[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24217]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 3, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 101




Model Rocket Operations; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. 26965; Amendment No. 101-6]
RIN 2120-AD84

 
Model Rocket Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action amends the operational guidelines of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 101 for model rockets that: use not 
more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant; are made of paper, 
wood, or breakable plastic; contain no substantial metal parts; and 
weigh not more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces). This amendment is 
necessary to provide for the operation of the technologically advanced, 
larger category, model rockets and to ensure that their operation is in 
concert with the maximum level of safety protection for aircraft, 
flight crews, and the flying public. The FAA believes that this 
amendment will foster important aeronautical education and research 
activities, while retaining appropriate operational safety precautions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph C. White, Air Traffic Rules 
Branch, ATP-230, Airspace Rules and Aeronautical Information Division, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 28, 1985, the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) and the 
Hobby Industry Association (HIA) filed a joint petition requesting that 
the FAA amend 14 CFR 101.1, by raising the upper weight limit on 
excepted model rockets from 16 ounces to 1,500 grams (approximately 53 
ounces) and the allowable propellant mass from 4 ounces to 125 grams 
(approximately 4.4 ounces). At present, 14 CFR 101.1 exempts ``model'' 
rockets having no more than 4.0 ounces of propellant and weighing no 
more than 16 ounces, including the propellent.
    In response to the NAR/HIA joint petition, the FAA published a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice 92-12, 57 FR 41628, Sep. 
10, 1992. Notice 92-12 proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 101 by adding 
Sec. 101.22, Special provisions for larger model rockets, and by 
amending Sec. 101.25, Notice requirements, to accommodate larger model 
rockets. In summary, model rockets that use not more than 125 grams of 
propellant; that weigh not more than 1,500 grams, including the 
propellant; that are constructed principally of paper, wood, or 
breakable plastic, and continue to have no substantial metal parts; may 
be operated in a controlled airspace, within 5 miles of the boundary of 
any airport, within 1,500 feet of any person or property that is not 
associated with the operations or at night. These operations may be 
conducted, provided that persons operating these model rockets give 
prior notification of launch activities and other pertinent launch 
information to the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility nearest the 
place of intended operation between 24 and 48 hours prior to beginning 
the operation and the manager of any airport whose landing area or 
runway is within 5 miles of the model rocket launch site.

