The scanned document:
SPACEX

September 18, 2024.

The Honorable Frank Lucas Chairman, Committee on Science, Space & Technology United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space & Technology United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Maria Cantwell Chair, Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Ted Cruz

Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairs Cantwell and Lucas and Ranking Members Cruz and Lofgren:

For nearly two years, SpaceX and many in industry, legal practice, and academia have raised the alarm on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) implementation of its commercial space launch and reentry regulatory mandate, which is administered by its Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). It has been clear for some time that AST lacks the resources to timely review licensing materials, mistakenly focuses its limited resources on areas unrelated to its public safety regulatory scope and has been unsuccessful in modernizing and streamlining its regulations.

Most recently, the FAA alleged that SpaceX violated its regulations and proposed a $633,009 penalty for these alleged violations. It is notable that these violations and penalties were announced shortly after increased scrutiny on AST by Congress for its failure to reasonably and timely execute its regulatory obligations. It is also notable that, in announcing these penalties, FAA's politically appointed Chief Counsel was quoted in the FAA's announcement on the matter. It is SpaceX's understanding that it is highly irregular, and perhaps unprecedented, for a Chief Counsel to be quoted on an enforcement matter. SpaceX forcefully rejects the FAA's assertion that it violated any regulations.

SpaceX is absolutely committed to safety in all operations. With respect to these matters, it is notable that in each instance, SpaceX provided AST with sufficient notice of these relatively minor license updates, which had no bearing on public safety. The fact that AST was unable to timely process these minor updates underscores systemic challenges at AST.

The FAA alleges three distinct violations: (1) that SpaceX utilized a propellant farm at SpaceX's launch site that FAA had not yet approved; (2) that SpaceX used an updated Communications Plan that the FAA had not yet approved; and (3) that SpaceX did not conduct a launch poll two hours prior to a launch. As it relates to the RP-1 fuel farm, use of the RP-1 fuel farm had been approved by our U.S. Government Range Safety Authority for an upcoming National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program mission. The system has been safely used repeatedly ever since, because there is no public safety risk. Despite the Federal Range's approval, AST elected to involve itself and now proposes penalties against SpaceX because AST was unable to do its job in an efficient manner. The Communication Plan changes are entirely unrelated to public safety, and AST has no regulatory authority to require a T-2 hour poll. SpaceX responds in detail to each allegation below for your information and to the clarify the record.

FAA Enforcement Action - Quick Facts

(1) Communications Plan

a) FAA alleges that SpaceX operated under an unapproved Communications Plan for the PSN MSF launch in June 2023. SpaceX denies this allegation.

b) SpaceX's only change to the Communications Plan was to change the location of the launch control center from one location on Kennedy Space Center to another. No communications procedures, networks, or personnel changed.

c) On May 2, 2023, SpaceX sent the FAA a revised SpaceX Falcon and Dragon Communications Plan (v.5.4, May 2023) (Plan v5.4) for incorporation into its launch licenses.

d) Each week after SpaceX submitted Plan v5.4, during weekly licensing calls between the FAA and SpaceX, SpaceX told the FAA that it required the plan by June 1 and asked the FAA whether it had feedback.

e) During a call on June 13, SpaceX again asked FAA if it had feedback, because SpaceX had a launch on June 18 that would use the new location of the launch control center. In response, and for the first time, the FAA told SpaceX that there were "too many" revisions in Plan v5.4 for it to be able to provide feedback on it by June 18.

f) As such, on June 15, SpaceX submitted a new version of a revised Communications Plan (Plan v5.3.1) that solely updated the location of the launch control center. This change to the Communications Plan that SpaceX operated under was clearly a continuing accuracy update, and therefore, per the regulations, did not require FAA approval.

g) On June 16, the FAA finally began its review of Plan v5.3.1, and minutes later, SpaceX responded to the FAA's questions and offered a call to discuss any further questions. The FAA responded stating it would not be able to complete its review of Plan v5.3.1

before the June 18 launch. The FAA stated that SpaceX had not provided it with enough notice even though SpaceX had told the FAA six weeks earlier that it required use of the plan by June 1, and the date was now June 16. Again, approval was not required under the regulation for this continuing accuracy update.

h) On June 22, 2023, the FAA sent SpaceX minor comments on Plan v5.4, and this same day, SpaceX sent responses to the FAA. Hours after SpaceX responded, on June 22, 2023, the FAA approved Plan v5.4 for incorporation into two of SpaceX launch licenses, but not in SpaceX's launch license for LC-39A.