Document ID: FAA-2023-1858-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Mitigation Methods for Launch Vehicle Upper Stages on the Creation of Orbital Debris
Posted Date: 2023-09-26T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65835-65865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20531]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 65836]]

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; 
[email protected].

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 Sec.  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 debris-creating 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 already-
congested Low Earth Orbit (LEO) region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Belk, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. (Retrieved April 28, 
2020). Frequently Asked Questions. orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faq/#
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 65837]]

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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE23.027

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Portree, D.S.F. and Loftus, J.P. (January 1999.) Orbital 
Debris: A Chronology. NASA/TP-1999-208856.
    \6\ Squire, M., et al. (2015). Joint Polar Satellite System 
(JPSS) Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Assessment, NASA/TM-
2015-218780.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65838]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE23.028

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Liou, 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.
    \8\ Williamson, M. (2006). Space: The Fragile Frontier, American 
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
    \9\ The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. (April 2009). 
Satellite Collision Leaves Significant Debris Clouds. NASA JSC 
Orbital Debris Quarterly News, 13(2), page 1-2.
    \10\ Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, Aerospace 
Corporation. (December 2004). Space Debris Basics: What Are the 
Risks?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Only some of the upper stages on-orbit result from U.S. 
commercially licensed launches.
    \12\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ European 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%20Low-
Earth%20Orbit%20environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 65839]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE23.029

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Liou, J.-C. (2011). Engineering and Technology Challenges 
for Active Debris Removal. Presented at the 4th European Conference 
for Aerospace Sciences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Anz-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 Sec.  450.171.(a)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Liou, 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65840]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE23.030

    The Iridium 33/Cosmos 2251 collision and the Chinese Fengyun-1C 
anti-satellite 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. (April 2009). 
Satellite Collision Leaves Significant Debris Clouds. NASA JSC 
Orbital Debris Quarterly News, 13(2), page 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 briefcase-
sized 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ C.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Williamsen, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NASA 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE23.031

    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 post-mission 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NASA JSC Orbital Debris Quarterly News 14(1), page 7-8.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65842]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE23.032

    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 anti-satellite 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NASA JSC Orbital Debris Quarterly News 14(1), page 7-8.
    \28\ The 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.
    \30\ Braun, 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.
    \31\ McKnight, D., et al. (April 2021). Identifying the 50 
statistically-most-concerning derelict objects in LEO. Acta 
Astronautica, 181, page 282-291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 x

[[Page 65843]]

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 x 10-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Frequently Asked Questions: Orbital Debris, www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The 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%20sector%20will,Space%20Control
    \34\ National Security Council. (February 1989). Report on 
Orbital Debris by Interagency Group (Space), ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900003319.
    \35\ The National Science and Technology Council Committee on 
Transportation Research and Development. (November 1995). 
Interagency Report on Orbital Debris, www.hsdl.org/?view&did=722496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ NASA. (August 1995). NSS 1740.14, NASA Safety Standard: 
Guidelines and Assessments for Limiting Orbital Debris.
    \37\ The White House. (August 31, 2006). U.S. National Space 
Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Commercial 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Mitigation of Orbital Debris, 69 FR 54581 (September 9, 
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 post-mission disposal, and do not restrict uncontrolled 
reentries based on the risk posed to public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ IADC. (October 2002). IADC Space Debris Mitigation 
Guidelines; IADC-02-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The White House. (June 28, 2010). National Space Policy of 
the United States of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 65844]]

to U.S. non-NASA missions and private activities.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ NASA 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.
    \45\ The National Academy of Sciences. (September 2011). 
Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of 
NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs.