Analysis of Comments

    Interested persons were invited to participate in this rulemaking 
effort by submitting written data, views, or arguments. All comments 
received during the comment period were considered before making a 
determination regarding this final rule.
    During the comment period, a total of 117 comments were received in 
response to Notice 92-12. Two comments were received from the NAR, and 
one comment each, from the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), the 
Arizona Pilots Association, the Airport Transport Association (ATA), 
and the National Fire Protection Association. Ninety-one comments were 
received from individuals, eight from pilots, six from model rocket 
associations, three from teachers/professional educators, and one each 
from a scientist, an aerospace educational organization, and a model 
rocket manufacturer. A discussion of these comments follows:
    One commenter supports the NPRM as written. All other commenters 
oppose the NPRM and support, instead, either the original NAR petition 
or the development of regulatory action which proposes fewer model 
rocket notification requirements. Comments opposing the NPRM are 
summarized in the following categories, each of which is subsequently 
discussed more fully:
    1. Approximately 95 commenters state there is no need for a 
separate category of ``Large Model Rockets''; they favor adoption of 
NAR's original petition for rulemaking.
    2. Approximately 74 commenters believe the NPRM's proposed 
notification requirements are burdensome and unnecessary.
    3. Approximately 8 commenters state the FAA needs to update its 
rules to reflect the current technology of model rocketry and to 
promote the inherent educational value of the hobby.
    4. Approximately 3 commenters oppose both the NPRM and NAR's 
original petition for rulemaking.
    5. Approximately 4 commenters suggest regulatory alternatives to 
the NPRM.
    A number of commenters oppose the proposal to establish a separate 
category of ``Large Model Rockets'' and instead support the NAR's 
original petition to broaden the exempt definition of model rockets. 
Based upon NAR and FAA studies, commenters argue that air traffic will 
not be adversely affected by the NAR's requested increase in the 
maximum, unregulated model rocket liftoff and propellant weight. The 
NAR reiterates that, ``not a single documented incident of model 
rockets interfering with aviation, hitting or harming aircraft on 
ascent or descent of the rocket, or impairing aircraft flight 
operations has occurred''. Commenters attribute this enviable safety 
record to rocketeers' voluntary compliance with the Model Rocket Safety 
Code. Accordingly, they consider the code and a rocketeer's own visual 
and aural check as sufficient launch safety measures. Moreover, several 
commenters assert that increasing model rocket weight may actually 
improve model rocket safety as heavier rockets are purported to have 
larger drag coefficients, achieve lower altitudes, have shorter flight 
duration, and be more easily seen by aircraft than lighter rockets.
    The FAA agrees that the model rocket industry has a long and 
distinguished record of safety. However, as noted in Notice 92-12, the 
FAA must acknowledge the remote, yet inherent increase in hazard 
potential that accompanies greater model rocket propellant/mass weight. 
This consideration is particularly relevant for general aviation 
aircraft and rotorcraft, which operate at a lower velocity and flight 
altitude, making them especially vulnerable to collision with larger, 
more powerful model rockets. In order to provide a maximum level of 
safety protection to aircraft passengers and crew members, the FAA has 
determined that operational safeguards, beyond the Model Rocket Safety 
Code and rocketeers' own diligence, are needed for larger rockets with 
greater propellant/mass weight. Therefore, a regulatory category that 
segregates larger rockets from smaller rockets is required.
    A number of commenters believe that the proposed notification 
requirements for ``Large Model Rocket'' launches are unnecessary and 
burdensome. Commenters argue that the FAA has cited ``no cases where 
notification would have increased air safety above and beyond . . . 
current regulations which require no notification.'' Several commenters 
also mention the potential for conflict to occur between lawful 
rocketeers and airport/ATC officials who are unfamiliar with model 
rocketry and with 14 CFR Part 101 entitlement. Two commenters detail 
occasions where misinformation was believed to have resulted in the 
denial of waiver applications or the interruption of model rocket 
launch competitions. Commenters are equally troubled by the requirement 
to notify air traffic officials within 24 to 48 hours of ``Large Model 
Rocket'' launches, regardless of where these launches occur.
    The proposed notification requirements assist the FAA and airport 
officials in determining how model rocket launch activities may affect 
flight operations in a given area. The proposed requirements are not 
intended to hinder or minimize model rocket activity, but merely to 
