Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65835 

project mission statement states: ‘‘To 

modernize Alaska’s Air Traffic Service 

route structure using satellite-based 

navigation development of new T-routes 

and optimization of existing T-routes 

will enhance safety, increase efficiency 

and access, and will provide en route 

continuity that is not subject to the 

restrictions associated with groundbased airway navigation.’’ 

As part of this initiative, the Aniak 

NDB is scheduled to be 

decommissioned. As a result, a portion 

of Alaskan V–508 will become 

unusable. This airspace action proposes 

to amend the Alaskan V–508 by 

revoking the portion of the airway that 

relies on the Aniak NDB. The FAA 

published a final rule for Docket No. 

FAA–2022–0245 in the Federal Register 

(88 FR 50018; August 1, 2023) effective 

October 5, 2023, establishing Area 

Navigation (RNAV) T-route, T–380. This 

RNAV route was established, in part, to 

provide alternative to VOR Federal 

Airway V–508. The portion of Alaskan 

V–508 that is proposed to be revoked is 

paralleled by T–380. 

The Proposal 

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR 

part 71 by amending Alaskan VOR 

Federal airway V–508. The proposed 

airspace actions are described below. 

V–508: The Alaskan Federal Airway 

V–508 extends between the Middleton 

Island, AK, VOR/DME, Kenai, AK, VOR/ 

DME, Sparrevohn, AK, VOR/DME and 

the Aniak, AK, NDB. The FAA proposes 

to revoke the portion of the Alaskan 

Federal Airway V–508 that extends 

between the Sparrevohn, AK, VOR/DME 

and the Aniak, AK, NDB. As amended, 

Alaskan Federal Airway V–508 would 

extend between the Middleton Island, 

AK, VOR/DME; Kenai, AK, VOR/DME; 

to Sparrevohn, AK, VOR/DME. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore: (1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as 

the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11H, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 11, 2023, and 

effective September 15, 2023, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6010(b); Alaskan VOR Federal 

Airways. 

* * * * * 

V–508 [Amended] 

From Middleton Island, AK; Kenai, AK; to 

Sparrevohn, AK. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

20, 2023. 

Karen L. Chiodini, 

Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20732 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 401, 404, 415, 417, 431, 

435, 437, 450, and 453 

[Docket No.: FAA–2023–1858; Notice No. 

23–13] 

RIN 2120–AK81 

Mitigation Methods for Launch Vehicle 

Upper Stages on the Creation of 

Orbital Debris 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: To limit the growth of orbital 

debris, the FAA proposes to require that 

upper stages of commercial launch 

vehicles and other components resulting 

from launch or reentry be removed from 

orbit within 25 years after launch, either 

through atmospheric disposal or 

maneuver to an acceptable disposal 

orbit. Any artificial object left in orbit 

around the Earth which no longer serves 

a useful purpose can become a debris 

hazard in space. Orbital debris is all 

such human-generated debris in Earth 

orbit that is greater than 5 millimeters 

(mm) in any dimension. Collisions 

between and with orbital debris are a 

growing concern because prior to the 

establishment of the Inter-Agency Space 

Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) 

practices allowed these objects to 

accumulate in Earth orbit. Additionally, 

an increasing number of launch 

operators are launching assets into 

space at greater rates. If left unchecked, 

this accumulation can clutter useful 

orbits and present a hazard to 

operations on-orbit. This proposed rule 

would reduce the amount of additional 

debris created, as well as limit potential 

collisions with functional spacecraft 

and other debris already on-orbit. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

December 26, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2023–1858 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65836 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1Belk, C.A., J.H. Robinson, M.B. Alexander, W.J. 

Cooke, and S.D. Pavelitz. (1997). Meteoroids and 

Orbital Debris: Effects on Spacecraft. NASA 

Reference Publication 1408, Marshall Space Flight 

Center, AL. 

2 Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination 

Committee. (April 2013). Space Debris IADC 

Assessment Report for 2010. 

3 Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination 

Committee. (January 2013). Stability of the Future 

LEO Environment. 

4The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. 

(Retrieved April 28, 2020). Frequently Asked 

Questions. orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faq/# 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

533(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be viewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590–0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda Robeson, Office of Commercial 

Space Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

(202) 267–4712; brenda.robeson@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 

1984, as codified and amended at 51 

U.S.C.—Commercial Space 

Transportation, ch. 509, Commercial 

Space Launch Activities, 51 U.S.C. 

50901–50923 (the Act), authorizes the 

Department of Transportation and thus 

the FAA, through delegations, to 

oversee, license, and regulate 

commercial launch and reentry 

activities, and the operation of launch 

and reentry sites as carried out by 

United States (U.S.) citizens or within 

the United States. Section 50905 directs 

the FAA to exercise this responsibility 

consistent with public health and safety, 

safety of property, and the national 

security and foreign policy interests of 

the United States. Pursuant to § 50903, 

the FAA is also responsible for 

encouraging, facilitating, and promoting 

commercial space launches by the 

private sector. 

List of Definitions and Acronyms 

Frequently Used In This Document 

Disposal (storage) orbit—an orbit 

intended for post-mission long-term 

storage where atmospheric effects and 

solar radiation will not move the 

disposed object into a protected orbit for 

at least 100 years. 

ISS—International Space Station. 

NASA—National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

Spacecraft—vehicles, payloads, and 

other manmade objects that are 

designed to for placement or operation 

in outer space. For example, spacecraft 

include satellites, inhabitable space 

stations, inhabitable capsules, and cargo 

vehicles. 

Transfer orbit—a temporary orbit on 

which an object travels to move from 

one orbit to another. 

Upper stage—a segment of a launch 

vehicle that reaches orbit. 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would require an 

operator licensed or permitted under 

this chapter to perform a launch or 

reentry with a planned altitude greater 

than 150 kilometers (km) to limit or 

dispose of debris at the end of a launch 

or reentry to maintain a sustainable 

space environment. The FAA proposes 

to require that operators licensed or 

permitted under parts 415, 417, 431, 

435, 437, or 450, to perform a launch or 

reentry with a planned altitude greater 

than 150 km submit an Orbital Debris 

Assessment Plan (ODAP)—including 

physical evidence, test results, and 

analyses to demonstrate removal 

activities—prior to each operation. This 

notice proposes that if debris— 

including spent upper stages and other 

components—is released during launch 

or reentry, during on-orbit aspects of 

launch or reentry, or during disposal 

operations, any pieces greater than 5 

mm in size must be removed from 

highly-used regions within 25 years. 

The FAA proposes to allow operators to 

meet this criterion by performing one of 

five disposal options. Operators may 

choose to dispose of the debris within 

30 days of mission completion through 

(1) controlled disposal; (2) maneuver to 

a disposal orbit; or (3) Earth-escape 

orbit. Alternatively, an operator could 

elect to (4) retrieve the debris within 5 

years of mission completion; or (5) 

perform atmospheric uncontrolled 

disposal or natural decay within 25 

years, if the debris disposal meets the 

risk criteria. 

The FAA notes that many launches, 

as they are currently conducted, would 

already be in compliance with the 

operational requirements of the 

proposed regulation. The FAA also 

proposes to amend the reporting 

requirements governing debris creation. 

The FAA would require the reporting of 

a non-nominal launch or a debriscreating anomaly to the FAA. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Orbital debris is made up of 

fragmented material (resulting from 

anti-satellite tests, upper stage 

explosions, accidental collisions, etc.), 

nonfunctional spacecraft, rocket bodies, 

and mission-related items (explosive 

bolts, vehicle shrouds, etc.),1 but 

excludes naturally-occurring debris 

such as meteoroids. As more and more 

spacefaring nations launch objects into 

Earth orbit, space is becoming 

increasingly crowded with orbital 

debris.2 If left unchecked, orbital debris 

can diminish the usefulness of certain 

orbits and present a hazard to 

operations on-orbit. Current 

international modeling indicates that 

even if there were no further space 

launches, collisions between objects 

already in space will eventually become 

the major source of debris.3 This threat 

could soon escalate dramatically with 

the deployment of large constellations 

of small satellites in the alreadycongested Low Earth Orbit (LEO) region. 

As of 2021, the number of orbital 

objects sized 10 centimeters (cm) or 

greater is estimated to be over 23,000. 

Recent debris projections estimate a 

total of half a million objects sized 

between 1 and 10 cm on orbit, and over 

100 million objects larger than 1 mm.4

Each Earth orbit has a specific 

usefulness and needs to be protected 

from accumulated orbital debris. LEO is 

commonly used for Earth observation, 

communications, and scientific 

experiments. LEO is also the region 

where most human spaceflight activities 

take place. Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) 

contains space navigation satellites and 

some communications missions 

covering the North and South poles. 

Space objects in Geostationary Earth 

Orbit (GEO) typically support 

communications and weather missions. 

A transfer orbit is a temporary orbit that 

a launch vehicle uses to move from one 

orbit into another. A common transfer 

orbit is the GEO transfer orbit used to 

place spacecraft into GEO. The upper 

stage often remains in the GEO transfer 

orbit with an apogee near the GEO 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65837 

5Portree, D.S.F. and Loftus, J.P. (January 1999.) 

Orbital Debris: A Chronology. NASA/TP–1999– 

208856. 

6Squire, M., et al. (2015). Joint Polar Satellite 

System (JPSS) Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris 

(MMOD) Assessment, NASA/TM–2015–218780. 

region and the perigee in LEO. 

Spacecraft typically occupy LEO, MEO, 

or GEO, but can operate in other less 

congested orbits. The areas outside LEO, 

MEO, and GEO have been known as 

acceptable disposal orbits for upper 

stages and discarded satellites because 

they are not frequently used by active 

satellites. Figure 1 illustrates the various 

levels of Earth orbit including disposal 

orbit regions. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

Debris in space travels at 

hypervelocities. On average, collisions 

in LEO occur at a closure rate, or 

combined velocity at impact, over 10 

km per second.5 This is more than 11 

times faster than a bullet. At those 

speeds, an impact to a typical 

operational spacecraft by debris 5 mm 

and larger will most likely cause 

damage to critical systems that ends the 

mission of the spacecraft.6 As seen in 

Figure 2, the main threat to operational 

spacecraft (abbreviated to ‘‘S/C’’ in 

Figure 2) in LEO is the debris in the 

range of 5 mm to 1 cm, primarily due 

to the sheer number of objects in this 

range. However, large objects greater 

than 1 meter, including discarded upper 

stages, are the main driver for debris 

growth. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26SE23.027</GPH>
65838 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

7Liou, J. C. (2011). Engineering and Technology 

Challenges for Active Debris Removal. Figure 4, 

page 8. Presented at the 4th European Conference 

for Aerospace Sciences. Ibid. 8Williamson, M. (2006). Space: The Fragile 

Frontier, American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics, Inc. 9The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. (April 

2009). Satellite Collision Leaves Significant Debris 

Clouds. NASA JSC Orbital Debris Quarterly News, 

13(2), page 1–2. 

10Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, 

Aerospace Corporation. (December 2004). Space 

Debris Basics: What Are the Risks? 

11Only some of the upper stages on-orbit result 

from U.S. commercially licensed launches. 

12The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. (May 

2019). Monthly Mass of Objects in Earth Orbit by 

Object Type. NASA JSC Orbital Debris Quarterly 

News, 23(1 & 2), page 13. 

13European Space Agency. (Accessed on April 4, 

2023). Short Introduction to ESA’s Zero Debris 

Approach, blogs.esa.int/cleanspace/2023/01/12/ 

short-introduction-to-esas-zero-debris-approach/ 

#:∼:text=The%20ESA%20Zero%20Debris

%20Approach%20is%20the%20Agency

%E2%80%99s,the%20catastrophic

%20degradation%20of%20the%20LowEarth%20Orbit%20environment. 

In addition to causing catastrophic 

breakups, orbital debris impacts on 

functioning satellites or spacecraft can 

also degrade performance, pit or crack 

windows, mar surfaces of solar panels, 

damage optics, and degrade surface 

coatings.8 9 In 1984, a piece of orbital 

debris damaged the windshield of the 

Space Shuttle Challenger. A 4 mm 

diameter crater was made by a fleck of 

white paint approximately 0.2 mm in 

diameter, traveling 3–6 km/sec.10

As of 2021, approximately 95 percent 

of the total mass of human-generated 

objects in orbit is rocket bodies (i.e. 

upper stages) 11 and spacecraft. The 

remainder is mission-related debris and 

fragmentation debris.12 The more mass 

an object has, the more debris it will 

create in the event of an explosion or 

collision. 

The U.S. Government, for launches it 

conducts, has taken steps to mitigate 

orbital debris generation. Similarly, 

other countries are taking steps to 

mitigate debris generation during 

operations they oversee. This proposed 

rule would align U.S. commercial 

orbital debris mitigation practices for 

U.S. commercial launch operations with 

orbital debris mitigation practices 

accepted by the U.S. Government and 

certain other countries. For example, the 

European Space Agency (ESA) is 

implementing a Zero Debris Approach 

to stop the growth of orbital debris from 

their operations by 2030. ESA’s policy 

acknowledges that if the status quo of 

orbital debris generation continues, 

future on-orbit operations will be 

hindered unless actions like 

remediation (active debris removal) are 

enacted.13

If no mitigation measures are 

implemented, the projected growth of 

orbital debris is expected to rapidly 

increase, as Figure 3 shows. The growth 

rate, as estimated in 2011, assumed a 

steady launch rate based on annual 

launch rates and did not address the 

increase in satellite constellations. 

SpaceX alone has launched over 1,500 

satellites in its Starlink constellation as 

of August 2021. Several more 

companies have launched their own 

small satellite constellations. These 

small satellites are expected to have 

relatively short lifetimes, on the order of 

5 years. Even though many operators are 

following current best practices, those 

practices allow multiple generations of 

spent satellites to co-exist on-orbit. The 

graph in Figure 3 is based on trackable 

debris. Current technology tracks objects 

10 cm and larger, though debris between 

5 mm and 10 cm pose risks. The shaded 

areas around the solid lines are the 1- 

sigma uncertainty from 100 Monte Carlo 

runs of the growth model. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26SE23.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65839 

14Liou, J.-C. (2011). Engineering and Technology 

Challenges for Active Debris Removal. Presented at 

the 4th European Conference for Aerospace 

Sciences. 

15Anz-Meader, P.D., Johnson, N., Cizek, E., and 

Portman, S. (July 31, 2001). History of On-Orbit 

Satellite Fragmentation, 12th ed. NASA Lyndon B. 

Johnson Space Center Orbital Debris Program 

Office, Houston, TX, JSC29517. 

16 14 CFR 417.129(b) and (c) and § 450.171.(a)(2)– 

(3). 

17Liou, J.-C. (8 Feb 2022). U.S. Space Debris 

Environment and Activity Updates. 59th Session of 

the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 

United Nations. 

A launch vehicle is made up of a first 

stage and usually one or more upper 

stages. When a vehicle is launched into 

space, the first stage typically propels 

the vehicle through the bulk of the 

atmosphere, but does not reach orbit. 

The first stage falls back to Earth shortly 

after launch. The upper stage then 

ignites to put the payload into LEO or 

a transfer orbit. Typically, the upper 

stage deploys the payload in LEO, if that 

is the final payload destination; 

otherwise, it usually deploys the 

payload in the transfer orbit for payload 

destinations higher than LEO. 

Historically, the largest contributor to 

orbital debris was the explosion of 

upper stages.15 Defunct upper stages 

with charged batteries or partially 

fueled tanks would often experience 

catastrophic failures attributed to stored 

energy. Current regulations adequately 

address this issue by requiring launch 

operators to ensure that stored energy is 

removed from all launch vehicle stages 

or components.16 However, now the 

greatest risk regarding the growth of 

orbital debris population is collision 

between objects including upper stages 

on orbit. The strength of upper stage 

structures, along with their mass and 

size, pose a risk of catastrophic 

collisions that would create substantial 

amounts of orbital debris. The threat of 

fracturing such a large object can be 

mitigated by removing it from populated 

orbits. With this proposed rule, the FAA 

intends to ensure upper stages are 

properly disposed of at the end of 

launch to limit the growing orbital 

debris population. 

The impact of even one collision has 

a significant effect on the growth of 

orbital debris. Figure 4, generated by the 

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office,17

shows the predicted growth rate of 

orbital debris in LEO, as estimated in 

2022. This growth rate is based on the 

population of objects greater than or 

equal to 10 cm, which is primarily 

fragmented material. This figure 

portrays the growth of the orbital debris 

environment. The figure highlights 

collisions and intentional destruction of 

spacecraft as the largest contributors to 

the debris environment. The figure also 

highlights the recent and rapid growth 

of operational spacecraft as large 

constellations continue to proliferate. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26SE23.029</GPH>
65840 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

18The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. 

(April 2009). Satellite Collision Leaves Significant 

Debris Clouds. NASA JSC Orbital Debris Quarterly 

News, 13(2), page 1–2. 

19C.A. Belk, J.H. Robinson, M.B. Alexander, W.J. 

Cooke, and S.D. Pavelitz. (August 1997). Meteoroids 

and Orbital Debris: Effects on Spacecraft. NASA 

Reference Publication 1408, Marshall Space Flight 

Center, AL. 

20Williamsen, J., Blacklock, K., Evans, H.J., and 

Guay, T.D. (1999). Quantifying and Reducing 

International Space Station Vulnerability Following 

Orbital Debris Penetration. Journal of Spacecraft, 

36(1), page 1333–141. 

21 Kessler, D.J., Johnson, N., Liou, J.-C., and 

Matney, M., ‘‘The Kessler Syndrome: Implications 

to Future Space Operations’’, Presented at the 33rd 

Annual AAS Guidance and Control Conference, 

Paper AAS 10–016, Breckenridge, CO, February 6– 

10, 2010, Published in Vol. 137 of the Advances in 

the Astronautical Sciences Series. 

22NASA JSC Orbital Debris Quarterly News 14(1), 

page 7–8. 

23 In 2021, there were 135 successful worldwide 

orbital launches of which 39 were FAA licensed. 

The Iridium 33/Cosmos 2251 collision 

and the Chinese Fengyun-1C antisatellite test have been the worst debris 

creating events ever recorded. These 

two events contributed approximately 

5,900 catalogued objects to the 

environment. Launch vehicle upper 

stages are significantly more massive 

than any of the objects involved in these 

events and a catastrophic collision 

involving an upper stage would produce 

many more times the debris created in 

these events. 

Debris imposes a cost on active 

satellites. Maneuvering an active 

spacecraft to avoid collision with space 

debris will mitigate the immediate 

threat of collision, but doing so uses up 

valuable resources. It takes time and 

effort to plan a maneuver; and, in some 

cases, the fuel expended on the 

maneuver will lead to a shortened 

mission life for the spacecraft. Most 

importantly, only active spacecraft are 

capable of maneuvering, whereas upper 

stages have no maneuverability after the 

end-of-launch. Removing upper stages 

from congested orbits would lessen the 

likelihood of debris-on-debris collisions 

and would reduce the probability of 

active satellites maneuvering to avoid a 

collision. 

The first accidental hypervelocity 

collision between two intact spacecraft 

occurred in February 2009. The 

operational U.S. Iridium 33 

communications satellite and the 

defunct Russian Cosmos 2251 

communications satellite collided at a 

speed of 11.7 km/sec (26,172.2 mph), 

above northern Siberia.18 The collision 

destroyed both satellites and produced 

more than 2,300 pieces of trackable 

debris. 

The Chinese anti-satellite test and the 

Iridium/Cosmos collision were not the 

only orbital debris events to occur. In 

July 1996, a collision occurred between 

a French Cerise satellite and a briefcasesized piece of debris left in orbit from 

an exploded Ariane third stage. The 

impact tore off a 4.2 m section of the 

Cerise’s gravity-gradient stabilization 

boom.19

An example of orbital debris colliding 

with other orbital debris occurred on 

January 17, 2005, when a 31-year-old 

U.S. rocket body and a Thor-Burner 2A 

collided with a fragment from an 

exploded third stage of a Chinese CZ– 

4 launch vehicle. The collision occurred 

at an altitude of 885 km above the South 

Polar Region.20

If the amount of debris is not 

curtailed, the risk of future collisions 

between spacecraft and orbital debris 

will increase at a greater rate which will 

create more debris and degrade the 

usefulness of popular orbits. Fragments 

generated from one breakup can be large 

enough to catastrophically break up 

another target mass of the same size, 

continuing the cycle to create more 

debris. This cycle is referred to as the 

‘‘Kessler Syndrome.’’ 21

Figure 5 shows the projected 

accidental collision activity in LEO as 

determined using 100 Monte Carlo runs 

in NASA’s LEGEND model from 2010. 

