Comment on the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking "Waiver of Specified Statutory Requirements for Commercial Space Launch and Reentry Actions"

August 30, 2026

VIA REGULATIONS.GOV

To:
Docket Operations, M–30
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor
Washington, DC 20590–0001

Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Waiver of Specified Statutory Requirements for Commercial Space Launch and Reentry Actions Docket No.: FAA-2026-8614 RIN: 2120-AM51

Dear Administrator Bedford:

The Center for Space Environmentalism (CSE)1 respectfully submits the following comments in response to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Waiver of Specified Statutory Requirements for Commercial Space Launch and Reentry Actions (Docket No. FAA-2026-8614). The following responds to the NPRM invitation for “comments on the Secretary's proposed waiver of these laws."

We strongly oppose aspects of the proposed rule and offer suggestions as responses to solicited comments. CSE urges the FAA to instead retain statutory NEPA reviews, mandate transparent reporting of operational byproducts, and regularly update Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEIS) to sustain responsible, long-term commercial space activity.

I. Removing the environmental review process eliminates public transparency

“All of that has led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation. Delay upon delay, so much so that the process sometimes seems to ‘borde[r] on the Kafkaesque.’”

In 2025 alone, there were more than 192 launches in the United States, representing an increase of 38 launches over 2024 totals.2 On average, this is a launch every two days. This rapid trajectory demonstrates that environmental reviews do not impede commercial progress. We argue that the burden of proof should be placed on private industry to demonstrate that their privatized benefits to the public outweigh the costs paid by the public through a greater strain on shared air, water, land, coasts, sea, and sky before being granted a waiver from such a process.

We reject language in the NPRM stating that the existing environmental review process is cumbersome and untimely as applied to space launch. The FAA's quotation of Seven County Infrastructure Coal v. Eagle County that NEPA reviews threaten likewise “Kafkaesque” delays3 in this circumstance is contradicted by empirical oversight data. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the FAA already extensively streamlines its licensing process by tiering off prior environmental analyses,4 demonstrating that existing regulations provide efficient, non-duplicative review pathways without requiring a blanket waiver of 13 landmark environmental laws.

Furthermore, the FAA's reliance on Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County5 misconstrues the bounds of executive agency authority. While Seven County reaffirmed that NEPA is a procedural statute that imposes no substantive outcome requirements, the Supreme Court did not hold that administrative agencies may unilaterally exempt themselves from procedural compliance with NEPA altogether, nor did it authorize agencies to bypass twelve other separate, substantive acts of Congress (including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act).

We therefore reject the idea of a waiver from the 13 environmental laws that protect these resources and serve as domestic regulation to international treaties. We instead argue that maintaining these regulations inspires innovation: companies wishing for the privilege of operating in shared space overhead should be encouraged to lessen the adverse impacts of their actions by increasing their own capabilities with smaller payloads and fewer launches, for example. This benefits everyone.

“d. How would application of these waivers further Congress's purpose to ‘promote economic growth and entrepreneurial activity through use of the space environment’? ”

Applying these waivers would not promote economic growth through use of the space environment without detracting from economic growth that relies on other environmental access or conditions. Such waivers remove the step analyzing whether the proposed action provides more benefit than inaction or if mitigations would alleviate glaring issues. The suggestion to eliminate or expedite environmental review disregards public economic interest writ large. An Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) generated by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review6 includes steps to analyze local economic impact. Bypassing this step removes agency awareness of potential litigation by those affected adversely by the federal action. Settling these avoidable cases will drain taxpayer dollars.

EIS public fora are additionally efficient: they serve as a flexible, site-specific catch-all that would be cumbersome to program as part of the full formal analysis. Without an EIS, there is no forum for the public to voice concerns about the effects launch or reentry activity have in their locale. Removing the ability to conduct EISs diminishes public transparency in local matters by eliminating the sole formal opportunity to weigh in on items not captured by baseline reviews.

We note additionally that bypassing environmental reviews under NEPA directly undermines major taxpayer-funded scientific assets, including research that leads to patents and breakthrough technologies. Unregulated launch proliferation threatens billions of dollars in U.S. federal investments in ground-based optical, infrared, and radio astronomy infrastructure by causing widespread data loss and observational degradation without prior economic or environmental impact evaluation.7

II. Existing analyses fail to account for aggregate, cumulative and temporal environmental harms

"a. Should applicability be scoped to specific Federal sites, licensed launch and reentry sites, or exclusive use sites?"

