[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13216-13246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6607]



[[Page 13215]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 401, et al.



Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53, Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 13216]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 401, 411, 413, 415 and 417

[Docket No. 28851; Notice No. 97-2 ]
RIN 2120-AF99


Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space 
Transportation (the Office) of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
Department of Transportation (DOT) is proposing to amend the licensing 
regulations for launching commercial launch vehicles. The Office 
proposes to amend its licensing regulations in order to clarify its 
license application process for launch vehicles launching from federal 
launch ranges. The proposed regulations are intended to provide 
applicants and licensees greater specificity and clarity regarding the 
scope of a license, and regarding licensing requirements and criteria.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: An original and four copies of comments on this NPRM should 
be addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28851, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments may also be 
sent electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following internet 
address: [email protected]. Comments may be examined in the Rules 
Docket in Room 915G on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Randall Repcheck, Licensing and 
Safety Division, (AST-200), Associate Administrator for Commercial 
Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, DOT, Room 5402a, 
400 Seventh Street, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2258; or 
Laura Montgomery, Office of the Chief Counsel, (AGC-200), Federal 
Aviation Administration, DOT, Room 10424, 400 Seventh Street, 
Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of NPRM: Any person may 
obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. 
Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. 
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future FAA 
NPRMs should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes 
application procedures.

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service 
(telephone 202-512-1661). Internet users may reach the FAA's web page 
at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's webpage at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs for access to recently published rulemaking 
documents.

I. Introduction

    By this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice or NPRM), the Office 
proposes to clarify license application procedures and requirements for 
conducting commercial space launches. This Notice provides information 
regarding the scope of a launch license with respect to expendable 
launch vehicles (ELVs) launching from federal launch ranges, the 
criteria for obtaining a license, and the underlying safety rationale 
for the Office's launch licensing regime.

II. Background

    The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 
Subtitle IX--Commercial Space Transportation, ch. 701, Commercial Space 
Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. 70101-70119 (1994) (the Act), authorizes 
the Secretary of Transportation to oversee, license and regulate 
commercial launch activities and the operation of launch sites as 
carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States. 49 U.S.C. 
70104, 70105. The Act directs the Secretary to exercise this 
responsibility consistent with public health and safety, safety of 
property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the 
United States. 49 U.S.C. 70105. The Office carries out the Secretary's 
responsibilities for licensing launches and the operation of launch 
sites, and for encouraging, facilitating and promoting commercial space 
launches by the private sector. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 70103. Prior to November 
15, 1995, the Secretary's responsibilities were implemented by the 
Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which was located within the 
Office of the Secretary in the Department of Transportation. Now, the 
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation is part of 
DOT's Federal Aviation Administration. When this administrative change 
was effected, the Secretary delegated this authority to the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and the 
Administrator redelegated this authority to the Associate 
Administrator.
    On August 4, 1994, President Clinton announced a new National Space 
Transportation Policy reaffirming the government's commitment to the 
commercial space transportation industry and the critical role of the 
Department of Transportation in encouraging and facilitating private 
sector launch activities. The Office's proposed rules, by offering 
greater specificity and certainty regarding licensing requirements and 
the scope of a license, should assist the launch industry in its 
business and operational planning. This will facilitate the private 
sector's launch activities by increasing certainty and by easing its 
regulatory burden.

A. Background on the Office's Commercial Launch Licensing

    The Office licenses commercial launches and the commercial 
operation of launch sites in accordance with 14 CFR Ch. III. In April 
1988, when the Office first issued final rules, no commercial launches 
had yet taken place. Accordingly, the Office established a flexible 
regime intended to be responsive to an emerging industry while at the 
same time ensuring public safety. The Office noted that it would 
``continue to evaluate and, when necessary, reshape its program in 
response to growth, innovation and diversity in this critically 
important industry.'' Commercial Space Transportation; Licensing 
Regulations, 53 FR 11004, 11006 (1988). Under the 1988 regulations the 
Office implemented a case-by-case approach to evaluate launch license 
applications. All commercial launches at the time took place from 
federal launch ranges. In conjunction with information guidelines 
describing the Office's application process, the Office's regulations 
reflected the intent of Congress that the Office evaluate the policy 
aspects and safety of a proposed launch. The Office followed a case-by-

