[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RISKS AND REWARDS:
ENCOURAGING COMMERCIAL SPACE INNOVATION
WHILE MAINTAINING PUBLIC SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-688 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
RANDY WEBER, Texas Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida MAXWELL FROST, Florida
DALE STRONG, Alabama YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
MAX MILLER, Ohio SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia GABE AMO, Rhode Island
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
TOM KEAN, New Jersey Vice Ranking Member
VINCE FONG, California PAUL TONKO, New York
GREG LOPEZ, Colorado
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois,
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida Ranking Member
MIKE GARCIA, California JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
September 10, 2024
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Eric Sorensen, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Witnesses:
Mr. Kelvin Coleman, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Mr. Dave Cavossa, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Mr. Mike French, Founder, Space Policy Group, and Vice Chair, FAA
Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 50
Ms. Pamela L. Meredith, Chair, Space Law Practice Group, KMA
Zuckert LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 58
Written Statement............................................ 60
Discussion....................................................... 73
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Kelvin Coleman, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration................ 98
Mr. Dave Cavossa, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation... 128
Ms. Pamela L. Meredith, Chair, Space Law Practice Group, KMA
Zuckert LLC.................................................... 133
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
Mat Dunn, Senior Director, Government Affairs, SpaceX........ 140
RISKS AND REWARDS: ENCOURAGING
COMMERCIAL SPACE INNOVATION
WHILE MAINTAINING PUBLIC SAFETY
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Babin [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
will come to order, please.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Risks and Rewards:
Encouraging Commercial Space Innovation While Maintaining
Public Safety.'' I'd like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for
an opening statement.
Two of my highest priorities as Chairman of the Space
Subcommittee have been to ensure U.S. leadership in space
exploration and to maintain a robust commercial space industry.
These two priorities go hand in hand, and both have significant
implications for our economic competitiveness and our national
security. And that's also why this Committee has worked
tirelessly to streamline commercial space regulations over the
last decade.
Prior to Space Policy Directives 1, 2, and 3, this
Committee passed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness
Act and the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act that
sought to update and streamline all aspects of commercial
space. Thankfully, the Trump Administration continued the
process with the aforementioned Space Policy Directives, but
now we must review the implementation of those directives and
codify necessary updates through that--through legislation.
The Committee started this process last November with the
passage of the Commercial Space Act out of Committee. The
importance of that legislation has become even more apparent
since then. License processing under the new part 450 process
is moving at a snail's pace while the Administration seeks even
more regulatory authority, all while our competitors continue
to make significant progress. And I fear that at this rate, the
Communist Party will launch taikonauts to the Moon, while U.S.
industry remains tethered to Earth with red tape.
Inefficiencies in our launch licensing process cause me
great concern as they compromise our competitiveness and
security, and that is why today's hearing is so important. The
FAA's (Federal Aviation Administration's) part 450 launch and
reentry regulations were intended to expedite the licensing
process and enable an increased cadence for launches. So far,
FAA has issued six licenses under part 450 with applications
taking years to complete. Many applications for part 450
licenses are still under review, impacting launch schedules and
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) missions.
We've heard complaints about duplicative review processes
between FAA and other government agencies, uncertain timelines,
and the lack of definitive and specific implementation
guidance. In this hearing, we look to understand the benefits
and challenges of part 450. We also hope to hear FAA's plans
and timeline for much-needed improvement of part 450
implementation, whether through additional reform efforts,
rulemaking committees, additional advisory circulars, creation
of a new electronic filing system, or other strategies to aid
in application processing. Having an effective licensing system
is critical to the future of our country's economic and
national security.
The United States leads in commercial space, but we cannot
ever take that for granted. Under the increasing burden of
regulatory compliance, companies may turn to more light-touch
approvals available overseas. This is not hypothetical, and
when the United States dragged its feet approving commercial
remote sensing systems in the 1990's, the industry simply moved
overseas. And now, with nations like China seeking to leapfrog
our accomplishments in space, it is even more imperative that
we streamline our processes, issue timely approvals, minimize
regulatory burdens, and advance innovative space concepts.
The national security implications posed by the FAA
regulations are very concerning, as our goal of returning
humans to the Moon could be unnecessarily delayed. For example,
the human landing system that will take our astronauts to the
lunar surface this decade, the many test missions needed before
that will require an FAA launch license. It is imperative that
we are the first country back on the lunar surface so that we
can establish norms of behavior and transparent practices that
align with freedom rather than the CCP's (Chinese Communist
Party's) autocracy. China routinely violates international
norms right here on Earth, so I wouldn't be surprised if they
attempted to place ``no trespassing'' signs on the Moon.
And that's why, last fall, Chairman Lucas and I introduced
H.R. 6131, the Commercial Space Act. This legislation would
direct the Department of Commerce to issue certifications for
novel space activities, allowing innovation to thrive, while
ensuring compliance with the United States' international
obligations. This legislation also included provisions
addressing the processes and systems that could enable more
effective and efficient launch licensing, while still
maintaining public safety. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle here to advance this
legislation.
I would welcome our esteemed panel of witnesses today.
Thank you all for being here. They bring--each of you bring
decades of experience and a unique perspective to the topic of
space activity licensing that will benefit this Subcommittee's
consideration of these very significant topics.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
Two of my highest priorities as Chairman of the Space
Subcommittee have been to ensure U.S. leadership in space
exploration, and to maintain a robust commercial space
industry. These two priorities go hand-in-hand, and both have
significant implications to our economic competitiveness and
national security. That's also why this Committee has worked
tirelessly to streamline commercial space regulations over the
last decade.
Prior to Space Policy Directives 1, 2, and 3, this
Committee passed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness
Act and the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act that
sought to update and streamline all aspects of commercial
space. Thankfully, the Trump Administration continued the
process with the aforementioned Space Policy Directives. But
now we must review the implementation of those directives, and
codify necessary updates through legislation.
The Committee started this process last November with the
passage of the Commercial Space Act out of Committee. The
importance of that legislation has become even more apparent
since then. License processing under the new Part 450 process
is moving at a snail's pace while the Administration seeks even
more regulatory authority, all while our competitors continue
to make significant progress. I fear that at this rate, the
Communist Party will launch Taikonauts to the Moon while U.S.
industry remains tethered to Earth with red tape.
Inefficiencies in our launch licensing process cause me
great concern, as they compromise our competitiveness and
security. That is why today's hearing is so important.
The FAA's Part 450 launch and reentry regulations were
intended to expedite the licensing process and enable an
increased cadence of launches. So far, FAA has issued six
licenses under Part 450, with applications taking years to
complete. Many applications for Part 450 licenses are still
under review, impacting launch schedules and NASA missions.
We've heard complaints about duplicative review processes
between FAA and other government agencies, uncertain timelines,
and the lack of definitive and specific implementation
guidance.
In this hearing, we look to understand the benefits and
challenges of Part 450. We also hope to hear FAA's plans and
timeline for much-needed improvement of Part 450
implementation, whether through additional reform efforts,
rulemaking committees, additional Advisory Circulars, creation
of a new electronic filing system, or other strategies to aid
in application processing.
Having an effective licensing system is critical to the
future of our country's economic and national security.
The United States leads in commercial space, but we cannot
take this for granted. Under the increasing burden of
regulatory compliance, companies may turn to more light-touch
approvals available overseas. This is not a hypothetical. When
the U.S. dragged its feet approving commercial remote sensing
systems in the 90s, the industry moved overseas. Now, with
nations like China seeking to leapfrog our accomplishments in
space, it is even more imperative that we streamline our
processes, issue timely approvals, minimize regulatory burdens,
and advance innovative space concepts.
The national security implications posed by FAA's
regulations are very concerning, as our goal of returning
humans to the Moon could be unnecessarily delayed. For example,
the Human Landing System that will take our astronauts to the
Lunar surface this decade, as well as all of the test missions
before that, will require an FAA launch license. It is
imperative that we are the first country back on the Lunar
surface so that we establish norms of behavior and transparency
that align with freedom rather than the CCP's autocracy. China
routinely violates international norms here on Earth, so I
wouldn't be surprised if they attempted to place ``no
trespassing'' signs on the Moon.
That's why last fall Chairman Lucas and I introduced H.R.
6131, the Commercial Space Act. This legislation would direct
the Department of Commerce to issue certifications for novel
space activities, allowing innovation to thrive while ensuring
compliance with United States' international obligations. This
legislation also included provisions addressing the processes
and systems that could enable more effective and efficient
launch licensing, while still maintaining public safety. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to advance this
legislation.
I welcome our esteemed panel of witnesses today. They each
bring decades of experience and a unique perspective to the
topic of space activity licensing that will benefit this
Subcommittee's consideration of these topics.
Chairman Babin. So now I would like to recognize the
Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Chairman Babin, for holding
today's hearing entitled ``Risks and Rewards: Encouraging
Commercial Space Innovation While Maintaining Public Safety.''
I also want to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses
today. Thank you for your time, your expertise, and for being
here today.
When you grow up with a dad who's an aerospace engineer who
worked on the shuttle program, you'll learn a lot about what is
in our infinite frontier. And now, as the Ranking Member of
this Subcommittee, it is our job to figure out how we make
space a catalyst for inspiration as we work together to develop
our STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
workforce, innovate, and then grow our economy.
We rely on space systems and technologies to communicate,
to navigate, monitor, and understand the Earth and our ever-
changing climate, and perhaps most importantly, to discover and
explore. Increasingly, space is also important to our national
security. To realize the benefits of space, we need to access
space and often return systems back to Earth. Launch and
reentry services, largely provided by the commercial sector,
are a gateway. Commercial launch and reentry services are
essential to our civil, commercial, and national security
activities in space.
Back in 1984, through this Committee's leadership, Congress
granted the Secretary of Transportation the authority to
license commercial launch systems consistent with public
health, safety of property, national security, and foreign
policy interests of the United States. The Secretary later
delegated the authority to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Congress has amended and updated the original statute as the
industry has evolved. To date, the FAA has licensed over 700
commercial space launches that have occurred without any impact
to public safety or significant impact to any public property.
Mr. Chairman, that is an impressive safety record that we can
all and we should be proud of. I want to thank the public
servants at the FAA for their hard work, dedication, and
commitment to maintaining safety.
Of more than 700 licensed launches to date, 40 percent have
occurred in just the last 3 years. With the increasing number
of launches, it's important the FAA keep pace in its licensing
and safety practices. But this is not an easy task because the
FAA also transitions to updated launch and reentry regulations
issued in 2020, navigates licenses for innovation--innovative
systems and concepts of operation, and monitors the emergent--
emerging commercial human spaceflight industry and the eventual
need for safety framework.
Today's hearing provides an opportunity to consider how we
support the FAA and the commercial space industry at large,
responding to this period of tremendous growth. Are the new
regulations meeting their intended goals? Do we have the
necessary workforce, the necessary infrastructure, and
resources to respond? Do we understand the implications of
those activities on our environment? And are we prepared for
accidents should those occur?
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what this
Committee and Congress can do to sustain a safe, vibrant, and
leading U.S. commercial space launch and reentry industry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sorensen follows:]
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Babin, for holding
today's hearing entitled ``Risks and Rewards: Encouraging
Commercial Space Innovation While Maintaining Public Safety.''
