this possibility in the 
future.
    31. The NOI asked specifically whether an operator bond associated 
with removal would be an appropriate mechanism for ensuring ADR. 
Commenters responding to the NOI present a range of views regarding 
potential bonds associated with post-mission disposal reliability, from 
support for the proposal, to requests for further study, to concerns 
that a bond would chill innovation and be less effective than strong 
orbital debris mitigation requirements. The Commission agrees that 
further consideration of this issue is warranted, but as it is also 
continuing to consider post-mission disposal bonds in general in its 
orbital debris proceeding, it defers this issue as related to ISAM and 
debris remediation to a later time when it can consider it more fully.
    32. Finally, despite the suggestions of some commenters, the 
Commission defers proposals to modify regulatory and application fees 
to appropriate regulatory or application fee proceedings in the future. 
The Commission is required by the Communications Act to collect 
application fees and regulatory fees. The Communications Act provides 
specific exemptions from application fees and regulatory fees. 
Moreover, the Commission's authority to waive application fees or 
regulatory fees is limited to specific instances and the Commission has 
consistently rejected consideration of waiving such fees for classes of 
applicants or regulatees. As this proceeding progresses, the Commission 
will propose any relevant regulatory fee or application fee updates for 
ISAM space stations as part of future Commission's regulatory and 
application fee proceedings.

F. Radiofrequency Spectrum To Support ISAM

    33. The Commission tentatively concludes that various communication 
activities in support of ISAM can potentially operate within several 
existing service allocations, and it proposes to review ISAM operators' 
requests for frequency use on a case-by-case basis, consistent with its 
process for reviewing requests for frequency use for small satellites 
and small spacecraft. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    34. Communication Operations and Service Allocations. ISAM space 
station operations will require the use of telemetry, tracking, and 
command (telecommand) (TT&C), as several

[[Page 18882]]