[[Page 13217]]

case approach to performing these reviews, tailoring its information 
requests to the specifics of a given launch proposal.
    Since then, the Office has taken further steps designed to simplify 
the licensing process for launch operators with established safety 
records. For example, before issuing its final rules in 1988, the 
Office issued interim regulations, in which it had contemplated the 
possibility that ``one license could cover a specified series of 
launches where the same safety resources [would] support identical or 
similar missions.'' Commercial Space Transportation; Licensing 
Regulations; Interim Final Rule and Request for Comments, 51 FR 6870, 
6872 (1986).
    In 1991, the Office implemented this option by instituting a launch 
operator license for similar launches carried out by a single licensee. 
The launch operator license currently authorizes a licensee to conduct 
any number of launches within defined parameters over the course of a 
two year period. The Office has continued to apply a case-by-case 
analysis to licenses authorizing a single launch or to licenses 
authorizing a set of specific launches.
    The Office, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 70112, imposes financial 
responsibility requirements on a licensee, commensurate with the scope 
of the license, pursuant to which a licensee is required either to 
purchase insurance to protect launch participants in the event of 
claims by third parties and to protect against damage to government 
property, or to otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility. In the 
event that there were a launch accident and third party claims arising 
out of that launch exceeded the financial responsibility required by 
the Office, the Act contains procedures through which the government of 
the United States may pay those excess claims up to a statutory 
ceiling. See 49 U.S.C. 70113. The possible payment of excess claims by 
the government for damages related to a particular launch is commonly 
referred to, albeit erroneously, as ``indemnification'' of the launch 
industry. The payment of excess claims constitutes, in fact, only a 
provisional agreement by the government of the United States subject to 
conditions, including Congressional appropriation of funds.
    In order to enhance the Office's communications with the public, 
the Office developed an internet-based information system which 
provides the public with electronic access to the Office. The system 
provides on-line information to interested parties, and allows 
applicants, through a secure portion of the system, to submit 
applications and related documents electronically and to check the 
status of applications and licenses. The system currently contains a 
limited amount of information, but includes schedules of upcoming 
commercial launches, the Office's regulations, guidance documents, and 
research studies. The address is: http://www.dot.gov/faa/cst/.

B. Growth and Current Status of Launch Industry

    The number of commercial space launches has increased over the 
years since the first licensed commercial launch in 1989. As of 
February 21, 1996, fifty-seven licensed launches have taken place from 
five different federal launch ranges. Launch vehicles have included 
traditional orbital launch vehicles such as the Atlas, Titan and Delta, 
as well as suborbital vehicles such as the Starfire. New vehicles using 
traditional launch techniques include the Lockheed Martin Launch 
Vehicle (LMLV1) and Conestoga. Unique vehicles such as the Pegasus are 
also included in this count.
    New concepts for launch vehicles are proposed every year. For 
example, the Pegasus air-launched rocket has been developed since the 
passage of the Act. On the horizon are sea-launched rockets, balloon-
launched rockets, and partially reusable single-stage-to-orbit 
vehicles. McDonnell Douglas is developing the Delta III, the next in 
the Delta family of launch vehicles. Several companies are 
participating in partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) to develop the DC-XA and X-33 launch vehicles 
incorporating reusable and single-stage-to-orbit technology.
    Currently, commercial launches take place from federal launch 
ranges operated by the Department of Defense and NASA. Launch operators 
bring launch vehicles to federal ranges such as Cape Canaveral Air 
Station, Vandenberg Air Force Base, White Sands Missile Range or 
Wallops Flight Facility for launch. A launch operator obtains a number 
of services from a federal range, including radar, tracking and 
telemetry, flight termination and other launch services. Pursuant to an 
agreement between the federal range and the launch operator, the 
federal range has final authority over decisions regarding whether to 
allow a launch to proceed. A federal range operates pursuant to its own 
internal rules and procedures, and the launch operator must comply with 
those rules and procedures.
    The U.S. commercial space transportation industry faces strong 
international competition. Ariane, the European launch vehicle, 
continues to be the market leader, with other competition coming from 
China, Russia, and Ukraine. The U.S. industry still obtains a 
significant percentage of launch contracts, and approximately thirty 
commercial launches are planned within the next three years.
    Additionally, U.S. participation in international ventures is 
increasing. For example, International Launch Services (ILS), comprised 
of Lockheed Martin Corporation, Khrunichev Enterprise and NPO Energia, 
markets Russia's Proton rockets and the U.S. Atlas. Another 
partnership, Sea Launch Limited Partnership (Sea Launch), involves 
Boeing Commercial Space Company, S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space 
Corporation Energia, KB Yuzhnoye and PO Yuzhnoye Mashinostroitelny 
Zavod, and Kvaerner Moss Technologies a.s., which are U.S., Russian, 
Ukrainian and Norwegian companies, respectively. Sea Launch plans to 
launch commercial rockets from a modified oil rig located in the 
Pacific Ocean.

