What immediately happens if moratorium on FAA regulation of commercial HSF ends?

[AnalogMan]

This report (from a few days ago) by the Congressional Research Service has some background information that may be helpful to the discussion. 

Commercial Human Spaceflight Safety Regulations
Congressional Research Service IF12508 - October 13, 2023
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12508

It includes the following:

Should the moratorium end, how quickly might regulations take effect?
The FAA indicated in its 2023 report to Congress that it will begin the process of developing performance-based rules upon expiration of the learning period. The FAA tasked the Human Space Flight Occupant Safety Aerospace Rulemaking Committee with developing recommendations by October 2024. The FAA anticipates final rules to come into effect around April 2028. This rulemaking would be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (P.L. 79-404). The APA sets forth a structured process by which regulations can be promulgated, with opportunities for stakeholder input. In addition, regulations may be subject to congressional review before they can take effect.

[Copy of CRS report attached]

[Robotbeat]

It makes no sense to start promulgating regulations only after the moratorium ends. Draft rules can be prepared well beforehand.

[trimeta]

It makes no sense to start promulgating regulations only after the moratorium ends. Draft rules can be prepared well beforehand.

Does it really matter if rules are prepared well in advance of removing the moratorium on enacting new rules, or if they only begin the process once the legal hurdles to such enactment are cleared? From one perspective, there's no point in beginning to write the rules if you know that no matter how good they are, actually using them requires a literal Act of Congress. And it's not like new rules will come into effect without public consultation and notice, that's an inherent part of the process of writing the rules.

[deltaV]

It makes no sense to start promulgating regulations only after the moratorium ends. Draft rules can be prepared well beforehand.

It's not like suborbital spaceflight will suddenly become much more dangerous the day that the moratorium expires. The suborbital spaceflight industry has gone about two decades without much regulation. It'll be fine if they go an additional couple of years.

I believe US regulators have the power to make emergency regulations that take effect immediately in emergencies. I'm guessing the aftermath of a fatal accident would qualify as an emergency for these purposes. The one thing that will probably change immediately after the moratorium expires is if there's a fatal accident the FAA is likely to make emergency regulations to prevent recurrences.

[joek]

It makes no sense to start promulgating regulations only after the moratorium ends. Draft rules can be prepared well beforehand.

The rules are the rules; does not matter what you think makes sense. Expect the FAA has plenty of draft rules in their filing cabinets. But "promulgating" them is another matter entirely. That involves well-defined processes which are law. It is what it is. Stop whining or better, read up on the rules then come back to us with suggestions on how you would improve. (Hint: recent Congressional testimony has some clues.)

[Robotbeat]

What rule is there that says the FAA can’t develop draft rules with room for feedback from industry? That’s the part that makes no sense.

[whitelancer64]

What rule is there that says the FAA can’t develop draft rules with room for feedback from industry? That’s the part that makes no sense.

There is no such prohibition, and that's what the FAA created the SpARC committee for.

They can't submit draft regulations to the Federal Register for formal feedback until after the moratorium is over.

[Robotbeat]

What rule is there that says the FAA can’t develop draft rules with room for feedback from industry? That’s the part that makes no sense.

There is no such prohibition, and that's what the FAA created the SpARC committee for.

They can't submit draft regulations to the Federal Register for formal feedback until after the moratorium is over.

Well then, if no such prohibition exists, but there’s still MASSIVE uncertainty on what exactly FAA regulation of private human spaceflight would be like, then that hardly is a great argument that ending the moratorium now is called for. Let there be more certainty of what the FAA is actually going to do before throwing the switch.

[whitelancer64]

What rule is there that says the FAA can’t develop draft rules with room for feedback from industry? That’s the part that makes no sense.

There is no such prohibition, and that's what the FAA created the SpARC committee for.

They can't submit draft regulations to the Federal Register for formal feedback until after the moratorium is over.

Well then, if no such prohibition exists, but there’s still MASSIVE uncertainty on what exactly FAA regulation of private human spaceflight would be like, then that hardly is a great argument that ending the moratorium now is called for. Let there be more certainty of what the FAA is actually going to do before throwing the switch.

I don't think it matters too much either way, but if Congress doesn't implode before Jan. 1st, it will probably extend the moratorium for another like 5 or 8 years. Did you bother to look at the link I provided of who is on the SpARC committee?

[john smith 19]

They already are regulating passenger flights, just to a limited extent. Being able to propose new regulations doesn't change that.

The end of the moratorium doesn't mean that all currently existing regulations are null and void, and they have to put everything on hold until new regulations are in place.