commenters note. Numerous commenters also explain that ISAM space 
stations may, at times, require other communications for limited 
duration, such as video, imaging, location sensing information, other 
status information, and other data downlink and suggest that TT&C 
allocations alone will not cover all stages of most ISAM operations. 
Commenters also raise the need for communications between space 
stations, such as between a servicing space station and a client or 
between multiple space stations supporting a common and complex 
assembly or manufacturing mission and note that these communications 
may likely occur at low power given the proximity of the space stations 
involved. Commenters indicate that ISAM frequency use will need to be 
agile, changing to communicate with client satellites or to avoid 
interfering with GSO satellites as an ISAM space station transits close 
to the GSO arc. NTIA and Aerospace also note that ISAM space stations 
could utilize relay satellites or satellite networks for data downlink 
and other communications.
    35. Numerous commenters suggest that the space operation service 
(defined in 47 CFR 2.1(c)), fits well with some aspects of ISAM 
operations, particularly TT&C needs, but several also note that the 
space operation bands are already encumbered by federal users and 
others assert that some communications needs for ISAM space stations 
may not fit in this service. Some suggest that space research service, 
fixed-satellite service (FSS), mobile-satellite service (MSS), inter-
satellite service, or even Earth-exploration satellite service (EESS) 
allocations (all defined in Sec.  2.1(c) of the Commission's rules), as 
well as experimental licensing and other flexible options could be 
construed to allow for certain ISAM operations. The Commission's rules 
define service allocations according to the ITU definitions, and the 
Commission relies on these definitions as it considers requests for 
frequency authorization as part of its licensing process. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that various ISAM operations could fit 
within numerous service allocation definitions. For example, the 
Commission need not read the definition of space research services, ``a 
radiocommunications service in which spacecraft or other objects in 
space are used for scientific or technological research purposes,'' to 
be fundamentally at odds with commercial satellite operations given 
that the plain language of the definition does not exclude commercially 
based scientific or technological research operations. Additionally, 
the Commission proposes that the space operation service, which is 
``concerned exclusively with the operation of spacecraft, in particular 
space tracking, space telemetry, and space telecommand,'' need not be 
as narrowly construed as some commenters seem to suggest. For example, 
CONFERS states that the space operation service ``is not meant for 
downlinking ISAM payload data.'' However, the Commission tentatively 
concludes that at least some ISAM operations could fall within the 
scope of the space operation definition, especially if the data in 
question is related to ``the operation of spacecraft.'' At the same 
time, the Commission notes that certain service allocations, such as 
EESS which is focused on ``[i]nformation relating to the 
characteristics of the Earth and its natural phenomena, including data 
relating to the state of the environment,'' appear to be dedicated to 
operations that are not typically consistent with ISAM operations.
    36. The Commission proposes not to limit service allocation 
designations that might be possible for ISAM operations so long as the 
requested operations can justifiably fit within the service allocation 
definition. As such, the Commission proposes to continue its current 
practice of assessing whether an applicant's proposed ISAM operations 
fall within the applicant's desired service allocation(s) on a case-by-
case basis. This proposal is consistent with the Commission's 
considerations for small satellites, where the Commission recognized 
small satellite operators may engage in a variety of operations. Here, 
the Commission tentatively proposes to maintain as much flexibility as 
possible for ISAM operators to gain authorization for their operations 
so long as this does not interfere with other radiocommunications and 
justifiably fits within service allocation definitions. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also notes that current 
satellite services offer some flexibility of use and operation. For 
example, in certain cases, FSS operators are permitted to provide 
service to earth stations in motion (ESIM). Similarly, a single 
satellite constellation can be licensed to provide both FSS and MSS. 
Given the current state of ISAM development, and the variety of 
communications needs that ISAM operators may have, the Commission 
believes that continuing to work within available service allocations, 
with the modifications to the licensing process proposed in the NPRM, 
can address many of the frequency demands for ISAM in the near term. 
The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
    37. Proposed Exemptions Consistent with Spectrum Sharing 
Capabilities. In keeping with its proposal to provide flexibility in 
considering frequency authorization, the Commission proposes to exempt 
applicants for ISAM space station authorizations from NGSO-like 
processing rounds and from the GSO-like first-come-first-served queue, 
which they could otherwise be subject to under the current regular part 
25 satellite licensing regime. This proposal is largely consistent with 
the Commission's approach for NGSO small satellites and small 
spacecraft, which are exempt from processing rounds where spectrum 
sharing (that is, not materially constraining other operations in the 
requested frequency band(s)) is shown to be possible. Commenters have 
indicated that spectrum sharing is likely possible for many aspects of 
ISAM operations as well. However, here the Commission expands its 
proposal to include an exemption for GSO-like space station processes 
as well as NGSO because the Commission recognizes that ISAM space 
stations could seek to be authorized as a GSO-like space station, 
whereas the Commission's small satellite process focused on NGSO-only. 
The Commission tentatively concludes that ISAM-related communications 
licensing would not require processing rounds for NGSO operators or a 
first-come-first-served queue for GSO space stations if applicants can 
demonstrate that the proposed operations are technically able to share 
spectrum and not materially constrain future use of the band. Specific 
showings would be laid out in the proposed Sec.  25.126, as described 
above. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on any 
alternate approaches it should consider.
    38. Authorizing Frequency Consistent with Client Space Station 
Allocations. The Commission recognizes commenters' interest in the 
possibility of ISAM space stations receiving frequency authorization 
consistent with a client's authorization, also known as frequency 
``piggybacking.'' Under the Commission's current rules the MEV-1 and 
MEV-2 licenses allowed for frequency ``piggybacking'' with the client 
satellite for certain frequencies. For example, MEV-1, which is 
attached to and provides life extension services to the Intelsat 901 
satellite, is authorized to provide TT&C consistent with Intelsat 901's 
licensed frequencies and parameters. NTIA notes that ``[o]ne of the 
more straightforward opportunities for ISAM spectrum access is for ISAM