I also want to welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses.
Thank you for being here.
When you grow up with a dad who is an aerospace engineer,
you learn a lot about our infinite frontier. And now as Ranking
Member on this Subcommittee, it is our job to figure out how to
make space a catalyst for inspiration as we work together to
develop our STEM workforce, innovate, and grow our economy.
We rely on space systems and technologies to communicate,
navigate, monitor and understand the Earth and our changing
climate, and, perhaps most importantly, to discover and
explore.Increasingly, space is also important to our national
security.
To realize the benefits of space, we need to access space
and, often, return systems back to Earth. Launch and reentry
services, largely provided by the commercial sector, are the
gateway.
Commercial launch and reentry services are essential to our
civil, commercial, and national security activities in space.
In 1984, through this Committee's leadership, Congress
granted the Secretary of Transportation authority to license
commercial launch systems consistent with public health, safety
of property, national security, and foreign policy interests of
the United States.
The Secretary later delegated the authority to the Federal
Aviation Administration. Congress has amended and updated the
original statute as the industry has evolved. To date, the FAA
has licensed over 700 commercial space launches that have
occurred without any impact to public safety or significant
impact to public property.
Mr. Chairman, that's an impressive safety record that we
can all be proud of. I want to thank the public servants at the
FAA for their hard work, dedication, and commitment to
maintaining safety.
Of the more 700 licensed launches to date, about 40 percent
have occurred in just the last three years. With the increasing
number of launches, it is important the FAA keep pace in its
licensing and safety services. But this is not an easy task,
especially as the FAA also:
Transitions to updated launch and reentry
regulations issued in 2020;
Navigates licenses for innovative systems and
concepts of operation; and
Monitors the emerging commercial human
spaceflight industry and the eventual need for a safety
framework.
Today's hearing provides an opportunity to consider how we
support the FAA and the commercial space industry at-large in
responding to this period of tremendous growth.
Are the new regulations meeting their intended goals? Do we
have the necessary workforce, infrastructure, and resources to
respond? Do we understand the implications of those activities
on the environment? And are we prepared for accidents, should
they occur?
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what this
Committee and Congress can do to sustain a safe, vibrant, and
leading U.S. commercial space launch and reentry industry.Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Sorensen.
And now, I'd like to recognize the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Mr. Lucas, for a statement.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In this Congress, a consistent theme of the Committee's
work has been to ensure U.S. competitiveness in science
technology, including our Nation's commercial space activities.
This is particularly important as we examine space policy and
consider how to continue leadership from the U.S. commercial
space sector.
To this end, we have considered the role of commercial
entities play in the future of space exploration and how
collaboration between government and industry can both further
national space objectives and support the development of a
space economy. Importantly, we've also considered how the
Federal Government can authorize and supervise the activities
of non-governmental entities without limiting innovation and
technological achievements.
In 2018, the Trump Administration Space Policy Directive
number 2, commonly known as SPD-2, triggered a governmentwide
review of the administrative framework applicable to space
activities. SPD-2 directed agencies to streamline licensing
processes and otherwise reduce the burden of regulatory
compliance for space operators. Five years have passed, and
it's time to assess the effectiveness of these reform efforts.
Today's hearing will review the licensing process for
launch and reentry vehicles administered by the Department of
Transportation via the Federal Aviation Administration. In
2020, FAA issued the streamlining launch and reentry license
requirements final rule. This sought to establish a single
licensing process that applied to all types of launch and
reentry operations by replacing the existing prescriptive
requirements with performance-based criteria. Now, 3 years
into--since the rule went into effect, we seek to understand
the impact of the new licensing process and the extent to which
it accomplished the goals of SPD-2. We will consider progress
in implementing the rule and identify areas which may benefit
from further improvement.
Beyond our review of the license--launch licensing, we also
consider the approach behind the United States' regulation of
space activities of all kinds. How did the existing structures
evolve over time? What lessons can be learned as we look to
grant new authority over--in space activities? How have past
efforts affected the pace of innovation? How do we continue to
encourage commercial space activity moving forward?
Last fall, this Committee addressed many of these issues in
the Commercial Space Act, sponsored by Chairman Babin. This
legislation provided regulatory certainty to the American
commercial space sector, while streamlining the licensing
process for launch reentry. The morning that we marked that
legislation up, the National Space Council unveiled--did I say
the morning that we marked that legislation up, the National
Space Council unveiled a legislative proposal for mission
authorization that, while well-intended, created more burdens
for our commercial space industry. This proposal would require
commercial operators to go through a maze of regulatory
agencies before launch and creates a confusing process even the
most--for the most seasoned regulatory experts. This is why we
must advance the Commercial Space Act and not wait for another
Congress to act.
I hope my colleagues will join me in moving forward this
important legislation, and I thank our witnesses for joining us
today. Each of our panelists bring a different perspective on
these issues, and I look forward to hearing their thoughts.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]
This Congress, a consistent theme of the Committee's work
has been to ensure U.S, competitiveness in science and
technology, including our nation's commercial space activities.
This is particularly important as we examine space policy and
consider how best to continue leadership from the U.S.
commercial space sector.
To this end, we have considered the role commercial
entities play in the future of space exploration, and how
collaboration between government and industry can both further
national space objectives and support the development of a
space economy.
Importantly, we have also considered how the federal
government can authorize and supervise the activities of
nongovernmental entities without limiting innovation and
technological achievements.
In 2018, the Trump Administration's Space Policy Directive-
2, commonly known as SPD-2, triggered a government-wide review
of the administrative framework applicable to space operations.
SPD-2 directed agencies to streamline licensing processes and
otherwise reduce the burden of regulatory compliance for space
operators. Five years have passed, and it's time to assess the
effectiveness of these reform efforts.
Today's hearing will review the licensing process for
launch and reentry activities, administered by the Department
of Transportation via the Federal Aviation Administration. In
2020, FAA issued the ``Streamlining Launch and Reentry License
Requirements'' final rule. This sought to establish a single
licensing process that applied for all types of launch and
reentry operations by replacing the existing prescriptive
requirements with performance-based criteria.
Now, three years since this rule went into effect, we seek
to understand the impact of the new licensing process and the
extent to which it accomplished the goals of SPD-2. We will
consider progress in implementing the rule and identify areas
which may benefit from further improvement.
Beyond our review of launch licensing, we also consider the
approach behind the United States' regulation of space
activities of all kinds. How did the existing structures evolve
over time and what lessons can be learned as we look to grant
new authority over in-space activities? How have past efforts
affected the pace of innovation, and how do we continue to
encourage commercial space activity moving forward?
Last fall, this Committee addressed many of these issues in
the Commercial Space Act, sponsored by Chairman Babin. This
legislation provided regulatory certainty to the American
commercial space sector while streamlining the licensing
process for launch and reentry.
The morning that we marked up that legislation, the
National Space Council unveiled a legislative proposal for
mission authorization that, while well-intentioned, created
more burdens for our commercial space industry. This proposal
would require commercial operators to go through a maze of
regulatory agencies before launch and creates a confusing
process for even the most seasoned regulatory experts.
This is why we must advance the Commercial Space Act and
not wait for another Congress to act. I hope my colleagues will
join me in moving forward this important legislation.
I thank our witnesses for joining us today. Each of our
panelists today brings a different perspective on these issues,
and I look forward to hearing their thoughts.
Chairman Lucas. And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and
I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate it.
And now I'd like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Full Committee for a statement, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Chairman Babin and Ranking
Member Sorensen, for holding today's hearing. We need to
encourage commercial space innovation, but also, we need to
maintain public safety. And I want to welcome our panel of
distinguished witnesses. Thank you for being here.
You know, the U.S. commercial space industry is vibrant,
it's growing, and this is good for our economy, and it's good
for all of us who benefit from the many applications of space
technologies and capabilities. The launch and reentry industry
is a pillar of not only our commercial space industry, but also
our civil and national security space programs. It is literally
what gets us there.
Four years ago, as has been mentioned, the FAA's Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (AST) issued new regulations
that were intended to streamline the process of getting a
launch or reentry license and enable greater innovation,
flexibility, and efficiency. The implementation of these
regulations and getting it right is one of the most pressing
issues for the commercial space industry today, and I'm
pleased, therefore, that we're discussing this important topic.
We need a modern, commonplace regulatory system that can
accommodate and enable the growing industry and its increasing
pace of activity.
It's no surprise that the cadence and complexity of launch
operations and systems is adding significant strain to the
system. In many ways, this is a good problem to have if we can
ensure the necessary support and resources are available to
manage it. Now, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, recognizes the
need to better equip the FAA to support the growing commercial
space industry. Even with a constrained budget environment.
FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation has seen budget
increases in recent years. Probably more increases are needed
in large part to allow FAA to hire the right people to handle
the increasing workload. But as is so often the case, we are
asking the agency to do a lot with a limited budget.
My guess is, however, that budget increases alone are not
enough to get us where we need to be. To that end, I'm eager to
hear today from our witnesses about concrete, actionable
solutions to ensure that the FAA Office of Commercial Space
Transportation can more efficiently and effectively carry out
its mission to regulate commercial space launch and reentry,
but this must be consistent with the public health and safety
and safety of property, in addition, of course, to our national
security and foreign policy interests.
I look forward to the testimony today, and I thank you, and
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Sorensen, for
holding today's hearing on encouraging commercial space
innovation while maintaining public safety. I also want to
welcome our panel of distinguished witnesses. Thank you for
being here.
The U.S. commercial space industry is vibrant and growing.
This is good for our economy, and it is good for all of us who
benefit from the many applications of space technologies and
capabilities. The launch and reentry industry is a pillar of
not only our commercial space industry, but also our civil and
national security space programs. It is literally what gets us
there.
Four years ago, the FAA's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation issued new regulations intended to streamline
the process of getting a launch or reentry license and enable
greater innovation, flexibility, and efficiency. The
implementation of these regulations, and getting it right, is
one of the most pressing issues for the commercial space
industry today. I'm pleased we are discussing this important
topic. We need a modern, commonplace regulatory system that can
accommodate and enable the growing industry and its increasing
pace of activity.
It's no surprise that the cadence and complexity of launch
operations and systems is adding significant strain to the
system. In many ways, this is a good problem to have, if we can
ensure the necessary support and resources are available to
manage it.
Congress, on a bipartisan basis, recognizes the need to
better equip the FAA to support a growing commercial space
industry. Even amidst a constrained budget environment, FAA's
Office of Commercial Space Transportation has seen budget
increases in recent years. Moreincreases are needed, in large
part to allow FAA to hire the right people to handle the
increasing workload.
As is so often the case, we are asking an agency to do a
lot with a limited budget.
I suspect, however, that budget increases alone are not
enough to get us where we need to be. To that end, I am eager
to hear today from our witnesses about concrete, actionable
solutions to ensure that the FAA Office of Commercial Space
Transportation can more efficiently and effectively carry out
its mission to regulate commercial space launch and reentry
consistent with the public health and safety, safety of
property, national security, and foreign policy interests of
the United States.