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The White House. (June 18, 2018). Space Policy Directive-3, 
National Space Traffic Management Policy. 
trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/space-policy-directive-3-national-space-traffic-management-policy/.
    \47\ United 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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'[Eacute]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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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, zero-eccentricity 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, IADC-02-0, 
Revision 2, Mar 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 65845]]

mm cube of titanium (4.43 g/cm\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The National Academy of Sciences. (September 2011). 
Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of 
NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  404.15; and (2) a Collision Avoidance Analysis Worksheet in 
accordance with Sec.  453.11(f). The submittals must be emailed to the 
address provided in proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  450.169 and would be moved to Sec.  453.11(f).
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 object-years limit would apply to debris 
that the operator plans to release during launch activities, and would 
not include debris released due to non-nominal

[[Page 65846]]

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 Sec.  453.20 at the detection of a debris-creating 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  453.5(c) would specify the information that must be 
included in an ODAP to demonstrate compliance with Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ International Organization for Standardization. (September 
7, 2010). ISO 27852:2010(E), ``Space Systems--Estimation of orbit 
lifetime.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  453.9(a). The FAA proposes to add a requirement in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Figures 3 and 4 in the Statement of the Problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 65847]]

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 on-going into debris removal techniques.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Zhao, et.al. (2020) Science China Technological Sciences, 
Survey on research and development of on-orbit active debris removal 
methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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        453.14..............  Within 30 days of
 Disposal.                                           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      453.17(b)...........  Not to exceed 25
 Disposal.                                           years after launch.
Highly Eccentric Long-Term    453.17(c)...........  Not to exceed 200
 Disposal.                                           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 Sec.  453.14. The requirements of Sec.  453.14 would only apply if 
the operator elects controlled disposal for its disposal method, as 
required by Sec.  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 Sec.  453.14(d).
    In order to perform controlled disposal, proposed Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  450.101(d)(1)(iii)(A) 
through (C) is substantively equivalent to the current text of Sec.  
450.101(d), which requires that all disposals--currently defined as 
controlled atmospheric disposal in Sec.  401.7--either target a broad 
ocean area or meet the risk criteria in Sec.  450.101(b). As discussed 
later in this preamble, the FAA proposes to amend Sec.  450.101(d) to 
specify the risk criteria applicable to atmospheric disposals, rather 
than relying on the reentry risk criteria in Sec.  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

[[Page 65848]]

exceed 150 km be required to meet the risk criteria in Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 
1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 x 
10-4 collective risk and 1 x 
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  453.14(d) that operators 
submit a description of the controlled disposal in the ODAP prior to 
each launch or reentry pursuant to Sec.  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 off-trajectory 
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 Sec.  453.14(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Heliocentric, Earth-Escape Disposal
    The FAA proposes to allow operators to perform heliocentric, Earth-
escape disposal if they meet the performance-based requirements of 
Sec.  453.15. The requirements of proposed Sec.  453.15 would only 
apply if the operator elects heliocentric, Earth-escape disposal as its 
disposal method under Sec.  453.13. Proposed Sec.  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

[[Page 65849]]

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 Sec.  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 re-light 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 Sec.  453.16 the option for operators to perform direct 
retrieval if they meet the requirements of Sec.  453.16. The 
requirements of Sec.  453.16 would only apply if the operator elects 
direct retrieval as its disposal method under Sec.  453.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Yamamoto, et.al (2017) 7th European Conference on Space 
Debris, Cost analysis of active debris removal scenarios and system 
architectures.
    \57\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  453.18.
    Under proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  453.18(e). The testing and 
analysis performed in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  
453.13 by using one of two methods. Under proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  
453.17 would only apply if the operator elects to perform uncontrolled 
atmospheric disposal to meet the disposal requirement of Sec.  453.13.
    In order to dispose of debris from LEO--an orbit below 2,000 km--an 
operator would be required in Sec.  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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 65850]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  
453.17(b)(1), the FAA would require in Sec.  453.17(b)(2) that 
operators performing uncontrolled atmospheric disposal from LEO satisfy 
either an expected casualty (EC) of 1 x 
10-4, or an equivalent effective casualty area of 
7 square meters. The FAA proposes to delay the effective date of Sec.  
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 heat-resistant 
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. Re-entry 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ United States Space Command. (Retrieved on August 26, 
2021). Reentry Assessment--US Space Command Fact Sheet. SpaceRef. 
www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 x 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ NPR 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.
    \62\ FCC Statute 25.114 Applications for Space Authorizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 x 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 x 10-4. 
Applying the 1 x 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 
x 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ United 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.
    \64\ SANDIA National Laboratories. (April 1997). Hazards of 
Falling Debris to People, Aircraft, and Watercraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  453.17 would be to maneuver the debris to 
a highly elliptical orbit for long-term atmospheric disposal. Under 
proposed Sec.  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