[[Page 18883]]

missions servicing [FSS and MSS]'' and asserts that those missions 
could use ``the same spectrum used by the `client' satellite'' as was 
done for the MEV-1. The Commission recognizes that such an approach may 
only be an option for a small portion of ISAM space stations, because 
the space stations would need to be designed with specific 
communications capabilities to match operational frequencies of client 
or partner satellites and may likely only fit with those providing 
servicing missions, like life-extension and repair. CONFERS also 
highlights that the option of relying on client frequencies will not 
work for operators engaged in debris removal. Given the identified 
limitations on this model, the Commission does not propose 
``piggybacking'' as an overall solution for ISAM-related frequency 
authorization; rather it notes that this option has been authorized 
under its existing rules in the past, without requiring a change to the 
Commission's rules.
    39. Specific Frequency Bands. The Commission views its regulation 
of radiofrequency in support of ISAM as an iterative process, and the 
Commission proposes to continue case-by-case review of frequency 
authorization, as opposed to proposing specific frequency bands for 
ISAM-related communications' use. In doing so, the Commission 
recognizes the benefit of expanding its experience with authorizing 
communications operations in support of ISAM missions. The Commission 
believes that creating a process for operators to identify as ISAM 
space stations will allow the Commission to gather important data and 
understanding regarding the future spectrum needs of ISAM operators. 
Additionally, the Commission recognizes that operators are already 
thinking creatively about various frequencies and service allocations 
that may be able to accommodate ISAM communication needs, as discussed 
above. Many commenters responding to the NOI are in favor of 
identifying spectrum to support ISAM operations on a protected basis 
(e.g., exclusive or co-primary). The Commission also notes that it 
deferred consideration of specific frequency bands that could be used 
for certain ISAM-related operations, such as RPO, from the Commission's 
space launch spectrum proceeding. Yet it does not wish to prematurely 
limit creativity and innovation for ISAM operators, and tentatively 
conclude that a case-by-case review will allow flexibility at this time 
as the Commission and other regulating bodies continue to evaluate the 
spectrum ecosystem holistically. The Commission's proposal to require 
frequency use authorization on a case-by-case basis is also consistent 
with its treatment of small satellite and small spacecraft, with the 
understanding that these operations would be carried out on a non-
exclusive, shared basis, and would not cause interference to incumbent 
operators. The Commission therefore does not propose specific bands at 
this time and seeks comment on this proposal.
    40. Less Traditional Spectrum Use. Finally, the Commission notes 
that innovation in spectrum use may open new pathways for ISAM-related 
frequency use in the future. Commenters provide a range of examples and 
suggestions of less traditional spectrum use, such as increased use of 
inter-satellite links, in-space radar systems to be used during 
proximity operations, and unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum for servicer-to-
client satellite communications, especially when in close proximity, 
e.g., during docking activities. These creative suggestions are 
evidence of the innovative nature of ISAM operations, but the 
Commission tentatively concludes that these suggestions will require 
further study or changes at an international level, and it does not 
propose any changes to its current rules in relation to these novel 
suggestions.

