How have EPA and NOAA coordinated with the FAA on monitoring or permitting experimental geoengineering field tests?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal coordination on experimental geoengineering field tests has been built around monitoring, reporting, and research rather than a unified permit regime: NOAA acts as the primary reporting and observational hub, EPA frames public-facing guidance and tracks air-quality and health questions, and the FAA covers aviation safety and research into aircraft-related phenomena — all within a cross‑agency research planning structure directed by OSTP and Congress [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How the system is structured: research coordination, not a single permit office
Congress directed OSTP to develop a cross‑agency research plan on solar and other rapid climate interventions, which established an interagency posture involving NOAA, NASA, DOE, NSF and other agencies and signaled that coordination — not a single permitting authority — would guide government action on geoengineering research [4] [5] [6].
2. NOAA as the reporting gatekeeper and observational lead
NOAA administers the statutory reporting requirement for weather‑modification and solar radiation modification activities — requiring anyone planning such activities in the U.S. to report to NOAA at least 10 days ahead — and NOAA has been explicitly charged to support OSTP in a five‑year research plan and to deepen observational capabilities of the stratosphere [1] [4] [6].
3. EPA’s public‑facing role: transparency, research tracking, and potential regulatory levers
EPA has built public resources to explain geoengineering risks and its own statutory authorities, has posted guidance addressing myths such as “chemtrails,” and has intervened directly in at least one private actor case by requesting information from a start‑up called “Make Sunsets” after reported releases of SO2, indicating EPA’s role in monitoring releases and applying air‑pollution and public‑health scrutiny where appropriate [2] [7] [6].
4. FAA’s responsibility: aviation safety, contrails research, and operational oversight
The FAA frames geoengineering-related aviation issues through contrails research and operational safety rules; FAA materials point to the NOAA notification requirement for weather modification and state that unusual or unsafe low‑flying aircraft should be reported to the FAA, illustrating FAA’s practical remit over aircraft operations though not a standalone geoengineering permit regime [8] [3] [7].
5. How agencies coordinate in practice: research projects, aircraft sampling, and workshops
Coordination has taken concrete forms: NOAA and NASA have teamed on stratospheric aerosol sampling missions such as the SABRE effort using NASA high‑altitude aircraft; NOAA’s Earth’s Radiation Budget program has funded modeling, stratospheric observations and workshops (including joint NOAA‑DOE efforts on marine cloud brightening), and federal agencies have funded related research through grants and workshops under the OSTP research plan [6] [5] [1].
6. Fault lines: reporting gaps, governance questions, and outside pressure
Observers and petitioners argue NOAA’s reporting rules lack sufficient data requirements and transparency to assess risks, and academic and NGO actors have urged tighter standards or broader governance; at the same time, federal messaging stresses there are no government outdoor solar geoengineering tests underway and that only limited private activity has been reported to date — a tension that highlights gaps between monitoring, research planning, and enforceable permitting [9] [10] [6].
7. The practical effect today: monitoring and research first, permits unresolved
The net result is an administrative regime that emphasizes notification, observation and interagency research coordination — NOAA as the reporting hub, EPA as the public‑health and regulatory watcher, FAA handling aircraft safety and research — while Congress and OSTP seek to develop governance frameworks; the system currently leans toward enabling measurement and oversight rather than creating a single federal permit that would authorize experimental geoengineering deployments [1] [4] [5].