An average of 8 to 9 collisions were 

expected to occur over the next 40 years 

(approximately 1 collision every 5 

years).22 The uppermost line shows the 

increasing number of collisions based 

on a non-mitigation scenario. The 

middle line shows the effects if 90 

percent of all launchers worldwide 23

followed the proposed orbital debris 

mitigation standards. However, this 

model did not account for the large 

constellations that have now started to 

populate LEO. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26SE23.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65841 

24NASA JSC Orbital Debris Quarterly News 14(1), 

page 7–8. 

Figure 6 shows the updated collision 

expectation taking into account large 

constellations. With an addition of 

8,300 spacecraft in constellations, the 

number of on-orbit collisions are 

expected to range from 1 every 2.2 

years, up to more than 1 collision per 

year. The variance depends on the postmission disposal (PMD) rate of the 

spacecraft in constellations, which is 

the probability that the spacecraft will 

be removed from LEO after its mission 

is complete. This study assumed that 

the constellations were refreshed with 

new satellites every 20 years, so the 

large constellations were renewed and 

remained on orbit, just swapping out 

individual satellites. After 200 years, for 

a PMD rate of 90 percent, a total of 260 

catastrophic collisions are estimated to 

have occurred in LEO. With the 

accumulation of large constellations in 

LEO, it is imperative that large mass 

upper stages are removed from orbit so 

as to prevent collisions between upper 

stages and constellation spacecraft that 

could create large amounts of debris in 

already crowded orbital regions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26SE23.031</GPH>
65842 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

25 J.-C. Liou, M. Matney, A. Vavrin, A. Manis, and 

D. Gates. (September 2018). NASA ODPO’s Large 

Constellation Study. Orbital Debris Quarterly News, 

22(3), pages 4–7. 

26 Discussion with NASA VIPER office, January 

2012. 

27NASA JSC Orbital Debris Quarterly News 14(1), 

page 7–8. 

28The USGODMSP apply to all U.S. government 

space launches. 

29 D.J. Kessler, N. Johnson, J.-C. Liou, and M. 

Matney. (February 6–10, 2010). The Kessler 

Syndrome: Implications to Future Space 

Operations; Paper AAS 10–016. Advances in the 

Astronautical Sciences Series, 137. Presented at the 

33rd Annual AAS Guidance and Control 

Conference, Breckenridge, CO. 

30Braun, V., Schulz, E., and Wiedemann, C. 

(August 2014). Cost Estimation for the Active Debris 

Removal of Multiple Priority Targets. Presented at 

the 40th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. 

31McKnight, D., et al. (April 2021). Identifying 

the 50 statistically-most-concerning derelict objects 

in LEO. Acta Astronautica, 181, page 282–291. 

32Frequently Asked Questions: Orbital Debris, 

www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html. 

Orbital debris also poses a high risk 

to safety for the International Space 

Station (ISS). The ISS is a high-value 

asset occupied by a constant human 

presence; therefore, it requires more 

protection than that provided by its 

protective shielding. Through shielding, 

the U.S. modules of the ISS are 

protected against impacts from debris 

ranging from 1 mm to 1 cm in size. 

During the first 8 years of ISS operations 

between 1999 and 2007, 6 successful 

maneuvers were conducted to avoid 

debris. However, since the Chinese antisatellite test and the Iridium/Cosmos 

collision, the ISS has on average made 

an evasive maneuver twice a year due 

to debris from those events. Each 

maneuver costs millions of dollars in 

fuel usage and to perform the risk 

calculations to determine whether to 

move the station or shelter the crew.26

Collision events and their risk to the 

ISS, and other on-orbit human activity, 

highlight the need to remove upper 

stages and prevent more debris creation. 

Orbital debris mitigation is crucial to 

stem the increase of accumulation of 

large objects in orbit. Projections 

indicate that orbital debris in the LEO 

environment will increase 

approximately 75 percent in the next 

200 years, even if 90 percent of 

spacecraft and upper stages reenter the 

Earth’s atmosphere within 25 years of 

the end of the mission.27 This projection 

was done before the proliferation of 

large constellations and the increased 

launch rate seen in the past few years. 

Launch and reentry operators’ 

compliance with the U.S. Government 

Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard 

Practices (USGODMSP) 28 and any 

action to remove a number of large 

objects from orbit would help prevent 

this increase.29 This proposed rule 

reflects the best practices agreed to in 

the USGODMSP and is reflective of 

international consensus for orbital 

debris mitigation. Currently, research 

efforts are underway to develop the 

technology necessary to economically 

remove the critical debris pieces; 

however, there are no operational 

systems and the costs are expected to be 

high, approximately $30 million to $50 

million per large object 30 (large objects 

are objects weighing roughly over 5,000 

kilograms). These large objects are 

primarily rocket body upper stages. A 

recent paper 31 introduced at the 2020 

International Astronautical Congress 

identified the 50 most dangerous pieces 

of orbital debris. The paper identified 39 

of the 50 objects as upper stages capable 

of producing large amounts of space 

debris were they to collide. 

With this proposal, the FAA also 

seeks to mitigate the risk to the public 

posed by uncontrolled disposals. 

Uncontrolled disposals of large upper 

stages, such as the Chinese Long March 

stage that reentered on May 9, 2021, and 

the Falcon 9 upper stage that reentered 

as an uncontrolled atmospheric disposal 

over the Pacific Northwest in March 

2021, pose a significant risk to people 

on the ground due to their mass and the 

uncertainty of where they will land. 

Such disposals occur frequently, from 

upper stages, defunct spacecraft, and 

other debris. Per NASA, ‘‘During the 

past 50 years an average of one 

cataloged, or tracked, piece of debris fell 

back to Earth each day.’’ 32 Large upper 

stages carry the most risk to people on 

the ground; risk that is above the 

common acceptable risk limit of 1 × 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP26SE23.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65843 

33The White House. (February 11, 1988). 

Presidential Directive on National Space Policy, 

spp.fas.org/military/docops/national/ 

policy88.htm#:∼:text=The%20directive%20states

%20that%20the%20national

%20security%20space%20

sector%20will,Space%20Control 

34National Security Council. (February 1989). 

Report on Orbital Debris by Interagency Group 

(Space), ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900003319. 

35The National Science and Technology Council 

Committee on Transportation Research and 

Development. (November 1995). Interagency Report 

on Orbital Debris, www.hsdl.org/ 

?view&did=722496. 

36NASA. (August 1995). NSS 1740.14, NASA 

Safety Standard: Guidelines and Assessments for 

Limiting Orbital Debris. 

37The White House. (August 31, 2006). U.S. 

National Space Policy. 

38Commercial Space Transportation Reusable 

Launch Vehicle and Reentry Licensing Regulations, 

65 FR 182 (September 19, 2000). 

39 64 FR 19586, 19608 (‘‘The FAA has elected to 

adopt only selected debris mitigation practices that 

are of almost universal applicability.’’) 

40 14 CFR 417.129(a). 

41Mitigation of Orbital Debris, 69 FR 54581 

(September 9, 2004). 

42 IADC. (October 2002). IADC Space Debris 

Mitigation Guidelines; IADC–02–01. 

43The White House. (June 28, 2010). National 

Space Policy of the United States of America. 

44NASA requires that ‘‘[a]ll debris released 

during the deployment, operation, and disposal 

phases shall be limited to a maximum orbital 

lifetime of 25 years from date of release 

(Requirement 56398).’’ NASA–STD–8719.14A, 

2012–05–25. 

10¥4. This is the same risk limit 

codified in 14 CFR 450.101 for 

purposeful reentries, in International 

Standard (ISO) 24113, and in the 

USGODMSP, and the risk limit has been 

in common practice in the launch safety 

industry for more than 20 years. 

Although there are currently no 

documented cases of reentering debris 

causing casualties, uncontrolled 

disposal of large upper stages presents 

a significant safety risk to persons and 

property on the ground, or aircraft in 

flight. That risk can be mitigated by the 

operator performing a controlled 

disposal into an unpopulated area 

shortly after the end of launch, and 

providing advance notice to aircraft and 

vessels in the area. Uncontrolled 

disposals would not be permitted under 

the proposed orbital debris mitigation 

rule unless the operator can 

demonstrate that the effective casualty 

area, in total spread over the entire 

projected path, for the sum of all 

surviving debris will be less than 7 

square meters or the expected average 

number of casualties will be less than 1 

× 10¥4. 

B. History 

There have been many national and 

international efforts to protect against 

the effects of orbital debris. Early 

spaceflight operated under the theory 

that, because space was large, collisions 

were unlikely. Recent events discussed 

previously have demonstrated that to 

continue to operate under this theory is 

dangerous. 

On February 11, 1988, President 

Reagan issued a Presidential Directive 33

on national space policy which 

included a requirement to limit the 

accumulation of orbital debris. This 

directive was the foundation for a 

coordinated effort among U.S. agencies 

and other nations to increase the 

understanding of the hazards caused by 

orbital debris and to establish effective 

techniques to manage the orbital debris 

environment. The National Security 

Council produced a Report on Orbital 

Debris 34 in 1989 outlining the problem 

and recommended more study of the 

orbital debris situation. An updated 

Interagency Report on Orbital Debris 35

by the new National Science and 

Technology Council was released in 

1995, directing government agencies to 

develop a coordinated orbital debris 

work plan, to consult with U.S. 

industry, and to continue efforts to 

achieve international consensus on 

dealing with the orbital debris problem. 

In response, NASA and the 

Department of Defense, coordinating 

with other space-related Federal 

agencies, developed a draft set of 

USGODMSP, derived in large measure 

from NASA Safety Standard 1740.14.36

These standard practices, applicable to 

launches by the U.S. Government, were 

adopted by the U.S. Government in 

February 2001 and mandated by the 

National Space Policy of 2006.37 The 

Department of Defense and its service 

and defense agencies issued their own 

detailed orbital debris mitigation 

requirements to meet the USGODMSP 

standard. 

U.S. regulatory agencies, particularly 

the FAA, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

and the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), have also addressed 

orbital debris mitigation by establishing 

requirements for space activities that 

they regulate. In a final rule published 

September 19, 2000,38 the FAA adopted 

some, but not all, debris mitigation 

practices that were widely accepted by 

NASA and the commercial space 

industry at the time, such as the 

removal of stored energy sources that 

could generate debris.39 The only 

collision mitigation measure the FAA 

established was to require avoiding any 

unplanned contact between the launch 

vehicle and the payload after payload 

separation.40 At that time, the FAA 

aimed to align with then-current 

international practice without 

negatively affecting U.S. launch 

competition in the international market. 

Since then, there has been 

considerable progress in addressing 

requirements to reduce orbital debris. 

Most notably, the FCC adopted a 

comprehensive set of regulations that 

apply to U.S. satellites and to satellites 

that provide communications services to 

the United States.41 The FCC regulations 

closely reflect the USGODMSP. 

The international community is also 

adopting practices that reduce orbital 

debris generation. The Inter-Agency 

Space Debris Coordination Committee 

(IADC), in which NASA represents the 

U.S., issued Space Debris Mitigation 

Guidelines in 2002. The IADC 

coordinates activities related to orbital 

debris issues and is comprised of 

representatives from space agencies 

around the world. Member States are 

encouraged to use the consensus-based 

IADC guidelines. These include 

implementing a mitigation plan for each 

launch that details how the operator 

will limit debris from normal 

operations, minimize the potential of 

unplanned breakup, and dispose of 

spacecraft and stages post-mission.42

The USGODMSP, which apply to U.S. 

Government launches, are consistent 

with, and in parts surpass, the IADC 

guidelines. The FAA’s current 

regulations do not meet all the 

USGODMSP or the IADC guidelines. 

The FAA currently only requires 

passivation at the end of launch and 

prevention of collisions between the 

payload and upper stage. The current 

FAA regulations do not otherwise 

address debris mitigations or postmission disposal, and do not restrict 

uncontrolled reentries based on the risk 

posed to public safety. 

In 2010, the National Space Policy 

specifically encouraged the 

development and adoption of industry 

standards for the purpose of minimizing 

debris and preserving the space 

environment for the responsible, 

peaceful, and safe use of all users.43

Subsequent policies have retained 

similar language. 

In 2011, the National Research 

Council recommended incorporating 

orbital debris mitigation practices into 

regulations: 

NASA should continue to engage relevant 

federal agencies as to the desirability and 

appropriateness of formalizing NASA’s 

Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices, 

including the ‘‘25-year rule,’’ 44 and NASA 

Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital 

Debris as legal rules that could be applicable 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65844 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

45The National Academy of Sciences. (September 

2011). Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: 

An Assessment of NASA’s Meteoroid and Orbital 

Debris Programs. 

46The White House. (June 18, 2018). Space Policy 

Directive-3, National Space Traffic Management 

Policy. trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidentialactions/space-policy-directive-3-national-spacetraffic-management-policy/. 

47United States Government. (November 2019) 

U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation 

Standard Practices, November 2019 Update. 

orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/usg_orbital_

debris_mitigation_standard_practices_november_

2019.pdf.3. 

48The White House. (November 21, 2013). 

National Space Transportation Policy of the United 

States of America. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

files/national_space_transportation_policy_

11212013.pdf. 

49 IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 

IADC–02–0, Revision 2, Mar 2020. 

to U.S. non-NASA missions and private 

activities.45

In response, NASA engaged with 

relevant agencies: NOAA, regarding 

implementing orbital debris mitigation 

standard practices as part of NOAA’s 

commercial remote sensing licensing 

program; FCC, regarding licensing of 

communications spacecraft; and the 

FAA, regarding launch vehicles. 

In 2019, in response to the National 

Space Council’s Space Policy Directive 

3,46 the U.S. Government released an 

updated version of the USGODMSP 47 to 

address the effects of large 

constellations and small satellites. The 

updates consist of a quantitative limit 

on debris released during normal 

operations, a probability limit on 

accidental explosions, probability limits 

on accidental collisions with large and 

small debris, and a reliability threshold 

for successful post-mission disposal. 

The new standard practices updated 

disposal options and incorporated new 

sections to clarify and address operating 

practices for large constellations, 

rendezvous and proximity operations, 

small satellites, satellite servicing, and 

other classes of space operations. 

For this proposed rulemaking, the 

FAA considered the orbital debris 

requirements of NASA, FCC, NOAA, 

and the IADC, in an effort to align 

commercial standards and government 

standards and to address the persistent 

risks associated with heavy upper stages 

abandoned in orbit. The FAA focused 

on NASA because it has the most 

detailed orbital debris requirements and 

guidance, and is an internationally 

recognized leader in orbital debris and 

space exploration whose expertise in 

space and mission planning is a 

benchmark for the FAA’s rulemaking 

efforts. The effort to establish common 

standards is consistent with the U.S. 

Space Transportation Policy, which 

states the Secretary of Transportation 

shall execute exclusive authority, 

consistent with existing statutes and 

executive orders, to address orbital 

debris mitigation practices for U.S.- 

licensed commercial launches, to 

include launch vehicle components 

such as upper stages, through its 

licensing procedures.48

The FAA believes the proposed 

regulations would not hinder U.S. 

companies from competing in the 

international launch market because 

regulations of foreign countries are also 

expected to comply with IADC 

guidelines, and some countries’ 

regulations are stricter than the 

requirements proposed in this rule. For 

example, the French space agency, 

Centre National d’E ́tudes Spatiales 

(CNES), issued technical regulations in 

2009 that extend beyond the 

requirements of the IADC guidelines 

and spell out the acceptable reentry risk 

from orbital debris for those with 

French space operation licenses. The 

IADC guidelines are a consensus 

document originally based on the 

USGODMSP. Due to the consensus 

nature of the IADC guidelines, an 

agreed-upon document between 13 

different space agencies, the guidelines 

are not as thorough and specific as the 

USGODMSP. Several of the IADC’s 13 

participating space agencies are 

currently working to implement 

regulations that align with the IADC 

guidelines; however, not all IADC 

participants have launch capability. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

The FAA proposes several new 

requirements for limiting the lifetime of 

debris in LEO and in GEO. First, the 

FAA proposes to amend the definition 

of ‘‘disposal’’ in § 401.7 to include each 

of the disposal options proposed for part 

453. The existing definition describes 

controlled atmospheric disposal, and 

would exclude the other four options 

proposed in §§ 453.14 through 453.18 

for the disposal of spent upper stages 

and launch or reentry vehicle 

components. The FAA therefore 

proposes to define ‘‘disposal’’ as the 

execution or attempt to execute 

‘‘controlled atmospheric disposal, 

heliocentric disposal, uncontrolled 

atmospheric disposal, disposal orbit, or 

direct retrieval of launch vehicle stages 

or components of launch or reentry 

vehicles under part 453 of this chapter.’’ 

The FAA also proposes to add 

definitions to § 401.7 for ‘‘Low Earth 

Orbit (LEO),’’ ‘‘Medium Earth Orbit 

(MEO),’’ ‘‘Geostationary Earth Orbit 

(GEO),’’ ‘‘the geosynchronous region,’’ 

and ‘‘orbital debris.’’ ‘‘LEO’’ would be 

defined as any Earth orbit with both 

apogee and perigee below 2,000 km 

altitude. ‘‘MEO’’ would be defined as 

any Earth orbit in which an object’s 

apogee and perigee both remain 

between LEO and GEO. ‘‘GEO’’ would 

be defined as any Earth orbit where the 

orbiting object orbits at the same angular 

velocity as the Earth and the object 

appears stationary from the ground. The 

altitude of this zero-inclination, zeroeccentricity orbit is 35,786 km. ‘‘The 

geosynchronous region’’ would be 

defined as the band of orbital space 

surrounding GEO. It is bound by 

altitude limits of 35,786 km +/- 200 km 

altitude and +/- 15 degrees latitude. 

The IADC defines Space Debris as ‘‘all 

man-made objects including fragments 

and elements thereof, in Earth orbit or 

re-entering the atmosphere, that are 

non-functional.’’ 49 The FAA agrees 

with the IADC definition of space debris 

and refines the debris issue further by 

establishing the size of debris applicable 

for regulation. ‘‘Orbital debris’’ would 

be defined as all human-generated 

debris in Earth orbit that is greater than 

5 mm in any dimension. This includes, 

but is not limited to, payloads that can 

no longer serve a useful purpose, rocket 

bodies and other hardware (e.g., bolt 

fragments and covers) left in orbit as a 

result of normal launch and operational 

activities, and fragmentation debris 

produced by failure or collision. The 

FAA proposes to expressly exclude 

released gases and liquids from the 

definition of orbital debris. The release 

of gases and liquids is often deliberate 

for the purpose of maneuvering or to 

evacuate excess gases and liquids at the 

end of launch. The FAA does not 

believe addressing the release of gases 

and liquids is necessary at this time 

because the risk is low. One of the 

debris mitigation actions at the end of 

launch is the release of pressurized 

gases and propellants because the risks 

of accidental explosion outweigh the 

risks of released gases and liquids. 

Based upon this understanding, the 

FAA finds that it is unnecessary to 

regulate released gases and liquids at 

this time. 

The FAA proposes 5 mm as the 

threshold size because an object of that 

size, traveling at 10 km per second, a 

speed typical of objects on orbit, can 

incapacitate a functioning satellite, 

which in turn may contribute to the 

creation of more debris. Most active 

satellites on orbit are protected against 

small pieces of debris and 

micrometeoroids less than 5 mm in size 

with shielding or thermal blankets. 

However, pieces as small as 5 mm can 

do significant damage to satellite 

operations. The kinetic energy that a 5 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65845 

50The National Academy of Sciences. (September 

2011). Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: 

An Assessment of NASA’s Meteoroid and Orbital 

Debris Programs. 

mm cube of titanium (4.43 g/cm3

density) has, while traveling 10 km per 

second in LEO, is 27,700 Joules. 