G. Digital Equity and Inclusion

    41. The NOI sought comment on ``any equity-related considerations 
and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the topics 
discussed'' in the NOI. Aerospace provided several comments addressing 
digital equity and inclusion in the ISAM industry. Aerospace states, 
``[m]aintaining satellite connectivity that is both consistent and 
affordable is becoming more essential to remote regions that include 
tribal lands and rural areas, as well as urban centers of typically 
underserved populations disadvantaged by socioeconomic factors.'' The 
Commission agrees that promoting growth of the ISAM industry could 
create a safer and more sustainable space environment, which will allow 
for more options for broadband service for unserved and underserved 
areas.
    42. Aerospace suggests that to promote digital equity and inclusion 
in the ISAM industry, the Commission should encourage inclusive 
business practices through incentive programs, such as reduced or 
waived regulatory fees and application filing fees for federally 
recognized small disadvantaged ISAM businesses and reduced or waived 
fees for debris-mitigating ISAM activities. Aerospace notes that loss 
of satellite connectivity caused by debris or interference could mean a 
complete internet blackout for rural and other unserved and underserved 
areas which lack ground connectivity infrastructure, and therefore the 
Commission should work to incentivize ISAM activities which mitigate 
debris. Aerospace is correct to note the importance of satellite 
connectivity, particularly in unserved and underserved regions, and 
ISAM activities, particularly servicing capabilities and debris 
remediation, have the potential to strengthen these networks to better 
serve these populations. As discussed above, however, the Commission 
does not propose to reduce or eliminate fees for space stations that 
adopt ISAM-compatible technology because the Commission is required to 
collect application filing and regulatory fees by Congress, and the 
Commission lacks authority to waive fees for whole categories of payors 
or to assess fees on factors other than cost of processing filings or 
regulatory burden.
    43. Aerospace also proposes specific regulations for the FCC to 
consider regarding spectrum which it states would benefit unserved and 
underrepresented populations. Specifically, Aerospace suggests that the 
``FCC could propose spectrum sharing schemes that pool spectrum for 
Small Disadvantaged Businesses developing or supporting ISAM technology 
dedicated to public interest efforts specific to underserved customers 
or for use by academia with underrepresented student populations.'' The 
Commission seeks additional comment regarding this proposal. It 
recognizes the Small Business Administration has regulations and 
programs for small disadvantaged businesses in the federal contracting 
space. Specifically, how might the Commission categorize ``small 
disadvantaged businesses'' in this context? Are there other categories 
of businesses, organizations, or academic institutions that such a 
program would be appropriate for? More broadly, how would such a 
program work? What would the benefits and drawbacks be?
    44. Finally, Aerospace suggests that the Commission consider 
regulatory changes to protect educational spectrum as a public good by 
requiring that educational spectrum licenses only be sold to other 
educational entities. Aerospace also recommends the Commission limit 
the number of leasing agreements for spectrum to prevent hording of 
spectrum that could be used for ISAM operations which will benefit 
unserved and underserved populations, as well as regulations preventing

[[Page 18884]]

harmful interference to spectrum users from vulnerable groups, such as 
farmers, coastal fishers, and gulf states during hurricane season, 
relying on accurate weather data. The Commission views these 
suggestions to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which is focused 
on developing rules to most effectively license ISAM space stations to 
nurture growth in the industry and ultimately benefit the public 
interest, and therefore it does not propose to incorporate Aerospace's 
suggestions into the proposed rule changes in this proceeding.
    45. ISAM is a nascent industry, and as such, the Commission is 
seeking additional comments on ways the Commission can continue to 
incentivize the growth of the ISAM industry through the proposals in 
the NPRM and beyond. Furthermore, as part of the Commission's 
continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people 
of color, people with disabilities, persons who live in rural or tribal 
areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, 
marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or 
inequality, it continues to invite comment on any equity-related 
considerations raised by the proposals made in the NPRM. Specifically, 
the Commission continues to seek comment on how the topics discussed 
and any related proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, 
equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope of the 
Commission's relevant legal authority.

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    46. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission requests written 
public comments on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses 
to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines provided on the first 
page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, 
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).