ensure that airspace is mutually accommodating of both model rocket 
operations and aircraft operations. To this end, FAA or airport 
officials review model rocket launch information and make it available 
to pilots, as necessary, via air traffic control or through Notice to 
Airmen (NOTAM) publications. NOTAMs highlight events that may result in 
airspace restrictions and give time frames in which restrictions will 
be in effect. Review of NOTAMs offers pilots an opportunity to adjust 
or reschedule their flight plans in light of planned aerial activity. 
Because a pilot's awareness of model rocket launches enhances this 
safety process, the proposed notification requirements are beneficial. 
Additionally, to facilitate disclosure of requested model rocket launch 
data, the NPRM proposed a decrease in the amount and specificity of 
information currently required from rocketeers. For example, when there 
are multiple participants at a single event, rather than give names and 
addresses for every rocketeer, a single person may be designated as the 
event launch coordinator for the operation. Similarly, rather than 
provide the specific number, size, weight, and maximum altitude of each 
rocket to be launched, the appropriate individual may estimate the 
information. The FAA further concludes that the current level of safety 
will not be decreased by utilizing the less restrictive reporting 
requirements as proposed in the NPRM when a single name and address of 
the person provided is that of the event launch coordinator, and this 
person is the one who has provided the other required launch data 
estimates for that event.
    Several commenters recommend that notification of the airport 
manager or FAA tower facility be required only when large model rockets 
will be launched into controlled airspace or within 5 miles of an 
airport.
    The current prohibition against operating such model rockets in 
controlled airspace, within 5 miles of an airport, within 1,500 feet of 
any non-participant, or between sunset and sunrise, will not apply 
provided the person operating the model rocket complies with the 
proposed modified provisions of Sec. 101.25. The intent of the notice 
requirement is not to exclude or hinder model rocket operations, but to 
provide notification of such operations to afford an adequate level of 
safety for person and property in the air, as well as on the ground.
    Commenters maintain that the notice requirement is unrealistic for 
several reasons: Model rocket launch times are inherently unpredictable 
as they are dependent upon favorable cloud cover and weather 
conditions; many impromptu launches occur at model rocket meets, making 
it difficult to give prior disclosure of the total number of 
participants and other launch information; the notification process may 
prove too complex for novice or youthful rocketeers; and, the 
notification process is likely to be cost intensive to the FAA, as the 
agency will be forced to process a presumably high number of waiver 
applications.
    The FAA disagrees that the notification process may prove too 
complex for novice or youthful rocketeers. Through voluntary compliance 
with the Model Rocket Safety Code, model rocketeers of all ages have 
proven a ready aptitude and willingness for ensuring launch safety and 
have demonstrated an awareness of how to knowledgeably operate 
scientific equipment. The effective handling of these important 
responsibilities is believed to be an accurate indicator of rocketeers' 
ability to adhere to the proposed notification requirements. The FAA 
acknowledges that the agency will incur costs in receiving, recording, 
and evaluating notification information; but, the agency determines 
these costs to be minor.
    Several commenters believe the FAA needs to update 14 CFR Part 101 
to reflect the current technology of model rocketry and to promote the 
inherent educational value of the hobby. According to the NAR, original 
model rocket limitations were set in light of what was the only 
foreseeable type of model rocket propellant at the time, black powder. 
Over the years, new propellant technologies have emerged that are 
vastly superior to black powder, both in terms of specific impulse and 
a capability to accommodate more complex payloads, e.g. cameras, radio 
control receivers, and computer equipment. One commenter mentions that 
it is difficult to construct these payloads while remaining within the 
present 16 ounce total weight limitation. Most commenters agree that 
the more diverse payloads available with larger-sized rockets present 
unique opportunities for promoting scientific study. Teachers and 
rocketry clubs report using larger rockets as educational aids. Science 
professionals use them in collecting data and conducting analysis. 
These groups believe their efforts help the United States remain 
academically and technologically competitive. As such, they assert that 
the FAA's proposed restrictions on large model rockets are 
counterproductive to scientific achievement and overall growth of the 
model rocket industry.
    Three major factors form the basis of the proposed amendment: (1) 