Oh sweet $deity I thought FAA had settled this decades  ago. The whole passengers-are-spaceflight-participants-not-astonauts rule.
So just to be clear ending the moratorium would begin the process of setting up rules to (to coin a phrase) make "Space for the rest of us"? However the committee is due to report Q2/Q3 of '24 with a first proposed set?

[whitelancer64]

They already are regulating passenger flights, just to a limited extent. Being able to propose new regulations doesn't change that.

The end of the moratorium doesn't mean that all currently existing regulations are null and void, and they have to put everything on hold until new regulations are in place.

Oh sweet $deity I thought FAA had settled this decades  ago. The whole passengers-are-spaceflight-participants-not-astonauts rule.
So just to be clear ending the moratorium would begin the process of setting up rules to (to coin a phrase) make "Space for the rest of us"? However the committee is due to report Q2/Q3 of '24 with a first proposed set?

No, actually, the "informed consent" waivers, etc. were always supposed to be temporary.

The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 set a statutory moratorium of eight years before the FAA could establish commercial human spaceflight regulations, beyond its statuary authorities under 51 U.S.C. §50905(c) and 14 C.F.R. §460

This moratorium has been repeatedly extended, most recently until January 1st 2024, and as I said above, if House GOP / Congress can get its act together and not shut down, it's likely to be extended again.

History: The FAA Modernization and Reform of 2012 extended the learning period to October 1, 2015; the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA) of 2015 extended it to October 1, 2023; and the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2024 and Other Extensions Act extended it most recently to January 1, 2024. On September 21, 2023, Representative Kevin McCarthy (CA-20) introduced the Space Transformation And Reliability (STAR) Act (H.R. 5617) that would extend the learning period to October 1, 2031.

And the SpARC committee is only going to issue a set of recommendations to the FAA, not a proposed set of regulations. The FAA will take the recommendations into consideration as it begins to work out a set of regulations. The whole process of creating a new set of regulations usually takes 3-5 years. If the above proposed extension gets signed into law, that kicks the can down the road another 8 years.

[john smith 19]

And the SpARC committee is only going to issue a set of recommendations to the FAA, not a proposed set of regulations. The FAA will take the recommendations into consideration as it begins to work out a set of regulations. The whole process of creating a new set of regulations usually takes 3-5 years. If the above proposed extension gets signed into law, that kicks the can down the road another 8 years.

Thanks for that succinct explanation.

Tricky. 

So if we want to normalise space travel (More "2001" than "Salvage 1"  ) there need to be regulations which means the moratorium must end. However that sounds like it requires the House to actually make decisions rather than just go on autopilot and leave it another 8 years. 

This is really a space policy question?

It looks like it needs some kind of campaign to prod members of the House in this direction. At least the Speaker problem has now been resolved and decisions can be taken.

So this is one for the US citizens on the site to have a think about.

[whitelancer64]

And the SpARC committee is only going to issue a set of recommendations to the FAA, not a proposed set of regulations. The FAA will take the recommendations into consideration as it begins to work out a set of regulations. The whole process of creating a new set of regulations usually takes 3-5 years. If the above proposed extension gets signed into law, that kicks the can down the road another 8 years.

Thanks for that succinct explanation.

Tricky. 

So if we want to normalise space travel (More "2001" than "Salvage 1"  ) there need to be regulations which means the moratorium must end. However that sounds like it requires the House to actually make decisions rather than just go on autopilot and leave it another 8 years. 

This is really a space policy question?

It looks like it needs some kind of campaign to prod members of the House in this direction. At least the Speaker problem has now been resolved and decisions can be taken.

So this is one for the US citizens on the site to have a think about.

As a historical analogy, we are basically in the "barnstorming and rickety passenger airplanes made of wood that's been glued together" age of rocket transportation technology. We like to think of spacecraft as high technology, but it's still bleeding-edge engineering that has failure rates and safety margins that would be appallingly unacceptable in pretty much every other kind of transportation.

It took an airplane crash that killed a high-profile celebrity for the US government to say, hey, maybe we should enforce some standards for safety. Now we're basically trying to avoid that scenario for space travel while still giving industry leeway for experimentation and development.

The establishment of an investigative process for airplane crashes (which rockets already have), safety regulations, industry standards, etc. helped make airplanes much safer, easier for general public use, and ultimately cheaper. The more experience rocket launch providers have, the better they will be able to tackle new regulations, which is basically why the moratorium exists and keeps getting extended. I agree this shouldn't go on indefinitely, but all the industry players are currently still in favor of extending it.