In Congress, the industry is criticizing the FAA’s new licensing rules

WASHINGTON – Members of Congress and the space industry criticized the Federal Aviation Administration for implementing licensing regulations they say threaten America’s competitiveness in space.

A September 10 hearing by the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee on “encouraging business space innovation while maintaining public safety” became a platform for complaints about the launch series trade and the FAA’s re-entry regulations, known as Section 450, are intended to streamline the licensing process.

Many people in the launch industry have warned since the regulations took effect in March 2021 that it would be difficult for companies to obtain permits under Section 450. One witness, Bill Gerstenmaier of SpaceX , warned “the entire regulatory system is in danger of collapsing” due to difficulties in obtaining permits under the new regulations.

Witnesses at the House hearing made it clear that these concerns have not subsided. “The approach used today has caused significant licensing delays, confusion and jeopardizes our long-term leadership position,” said Dave Cavossa, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry group whose members include several startup companies.

He cited specific concerns such as the lengthy “pre-application” process with the FAA where companies, he said, are “stuck in endless back-and-forth” with the agency to determine whether how can they meet performance-based requirements. of Section 450 with limited guidance. “This process takes years,” he argued.

The FAA intends to address this through a series of documents known as advisory circulars, which outline ways in which license applicants can demonstrate compliance with the regulations. But Cavossa noted that the FAA has yet to publish many of the planned circulars.

Mike French, vice chairman of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Group (COMSTAC), agreed with those concerns, noting that the committee has made several recommendations to the FAA on ways to address problems with the Part of the 450. That included extending the 180-day period the FAA must review a completed license application to include other parts of the application process and allowing companies to use existing legacy regulations for those cases. no advisory circulars for new regulations. .

“We have a licensing regime with uncertainty, a lack of transparency and a lot of delay,” said Pamela Meredith, chairwoman of aerospace practice group KMA Zuckert LLC.

Members on both sides of the aisle share confusion about Section 450. “The licensing process under the new Section 450 process is moving at a snail’s pace,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chairman of the subcommittee.

He said he was worried about the consequences for NASA’s Artemis program, since the Human Landing System landers being developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin will start using commercial licenses. “I fear that at this rate, the Communist Party will produce taikonauts on the moon while US industry is connected to the Earth by red tape.”

“We are in the soup of the administration,” said Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) later in the hearing. “We know we’re not going to the moon unless we get a commercial spacecraft. So something is not working here. ”

The only person defending the Section 450 regulations at the hearing was Kelvin Coleman, the FAA’s director of commercial space transportation. He said his office has developed new tools to assist license applicants and is continuing to issue advisory circulars, as well as hold training sessions and “office hours” on the regulations. A budget increase in fiscal year 2024 allowed the office to grow to 158 people, and the FAA is seeking another increase in 2025 to hire more staff to help with licensing.

However, he admitted that the industry has moved slowly to the new regulations, with 6 out of 30 existing licenses moving to the new regulations. All existing licenses must transition to Section 450 by March 2026. “I would say March 2026, right now, looks pretty tough,” he said.

Coleman announced in February that the FAA would create an air traffic control committee, or SpARC, to study ways to improve the Part 450 licensing process. At the time, he said he hoped the committee would will be there in the fall.

SpARC has not been formed, but he said its charter is under review. “We hope it will stop soon.”

SpaceX Starship license delay

SpaceX was not represented in the case, but the issue of its licensing of its Starship launch vehicle came up during it. The company posted an update on its website as the lawsuit continues to complain about delays in obtaining a license for its next Starship flight.

“Starship and Super Heavy vehicles for Flight 5 are ready for launch from the first week of August,” the company said. “We have just received an estimated launch date of late November from the FAA, the government agency responsible for licensing Starship’s flight tests. This is a delay of more than two months to until the previously mentioned date of mid-September”.

SpaceX said the delay was due to an “extreme environmental assessment” related to issues such as the flood control system at its site and the change of the launch site for the “hot phase” segment. “The four open environment challenges are indicative of the challenges companies face in the current regulatory environment for startups and re-licensing,” the company said. SpaceX also sent a separate letter to the committee about its licensing issues that were put on the record.

Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) cited Starship’s license delay in the hearing. He said the FAA has promised to make a decision on SpaceX’s license renewal for the next flight by Sept. 17, but the company was notified last week that it will be delayed until Nov. 22. That put the FAA on track to miss the 180-day deadline, he said.

Coleman spoke about Starship’s license, which is under Section 450, later in the hearing. “SpaceX has four flights under its belt, three of which are still undergoing license changes requested by the company,” he said. Those changes are due to changes in work or car. “It’s a company that pushes the limits of each mission. That’s what speed is all about.”

That answer did not satisfy one member of the committee. “Do you realize that technology changes every day?” Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) told Coleman. “You are in charge. You make a difference. You can tell how quickly these pass, and if what you’re doing isn’t working, you need to change. ”

Related