I look forward to the testimony today. Thank you, and I
yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
Now, I'd like to have the honor of introducing our
witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. Kelvin Coleman, who
serves as the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration. In this
role, he oversees the regulation of the commercial space
industry, as well as the development and implementation of FAA
regulations. Prior to joining the FAA, Mr. Coleman served as a
systems engineer for the U.S. Air--excuse me, U.S. Naval Air
Systems Command.
Our next witness is Mr. Dave Cavossa, who serves as the
President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, or CSF,
where he leads efforts to promote the development and
maturation of the commercial space industry. Prior to joining
CSF, Mr. Cavossa worked as the lead for U.S. Government
Business at Agility Beyond Space and has served as the
Executive Director and Chair of the board at the Satellite
Industry Association.
Our third witness is Mr. Mike French, who founded and leads
the Space Policy Group, which provides independent space policy
analysis. He also serves as a senior advisor on space issues to
BCG. Mr. French has also previously served as NASA's Chief of
Staff.
And our final witness is Ms. Pamela Meredith. Ms. Meredith
serves as the Chair of the Space Law Practice Group at KMA
Zuckert where she advises clients on subjects including FAA
licensing. She also serves as an adjunct professor of satellite
communications and space law at American University's
Washington School of Law.
I want to thank each and every one of you witnesses for
being here today.
And now I'd like to recognize Mr. Coleman for 5 minutes to
present his testimony. Mr. Coleman?
TESTIMONY OF MR. KELVIN COLEMAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Coleman. Good morning and thank you. Chair Lucas, Chair
Babin, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Ranking Member Sorensen, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
be here today to discuss the FAA Office of Commercial Space
Transportation's ongoing efforts to streamline and improve our
processes and regulatory framework to enable safe space
transportation.
Commercial space transportation operations are increasing
in complexity, diversity, and frequency, creating a significant
growth in demand for FAA licensing products and services. This
year, we are on pace to exceed last year's operations by more
than 30 percent. Over the course of our 40-year history, we
have licensed or permitted more than 800 U.S. commercial space
operations and have met our mission on every one. Safety is the
FAA's North Star and is critical to the uninterrupted success
of an industry that has become so vitally important to our
Nation.
The law requires that we make new license determinations
for accepted applications within a period of no more than 180
days, and we've hit that mark 98 percent of the time, averaging
151 days to issue a new license. Making timely licensing
determinations requires a commitment from government as well as
industry to be thorough, transparent, and efficient, always in
ways that uphold public safety and meet regulatory
requirements.
The FAA recognizes the importance of regulatory certainty
and has made it a top priority, ensuring our licensing
requirements are understandable, achievable, and actionable. To
facilitate industry licensing, we have offered office hours and
workshops where industry can meet with us to ask questions and
discuss issues, provided checklists and visual tutorials to aid
in application development, issued advisory circulars to help
shepherd compliance with regulatory compliance--regulatory
requirements, and made investments in the development of new
tools that will improve license application and processing
efficiency.
Industry bears the responsibility for demonstrating
compliance with safety regulations and plays a significant role
in helping the FAA reach licensing determinations faster.
Navigation of the regulatory process cannot be an afterthought.
Applications should speak directly to our requirements when
first submitted. Thorough and complete applications that are
presented at the outset of the licensing process with clear
narratives supporting means of compliance lead to faster
determinations.
Further, it is important that applicants minimize
amendments and changes in the application under review, as
these changes often have a broad ripple effect and slow the
pace of determinations. Thanks to recent support from Congress,
we have been able to increase our staff size, which has allowed
us to address some of the growing demands that we're facing as
we've seen industry operations grow more than 900 percent in
the last decade.
In closing, I like to speak briefly about our streamlined
launch and reentry requirements regulation. The part 450 rule,
which was published in March 2021, is performance-based and
fosters flexibility, efficiency, and innovation while
maintaining safety. By March 2026, all licenses must be issued
under part 450. We strongly encourage the industry to submit
their part 450 applications and not wait until the 11th hour.
It is my strong belief and conviction that part 450 will move
us in the right direction toward efficiency for both the
government and industry, will contribute to safety, and will
open the door to greater innovation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this
important topic today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you. I'd now like to recognize Mr.
Cavossa for 5 minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVE CAVOSSA,
PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION
Mr. Cavossa. Thank you. Chairman Babin, Chairman Lucas,
Ranking Member Sorensen, Ranking Member Lofgren, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today on behalf of the Commercial
Spaceflight Federation and our 80-plus member companies. I'm
honored to share our members' experiences and concerns with the
FAA's implementation of its part 450 launch and reentry
regulations, which, without change, could substantially reduce
the pace of innovation and impede national competitiveness with
China.
Industry shares FAA's absolute commitment to protecting
public safety, and is proud of our perfect public safety record
to date, as noted by Mr. Coleman. Today, the U.S. commercial
spaceflight industry leads the world with a commercial launch
every roughly 2 1/2 half days, and that cadence continues to
increase. As noted by Mr. Coleman, the volume of U.S. licensed
launches has increased dramatically and will continue to
increase as the space industry continues to rapidly mature. It
is for this reason why we are so concerned with where we are
today with the current implementation of part 450.
Part 450 was originally intended to streamline launch and
reentry licensing processes, provide a performance-based
regulatory framework, and allow for multi-mission licenses.
However, the way it is being implemented today has caused
severe licensing delays, confusion, and is jeopardizing our
long-held leadership position.
The current licensing process is costing our member
companies millions of dollars for each mission and, when
combined with uncertainty and schedule delays, is crippling our
efforts to launch and reenter new vehicles, support new
customers, and raise new capital. For instance, an investor
question our members often hear these days when raising money
is how are you handling the FAA licensing process?
Here are just two examples of the many challenges we're
facing. No. 1, the preapplication process or, as industry
refers to it, playing a game of ``bring me a rock.'' Companies
get stuck in an endless back-and-forth process as they discuss
means of compliance approval without guidance on what the FAA
is actually looking for. This process is taking years. AST has
made it clear in its own statements that industry will need
additional guidance via advisory circulars to effectively
implement part 450. Four years after debuting part 450, many of
these expected advisory circulars are still missing and are
needed greatly. And I won't even get into the challenges
associated with trying to reenter vehicles right now.
These are just a few of the six major challenges I've laid
out in my written testimony. We greatly appreciate the hard
work of Kelvin and the FAA's dedicated staff. I think they're
doing their best today to keep the licensing system semi-
functional, but if we keep up this pace, the consequences for
our Nation's leadership role in space are dire.
China is watching our regulatory processes and chokepoints
and red tape, and they're smiling. Their governance system is
set up with the goal of beating the United States in the
current space race. Don't get me wrong. We are not here to say
get rid of part 450 for launch licensing and regulation.
However, the implementation challenges with part 450 do not
benefit public safety and are actively hurting our industry.
Thankfully, many of the changes that need to be made can be
put in place today by AST and are concrete and actionable. For
example, reinstating the independent technical authority,
issuing internal guidance that puts guardrails around the
endless preapplication process review, and publishing
additional advisory circulars that we're asking for. I have a
much longer list in my written testimony, but hopefully, that
gives you a sense of some of the commonsense fixes that could
be done today. Longer-term fixes are also critical, like the
part 450 SpARC (Aerospace Rulemaking Committee). And finally,
deploying the license application LEAP tracking tool.
From Congress, we recommend setting a statutory timeline
for approving an applicant's means of compliance, continuing to
provide additional resources to AST for part 450 launch and
reentry licensing, and advancing pertinent sections of the
Commercial Space Act of 2023 such as the learning period
extension, launch and reentry indemnification and liability
extensions, and the launch and reentry streamlining provisions
wisely put forward by Representatives Garcia and Stevens and
approved by the Committee.
I thank the Subcommittee for the time and look forward to
any questions and conversation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cavossa follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. French.
Now, I'd like to--oh, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Cavossa.
I'd like to recognize Mr. French for 5 minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. MIKE FRENCH,
FOUNDER, SPACE POLICY GROUP, AND VICE CHAIR,
FAA COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. French. Thank you, Chairman Babin.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. French. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, Ranking
Member Sorensen, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
I serve as the Vice Chair of the FAA's advisory committee
COMSTAC (Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee),
and my testimony today will reflect my personal assessment of
the activities from that committee, as well as my activity in
the space community at large.
I want to leave you with three main points today, around
safety and growth, around resources, and around current
regulatory challenges. I'll start with safety and growth.
The space industry, the launch industry particularly has
seen tremendous growth after--over the last decade. There's
been an over 1,500 percent increase in the number of licensed
launches, over $28 billion invested in the U.S. space industry,
and the development and establishment of several new companies
and multiple launch vehicles.
Throughout this tremendous growth, the United States has
maintained a 100 percent public safety record. Now, that
doesn't mean that we don't have incidents, and some of them are
quite spectacular, and some of them may seem dangerous to the
public, but those incidences are not evidence of a regulatory
problem, just the opposite. They evidence the success of the
regulations in keeping the public safe, which is their purpose.
And for that, Mr. Coleman and AST team really deserve, you
know, recognition.
And that takes me to my second point, which is resources.
This growth is not without consequences. While we've seen that
tremendous growth in the launch industry, AST's budget has only
grown at 10 percent of the rate of that launch increase. AST
staffing has only grown at 5 percent of the growth of that
licensing increase. And this has created a real burden on the
licensing process. Today, AST has to prioritize among active
applications, and it is impacting not just the licensing
process that's active, but also the development of new guidance
and the development of new tools that could help the process
writ large.
From a COMSTAC perspective, AST's funding has been a
concern for several years now. From a congressional
perspective, Congress should be commended for the actions that
have been taken this year at the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee with marks that support AST's full
request, including a significant increase for licensing staff.
This takes me to my third point, which is regulatory
challenges with the implementation of part 450. The safety
record we just talked about, that has primarily taken place
under the old set of regulations or the legacy regulations.
This is being replaced by the framework of the part 450
regulations that we've been talking about today.
These challenges have been a significant concern to the
COMSTAC and COMSTAC membership. Over the last 2 years, we've
sent several recommendations to AST on this, including a
detailed set of recommendations last year providing changes in
the implementation process and some of the regulations at our--
at a specific regulatory level.
I'll highlight three areas in particular for these concerns
where I think Congress can help out. The first one, what was
mentioned before, is the 180-day shot clock, if you would, on
the time to complete a regulation. Under the part 450
framework, the 180-day framework has lost some of its
effectiveness with significant time being spent in what's
called preapplication before the clock starts running.
I propose that Congress should keep the time limit, but
think of a new clock, what I'll call a chess clock instead of a
shot clock. Under this system, the clock will start when the
preapplication process begins, but then it will run depending
on who has possession of application as it goes through the
process. This type of chess clock, matched with the
transparency tools in our development, should provide more
transparency to both applicants, AST, and to the Congress, and
give a much clearer and more accurate picture of what's going
on throughout the process.
A second area we've heard a concern is on advisory
circulars. These are FAA-produced documents that provide a
means of compliance to the new regulations. As operators and
AST have been contending on how to meet the new regulations,
this has increased the importance of these advisory circulars.