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

    47. The Commission advances the leadership role of the United 
States in space with a new framework for licensing space stations 
engaged in in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing, known as 
(ISAM), proposed in the NRPM. The NPRM reflects comments the Commission 
received in response to a Notice of Inquiry on ISAM (ISAM NOI), which 
requested comment on the current state of the industry, how the 
Commission can best support the sustainable development of the 
industry, and what tangible economic and societal benefits can result 
from the expansion of capabilities facilitating the sustainable use of 
space. The Commission seeks comment on several proposals relating to 
changes to the Commission's rules and policies for radiofrequency 
communication to foster the advancement of in-space servicing, 
assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) operations. The Commission believes 
effective radiofrequency communications will enable expansion of 
capabilities for space use and has proposed rules designed to 
facilitate and support growth.
    48. The licensing framework rules the Commission proposed in the 
NPRM would accommodate authorization under part 25 of the Commission's 
rules for commercial space stations engaged in ISAM operations. 
Adoption of the proposed changes would modify 47 CFR part 25 of the 
Commission's rules to make communication authorization for ISAM 
missions more accessible while promoting efficient use of spectrum. The 
ability of ISAM space station operators to apply under the existing 
small satellite and small spacecraft streamlined processes would be 
available to ISAM space station operators that meet the requisite 
requirements for the applicable process. Licensing under part 5 of the 
Commission's experimental licensing will also continue to be an option 
for licensing ISAM space stations that do not provide commercial 
service. The Commission's proposed approach in the NPRM to license ISAM 
space stations under its current rules, and to review ISAM applications 
on a case-by-case basis, will provide the industry with flexibility 
while ISAM capabilities develop, and will enable the Commission to 
continue developing a record on ISAM while gaining further experience 
licensing radiofrequency use for ISAM space stations.

B. Legal Basis

    49. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 301, 
302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    50. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    51. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, a little more than half of these 
providers can be considered small entities.
    52. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable

[[Page 18885]]

of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services (e.g., dial-up 
ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this 
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    53. The NPRM seeks public comment on proposed revisions to the 
Commission's rules governing satellite and earth station applications 
under 47 CFR part 25. Specifically, the NPRM proposes and seeks comment 
on several rule changes that will affect ISAM communications 
authorization procedures, reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements for space station operators. The Commission 
believes the proposed changes would decrease the burden in various 
regards for small entities that plan to launch and operate ISAM space 
stations.
    54. The NPRM proposes to add a new section to the Commission's 
rules, Sec.  25.126 Application for ISAM Space Stations, which 
clarifies application requirements for ISAM space stations in a single 
section. These proposals include documentation requirements largely 
consistent with those already established for an applicant under part 
25 of the Commission's rules. In proposed Sec.  25.126(a), applicants 
that meet the proposed definition of ``ISAM space station'' are 
directed to seek authorization and submit the requisite application 
information and materials either through the Commission's regular part 
25 process or through the streamlined processes for small satellites 
and small spacecraft. As such, ISAM space station license applicants, 
including small entities, that also meet the requirements to seek 
authorization under the Commission's current streamlined processes for 
small satellites or small spacecraft will be able to submit the 
information and certification required in Sec.  25.122 or Sec.  25.123 