The FAA's support in fostering public interest in aeronautics through 
model rocketry; (2) the agency's recognition of the importance for 
model rocketeers to utilize state-of-the-art technology to enhance 
educational value and international competitiveness; and (3) the 
agency's responsibility to ensure aircraft flight safety. Accordingly, 
the proposed amendment reflects the FAA's desire to support the 
advancement of model rocketry while maintaining an assurance that 
larger and faster rockets do not jeopardize the safety of aircraft in 
flight.
    Several commenters oppose both the NPRM and NAR's original 
petition. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Air Transport 
Association (ATA) believe that the larger and more powerful rockets 
pose a potential threat to air traffic safety. Both organizations 
underscore the point that larger model rockets are capable of achieving 
aircraft cruising altitudes. In this regard, ALPA believes collision 
with a model rocket can cause aircraft damage beyond that ``comparable 
to the impact of large hailstones'' and that penetration of the 
aircraft wing skin is likely. For this reason, ALPA believes that the 
current provisions of 14 CFR Part 101 best ensure safety and recommends 
that the notification requirements be applied to any rocket firing 
surpassing 1500 feet above ground level (AGL), regardless of airport 
proximity. Additionally, ALPA recommends that a safety officer should 
visually survey rocket firings in controlled areas and manufacturers 
should provide a copy of applicable FAA regulations relating to launch 
activities. The ATA favors ensuring safety by permitting no unmanned 
rockets within a 30-mile radius of regulated airspace.
    The FAA acknowledges a minimal risk increase in hazard potential 
that accompanies the operation of larger, more powerful rockets. This 
minimal risk increase was confirmed by a March 1991 FAA study, Model 
Rocketry Hazard Study, conducted as part of the agency's analysis of 
in-flight collision probability between aircraft and model rockets. In 
concert with the study's final report recommendation, Notice 92-12 
proposed certain guidelines for large model rocket launches. These 
proposed guidelines, together with rocketeers' proven launch safety 
vigilance, effectively lessen the minimal risk increase in hazard 
potential associated with heavier model rockets.
    One commenter concurs with the safety concerns raised by ATA and 
ALPA and alleges that hazardous incidents have occurred with larger 
model rockets. This commenter believes that present technology offers 
model rockets sufficient propellant capacity so that the FAA should set 
a maximum allowable rocket weight of 3 pounds and hold propellant mass 
to a maximum 62.5 grams. To further ensure safety, this commenter 
recommends that the FAA establish clear, defined limits for model 
rocket construction material. The commenter contends that ``hi-tech'' 
paper and plastic are being used to construct more durable rockets than 
14 CFR 101 intends.
    No data was provided by the commenter to support the allegation, 
and the FAA has no other data which substantiates any occurrence of 
hazardous instances with larger model rockets. The FAA shares the 
viewpoint that model rockets only be constructed of paper and other 
breakable material. To reiterate this agency intent, Notice 92-12 
maintains the current language of Sec. 101.1(c), which outlines 
appropriate material for model rocket construction. However, to issue 
explicit direction on the manufacture of model rockets, which appears 
to be the commenter's suggestion, goes beyond the FAA's regulatory 
purview.
    Several commenters asked that the FAA create a uniform set of 
regulations pertaining specifically to model rockets weighing greater 
than 53 ounces launch weight.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenters' suggestions and concerns. 
However, since Notice 92-12 conveyed only those proposals contained in 
the original NAR petition. Recommendations to create an additional set 
of uniform rules specifically for model rockets would be a separate 
rulemaking action and is beyond the scope of this particular action.
    The NAR and several other commenters assert that an apparent 
typographical error in Notice 92-12 incorrectly reports the NAR's 
estimate of model rocket launches as 250,000 since the inception of the 
sport. Commenters state that the appropriate number, as submitted in 
NAR's 1985 study, is 250,000,000.
    The FAA has investigated the commenters' assertion and noted that 
Notice 92-12 reference was ``250,000 launches of model rockets since 
the inception of the sport . . .'' The estimate, as contained in the 
NAR report is, ``At the time the NAR's petition was submitted in 1985, 
NAR informed the FAA that more than 250,000,000 launches had been 
made.'' Because the number of launches of model rockets since the 
inception of the sport was not used in any FAA rulemaking calculations, 
the correct figure is hereby noted in this document and has no further 
bearing on this rulemaking activity.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Cost-Benefit Analysis