However, new--developing new advisory circulars suffers from
the same resource problem we talked about before, where the
same staff that is responsible for licensing also is needed to
complete the advisory circular, creating a bottleneck to choose
to solve the problem today or help solve the problem tomorrow.
Congress here has the opportunity to help out as well. If
we think about those legacy regulations, which is responsible
for that safety record that is--that we talked about, Congress
could consider allowing operators to use the legacy regulations
in those areas where advisory circulars are still under
development and give time for the FAA to then provide that
guidance under the 450 framework.
A third area of concern where Congress can take action is
what Mr. Cavossa mentioned in multiple or duplicative safety
analysis being provided by AST and by the ranges. In this area,
Congress could take action to allow operators to choose whether
the AST or the range's activity analysis to meet the
regulations.
Finally, I'll end with a possible growing area of concern,
which is an environmental regulatory framework. FAA launch
licenses are subject to NEPA (National Environmental Policy
Act) review. With the growing number of launches, the growing
number of launch locations, there's the potential to see a lot
more activity and challenges to the FAA environmental review
process that is--that occurs in other sectors, but space has
generally been left out of. With this, it's another area of
further exploration of Congress.
And so with my comments on safety and growth, additional
resources, and these regulatory fixes, I thank the Subcommittee
for the time today and the opportunity to testify. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Meredith for 5 minutes to present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. PAMELA L. MEREDITH, CHAIR,
SPACE LAW PRACTICE GROUP, KMA ZUCKERT LLC
Ms. Meredith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Lucas
and Members of the Subcommittee. Today's hearing ties directly
into the FAA's licensing mandate, which is to promote the
commercial space transportation industry while keeping the
public safe. Lo and behold, the FAA has succeeded in this. We
have a thriving launch industry, and we have had no major
safety events affecting the public.
Now, that said, there are challenges in the licensing
regime, and these relate specifically to part 450 of the FAA
regulations, which has been mentioned here earlier. Part 450,
of course, was intended to streamline and simplify. In
practice, it has not done that. It is a maze--complex to
navigate, complex to understand, and hard to comply with. It
hampers an industry that is ready to move faster.
Now, let me give some examples. Some have been provided
already today. We've talked about performance-based
requirements, and there are also flexibility options, such as
showing equivalent level of safety for applicants that can't
comply with the FAA requirements. Now, that sounds helpful and
simple, but in practice, this is a two-edged sword. It's
flexible because it gives the applicant an opportunity to pick
a mode of operation or a method of compliance; yet it takes
time for the FAA to evaluate, and it often requires a one-off
evaluation, which consumes resources.
Now, there are mitigating measures for this, additional
guidance to industry in the form of advisory circulars, which
has been mentioned here earlier, creating a data base of safety
evaluations of interest across the board, and potentially
putting time limits on the FAA's evaluations of various modes
of compliance or equivalent level of safety evaluations. These
are things to consider.
The 180-day statutory review period is also a concern, not
in and of itself, but the problem, as Mr. French mentioned, is
that it doesn't begin to run before the applicant is through a
complex and lengthy preapplication consultation. Add to that
the practice of tolling, whereby the FAA can stop the clock in
the middle of the review process to ask for additional
information, documentation, and analysis. That is also a
concern. So, as you can see, we have a licensing regime with
lack of certainty, lack of transparency, and significant delay.
Now, granted, it isn't easy to regulate this industry. It
is an awesome responsibility, and the industry is growing fast
and is diverse, and perhaps it's too much to ask the FAA to do
better, but I think there are things that can be done even in a
constrained resource environment.
For example, should resources within the FAA be allocated
and prioritized for certain types of applications, I ask the
question, for example, should launches with a mission that
serves a compelling national interest or a national security
interest take priority in the licensing process? Should pending
applications take priority over new pre-application
consultations? Should payload reviews for existing license
application take priority over new payload reviews? And here is
one thing the FAA definitely, or the AST specifically,
definitely should do, and that is to focus its resources on
matters strictly within its jurisdiction.
Now, all of this is all the more pressing with the looming
deadline for the transition to part 450 for all licenses and
new license applications, which must happen before March 10,
2026, and that must happen without disruption or interruption
to current launch operations to keep the industry thriving and
robust as it is.
Thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions. I have
written testimony, of course, that has details for all of this.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Meredith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you for your
testimony.
Before I begin my questions, I'd like to enter into a
record--into the record a letter from SpaceX, so without
objection, so ordered.
I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony, very
valuable, and we really appreciate you folks coming this
morning.
And the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Cavossa, China is racing to land humans on the Moon
before us and is on track to do so by 2030. Can you speak to
how red tape is impacting commercial space operators and, more
broadly, progress towards American goals for space exploration?
Mr. Cavossa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
question. There were a few things you said in your opening
remarks that I wrote down that made a lot of sense to me. It
was this concept of a red moon and red tape, and that's stuck
in my head because that's something that we're concerned about.
We're concerned that the licensing process right now, the
implementation and management of the licensing process, is
creating drag on the industry and its innovation. Anything that
we need to put in space today, whether it's national security,
a civil space mission, human space flight mission, remote
sensing, all has to be launched on one of our member companies'
rockets, and we're slowing that process down, whereas the
Chinese are very much focused on enabling their industry to
move as quickly as possible, without regard for safety.
We don't want to throw out public safety. We are very happy
with the public safety record of this industry to date. We want
to make sure that the implementation of 450 doesn't continue to
slow this industry's innovation down. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
Mr. Coleman, outside of FAA, other entities within the
Federal Government have expertise in space operations,
including NASA and Department of Defense (DOD). How is FAA
leveraging existing practices of other agencies or operations
which have already been reviewed and approved by another
government agency so we can expedite application processing?
Mr. Coleman. Chair Babin, thank you for the question. We
will certainly accept analyses and work that has been done by
other Federal agencies if those analyses and that work meets
our requirements. We allow launch service providers who are
conducting launches from the Federal ranges to leverage the
ranges' services to conduct those analyses. And so as long as
those analyses meet our regulatory requirements, we will
absolutely accept those analyses.
Now, there are some circumstances in which the Federal
ranges are working in sort of different capacities with
companies. For example, the Space Force 45 is working with
SpaceX at Boca Chica in a different capacity than it does for
launches that take place from the range itself. They're working
in more of a contractor capacity with the Federal--with the
launch service provider, and--which is a little bit different
than the way they work when the launch is occurring from the
Federal range itself.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. And also, to follow up, you
state in your testimony, Mr. Coleman, that over the last 11
years FAA has issued 49 license determinations, averaging 151
days to issue a new license. Does that 151 days include time
spent in the preapplication process before FAA accepts the
application as complete enough? From the testimony I've heard,
I'm--I think I know the answer, but please.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, the 150 days is the time that it takes
from the clock starting to the determination being made. I will
mention on the preapplication consultation, I think there's a
little bit of a misconception about what preapplication
consultation is and what constitutes preapplication
consultation. In simple terms, it is a conversation between the
regulator and the launch service provider where we exchange,
from the launch service provider's standpoint, what the concept
of operations is, what their operations are, when--where would
they occur, et cetera. We share what the regulations require,
what we're looking for, in terms of compliance, et cetera.
Once the applicant provides an application to us, we're no
longer in preapplication consultation. We are in a period where
we are now assessing whether that application is acceptable or
not. Under part 450, applicants are required to provide means
of compliance. This is work that they have to do to show us how
they will comply.
Chairman Babin. Well, if the average time for a new
license--what is the average time for a new license if you
account for this preapplication process?
Mr. Coleman. Well, I don't have that information and data--
--
Chairman Babin. OK.
Mr. Coleman [continuing]. To account for preapplication----
Chairman Babin. OK.
Mr. Coleman [continuing]. Consultation, but 151 days is the
average time it takes us to conduct a determination for the
license.
Chairman Babin. But that does not include the
preapplication process. OK.
Ms. Meredith, one more question here. This Committee passed
the Commercial Space Act last November to ensure continued
compliance with our international obligations in the least
burdensome way possible. At the same time, the Administration
proposed an approach that would grant several agencies broad
and sweeping authority to not only maintain treaty compliance,
but also to regulate anything ``in the national interest,''
quote, unquote, which they alone would determine. Can you
comment on how the Administration's proposal would affect
international competitiveness, as well as our Nation's ability
to explore space.
Ms. Meredith. Yes, I hadn't specifically looked at the
Administration's proposal for this, but I think a general
complaint with all--with that sort of legislation is that--or
proposed legislation is that it's overbroad and----
Chairman Babin. OK.
Ms. Meredith [continuing]. Difficult to pass because it is
overbroad. So I think that's one of the concerns with that
legislation. Also bifurcating the licensing authority may not
be the best approach. That was another thought I had about that
legislation----
Chairman Babin. OK.
Ms. Meredith [continuing]. Or proposed legislation. Yes.
Chairman Babin. My time is expired, so I'm going to go to
the Ranking Member, Mr. Sorensen.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Chairman.
And to you, Mr. Coleman, it's clear that you and the FAA
are doing an outstanding job at ensuring public safety, so many
thanks. It's also clear that transitioning to new part 450
regulations, while also responding to the increasing pace of
launch activity, is an increasing challenge. With all of the
potential steps and solutions being proposed in this hearing,
do you believe that March 2026 is realistic or that we need to
look at a later timeframe?
Mr. Coleman. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Sorensen. I will say that March 2026, at the moment, looks very
challenging. We have--as was mentioned, we have six licenses
out of about 30 that have been transitioned to part 450. To get
those additional licenses under part 450 in that timeframe will
be very challenging, and we'll keep a close eye on how we are
progressing toward that mark in 2026.
Mr. Sorensen. Recognizing your office's growing workload,
Congress has increased appropriations to help the FAA meet its
demands for licensing services. A significant portion of the
additional funding is for staff, especially as you compete with
the private sector. Are we doing enough to make sure that you
can meet those demands?
Mr. Coleman. Well, certainly, we appreciate what Congress
has done to support our staff increases. We're now currently at
158 persons, which is the largest we've ever been. We've
brought on about 35 new persons in the last year as a result of
funding that we've received from Congress. But in the
President's budget request for 2025 we are listening--looking
for additional staffing that we will need to continue to keep
pace with the demand for our products and services that we're
seeing.
Mr. Sorensen. And are we going to not only meet that demand
here, but are we going to meet the demand when we are competing
against China?
Mr. Coleman. Well, listen, we certainly understand and
appreciate the importance of beating China to the Moon. We just
had a conversation recently with NASA leadership where that was
reemphasized, and our commitment certainly is to support this
industry and our Nation in getting to the Moon before China. So
we will do everything in our power to make sure that that
happens.
Mr. Sorensen. Mr. French, you noted that the advisory
committee that you helped lead will be looking at workforce
issues of FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation. When
will that effort be completed, and do you anticipate additional
authorities will be needed to support the staffing and
workforce needs?
Mr. French. Thank you, Ranking Member Sorensen. We'll be
talking about this actually next week at our public meeting,
and then that'll likely sort of lead to some discussion with
AST. We want to certainly get their feedback on how they think,
you know, particular authorities could be useful to them. But
I'll certainly put that together and provide it to the
Committee, any takeaways from there.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And, Mr. Coleman, as a meteorologist myself, someone who
believes that we should be good stewards of the environment
that we have been given, environmental impacts have to be
considered as we increase the launch frequency. As the cadence
increases, what does the FAA need to do to help meet and assess
environmental challenges?