rather than the regular part 25 authorization process.
    55. In the new Sec.  25.126(b), the Commission proposes to exempt 
small entities and other operators that meet the definition of ISAM 
space stations from non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) processing rounds 
and/or the first-come-first-served queue for geostationary orbit (GSO) 
operators, provided the applicant certifies that the operations of the 
space station(s) will be compatible with existing operations in the 
authorized frequency band(s), and submits a narrative to demonstrate 
spectrum sharing capabilities are technically possible, and that the 
operations will not materially constrain future space station entrants 
from using the authorized frequency band(s). While the exemption 
contains a certification and narrative submission requirement, the 
proposal is designed to provide more flexibility to small and other 
operators who may want to operate as a GSO or NGSO space station, while 
simultaneously providing interference protection for incumbent and 
future satellite operators. The proposed rule would also reduce the 
procedural requirements for small entities and other applicants.
    56. Pursuant to proposed Sec.  25.126(c), ISAM space station 
license applicants, including small entities, would need to provide the 
International Communications Filing System (ICFS) file number for any 
applications or Commission grants related to proposed operations (e.g., 
experimental license grants, other space station or earth station 
applications or grants), including but not limited to client space 
stations, space stations that have become debris the applicant seeks to 
remediate, and other space stations the applicant plans to interact 
with or collaborate with as part of its operations. Additionally, ISAM 
applicants working with space stations not licensed or granted market 
access by the United States would need to provide relevant information 
related to those operations, including ITU file numbers and a narrative 
description. However, since the international-related filing 
requirements would only pertain to operators working with space 
stations that are not licensed or granted market access by the United 
States, the requirement for applicants who do not have such working 
relationships is largely to provide the appropriate file numbers. 
Therefore, the Commission does not believe the inclusion of the 
proposed filing requirements in Sec.  25.126(c) will increase the 
procedural compliance burdens for small entities.
    57. As a mechanism for fostering the growth of the burgeoning ISAM 
industry the licensing framework proposal includes a one-year grace 
period for surety bonds for small and other ISM applicants, just as the 
Commission has done for operators applying through the small satellite 
and small spacecraft rules. The Commission seeks comment on whether any 
of the burdens associated with complying with the filing, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in its proposed licensing 
framework can be further minimized for small entities. Due to the 
proposed approach to license ISAM space stations under the Commission's 
current rules including allowing applicants to seek authorization under 
the Commission's current streamlined processes for small satellites or 
small spacecraft, the Commission does not expect that small entities 
will need to hire professionals to comply with any of the requirements 
for ISAM space station authorization. With regard to the compliance 
costs for small entities, at this time the Commission cannot quantify 
the compliance costs for small entities. The Commission therefore 
expects the information it received in comments to include cost and 
benefit analysis data which should help the Commission assess 
compliance costs. Industry input should also allow the Commission to 
identify and evaluate additional matters, and burdens relevant to small 
entities that may result from the proposals and inquiries it makes in 
this proceeding.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    58. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    59. The Commission's consideration of rule revisions to reflect 
changes and advances in the commercial space industry includes 
proposals in the licensing framework that would assist in reducing the 
economic impact for small entities such as exempting ISAM applicants 
from the surety bond requirement for one year after an ISAM license is 
granted, and not subjecting applications for ISAM space stations to