    The FAA has determined that this final rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'', as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 
Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and benefits associated 
with this final rule are summarized below. (A detailed discussion of 
costs and benefits is contained in the full evaluation in the docket 
for this final rule).

Costs

    The final rule for unmanned rockets consists of provisions that 
specify what persons operating certain model rockets (rockets using not 
more than 125 grams of propellant; made of paper, wood, or breakable 
plastic; containing no substantial metal parts, and weighing not more 
than 1500 grams including propellant) would be required to do. The 
final rule is designed to accommodate the advancement of model rocketry 
with regulations that will also provide an adequate level of assurance 
that such rockets will not jeopardize the safety of aircraft in flight.
    The FAA estimates that the changes in the final rule will have a no 
cost impact to users of model rockets. In fact, the changes might 
produce a cost savings. The savings associated with these changes, 
however are considered negligible and unquantifiable.
    Section 101.22(a)(2), however, may impose minor costs on the FAA. 
Persons operating model rockets will have to provide the information 
required in existing Sec. 101.25 to the manager of that airport and to 
the FAA ATC facility that is nearest the place of the intended 
operation. The FAA would then incur costs associated with receiving, 
recording, and evaluating the material that has been received. The FAA 
believes that these costs will be minor.

Benefits

    The final rule will provide benefits, in that the FAA has 
determined that the final regulations will accommodate the advancement 
of model rocketry and simultaneously provide an adequate level of 
assurance that such rockets will not jeopardize the safety of aircraft 
in flight.

Conclusions

    Based upon the fact that there are little or no compliance costs 
coupled with the potential benefits, the FAA concludes that the final 
rule is cost beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and 
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires 
agencies to review rules that may have ``a significant cost impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.''
    With regards to this regulatory evaluation, there is no cost 
associated with any of the amendments. The FAA has determined that the 
amendments contained herein will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The amendments apply to users of model rockets in the United States 
only. There is no economic impact resulting from any of the amendments 
and the FAA has determined that these regulations will not have an 
impact on international trade.

Federalism Determination

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements of part 101 were previously 
approved under OMB Control No. 2120-0027. This amendment makes only 
minor changes to those requirements.

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation 
Regulations

    In keeping with the U.S. obligations under the convention on 
International Civil Aviation (ICAO), it is FAA policy to comply with 
ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent 
practicable. The FAA has determined that this regulation complies with 
the ICAO SARP.

Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the 
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the 
International Trade Impact Assessment, the FAA has determined that this 
regulation is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866. This rule is not considered significant under DOT Order 
2100.5, Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). In 
addition, the FAA certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small 
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A 
regulatory evaluation of the final rule, including a Regulatory 
Flexibility Determination and Trade Impact Assessment, has been placed 
in the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the person 
identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 101

    Aircraft, Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Recreation and recreation areas.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration finds that it would be in the public interest to adopt 
the amendment as proposed. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 
delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 101 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 101) as follows:
    1. The authority citation for Part 101 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1348, 1354, 1372, 1421, 1442, 1443, 
1472, 1510, and 1522; E.O. 11514; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

Subpart C--Unmanned Rockets

    2. Section 101.22 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 101.22  Special provisions for large model rockets.

    Persons operating model rockets that use not more than 125 grams of 
propellant; that are made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic; that 
contain no substantial metal parts, and that weigh not more than 1,500 
grams, including the propellant, need not comply with Sec. 101.23 (b), 
(c), (g), and (h), provided:
    (a) That person complies with all provisions of Sec. 101.25; and
    (b) The operation is not conducted within 5 miles of an airport 
runway or other landing area unless the information required in 
Sec. 101.25 is also provided to the manager of that airport.
    3. Section 101.25 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 101.25  Notice requirements.

    No person may operate an unmanned rocket unless that person gives 
the following information to the FAA ATC facility nearest to the place 
of intended operation no less than 24 hours prior to and no more than 
48 hours prior to beginning the operation:
    (a) The names and addresses of the operators; except when there are 
multiple participants at a single event, the name and address of the 
person so designated as the event launch coordinator, whose duties 
include coordination of the required launch data estimates and 
coordinating the launch event;
    (b) The estimated number of rockets to be operated;
    (c) The estimated size and the estimated weight of each rocket; and
    (d) The estimated highest altitude or flight level to which each 
rocket will be operated.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 1994.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-24217 Filed 9-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M