NASA Ames Cubesat

WASHINGTON: DoD, the Commerce Department and most of the satellite industry want FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to reconsider proposed new space debris rules they all consider seriously flawed.

Industry worries the proposed regulations go too far and would stifle innovation, especially in the booming small satellite sector — perhaps even barring use of some tiny cubesats.

“As written, the disclosure and risk mitigation requirements lack transparency and objectivity and would likely confuse, discourage, and disincentivize the continued growth of the U.S. satellite industry. Imposing additional regulations and costs on the satellite industry will stymie the commercial innovation that helps power the rapid development of a flexible, resilient, and sustainable space architecture,” wrote Eric Fanning, chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), in an April 14 letter to Pai. “This is an essential part of maintaining the U.S.’s global competitiveness in space and meeting our growing national security demands.”

On the other hand, DoD is fretting that the FCC may be undercutting some current best practices, sources say, especially with regard to how commercial and civil operators report their activities to DoD and the Commerce Department to ensure that their spacecraft can be tracked.

The problem, said one government official with direct insight into the debate, is that the independent FCC seemingly “wrote these proposed rules mostly (if not entirely) in a vacuum, potentially failing to ensure White House directions in Space Policy Directives 1-through-4 were fully accounted for, as well as other perspectives and equities spanning the broader interagency.”

The 18th Space Control Squadron, located at Vandenberg AFB, operates the military’s Space Surveillance Network (SSN) that detects and tracks adversary satellites, as well as other space objects. It provides warnings about potential collisions to satellite operators. Commerce has been tapped by the White House to launch a civil system to take over the collision warning job for commercial and foreign operators, so DoD can focus more on its military mission.

DoD also is concerned about how the rules might affect the commercial satellite providers licensed by the Defense Information System Agency (DISA) to provide support — largely communications — to military users in the field. Finally, the DoD space community is widely worried that the neither the FCC nor the US government writ large has moved far enough to protect satellites from potential collision in Low Earth Orbit as the number of small satellites in that region, up to about 2,000 kilometers in altitude, skyrockets.

Other government agencies share DoD’s views that the FCC, an independent agency rather than part of the Executive Branch, is haring off in a number of directions that do not comport with either the spirit or the letter of the interagency Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) agreed by the National Space Council in December.

The ODMSP recommendations apply to all space operators — including the Pentagon, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that regulates Earth observation satellites.

Breaking D readers know that the original FCC draft rules, published in November 2018, raised a hue and cry from other USG agencies involved in the ODMSP process (led by NASA) for jumping the interagency gun. If passed, the latest version of the rules could create problems for future interagency decision-making about space traffic management practices that currently are in nascent discussions (led by Commerce) under Space Policy Directive-3, signed in June 2018 by President Donald Trump.

If approved, the proposed new rules, contained in a 119-page document issued by the Federal Communications Commission April 3, would apply to all commercial and non-USG space operators (such as state and local governments) seeking a license from the FCC. The FCC has regulatory authority over use of the radio-frequency spectrum, including by satellites.

In some cases, the draft regulations are much more stringent than the agreed procedures under the ODMSP, industry officials complain.

“The draft Order includes new compliance rules for satellites that are much more aggressive than the standards employed by other expert federal agencies and will greatly increase costs for U.S. licensed satellite operators, in some cases beyond what is reasonably achievable,” warns the Satellite Industry Association (SIA), in a detailed six-page FCC submission provided to Breaking Defense.

For example, as I reported when the draft rules were released, a number of operators of small satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) are protesting the FCC’s proposed requirement that satellites orbiting above that of the International Space Station (ISS, at 400 kilometers in altitude) are able to maneuvering to avoid potential collisions. Industry representatives say this could cost small satellite operators millions to revamp current satellite designs, and put some operators of tiny cubesats — such as NASA-backed universities doing experimental work — completely out of the satellite business.

In particular, satellite firms are up in arms about proposed requirements they will indemnify the US government against costs associated with a claim under international law resulting from a US-licensed spacecraft causing damage to another. Not only do company representatives say this requirements is vague and thus could heap huge, impossible to plan for costs onto operators, they challenge the FCC’s legal authority to impose such a requirement.

“The FCC cites no statutory authority for requiring indemnification, stating only that imposing this obligation ‘strengthens the incentives of applicants to mitigate risks’,” SIA states.

“Imposition of a U.S. license condition requiring indemnification could lead to forum shopping — encouraging entities to apply for licenses from foreign administrations to the detriment of the U.S. space industry,” the group adds.

In other cases, industry and USG sources agree, the proposed rules are simply vague and confusing, particularly with regard to disclosure and reporting requirements. For example, the SIA points out that there are 44 separate requirements that leave it up to the FCC to decide on an unspecified “case-by-case” basis whether or not to approve an operator’s plans.