[[Page 65851]]

resonances will increase the eccentricity for long[hyphen]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 Sec.  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 x 
10-4 or that the effective casualty area will be 
less than 7 square meters.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 less-populated 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  453.18 would only apply if the operator 
elects to maneuver to a disposal orbit as its disposal method under 
Sec.  453.13. To comply with Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ All 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to implementing the disposal orbits identified by the 
USGODMSP, the FAA proposes to require in Sec.  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 Sec.  453.9(b) 
to limit the probability of collision between launched objects after 
the end of launch.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  453.18. Under proposed Sec.  453.18(f), 
the ODAP must include: (1) verification through hardware and software 
testing or analysis that the system has at least

[[Page 65852]]

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 
Sec.  453.18(f)(1). The testing and analysis can include engine re-
light qualification tests or reliability analysis or similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ International Organization for Standardization. (April 1, 
2014) ISO 16126:2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec. Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See proposed Sec.  417.129(b) and (c).
    \68\ See Sec.  417.129(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  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 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. The proposed 
rule would replace Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  453.7(b) would identify the information that an 
operator would need to include in its ODAP to demonstrate compliance 
with Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  417.129 and 450.171.
    The FAA proposes to add a requirement in Sec.  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 Sec.  453.9(c)(1) would specify the information that an 
operator must include in its ODAP to demonstrate compliance with Sec.  
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 non-actionable 
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 Sec.  450.169, which are currently applicable to all 
orbital launches and reentries authorized by the FAA that exceed 150 km 
to Sec.  453.11. The FAA would replace the current text in Sec.  
450.169 with a reference to Sec.  453.11, and replace all references to 
Sec.  450.169 outside of part 450 with a reference to new Sec.  453.11, 
which would be called ``Collision Avoidance with Orbital Objects.'' 
Proposed Sec.  453.11 is substantially similar to the existing 
requirements in Sec.  450.169, but would differ from the existing 
regulation in the following respects.
    First, the FAA would omit from proposed Sec.  453.11 the exclusion 
provided in Sec.  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 Sec.  450.169 because part 450 is not limited to

[[Page 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 Sec.  450.169(d) is no longer necessary. As such, 
the FAA would exclude the phrase ``except as provided in paragraph 
(d),'' which appears in Sec.  450.169(a) from proposed Sec.  453.11(a).
    The text of proposed Sec.  453.11(a)(1) would match current Sec.  
450.169(a)(1).
    The FAA proposes to refer to ``active payloads'' in Sec.  
453.11(a)(2), instead of ``objects that are neither orbital debris nor 
inhabitable'' as used in current Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11(a)(2), the FAA proposes to retain the probability 
of collision and spherical separation distance options from Sec.  
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 x 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 (Sec.  
453.11(a)(2)(i)), ellipsoidal screening (Sec.  453.11(a)(2)(ii)), and 
spherical screening (Sec.  453.11(a)(2)(iii)).
    The FAA proposes to add a requirement in Sec.  453.11(a)(3) to 
perform launch and reentry collision avoidance analysis against small 
objects with a radar cross section greater than 0.04 m\2\. Currently, 
Sec.  450.169(a)(3) only requires operators to screen against large 
objects with radar cross section greater than 1 m\2\ and medium objects 
with radar cross section 0.1 m\2\ to 1 m\2\. 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 
m\2\. Therefore, the FAA proposes to add launch and reentry collision 
avoidance analysis screening against those small objects. The FAA would 
retain under Sec.  453.11(a)(3) the screening options provided in Sec.  
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 x 
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 Sec.  
450.169(b) to Sec.  453.11(b), with several modifications. First, to 
enhance clarity the FAA would refer to ``150 kilometers altitude'' in 
Sec.  453.11(b)(1) and (2), instead of ``150 km,'' which appears in 
Sec.  450.169(b)(1) and (2). The text of proposed Sec.  453.11(b)(3) 
would match current Sec.  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 Sec.  450.169(b)(4). Under proposed Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  450.169(c) to Sec.  453.11(c) 
without any changes. Since the FAA would not include the exclusion in 
Sec.  450.169(d) because it is redundant of proposed part 453, the 
Analysis requirements found in Sec.  450.169(e) would appear under 
paragraph (d) of proposed Sec.  453.11.
    The FAA proposes to move the language currently found in Sec.  
450.169(e) to Sec.  453.11(d), with two revisions. First, to enhance 
clarity, the FAA proposes to revise the first sentence of Sec.  
453.11(d) to use the active voice (``An operator must obtain a 
collision avoidance analysis . . .''). Second, the FAA proposes to 
identify in Sec.  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 
Sec.  450.169(e)(2) directed that uncertainties be used to modify the 
final analysis results.
    The FAA proposes to move Sec.  450.169(f) to Sec.  453.11(e) 
without any substantive changes.
    The FAA proposes to move part 450 Appendix A, the Collision 
Avoidance Analysis Worksheet, to Sec.  453.11(f), with several 
revisions. First, the FAA proposes in Sec.  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, Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 65854]]