[[Page 18886]]

NGSO processing round procedures or the GSO operator queue. These 
proposals are designed to lower the regulatory burden involved in 
licensing ISAM operations and reduce application processing times, 
thereby lessening the burden of compliance on small entities with more 
limited resources than larger entities. The Commission considered not 
providing these exemptions, which would require ISAM operators, 
including small entities, applying under the Commission's regular part 
25 process to engage in a more lengthy and complex procedural process. 
ISAM applicants for example, could be placed in a processing round or 
required to submit requests for waiver, which the Commission believes 
may have a greater impact on small entities than the NPRM's proposal to 
exempt ISAM operators from these processes so long as they provide the 
requisite demonstrations for spectrum sharing. In the formulation of 
its surety bond requirement proposal, the Commission considered a 
recommendation that ISAM operators be allowed to demonstrate compliance 
with the policy objectives of the surety bond requirements in place of 
filing an actual surety bond. Implementation of this recommendation 
would introduce additional review into the licensing process on a 
larger scale than allowing individual applications to demonstrate such 
showings through a waiver request, which is currently an available 
avenue for applicants under the Commission's general waiver rules, 
therefore the Commission did not include this in the proposal.
    60. Small entities and other operators meeting the proposed 
definition of an ISAM space station would be required to include some 
additional information with their application by providing the ICFS 
file numbers for related applications or grants of authority, if this 
proposed rule is adopted. This requirement may ultimately lower the 
impact on small entities and other operators however, since providing 
the file numbers up front could lower the need for, and costs 
associated with additional follow-up and review at a later stage of the 
application process. Similarly, the Commission believes that the 
proposed requirement for ISAM applicants to provide relevant 
international filings for related space stations not licensed or 
granted market access by the United States while creating some 
additional steps on the front end, will ultimately lead to a smoother 
review process for small entities and other applicants who may be 
servicing or partnering with foreign-licensed space stations as part of 
their operations.
    61. Although the Commission ultimately proposed to continue the use 
of part 5 and 25 rules for the ISAM space station operation licensing 
framework, it considered various alternatives for the framework 
proposal. The Commission assessed for example the use of different 
licensing requirements for different types of ISAM activities. Rather 
than proposing to adopt different regulatory requirements, the 
Commission chose to propose a broad licensing framework for space 
stations that could be applicable to all activities that fall within 
the proposed definition of ISAM. The proposed licensing framework 
provides small entities and other ISAM space station applicants with 
several options to use to apply for authorization. The option available 
for small entities meeting the process requirements to utilize the 
Commission's existing streamlined processes for small satellites and 
small spacecraft as described in the NPRM should reduce the impact for 
these applicants because of the reduced burden of the streamlined 
processes. Small entities seeking Commission authorization as ISAM 
space station operators may already have experience, and familiarity 
with the existing processes, and have cost-effective and efficient 
internal procedures in place to execute the streamlined processes. To 
the extent a small entity does not meet the requirements for the 
streamlined processes for small satellites and small spacecraft and 
seeks authorization through the regular part 25 process, the proposed 
exemptions and reduced regulatory burdens discussed above will result 
in a less arduous and costly approach than would be available in the 
absence of the new section and other proposed rule changes. Small 
entities may also benefit from the continuation of the part 5 process 
as a means of authorization since several ISAM space stations have 
secured experimental licenses using this process. Similarly, the part 5 
process may be of assistance to small entity ISAM applicants with an 
interest in market trials.
    62. In response to the ISAM NOI, comments were filed involving 
spectrum regulation impacting small disadvantaged businesses. The 
Commission considered these comments which suggest the Commission 
propose spectrum sharing arrangements to pool spectrum impacting small 
disadvantaged businesses that develop, or support ISAM technology 
targeting underserved customers, or academic institutions with 
underrepresented student populations, and in the NPRM the Commission 
requested additional comment on this proposal, including how such 
arrangements would work, and the benefits and drawbacks of such 
arrangements. The Commission expects to consider this, and other issues 
discussed herein, as well as the economic impact on, and alternatives 
for small entities, based on its review of any comments filed in 
response to the NPRM and the IRFA.

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

    63. None.

V. Ordering Clauses

    64. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 
301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f), and 
303(r), the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    65. It is further ordered that, the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration, and shall cause it to be published in the Federal 
Register.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

    Administrative practice and procedure, Earth stations, Satellites

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 25 as follows:

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.103 by adding the definition of ``ISAM Space 
station'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  25.103  Definitions.

* * * * *
    ISAM Space station. A space station which has the primary purpose 
of conducting in-space servicing, assembly, and/or manufacturing 
activities used on-orbit, on the surface

[[Page 18887]]

of celestial bodies, and/or in transit between these regimes and which 
are supported by radiofrequency operations. Servicing activities 
include but are not limited to in-space inspection, life extension, 
repair, refueling, alteration, and orbital transfer of a client space 
object, including collection and removal of debris on orbit. Assembly 
activities involve the construction of space systems in space using 
pre-manufactured components. Manufacturing activities involve the 
transformation of raw or recycled materials into components, products, 
or infrastructure in space. ISAM space stations are eligible for 
authorization under the application process described in Sec.  25.126.
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec.  25.126 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.126  Applications for ISAM Space stations.