Comparably, the energy of a .30–06 rifle 

bullet (11.7 grams) when exiting a gun 

muzzle is only 3,700 Joules. 

Spacecraft vary in design and material 

composition, so it is hard to identify an 

exact threshold size of debris that could 

significantly damage a spacecraft. 

Nevertheless, the National Research 

Council found in its 2011 report on 

orbital debris that typical spacecraft are 

not well shielded from small debris, and 

that objects 5 mm and larger can cause 

substantial damage.50 For this reason, 

the FAA proposes to use 5 mm as the 

size threshold for orbital debris. 

However, the FAA requests comments 

on further lowering the size threshold to 

below 5 mm. 

The FAA recognizes that a launch 

operator cannot prevent the release of 

all small debris fragments, such as paint 

flakes and solid rocket motor (SRM) 

slag. SRMs—used to boost satellites into 

higher orbits—are potentially a 

significant source of numerous pieces of 

aluminum oxide slag up to 5 cm in 

diameter. Likewise, flaking paint is a 

debris hazard, albeit of very small size. 

Debris of this size usually will not 

disable a spacecraft, but it does pose a 

hazard to spacewalkers, and over time it 

causes erosion damage and more debris. 

The FAA is not, however, proposing to 

regulate debris smaller than 5 mm, paint 

flakes, or solid rocket motor slag of any 

size, due to the current impracticality of 

tracking and mitigating the propagation 

of such small items. At this time, the 

only practical mitigation for debris 

smaller than 5 mm is to harden 

spacecraft to make them less susceptible 

to small debris. 

Proposed § 453.1 would provide the 

scope of part 453: the requirements of a 

launch or reentry operator for orbital 

debris mitigation, including collision 

avoidance analysis, prior to launch or 

reentry operations licensed or permitted 

under this chapter with a planned 

altitude greater than 150 km. The FAA 

proposes to require in § 453.1(b) that for 

each licensed or permitted launch or 

reentry with a planned altitude greater 

than 150 km, an operator must submit 

(1) an ODAP containing the information 

required by this part, not less than 60 

days before the licensed or permitted 

launch or reentry, unless the 

Administrator agrees to a different time 

frame in accordance with § 404.15; and 

(2) a Collision Avoidance Analysis 

Worksheet in accordance with 

§ 453.11(f). The submittals must be 

emailed to the address provided in 

proposed § 453.1(c) or otherwise 

submitted as agreed to by the 

Administrator in the license or permit. 

The FAA proposes to require that 

operators submit their ODAP no later 

than 60 days prior to the launch or 

reentry subject to part 453 to be 

consistent with the timeframes in part 

450 and in the legacy regulations. The 

FAA proposes no change to the timeline 

for submitting the Collision Avoidance 

Analysis Worksheet, which is currently 

required by § 450.169 and would be 

moved to § 453.11(f). 

Proposed § 453.3 would state that part 

453 applies to launches and reentries 

licensed or permitted under this chapter 

with a stage or other component with a 

planned altitude greater than 150 km. 

Few satellites operate below the altitude 

of 150 km, hence mitigation of orbital 

debris below 150 km is not necessary. 

A. Limitations on Orbital Lifetime of 

Debris Released During Normal 

Operations 

Current §§ 417.129 and 450.171 do 

not address the planned release of 

debris during normal operations, such 

as the deliberate planned release of 

payload spacers, retaining rings, or 

tension rods. To reduce the amount of 

debris in orbit, the FAA proposes to 

require that launch operators ensure 

that no vehicle stages or components 

release orbital debris during normal 

operations that will remain in orbit for 

more than 25 years. Proposed § 453.5(a) 

would require a launch operator to 

ensure that no vehicle stages or 

components that reach Earth orbit 

release orbital debris into LEO that 

would remain in orbit for more than 25 

years. The 25-year rule is a common 

standard recommended by the IADC 

and a requirement for U.S. Government 

launches under the USGODMSP. 

For the lowest region of LEO—orbits 

with perigee altitudes below 600 km— 

debris typically has an orbital lifetime of 

less than 25 years, and smaller pieces of 

debris here may reasonably be expected 

to burn up on reentry into Earth’s 

atmosphere within the allowable time 

limit. This proposed requirement would 

have a greater impact on operations 

releasing debris above 700 km, where 

debris may remain on-orbit for 

hundreds of years. The most efficient 

and practical approach to comply with 

the proposed requirements would be to 

avoid creating any debris in the upper 

portions of LEO and higher altitudes. 

For example, if a launch operator cannot 

demonstrate that it will remove all 

debris larger than 5 mm from orbit 

within 25 years, as required by § 453.5, 

then the launch operator must prevent 

such objects from separating from the 

launch vehicle. A launch operator could 

do so by redesigning the separation 

system (a common source of debris) or 

by using lanyards or other means to 

prevent debris release. 

Given that most current launch 

vehicles have been designed to 

minimize or eliminate normal 

operations debris release, the FAA 

anticipates that this proposed 

requirement would impose no more 

than a minimal burden on operators for 

compliance. Operators usually meet this 

requirement because they want to 

minimize the release of debris and the 

possibility of damage to their deployed 

payloads. Since commercial launches 

are deploying increasing numbers of 

payloads, which could result in 

additional debris release, the FAA finds 

it appropriate to require that all 

operators limit their release of debris. 

The FAA also proposes to require in 

§ 453.5(a) that the total object-time 

product for all debris planned to be 

released into LEO shall not exceed 100 

object-years per licensed or permitted 

launch. Object-time is a unit of measure 

used by NASA. It means the number of 

objects multiplied by the unit of time, 

typically years. A higher object-time 

means more objects on orbit for a higher 

cumulative amount of time. Limiting the 

object-time reduces the number of 

objects in orbit. The more objects 

released, the less time they can spend in 

orbit to meet the object-time 

requirement. For example, if an operator 

plans to release 5 debris objects, none of 

those objects can remain in Earth orbit 

longer than 25 years, and the total 

orbital lifetime of all 5 debris objects 

cannot exceed 100 years. The regulation 

would specify that the total object-time 

product in LEO is the sum of the orbit 

dwell time in LEO for all planned 

released objects, excluding the upper 

stage and any released payloads. The 

requirement would target debris 

released into LEO since, as discussed 

above, this small spatial area is heavily 

used and currently contains the most 

debris. This requirement is consistent 

with the USGODMSP guidelines and is 

necessary to limit the number of 

released objects per launch. The FAA 

supports the USGODMPS object-time 

standard and notes the standard is 

particularly relevant to space launch 

activities that use payload deployment 

devices. 

The FAA notes that the 100 objectyears limit would apply to debris that 

the operator plans to release during 

launch activities, and would not include 

debris released due to non-nominal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65846 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

51 International Organization for Standardization. 

(September 7, 2010). ISO 27852:2010(E), ‘‘Space 

Systems—Estimation of orbit lifetime.’’ 

52See Figures 3 and 4 in the Statement of the 

Problem. 

conditions or launch or reentry activity 

outside the 3-sigma trajectory provided 

for collision avoidance. However, an 

operator would be required to 

immediately notify the FAA and 

provide the information required by 

§ 453.20 at the detection of a debriscreating event or any launch or reentry 

outside the 3-sigma trajectory provided 

for collision avoidance. 

The FAA solicits comments on its 

proposal to limit the total object-time 

product of all debris released by a single 

launch into LEO to 100 object-years. 

Although, as noted above, this standard 

derives from the USGODMSP, the FAA 

recognizes that this standard is new, 

and the commercial space industry has 

not had an opportunity to weigh in on 

the effectiveness or operational 

implications of this requirement. As a 

result, FAA seeks insight into 

stakeholders’ opinions on limiting the 

total object-time product of all debris 

released by a single launch into LEO to 

100 object-years, and whether a smaller 

object-time should be imposed. 

The FAA would also require that 

debris released into the geosynchronous 

region be removed within 25 years after 

release. Proposed § 453.5(b) would 

require a launch operator to ensure that 

any orbital debris released into the 

geosynchronous region enters an orbit 

with an apogee that would not remain 

within the geosynchronous region 

within 25 years of the release. Operators 

would need to submit analysis showing 

that the debris will stay below the 

geosynchronous region 25 years after 

release, and that it will not enter the 

operational geosynchronous region 

again. Released debris can only move 

into lower orbits. Debris released above 

GEO would eventually return to the 

GEO protected region. 

The FAA solicits public comments on 

its proposal to require that debris be 

removed within 25 years, as opposed to 

a shorter deadline. While the FAA 

recognizes the current IADC and 

USGODMSP guidelines, which limit 

post-mission lifetimes in LEO to 25 

years, the FAA recognizes that increases 

in the numbers and kinds of activities 

in Earth orbit may render the 25-year 

timeframe inadequate to prevent the 

growth of orbital debris. Given that the 

entire mission lifetime of upper stages 

and their components is quite short, and 

spent upper stages pose a significant 

risk of debris propagation the longer 

they are in orbit, it may be appropriate 

to have a shorter disposal timeline of 5 

years or another time period less than 

25 years. Shortening the removal 

deadline would decrease the risk of 

orbital debris causing damage to 

spacecraft, which could create more 

debris, shorten another spacecraft’s 

mission, or endanger the lives of human 

spaceflight participants. The FAA 

requests comments on the degree to 

which a shorter timeline for removal 

from LEO or GEO within 5 years or 

another period shorter than 25 years 

would further encourage the 

minimization of released debris, as well 

as the relative impact of a shorter 

timeframe on operational capabilities. 

Proposed § 453.5(c) would specify the 

information that must be included in an 

ODAP to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 453.5(a) and (b). Specifically, the 

ODAP must include (1) a demonstration 

through environmental qualification 

and acceptance testing that the system 

is designed to limit the release of orbital 

debris; and (2) a statistical analysis, 

including inputs and assumptions, 

demonstrating that any orbital debris 

released will be disposed of within 25 

years and satisfy the 100 object-year 

requirement. The environmental 

qualification and acceptance testing 

could include vibration, shock, vacuum, 

or any other appropriate testing to 

demonstrate that debris will not be 

released from the upper stage. Operators 

should provide the FAA specific 

verifiable analysis or test results that 

demonstrate the mitigation measures the 

launch operator would take to prevent 

release of debris greater than 5 mm in 

size or to ensure that it departs LEO or 

GEO within 25 years. Results of 

hardware and software tests, if 

performed on the separation system, 

would fulfill the requirement to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of debris 

prevention measures. The testing should 

apply to the entire lifetime of the 

system. If debris will be released, an 

orbital lifetime analysis using the 

methods described in ISO 27852 51 or 

NASA’s Debris Assessment Software 

(DAS) or similar software would be 

acceptable. The inputs and assumptions 

referenced in § 453.5(c)(2) would 

include the initial orbit, the altitude of 

the release, and information about the 

debris objects planned to be released, 

such as their mass, area, and estimated 

orbital lifetime. The FAA seeks public 

comments on the proposed 

demonstration through specific analysis 

and testing of debris release prevention. 

B. Collision Mitigation Between 

Launched Objects 

The current FAA regulations in parts 

415, 417, 431, 435, and 450 require that 

launch operators prevent the unplanned 

physical contact between a launch 

vehicle and each payload after payload 

separation. The FAA proposes to move 

these current requirements for safety at 

the end of launch to § 453.9(a). The FAA 

proposes to add a requirement in 

§ 453.9(b) to limit the probability of 

collision with orbital objects greater 

than 10 cm to less than 1 in 1,000 over 

the orbital lifetime of the upper stage. 

This proposal matches the standard in 

USGODMSP and is necessary to lower 

the risk of debris impacts with the 

upper stage and its components. The 

probability of collision during orbital 

lifetime can be reduced by removing the 

upper stage and components from orbit, 

as discussed in the next section, and by 

operating the upper stage in an orbit 

with a low density of orbital objects. 

Proposed § 453.9(c) would require 

launch operators to include in their 

ODAP for each launch or reentry a 

procedure for preventing vehicle and 

payload collision after payload 

separation. The end-of-life activities, 

including any propellant depletion 

burns and compressed gas releases, 

could increase or decrease the 

probability of subsequent collisions; 

therefore, the launch operator should 

explain in the ODAP how these 

activities will affect potential collision 

risks. The ODAP must also include the 

results of a probability of collision 

analysis between the upper stage and its 

components and orbital objects. The 

analysis must use commonly accepted 

engineering and probability assessment 

methods, such as those available in 

NASA’s DAS tool. 

C. Post-Mission Disposal 

In the current debris environment, the 

greatest risk to operational orbits is 

collision between objects having 

considerable mass. Spent upper stages 

are large, strong structures that 

contribute to the debris threat because 

their size increases the chance of a 

collision, and because their mass 

provides an ample source of 

fragmentation debris in the event of a 

collision. As noted above, the amount of 

orbital debris is projected to rapidly 

increase based on the current 

population of objects greater than 10 

cm.52

Disposal, either through reentry or 

another form of disposal, is necessary to 

mitigate the propagation of orbital 

debris because it removes upper stages 

and other vehicle components from the 

most populated orbits. If proper 

disposal is not implemented, spacecraft 

operators would need to employ 

increased shielding of payloads, along 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65847 

53Zhao, et.al. (2020) Science China Technological 

Sciences, Survey on research and development of 

on-orbit active debris removal methods. 

with additional on-orbit collision 

avoidance, in order to continue to 

utilize the most populated orbits. 

However, neither of these options 

would mitigate the volume of dormant 

upper stages in orbit, and therefore, the 

growth of orbital debris. The only 

option in the future for these upper 

stages would be remediation—dedicated 

missions to remove them from orbit. 

This kind of remediation is forecasted to 

be expensive and has not yet been 

shown to be a viable operation. 

Research and development is still ongoing into debris removal techniques.53

Given that disposal is at this time the 

only viable means of mitigating the 

threat of orbital debris in populated 

orbits, the FAA is proposing to require 

in § 453.13 that launch operators 

dispose of all launch vehicle stages or 

jettisoned components using one of five 

methods: (1) controlled atmospheric 

disposal, (2) Heliocentric, Earth-escape 

disposal, (3) direct retrieval, (4) 

uncontrolled atmospheric disposal, or 

(5) maneuver to a disposal orbit. The 

proposed requirements for each disposal 

method are set forth in §§ 453.14 

through 453.18, respectively. A launch 

or reentry subject to part 453 must 

identify the chosen disposal method in 

the ODAP and satisfy the regulatory 

requirements applicable to that disposal 

method. Table 1 provides a list of 

disposal options derived from the 

USGODMSP. Options that promptly 

remove the upper stage and its 

components from orbit are the preferred 

disposal options according to the 

USGODMSP, as they significantly 

reduce both long term collision and 

debris generation risks. Delayed 

disposals through either direct retrieval 

or uncontrolled atmospheric disposal 

impose some risks to other on-orbit 

spacecraft until removal. Disposal orbits 

may become overly populated in the 

future which would preclude the future 

use of them for disposal. The FAA notes 

that while the USGODMSP identifies 

disposal methods in order of preference 

in the following table, the proposed 

rules do not allocate preference or 

distinguish between disposal methods 

in order to provide flexibility to 

operators to perform any of these valid 

methods of debris disposal. However, 

the FAA expects that as space continues 

to become more congested, orbital 

debris requirements will tighten in 

response, such that delayed disposal 

options that pose some additional risk 

to on-orbit spacecraft (i.e. uncontrolled 

atmospheric disposal, highly eccentric 

long-term disposal, or use of a disposal 

orbit) may be restricted or eliminated. 

FAA requests comments on whether the 

prompt and safest disposal options 

(controlled atmospheric, heliocentric, 

and direct retrieval) should be the 

preferred disposal methods based upon 

expected growing orbital congestion. 

Additionally, the FAA seeks comment 

on whether it should impose a 

requirement to use the prompt disposal 

options unless shown to be 

impracticable. 

TABLE 1—DISPOSAL OPTIONS

Disposal method 453 section Time frame 

Controlled Atmospheric Disposal .............................................. 453.14 .............. Within 30 days of mission completion. 

Heliocentric (Earth-escape) ....................................................... 453.15 .............. Within 30 days of mission completion. 

Direct Retrieval .......................................................................... 453.16 .............. Not to exceed 5 years post mission completion. 

Uncontrolled Atmospheric Disposal ........................................... 453.17(b) .......... Not to exceed 25 years after launch. 

Highly Eccentric Long-Term Disposal ....................................... 453.17(c) .......... Not to exceed 200 years after mission completion. 

Disposal Orbit ............................................................................ 453.18 .............. Within 30 days of mission completion into a perpetual disposal orbit. 

a. Controlled Atmospheric Disposal 

Upper stage-controlled reentry is the 

most effective method of orbital debris 

prevention and the safest reentry 

method. Controlled reentry eliminates 

the upper stage as a piece of orbital 

debris and therefore mitigates the risk of 

future debris creation through collision 

because the reentry would occur shortly 

after the end of launch. The FAA 

proposes to allow operators to perform 

controlled disposal by reentering Earth’s 

atmosphere if they meet the 

requirements of § 453.14. The 

requirements of § 453.14 would only 

apply if the operator elects controlled 

disposal for its disposal method, as 

required by § 453.13. 

A controlled disposal means a 

planned burn of the upper stage engine 

to aim for a low-risk area on the surface 

of the Earth. The FAA acknowledges 

that the upper stage is not ‘‘controlled’’ 

during the entire atmospheric disposal. 

Variations in the engine burn, the 

atmospheric density, and other factors 

beyond the operator’s control can affect 

the actual disposal location. Therefore, 

those uncertainties must be accounted 

for in the disposal risk assessment or in 

the determination of the disposal ellipse 

in a broad ocean area, in accordance 

with § 453.14(d). 

In order to perform controlled 

disposal, proposed § 453.14(b) would 

require a launch operator to ensure the 

return of the upper stage and each of its 

components to the Earth’s surface 

within 30 days after mission completion 

in a controlled manner that ensures the 

effective casualty area of any surviving 

debris is less than 7 square meters, 

targets a broad ocean area, or meets the 

risk criteria set forth in 

§ 450.101(d)(1)(iii)(A) through (C). This 

proposal would effectively require 

launch and reentry operators to consider 

disposal risks in their vehicle and 

mission designs—for instance, by 

designing components that demise 

when heated by atmospheric reentry or 

by reentering in remote locations. 

The FAA’s proposal to allow 

operators to target a broad ocean area or 

meet the risk criteria set forth in 

§ 450.101(d)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) is 

substantively equivalent to the current 

text of § 450.101(d), which requires that 

all disposals—currently defined as 

controlled atmospheric disposal in 

§ 401.7—either target a broad ocean area 

or meet the risk criteria in § 450.101(b). 

As discussed later in this preamble, the 

FAA proposes to amend § 450.101(d) to 

specify the risk criteria applicable to 

atmospheric disposals, rather than 

relying on the reentry risk criteria in 

§ 450.101(b), since disposal is distinct 

from reentry. The FAA therefore 

proposes to extend the safety criteria 

applicable to licenses under part 450 to 

all launches or reentries covered by part 

453, including experimental permits. 

The FAA is proposing that all launches 

or reentries authorized by the FAA that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65848 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

54United Nations Convention on the Law of the 

Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397. 

55 International Organization for Standardization. 

(April 1, 2014). ISO 16126:2014, ‘‘Space systems— 

Assessment of survivability of unmanned spacecraft 

against space debris and meteoroid impacts to 

ensure successful post-mission disposal.’’ 

exceed 150 km be required to meet the 

risk criteria in § 450.101(d)(1)(iii)(A) 

through (C), target a broad ocean area, 

or have an effective casualty area less 

than 7 square meters for the following 

reasons. 

Disposal into a broad ocean area 

would reduce the risk of casualties to 

near zero. The FAA considers an area 

370 km (200 nm) from land to be ‘‘broad 

ocean area,’’ as used in § 450.101(d) and 

proposed part 453. Two hundred 

nautical miles is also the recognized 

limit of exclusive economic zones 

(EEZ), which are zones prescribed by 

the United Nations Convention on the 

Law of the Sea 54 over which the owning 

State has exclusive exploitation rights 

over all natural resources. Deorbiting 

beyond an EEZ further reduces the 

chance of disrupting economic 

operations such as commercial fishing. 