Applicability should be scoped to all launch and reentry sites. Existing NEPA evaluations examine a set number of launches per year but do not specify how closely in time those launches can occur. Therefore, licenses issued for a specific rocket type or launch type do not consider the aggregate number of other launch activities co-located at a particular site, preventing agencies from accurately quantifying cumulative impacts on coasts, local habitats, or human populations. This raises considerable concerns regarding how well existing NEPA reviews are able to capture and assess the ability of natural habitats to recover on timescales that would avoid conflict with statutory recovery mandates under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.8 As this is the standard licensing process, it applies to all sites mentioned in this NPRM.

“b. Are any specific launch and reentry sites so differently situated that they warrant different treatment?”

The CSE supports more stringent review of launch sites located in areas of endangered species habitats and endangered ecosystems. Launch ranges are predominantly in coastal locations and have increasingly been constructed (or proposed for construction) in ecologically sensitive areas such as Boca Chica, Texas, and Pecan Island, Louisiana. Consequently, statutory protections under the Coastal Zone Management Act9 and the Endangered Species Act10 are critical methods to protect these interests on behalf of the public.

Consider the following three sites: the Pacific Spaceport Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska, located on the same island system as the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge; Starbase Texas, in Boca Chica, Texas, next to the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area; and Cape Canaveral, Florida, which shares a boundary with the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. What all three sites share in common is that they were neighbors to major spaceport spills and explosions in the last four years. In Boca Chica, a Raptor engine prototype set fire to 68 acres of Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area. Less than a year later in April 2023, a Starship Super Heavy exploded that shot chunks of concrete and steel sheets across 385 acres near the pad, blanketed communities with dust over six miles from the launchpad, and set 3.5 acres ablaze in Boca Chica State Park. On Kodiak Island, an RS1 rocket failed after liftoff, crashed and exploded in January 2023. Another incident in July 2024 involved a static test fire that caused the spill of 1,800 gallons of aviation fuel and contaminants. Most recently on this list is the New Glenn explosion that took place in May 2026, which also happened during a static test fire, causing local news to issue a warning that debris might wash up on beaches.

Additionally, for coastal ranges such as Vandenberg, California, compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) directly affects state-level funds that flow from the federal government to state coastal management programs, which in California, is the California Coastal Commission. President Trump made this connection clear when he issued Executive Order (EO) 14335, explicitly calling for increased spaceport development and, by invoking 16 U.S.C. 1458, threatened the funding of state-level coastal commissions established under the CZMA if they are found to not comply. The language of 16 U.S.C. 1458 leaves this to the Secretary of Commerce’s discretion. Unsurprisingly, Secretary Lutnick’s evaluation published this past May found issues with only Vandenberg in particular. A formal hearing process closed this August.

Vandenberg alone has increased the permissible number of launches per year from 6, to 36, to 50, to nearly 100. This 16-fold increase was proposed over the course of roughly two years by SpaceX and the Air Force, citing "national security” as justification, and arguing that as such state-level environmental analyses were not required. The short NEPA reviews for each increase resulted in FONSIs despite significant concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission over the strength of sonic booms and the Air Force/Space Force’s ability to effectively mitigate the issue.

By creating a regulatory carveout for increased, environmentally disruptive activity, as it is demonstrated this rulemaking would accomplish, a disproportionate strain is placed on state-level coastal management entities. They now must both achieve their NOAA-approved coastal program management requirements to protect beaches and coastal areas in order to receive yearly federal funds, yet also risk losing that same funding if they do not comply with changes proposed by Secretary Lutnik “to adequately consider federal agencies’ views and broader national interests, as [also] required by the CZMA”. Therefore, the proposed rulemaking would exacerbate these conflicting priorities for state coastal management entities. The CSE believes launch and reentry sites overlapping with areas under Coastal Zone Management Act should undergo a federal NEPA review that allows for coordination with state coastal commissions that is cognizant and supportive of their environmentally focused grant tasks.

III. Existing analyses have not yet incorporated novel byproducts: high-altitude venting, ocean debris and misleading metric reporting

“FAA invites comments on the Secretary's proposed waiver of these laws. FAA also invites comment on other requirements not included that are not necessary, for example: Ocean Dumping Act (33 U.S.C. 1401-1445; 40 CFR 220-229); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-26; 40 CFR 141-143); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k; 40 CFR 239-282); Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601-2692; 40 CFR 700-799); Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.); and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).”