C. Current Proposal to Revise Licensing Rules

    With six years of experience in regulating the commercial launch 
industry, the Office initiated a process for standardizing its 
licensing regulations. Originally, when the Office first initiated its 
licensing program, the Office did not possess standardized rules or 
requirements. Accordingly, it evaluated each application individually 
to ensure that a proposed launch would not jeopardize public health and 
safety, the safety of property, U.S. national security or foreign 
policy interests or international obligations of the United States. 
Over the course of time, and with the input of licensees and federal 
launch ranges, the Office has evolved a standardized approach to 
licensing launches from federal launch ranges. Accordingly, the Office 
now proposes to implement that approach through revisions to its 
regulations.
    On October 13, 1994, in anticipation of issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking, the Office announced that it was holding a public 
meeting to obtain industry's views to assist the Office in developing 
an NPRM addressing specific requirements for launch and launch site 
operator licenses. Notice of Public Meeting, 59 FR 52020 (1994). The 
Office stated that it would streamline its launch licensing process by 
standardizing requirements and by codifying certain information 
requirements in its regulations. Id. The Office also advised the public 
that it would promulgate rules concerning

[[Page 13218]]

licensing the operation of a launch site. Id. Recently, the Office has 
been advised of a number of proposals for commercial operation of a 
launch site. The Office proposes to implement rules of general 
applicability for launch site operation through an additional notice of 
proposed rulemaking in order to foster certainty for this new industry 
as well. Id.
    The public meeting took place on October 27, and 28, 1994, and was 
attended by representatives of the commercial launch industry, payload 
companies, prospective commercial launch site operators, interested 
government agencies and the public. Comments received at the meeting 
and in subsequent written submissions to the docket proved informative 
and helpful. Public meeting participants expressed views on a number of 
topics, including the appropriate scope of a launch license and whether 
Office oversight duplicates that of the federal ranges. Comments on the 
nature of a safety review were directed for the most part to proposed 
new vehicle systems such as reusable and single-stage-to-orbit 
vehicles. Prospective launch site operators expressed their interest in 
a flexible licensing program, and addressed some of the particulars of 
risk management.
    After the meeting, participants took advantage of the opportunity 
to submit written comments. A total of thirteen written comments were 
received from a broad spectrum of the aerospace industry, including 
launch services providers such as Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas 
and Orbital Sciences, and from prospective site operators such as 
Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, Spaceport Florida Authority 
and the Western Commercial Space Center. The topics focussed mainly on 
integration of federal ranges into the licensing process, the scope of 
launch and site licenses, and the relationship between site operators 
and launch operators. The ideas expressed were consistent with those 
voiced at the public meeting, including the desire for a flexible 
regulatory regime, performance standards rather than design standards, 
and a strong interest in avoiding overlapping or conflicting government 
requirements.