Mr. Coleman. Well, you know, as you mentioned,
environmental is very important. As we go through our campaigns
to issue licenses, licensing being a major Federal action, we
have to comply with NEPA. We--and in doing so, we looked at the
potential impacts of these operations on the environment. We're
looking at a couple of environmental reviews right now in Boca
Chica and Florida. Due to increased operations in Boca Chica,
we're looking at the impact on the environment due to those
increased operations. We work very closely with our partners in
Fish and Wildlife Service, the fisheries, and other agencies
within the Department of Interior to make sure that we have the
appropriate mitigations in place when necessary to address
environmental needs associated with these licensing activities.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Coleman. And, Mr. French, in
your opening statement, you talked about environmental
challenges. How are we able to meet the need while continuing
to progress forward in this sphere?
Mr. French. Yes, in my perspective, I'm--you know, I'm
concerned this could be sort of a new emerging area in the
licensing process. I think we're--a lot more attention is being
paid to the space industry, and, as a result, I think a lot
more attention be paid to the environmental aspects of the
space industry.
You know, from a congressional perspective, Congress is
doing quite a bit of thinking right now on the Federal
permitting process as it relates to renewable energy. I think,
sort of--I think it'd be appropriate to look at what's being
considered in that area and see if some of those same changes
would be appropriate from--for a space perspective.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. French.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
And now, I'd like to recognize gentlemen from Florida, Mr.
Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Chairman Babin.
Mr. Coleman, what is the budget amount for the application
process, department or division or whatever you call it?
Mr. Coleman. In fiscal year--first of all, thank you for
the question, Mr. Posey. The Fiscal Year 2024 budget for my
office was $42 million in operations funding.
Mr. Posey. OK. How many employees do we have in that
department?
Mr. Coleman. We currently have 158 staff members in our
organization, with roughly 65 to 70 percent of those employees
working licensing.
Mr. Posey. OK. How many licenses do you have in process
right now?
Mr. Coleman. I'll have to go back and take a look at the
exact number, Mr. Posey, and get back to you on that, but I can
tell you----
Mr. Posey. Just swag it. I'm not going to hold you to it.
Mr. Coleman. Somewhere probably 30 to 40.
Mr. Posey. OK. And the average time when the process
starts, discounting any stoppage in the middle, is 151 days?
Mr. Coleman. Correct, on the average.
Mr. Posey. Are you familiar with Starfighters?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, of course.
Mr. Posey. Can you bring me up the date on the status of
Starfighters?
Mr. Coleman. Well, I know that's very--that's a very
important topic to you. That was something that the agencies
looked at. I think there was legislation passed a couple years
ago that would allow us to take a look at how we might be able
to leverage that technology to support the commercial space
industry, particularly in the area of commercial space--
commercial human space flight. And there's probably some more
details that I could probably collect for you. I'll have to get
back to you on additional details.
Mr. Posey. OK. Well, let me bring you up to date.
Starfighters, they fly F-104 jets, retired pilots, thousands of
hours aggregate in experience, safety record impeccable. They
have flown--I know they did it before I came to Congress, so I
assume for decades. They have been licensed or used by NASA to
do parabolic missions. You know, it's so much easier to strap
an experiment in the back seat of an F-104 and take it up and
do your gravitational parabolic test. And so, inevitably,
somebody's going to say, hey, would you take me for a ride?
Well, they have to have a license to do that. They can probably
get a license to do that easily in any other country in the
entire world, but they went through the process and they
applied for a license before I came to Congress 16 years ago,
16 years ago.
Now, you had licensed zero gravity to take dozens of people
up in a big airplane and let them experience weightlessness.
I've had a couple meetings with your agency and I can't for the
life of me understand why in the world in over 16 years they
can't get a license--now, I know you don't want hobbyists
taking people up, you know, and you want to regulate it. And
the excuse you're--I'm always given is, well, they're not an
airliner that like goes back and forth from D.C. to Orlando 50
times a day. And they're not an inexperienced, totally novice
like a launch--human launch license you issued over 16 years
ago to a company who'd never even flown a cargo mission. You
launched--gave them a license to launch human beings. They just
want to--they're in the middle, and so you can't make a
decision on that.
That's why I passed--specifically why we passed the
legislation that you are aware of is so that you could license
people to do that. And I just would like to know the reason
why, beside arrogance, petulance, and defiance, it hasn't been
done yet.
Mr. Coleman. Well, Mr. Posey, I certainly appreciate and
understand your frustration. I really do. I will tell--you
asked me about the number of applications that are currently on
the slate for my organization. Starfighters currently is not
one of them. Now, the legislation that was passed, best of my
knowledge, was--we put those responsibilities for looking at
Starfighters in another part of our agency under title 49.
We're a title 51 organization.
So I will certainly take your concerns back to the agency.
I will talk to my colleagues about that, and we will certainly
circle back with you with a more detailed explanation to
address your concerns.
Mr. Posey. Yes, I know Starfighters have--they're working
with George Neal, and they're happy with the licenses that
they're getting. This is more a personal oversight perspective
for me than it is Starfighters, and I really would appreciate
if you would get back to me on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is about to expire.
Mr. Coleman. I will do so.
Mr. Posey. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
I'd now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. This has been a very interesting
hearing, and I've learned a lot, and we've heard some good
suggestions.
Mr. French, I was intrigued by your chess clock suggestion.
I think that's something we ought to take a look at. And the
idea of prioritizing, Ms. Meredith, that you mentioned
obviously is something that needs to be looked at in terms of
national security issues.
But I also, you know, join many of the Members not only in
supporting the commercial space industry, I want to see it
continue to sustain its growth, but we have to make sure that
that's done responsibly and not at the detriment of the
environment. I understand, for example, that SpaceX has launch
applications pending at Boca Chica. You mentioned that, Mr.
Coleman, as well as two applications to launch heavy rockets
from Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center and that you're
reviewing those.
I--correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that
SpaceX launched at least one rocket in Boca Chica without a
permit and that it experienced a major rocket explosion and
mishaps and that it has been cited by Texas environmental
authorities for illegal discharge of launch wastewater
containing many pollutants, which shows that--although, you
know we don't like red tape, there may be a--I mean, there's
environmental reasons behind taking a look at these launches.
Now, we are in a competition with China, but I would note
that the Chinese Government hasn't shown much concern about
polluting their air and water and poisoning the Chinese people.
In any sense, we care more about the American people than they
care about the Chinese people.
So here's the question. The cost of environmental damage
are really hard to reverse, and I'm wondering, Mr. Coleman, can
you explain to us what processes the FAA is going to undertake
in its environmental reviews to prevent that kind of problem?
And since I'm asking you this question, I've been thinking
about the resource issue. And there are other entities in
government that augment their funding and, in some cases, are
entirely funded by fees. For example, the patent office is
entirely funded by fees. Obviously, SpaceX is owned by the
richest man in the world, so there is some opportunity for
increased fees to help augment the budget. I don't know if it's
fair to ask you to comment on that idea. So those are the two
questions to you, Mr. Coleman.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren.
On the environmental front, as you mentioned, the
environmental issues are of significant concern. The processes
that we follow is that we--when there is an action that we are
considering to license, for example, again, using--I'll use
Boca Chica, for example. SpaceX is now contemplating increasing
the number of launches from that site.
And so what we have initiated is, first of all, we've
initiated a draft environmental assessment that contains our
assessment of what those environmental impacts would be. We
will--we've released that document to the public for public
consumption, and we've also called for public meetings to bring
the public into the conversation to discuss those potential
impacts and what we should be considering to address those
impacts.
Ms. Lofgren. And do you also include--for example, in this
case, they've been cited, I guess, by the Texas environmental
agencies for polluting the water.
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. Do you reach out to the State environmental
agencies to get their feedback as well proactively?
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely. We have talked to Texas CEQ
(Commission on Environmental Quality). We've also talked to the
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) about those violations to
get their concerns. We've also updated our draft environmental
assessment to account for those violations that you just
mentioned.
Ms. Lofgren. I'm--it's unfair to ask you about the fee
issue because that's not something you can probably ask, but it
would be helpful for the Committee to know what dollar amount
would be required for you to staff up to the point where you
could get these applications reviewed in the timeframe that we
would all like and--but, you know, to do it--to get the job
done fully, not to make shortcuts, what would that be? And then
we can take a look at how we might address that outside of the
appropriations process. Could you do that after this hearing?
Mr. Coleman. Sure. I'd be happy to.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Before we go to the next questions, I know we've got some
folks from Johnson Space Center sitting here I wanted to
recognize. Raise your hands if you're from Johnson Space
Center? About half the room. Thank you all for being here. I'm
very--that's right. I'm very proud to be representing you all.
Thank you. I hope you enjoy your tour. Happen to be from my
district, Mr. Posey, thank you. Thank you very much.
OK. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from California,
Mr. Garcia, for his questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess the bulk of my 5 minutes will be observations and
statements as a former, you know, senior program director for
an aerospace company that's been through some of this.
Mr. Coleman, I guess the first question though is, you
acknowledge that we are in a space race with China, right? This
isn't something that you don't agree with. You acknowledge that
in order for us to be competitive with China in this race, that
we do need the commercial partners, and we do need to enable
the commercial partners to do their jobs effectively. And,
obviously, safety is a key performance parameter (KPP) in all
of these programs, but time is also a KPP and something that we
value as much as safety. Would you acknowledge that as well?
Mr. Coleman. Our fundamental focus is on public safety,
national security, and foreign policy interests, and we look to
make determinations as expediently as we can, recognizing that
launch is important to our national security interests and our
foreign policy interests. And, as you mentioned, Congressman
Garcia, we do recognize the importance of making expedient
determinations as we look to get to the Moon as soon as we can
by March 2026.
Mr. Garcia. Yes, it's not just important, though. It's
required by law. Under part 450 you have an obligation to
complete the application processes within 180 days. So you--my
understanding is that, to date, we have yet to actually
complete a part 450 application within 180 days. So I think
from my observations as a, you know, former program director, I
see that you've adopted effectively a zero-risk mentality,
which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you do that while
also not opening the aperture to ideas which Mr. French and Ms.
Meredith outlined in terms of ways to go faster, ways to
prioritize in the rack and stack, some of these more important
national security initiatives, in accepting that zero-risk
mentality, you also accept and in part a zero-success mentality
and a zero-responsiveness mentality, what I would call a zero-
customer-service mentality and a zero-closed-feedback-loop
mentality with our commercial partners, and you're actively
disincentivizing them from participating in this very important
national security endeavor and science endeavor as well.
So when it comes to this issue with the clock, I am
reluctant to call it a chess clock because a chess clock
measures cumulative time, and that's effectively what we have
right now with the 180-day requirement. I think we do need a
shot clock because what what's happening is you're sitting on
documents from the commercial partners and waiting, you know,
30 days to get questions back to them or responses back to
them. And it's--when you go back to industry for answers, they
respond within 24, 48 hours, and then they give the responses
back. And it's like a black hole.