Current environmental assessments systematically exclude critical operational byproducts, such as high-altitude fuel venting and upper-stage atmospheric re-entry ablation, which deposit black carbon and alumina particles directly into the stratosphere.11 In 2024 NASA released a report supporting further research to fill this gap:

“In order to eliminate potential risk from the lack of scientific understanding and resolve the current inability to assess how a rapidly growing space industry will affect Earth’s atmosphere, a well-defined research effort is recommended. As demonstrated in the white paper ‘Impacts of Spaceflight on the Global Atmosphere: Current Understanding, Knowledge Gaps, NASA’s Role, and Roadmap’, we must improve our ability to model and observe rocket engine combustion, far field rocket plume evolution, impacts on the upper atmosphere, global launch impacts, reentry gas and aerosol production, far field reentry plume evolution, and global reentry impacts.”12

Environmental byproducts of launch and reentry are extant in satellite burn-up, which are launched on FAA-licensed rockets as payloads that undergo an environmental assessment outside of NEPA. These actions may contribute substantially to ozone depletion13 and modify the radiative balance of the atmosphere.14

Additionally, jettisoned upper stages, which are often (legally) left unclaimed in marine environments, contribute to long-term ocean pollution and benthic habitat disruption.15 This is a significant environmental impact that currently confronts federal oversight due to agency exemptions under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.16

Environmental assessments systematically omit upper-atmosphere optical and chemical disturbances created during rocket ascent and upper-stage re-entry due to lack of dedicated studies of a novel issue, not lack of impact or importance. High-altitude fuel venting and rocket plumes create massive, reflective exhaust clouds that span up to 30° across the sky, obscuring astronomical observations hundreds of miles from launch sites.17

Furthermore, upper-stage re-entries, such as launch vehicles de-orbiting approximately 95 minutes post-launch over the Southwestern United States, generate ionospheric “holes” dominated by intense red 6300Å oxygen airglow emissions.18 These disturbances disrupt optical research for hours while simultaneously inducing localized GPS and radio frequency interference.19

Transparency is further degraded by the agency's broad definition of mission “success,” a misleading metric without definition from the industry and federal government.20 For example, if a rocket falls over after landing on a launchpad, it may currently be categorized as a “success” for touching down rather than a “failure” for exploding. We have explained this point in detail in September 2025,21 regarding the SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Project at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A.22 It remains unclear that this definition for “success” shared with the public is consistent, concrete, or set by the federal government or the goals of a private-sector press release. Therefore, local populations, scientific research groups, and other affected stakeholders looking to evaluate risks caused by proposed launches stand to be severely misled by launch “success” statistics.

“c. How have the 13 laws identified for waiver in this proposed rule applied, in the launch and reentry site/launch and reentry context, to reduce a legally cognizable environmental harm? FAA encourages providing quantifiable, technical data to support a response.”

Maintaining rigorous oversight under the Clean Air Act23 aligns directly with executive priorities dedicated to protecting breathable air and public health, as demonstrated by President Trump’s recent proposal to impose tariffs on Canada due to the large distances covered by wildfire smoke.24 Like wildfire smoke, rocket exhaust plumes introduce significant quantities of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), including alumina (Al2O3) and black carbon, alongside carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and water vapor (H2O). We note that even water vapor, not common in the very dry upper layers of the atmosphere, can have strong and non-intuitive forcing effects when deposited there in large quantities during rocket launches.25

Unlike wildfire smoke, rocket exhaust plumes further contribute reactive chlorine species (Clγ), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that react in sunlight to thin the stratospheric ozone layer. All of the aforementioned chemicals are regulated under the Clean Air Act, and the CSE takes President Trump’s foreign policy stance as an intuitive understanding by the Administration of the law’s regulatory intent.

As quoted previously in this comment, subject matter experts on the environmental effects of rocket plumes suggest that further research into the impact and span of launch plumes should be carried out. As shown in Figure 1, global launches in 2025 alone contributed 4.2 kilotons (kt) of CO, 109 kt of CO2, 58 kt of H2O, 3 kt of Al2O3, 0.8 kt of Clγ, 0.8 kt of NOx, and 0.8 kt of black carbon.26 Preserving statutory air quality reviews ensures these expanding atmospheric emissions are systematically evaluated under established regulatory thresholds rather than exempted.