D. Subsequent Changes to the Office's Rules

    The Office's regulatory agenda includes other issues as well as the 
launch licensing rule amendments proposed in this Notice. The first 
phase of the Office's agenda addresses industry's two most pressing 
needs: the Office's financial responsibility requirements, which are 
addressed in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking, and 
standardization of the Office's licensing requirements for launches 
from federal launch ranges. This Notice proposes to codify the Office's 
current launch licensing program, and to clarify how federally operated 
launch site services and approval processes fit within the Office's 
licensing regime.
    Future efforts will address other issues. The Office is aware that 
enterprises contemplating international ventures are interested in 
determining when a license is required. For example, if a U.S. citizen 
plans to launch from a foreign country, the Act requires that the U.S. 
citizen obtain a license to do so. If a U.S. citizen is conducting the 
launch in conjunction with a foreign entity, when does the involvement 
of the U.S. citizen reach the point that the U.S. citizen should be 
considered to be launching the launch vehicle? Must the U.S. launch 
operator have the right to make the lift-off decision or have control 
over the flight termination system before the Office considers the U.S. 
company to be launching the launch vehicle? Must the U.S. company 
participate in the manufacture or integration of the launch vehicle? 
Must the U.S. company possess the ability to impose requirements on the 
operator of the launch site? If the launch site operator is a foreign 
government does that divest the U.S. citizen of control over its launch 
to the extent that it cannot be said to be conducting the launch?
    To date, the Office has not received concrete proposals on these 
issues, but has instead dealt only with the paradigm situation of 
launch from a federally owned and operated range. There, the launch 
operator provides a launch vehicle, integrates the vehicle and payload, 
and prepares for launch. Although the federal range has final authority 
over whether flight may occur, the launch operator has the final 
decision over whether to commit to flight. As the Office has 
interpreted its responsibilities to date, this combination of 
activities and responsibilities amounts to the launch of a launch 
vehicle by the launch operator. Some or all of the activities which 
provide a basis for this conclusion may be necessary for the Office to 
make a determination that a launch operator is conducting a launch. 
Which specific activities are considered necessary elements of the 
conduct of a launch and which are not is a question the Office has yet 
to confront in the context of foreign involvement.
    The Office expects that the issue will arise not only in the 
international context but also in the context of launches occurring 
from commercial launch sites. The Office's initial view is that it does 
not want to compel the formation of business ventures in particular 
ways or distort business decisions by issuing rules regarding 
hypothetical situations, and will make decisions only on the basis of 
facts before it. The Office would, however, be interested in receiving 
additional information or opinions on this issue.
    The Office will also propose rules regarding licensing the 
operation of a launch site not operated by a federal launch range. The 
Office is conducting research on safety standards to govern the 
operation of a launch site. It is also analyzing the question of who 
requires a license to operate a launch site either at or near a federal 
launch range or at a location not associated with federal operations.
    The commercial launch industry has recently begun work on the 
development of reusable components or launch vehicles, although none 
are commercially available yet, and no applications to launch a 
reusable launch vehicle have been filed. In anticipation of future 
commercial development, and in order to develop standards in this area, 
the Office has begun a research program to develop safety regulations 
and standards. Until such safety standards and regulations are 
developed, the Office recognizes that licensing of reusable launch 
vehicles would be conducted on a case by case basis. The Office's 
recent move to the FAA should provide access to helpful ``lessons 
learned'' from regulation of aircraft. In the meantime, an applicant 
for a license to launch a reusable launch vehicle may rely upon parts 
413 and 415 to the extent applicable.
    The Office will address other issues in future rulemakings as well. 
The Office intends to update its administrative procedures and will 
institute new rules regarding compliance monitoring, enforcement, and 
investigation procedures. It also plans to update the amateur rocket 
exemption. In the longer term, the Office is also actively pursuing, 
through research and coordination with industry and other government 
agencies, regulatory concepts for reusable and single-stage-to-orbit 
vehicles.

III. Launch License

    The proposed changes to the launch licensing regulations address 
licensing requirements, including payload determinations and policy 
reviews, and information required from applicants

[[Page 13219]]

proposing to launch vehicles employing established technology and 
procedures from federal launch ranges. It is this segment of the 
industry with which the Office has the greatest experience and which 
has the most immediate need for greater specificity. The Office intends 
at this time to formalize its practice of issuing two different types 
of launch licenses, the launch operator license pursuant to which a 
licensee may perform any launches that fall within broad parameters as 
described in its license, and the launch-specific license, which allows 
a licensee to conduct only those launches enumerated in the license. 
The Office also intends to advise the industry of a proposed change in 
the Office's interpretation of the definition of ``launch'' and thus of 
the scope of a launch license.