G. Real-Time Reporting of Orbital Safety Hazards

    The FAA proposes to add a requirement in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  453.20(a) would require an operator to 
immediately submit the information identified in Sec.  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 Sec.  
450.169 in Table A404.1 with a reference to Sec.  453.11.
    Under part 415, the FAA proposes to revise Sec.  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 Sec.  450.101(a)(4) and 
(b)(4) and, for launches with a planned altitude greater than 150 km, 
the launch collision avoidance requirements in Sec.  453.11. The FAA 
also proposes to revise Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11 and critical asset 
protection requirements in Sec.  450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4).''
    The FAA also proposes to revise Sec.  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 Sec.  417.129 with a reference to the sections of proposed part 453 
under which those end of launch requirements would appear: Sec. Sec.  
453.7 and 453.9. Similarly, the FAA proposes to revise Sec.  415.133 by 
revising the heading to read, ``Orbital Debris Mitigation,'' and by 
replacing the reference to Sec.  417.129 with a reference to the 
sections of proposed part 453 under which those end of launch 
requirements would appear: Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  415.133 (Orbital Debris Mitigation).
    Under part 417, the FAA proposes to revise Sec.  417.113(c)(1) to 
reference the collision avoidance analysis requirements of proposed 
Sec.  453.11, instead of Sec.  450.169. The FAA proposes to replace the 
requirements in Sec.  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: Sec. Sec.  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 FAA-licensed 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  450.101(a)(4) and 
(b)(4) and, for launches with a planned altitude greater than 150 km, 
the launch collision avoidance requirements in Sec.  453.11. The FAA 
proposes to revise Sec.  431.43(a)(1) to reference Sec.  453.11 instead 
of Sec.  450.169. The FAA also proposes to replace the reference to 
Sec.  450.169 in Sec.  431.43(c)(3) with a reference to the sections of 
proposed part 453 under which those end of launch requirements will 
appear: Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  
450.169 in Sec.  437.65 with a reference to Sec.  453.11. The FAA also 
proposes to remove the word, ``maximum'' from Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  401.7 
includes only controlled atmospheric disposal. As a result, the 
disposal safety criteria currently identified in Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  453.14 through 453.18, and the disposal risk 
criteria currently identified in Sec.  450.101(d) would not apply to 
all five disposal methods, the FAA must therefore revise Sec.  
450.101(d) to identify the risk criteria applicable to each