Figure 1. The total mass of substances emitted annually during rocket launches worldwide, 1960-2025.27

IV. Unilateral statutory waivers create inter-agency conflict, exceed FAA authority, and contradict the Administration’s own stated air quality and public health priorities

“e. Would exempting launch and reentry/launch and reentry site development from these laws fulfill Congress's mandate to ‘simplify and expedit[e] the issuance and transfer of commercial licenses’?  If so, how?”

No. It would not fulfill Congressional mandate, as this proposed rule introduces intergovernmental inefficiency. Statutes such as the Clean Air Act,28 the Endangered Species Act,29 and the Clean Water Act30 align under agency jurisdictions outside the FAA. Bringing agency priorities into conflict creates greater interagency uncertainty, wasting tax-payer funds on procedural untangling and potentially leading to legal settlements to re-determine ownership of an issue.

For example, the 2023 Varda reentry mission was delayed nearly six months due to lack of proper communication within the FAA, and entirely independent of environmental effects.31 This small interagency delay caused a larger knock-on delay for Varda as they had to wait for the capsule to orbit the Earth to attempt reentry. Exempting the environmental analysis from this process would not have improved the situation. Licenses expedited under this proposed process will provide a false sense of security to space industries that can risk delaying delicately timed missions whose actions confront the priorities of another agency that could have been anticipated and cleared by an environmental review of the site before launch. As Varda co-founder Delian Asparouhov stated, “AST prefers to license only a couple days before a particular operation happens. That may make sense for launch but it's a bit more difficult for reentry, … the upper atmosphere shifts, even on a very simple basis. How the stratosphere reacts to a reentry capsule in September is very different than February, which is very different than June.”32

"FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 and has determined this action may effect [sic] international regulatory cooperation; FAA will address those effects during the pendency of this rulemaking and the final rule stage."

The unstudied effects of the proposed waived activities seem to confront the Paris Agreement or any eventual efforts or diplomacy related to the UN Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) through launch at sea, reentry/recapture at sea, or unintended reentries. Unregulated atmospheric re-entries threaten to cause casualties and damage on the ground worldwide,33 for which cost the U.S. Government is liable under the Liability Convention of the Outer Space Treaty.34

"f. Would exempting launch and reentry/launch and reentry site development from these laws fulfill Congress's mandate to ‘facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure’? If so, how?"

No, it would not fulfill this Congressional mandate, because exempting launch and reentry/launch and reentry site development confronts the actions of other agencies relied upon for space use. Unilaterally waiving statutory environmental oversight that might otherwise be matured to include novel environmental effects undermines the essential regulatory framework required to sustain durable coordination agreements between commercial space operators and federal research institutions such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) in efforts to mitigate adverse impacts on astronomy. Threats to astronomy and astrophysical instruments affect our country’s ability to collect data that contributes to planning for space exploration missions. This, in turn, bleeds into Moon and Mars initiatives, which rely on international partnerships and remain stated priorities of the Administration and funded at nearly $10 billion in the Reconciliation Bill in FY26.35

V. The proposed rule ignores longstanding Congressional environmental mandates

Congress, composed of publicly elected individuals, enacted statutes like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act to protect public health, safety, and national environmental resources. Federal courts have repeatedly rebuffed Constitutional attacks against these bedrock statutes, explicitly affirming Congress’s authority to enact comprehensive environmental protections under the Commerce Clause and rejecting arguments that these regulatory regimes represent unconstitutional delegations of legislative power.36

The FAA is not composed of elected officials. The FAA’s claim that waiving these laws will not jeopardize public health and safety37 conflicts with the explicit findings of Congress when passing those foundational environmental laws. As the Supreme Court recognized,38 Congress made a conscious decision to prioritize environmental safeguards over conflicting agency objectives. The FAA cannot unilaterally override these constitutional enactments or excuse the commercial space industry from compliance with the expressed will of Congress, which has not granted the FAA the authority to unilaterally repeal the modern environmental regulatory state for the benefit of the commercial space industry.

VI. The proposed rule represents overreach of the FAA's statutory authority

While 51 U.S.C. § 50905(b)(2)(C) allows the Secretary to waive license requirements upon finding they are “not necessary to protect the public health and safety,”39 using a general regulation to blanket-waive 13 major acts of Congress40 exceeds the narrow waiver authority intended by statutory safety oversight. Under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,41 courts exercise independent judgment when reviewing an agency's interpretation of its statutory authority, and under West Virginia v. EPA,42 an agency cannot claim vast authority to waive major statutes without clear, explicit authorization from Congress. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has already determined that this proposed rulemaking is a significant regulatory action as defined in section (3)(f) of E.O. 12866. Therefore, the OMB’s precedence supports a higher bar of review.