For massive objects reentering the 

atmosphere, a controlled disposal into 

the broad ocean area may be necessary 

for safety because it would ensure that 

the casualty expectation of reentry 

could be kept below 1 in 10,000. 

Because the broad ocean area has a 

population density of nearly zero, 

objects that survive reentry in this area 

can be fairly large without inordinate 

risk of human casualties. Alternatively, 

the operator could show that the 1 × 

10¥4 collective risk and 1 × 10¥6

individual risk limits are met for the 

controlled disposal in another area. The 

expectation of casualty alternative might 

allow for controlled disposal into areas 

near islands or coast lines with low 

populations. The operator could also 

choose to demonstrate that the 

cumulative effective casualty area of 

surviving debris will be less than 7 

square meters. That small casualty area 

ensures that the expectation of casualty 

will be met without requiring a full 

expectation of casualty calculation. 

The effective casualty area for inert 

debris is the region associated with a 

fragment’s impact location where it is 

assumed a person would become a 

casualty. Debris from atmospheric 

reentry of an upper stage is usually 

made up of multiple pieces, as the 

upper stage breaks up due to heating 

and friction. The total effective casualty 

area is determined by adding up the 

casualty area of each of those pieces. 

An expectation of casualty calculation 

requires determination of the effective 

casualty area along with analysis of the 

expected trajectory and exposed 

populations to determine how many 

people could become a casualty due to 

the uncontrolled disposal of the upper 

stage. Due to uncertainty and growth in 

population, that calculation can be 

difficult to complete for disposals that 

are expected on long timeframes like 25 

years. As a result, FAA is proposing to 

allow an operator to demonstrate that 

the effective casualty area of surviving 

debris will be less than 7 square meters. 

The FAA proposes to require in 

§ 453.14(c) that operators performing 

controlled disposal notify the public of 

any region of land, sea, or air that 

contains, with 97 percent probability of 

containment, all debris resulting from 

normal flight events capable of causing 

a casualty. The FAA currently imposes 

this requirement on operators 

performing disposal operations under a 

part 450 license, and would extend the 

part 450 requirement to proposed 

§ 453.14(c). The FAA finds that all 

operations required to comply with part 

453 should provide this degree of 

notification to the public. These 

measures could include arrangements 

with the FAA or U.S. Coast Guard to 

provide Notice to Air Mission (NOTAM) 

and Notice to Mariners (NOTMAR). 

The FAA proposes that an operator 

would be required to implement a 

controlled reentry within 30 days after 

the completion of the mission, which is 

also how long a launch operator must 

have insurance coverage under § 440.11. 

The FAA further proposes to require 

that operators accomplish any actions 

necessary to end a launch and 

commence controlled disposal within 

the insurance coverage timeframe. As 

discussed later in this preamble, the 

FAA proposes to apply the 30-day 

deadline to the Earth-escape and orbit 

disposal options as well. 

Additionally, the FAA finds that 30 

days would almost always provide 

sufficient time to assess the possible 

consequences of a launch anomaly, such 

as delivery to a wrong orbit or failure of 

a payload to separate from the vehicle’s 

upper stage. Current technologies and 

practices are adequate to require the 

following within 30 days (1) perform 

final maneuvers to direct controlled 

disposal, (2) relocate to a lower orbit 

where the upper stage will decay within 

25 years, or (3) relocate to a disposal 

orbit. 

Another reason for the proposed 

requirement to implement a disposal 

option within 30 days is the short time 

frame an upper stage would have to 

maneuver. Typically, most upper stages 

have limited electrical power supplied 

by flight batteries, and, by design, must 

maneuver expeditiously after payload 

separation. In order to mitigate the 

possibility of an explosion occurring, 

the FAA requires a launch operator to 

power down its batteries at the end of 

launch. Accordingly, an affirmative act 

such as controlled reentry, placement to 

ensure reentry within 25 years, or 

maneuvering to a disposal orbit would 

have to occur within that time frame. 

Upper stages in orbits with an expected 

lifetime below 25 years would have no 

additional required actions to meet the 

post-mission 25-year rule. However, 

these upper stages may be required to 

move to disposal orbits if they cannot be 

safely deorbited due to excessive risk in 

uncontrolled reentries. 

The FAA proposes to require in 

§ 453.14(d) that operators submit a 

description of the controlled disposal in 

the ODAP prior to each launch or 

reentry pursuant to § 453.1(b). The 

ODAP must include verification through 

hardware and software testing or 

analysis that the system has at least a 90 

percent probability of successfully 

executing the controlled atmospheric 

disposal as planned. The FAA proposes 

to require a probability of success of at 

least 90 percent. The FAA is adopting 

a 90 percent probability of success 

criteria that is consistent with the IADC 

Guidelines, ISO Standard 16126 55 and 

USGODMSP guidelines. ISO Standards 

represent a consensus international 

standard for specialized space activities. 

The testing and analysis can include 

engine re-light qualification tests or 

reliability analysis or similar. The 

ODAP must also include a description 

of how the system will achieve 

controlled atmospheric disposal under 

nominal and off-nominal conditions, 

such as a partial burn failure or offtrajectory scenario. Lastly, unless the 

operator is targeting a broad ocean area, 

the ODAP must include the calculated 

total collective and individual casualty 

expectations for the proposed operation 

or the effective casualty area of any 

surviving debris, pursuant to 

§ 453.14(d)(3). 

b. Heliocentric, Earth-Escape Disposal 

The FAA proposes to allow operators 

to perform heliocentric, Earth-escape 

disposal if they meet the performancebased requirements of § 453.15. The 

requirements of proposed § 453.15 

would only apply if the operator elects 

heliocentric, Earth-escape disposal as its 

disposal method under § 453.13. 

Proposed § 453.15(b) would require that 

the operator ensure, within 30 days after 

mission completion, that the upper 

stage and each of its components is 

placed in a hyperbolic trajectory that no 

longer orbits Earth. This option would 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65849 

56 Yamamoto, et.al (2017) 7th European 

Conference on Space Debris, Cost analysis of active 

debris removal scenarios and system architectures. 

57On August 25, 2021, a Japanese spacecraft 

successfully captured a simulated piece of space 

debris as a first step to demonstrate technology to 

remove orbital debris. On October 24, 2021, China 

launched a mission with the stated aim of testing 

space debris removal technologies. 

remove the upper stage from orbit 

completely and also result in zero risk 

to the people of Earth. The upper stage 

and its components would travel into an 

orbit around the Sun rather than remain 

as debris in Earth orbit. The FAA 

recognizes that this disposal option is 

prohibitively costly for operators not 

already planning inter-planetary 

missions, as the energy needed to fully 

escape Earth orbit is greater than the 

energy needed for other disposal 

options. Operators without the available 

fuel will not be able to execute this 

option. 

Operators who elect to perform 

heliocentric, Earth-escape disposal 

would be required under proposed 

§ 453.15(c) to include a description of 

the Earth-escape disposal in the ODAP 

submitted prior to each launch or 

reentry. The description must include 

(1) verification through hardware and 

software testing or analysis that the 

system has at least a 90 percent 

probability of successfully executing the 

planned heliocentric, Earth-escape 

disposal, and (2) a description of how 

the system will achieve a controlled 

disposal under nominal and off-nominal 

conditions, such as a partial burn failure 

or off-trajectory scenario. The testing 

and analysis could include engine relight qualification tests, reliability 

analyses, or similar tests. 

c. Direct Retrieval 

Another means by which an operator 

could dispose of the upper stage of a 

vehicle, or any other orbital debris 

released, would be direct retrieval, also 

called Active Debris Removal or 

remediation, in which an operator 

retrieves the upper stage and removes it 

from orbit via a controlled disposal or 

maneuver into a disposal orbit. Direct 

retrieval would require the launch of a 

device or spacecraft that attaches to or 

otherwise affects the upper stage and 

causes it to deorbit in a controlled 

manner or move to a disposal orbit. 

Current research and economic 

feasibility studies performed by 

commercial operators and international 

space agencies suggest this option could 

be commercially viable within a few 

years.56 Demonstrations of this 

capability have already been 

conducted.57 For this reason, the FAA 

proposes to include as § 453.16 the 

option for operators to perform direct 

retrieval if they meet the requirements 

of § 453.16. The requirements of 

§ 453.16 would only apply if the 

operator elects direct retrieval as its 

disposal method under § 453.13. 

Proposed § 453.16 would require that 

operators retrieve the upper stage by 

either removing it from orbit in a 

controlled manner or maneuvering it to 

a disposal orbit no more than 5 years 

after completion of the mission. The 

FAA proposes to allow operators up to 

5 years from mission completion to 

perform the direct retrieval as a means 

of balancing the burden on operators to 

carry out the subsequent retrieval 

mission against the compelling need to 

remove the spent upper stage and its 

components from orbit. A 5-year 

timeline is consistent with USGODMSP 

recommendations and would require 

operators to demonstrate that they are 

capable of performing the direct 

retrieval based on actual technical 

capabilities, rather than hypothetical 

future capabilities. Operators will have 

5 years to perform the direct retrieval, 

however, removal should occur as soon 

as possible to reduce the risk of creating 

more debris. Under proposed 

§ 453.16(b), if the result of the direct 

retrieval is a controlled disposal of the 

upper stage into a planned disposal 

area, then the retrieval would be 

required to meet the disposal safety 

requirements in § 453.14(b) and (c). 

Conversely, if the result of the direct 

retrieval is a maneuver into a disposal 

orbit, then the retrieval would need to 

meet the disposal orbit lifetimes and 

analysis requirements of § 453.18. 

Under proposed § 453.16(c), an 

operator would be required to describe 

its plan for direct retrieval in its ODAP, 

and demonstrate a probability of 

successful disposal of at least 90 

percent. The description must include 

verification through hardware and 

software testing or analysis that the 

system has at least a 90 percent 

probability of successfully executing the 

planned direct retrieval. If the planned 

retrieval will result in a controlled 

disposal, then the operator must include 

in its ODAP (i) a description of how the 

system will achieve a disposal under 

nominal and off-nominal conditions; 

and (ii) the total collective and 

individual casualty expectations for the 

proposed operation or the effective 

casualty area of any surviving debris, if 

the operator will not dispose of the 

debris into a broad ocean area. The 

operator should identify the intended 

disposal location so that the FAA can 

discern whether the operator will target 

a broad ocean area or verify the 

expectation of casualty from disposal 

into that location. Alternatively, if the 

operator intends to retrieve and 

maneuver the debris to a disposal orbit, 

under proposed § 453.16(c)(3), the 

operator would need to include in their 

ODAP (i) a description of how the 

system will achieve and maintain the 

planned disposal orbit for the required 

time limit as specified in § 453.18(b) 

through (d); and (ii) a statistical analysis 

demonstrating that the probability of 

collision with operational spacecraft 

and debris is within the lifetime limit of 

§ 453.18(e). The testing and analysis 

performed in accordance with 

§ 453.16(c) should include qualification 

tests, reliability analyses, or similar 

tests. 

d. Uncontrolled Atmospheric Disposal 

The FAA proposes to allow launch or 

reentry operators to perform 

uncontrolled atmospheric disposal to 

meet the requirement of § 453.13 by 

using one of two methods. Under 

proposed § 453.17, an operator could 

either dispose of debris from LEO 

through natural decay by leaving the 

upper stage and its components in an 

orbit where the debris will gradually 

lower until it falls to Earth, or from 

MEO or higher orbit by maneuvering the 

debris to a highly elliptical orbit for 

long-term atmospheric disposal. The 

requirements of proposed § 453.17 

would only apply if the operator elects 

to perform uncontrolled atmospheric 

disposal to meet the disposal 

requirement of § 453.13. 

In order to dispose of debris from 

LEO—an orbit below 2,000 km—an 

operator would be required in 

§ 453.17(b)(1) to leave an upper stage 

and its components in an orbit where, 

accounting for the mean projections for 

solar activity and atmospheric drag, the 

orbital lifetime is as short as practicable, 

but does not exceed 25 years after 

launch. Instead of reentering 

immediately, the orbit of the upper stage 

and its components would gradually 

lower over months or years until the 

debris falls to Earth. The disposal would 

be considered uncontrolled in the sense 

that the operator would not initiate the 

disposal at a particular time, and the 

disposal could occur anywhere on Earth 

under its orbital path. 

The 25-year rule, which the FAA also 

proposes to implement in § 453.5, is a 

common standard recommended by the 

IADC and a requirement for U.S. 

Government launches under the 

USGODMSP. The IADC’s Support to the 

IADC Space Debris Mitigation 

Guidelines, Oct 2004 Working Group 

Report states that a 25-year post-mission 

lifetime appears to be a good 

compromise between an immediate (or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65850 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

58 Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination 

Committee. (October 2004). Support to the IADC 

Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines. Oct 2004 

Working Group Report, section 5.3.2. 

59United States Space Command. (Retrieved on 

August 26, 2021). Reentry Assessment—US Space 

Command Fact Sheet. SpaceRef. 

www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4008. 

60NPR 8715.6B, NASA Procedural Requirements 

for Limiting Orbital Debris and Evaluating the 

Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Environments. 

61 Department of Defense Instruction 3100.12 and 

Air Force Instruction 91–202. 

62FCC Statute 25.114 Applications for Space 

Authorizations. 

63United States Government. (November 2019) 

U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation 

Standard Practices, November 2019 Update. 

orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/usg_orbital_

debris_mitigation_standard_practices_november_

2019.pdf. 

64SANDIA National Laboratories. (April 1997). 

Hazards of Falling Debris to People, Aircraft, and 

Watercraft. 

very short lifetime) de-orbit policy 

which is very effective but much more 

expensive to implement, and a 50 or 100 

year lifetime de-orbit policy which is 

less costly to implement but can lead to 

higher collision risks in the long-term.58

Greater depth of technical analysis is 

available in the IADC working group 

report. 

While the FAA concurs with the 

current IADC and USGODMSP 

guidelines, which limit post-mission 

lifetimes in LEO to 25 years, the FAA 

recognizes that increases in the numbers 

and kinds of activities in Earth orbit 

may necessitate reevaluation of the 

adequacy of a 25-year post-mission 

lifetime in the future. The FAA seeks 

public comment on whether a shorter 

deadline should be imposed. The FAA 

notes that upper stages of launch 

vehicles become debris as soon as the 

payloads are released; upper stages in 

orbits with perigee altitudes below 350 

km typically have orbital lifetimes less 

than 5 years. Given that the entire 

mission lifetime of upper stages and 

their components is quite short, and 

spent upper stages pose a significant 

risk of debris propagation the longer 

they are in orbit, it may be appropriate 

to have a shorter disposal timeline of 5 

years. A shorter deadline of 5 years that 

removes the highest-mass objects from 

orbit would vastly reduce the risk of 

creating more debris and would make 

U.S. commercial space a leader in 

orbital debris mitigation. 

Uncertainties in modeling should be 

accounted for in evaluation of the 

orbital lifetime of an object. The use of 

publicly available software such as 

NASA’s DAS and the French Space 

Agency’s STELA (Semi-analytic Tool for 

End of Life Analysis) regularly update 

model inputs for atmospheric density, 

which is responsible for the largest 

uncertainty, could be used to estimate 

orbital lifetime prior to launch. 

In addition to meeting the 25-year 

requirement of § 453.17(b)(1), the FAA 

would require in § 453.17(b)(2) that 

operators performing uncontrolled 

atmospheric disposal from LEO satisfy 

either an expected casualty (EC) of 1 × 

10¥4, or an equivalent effective casualty 

area of 7 square meters. The FAA 

proposes to delay the effective date of 

§ 453.17(b)(2) until 1 year after the 

effective date of the rule, so as to avoid 

interference with current planned 

launches and provide operators 

additional time to come into compliance 

with the requirement. The FAA 

proposes to regulate uncontrolled 

atmospheric disposal in this manner 

due to the inherent risks posed to 

people and property on Earth whenever 

upper stages reenter the Earth’s 

atmosphere in either a controlled or 

uncontrolled manner. Upper stages are 

designed to be robust systems capable of 

withstanding the stresses and 

temperatures of launch. Therefore, most 

upper stages are composed of heatresistant material that does not burn-up 

upon reentry and can be expected to 

survive reentry to impact the ground. 

Although tracking and analysis can be 

done to help narrow down where an 

uncontrolled reentry may occur, and the 

appropriate civil authorities can be 

notified, there are no means to stop or 

move the impact location of reentering 

debris. Furthermore, the science of 

predicting impact points for 

uncontrolled disposals is limited. Reentry Assessment is difficult. It is 

virtually impossible to precisely predict 

where and when space debris will 

impact. This is due to limitations in the 

U.S. tracking system as well as 

environmental factors that impact on 

the debris.59

National U.S. policy guidelines cited 

above, as well as those of NASA,60

Department of Defense,61 and the FCC,62

along with a growing international 

consensus, recommend that the risk to 

the public on the ground not exceed 1 

EC in 10,000 events or 1 × 10¥4. This 

applies to reentries of orbital debris, 

whether they are a deliberate controlled 

disposal or an uncontrolled disposal 

through natural decay. The EC should be 

calculated to one-significant figure 

unless an uncertainty analysis justifies a 

more precise estimate of risk. 

The EC can vary greatly due to factors 

outside of the launch vehicle designer’s 

control. Growing world populations and 

various orbital inclination choices have 

direct correlations to the EC rating for 

reentries. The FAA realizes that the EC

prediction can be difficult to calculate; 

therefore, the FAA sought an alternative 

method in addition to EC. 

As alternatives to a launch operator’s 

calculating and satisfying of an EC of 1 

× 10¥4, the FAA is also proposing to 

allow an operator to demonstrate that it 

can limit the casualty area during 

disposal by natural decay. Some 

companies may find the debris casualty 

area determination to be a more 

simplified analysis, and this analysis 

relies only on vehicle design and 

operation. Both analyses, EC and debris 

casualty area, would be adequate to 

protect the public from disposal risk. 

Therefore, the FAA proposes disposal to 

be acceptable if a size limit is satisfied 

or if the EC limit is met. 

The FAA would permit uncontrolled 

reentry as an acceptable form of 

disposal if the surviving debris casualty 

area measured 7 square meters or less. 

This proposed casualty area matches 

that stated in the USGODMSP, guideline 

4–1(e).63 The casualty area is derived 

from the acceptance of a risk criteria of 

1 × 10¥4. Applying the 1 × 10¥4

expectation of casualty to uncontrolled 

disposal, NASA calculated the risk to 

account for the 2019 population of the 

world that could be affected and the size 

of the debris that could impact the 

ground. On average, analysis showed 

that a casualty area of 7 square meters 

of surviving debris would produce a 1 

× 10¥4 expectation of casualty. The 

debris casualty area takes into account 

that the force of impact of the debris is 

at least 11 ft-lb, the threshold for injury 

on an unsheltered person.64 Specifying 

an acceptable casualty area as an 

alternative to a risk criterion eliminates 

the uncertainty inherent in risk 

calculations, including such variables as 

population counts and event probability 

assumptions. 

The total effective casualty area is 

determined by adding up the casualty 

area of each piece of debris that impacts 

Earth. The upper stage will not land 

intact, but is expected to breakup in the 

atmosphere during reentry. The total 

casualty area of all pieces added 

together would be required to be less 

than 7 square meters. 

The second option for performing an 

uncontrolled atmospheric disposal 

under proposed § 453.17 would be to 

maneuver the debris to a highly 

elliptical orbit for long-term 

atmospheric disposal. Under proposed 

§ 453.17(c), an operator would 

maneuver the upper stage and its 

components from semi-synchronous 

Molniya orbits, synchronous Tundra 

orbits, and other elliptical orbits, to a 

long-term disposal orbit where orbital 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65851 

65All figures match the guidelines in the 

USGODMSP. A 200-year timeline ensures that the 

upper stage will avoid the altitude range commonly 

used by global navigation satellite systems. 

resonances will increase the eccentricity 

for long-term atmospheric disposal of 

the upper stage. This proposal of up to 

a 200-year disposal matches the 

USGODMSP guidelines to allow the 

upper stage to be maneuvered to a 

disposal where orbital resonances keep 

increasing the eccentricity and 

eventually decrease the perigee for an 

uncontrolled atmospheric disposal. 