[[Page 65855]]

disposal method. Additionally, Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  450.101(d) to limit the applicability of the risk criteria to 
controlled atmospheric disposal performed in accordance with Sec.  
453.14, direct retrieval resulting in controlled atmospheric disposal 
per Sec.  453.16(b)(1), and uncontrolled atmospheric disposal performed 
in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  450.101(b). The FAA proposes to add a third 
alternative for compliance as Sec.  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 Sec.  
450.101(d)(1) consistent with the safety criteria for controlled 
atmospheric disposal under proposed Sec.  453.14.
    The risk criteria applicable to uncontrolled atmospheric disposal 
will similarly match the criteria proposed in Sec.  453.17. As noted in 
this section of this preamble discussing proposed Sec.  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 x 10-4.
    The FAA also proposes to revise Sec.  450.101(e) to reflect the 
scope of proposed part 453. Specifically, the FAA would require in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11. Similarly, the FAA would require 
in Sec.  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 Sec.  450.169 in Sec.  
450.165(a)(3) with a reference to Sec.  453.11, and in Sec.  450.213 
with a reference to Sec.  453.11(f). As discussed above, the FAA 
proposes to move the collision avoidance analysis requirements set 
forth in Sec. Sec.  450.169 to 453.11, and replace the current language 
of Sec.  450.169 with a reference to Sec.  453.11.
    The FAA also proposes to revise the equivalent level of safety 
requirements in Sec.  450.37 to allow operators the option to seek an 
equivalent level of safety for collision avoidance analysis 
requirements (which would be located under Sec.  453.11) and all other 
orbital debris mitigation requirements under part 453. Previously, 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  401.7 to include all 5 disposal options proposed in Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec.  
450.113(a)(3) with ``controlled atmospheric disposal performed in 
accordance with Sec.  453.14 or direct retrieval resulting in 
controlled atmospheric disposal under Sec.  453.16(b)(1).'' 
Additionally, in order to reflect the safety criteria alternatives 
proposed in Sec.  453.14(b), the FAA proposes to specify in Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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: 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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,

[[Page 65856]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Present value   Present value    Annualized      Annualized
                 Million dollar                       at a 7%         at a 3%      cost at a 7%    cost at a 3%
                                                   discount rate   discount rate   discount rate   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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annualized cost  Annualized cost
        Summary of costs ($ million)           Present value    Present value       at a 3%          at a 7%
                                                at a 3% rate     at a 7% rate    discount rate    discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation Costs............................           $31.1            $23.9             $2.6             $2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table summarizes benefits and costs.

[[Page 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-for-profit 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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 65858]]

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 FAA-
licensed 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 Sec. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to comply with Sec.  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 x 25 x 15) over a 15-year period, assuming operators would 
have an event to report under proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50101-50923.

0
2. Amend Sec.  401.7 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Disposal; and
0
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:

Sec.  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 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. 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

0
3. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.

0
4. Revise in Appendix A to Part 404, Table A404.1 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 404--Alternative Time Frames

* * * * *

[[Page 65860]]

                   Table A404.1--Eligible Time Frames
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Sections                            Paragraphs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   404.5--Filing a petition for waiver.  (a).
Sec.   413.23--License or permit renewal...  (a).
Sec.   414.31--Safety element approval       (a).
 renewal.
Sec.   420.57--Notifications...............  (d).
Sec.   437.89--Pre-flight reporting........  (a), (b).
Sec.   440.15--Demonstration of compliance.  (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),
                                              (a)(4).
Sec.   453.11--Launch and Reentry Collision  (e)(1).
 Avoidance Analysis Requirements.
Sec.   450.213--Pre-flight reporting.......  (b), (c), (d), (e).
Sec.   450.215--Post-flight reporting......  (a).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 415--LAUNCH LICENSE

0
5. The authority citation for part 415 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.

0
6. Amend Sec.  415.2 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11 of this chapter.
0
7. Amend Sec.  415.35 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 
Sec.  453.11 and critical asset protection requirements in Sec. Sec.  
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.
* * * * *
0
8. Revise Sec.  415.39 to read as follows:

Sec.  415.39  Demonstration of Orbital Debris Mitigation.

    An applicant must demonstrate compliance with Sec. Sec.  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.
0
9. Revise Sec.  415.133 to read as follows:

Sec.  415.133  Orbital Debris Mitigation.

    An applicant must demonstrate compliance with Sec. Sec.  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.
0
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 (Sec.  415.133)

PART 417--LAUNCH SAFETY

0
11. The authority citation for part 417 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.