Lastly, the proposed rule fails the fundamental requirements of reasoned agency decision-making under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An agency rule is arbitrary and capricious where the agency fails to articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, or where it entirely fails to consider an important aspect of the problem.43 The FAA’s blanket determination that waiving statutory oversight will not jeopardize public health and safety fails to evaluate the cumulative air quality and habitat impacts of surging launch cadences, violating established administrative standards for reasoned decision-making.

VII. Conclusion and Request

We appreciate the work of NEPA evaluations in determining for the rocket type, weather, and propellant composition the relative risk to local human and natural environments and request that this work continue, especially as it relates to thresholds determined in the Clean Air Act.

In summary, the CSE strongly opposes certain elements of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) proposed blanket waiver of 13 landmark environmental statutes under Docket No. FAA-2026-8614. The proposed rule presents critical legal, procedural, and environmental flaws across five main areas:

• Elimination of public transparency. Bypassing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews eliminates local public participation, increases municipal litigation risks, and threatens billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded ground-based astronomical infrastructure from unmitigated launch and satellite interference.

• Unaddressed cumulative and  temporal harms. Existing site evaluations fail to account for launch frequency, aggregate co-located launch cadences, or species recovery timescales under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

• Systematic omission of novel launch byproducts. Current environmental assessments ignore upper-atmosphere black carbon and alumina aerosol injection, stratospheric ozone depletion, marine benthic disruption from unrecovered hardware, and upper-stage ionospheric disturbances. Furthermore, reliance on broad "mission success" metrics misleads stakeholders regarding actual operational risks.

• Inter-agency conflict and priority misalignment. Unilateral waivers create friction with external agency mandates, including the Clean Air Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and international space liability commitments, wasting public funds on intergovernmental untangling.

• Administrative overreach. Blanket statutory waivers exceed the FAA's narrow authority under 51 U.S.C. § 50905(b)(2)(C). Under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia v. EPA, and 5 U.S.C. § 706, the FAA cannot unilaterally override statutory safeguards established by Congress.

Regarding specific elements in the proposed rule highlighted above, we instead suggest that the FAA move forward with its ambitions to expedite launch licensing by continuing to improve the NEPA process, which should:

1. Require comprehensive evaluation of unaddressed operational byproducts of launch and mandate accurate, transparent reporting metrics; and

2. Regularly update its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEIS) with funded, peer-reviewed scientific studies to close gaps in existing analyses of the impact, as outlined above, that increased space launch and reentry has on the local and global environment. These may continue to be relied upon for future, expedited NEPA reviews. 

1 The Center for Space Environmentalism is a multidisciplinary consortium of astrophysicists, orbital dynamicists, and policy experts whose mission is to inspire, inform, and guide the preservation and protection of the space environment.

2 Jonathan McDowell, Launch Lists, https://planet4589.org/space/gcat/web/launch/index.html (last updated Aug. 6, 2026).

3 Waiver of Specified Statutory Requirements for Commercial Space Launch and Reentry Actions, 91 Fed. Reg. (proposed July 30, 2026) (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. pts. 400, 420, 433, 437, 450) (Docket No. FAA-2026-8614, RIN 2120-AM51), at 6 (citing Justice Kavanaugh's opinion from Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), which in turn quotes Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978)).

4 U.S. GAO, GAO-24-106193, Commercial Space Transportation: How FAA Considers Environmental and Airspace Effects (2024), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106193.pdf, at 7-14 (showing that 19 of the 22 environmental reviews supporting active launch and reentry licenses as of July 2023 relied on previously completed reviews rather than starting from scratch).

5 Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 605 U.S. ___ (2025) (in which a unanimous Court held that lower courts must grant substantial deference to federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act).

6 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (Congressional declaration of purpose in enacting the National Environmental Policy Act).

7 Jinghan Alina Hu et al., Satellite Constellation Avoidance with the Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time, 941 Astrophys. J. Lett. L15 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aca592; J. Anthony Tyson et al., Expected Impact of Glints from Space Debris in the LSST, 966 Astrophys. J. Lett. L38 (2024), https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad41e6; Olivier R. Hainaut, Large or bright satellite constellations. Effects on observations, including background sky brightness. Astron. & Astrophys. in press (2026) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202660006.