During the development of the 

USGODMSP, the FAA, NASA, and the 

Department of Defense reviewed various 

timeframes for highly elliptical orbit 

disposals. Objects in highly elliptical 

orbits are affected by gravitational forces 

from the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun. 

These forces, over time, alter the object’s 

orbit and eventually cause the object to 

reenter Earth’s atmosphere. The FAA 

foresees that very few commercial 

operations would fall within this 

scenario, because it is rarely used by 

commercial operators. 

If an operator maneuvers the debris to 

a highly elliptical orbit in accordance 

with § 453.17(c), the orbital lifetime 

must be as short as practicable, but must 

not exceed 200 years after mission 

completion. The responsible behavior is 

to remove debris objects from orbit as 

soon as practical. Highly elliptical 

objects have very high apogees; 

therefore, atmospheric drag only affects 

them during a small portion of their 

orbit. Drag is a major factor in 

atmospheric disposal, so these disposals 

take a long time to occur. These objects 

spend a smaller portion of time within 

congested orbits, so over a 200-year 

timeframe, the time in congested orbits 

equals that of objects that are in LEO for 

25 years. The probability of collision 

with operational spacecraft and debris 

10 cm and larger should also be limited 

to less than 0.001 for the entire lifetime. 

The FAA proposes to delay the effective 

date of the risk requirement so as not to 

interfere with current planned launches. 

The FAA finds that delaying the 

effective date of this requirement by 1 

year will allow operators sufficient time 

to implement disposal options that meet 

the risk criteria, without jeopardizing 

public safety. After 1 year, the launch 

operator must show that when the 

upper stage reenters, the risk will meet 

the criteria of 1 × 10¥4 or that the 

effective casualty area will be less than 

7 square meters. 

Proposed § 453.17(d) would identify 

the information that an operator must 

include in its ODAP prior to each 

launch or reentry in order to perform 

uncontrolled atmospheric disposal in 

accordance with this section. The ODAP 

must include (1) verification through 

hardware and software testing or 

analysis that the system has at least a 90 

percent probability of successfully 

executing the planned disposal option; 

(2) an estimate of the EC or the effective 

casualty area for any surviving debris; 

and (3) a statistical analysis 

demonstrating compliance with the 

requirements of § 453.17(b) or (c) to 

dispose of the debris within the 

prescribed time limit. The testing and 

analysis could include an analysis using 

NASA’s DAS or similar material that 

demonstrates compliance with the 25- 

year rule in the case of natural decay 

from LEO, or the 200-year rule for 

highly elliptical orbits. Alternatively, an 

analysis should be provided showing 

that the upper stage can meet the 

casualty area limit or expectation of 

casualty limit. 

e. Maneuver to a Disposal Orbit 

The FAA proposes to give launch or 

reentry operators the option in § 453.18 

of disposing of debris by maneuvering it 

to a disposal orbit. In this scenario, the 

operator would move the upper stage 

and its components into a lesspopulated disposal orbit. Disposal or 

storage orbits are orbits intended for 

post-mission long-term storage, where 

atmospheric effects and solar radiation 

will not move disposed objects into a 

protected orbit for at least 100 years. 

Disposal orbits protect LEO, a narrow 

band in MEO bounded by 20,182 km 

plus or minus 300 km, and the GEO 

region. The band in MEO is used by 

Global Positioning System (GPS) 

spacecraft and other global positioning 

constellations. On-orbit disposal is not a 

permanent solution, and some of these 

storage orbits may be used for future 

space operations. Even spacecraft 

orbiting beyond GEO will eventually 

degrade and reenter populated orbits. 

While use of disposal orbits fails to 

remove debris from orbit and therefore 

reduce the chance of debris-making 

collisions, on-orbit disposal remains an 

effective alternative to atmospheric 

disposal in today’s environment and is 

preferable to clogging LEO and 

intersecting GEO with spent upper 

stages. This option is consistent with 

the USGODMSP. In addition, for some 

operators, all other methods of disposal 

would be costly. The FAA therefore 

proposes to allow operators to maneuver 

orbital debris to a disposal orbit in order 

to meet the disposal requirement of 

§ 453.13. Disposal orbits still impose 

some risk for future space programs and 

interplanetary missions. The FAA seeks 

comments on whether disposal orbit 

options should be phased out. And, if 

so, what an appropriate timeframe for 

phasing out should be. 

The requirements of § 453.18 would 

only apply if the operator elects to 

maneuver to a disposal orbit as its 

disposal method under § 453.13. To 

comply with § 453.18, the operator 

would move the upper stage and its 

components into a less-populated orbit 

within 30 days after mission 

completion. To prevent interference 

with active spacecraft for a significant 

length of time, the FAA proposes as 

disposal orbits those identified in the 

USGODMSP. If an operator elects to use 

a disposal orbit between LEO and GEO, 

then the operator would be required to 

place the upper stage and its 

components into either (1) an eccentric 

orbit where the perigee altitude remains 

above 2,000 km, the apogee altitude 

remains below the geosynchronous 

region for at least 100 years, and the 

time spent by the upper stage between 

20,182 plus or minus 300 km is limited 

to 25 years or less over 200 years; 65 or 

(2) a near-circular disposal orbit that 

avoids altitudes 20,182 plus or minus 

300 km, the geosynchronous region, and 

altitudes less than 2,000 km, for at least 

100 years. Under proposed 

§ 453.18(c)(1)(iii), an orbit that remains 

completely within the region bounded 

by 20,182 km plus or minus 300 km 

would not qualify as a disposal orbit. 

The orbital lifetime of any debris placed 

within this region would therefore be 

limited to 25 years or less over 200 

years. If an operator elects to use a 

disposal orbit above GEO, the FAA 

proposes to require in § 453.18(d) that 

the operator place the upper stage and 

its components into an orbit with a 

perigee altitude above 36,100 km for a 

period of at least 100 years after 

disposal. 

In addition to implementing the 

disposal orbits identified by the 

USGODMSP, the FAA proposes to 

require in § 453.18(e) that operators 

limit the probability of collisions with 

operational spacecraft and debris 10 cm 

and larger to less than 0.001 for 100 

years after disposal. This requirement 

would be consistent with USGODMSP 

recommendations, as well as the 

requirement in proposed § 453.9(b) to 

limit the probability of collision 

between launched objects after the end 

of launch. 

Proposed § 453.18(f) would prescribe 

the information that an operator must 

include in its ODAP to maneuver debris 

to a disposal orbit in accordance with 

§ 453.18. Under proposed § 453.18(f), 

the ODAP must include: (1) verification 

through hardware and software testing 

or analysis that the system has at least 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65852 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

66 International Organization for Standardization. 

(April 1, 2014) ISO 16126:2014. 

67See proposed § 417.129(b) and (c). 

68See § 417.129(c). 

69 In statistics, a confidence interval is the range 

of values that includes the true value at a specified 

confidence level. A confidence level of 95 percent 

is commonly used which means that there is a 95 

percent chance that the true value is encompassed 

in the interval. 

a 90 percent probability of successfully 

executing the planned maneuver to the 

disposal orbit; (2) a description of how 

the system will achieve and maintain 

the planned disposal orbit for the 

required time limit; and (3) statistical 

analysis demonstrating compliance with 

the probability of collision lifetime limit 

with operational spacecraft and debris. 

ISO Standard 16126 66 provides an 

acceptable method for conducting the 

post-mission disposal probability of 

success analysis of § 453.18(f)(1). The 

testing and analysis can include engine 

re-light qualification tests or reliability 

analysis or similar. 

D. Explosion Mitigation 

The FAA proposes minor changes to 

its current requirement that a launch 

operator prevent fragmentation or 

explosion of its upper stage.67

Currently, under §§ 417.129(c) and 

450.171(a)(3), a launch operator must 

ensure the removal of stored energy 

from an upper stage by depleting 

residual fuel and leaving fuel lines 

open.68

Proposed § 453.7(a) would require 

that, except for energy sources that are 

safety critical on-orbit or during reentry, 

a launch operator must ensure: (1) the 

integrated probability of debrisgenerating explosions or other 

fragmentation from the conversion of 

energy sources (i.e. chemical, pressure, 

kinetic) of each upper stage is less than 

0.001 (1 in 1,000) during operations; 

and (2) stored energy is removed by 

depleting residual propellants, venting 

any pressurized system, leaving all 

batteries in a permanent discharge state, 

and removing any remaining source of 

stored energy. The proposed rule would 

replace §§ 417.129(c) and 450.171(a)(3), 

and would not contain a specific 

requirement to leave valves open. After 

promulgation of its original debris 

requirements, the FAA has found on 

several occasions, through the licensing 

process, that leaving the valves open 

long enough for all fuels and oxidizers 

to vent and then permitting them to 

close, has provided a level of safety 

equivalent to leaving the valves open. 

Either approach removes the source of 

explosion risk—namely, the fuels and 

oxidizers. The FAA proposes a 

probability limit of 0.001, which 

matches the limit in the USGODMSP, in 

order to provide operators a quantitative 

requirement. 

Proposed § 453.7(b) would identify 

the information that an operator would 

need to include in its ODAP to 

demonstrate compliance with § 453.7(a), 

specifically: (1) analysis, using 

commonly accepted engineering and 

probability assessment methods, 

showing how the operation meets 

paragraph (a)(1); and (2) test results or 

analysis, with 95 percent confidence 

levels,69 of the planned end-of-mission 

passivation procedure that verifies 

dissipation of all energy sources to 

levels that will prevent explosion of any 

launch vehicle component. The test 

results or analysis submitted in 

accordance with § 453.7(b)(2) would be 

required to show that all residual 

propellants contained in the system can 

be purged or passivated to an acceptable 

level at the end of the launch, all 

pressurized systems can be purged or 

passivated, and all energy storage 

systems have sufficient structural design 

to prevent rupture and subsequent 

explosion. This proposal marks a 

departure from current requirements, 

which only ask for a demonstration, 

without specifying that the 

demonstration be made with analysis 

and verification. The FAA now 

considers the latter necessary because 

operators have historically only stated 

that they would comply without 

providing the test or analysis to show 

how they would comply. The FAA 

seeks to clarify in regulation that 

asserting compliance is not a 

demonstration of compliance that 

satisfies this requirement. The FAA 

seeks feedback on the proposed analysis 

and testing requirements. 

E. Collision Mitigation Between 

Launched Objects 

The FAA proposes minor changes to 

its current requirements that a launch 

operator prevent unplanned physical 

contact between the launch vehicle and 

payload. Currently §§ 417.129(a) and 

450.171(a)(1) require a launch operator 

to ensure that there is no unplanned 

physical contact between the launch 

vehicle and its components and the 

payload. Proposed § 453.9(a) would 

require a launch operator to prevent 

unplanned physical contact between a 

launch vehicle or any of its components 

and each payload after payload 

separation, and would replace the 

requirements in §§ 417.129 and 450.171. 

The FAA proposes to add a 

requirement in § 453.9(b) to take into 

account the probability of collision with 

orbital objects 10 cm and larger when 

designing the mission profile of an 

upper stage. The operator should ensure 

that the probability of collision is less 

than 0.001 (1 in 1,000) after the end of 

launch. Upper stages are the highest 

mass of orbital debris by far. It is 

important to prevent breakups of 

massive upper stages due to collisions 

with large debris. The proposed 

requirement also matches ODMSP 

Objective 3–1. 

Proposed § 453.9(c)(1) would specify 

the information that an operator must 

include in its ODAP to demonstrate 

compliance with § 453.9: (1) the 

operator’s procedure for preventing 

vehicle and payload collision after 

payload separation, including any 

propellant depletion burns and 

compressed gas releases that minimize 

the probability of subsequent collisions; 

and (2) the results of a probability of 

collision analysis, using commonly 

accepted engineering and probability 

assessment methods, meeting paragraph 

(b) of this section. This marks a 

departure from current requirements, 

which only require a demonstration, 

without specifying that the 

demonstration must consist of a written 

procedure. The FAA has received nonactionable demonstrations in previous 

applications and now proposes 

requiring complete procedures in the 

ODAP. The FAA now considers the 

latter necessary for purposes of 

clarification as to what the FAA seeks. 

The analysis should use commonly 

accepted engineering and probability 

assessment methods. 

F. Launch and Reentry Collision 

Avoidance. 

The FAA proposes to move the 

collision avoidance analysis 

requirements from § 450.169, which are 

currently applicable to all orbital 

launches and reentries authorized by 

the FAA that exceed 150 km to § 453.11. 

The FAA would replace the current text 

in § 450.169 with a reference to 

§ 453.11, and replace all references to 

§ 450.169 outside of part 450 with a 

reference to new § 453.11, which would 

be called ‘‘Collision Avoidance with 

Orbital Objects.’’ Proposed § 453.11 is 

substantially similar to the existing 

requirements in § 450.169, but would 

differ from the existing regulation in the 

following respects. 

First, the FAA would omit from 

proposed § 453.11 the exclusion 

provided in § 450.169(d), which states 

that collision avoidance analysis is not 

required if the maximum planned 

altitude for any launched object is less 

than 150 km. This exclusion is 

necessary under current § 450.169 

because part 450 is not limited to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65853 

launch or reentry activity above 150 km. 

Since the FAA would relocate the 

collision avoidance analysis 

requirements to part 453, which would 

only apply to launch or reentry activity 

that exceeds 150 km, the exclusion 

found in § 450.169(d) is no longer 

necessary. As such, the FAA would 

exclude the phrase ‘‘except as provided 

in paragraph (d),’’ which appears in 

§ 450.169(a) from proposed § 453.11(a). 

The text of proposed § 453.11(a)(1) 

would match current § 450.169(a)(1). 

The FAA proposes to refer to ‘‘active 

payloads’’ in § 453.11(a)(2), instead of 

‘‘objects that are neither orbital debris 

nor inhabitable’’ as used in current 

§ 450.169(a)(2). The updated language 

clearly states the intent of this section 

and is consistent with U.S. Space Force 

terminology and current practice. Active 

payloads do not include inhabitable 

objects like the ISS, which require more 

stringent screening. 

In § 453.11(a)(2), the FAA proposes to 

retain the probability of collision and 

spherical separation distance options 

from § 450.169(a)(2)(i) and (ii), but add 

a third option for operators to screen 

against active payloads: ellipsoidal 

screening. The FAA would accept an 

ellipsoidal separation distance of 25 km 

in-track and 7 km cross-and-radial-track 

ellipsoidal separation from active 

payloads for collision avoidance 

analyses. The FAA looked at collision 

risk associated with the radial 

component greater than 7 km and found 

that it posed a risk less than 1 × 10¥5. 

These ellipsoidal distances also match 

current practice identified by the Range 

Commanders Council. Operators would 

therefore have three options for 

screening against active payloads: 

probability of collision 

(§ 453.11(a)(2)(i)), ellipsoidal screening 

(§ 453.11(a)(2)(ii)), and spherical 

screening (§ 453.11(a)(2)(iii)). 

The FAA proposes to add a 

requirement in § 453.11(a)(3) to perform 

launch and reentry collision avoidance 

analysis against small objects with a 

radar cross section greater than 0.04 m2. 

Currently, § 450.169(a)(3) only requires 

operators to screen against large objects 

with radar cross section greater than 1 

m2 and medium objects with radar cross 

section 0.1 m2 to 1 m2. However, small 

objects, including CubeSat-sized objects, 

can cause vehicle breakups and orbital 

debris if a collision were to occur 

between the object and a launching or 

reentering vehicle. The FAA did not 

include small debris in its recent 

Streamlined Launch and Reentry 

License Requirements rulemaking, as 

the FAA was still investigating the 

implications of the increase of small 

objects in the debris catalog due to the 

addition of the Department of Defense 

Space Fence. It is current practice at the 

Federal ranges to screen against all 

objects in the debris catalog, including 

small objects with a radar cross section 

greater than 0.04 m2. Therefore, the 

FAA proposes to add launch and 

reentry collision avoidance analysis 

screening against those small objects. 

The FAA would retain under 

§ 453.11(a)(3) the screening options 

provided in § 450.169(a)(3): an operator 

would be required to ensure either (i) 

that the probability of collision between 

the launching or reentering objects and 

any known orbital debris does not 

exceed 1 × 10¥5; or (ii) that the 

launching or reentering objects maintain 

a spherical separation distance of 2.5 

km. Window closures that meet these 

requirements will ensure that launch 

and reentry vehicles do not collide with 

known objects during launch or reentry 

operations. Note that probability of 

collision is different than probability of 

casualty used elsewhere for public risk. 

Probability of collision is only the odds 

that two objects will occupy the same 

location at the same time. Probability of 

casualty factors in the odds of collision 

plus the vulnerability of a person. Thus, 

there are separate risk measures. 

The FAA proposes to move the 

screening time requirements of 

§ 450.169(b) to § 453.11(b), with several 

modifications. First, to enhance clarity 

the FAA would refer to ‘‘150 kilometers 

altitude’’ in § 453.11(b)(1) and (2), 

instead of ‘‘150 km,’’ which appears in 

§ 450.169(b)(1) and (2). The text of 

proposed § 453.11(b)(3) would match 

current § 450.169(b)(3). Second, to 

accommodate the additional disposal 

options proposed in part 453, the FAA 

proposes to specify appropriate 

screening times for controlled 

atmospheric disposal and maneuver to a 

storage orbit, rather than refer to 

‘‘disposal’’ generally, as done in current 

§ 450.169(b)(4). Under proposed 

§ 453.11(b)(4), an operator performing 

controlled atmospheric disposal would 

need to screen during descent from 

initial disposal burn to 150 km altitude. 

To maneuver to a disposal orbit, under 

§ 453.11(b)(5), an operator would need 

to screen during initial disposal 

operation until removal from LEO or 

GEO. 

The FAA proposes to move 

§ 450.169(c) to § 453.11(c) without any 

changes. Since the FAA would not 

include the exclusion in § 450.169(d) 

because it is redundant of proposed part 

453, the Analysis requirements found in 

§ 450.169(e) would appear under 

paragraph (d) of proposed § 453.11. 

The FAA proposes to move the 

language currently found in § 450.169(e) 

to § 453.11(d), with two revisions. First, 

to enhance clarity, the FAA proposes to 

revise the first sentence of § 453.11(d) to 

use the active voice (‘‘An operator must 

obtain a collision avoidance analysis 

. . .’’). Second, the FAA proposes to 

identify in § 453.11(d)(2) the 

uncertainties that should be included in 

the vehicle trajectory and covariance 

calculation used in the collision 

avoidance analysis. Specifically, the 

FAA proposes to require that collision 

avoidance analyses account for 

uncertainties, ‘‘including launch or 

reentry vehicle performance and timing, 

atmospheric changes, variations in drag, 

and any other factors that affect position 

and timing of the launch or reentry 

vehicle.’’ It is important for a scientific 

and complete analysis to include these 

uncertainties because at the velocities of 

the objects in orbit, small variations or 

uncertainties can affect the collision 

prediction. By revising this provision, 

the FAA emphasizes the use of 

uncertainty at the beginning of collision 

analysis, whereas the previous language 

in § 450.169(e)(2) directed that 

uncertainties be used to modify the final 

analysis results. 

The FAA proposes to move 

§ 450.169(f) to § 453.11(e) without any 

substantive changes. 

The FAA proposes to move part 450 

Appendix A, the Collision Avoidance 

Analysis Worksheet, to § 453.11(f), with 

several revisions. First, the FAA 

proposes in § 453.11(f)(1) to update the 

launch and reentry information that 

must be included in the Collision 

Avoidance Analysis Worksheet. The 

FAA proposes to combine the ‘‘Segment 

Number’’ and ‘‘Orbiting objects to 

evaluate,’’ currently found in 

paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(7) of Appendix 

A, into one requirement, 

§ 453.11(f)(1)(v). These current 

requirements are redundant, and the 

updated requirement uses plain 

language to describe the objects that 

should be evaluated in the analysis: all 

free-flying launch vehicle stages, 

payloads, and components that reach 

orbit. The FAA also proposes to more 

clearly convey in § 453.11(f)(1)(vi) the 

orbital parameters of each free-flying 

launch vehicle stage, payload, or 

component achieving orbit that must be 

identified. The FAA would also refer to 

both launch and reentry in 

§ 453.11(f)(1)(ii) and (iv), unlike the 

existing Appendix A, which 

inconsistently addresses launch and 

reentry. This is a correction, as all parts 

of the Collision Avoidance Analysis 

Worksheet are applicable to both launch 

and reentry. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65854 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

G. Real-Time Reporting of Orbital Safety 

Hazards 

The FAA proposes to add a 

requirement in § 453.20 that would 

require a launch or reentry operator to 

submit certain information to the FAA 

and, if applicable, to other requesting 

Federal agencies, at the detection of any 

launch or reentry activity outside the 3- 

sigma trajectory provided for collision 

avoidance or any debris-creating event. 

