I am reading the FAA’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for its launch and reentry licensing requirements. I just finished a very brave section explaining how the FAA and the federal ranges do not duplicate each other. The FAA wrote this despite pressure from industry and the White House, both of which are convinced that industry faces two different sets of requirements, those of the FAA and those of the ranges, for launching from a federal range such as the U.S. Air Force’s Cape Canaveral in Florida, Vandenberg in California, the Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, or NASA’s Wallops Flight in Virginia .
The FAA, as most readers here know, is the agency Congress charged with licensing and regulating U.S. commercial launch and reentry. Nonetheless, most launches still take places at federal launch ranges. The FAA can impose its regulations on launches anywhere in the country and on U.S. launch operators launching anywhere in the world. Although it can impose requirements within its own property, the Air Force or any other non-regulatory agency may not impose its rules on commercial launches from, for example, Spaceport America, which is not on an Air Force range. Instead, as a condition of allowing a private operator to use Air Force or NASA range facilities, the range attempts to reduce its liability exposure and achieve safety by asking its tenants to follow the same safety rules that it imposes on its own launches. Those safety requirements are conditions of the lease.
FAA and range requirements are already very similar. Years ago, the FAA and the Air Force attempted to avoid duplication when the FAA promulgated 14 C.F.R. part 417. When it first issued part 417, which contains the FAA’s safety requirements for the launch of expendable launch vehicles, the FAA and the Air Force formed an intra-governmental working group, the Common Standards Working Group. It was through this group that the FAA studied and codified the range safety requirements of the federal ranges. In other words, the FAA incorporated the range safety requirements as its own.
Neither agency thought duplication efficient so the FAA committed to conducting “launch site safety assessments,” in which it would regularly review the Air Force’s public safety requirements and practices to ensure compliance with part 417. See 14 C.F.R. § 417.101. Since the Air Force was the source of the FAA’s requirements, compliance seemed inevitable. Nonetheless, agency requirements may change, so the FAA said it would keep a list of where the two agencies diverged. It would only be when the FAA and the ranges differed that that the FAA would require a launch operator to demonstrate satisfaction of its requirements to the FAA. Otherwise, the FAA planned to rely on the ranges for safety oversight for launch. A quick review of parts 431, which applies to reusable launch vehicles, and part 435, which applies to all reentry vehicles, shows that the FAA does not rely on the ranges for oversight for reentry, perhaps, if memory serves, because at the time the FAA issued these rules, the ranges did not have reentry requirements.
Because the FAA adopted the range’s own safety requirements, it expected the ranges to satisfy them easily. With the ranges serving in the dual function of contractors to the FAA’s licensees, and as landlords enforcing their own safety requirements, it seemed likely to all concerned that–for any given safety requirement–a launch operator would only have to demonstrate satisfaction to one agency at a time. As the FAA noted in this year’s NPRM:
Currently, the FAA issues a safety approval to a license applicant proposing to launch from a Federal launch range if the applicant satisfies the requirements of part 415, subpart C, and has contracted with the range for the provision of safety-related launch services and property, as long as an FAA Launch Site Safety Assessment (LSSA) 22 shows that the range’s launch services and launch property satisfy part 417. The FAA assesses each range and determines if the range meets FAA safety requirements. If the FAA assessed a range, through its LSSA, and found that an applicable range safety-related launch service or property satisfies FAA requirements, then the FAA treats the range’s launch service or property as that of a launch operator’s, and there is no need for further demonstration of compliance to the FAA.
Proving safety to two agencies. Perhaps what some launch operators object to is having to demonstrate satisfaction of some requirements to one agency and others to a different agency. Where the requirements are common to the FAA and the Air Force or NASA–as many are now–the FAA accepts all the practices it has found acceptable. It looks like the FAA will continue this approach:
[T]he FAA proposes performance-based requirements for both ground and flight safety that an operator could meet using Air Force and NASA practices as a means of compliance. The FAA expects that there will be few, if any, instances where Air Force or NASA practices do not satisfy the proposed performance- based requirements. Additionally, the proposed requirements should provide enough flexibility to accommodate changes in Air Force and NASA practices in the future.
This places a burden on the FAA. if a range changes its practice, the FAA will have to assess it and let the space community know whether the community can rely on the changed practice. As shown here, the FAA has attempted to keep up to date in the past. If a new practice does not satisfy the FAA’s performance requirements, the launch operator will have to close the gap on its own, just as it has in the past. FAA licensees will, however, have to continue demonstrating satisfaction of public safety requirements to someone–either the FAA or the range.
Launch site safety assessments. Currently, the FAA documents differences between it and the ranges in its launch site safety assessments. Those assessments are supposed to be publicly available. Under the FAA’s proposed section 450.45(b), the FAA drops any reference to launch site safety assessments. How will license applicants and licensees know when they can rely on the ranges to comply with FAA requirements?
Well this post abslutely made me think! TY-I wouldn’t have thought of things this way otherwise.