8 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (requiring that each federal agency “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency … is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical”); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14 (requiring each federal agency to “review its actions at the earliest possible time to determine whether any action may affect listed species or critical habitat” and to engage in “formal consultation” if such a determination is made).

9 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq. (establishing Congressional findings of fact relating to coastal zone management).

10 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. (documenting legislative purposes and policy regarding preservation of endangered species).

11 S.P. Sharma, Impact of Spaceflight on Earth's Atmosphere: Climate, Ozone, and the Upper Atmosphere, NASA/TM-20240013276 (2024), https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240013276.

12 Supra note 11, at 5.

13 J.P. Ferreira et al., Potential Ozone Depletion From Satellite Demise During Atmospheric Reentry in the Era of Mega-Constellations, 51 Geophys. Res. Lett. e2024GL109280 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL109280.

14 Christopher M. Maloney et al., Investigating the Potential Atmospheric Accumulation and Radiative Impact of the Coming Increase in Satellite Reentry Frequency, 130 J. Geophys. Res.: Atmospheres e2024JD042442 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD042442.

15 See, e.g., Alla Pozdnakova, Pollution of the Marine Environment by Spaceflights, in The Environmental Rule of Law for Oceans 76, 76–92 (Froukje Maria Platjouw & Alla Pozdnakova eds., 2023), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009253741.010 (analyzing long-term ocean pollution, chemical leaching, and unspent fuel contamination caused by jettisoned lower rocket stages and de-orbited spacecraft falling into marine environments); see also David Thompson et al., Ecological Risk Assessment of Debris from Space Vehicle Launches on the Marine Environment 7–14 (Earth Sciences N.Z. / N.Z. Ministry for the Env't 2025), https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/marine/Ecological-risk-assessment-of-debris-from-space-vehicle-launches-on-the-marine-environment.pdf (evaluating ecological impact mechanisms from jettisoned upper-stage hardware, including physical seafloor smothering, benthic habitat disruption, and substrate disturbance).

16 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.

17 Michael H. Stevens et al., Bright polar mesospheric clouds formed by main engine exhaust from the space shuttle's final launch, 117 J. Geophysical Res.: Atmospheres D19206 (2012); see also Stevens, M. H., Gumbel, J., Englert, C. R., Grossmann, K. U., Rapp, M., & Hartogh, P. (2003). Polar mesospheric clouds formed from space shuttle exhaust. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(10), 1546. (demonstrating that water vapor in rocket exhaust rapidly freezes into sub-micron ice crystals in the cold mesosphere, spreading over thousands of square kilometers and creating highly reflective ice clouds with high optical depth) and Richard L. Collins et al., Cloud Formation From a Localized Water Release in the Upper Mesosphere: Indication of Rapid Cooling, 126 J. Geophysical Res.: Space Physics e2019JA027285 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027285 (showing that localized fuel/water venting alters the local optical thickness of the upper atmosphere).

18 See, e.g., Michael Mendillo et al., A Sudden Vanishing of the Ionospheric F Region Due to the Launch ofSkylab, 80 J. Geophys. Res. 2217, 2217–28 (1975), https://doi.org/10.1029/JA080i016p02217; Michael Mendillo & Jeffrey M. Forbes, Artificially Created Holes in the Ionosphere, 83 J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys. 151, 151–62 (1978), https://doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA01p00151 (explaining the charge-exchange reaction emitting 6300 Å airglow during electron recombination).

19 Mu-Ye Chou et al., Gigantic Circular Shock Acoustic Waves in the Ionosphere Triggered by the Launch of FORMOSAT-5 Satellite, 16 Space Weather 172, 172–84 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1002/2017SW001738 (documenting 10-70% total electron content depletion and GPS distortion following a SpaceX launch).