I'll look at Starship 5 license approval, which you had
initially promised would be issued by September 17. It then
took about a week ago a shift of about 2 months to November 22,
and then yesterday, you shifted the overall readiness date to
November 26. And for this license modification, you're already
just now 3 days away from violating the 180-day shot clock
requirement.
We've heard from companies in my district, around my
district, that are literally spending 10 percent of their
topline revenue on this application process and the delays
imparted by AST. So, you know, I'm looking for answers here. I
think you've got the wrong paradigm right now, and I understand
the root cause and the--you know, the head count and the
funding is an issue, but as your appropriator and as your
authorizer, we fully funded your request.
So the question is, what is the right--I don't like--by the
way, I don't like doing things outside the Appropriations
Committee when it comes to funding. I think that's very
dangerous. What is the appropriate amount? What is the
headcount needed to successfully adjudicate and approve part
450 licenses by the time that is required, 180 days, by the
date of 2026 where all licenses will be needed under that
construct? What is the right amount? Because if you can't
execute it, I would submit it shouldn't be under FAA's domain.
It shouldn't be under AST. We can find other places like AFRL
(Air Force Research Lab), DARPA (Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency), other go-fast agencies to man this and do it
correctly. But what is the right funding level that you need to
do your job successfully, which we have not been doing?
Mr. Coleman. Thank you for the question, Congressman
Garcia. A couple points I want to make. No. 1, we have issued
six licenses under part 450. Only on one occasion have we taken
more than 180 days to make that determination, only on one
occasion.
Mr. Garcia. If I may, Mr. Chairman, that is contrary to the
testimony by Mr. Cavossa. His written testimony suggested you
have not made that a commitment----
Mr. Coleman. Well, I'm the regulator. Mr. Cavossa is not. I
can tell you that we've made that determination on every
occasion except for one. Now, Mr. Cavossa can have his own
opinion, but I have the record, and I'm the regulator for that.
Now to your question about how much resource does it take,
the President has--in the 2025 request has requested a
discretionary increase for our office up to $57 million in
operations. That's the largest discretionary increase that our
office will ever have received. And we hope that--hopefully,
we'll get that in 2025. We currently have 158 staff----
Mr. Garcia. Is that the right answer, though? It's the
biggest number, but is it the right answer to actually execute
part 450 correctly?
Mr. Coleman. Part 450 execution is dependent on a number of
factors. No. 1 is having the appropriate resources that we need
to execute it. Also, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
industry can take responsibility and accountability as well by
coming into us with applications that speak to the requirements
that are robust, that are thorough such that we don't have to
have multiple iterations and go-backs with industry. That takes
up time. That takes up resource.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm out of time.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
And the gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. McClellan.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member
Sorensen, for this important hearing. This is a particularly
relevant issue for Virginia. As you know, we are home to the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island, which is one
of only four spaceports in the United States that is licensed
by the FAA for vertical launches to orbit. And it is critical
that--not only to spaceflight, but to the robust operation of
that facility and all of the infrastructure that supports it,
it's critical that our regulatory frameworks not only work, but
protect humans engaging in spaceflight and the communities
across the country that support those operations, while
allowing the United States to maintain its leadership in space.
And so, Mr. Coleman, as you know, the memorandum of
agreement for range coordination between NASA and the FAA is
important for launch operators to have clarity about their
licensing responsibilities, especially around ground safety and
flight safety. Can you provide an update on the status of this
memorandum of agreement?
Mr. Coleman. Certainly. Thank you, Congresswoman,
absolutely. The--and, first of all, these memorandums of
agreement are very important. As was mentioned earlier, Space
Policy Directive 2 directed Federal agencies such as Department
of Transportation, the Space Force, as well as NASA, to
minimize duplication of effort and to streamline our concerted
efforts to oversee and work with this industry.
We are working on a memorandum of understanding or
agreement with NASA right now. It is being drafted. We are
pushing hard on that. We certainly want to see that such that
we can have clear understanding and delineation of roles and
responsibilities for launch service providers that are
conducting operations at NASA ranges such as NASA Wallops in
Virginia.
We have responsibility for public safety, not only for
public not involved, but for the public that's present on the
facility itself, even NASA employees.
Ms. McClellan. Right.
Mr. Coleman. And so we're carving that agreement out. We're
pushing forward. It is very important for the progress of
operations that are being contemplated at the facility that you
asked about.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you. And can you tell us what steps
the FAA is taking to support a cadence of regularly scheduled
commercial space launches at Wallops?
Mr. Coleman. Well, first of all, I think Wallops is an
excellent facility, and I was just there a couple of weeks ago,
had an opportunity to meet with leadership there and talk about
just what you're asking about, how we can work with the
leadership there to increase the cadence of commercial
activities there. We're also working with the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Spaceport there. They have outstanding leadership.
General Ted Mercer, who leads that organization, is doing an
outstanding job of pushing for more commercial operations at
that site.
We're working with the companies such as Rocket Lab, for
example, to ensure that we are licensing their activities in a
timely enough fashion, supporting what they're looking to do
such that there can be more commercial activities from that
facility.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
And, Mr. Cavossa, can you--one of the things I like to do
when I'm back in the district is help to connect the work that
we're doing here in Washington and then specifically on this
Committee with what's happening in their lives. And while
Wallops is not in the 4th District, commercial space flight
does have an impact. So can you describe the impacts that the
launch and reentry regulations would have on the everyday lives
of not only my constituents, but people around the country that
don't have these facilities in their districts?
Mr. Cavossa. Sure. Thank you for the question. Sort of
noted earlier, but everything that makes up the commercial
space industry today, whether it's satellite communications,
GPS (Global Positioning System), national security, human
spaceflight, remote sensing, Earth observation, environmental
data we're receiving today, all of it is being launched into
space through our member companies from these spaceports around
the country as well. And licensing slows the process down for
new entrants as well, for competition, for new launch vehicles.
The drag I referred to before of licensing could potentially
have a dramatic impact on new launch vehicles entering the
marketplace, new players entering the marketplace, new
companies getting funding to enter the marketplace, and that
affects the commercial space industry and all the benefits that
we provide the United States and your constituents.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, ma'am.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Dr.
McCormick.
Mr. McCormick. Do you mind Mr. Strong----
Chairman Babin. OK. Mr. Strong, you'll go next then.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Babin. OK.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr.--Chairman Babin, Ranking Member
Sorensen.
Companies in north Alabama rely on clear and consistent FAA
regulations to deliver space-based capabilities for their
customers. Mr. Coleman, I'd like to know how your office plans
to keep pace with the increased cadence and complexity of
commercial space transportation operations. You testified
earlier that you have roughly 30 to 40 active applications
currently pending under the part 450.
Mr. Coleman. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is
certainly a challenge to keep pace with the demand that we're
seeing. No. 1, we went on a very aggressive campaign this past
year to hire additional staff that we needed in technical areas
that serve the licensing process, bringing on more flight
safety analysts, more system safety analysts, more engineers to
support what--the work that we're doing. We're in a fierce
competition for those resources with NASA and DOD, as well as
the companies that we regulate. A flight safety analyst, for
example, are--is a skillset that you don't necessarily learn in
school. You learn it through experience, and so we are in a
fierce competition to bring those resources on. That's No. 1,
the resource piece.
No. 2, we are trying to work with industry to the extent
that we can help to industry understand what needs to be done
in order to demonstrate compliance with part 450. We've issued
17 advisory circulars last year. We're on pace to issue up to
10 this year, and hopefully, those advisory circulars will
serve as tutorials that will help the industry better
understand what compliance for 450 looks like.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. To what extent is licensed
prioritization--the prioritization affected by whether the
application is within the 180-day evaluation stage?
Mr. Coleman. If I understand the question, Congressman,
prioritization really has to do--well, let me put--say this
first of all. Ten years ago, we weren't even talking about
prioritization. Prioritization has only come into play as the
amount of work that we are faced with is being challenged by
the availability of resources that we have to do that work.
We certainly take a look at national security concerns. We
take a look at our civil space exploration concerns, and we
certainly put those concerns at the very top of the heap when
considering having to make choices in terms of what work gets
done and when it gets done.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. Once a site or a vehicle operator
enters the 180-day evaluation stage, are they allowed to make
modifications to their license?
Mr. Coleman. They are, and they have. It was mentioned by
Ms. Meredith that we, from time to time, stop the clock. We
call that tolling. That gives the applicant an opportunity to
correct an error or to provide missing information that, if it
weren't presented, we would wind up with a denial of the
application. We are giving the applicant an opportunity to fix
it and to demonstrate compliance. A tolling is a positive thing
that we leverage during the 180-day clock to give the applicant
an opportunity to get to a yes answer.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. Associate Administrator, I
understand that your office has not yet gone back to 100
percent return-to-work policy. Given the increased demands for
part 450 licenses, what operational and day-to-day procedural
changes can you--can your office make to manage the demand?
We're going to the Moon and we're going to Mars and we've got
to get to work.
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely. I agree with you 100 percent. We
have a dedicated professional team that's hard working. They
are working full-time. They have all returned to work. They all
are working full-time. However, as most Federal agencies are
faced with challenges in the aftermath of the pandemic, we
have--you know, of course, have some situations where we don't
have everyone in the office every day. We have remote work from
time to time. We have people who work from home and telework.
But with that being the case, we are managing the productivity
of our staff and ensuring that we are getting full productivity
from our staff in the face of a new environment in which we're
working.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. Mr. Coleman, there are companies my
district who have been working to get a reentry license since
2016. I understand that they have met safety calculations. What
is preventing Sierra Space from getting a permit to land at the
second largest airport in the Southeast United States? Do you
believe that more than 3,000 days--is that long enough to get a
permit?
Mr. Coleman. It certainly should be. But what's important
is what--you asked the question, what's keeping them from
getting a permit?
Mr. Strong. Correct.
Mr. Coleman. Demonstration of the requirements, compliance
with the requirements. That's what's keeping them from that.
Now, we're working with Sierra Space to help them understand
what they need to demonstrate and show insofar as means of
compliance is concerned, and we've had a number of
conversations with them, and they're making good progress, and
we hope to get them licensed soon.
Mr. Strong. Well, I can tell you this right here. We want
to be first. There's no doubt about it. I want to be safe, but
I do have concerns. When this application's been active since
2016, it's time to move forward, and I want to do anything I
can to help. I'm not sure if additional employees is the
solution. I do think that we need to get back to work and put
the American space program No. 1.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms.
Haley Stevens.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr.
Ranking Member, for allowing me to waive onto this Committee.
Mr. Coleman, you're an Associate Administrator, and I'm
just curious, who do you report to?
Mr. Coleman. The FAA Administrator.
Ms. Stevens. OK. The Administrator overall. And I just want
to commend you, sir. I really believe that you've had a
tremendous career, and you are a true steward of the government
and public service. And I want to thank you for your dedication
to your practice.
As I've been listening to today's hearing, what is clear
and evident is that we are in a bureaucratic soup by no
individual's fault other than the lack of willingness to lead.