A. Scope of Launch License and Definition of ``Launch''

    The Act requires a launch operator to obtain a license for the 
launch of a launch vehicle. Accordingly, the definition of ``launch'' 
reveals the scope of a launch license. Greater certainty regarding this 
definition will allow licensees to plan better regarding a number of 
issues. Because the Office's financial responsibility requirements and 
eligibility for payment by the United States of excess claims for 
liability for damages to third parties are coextensive with licensed 
activities, knowledge of the scope of a license allows a licensee to 
manage its risks appropriately and to make its own provisions for 
financial responsibility or insurance coverage in addition to that 
required under the statute.
    The Office's licensing authority derives from the Act, which states 
that a license is required ``to launch a launch vehicle.'' 49 U.S.C. 
70104(a). The Act defines ``launch'' as ``to place or try to place a 
launch vehicle and any payload--(A) in a suborbital trajectory; (B) in 
Earth orbit in outer space; or (C) otherwise in outer space.'' 49 
U.S.C. 70102(3). The word ``launch'' is commonly understood to mean 
ignition, lift-off and flight of a launch vehicle, as well as, perhaps, 
certain immediately preliminary activities such as countdown and other 
final steps necessary to effectuate flight.
    The Act does not provide for the licensing of all pre-launch 
activities. That the Act addresses pre-launch activities without 
mandating that they be licensed indicates that the statute did not 
contemplate licensing all pre-launch ground operations. For example, 
the Act discusses pre-launch activities in its definition of ``launch 
services.'' See 49 U.S.C. 70102(5). ``Launch services'' mean ``(A) 
activities involved in the preparation of a launch vehicle and payload 
for launch; and (B) the conduct of a launch.'' Id. The Act does not 
require, however, a license to provide launch services. The Act treats 
as distinct activities the preparation of a launch vehicle for launch 
and the conduct of a launch, but provides for the licensing of only the 
latter of those activities. Likewise significant is that preparatory 
activities described in the Act's ``launch services'' definition do not 
also appear within the Act's definition of ``launch.''
    The Office's current practice of licensing site operations 
associated with the conduct of a launch, commonly referred to as ``gate 
to gate,'' is to license all commercial, launch related activities by a 
launch operator operating within the gates of a federal range. Under 
this view, a launch operator's operations are licensed, even if 
ignition and flight are not imminent and even if the launch vehicle 
itself is not present at the range.
    ``Gate to gate'' evolved out of an industry desire for broad 
license coverage. Launch licensees requested some pre-flight coverage, 
and the question arose as to when that coverage began. The Commercial 
Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), which is composed of 
industry and public interest representatives, has historically advised 
the Secretary of Transportation that pre-flight activities should be 
eligible for indemnification because the risks could well exceed 
available private insurance. As is evident from testimony by the 
Director of the Office to Congress in March 1990, COMSTAC recommended 
as early as April 1989, that a licensee's insurance requirements cover 
third party claims from the time the licensee enters the federal range 
to conduct authorized launch activities. In September 1992, COMSTAC 
reaffirmed this view when it adopted the recommendation of its Risk 
Management Working Group regarding the scope of a launch license. The 
working group recommended that the Office's licensing authority 
``applies without limitation to all operations conducted by a 
commercial launch operator at a federal launch facility in connection 
with a licensed launch, commencing with entry onto the facility'' and 
the COMSTAC adopted this recommendation. COMSTAC Risk Management 
Working Group Recommendation (adopted Sept. 19, 1992, Full Meeting 
Transcript 83). In 1992, the Office reached an accommodation with the 
Air Force that an Office license extended ``gate to gate.'' At that 
time, the Air Force questioned whether the Office had licensing 
authority ``gate to gate.'' The Air Force agreed to accommodate the 
Office and industry by allowing the Office to evaluate a licensee's 
financial responsibility requirements gate to gate.
    This approach has been the Office's official position with respect 
to the scope of its licenses. On March 6, 1990, in testimony to the 
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications, Stephanie Lee-Miller, 
then Director of the Office, stated that the insurance requirements of 
an Office license covered claims from the time a licensee entered a 
federal range to perform authorized launch site operations.
    Other government sectors, including NASA, have criticized this 
approach as overly broad. In 1995, House Science Committee Report No. 
104-233, accompanying H.R. 2043, the NASA Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996, noted that members of Congress view with concern this 
approach to covering all licensee activities within the gates of a 
federal range, and considered it too broad.\1\ Although recognizing 
that the report language does not carry the force and effect of law, 
the Office is concerned that launch operators might be pursuing their 
pre-launch activities in reliance on an indemnification that must be 
enacted by Congress and that may or may not be available from Congress. 
This prompted the Office to revisit the issue of the scope of a license 
and, thus, necessarily, of the definition of ``launch.'' Accordingly, 
the Office hopes to reach a new and clear understanding of the meaning 
of ``launch'' and thus of the scope of a launch license through public 
discussion of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 1994, a House Space, Science and Technology Committee 
Report expressed the same sentiments. The report accompanied H.R. 
4489, the NASA Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, a bill that 
was not enacted into law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Office proposes to revise its current policy of 
licensing all commercial activities within the gate and to license 
only, as the Act mandates, the ``launch of a launch vehicle.'' Id. The 
definition of ``launch'' must therefore be stated with specificity. The 
Office has taken into account the views expressed at its public meeting 
and in subsequent written comments favoring an expansive approach, and 
proposes to define ``launch'' as broadly as possible while still 
remaining within the confines of the Act.
    At the public meeting, commenters' concern over the scope of a 
license was often grounded in the availability of indemnification. The 
then Martin Marietta advocated a very broad license