20 See U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-24-105561, Commercial Space Transportation: FAA Should Improve Its Mishap Investigation Process 11 (2023), https://www.gao.gov/assets/870/864481.pdf, at 1 (outlining the statutory boundaries of the FAA and establishing that the agency’s oversight focus is strictly protecting the “uninvolved public” rather than assuring vehicle safety or mission success) and 8 (confirming that the FAA does not certify commercial launch vehicles as safe or evaluate overall mission success, focusing exclusively on uncontained risks to the uninvolved public); see also Fed. Aviation Admin., Human Space Flight Occupant Safety Aerospace Rulemaking Committee Recommendation Report 14 (2024), https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/460_SpARC_FINAL_REPORT.pdf, at 10 (noting that under 51 U.S.C. § 50901, commercial launches “may result in failure to achieve their intended outcomes—including loss of vehicle—as long as the public is protected,” stating directly that it remains solely the launch operator's responsibility to manage controls for “mission success”).

21 Angelina Reddy, CSE Comment at U.S. FAA Virtual Public Meeting on SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Launch Vehicle at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A EIS, Ctr. for Space Env'talism, https://www.spaceenvironmentalism.org/actions/public-statements-and-comments/cse-comment-at-u-s-faa-virtual-public-meeting-on-spacex-starship-super-hea (Sept. 3, 2025).

22 Federal Aviation Administration, SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Project at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A, U.S. Dep't of Transp., https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship_ksc (last updated Jan. 30, 2026).

23 42 U.S.C. § 7401 (establishing Congressional findings and declaration of purpose relating to ensuring public health and welfare by regulating outdoor air quality).

24 Cat Zakrzewski, Trump Wants to Impose Tariffs on Canada in Retaliation for Wildfire Smoke, Wash. Post (July 17, 2026), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/07/17/trump-wants-impose-tariffs-canada-retaliation-wildfire-smoke/.

25 Richard L. Collins et al., Cloud Formation From a Localized Water Release in the Upper Mesosphere: Indication of Rapid Cooling, 126 J. Geophysical Res.: Space Physics e2019JA027285 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027285 (demonstrating that depositing concentrated water vapor into the cold, dry upper mesosphere induces rapid localized radiative cooling, dropping ambient temperatures by up to 30 K and triggering artificial polar mesospheric ice clouds).; Erik J. L. Larson et al., Global Atmospheric Response to Emissions from a Proposed Reusable Space Launch System, 5 Earth's Future 37, 37–48 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000399 (modeling how stratospheric and mesospheric water vapor injections from rocket exhaust alter thermal profiles, drive +0.03 W m-2 effective radiative forcing, increase high-altitude cloud cover by up to 20%, and accelerate catalytic HOx ozone depletion).

26 C.R. Barker, E.A. Marais & J.C. McDowell, Space Industry Emissions Tracker (ver. 2.6.0, 2026), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18173797.

27 Id.

28 Supra note 20.

29 Supra note 11.

30 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (establishing Congressional findings and declaration of purpose relating to ensuring public health and welfare by requiring “restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and biological integrity of Nation’s waters”).

31 Harris, Mark. IEEE-Spectrum. The Space-Based Drug Factory That Can’t Come Home. October 1, 2023. Updated March 2024. https://spectrum.ieee.org/space-manufacturing-varda

32 Sheetz, Michael. CNBC. Regulatory hold up keeps Varda spacecraft stuck in orbit. Nov 2, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/02/investing-in-space-regulatory-hold-up-keeps-varda-spacecraft-stuck-in-orbit.html

33 Pardini, Carmen & Anselmo, Luciano, The risk of casualties from the uncontrolled re-entry of spacecraft and orbital stages, Journal of Space Safety 181 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2024.02.002

34 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 24 U.S.T. 2389, 961 U.N.T.S. 187 (stipulating that member states bear absolute liability for damage caused on Earth or in airspace by space objects launched from their territory or facilities, regardless of whether the activity was conducted by a government agency or private commercial entity).

35 Working Families Tax Cut Act, H.R. 1833, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1833

36 See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 472–76 (2001) (unanimously upholding the Clean Air Act against Non-Delegation Doctrine challenges); Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 276–82 (1981) (affirming congressional authority to enact sweeping federal environmental protections in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977); Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, 1066–70 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (turning away Commerce Clause challenges to the Endangered Species Act).

37 Waiver, supra note 2, at 12.

38 Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 (1978) (in which the Court held that the plain language and legislative history of the ESA showed that Congress intended to halt and reverse species extinction “whatever the cost”).

39 Waiver, supra note 2, at 6.

40 Waiver, supra note 2, at 7.

41 Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).

42 W. Va. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) (in which the Court formally cemented the “Major Questions Doctrine”).

43 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (setting the standard for the “arbitrary and capricious” review under the Administrative Procedure Act and establishing the “Hard Look” test).