We, as Members of Congress, can ask all the questions that we
are asking and push forward the vision that we want to get to
the Moon, and that feels good to say, and we want to be first,
and we want to be ahead, but until we have the strategic
coordination of government coming from a paygrade higher than
yours, sir--and I appreciate who you report to and the pressure
on the FAA overall and what's going on in commercial
spacecraft, to our commercial aviation industry, to small
flight craft sectors across this country, frankly, that are
training people how to fly, and it's really exciting to see
that.
But, Mr. Coleman, you announced that AST would establish an
aerospace rulemaking committee, or SpARC, regarding part 450,
and this announcement was met with tremendous industry support.
However, SpARC is still yet to be established. Moreover, given
the average SpARC can take years to produce recommendations, as
we've been kind of uncovering here today, I worry that the
window to make meaningful impact to part 450 before the 2026
transition or promulgation of new human spacecraft regulations
is quickly closing.
So, Mr. Cavossa and Mr. French, in both your testimonies,
you state that AST should expeditiously establish SpARC, this
group. Can you please explain while this SpARC--why this SpARC
is so important to resolving part 450 issues? What are we going
to get from that?
Mr. Cavossa. Thank you. The SpARC is an extremely important
long-term solution. As you noted in your question and your
statement, it's going to take some time to stand it up and work
through these issues and come up with recommendations. So we
are very much supportive of a SpARC as soon as possible. But a
lot of what we're talking about today, and in my testimony in
particular, are some near-term, immediate process fixes that
the FAA can do. The SpARC is part of the long-term solution. It
has to happen. But there's also things that can be done today
outside the SpARC.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. And maybe we should send a memo to the
White House, right? I mean, let's just get them talking about
SpARC and this national imperative and the things that we need
to do because I trust the people who go in to work every single
day on behalf of this government only have the best interest in
mind, but something is stopping this process. And we know we're
not getting to the Moon unless we have commercial spacecraft,
so something's not working here. And I don't know if we're
going to solve it in this Committee, but we hope that people
are hearing us.
French, would you like to get in here?
Mr. French. Sure. Thank you. The one thing with the SpARC
is we have currently two going on right now. There's one on
440, which is about indemnification and insurance regimes, and
the other is on the human spaceflight regime. Having, you know,
served as a member or served as a member in both those SpARCs,
what they provide is an environment to--for companies to
provide detailed recommendations outside of sort of the pure
public sphere, which I think will--is able to lead to
recommendations that AST can implement sort of more completely.
Ms. Stevens. OK.
Mr. French. So that's the----
Ms. Stevens. So there's some promise. OK.
Mr. French. Absolutely.
Ms. Stevens. OK. Well, we'll dig on that.
And then, Mr. Cavossa, in your testimony, you highlighted
the potential benefits of this bipartisan amendment I've been
involved in with my colleague, Mr. Garcia. This was offered
about a year ago in last fall's markup of the Commercial Space
Act of 2023. And the amendment seeks to provide new authorities
to FAA AST to expedite the processes and support industry
competitiveness. And, Mr. Cavossa, can you just describe why
you're--you are supportive of this amendment?
Mr. Cavossa. Sure. I mean, everything we've discussed today
about the challenges and the drag on the commercial space
industry right now are very well addressed by your amendment
and by that piece of legislation, so it helps move things
forward. It helps focus the FAA AST office on exactly the
issues we think need to be addressed immediately.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well, and just in reflecting in my first
term in this Committee, we celebrated and acknowledged the 50
years since the Moon landing, the first Moon landing, and you
think back to that amazing history of what it took to get us to
the Moon. It wasn't this stuff, folks. It wasn't this. And I'm
not knocking anybody because I think you're all professionals
and you're all dedicated to your charge, but we cannot look
back and say we were pushing papers and needling and waiting
for SpARC and 450 and 440 and all these different numbers. We
have to set the mission, and it's got to come from the top.
And so I'm here to work with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to push that forward and to see us succeed safely,
responsibly. We also know some of the pressures that have been
going on in FAA outside of commercial, and I'm--we can maybe
get to that off the record.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to yield back. Thank you
for the important hearing.
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
McCormick.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you, and
thanks for being here today. Congratulations, by the way. You
found something that united the Democrats and Republicans.
Unfortunately, it's our dissatisfaction with the FAA and the
approval process right now.
For the first time in history, at least since maybe the
Roman era where Pompeii could raise his own army and buy his
consulship, we have civilians outperforming the U.S.
Government. One person in the United States can put more
spaceships into the stratosphere than the entire governments of
all the world combined. So if we're going to be competitive,
it's not going to be through NASA anymore. It's going to be
through our industry.
The problem is when you have different programs such as
SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, and others that have redefined space
travel, who just launched the Polaris Dawn this morning and are
going to do the first spacewalk with civilians, if we start
holding up that process, we lose our edge in this world market
that is extremely competitive. We lose against China, we lose
against Iran, we lose against Russia. This is our place in
history that we are grabbing or losing.
Tell me, when we put all these spaceships, more than
anybody else in the world already up there, why the same
process that we use to approve that all of a sudden has
something changed? Is there a reason that we're holding up the
same process that's already been approved previously? These 27
I think you said advisories, 17 in 1 year, 10 the next year,
that you put out in the last 2 years, how much has that sped up
the process? How much have you internally looked at to speed up
the process? How have you been accountable for passing the very
people--the process of licensing to make us competitive on the
world market, which is maybe your most important thing that you
do? Please. Yes, Mr. Coleman.
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Congressman.
Safety is our focus. That's why we're in business.
Mr. McCormick. So real quick, I just want to refocus what
you're saying right now. Are you saying that these people that
put in their license applications who are already doing what
they're doing and they're asking for exactly what they've
already achieved, what you've approved them from the process
before, what has changed that's holding them up?
Mr. Coleman. Well----
Mr. McCormick. It's not safety. Let's----
Mr. Coleman. I'll give you an example. I'll give you an
example.
Mr. McCormick. Good.
Mr. Coleman. Let's take Starship, a super heavy, Boca
Chica. We issued a 450 license to SpaceX for that activity. You
ask what changes? Missions change. Technologies on the vehicle
change, which require a modification to the license. Four-fifty
is designed to approve a suite of missions.
We should not--well, I shouldn't say we should not. It is
our intention with 450 to not have to come back to deal with
modifications at such a frequent basis. We're up to the fifth
flight now. We have four flights--SpaceX has four flights under
its belt, three of which have been under modifications to the
license that have been requested by the company. It is the
company that is pushing mission-by-mission approvals. That's
what's the pace is about.
Mr. McCormick. So you do realize that technology changes
literally every day. This is the leading-edge technology in the
world, whether it be AI (artificial intelligence), quantum,
space exploration. Once again, these are individuals taking
their own risk. It's like when we threw our family in the back
of a wagon and went West. We might freeze, we may starve, we
may be killed, but we're taking a chance for the betterment of
our family or our society or our business. That's the American
way.
Like I said, you talk about safety. I think every company
is--very much understands that if they're not safe, they go
away. They go extinct. They are policing themselves. Who are we
to get in the way of progress? I ask you to streamline your
process because I think if you don't, we fall behind, and our
very way of life is in jeopardy.
You're in charge. You make the difference. You get to
determine how fast these go through. And if what you're doing
is not working, you need to change. Does that make sense?
Mr. Coleman. I appreciate the comment, Congressman. We are
doing the very best job that we can, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, to enable safe space transportation at a
pace that meets our needs. We--but we cannot enable safe space
transportation by setting aside demonstration of compliance
with the regulatory requirements and safety. That's very
important. So I appreciate what you're saying insofar as what
our responsibilities are and the powers that we have to make
these things happen, and we're doing our level best to do that.
We're working with industry to help them better understand what
compliance against part 450 looks like, and hopefully, they
will take our advice and move in that direction.
Mr. McCormick. So I'll conclude with this, and I'll yield
my point, sir. If I thought that your regulation, which I know
you guys are the regulatory bureaucracy--if I thought your
regulation was making us safer, I would agree with you. I just
haven't seen that traditionally. I've seen a lot of space
missions held up because of something that really had nothing
to do with safety, just regulation. And regulation is killing
American business from top to bottom, not just in this
industry, but all across America, and that's what I want to see
cut so we can actually make advancements and stay competitive.
With that, I yield.
Chairman Babin. OK, sir.
Now, I'd like to recognize gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coleman, back I think in February, AST announced that
they wanted to have an advisory group, which we've been talking
about. And that group is going to be appointed to look for
changes or get testimony or just check it out and see what
changes need to be made. As of yet, that group isn't appointed.
Is there some sort of reason behind not--having not done that?
Mr. Coleman. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
announced in February during our commercial space
transportation conference that we would be standing up this
aerospace rulemaking committee that you're asking about, and I
stated that we would have it in place by the end of summer, by
early fall. We still have a few weeks left. It's not quite the
end of summer yet. We haven't quite gotten into the fall yet,
so I think we're still on schedule. I can tell you that the
charter has been drafted. It is being reviewed, and we hope to
have it set up in short order.
Mr. Webster. So is that timeline still effective and that
you'll have it by that deadline?
Mr. Coleman. We're pushing to have it stood up as soon as
we can. We're close to getting that approved, and hopefully,
we'll get that started ASAP.
Mr. Webster. So, also, one of the goals of part 450 process
to allow multiple launches and to get permitting for that. As
of yet, I--there might be some, I don't know, but I don't know
of any. Is there some reason why that's not taking place?
Mr. Coleman. I don't know the full reason as to why it's
not taking place. Each of the six licenses that we've issued
for part 450 have been for individual missions. We would like
to see more planning done up front, more methodologies that
will cover a broad swath of missions that we can consider. But
I think what oftentimes happens is companies are up against a
launch date, and with a launch date looming, it becomes the
easy solution to say, well, we will dial back our applications
to a single mission versus a broad suite of missions. And so
we've had some companies that have put a number of missions on
the table, but as launch dates have approached, those
applications have been dialed back to individual missions. I
would like to see more utilization of the features that are
available in part 450, which allows us to approve a large suite
of missions such that we don't have to have as many
modifications and go-backs with companies when they want to
change a mission.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. So do you think that's
something in the future, that there's going to be multiple
launches approved at one time?
Mr. Coleman. I absolutely believe that. I would like to
just remind the Committee, part 450 is only 3 years old. This
is still a very new regulation. I think 5 years from now and 10
years from now, we will have hit our stride with it, and these
conversations will be long in the rearview mirror. But it is a
new regulation that we have to get our arms around to a greater
extent, the industry has to get its arms around to a greater
extent. There is learning all around.
We are doing things on our side like implementing SMS
(Safety Management Systems) for licensing where our engineers
will have decision trees that they can utilize to figure out,
you know, the level of risk that's associated with the review
and what decisions they need to make in association with what
they're seeing. So we are equipping our organization with the
tools that it needs as we continue in our quest to implement
part 450.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. OK. Thank you.
Now, the gentleman from California, Mr. Vince Fong.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me waive on
to the Subcommittee for today's hearing. Just a few questions
for Mr. Coleman.
You--I want to delve into your--the answer to the last
question you pointed out, which is one of the goals of the part
450 process was to allow for multiple launches and reentries
under a single license. And, as you mentioned before, of the
450 licenses that have been approved, most have been approved
for a single launch or a single reentry. You know, how can we
facilitate the expansion of that to allow for multiple
launches, and what's the hangup?
