{"id":550100,"date":"2018-11-24T15:51:42","date_gmt":"2018-11-24T19:51:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amsat-uk.org\/?p=32639"},"modified":"2018-11-24T15:51:42","modified_gmt":"2018-11-24T19:51:42","slug":"fcc-rejects-amsat-orbital-debris-petition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/?p=550100","title":{"rendered":"FCC rejects AMSAT Orbital Debris Petition"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"FCC<\/a>ARRL reports<\/a> the FCC has rejected a Petition for Reconsideration<\/a> that AMSAT filed 14 years ago, seeking to exempt Amateur Radio satellites from the FCC\u2019s satellite orbital debris mitigation requirements.<\/p>\n

The ARRL story says:<\/p>\n

The Commission took the opportunity in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on Reconsideration<\/a>, released on November 19, that revisits its orbital debris rules for the first time since their adoption in 2004. Among other things, AMSAT had argued at the time of its Petition that applying the orbital debris requirements to Amateur Radio satellites would be cost prohibitive, and that the FCC had not indicated what constitutes an acceptable orbital debris mitigation plan.<\/p>\n

Acknowledging that time has made some of AMSAT\u2019s arguments moot, the FCC said the costs involved with modifications to comply with post-mission disposal requirements \u201care justified when balanced against the public interest in mitigating orbital debris.\u201d The FCC said it determined that closer adherence to the disposal methods described in the rules was \u201cwarranted in order to limit the growth of orbital debris\u201d in low-Earth orbit (LEO).<\/p>\n

\u201cIn any event, in the years since the debris mitigation rules were adopted, and notwithstanding any costs imposed by FCC regulations, well over 150 small satellites have been authorized, with at least 20 of those considered amateur satellites,\u201d the FCC said in its November 15 Order on Reconsideration. \u201cIt appears that, to the extent that any costs have been incurred, the main contributor to costs for amateur and similar LEO missions has to do with the availability of launches to appropriate orbits.\u201d<\/p>\n

The FCC also said that in the years since the FCC issued its Orbital Debris Order, \u201cnumerous licensees, including amateur satellites operating in LEO, have successfully satisfied our orbital debris mitigation requirements.<\/p>\n

FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on Reconsideration
\nhttps:\/\/docs.fcc.gov\/public\/attachments\/FCC-18-159A1.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

2004 AMSAT Petition for Reconsideration
\nhttps:\/\/ecfsapi.fcc.gov\/file\/6516493220.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

2004 FCC Second Report and Order IB Docket No. 02-54
\nhttps:\/\/docs.fcc.gov\/public\/attachments\/FCC-04-130A1.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Source ARRL http:\/\/www.arrl.org\/news\/fcc-rejects-2004-amsat-petition-to-reconsider-applying-orbital-debris-rules-to-ham-satellites<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ARRL reports the FCC has rejected a Petition for Reconsideration that AMSAT filed 14 years ago, seeking to exempt Amateur Radio satellites from the FCC’s satellite orbital debris mitigation requirements. The ARRL story says: The Commission took the opportunity in … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":51,"featured_media":615444,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-550100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-AMSAT"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/550100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/51"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=550100"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/550100\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":550101,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/550100\/revisions\/550101"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/615444"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=550100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=550100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceweekly.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=550100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}