    (a) This section shall only apply to applicants for ISAM space 
stations as defined in Sec.  25.103. Applicants seeking authorization 
for ISAM space stations must submit a comprehensive proposal for 
Commission evaluation on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule S, as 
described in Sec.  25.114(a) through (c), together with the information 
required in Sec.  25.114(d)(14) or, if the applicant is seeking 
authorization under the streamlined processes for small satellites or 
small spacecraft, the information required in Sec.  25.122(c) and (d) 
or Sec.  25.123(b) and (c).
    (b) Applicants for ISAM space stations will not be placed in a 
processing round for NGSO-like operations under Sec.  25.157 or placed 
in a queue for GSO-like operations under Sec.  25.158, provided:
    (1) The applicant certifies that operations of the space station(s) 
will be compatible with existing operations in the authorized frequency 
band(s) and will not materially constrain future space station entrants 
from using the authorized frequency band(s); and
    (2) The applicant submits a narrative description of means by which 
requested spectrum could be shared with both current and future 
operators, (e.g., how ephemeris data will be shared, antenna design, 
earth station geographic locations) thereby not materially constraining 
other operations in the requested frequency band(s).
    (c) Applicants for ISAM space stations must also provide the 
following:
    (1) A list of the FCC file numbers or call signs for any 
applications or Commission grants related to the proposed operations 
(e.g., experimental license grants, other space station or earth 
station applications or grants), including but not limited to client 
space stations, space stations that have become debris the applicant 
seeks to remediate, and other space stations the applicant plans to 
interact with or collaborate with as part of its operations.
    (2) A list of the International Telecommunications Union filings 
and United Nations Registration information for any space stations not 
licensed or granted market access by the United States that are related 
to the proposed operations, including but not limited to client space 
stations, space stations that have become debris the applicant seeks to 
remediate, and other space stations the applicant plans to interact 
with or collaborate with as part of its operations.
    (3) For all related space stations included under paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section, a narrative description of the regulatory requirements 
to which these related space stations are subject and the status of 
licenses of these related space stations.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  25.137 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.137  Requests for U.S. market access through non-U.S.-licensed 
space stations.

* * * * *
    (b) Any request pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must be 
filed electronically through the International Communications Filing 
System and must include an exhibit providing legal and technical 
information for the non-U.S.-licensed space station of the kind that 
Sec. Sec.  25.114, 25.122, 25.123 or Sec.  25.126 would require in a 
license application for that space station, including but not limited 
to, information required to complete Schedule S. An applicant may 
satisfy this requirement by cross-referencing a pending application 
containing the requisite information or by citing a prior grant of 
authority to communicate via the space station in question in the same 
frequency bands to provide the same type of service.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  25.157 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.157  Consideration of applications for NGSO-like satellite 
operation.

* * * * *
    (i) For consideration of license applications filed pursuant to the 
procedures described in Sec. Sec.  25.122, 25.123, or Sec.  25.126 the 
application will be processed and granted in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
25.150 through 25.156, taking into consideration the information 
provided by the applicant under Sec. Sec.  25.122(d), 25.123(c), or 
Sec.  25.126(b) but without a processing round as described in this 
section and without a queue as described in Sec.  25.158.
0
6. Amend Sec.  25.158, by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.158  Consideration of applications for GSO-like satellite 
operation.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The procedures prescribed in this section do not apply to an 
application for authority to launch and operate an ISAM space station 
that meets the relevant criteria in Sec.  25.126(b). The procedures 
prescribed in this section also do not apply to an application for 
authority to launch and operate a replacement space station that meets 
the relevant criteria in Sec.  25.165(e)(1) and (e)(2) and that will be 
launched before the space station to be replaced is retired from 
service or reasonable time after the loss of a space station during 
launch or due to premature failure in orbit.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  25.165 by revising the introductory text of paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.165  Surety bonds.

    (a) For all space station licenses issued after September 20, 2004, 
other than licenses for SDARS space stations, space stations licensed 
in accordance with Sec. Sec.  25.122, 25.123, or Sec.  25.126, and 
replacement space stations as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, 
the licensee must post a bond within 30 days of the grant of its 
license. Space stations licensed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  25.122, 
25.123, or Sec.  25.126 must post a bond within one year plus 30 days 
of the grant of the license. Failure to post a bond will render the 
license null and void automatically.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-05389 Filed 3-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P