Mr. Coleman. I think, No. 1--I think most companies that
are approaching part 450 underestimate the work that is
required to establish and show and demonstrate means of
compliance that are--that meet our requirements. This is what
is fundamentally different in part 450. It's performance-based.
We set risk criteria that must be met, but we allow companies
to come in and show us the ``how'' versus us prescribing the
``how.''
Mr. Fong. So can I ask--can I delve a little deeper? What's
different between the launches? You mentioned--I mean, is there
something specific that you're looking for, for each launch
that's unique to each one?
Mr. Coleman. You mean, what's different in causing us to go
from mission to mission----
Mr. Fong. Yes, you're saying that, yes, that it's delayed
because you're asking for the stakeholders to do more. But what
is distinctly different from each launch that you're looking
for?
Mr. Coleman. Well, you know, for each mission or for a
suite of missions, companies have to come in and show us means
of compliance, for example, have to show us flight safety
methodology, how are you going to demonstrate that, et cetera.
There's a substantial amount of work to be performed and
demonstrating that. Also, I think there is a substantial amount
of planning that needs to be done such that companies have an
idea that looks far enough in the future or far enough ahead
that we can account for under licensing and allow the time it
takes for us to work through means of compliance and get those
things settled before we turn the clock on.
Mr. Fong. So understanding that answer then, the FAA
reports that, when fully implemented, part 450 will reduce how
often operators must apply for an FAA license. So how do I
juxtapose the answer you just gave me to the goal that the FAA
is trying to get to, which is that the operators would actually
apply less--will reduce how often the operators will apply for
a license? Because if you keep asking for this--for the same
thing, but the goal is to actually allow the operators a
streamlined process to interact and get a broader license
authority to do more launches, how does that comport together?
Mr. Coleman. Could you repeat the question for me,
Congressman?
Mr. Fong. So you're saying that the challenge with multiple
launches and multiple entries under single licenses, you're
requiring more information from the commercial space company.
But then the goal is to actually have the operators--to reduce
how often the operators must apply for an FAA license. So if
you're going to require all this information for every single
launch, but the goal is actually to have them interact with you
less, how does that go together?
Mr. Coleman. Well, actually, the goal is when they come to
us initially with this information, that this information will
cover multiple launches, not a single launch, but multiple
launches. And so we're looking to approve methodologies. Once
we can improve your methodologies for achieving safety, go off
and conduct as many launches as you need to as long as you're
following those methodologies.
What we're encountering is we're encountering applications
that only address a single mission versus a suite of missions.
And so we are looking--to get to the solution piece of this, we
are looking to push advisory circles to help companies
understand what compliance looks like, what a good methodology
looks like, what the means of compliance should entail and
focus on in order to demonstrate compliance with our
regulations.
Mr. Fong. OK. And my last question, you mentioned earlier
the need to prioritize and so--and you mentioned national
security implications. So when they--when DOD or NASA or
another Federal agency says that a launch is a priority for
them, how does that in practice happen when you prioritize a
launch?
And with that, I'll yield back.
Mr. Coleman. Well, you know, we look very carefully at the
missions, and we fully support and prioritize missions that
support our national security concerns and our civil space
exploration needs, missions that are providing critical cargo
to the International Space Station (ISS) to support our
astronauts on the space station or to deliver crew to the space
station are the types of missions that typically we put a lot
of focus on, a lot of resources on to ensure that those
missions occur.
Mr. Fong. Do they move to the top of the list? If the Chair
may let me ask that question.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, if there's a critical need to get food or
other materials to the International Space Station to support
our astronauts on the space station, absolutely, those missions
are pushed to the front.
Chairman Babin. All right. Thank you. The gentleman's time
has expired.
We're going to go back through for our second round, and
this time we're going to have 2 minutes to get your questions
in and answered.
And so I will ask the first one, and I'm going to direct
this to Mr. Cavossa.
Mr. Cavossa, in your opinion, is it currently possible to
comply with part 450 requirements when it's related to reentry?
And if no, why?
Mr. Cavossa. Thank you for the question. It sort of gets
into some advanced technical details and conversations here,
but, as I understand it, when 450 was created, it was very much
focused on the launch aspect and reentry was thrown in, and we
tried to develop regulations where both launch and reentry
could be handled by the same part 450. It is much harder, as
FAA noted, in the rule to comply with the conditional expected
casualty calculation if you are reentering for some of our
vehicles. In particular, some of our vehicles have a very long
reentry path when coming from the International Space Station.
And the current way part 450 is written with this--again, this
conditional expected casualty calculation, it is extremely
difficult to meet the requirement when we're reentering the way
we do.
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much. I'll yield back.
And let's see. We will go to our Ranking Member, Mr.
Sorensen.
Mr. Sorensen. I did want to touch a little bit on NASA's
decision to return astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams
from the ISS on a Crew Dragon rather than a Boeing Starliner
flight test vehicle. I think commendation needs to be presented
to NASA and to Boeing for their commitment to prioritizing
safety. This has been a riveting Space Subcommittee hearing,
and so if those astronauts Wilmore and Williams are watching,
many thanks for their heroic teamwork, their patience, their
flexibility on the crew flight test mission as we look forward
to their safe return home, and also the sacrifice that their
families are making.
And I did want to continue the questioning from our
Chairman to you, Mr. Coleman. You know, as we look forward, as
we are learning as we go, how can we make sure that part 450
can meet the needs for reentry?
Mr. Coleman. Well, that's a great question, Congressman. We
are looking at the very issue that was raised there. We
understand--well, let me say this first of all. When we
published 450, we knew it was not a perfect rule to start with.
We knew that we would find--as we went along in its
implementation, that we would find some kinks, and this is one
of them that we've uncovered. And so part of the assignment for
the SpARC that we're going to stand up is to look at the
conditional expected casualty requirements and how those apply
to reentry vehicles. And so we're looking very much forward to
this SpARC, we're looking forward to its recommendations, and
we look forward to implementing the recommendations and toward
making part 450 a better rule.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. I appreciate the way that
you said that this is an assignment. So, as Congress goes
forward in the next couple of days to--concerning a continuing
resolution of our funding, how does that impact what we do and
meeting our needs to completing the assignment? And I'll open
that up to anyone.
Mr. French. You know, I'll jump in here. I think from an
AST perspective, the--any sort of lapse in appropriation or
delay in appropriation limits the ability for them to start the
hiring process. I think we've talked a lot about today about
the broader implications of a space race in our competition. I
think from a national security space perspective, you know, any
sort of delay in appropriations is probably our No. 1 self-
inflicted wound in our competition and maintaining our lead
with our adversaries.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
And now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I just want to be very clear, Mr. Coleman, that I
don't think any of us are asking you to run with scissors.
We're not asking you to make safety not be the No. 1 priority,
but we are asking that you maybe don't adopt a zero-risk
mentality, but also recognize that speed is also life, and that
every day that we slide these launches or these recoveries is
literally impacting in ripples into programs that are extremely
important like Artemis, et cetera. So I think you guys
understand that. I just--I'm not sure at the worker level when
they're processing these licenses that they truly appreciate
the national security implications.
You mentioned that companies are trying to make a launch
date, and I would submit to you that this country are--is
trying to make the launch dates, and I think that's the
paradigm shift that we need. I am not convinced that this is
the right agency to be doing this mission. We can take that
discussion offline.
I will submit for the record a question asking you what
your current headcount is dedicated to processing part 450,
licenses and then what the Fiscal Year 2025 request--and we're
almost Fiscal Year 2026 President's budget release as well, so
what the headcounts in those budget requests will look like.
I will state, though, that you said Fiscal Year 2025
request was a record high. It is a record high. It's $57
million, but 10 percent of that is to fund the orbital human
spaceflight and mission authorization scope that you don't
currently have authorization for, so about $6 million or so of
that is for that. So that is not authorized, and so hopefully
you're not banking on the come for that money to solve this
problem.
I just want to reiterate that we need our commercial
partners to do this. I also want to inquire as to whether the
FAA Administrator, Mr. Whitaker, is aware of these issues with
part 450. Are there program management reviews at the FAA level
that rise to his level? And we'll submit more detailed
technical questions and program management questions for the
record, but would respectfully request timely responses to
those if we can. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
Mr. Fong, do you have any more questions?
Mr. Fong. Yes, I just have a few more if the Chair will
indulge me.
Chairman Babin. Sure. You're recognized.
Mr. Fong. But just broadly speaking, Mr. Coleman, I mean,
do you have a concern that your office's licensing delays are
impacting national priorities?
Mr. Coleman. Certainly, we are under constant pressure,
increased pressure to meet all of our demands. I'll put it
simply, Congressman. We don't have enough resource to keep pace
with all of demand that is coming our place--way
simultaneously. And so, yes, we are concerned. We need the
resources. We need cooperation and engagement from industry, as
I mentioned in my opening statement, to come to us with
applications that are thorough and robust at the onset.
We don't have the capacity to, what I loosely say is,
handhold with industry to ensure that their applications are
complete and that they are good enough to eventually be
accepted for licensing. Those days are behind us, so we're
going to have to continue to work with industry to help
industry better understand what's needed for part 450 so we can
push ahead, and we also need the resources at our disposal to
meet demand.
Mr. Fong. If I could ask that the rest of the panel, the
three other panelists, to, I guess, address my original
question, which is if the goal of part 450 is to allow for
multiple launches and reentries and, as Mr. Coleman said, that
somehow there's lack of information being provided by the
commercial space entities, is that true on your end? And what
can be done to streamline that process?
Mr. Cavossa. On behalf of the industry, there are very few
things in my 20 years in space industry that have gotten
everybody on the same page, and one of them is export controls
and the challenges they have on the industry. And the other is
the challenges we are having with part 450 right now. And the
conversations and the technical interchange meetings between
industry and the FAA during that preapplication process, there
definitely seems to be a challenge here with our view of what's
going on and the FAA's view of how they're handling it. We
don't seem to be on the same page there.
Mr. French. Yes, I think as far as the multiple license or
single license, I think because you have the challenges of
meeting the requirements at a single mission basis, it's almost
a sort of a step too far to sort of, now, hey, let's go tackle
the multiple missions, right? So in sort of a--it's--I think
it's sort of an expediency choice, right? If you sort of look
at that you need to get a license met--while there is this
optimal path of a multi-missions license, there's an expediency
route of simply trying to meet the license today.
That also, I think, reflects in the growing importance of
these advisory circulars, right, because the advisory circulars
were intended to be one means of compliance, but operators are
saying, if this is a way we can do it, perhaps it's suboptimal,
but we're going to look to that as guidance as next--as--to
expedite things. So I think that's probably why we are where we
are in that question.
Ms. Meredith. Well, I ask myself if a means of compliance
or method of compliance is acceptable for one launch, why is it
different for several launches? That is not clear to me, unless
the several are different from the first or the next ones are
different from the first.
Mr. Fong. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
today and the Members for their questions. The record will
remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written
questions from Members. And I think this has been a very
valuable Subcommittee hearing today.
So with that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Kelvin Coleman
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Dave Cavossa
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Pamela L. Meredith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Brian Babin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]