0
12. Amend Sec.  417.113 by revising paragraph (c)(1) and (1)(iii) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11, and critical asset protection 
requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11.
* * * * *
0
13. Revise Sec.  417.129 to read as follows:

Sec.  417.129  Orbital Debris Mitigation.

    A launch operator must perform orbital debris mitigation as 
required by Sec. Sec.  453.7 and 453.9 of this chapter.

PART 431--LAUNCH AND REENTRY OF A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV)

0
14. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.

0
15. Amend Sec.  431.2 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  453.11 of this chapter.
0
16. Amend Sec.  431.43 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(3) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  453.7 and 453.9 of this chapter; and
* * * * *

PART 435--REENTRY OF A REENTRY VEHICLE OTHER THAN A REUSABLE LAUNCH 
VEHICLE (RLV)

0
17. The authority citation for part 435 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.

0
18. Amend Sec.  435.2 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 
Sec.  453.11 of this chapter and critical asset protection requirements 
in Sec.  450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4) of this chapter.

PART 437--EXPERIMENTAL PERMITS

0
19. The authority citation for part 437 continues to read as follows:

[[Page 65861]]

    Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.

0
20. Revise Sec.  437.65 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11 of this chapter.

PART 450--LAUNCH AND REENTRY LICENSE REQUIREMENTS

0
21. The authority citation for part 450 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.

0
22. Amend Sec.  450.37 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  450.37  Equivalent level of safety.

* * * * *
    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to Sec.  
450.101(a), (b), (c)(1) and (3), (d), and (g).
0
23. Amend Sec.  450.101 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  453.14 or direct retrieval 
resulting in controlled atmospheric disposal under Sec.  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 x 
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 x 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 x 
10-6.
    (2) Uncontrolled atmospheric disposal. For any uncontrolled 
atmospheric disposal performed in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  453.7 and 453.9.
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec.  450.113 by revising paragraph (a) and (a)(3) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  453.14 or direct retrieval resulting in controlled 
atmospheric disposal under Sec.  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.
0
25. Amend Sec.  450.165 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11;
* * * * *
0
26. Revise Sec.  450.169 to read as follows:

Sec.  450.169  Launch and reentry collision avoidance analysis 
requirements.

    A launch or reentry operator must perform collision avoidance 
analysis as required by Sec.  453.11.
0
27. Revise Sec.  450.171 to read as follows:

Sec.  450.171  Orbital Debris Mitigation.

    A launch operator must perform orbital debris mitigation as 
required by Sec. Sec.  453.7 and 453.9 of this chapter.
0
28. Amend Sec.  450.213 to revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  453.11(f).
* * * * *

Appendix A to Part 450--Collision Analysis Worksheet [REMOVED]

0
29. Remove Appendix A to Part 450--Collision Analysis Worksheet.
0
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.

Sec.  453.1  Applicability

    (a) This part establishes the requirements of a launch or reentry 
operator (operator) for orbital debris mitigation, including collision

[[Page 65862]]

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 Sec.  404.15; and
    (2) A Collision Avoidance Analysis Worksheet in accordance with 
Sec.  453.11(f).
    (c) An operator must send the information required by this part as 
an email attachment to [email protected], or other method as agreed 
to by the Administrator in the license or permit.

Sec.  453.3  [Reserved]

Sec.  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 
object-time 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.

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 x 
10-6;
    (ii) The launching or reentering objects must maintain an 
ellipsoidal separation distance of 200 kilometers in-track 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 x 
10-5;
    (ii) The launching or reentering objects must maintain an 
ellipsoidal separation distance of 25 kilometers in-track 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 m\2\:
    (i) The probability of collision between the launching or 
reentering objects and any known orbital debris must not exceed 1 x 
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;

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  
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:

[[Page 65864]]

    (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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.

Sec.  453.16  Direct Retrieval.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to the use of direct 
retrieval to meet the post-mission disposal requirement of Sec.  
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 Sec.  453.14(b) and (c); or
    (2) Maneuvering the debris into a disposal orbit in accordance with 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  453.18(e).

Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 x 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[hyphen]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 x 
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 Sec.  453.17(b) or (c) to dispose of the debris within 
the prescribed time limit.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.

Sec.  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