Orbital safety is implemented through 

the pre-launch or reentry assessment of 

planned trajectories. If either an 

operator or Federal tracking capabilities 

detect activity outside the 3-sigma 

planned trajectory or a debris-generating 

event, the operator should contact the 

FAA to provide as much information as 

possible on the characteristics (size and 

mass), last known orbital or trajectory 

information, and other details 

determined necessary by the FAA to 

locate and categorize orbital objects. 

This should be done by phone or email 

as soon as the event is detected. The 

United States Strategic Command 

(USSTRATCOM) would be the Federal 

agency most likely to detect an event 

covered by § 453.20(a) and request 

information from the operator. This 

information may provide critical 

warning time to inhabited and active 

payloads on orbit, and allow 

USSTRATCOM to update its models 

and recalculate projected orbits. If a 

launch does not go as planned, and the 

vehicle ends up in a different orbit than 

expected, the original Collision 

Avoidance Analysis Worksheet would 

be moot. The FAA would need to 

reassess the collision probability against 

the new trajectory. 

Specifically, proposed § 453.20(a) 

would require an operator to 

immediately submit the information 

identified in § 453.20(b) to the FAA and, 

if applicable, a requesting Federal 

agency, at the detection of any launch 

or reentry activity outside the 3-sigma 

trajectory provided for collision 

avoidance or any debris-creating event. 

If an operator identifies such an event, 

or is notified by a Federal agency (such 

as U.S. Space Force and NASA), then 

the operator would need to report to the 

FAA and, if applicable, the requesting 

Federal agency: (1) the size and mass of 

the affected objects; (2) the last known 

orbital or trajectory information; and (3) 

any other details determined necessary 

by the FAA to locate and categorize 

orbital objects, such as the vehicle 

orientation, whether it is tumbling, or 

the operator’s ability to control the 

object. 

H. Revisions to Existing Regulations 

The FAA’s proposal to consolidate 

existing requirements for orbital debris 

mitigation and end-of-launch safety 

under part 453 necessitates the 

following revisions to current 

regulations. 

Under part 404, the FAA proposes to 

replace the reference to § 450.169 in 

Table A404.1 with a reference to 

§ 453.11. 

Under part 415, the FAA proposes to 

revise § 415.2(b) to reference part 450 as 

well as part 453. The proposed revision 

would make clear that operations 

licensed under part 415 must comply 

with the critical asset protection 

requirements in § 450.101(a)(4) and 

(b)(4) and, for launches with a planned 

altitude greater than 150 km, the launch 

collision avoidance requirements in 

§ 453.11. The FAA also proposes to 

revise § 415.35(d) to require that launch 

vehicles be operated ‘‘in a manner that 

ensures that flight risks meet the criteria 

of paragraph (a) of this section and in 

accordance with collision avoidance 

requirements in § 453.11 and critical 

asset protection requirements in 

§ 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4).’’ 

The FAA also proposes to revise 

§ 415.39 by revising the heading to read, 

‘‘Demonstration of Orbital Debris 

Mitigation,’’ instead of ‘‘Safety at End of 

Launch,’’ and by replacing the reference 

to § 417.129 with a reference to the 

sections of proposed part 453 under 

which those end of launch requirements 

would appear: §§ 453.7 and 453.9. 

Similarly, the FAA proposes to revise 

§ 415.133 by revising the heading to 

read, ‘‘Orbital Debris Mitigation,’’ and 

by replacing the reference to § 417.129 

with a reference to the sections of 

proposed part 453 under which those 

end of launch requirements would 

appear: §§ 453.7 and 453.9. These 

revisions would direct readers to the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

under which the FAA’s safety at end of 

launch requirements would be relocated 

under this proposal, and affirm that any 

FAA-licensed launches exceeding 150 

km would be required to comply with 

part 453. Lastly, the FAA would revise 

Appendix B to part 415 to reflect the 

revised heading of § 415.133 (Orbital 

Debris Mitigation). 

Under part 417, the FAA proposes to 

revise § 417.113(c)(1) to reference the 

collision avoidance analysis 

requirements of proposed § 453.11, 

instead of § 450.169. The FAA proposes 

to replace the requirements in § 417.129 

for safety at end of launch with a 

reference to the sections of proposed 

part 453 under which those end of 

launch requirements would appear: 

§§ 453.7 and 453.9. This revision would 

direct readers to the CFR part under 

which the FAA’s safety at end of launch 

requirements would be relocated under 

this proposal, and affirm that any FAAlicensed launches exceeding 150 km 

would be required to comply with part 

453. As discussed above, the FAA 

proposes changes to the end of launch 

requirements under part 453, consistent 

with USGODMSP guidelines. 

The FAA proposes to revise 

§§ 431.2(b) and 435.2(b) to reference 

part 450 and part 453. The proposed 

revisions would make clear that 

operations licensed under part 431 and 

435 must comply with the critical asset 

protection requirements in 

§ 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4) and, for 

launches with a planned altitude greater 

than 150 km, the launch collision 

avoidance requirements in § 453.11. The 

FAA proposes to revise § 431.43(a)(1) to 

reference § 453.11 instead of § 450.169. 

The FAA also proposes to replace the 

reference to § 450.169 in § 431.43(c)(3) 

with a reference to the sections of 

proposed part 453 under which those 

end of launch requirements will appear: 

§§ 453.7 and 453.9. As discussed above, 

the FAA proposes to change the end of 

launch requirements consistent with 

USGODMSP guidelines. This revision 

would direct readers to the CFR part 

under which the FAA’s safety at end of 

launch requirements would be relocated 

under this proposal, and affirm that any 

FAA-licensed launches or reentries 

exceeding 150 km would be required to 

comply with part 453. 

Under part 437, the FAA proposes to 

replace the reference to § 450.169 in 

§ 437.65 with a reference to § 453.11. 

The FAA also proposes to remove the 

word, ‘‘maximum’’ from § 437.65 

because it is an unnecessary modifier to 

the phrase, ‘‘permitted flight with a 

planned altitude greater than 150 km.’’ 

Under part 450, the FAA proposes to 

revise § 450.101(d), titled Disposal 

Safety Criteria, to specify the risk 

criteria applicable to controlled and 

uncontrolled atmospheric disposals. As 

discussed earlier in this preamble, the 

current definition of ‘‘disposal’’ in 

§ 401.7 includes only controlled 

atmospheric disposal. As a result, the 

disposal safety criteria currently 

identified in § 450.101(d) only apply to 

controlled atmospheric disposal. Since 

the FAA is proposing to amend the 

‘‘disposal’’ definition to include all five 

disposal options proposed in §§ 453.14 

through 453.18, and the disposal risk 

criteria currently identified in 

§ 450.101(d) would not apply to all five 

disposal methods, the FAA must 

therefore revise § 450.101(d) to identify 

the risk criteria applicable to each 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65855 

disposal method. Additionally, 

§ 450.101(d) currently refers to the 

reentry risk criteria in (b), which may 

create confusion since reentry is distinct 

from disposal. 

The risk criteria outlined in § 450.101 

would only apply to disposals that 

result in orbital debris returning to 

Earth’s surface or atmosphere—that is, 

controlled or uncontrolled atmospheric 

disposal. There is no need to calculate 

collective or individual risks to the 

public, or aircraft risk if an operator 

elects to maneuver orbital debris to a 

disposal orbit or a hyperbolic trajectory 

that no longer orbits Earth (Earth-escape 

disposal). Thus, the FAA proposes to 

revise § 450.101(d) to limit the 

applicability of the risk criteria to 

controlled atmospheric disposal 

performed in accordance with § 453.14, 

direct retrieval resulting in controlled 

atmospheric disposal per § 453.16(b)(1), 

and uncontrolled atmospheric disposal 

performed in accordance with § 453.17. 

The risk criteria applicable to controlled 

atmospheric disposal would appear in 

paragraph (d)(1), while the risk criteria 

applicable to uncontrolled atmospheric 

disposal would appear in paragraph 

(d)(2). 

With respect to controlled 

atmospheric disposal, the FAA’s 

proposed revision to § 450.101(d) is 

substantively equivalent to the current 

regulation. Operators performing 

controlled atmospheric disposal will 

still have the option of targeting a broad 

ocean area or meeting the same 

collective, individual, and aircraft risk 

criteria required for reentries under 

§ 450.101(b). The FAA proposes to add 

a third alternative for compliance as 

§ 450.101(d)(1)(i): ensuring that the 

effective casualty area of any surviving 

debris is less than 7 square meters. This 

revision renders the disposal risk 

criteria in § 450.101(d)(1) consistent 

with the safety criteria for controlled 

atmospheric disposal under proposed 

§ 453.14. 

The risk criteria applicable to 

uncontrolled atmospheric disposal will 

similarly match the criteria proposed in 

§ 453.17. As noted in this section of this 

preamble discussing proposed § 453.17, 

the FAA will not require operators to 

calculate individual or aircraft risk as 

would an operator performing 

controlled atmospheric disposal because 

the science of predicting impact points 

for uncontrolled disposals is limited. 

Due to limitations in the U.S. tracking 

system and environmental factors that 

impact debris, it is virtually impossible 

to precisely predict when and where 

debris disposed through natural decay 

will impact. Instead, consistent with the 

USGODMSP, the FAA would require 

that operators performing uncontrolled 

atmospheric disposal ensure that either 

(i) the effective casualty area for any 

surviving debris will be less than 7 

square meters; or (ii) the risk to the 

public on the ground will not exceed 1 

EC in 10,000 events or 1 × 10¥4. 

The FAA also proposes to revise 

§ 450.101(e) to reflect the scope of 

proposed part 453. Specifically, the 

FAA would require in § 450.101(e)(1) 

that operators prevent collisions 

between a launch or reentry vehicle 

stage or component with a planned 

altitude greater than 150 km and people, 

property, and debris on orbit, in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 453.11. Similarly, the FAA would 

require in § 450.101(e)(2) that operators 

perform debris mitigation in accordance 

with part 453 for any launch or reentry 

vehicle stage or component with a 

planned altitude greater than 150 km. 

The FAA also proposes to replace the 

reference to § 450.169 in § 450.165(a)(3) 

with a reference to § 453.11, and in 

§ 450.213 with a reference to § 453.11(f). 

As discussed above, the FAA proposes 

to move the collision avoidance analysis 

requirements set forth in §§ 450.169 to 

453.11, and replace the current language 

of § 450.169 with a reference to § 453.11. 

The FAA also proposes to revise the 

equivalent level of safety requirements 

in § 450.37 to allow operators the option 

to seek an equivalent level of safety for 

collision avoidance analysis 

requirements (which would be located 

under § 453.11) and all other orbital 

debris mitigation requirements under 

part 453. Previously, § 450.37 did not 

include an equivalent level of safety for 

collision avoidance analysis. Upon 

further consideration, the FAA decided 

that an equivalent level of safety is 

appropriate. The FAA has found a need 

for flexibility in the current regulation, 

which does not allow an equivalent 

level of safety for collision avoidance 

analysis, to accommodate deployments 

of large numbers of satellites and for 

new launch operators. The FAA has 

found that collision avoidance is a 

difficult task for new launch operators, 

and options need to be available to get 

the operators to meet compliance. The 

FAA believes operators might be 

capable of proposing alternatives to the 

collision avoidance analysis 

requirements such as active debris 

avoidance that provide a level of safety 

equivalent to FAA regulations. The FAA 

also proposes to amend the flight safety 

analysis scope requirements of 

§ 450.113 regarding disposal. The 

current regulation requires an operator 

to perform and document a flight safety 

analysis for all phases of flight, 

including for ‘‘disposal,’’ from the 

initiation of the deorbit through final 

impact. As discussed earlier in this 

preamble, the FAA is proposing to 

expand the definition of ‘‘disposal’’ in 

§ 401.7 to include all 5 disposal options 

proposed in §§ 453.14 through 453.18. 

The FAA does not believe it would be 

necessary or feasible to prepare a flight 

safety analysis for each of the 5 disposal 

methods proposed in part 453. The FAA 

will continue to only require a flight 

safety analysis for controlled 

atmospheric disposals. The FAA 

therefore proposes to replace the word 

‘‘disposals’’ in § 450.113(a)(3) with 

‘‘controlled atmospheric disposal 

performed in accordance with § 453.14 

or direct retrieval resulting in controlled 

atmospheric disposal under 

§ 453.16(b)(1).’’ Additionally, in order to 

reflect the safety criteria alternatives 

proposed in § 453.14(b), the FAA 

proposes to specify in § 450.113(c) that 

an operator would not need to prepare 

a flight safety analysis if the 

Administrator agrees that the disposal 

will target a broad ocean area or have an 

effective casualty area less than 7 square 

meters. 

Lastly, the FAA proposes to replace 

the current requirements of § 450.171 

for safety at end of launch with a 

reference to the sections of part 453 

under which those requirements will 

now be found: §§ 453.7 and 453.9. As 

discussed above, the FAA is proposing 

changes to the requirements for safety at 

end of launch to include all orbital 

debris mitigation requirements. As such 

this revision will expand the scope of 

§ 450.171, but as discussed earlier, 

should present no more than a minimal 

burden on operators for compliance. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider impacts of 

regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review’’), 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify the costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65856 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year. 

The current threshold after adjustment 

for inflation is $165,000,000, using the 

most current (2021) Implicit Price 

Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. 

The FAA has provided a detailed 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the 

docket for this rulemaking. This portion 

of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

rule. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this rule: would 

result in benefits that justify costs; is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, as amended by Executive 

Order 14094 (‘‘Modernizing Regulatory 

Review’’); would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; would not 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States; 

and would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on State, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

A. Summary of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

To limit the growth of orbital debris, 

the FAA is proposing to require that 

upper stages of commercial launch 

vehicles and other components be 

removed from orbit within 25 years after 

launch using an acceptable means of 

disposal. This document provides the 

FAA’s analysis of the impact of this 

regulatory change. 

Assumptions: 

• All monetary values are expressed 

in 2020 dollars. 

• A 15-year analysis period is used 

based on the available forecast and cost 

information. 

• Present values using 3 percent and 

7 percent discount rate as prescribed by 

OMB in Circular A–4. 

Entities Potentially Affected by this 

Rulemaking: 

• Licensed and permitted operators 

for launches and reentries with a 

planned altitude above 150 km. 

• All space users. 

• Commercial space transportation 

suppliers. 

• Satellite operators and owners. 

• The Federal Aviation 

Administration and other government 

agencies. 

• The general public. 

Currently, the FAA has no regulations 

requiring post-mission disposal of upper 

stages. In this rulemaking, the FAA 

considers the U.S. Government Orbital 

Debris Mitigation Standard Practices 

(USGODMSP) and policies of NASA, 

Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

and the Inter-agency Space Debris 

Coordination Committee (IADC) in an 

effort to establish common standards as 

the commercial space industry evolves 

and utilization of space grows. 

This proposed rule would prevent an 

estimated 427 used upper stages from 

becoming large orbital debris over the 

next 15 years. Furthermore, this 

proposed rule would likely result in 

cost savings resulting from avoiding 

orbital remediation costs in the long 

run. The proposed rule would reduce 

risks to human spaceflight and space 

property, and internalize the externality 

to benefit the satellite industry. In 

addition, the proposed mitigation 

requirements are in line with the public 

demand for a sustainable space 

environment and the commercial space 

industry’s interest in driving down 

orbital debris awareness costs. 

Therefore, this rulemaking would 

improve public safety and eventually 

save the industry money in the long run. 

The FAA assesses scenarios of 

compliance costs using low, central, and 

high scenarios, which vary by the 

number of controlled disposals per year. 

Cost of present values and annualized 

costs for the lower case, central case and 

higher case are presented in the 

following table. 

LOW, CENTRAL, AND HIGH-COST SCENARIOS IN 2022 U.S. DOLLARS

Million dollar 

Present value 

at a 7% 

discount rate 

Present value 

at a 3% 

discount rate 

Annualized 

cost at a 7% 

discount rate 

Annualized 

cost at a 3% 

discount rate 

Lower Case ...................................................................................................... $16 $20 $2 $2 

Central case ..................................................................................................... 24 31 3 3 

High Case ........................................................................................................ 48 59 5 5 

The central estimate of the present 

value of total costs over 15 years is $24 

million at a 7 percent discount rate or 

$31 million at a 3 percent discount rate. 

The annualized costs at a 7 percent 

discount rate would be $2.6 million or 

$2.6 million at a 3 percent discount rate. 

Without post-mission disposal, the 

upper stages contribute to the majority 

of orbital debris due to their mass. 

Moreover, prevention of large orbital 

debris would reduce risks to human 

spaceflight and space property. 

The following table is the summary of 

the total costs for central estimate, the 

FAA’s preferred estimate. 

PRESENT VALUE AND ANNUALIZED COST IN 2022 U.S. DOLLARS

Summary of costs 

($ million) 

Present value 

at a 3% rate 

Present value 

at a 7% rate 

Annualized 

cost at a 3% 

discount rate 

Annualized 

cost at a 7% 

discount rate 

Mitigation Costs ............................................................................................... $31.1 $23.9 $2.6 $2.6 

The following table summarizes 

benefits and costs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65857 

SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

Benefits 

—Preventing 427 used upper stages from becoming orbital debris over the 15 years. 

—Avoiding orbital remediation costs in the long run. 

—Mitigating risks to valuable space assets. 

—Internalizing the externality (spill-over cost) to benefit the satellite industry. 

—Aligning FAA requirements with interagency policies and common standards for orbital debris mitigation, and encouraging reciprocal regulatory action in foreign countries, which will further benefit U.S. commercial and government space operations by reducing space debris. 

—Preventing collisions and protecting human spaceflight. 

Costs 

—Present-value cost over 15-years (7 percent) would be $24 million ($3 million annualized). The costs are categorized into five groups: four 

disposal methods and reporting costs. 

The FAA encourages the public 

interest parties to read a full context of 

the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of 

this proposed rule in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

Currently, there are five FAA-licensed 

United States commercial space launch 

orbital vehicle manufacturers and 

operators under the Small Business 

Administration small-entity criteria of 

1,200 employees. Two of the five small 

entities are either a suborbital launcher 

whose space vehicles would not reach 

high space altitude to become orbital 

debris against the 25-year rule or not an 

active launcher, but listed as a launch 

license holder. The other three of the 

five are considered to be rocket builders, 

whose products as low-cost suborbital 

rockets would not be affected by this 

proposed rule. Therefore, as provided in 

section 605(b), the head of the FAA 

certifies that this rulemaking will not 

result in a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The FAA invites interested parties to 

submit data and information regarding 

the potential economic impact that 

would result from the proposal. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it would respond to 

a domestic safety objective and would 

not be considered an unnecessary 

obstacle to trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of 100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any 1 year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

proposed rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

This action contains the following 

proposed amendments to the existing 

information collection requirements 

previously approved under OMB 

Control Number 2120–0608. As required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has 

submitted these proposed information 

collection amendments to OMB for its 

review. 

Summary: Under §§ 453.5 through 

453.18, the proposed rule would require 

applicants to submit an ODAP that 

includes several analyses, descriptions, 

and demonstrations. The analyses 

would detail the release of debris during 

normal operations, how that debris 

release could be mitigated, and how any 

debris released will meet the 25-year 

rule and 100 object-year rule. An 

analysis detailing the end-of-mission 

passivation procedure and its 

probability of success would also be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65858 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

70The spent hour estimate is based on FAA/AST 

office and government launchers data sources. The 

wage rate is based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS), Occupation Employment and Wages, 

occupation code 17–2011 for Aerospace Engineers, 

in Feb 2019. 

required, as well as a procedure for 

collision avoidance after payload 

separation and an analysis of the 

lifetime probability of collision. For 

post-mission disposal, analysis and 

description of the disposal method and 

its probability of success are proposed 

along with the calculated risk, effective 

casualty area, or the broad ocean 

location of any disposals into Earth’s 

atmosphere. 

