No, this is not a discussion of yucky medical issues dealing with scopes and growths. Why would you even think that? This is just more ground based excitement brought on by the FAA’s imminent release of its new commercial space transportation regulations. As discussed here and here, there are ways for you to optimize outcomes.
One way to avoid wasting your own time in commenting is to understand what an agency means by scope, and that it behooves us all to keep our comments within the scope of the FAA’s proposal . When an agency such as the FAA releases a notice of proposed rulemaking, it must share the proposed requirements with the public (that’s you). The proposed regulations establish the parameters– that is, the scope –of the rulemaking, and that’s what you should direct your comments toward. For example, you can recommend that the FAA not codify one of its proposed requirements. Provide good reasons. Show your work. You can even ask the FAA to modify what it’s proposing. Explain why the FAA should put an exception in its rule for operators such as you. Again, show your work.
What you don’t want to do– except for cathartic release –is bring up your wish list of all the changes you would like to see. If you do, the FAA will review that portion of your comments, wipe its regulatory brow in relief, and declare the comments addressing things the FAA didn’t address as “out of scope.” In other words, if the FAA proposes new regulations governing launch, it won’t pay much heed to your comments requesting changes in its reentry requirements. It’s not supposed to because it needs to give everyone else an opportunity to comment. Likewise, if the proposed changes would address risk, bringing up concerns regarding a system safety requirement may be out of scope. You may, of course, point out to the FAA that its proposed changes affect others requirements that it hadn’t thought about. That’s been known to happen. Indeed, it would be worthwhile to make that comment, because it would fall within the scope of the rulemaking, and then later you won’t have to live with inconsistent or even conflicting requirements.
Don’t feel bad about this out-of-scope protocol. It protects you. An agency must provide its regulated entities and the rest of the public an opportunity to comment on its proposed requirements. If it were to codify a new requirement or major change suggested by a commenter, it would deny the public, which includes other commenters, a chance to address it.
With all these concerns about an opportunity to comment, you might ask whether it is ok for the FAA to tweak and modify its requirements between its original notice of proposed rulemaking and its final rule, where it codifies what it proposed? It is mostly ok. The courts let agencies make changes that are logical outgrowths of the proposal. This is especially so if the agency’s preamble explores alternatives it considered, thus alerting the public (that’s you) to the possibility that those alternatives might yet be part of the agency’s requirements.
If the comment is within the scope of the original proposal, if an agency makes a reasonable attempt to accommodate commenters by responding to their suggestions for changes, those changes may be logical outgrowths of the original proposal. A final rule may differ from a proposed rule when the in-scope comments warrant the change by bringing up relevant facts or arguments. It almost has to, or what would be the point of commenting?
Just stay on topic.