Use: The information would be used 

by the FAA’s Office of Commercial 

Space to evaluate the operator’s 

application. 

Respondents (including number of): 

There are approximately 13 FAAlicensed or permitted launches and 

reentries per year that would be affected 

by this proposed regulation. 

Frequency: Operators would need to 

submit a mission-specific ODAP at least 

60 days before each launch or reentry 

with a planned altitude above 150 km. 

In 2021, the FAA issued 24 space 

launch and reentry licenses held by 11 

license holders. Many operators will be 

able to re-use the ODAP or parts of the 

ODAP for multiple operations, as some 

information will not change operation to 

operation. The FAA uses 25 ODAP per 

year for the calculation of the frequency. 

Annual Burden Estimate: Changes in 

§§ 453.5 through 453.18 would result in 

some paperwork burden cost by 

requiring engineer time for analyses and 

documentations of mission disposal, 

normal operations debris release, 

explosion mitigation, and collision 

mitigation in an ODAP. The FAA 

estimates an aerospace engineer would 

spend approximately 10 hours per 

launch at the mean hourly wage rate of 

$81.28.70 To determine reporting 

requirement cost, the FAA calculates 

the annual launch number potentially 

for orbital debris creation. The annual 

impacted launch number was estimated 

to be 25 by dividing the total forecasted 

launches subtracting sub-orbital 

launches (or natural decay) by 15 years. 

Based on impacted 25 launches, the 

paperwork burden would be $341,376 

over 15-year analysis period. 

In order to comply with § 453.20, 

launch operators would need to notify 

the FAA or, if appropriate, a requesting 

Federal agency, by phone call or email 

at the detection of a debris-creating 

event or any launch or reentry activity 

outside the 3-sigma trajectory provided 

for collision avoidance. The FAA 

estimated the time required to report by 

phone or email would be about 0.25 

hours per launch or approximately 95 

hours (0.25 × 25 × 15) over a 15-year 

period, assuming operators would have 

an event to report under proposed 

§ 453.20 after every launch. It would 

cost $8,677 (see table 2, column 3) over 

the entire 15-year period based on the 

average wage rate of $81.28 for 

aerospace engineers. 

The compliance costs for § 453.11, 

launch and reentry collision avoidance 

analysis and the associated worksheet, 

are unchanged from the previous part 

450 burden determination. 

Combing all the reporting costs, the 

undiscounted total reporting 

requirement cost would be $350,053 

($341,376 + $8,677) over the 15-year 

period. The FAA believes the 

paperwork burden is insignificant. 

The agency is soliciting comments 

to— 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information requirement is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of collecting 

information on those who are to 

respond, including by using appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Individuals and organizations may 

send comments on the information 

collection requirement to the address 

listed in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this preamble by December 

26, 2023. Comments also should be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk 

Officer for FAA, New Executive 

Building, Room 10202, 725 17 Street 

NW, Washington, DC 20053. 

F. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f for regulations and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or Federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking, or a 

memorandum submitted by outside 

parties to memorialize communications 

with the FAA. Before acting on this 

proposal, the FAA will consider all 

comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed to the extent 

practicable. The agency may change this 

proposal in light of the comments it 

receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65859 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies; or, 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s web page at www.GovInfo.gov. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 401 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Space 

transportation and exploration. 

14 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

14 CFR Part 415 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

14 CFR Part 417 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

14 CFR Part 431 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

14 CFR Part 435 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

14 CFR Part 437 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Space 

transportation and exploration. 

14 CFR Part 450 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

14 CFR Part 453 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter III of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 401—ORGANIZATION AND 

DEFINITIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 401 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50101–50923. 

■ 2. Amend § 401.7 by: 

■ a. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Disposal; and 

■ b. Adding the definitions of 

‘‘Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO)’’, 

‘‘Geosynchronous region’’, ‘‘Low Earth 

Orbit (LEO)’’, ‘‘Medium Earth Orbit 

(MEO)’’, ‘‘Object time’’ and ‘‘Orbital 

debris’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 401.7 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Disposal means to execute or attempt 

to execute controlled atmospheric 

disposal, heliocentric disposal, 

uncontrolled atmospheric disposal, 

disposal orbit, or direct retrieval of 

launch vehicle stages or components of 

launch or reentry vehicles under part 

453 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) 

means any Earth orbit where the 

orbiting object orbits at the same angular 

velocity as the Earth and the object 

appears stationary from the ground. The 

altitude of this zero inclination, zero 

eccentricity orbit is 35,786 km. 

Geosynchronous region is the band of 

orbital space surrounding GEO. It is 

bound by altitude limits of 35,786 km 

+/¥ 200 km altitude and +/¥ 15 

degrees latitude. 

* * * * * 

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) means any 

Earth orbit with both apogee and perigee 

below 2,000 km altitude. 

* * * * * 

Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) means any 

Earth orbit in which an object’s apogee 

and perigee both remain between LEO 

and GEO. 

* * * * * 

Object time means the number of 

objects multiplied by the unit of time, 

typically years. A higher object-time 

means more objects on orbit for a higher 

cumulative amount of time. 

* * * * * 

Orbital debris means all humangenerated debris in Earth orbit that is 

greater than 5 mm in any dimension. 

This includes, but is not limited to, 

payloads that can no longer serve a 

useful purpose, rocket bodies and other 

hardware (e.g., bolt fragments and 

covers) left in orbit as a result of normal 

launch and operational activities, and 

fragmentation debris produced by 

failure or collision. Released gases and 

liquids in a free state, and solid rocket 

motor slag of any size are not orbital 

debris. 

* * * * * 

PART 404—PETITION AND 

RULEMAKING PROCEDURES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 404 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 4. Revise in Appendix A to Part 404, 

Table A404.1 to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 404—Alternative 

Time Frames 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65860 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE A404.1—ELIGIBLE TIME FRAMES

Sections Paragraphs 

§ 404.5—Filing a petition for waiver ................................................................................................................... (a). 

§ 413.23—License or permit renewal ................................................................................................................ (a). 

§ 414.31—Safety element approval renewal ..................................................................................................... (a). 

§ 420.57—Notifications ....................................................................................................................................... (d). 

§ 437.89—Pre-flight reporting ............................................................................................................................ (a), (b). 

§ 440.15—Demonstration of compliance ........................................................................................................... (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4). 

§ 453.11—Launch and Reentry Collision Avoidance Analysis Requirements .................................................. (e)(1). 

§ 450.213—Pre-flight reporting .......................................................................................................................... (b), (c), (d), (e). 

§ 450.215—Post-flight reporting ......................................................................................................................... (a). 

PART 415—LAUNCH LICENSE 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 415 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 6. Amend § 415.2 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 415.2 Licenses issued under this part. 

* * * * * 

(b) Compliance with parts 450 and 

453 of this chapter. Operations under 

this part must comply with the critical 

asset protection requirements in 

§ 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4) of this chapter 

and, for launches with a planned 

altitude greater than 150 kilometers, the 

collision avoidance requirements in 

§ 453.11 of this chapter. 

■ 7. Amend § 415.35 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 415.35 Acceptable flight risk. 

* * * * * 

(d) Operation. A launch vehicle must 

be operated in a manner that ensures 

that flight risks meet the criteria of 

paragraph (a) of this section and in 

accordance with collision avoidance 

requirements in § 453.11 and critical 

asset protection requirements in 

§§ 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4). An applicant 

must identify all launch operations and 

procedures that must be performed to 

ensure acceptable flight risk. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Revise § 415.39 to read as follows: 

§ 415.39 Demonstration of Orbital Debris 

Mitigation. 

An applicant must demonstrate 

compliance with §§ 453.7 and 453.9 of 

this chapter for any proposed launch of 

a launch vehicle with a stage or 

component that will travel to an altitude 

of 150 kilometers or higher. 

■ 9. Revise § 415.133 to read as follows: 

§ 415.133 Orbital Debris Mitigation. 

An applicant must demonstrate 

compliance with §§ 453.7 and 453.9 of 

this chapter for any proposed launch of 

a launch vehicle with a stage or 

component that will travel to an altitude 

of 150 kilometers or higher. 

■ 10. Amend Appendix B to Part 415 by 

revising item 13.0 to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 415—Safety Review 

Document Outline 

* * * * * 

13.0 Orbital Debris Mitigation (§ 415.133) 

PART 417—LAUNCH SAFETY 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 417 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 12. Amend § 417.113 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) and (1)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 417.113 Launch safety rules. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The flight-commit criteria must 

implement the flight safety analysis of 

subpart C of this part, the collision 

avoidance requirements in § 453.11, and 

critical asset protection requirements in 

§ 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4). These must 

include criteria for: 

* * * * * 

(iii) Implementation of any launch 

wait in the launch window for the 

purpose of collision avoidance in 

accordance with collision avoidance 

requirements in § 453.11. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Revise § 417.129 to read as 

follows: 

§ 417.129 Orbital Debris Mitigation. 

A launch operator must perform 

orbital debris mitigation as required by 

§§ 453.7 and 453.9 of this chapter. 

PART 431—LAUNCH AND REENTRY 

OF A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE 

(RLV) 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 15. Amend § 431.2 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 431.2 Licenses issued under this part. 

* * * * * 

(b) Compliance with parts 450 and 

453 of this chapter. Operations under 

this part must comply with the critical 

asset protection requirements in 

§ 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4) of this chapter 

and, for launches or reentries with a 

planned altitude greater than 150 

kilometers, the launch and reentry 

collision avoidance requirements in 

§ 453.11 of this chapter. 

■ 16. Amend § 431.43 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.43 Reusable launch vehicle mission 

operational requirements and restrictions. 

(a) * * * 

(1) That ensure RLV mission risks do 

not exceed the criteria set forth in 

§§ 431.35, 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4), and 

453.11 for nominal and non-nominal 

operations; 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) A launch operator must perform 

orbital debris mitigation as required by 

§§ 453.7 and 453.9 of this chapter; and 

* * * * * 

PART 435—REENTRY OF A REENTRY 

VEHICLE OTHER THAN A REUSABLE 

LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV) 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 435 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 18. Amend § 435.2 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 435.2 Licenses. 

* * * * * 

(b) Compliance with parts 450 and 

453 of this chapter. Operations under 

this part with a planned altitude greater 

than 150 kilometers must comply with 

launch and reentry collision avoidance 

requirements in § 453.11 of this chapter 

and critical asset protection 

requirements in § 450.101(a)(4) and 

(b)(4) of this chapter. 

PART 437—EXPERIMENTAL PERMITS 

■ 19. The authority citation for part 437 

continues to read as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65861 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 20. Revise § 437.65 to read as follows: 

§ 437.65 Collision avoidance analysis. 

For a permitted flight with a planned 

altitude greater than 150 kilometers, a 

permittee must obtain a collision 

avoidance analysis in accordance with 

§ 453.11 of this chapter. 

PART 450—LAUNCH AND REENTRY 

LICENSE REQUIREMENTS 

■ 21. The authority citation for part 450 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 22. Amend § 450.37 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 450.37 Equivalent level of safety. 

* * * * * 

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does 

not apply to § 450.101(a), (b), (c)(1) and 

(3), (d), and (g). 

■ 23. Amend § 450.101 by revising 

paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 450.101 Safety criteria. 

* * * * * 

(d) Disposal risk criteria. For any 

controlled or uncontrolled atmospheric 

disposal, an operator may initiate the 

deorbit of a vehicle or its components 

only if all risks to the public satisfy the 

criteria in this paragraph. 

(1) Controlled atmospheric disposal. 

For any controlled atmospheric disposal 

performed in accordance with § 453.14 

or direct retrieval resulting in controlled 

atmospheric disposal under 

§ 453.16(b)(1), an operator must: 

(i) Ensure that the effective casualty 

area for any surviving debris will be less 

than 7 square meters; 

(ii) Target a broad ocean area; or 

(iii) Meet the following risk criteria: 

(A) Collective risk. The collective risk, 

measured as expected number of 

casualties (EC), consists of risk posed by 

impacting inert and explosive debris, 

toxic release, and far field blast 

overpressure. Public risk due to any 

other hazard associated with the 

proposed deorbit of a launch vehicle 

stage or component of a launch or 

reentry vehicle will be determined by 

the Administrator on a case-by-case 

basis. The risk to all members of the 

public, excluding persons in aircraft 

must not exceed an expected number of 

1 × 10¥4 casualties. 

(B) Individual risk. The individual 

risk, measured as probability of casualty 

(PC), consists of risk posed by impacting 

inert and explosive debris, toxic release, 

and far field blast overpressure. Public 

risk due to any other hazard associated 

with the proposed deorbit of a launch 

vehicle stage or component of a launch 

or reentry vehicle will be determined by 

the Administrator on a case-by-case 

basis. The risk to any individual 

member of the public must not exceed 

a probability of casualty of 1 × 10¥6 per 

disposal. 

(C) Aircraft risk. An operator must 

establish any aircraft hazard areas 

necessary to ensure the probability of 

impact with debris capable of causing a 

casualty for aircraft does not exceed 1 × 

10¥6. 

(2) Uncontrolled atmospheric 

disposal. For any uncontrolled 

atmospheric disposal performed in 

accordance with § 453.17, an operator 

must either: 

(i) Ensure that the effective casualty 

area for any surviving debris will be less 

than 7 square meters; or 

(ii) Meet the collective risk criterion 

of paragraph (1)(iii)(A) of this 

subsection. 

(e) Protection of people and property 

on orbit. 

(1) A launch or reentry operator must 

prevent the collision between a launch 

or reentry vehicle stage or component 

with a planned altitude greater than 150 

kilometers and people, property, and 

debris on orbit, in accordance with the 

requirements in § 453.11. 

(2) For any launch or reentry vehicle 

stage or component with a planned 

altitude greater than 150 kilometers, a 

launch operator must perform orbital 

debris mitigation in accordance with the 

requirements in §§ 453.7 and 453.9. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Amend § 450.113 by revising 

paragraph (a) and (a)(3) and adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 450.113 Flight safety analysis 

requirements—scope. 

(a) An operator must perform and 

document a flight safety analysis for all 

phases of flight, except as specified in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, as 

follows— 

* * * * * 

(1) * * * 

(3) For controlled atmospheric 

disposal performed in accordance with 

§ 453.14 or direct retrieval resulting in 

controlled atmospheric disposal under 

§ 453.16(b)(1), from the initiation of the 

deorbit through final impact; and 

* * * * * 

(c) An operator is not required to 

perform and document a flight safety 

analysis for a controlled atmospheric 

disposal if agreed to by the 

Administrator that the disposal will 

target a broad ocean area or the effective 

casualty area for any surviving debris 

will be less than 7 square meters. 

■ 25. Amend § 450.165 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 450.165 Flight commit criteria. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) Implementation of any launch or 

reentry window closure in the launch or 

reentry window for the purpose of 

collision avoidance in accordance with 

§ 453.11; 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Revise § 450.169 to read as 

follows: 

§ 450.169 Launch and reentry collision 

avoidance analysis requirements. 

A launch or reentry operator must 

perform collision avoidance analysis as 

required by § 453.11. 

■ 27. Revise § 450.171 to read as 

follows: 

§ 450.171 Orbital Debris Mitigation. 

A launch operator must perform 

orbital debris mitigation as required by 

§§ 453.7 and 453.9 of this chapter. 

■ 28. Amend § 450.213 to revise 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 450.213 Pre-flight reporting. 

* * * * * 

(e) Collision avoidance analysis. A 

licensee must submit collision 

avoidance information to a Federal 

entity identified by the FAA and to the 

FAA in accordance with § 453.11(f). 

* * * * * 

Appendix A to Part 450—Collision 

Analysis Worksheet [REMOVED] 

■ 29. Remove Appendix A to Part 450— 

Collision Analysis Worksheet. 

■ 30. Add part 453 to read as follows: 

PART 453—ORBITAL SAFETY 

REQUIREMENTS 

Sec. 

453.1 Applicability 

453.3 [Reserved] 

453.5 Control of Debris Released During 

Normal Operations 

453.7 Minimizing Debris Generated by 

Explosions 

453.9 Collision Mitigation between 

Launched Objects 

453.11 Collision Avoidance with Orbital 

Objects 

453.13 Post-Mission Disposal 

453.14 Controlled Atmospheric Disposal 

453.15 Heliocentric, Earth-escape Disposal 

453.16 Direct Retrieval 

453.17 Uncontrolled Atmospheric Disposal 

453.18 Maneuver to a disposal orbit 

453.20 Real-Time Reporting of Orbital 

Safety Hazards 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

§ 453.1 Applicability 

(a) This part establishes the 

requirements of a launch or reentry 

operator (operator) for orbital debris 

mitigation, including collision 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65862 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

avoidance analysis, prior to launch or 

reentry operations licensed or permitted 

under this chapter with a planned 

altitude greater than 150 kilometers. 

(b) For each licensed or permitted 

launch or reentry with a planned 

altitude greater than 150 kilometers, an 

operator must submit— 

(1) An Orbital Debris Assessment Plan 

containing the information required by 

this part not less than 60 days before the 

licensed or permitted launch or reentry, 

unless the Administrator agrees to a 

different time frame in accordance with 

§ 404.15; and 

(2) A Collision Avoidance Analysis 

Worksheet in accordance with 

§ 453.11(f). 

(c) An operator must send the 

information required by this part as an 

email attachment to ASTOperations@

faa.gov, or other method as agreed to by 

the Administrator in the license or 

permit. 

§ 453.3 [Reserved] 

§ 453.5 Control of Debris Released During 

Normal Operations. 

An operator must ensure for any 

proposed launch that for all vehicle 

stages and components related to launch 

that reach an altitude greater than 150 

kilometers— 

(a) The component will not release 

orbital debris into LEO that will remain 

in orbit for more than 25 years. For all 

planned released orbital debris, the total 

debris object-time product in LEO shall 

not exceed 100 object-years per licensed 

or permitted launch. The total objecttime product in LEO is the sum of the 

orbit dwell time in LEO for all planned 

released debris objects, excluding the 

upper stage and any released payloads. 

(b) Any orbital debris released into 

the geosynchronous region must enter 

an orbit with an apogee that will not 

remain in the geosynchronous region 

within 25 years of the release. 

(c) Information Requirements. An 

operator must submit the following 

information in an Orbital Debris 

Assessment Plan— 

(1) A demonstration through 

environmental qualification and 

acceptance testing that the system is 

designed to limit the release of orbital 

debris; and 

(2) A statistical analysis, including 

inputs and assumptions, demonstrating 

that any orbital debris released will be 

disposed of within 25 years and satisfy 

the 100 object-year requirement. 

§ 453.7 Minimizing Debris Generated by 

Explosions. 

(a) An operator must ensure for any 

proposed launch that for all vehicle 

stages or other component that reaches 

an altitude greater than 150 kilometers, 

except for energy sources that are safety 

critical on-orbit or during reentry: 

(1) The integrated probability of 

debris-generating explosions or other 

fragmentation from the conversion of 

energy sources (i.e., chemical, pressure, 

kinetic) of each upper stage is less than 

0.001 (1 in 1,000) during operations; 

and 

(2) Stored energy is removed by 

depleting residual propellants, venting 

any pressurized system, leaving all 

batteries in a permanent discharge state, 

and removing any remaining source of 

stored energy. 

(b) Information Requirements. An 

operator must submit the following 

information in an Orbital Debris 

Assessment Plan— 

(1) Analysis, using commonly 

accepted engineering and probability 

assessment methods, showing how the 

operation meets paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

(2) Test results or analysis, with 95 

percent confidence levels, of the 

planned end-of-mission passivation 

procedure that verifies dissipation of all 

energy sources to levels that will 

prevent explosion of any launch vehicle 

component, to show that: 

(i) All residual propellants contained 

in the system can be purged or 

passivated at the end of launch; 

(ii) All pressurized systems can be 

purged or passivated; and 

(iii) All energy storage systems (e.g., 

batteries or fuel cells) have sufficient 

structural design to prevent rupture and 

subsequent explosion. 

§ 453.9 Collision Mitigation between 

Launched Objects. 

(a) Payload Separation. A launch 

operator must prevent unplanned 

physical contact between a launch 

vehicle or any of its components and 

each payload after payload separation; 

(b) Collision after the End of Launch. 

In developing the design and mission 

profile for an upper stage, the launch 

operator shall limit the probability of 

collision with objects 10 cm and larger 

after the end of launch to less than 0.001 

(1 in 1,000); 

(c) Information required. A launch 

operator must submit the following 

information in an Orbital Debris 

Assessment Plan— 

(1) Procedure for preventing vehicle 

and payload collision after payload 

separation, including any propellant 

depletion burns and compressed gas 

releases that minimize the probability of 

subsequent collisions; and 

(2) The results of a probability of 

collision analysis between the upper 

stage and its components and orbital 

objects, using commonly accepted 

engineering and probability assessment 

methods, meeting paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

§ 453.11 Collision Avoidance with Orbital 

Objects. 

(a) Criteria. For an orbital or 

suborbital launch or reentry, an operator 

must establish window closures needed 

to ensure that the launch or reentry 

vehicle, any jettisoned components, or 

payloads meet the following 

requirements with respect to orbiting 

objects, not including any object being 

launched or reentered. 

(1) For inhabitable objects, one of the 

following three criteria must be met: 

(i) The probability of collision 

between the launching or reentering 

objects and any inhabitable object must 

not exceed 1 × 10¥6; 

(ii) The launching or reentering 

objects must maintain an ellipsoidal 

separation distance of 200 kilometers intrack and 50 kilometers cross-track and 

radially from the inhabitable object; or 

(iii) The launching or reentering 

objects must maintain a spherical 

separation distance of 200 kilometers 

from the inhabitable object. 

(2) For active payloads, one of the 

following criteria must be met: 

(i) The probability of collision 

between the launching or reentering 

objects and the active payload must not 

exceed 1 × 10¥5; 

(ii) The launching or reentering 

objects must maintain an ellipsoidal 

separation distance of 25 kilometers intrack and 7 kilometers cross-track and 

radially from the active payload; or 

(iii) The launching or reentering 

objects must maintain a spherical 

separation distance of 25 kilometers 

from the active payload. 

(3) For all other known orbital debris 

identified by the FAA or other Federal 

Government entity with a radar cross 

section greater than 0.04 m2: 

(i) The probability of collision 

between the launching or reentering 

objects and any known orbital debris 

must not exceed 1 × 10¥5; or 

(ii) The launching or reentering 

objects must maintain a spherical 

separation distance of 2.5 kilometers. 

(b) Screening time. An operator must 

ensure the requirements of paragraph (a) 

of this section are met as follows: 

(1) Through the entire segment of 

flight of a suborbital launch vehicle 

above 150 kilometers altitude; 

(2) For an orbital launch, during 

ascent from a minimum of 150 

kilometers altitude to initial orbital 

insertion and for a minimum of 3 hours 

from liftoff; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65863 

(3) For reentry, during descent from 

initial reentry burn to 150 kilometers 

altitude; 

(4) For controlled atmospheric 

disposal, during descent from initial 

disposal burn to 150 kilometers altitude; 

and 

(5) For maneuver to a disposal orbit, 

during initial disposal operation until 

removal from LEO or GEO. 

(c) Rendezvous. Planned rendezvous 

operations that occur within the 

screening time frame are not considered 

a violation of collision avoidance if the 

involved operators have pre-coordinated 

the rendezvous or close approach. 

(d) Analysis. An operator must obtain 

a collision avoidance analysis for each 

launch or reentry from a Federal entity 

identified by the FAA, or another entity 

agreed to by the Administrator. 

(1) An operator must use the results 

of the collision avoidance analysis to 

establish flight commit criteria for 

collision avoidance; and 

(2) The collision avoidance analysis 

must account for uncertainties 

including launch or reentry vehicle 

performance and timing, atmospheric 

changes, variations in drag, and any 

other factors that affect position and 

timing of the launch or reentry vehicle. 

(e) Timing and information required. 

An operator must prepare a Collision 

Avoidance Analysis Worksheet for each 

launch or reentry using a standardized 

format that contains the input data 

required by § 453.11(f), as follows: 

(1) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, an 

operator must file the input data with an 

entity identified in paragraph (d) of this 

section and the FAA at least 7 days 

before the first attempt at the flight of a 

launch vehicle or the reentry of a 

reentry vehicle. 

(i) Operators that have never received 

a launch or reentry conjunction 

assessment from the entity identified in 

paragraph (d) of this section must file 

the input data at least 15 days in 

advance. 

(ii) The Administrator may agree to an 

alternative time frame in accordance 

with § 404.15. 

(2) An operator must obtain a 

collision avoidance analysis performed 

by an entity identified in paragraph (d) 

of this section no later than 3 hours 

before the beginning of a launch or 

reentry window; and 

(3) If an operator needs an updated 

collision avoidance analysis due to a 

launch or reentry delay, the operator 

must file the request with the entity 

identified in paragraph (d) of this 

section and the FAA at least 12 hours 

prior to the beginning of the new launch 

or reentry window. 

(f) Collision Avoidance Analysis 

Worksheet. The Collision Avoidance 

Analysis Worksheet must include— 

(1) Launch or reentry information. An 

operator must file the following 

information: 

(i) Mission name. A mnemonic given 

to the launch or reentry vehicle/payload 

combination identifying the launch or 

reentry mission distinctly from all 

others; 

(ii) Launch or reentry location. 

Launch or reentry site location in 

latitude and longitude; 

(iii) Launch or reentry window. The 

launch or reentry window opening and 

closing times in Greenwich Mean Time 

(referred to as ZULU time) and the 

Julian dates for each scheduled launch 

or reentry attempts including primary 

and secondary launch or reentry dates; 

(iv) Epoch. The epoch time, in 

Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), of the 

expected launch vehicle liftoff time or, 

for reentry, the times of reentry events 

such as the beginning of descent, 

atmospheric reentry below 150 

kilometers, and touchdown; 

(v) Orbiting objects to evaluate. An 

operator must identify all orbiting object 

descriptions including object name, 

dimensions (e.g., length, width, height, 

and diameter), and mass. These orbiting 

objects include each free-flying launch 

vehicle stage, payload, or component 

achieving orbit; 

(vi) Orbital Parameters. An operator 

must identify the orbital parameters for 

each free-flying launch vehicle stage, 

payload, or component achieving orbit 

including the parameters for each object 

after thrust ends; 

(vii) Time of powered flight and 

sequence of events. The elapsed time in 

hours, minutes, and seconds, from liftoff 

to passivation or disposal. The input 

data must include the time of powered 

flight for each stage or jettisoned 

component measured from liftoff; and 

(viii) Point of contact. The person or 

office within an operator’s organization 

that collects, analyzes, and distributes 

collision avoidance analysis results. 

(2) Collision avoidance analysis 

results transmission medium. An 

operator must identify the transmission 

medium, such as voice or email, for 

receiving results. 

(3) Deliverable schedule/need dates. 

An operator must identify the times 

before flight, referred to as ‘‘L-times,’’ 

for which the operator requests a 

collision avoidance analysis. The final 

collision avoidance analysis must be 

used to establish flight commit criteria 

for a launch. 

(4) Trajectory files. Individual 

position and velocity trajectory files, 

including: 

(i) The position coordinates in the 

Earth-Fixed Greenwich (EFG) 

coordinates system measured in 

kilometers and the EFG velocity 

components measured in kilometers per 

second, of each launch vehicle stage or 

payload starting below 150 kilometers 

through screening time frame; 

(ii) Radar cross section values for each 

individual file; 

(iii) Position Covariance, if probability 

of impact analysis option is desired; and 

(iv) Separate trajectory files identified 

by valid window time frames, if launch 

or reentry trajectory changes during 

launch or reentry window. 

(5) Screening. An operator must select 

spherical, ellipsoidal, or collision 

probability screening as defined in this 

paragraph for determining any 

conjunction: 

(i) Spherical screening. Spherical 

screening centers a sphere on each 

orbiting object’s center-of-mass to 

determine any conjunction; 

(ii) Ellipsoidal screening. Ellipsoidal 

screening utilizes an impact exclusion 

ellipsoid of revolution centered on the 

orbiting object’s center-of-mass to 

determine any conjunction. An operator 

must provide input in the UVW 

coordinate system in kilometers. The 

operator must provide delta-U measured 

in the radial-track direction, delta-V 

measured in the in-track direction, and 

delta-W measured in the cross-track 

direction; or 

(iii) Probability of Collision. Collision 

probability is calculated using position 

and velocity information with 

covariance in position. 

§ 453.13 Post-Mission Disposal. 

(a) General. An operator must dispose 

of all vehicle stages or jettisoned 

components in accordance with one of 

the disposal methods identified in 

§§ 453.14 through 453.18. 

(b) Information requirements. An 

operator must submit a description of 

the chosen disposal option in an Orbital 

Debris Assessment Plan. 

§ 453.14 Controlled Atmospheric Disposal. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the use of controlled atmospheric 

disposal of vehicle stages or 

components by reentering the 

atmosphere to meet the post-mission 

disposal requirement of § 453.13. 

(b) Disposal safety criteria. A launch 

or reentry operator must ensure the 

upper stage and each of its components, 

or any components of a reentry vehicle 

excluding the reentry vehicle itself, 

reenters the Earth’s atmosphere within 

30 days after mission completion in a 

controlled manner that: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
65864 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Ensures that the effective casualty 

area for any surviving debris will be less 

than 7 square meters; 

(2) Targets a broad ocean area; or 

(3) Meets the risk criteria of 

§ 450.101(d)(1)(iii)(A) through (C). 

(c) Notification of planned impacts. 

For any controlled atmospheric 

disposal, an operator must notify the 

public of any region of land, sea, or air 

that contains, with 97 percent 

probability of containment, all debris 

resulting from normal flight events 

capable of causing a casualty. 

(d) Information requirements. An 

operator must submit a description of 

the controlled atmospheric disposal in 

an Orbital Debris Assessment Plan 

including— 

(1) Verification through hardware and 

software testing or analysis that the 

system has at least a 90 percent 

probability of successfully executing the 

controlled atmospheric disposal as 

planned; 

(2) A description of how the system 

will achieve a controlled atmospheric 

disposal under nominal and off-nominal 

conditions; and 

(3) If not targeting a broad ocean area, 

the calculated total collective and 

individual casualty expectations for the 

proposed operation or the effective 

casualty area of any surviving debris. 

§ 453.15 Heliocentric, Earth-escape 

Disposal. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the use of heliocentric, Earth-escape 

disposal to meet the post-mission 

disposal requirement of § 453.13. 

(b) General. A launch operator must 

ensure, within 30 days after mission 

completion, that the upper stage and 

each of its components enters a 

hyperbolic trajectory which no longer 

orbits Earth; 

(c) Information requirements. A 

launch operator must submit a 

description of the planned heliocentric, 

Earth-escape disposal in an Orbital 

Debris Assessment Plan including: 

(1) Verification through hardware and 

software testing or analysis that the 

system has at least a 90 percent 

probability of successfully executing the 

planned heliocentric, Earth-escape 

disposal; and 

(2) A description of how the system 

will achieve a controlled disposal under 

nominal and off-nominal conditions. 

§ 453.16 Direct Retrieval. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the use of direct retrieval to meet the 

post-mission disposal requirement of 

§ 453.13. 

(b) General. No more than 5 years 

after completion of the mission, an 

operator must ensure the removal of the 

upper stage and each of its components 

from orbit by either— 

(1) Performing a controlled 

atmospheric disposal that meets the 

disposal safety requirements of 

§ 453.14(b) and (c); or 

(2) Maneuvering the debris into a 

disposal orbit in accordance with 

§ 453.18. 

(c) Information requirements. An 

operator must submit a description of 

the planned direct retrieval in an Orbital 

Debris Assessment Plan including— 

(1) Verification through hardware and 

software testing or analysis that the 

system has at least a 90 percent 

probability of successfully executing the 

planned direct retrieval; and 

(2) If performing a controlled 

atmospheric disposal— 

(i) A description of how the system 

will achieve a disposal under nominal 

and off-nominal conditions; and 

(ii) If not disposing into a broad ocean 

area, the calculated total collective and 

individual casualty expectations for the 

proposed operation or the effective 

casualty area of any surviving debris; or 

(3) If maneuvering to a disposal 

orbit— 

(i) A description of how the system 

will achieve and maintain the planned 

disposal orbit for the required time limit 

as specified in § 453.18(b) through (d); 

and 

(ii) A statistical analysis 

demonstrating that the probability of 

collision with operational spacecraft 

and debris is within the lifetime limit of 

§ 453.18(e). 

§ 453.17 Uncontrolled Atmospheric 

Disposal. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the use of uncontrolled atmospheric 

disposal to meet the post-mission 

disposal requirement of § 453.13. 

(b) LEO Disposal. For orbits below 

2,000 kilometers: 

(1) A launch or reentry operator must 

leave an upper stage and its components 

in an orbit where, accounting for mean 

projections for solar activity and 

atmospheric drag, the orbital lifetime 

should be as short as practicable but 

does not exceed 25 years after launch, 

and 

(2) For all launches and reentries after 

[ONE YEAR AFTER THE REGULATION 

EFFECTIVE DATE], an operator must 

ensure that the effective casualty area 

for any surviving debris will be less 

than 7 square meters, or the expected 

average number of casualties will be less 

than 1 × 10¥4. 

(c) Highly elliptical long-term 

disposal. For highly elliptical MEO 

(including semi-synchronous Molniya) 

and highly elliptical GEO orbits 

(including synchronous Tundra orbits), 

and other orbits subject to significant 

eccentricity growth, the operator must 

maneuver the upper stage to a long-term 

disposal orbit where orbital resonances 

will increase the eccentricity for its 

long-term disposal. In developing this 

disposal plan, the operator must: 

(1) Limit the orbital lifetime to be as 

short as practicable, but no more than 

200 years after mission completion; 

(2) Limit the probability of collisions 

with operational spacecraft and debris 

10 cm and larger to less than 0.001 

during orbital lifetime; and 

(3) For launches after [ONE YEAR 

AFTER THE REGULATION EFFECTIVE 

DATE], a launch operator must ensure 

that the effective casualty area for any 

surviving debris will be less than 7 

square meters, or the expected average 

number of casualties will be less than 1 

× 10¥4. 

(d) Information requirements. A 

launch or reentry operator must submit 

the following information in an Orbital 

Debris Assessment Plan— 

(1) Verification through hardware and 

software testing or analysis that the 

system has at least a 90 percent 

probability of successfully executing the 

planned disposal option; 

(2) An estimate of the expected 

casualties or the effective casualty area 

for any surviving debris; and 

(3) A statistical analysis 

demonstrating compliance with the 

requirements of § 453.17(b) or (c) to 

dispose of the debris within the 

prescribed time limit. 

§ 453.18 Maneuver to a disposal orbit. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the use of a disposal orbit to meet the 

post-mission disposal requirement of 

§ 453.13. 

(b) General. Within 30 days after 

mission completion, a launch or reentry 

operator must place the upper stage and 

its components either— 

(1) Between LEO and GEO in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section; or 

(2) Above GEO in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(c) Maneuver to disposal orbit 

between LEO and GEO. The operator 

must place the upper stage and its 

components into either— 

(1) An eccentric disposal orbit 

where— 

(i) Perigee altitude remains above 

2,000 kilometers for at least 100 years; 

(ii) Apogee altitude remains below the 

geosynchronous region for at least 100 

years; and 

(iii) The time spent by the upper stage 

between 20,182 +/- 300 kilometers is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 65865 

limited to 25 years or less over 200 

years; or 

(2) A near-circular disposal orbit that 

avoids for at least 100 years: 

(i) Altitudes 20,182 +/- 300 

kilometers; 

(ii) The geosynchronous region; and 

(iii) Altitudes less than 2,000 

kilometers. 

(d) Maneuver to disposal orbit above 

GEO. The operator must place the upper 

stage and its components into an orbit 

with a perigee altitude above 36,100 

kilometers for a period of at least 100 

years after disposal. 

(e) Probability of Collision. The 

operator must limit the probability of 

collisions with operational spacecraft 

and debris 10 cm and larger to less than 

0.001 for 100 years after disposal. 

(f) Information requirements. A 

launch or reentry operator must submit 

the following information in an Orbital 

Debris Assessment Plan— 

(1) Verification through hardware and 

software testing or analysis that the 

system has at least a 90 percent 

probability of successfully executing the 

planned disposal option; 

(2) A description of how the system 

will achieve and maintain the planned 

disposal orbit for the required time 

limit; and 

(3) Statistical analysis demonstrating 

compliance with the probability of 

collision lifetime limit with operational 

spacecraft and debris. 

§ 453.20 Real-Time Reporting of Orbital 

Safety Hazards. 

(a) At the detection of any launch or 

reentry activity outside the 3-sigma 

trajectory provided for collision 

avoidance or any debris-creating event, 

or if requested by a cognizant Federal 

agency, an operator must immediately 

provide information to the FAA and, if 

appropriate, to the requesting agency 

pertinent to locating and categorizing 

any orbital objects. 

(b) The operator shall provide the 

following information to the FAA and, 

if applicable, the requesting Federal 

agency: 

(1) The size and mass of the affected 

objects, 

(2) The last known orbital or 

trajectory information, and 

(3) Other details as determined by the 

FAA necessary to locate and categorize 

orbital objects. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f) and 51 U.S.C. 50903, 50905 in 

Washington, DC. 

Kelvin B. Coleman, 

Associate Administrator for Commercial 

Space Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20531 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1 

[File No. R307004] 

Petition for Rulemaking of the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Receipt of petition; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: Please take notice that the 

Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) received a petition for 

rulemaking from the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. This petition requests to 

amend the Commission’s rule regarding 

the disqualification of Commissioners. 

The Commission invites written 

comments concerning the petition. 

Publication of this petition is pursuant 

to the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure and does not affect the 

legal status of the petition or its final 

disposition. 

DATES: Comments must identify the 

petition docket number and be filed by 

October 26, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may view the petition, 

identified by docket number FTC–2023– 

0059, and submit written comments 

concerning its merits by using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit sensitive or confidential 

information. You may read background 

documents or comments received at 

https://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Freer (phone: 202–326–2663, 

email: dfreer@ftc.gov), Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 

57a(1)(B), and FTC Rule 1.31(f), 16 CFR 

1.31(f), notice is hereby given that the 

above-captioned petition has been filed 

with the Secretary of the Commission 

and has been placed on the public 

record for a period of thirty (30) days. 

Any person may submit comments in 

support of or in opposition to the 

petition. All timely and responsive 

comments submitted in connection with 

this petition will become part of the 

public record. 

The Commission will not consider the 

petition’s merits until after the comment 

period closes. It may grant or deny the 

petition in whole or in part, and it may 

deem the petition insufficient to warrant 

commencement of a rulemaking 

proceeding. The purpose of this 

document is to facilitate public 

comment on the petition to aid the 

Commission in determining what, if 

any, action to take regarding the request 

contained in the petition. This 

document is not intended to start, stop, 

cancel, or otherwise affect rulemaking 

proceedings in any way. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

https://www.regulations.gov, you are 

solely responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include any sensitive personal 

information, such as your or anyone 

else’s Social Security number; date of 

birth; driver’s license number or other 

state identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). 

(Authority: 15 U.S.C. 46; 15 U.S.C. 57a; 5 

U.S.C. 601 note.) 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20422 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112, 1130 and 1242 

[CPSC Docket No. 2023–0037] 

Safety Standard for Nursing Pillows 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, section 

104 of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

requires the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (Commission or 

CPSC) to promulgate consumer product 

safety standards for durable infant or 

toddler products. The Commission is 

proposing a safety standard for nursing 

pillows. The Commission is also 

proposing to amend CPSC’s consumer 

registration requirements to identify 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1