[[Page 13220]]

to allow indemnification to attach. Tr. II at 26.\2\ Orbital Sciences 
Corporation (OSC) requested that government indemnification be provided 
for preparatory activities as well as for flight. Comments of OSC at 5. 
Likewise, the 45th Space Wing of the Air Force favored extending the 
scope of a license to cover off-site payload processing in order for 
indemnification to apply. Tr. II at 43-44. The Air Force Space Command 
recommended that the Office license all commercial pre-launch 
processing activity occurring on federal ranges in order for the Office 
to impose its financial responsibility requirements. Tr. II at 36, 
Comments of Air Force Space Command at 2, 4. This recommendation stems 
from the Air Force's interest in minimizing any adverse impacts of a 
commercial launch accident on national assets. Comments of Air Force 
Space Command at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ References to ``Tr.'' mean that the information cited is 
contained in the transcript for October 27, 1994, the first day of 
the Office's public meeting. References to ``Tr. II'' mean that the 
information cited is contained in the transcript for October 28, 
1994, the second day of the Office's public meeting. The transcripts 
are available for public review and copying in Room PL 401, 7th 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters, including the 45th Space Wing of the Air Force, 
Orbital Sciences Corporation and the Western Commercial Space Center 
(WCSC)/California Spaceport Authority, suggested tying the license to 
hazardous activities rather than to geographical location or proximity 
in time to flight. Tr. II at 31, 43, 46, 53, Comments of OSC at 6, 
Comments of WCSC, Inc. at 2. USAIG, an insurance company, thought the 
point at which risks change the most appropriate means of definition. 
Tr. 53, 65. OSC advocated the inclusion of specific activities, such as 
integration, testing, fueling and mating of launch vehicles to carrier 
aircraft, in a license because the risks of fire or explosion are just 
as great for certain pre-ignition activities as they are subsequent to 
ignition. Comments of OSC at 6. OSC also advocated that air and ground 
launched vehicles be treated in an equivalent manner under the 
definition of ``launch.'' Comments of OSC at 6. Although not defining 
``launch'' in this fashion, OSC recommended that the Office license 
commence with the arrival of motors at the launch site for ground 
launched vehicles and aircraft roll forward on the runway for air-
launched vehicles. Comments of OSC at 1.
    Other public meeting participants urged the adoption of a more 
narrow definition of ``launch'' and thus of the scope of the license. 
For example, Spaceport Florida Authority (Spaceport Florida), deeming 
overly inclusive the licensing of any activity on a federal range, 
suggested that ``a launch activity is the final assembly of a launch 
vehicle with the intent to fly.'' Tr. II at 50. According to Spaceport 
Florida, the storage and maintenance of ordnance, while hazardous, is 
less dangerous than physical assembly of the launch vehicle. Tr. II at 
50. Martin Marietta Commercial Launch Services, opined that each launch 
vehicle possesses a significant launch event that begins its launch 
process, and that for an Atlas rocket that event might be when the 
booster is placed on the stand. Tr. II at 62.
    Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC) warned that even as 
industry received ``indemnification'' for a license with a broader 
scope, so would industry receive more regulation, which might, in the 
long run, prove more expensive than the benefits received from an 
expansive license coverage. Tr. II at 64, AADC Comments at 1. Likewise, 
Texas Rocket Company argued against licensing ``small sounding type 
rockets'' or any vehicle ``which at its maximum calculated range will 
not cross the launch range perimeter,'' thus exhibiting a lack of 
interest in the benefits of indemnification. Texas Rocket Company 
Comments at 1. Goddard Space Flight Center and Wallops Flight Facility 
of NASA and California Spaceport Authority noted that if hazardous 
activities occur outside of a federal range, other regulatory regimes 
exist to ensure safety, and did not consider necessary a DOT license 
extending beyond the boundaries of a federal range. Tr. II at 47, 53.
    In 1995, the House Science Committee also expressed an opinion on 
this issue, suggesting that ``launch'' could include ``activities that 
precede flight that (i) are closely proximate in time to ignition or 
lift-off, (ii) entail critical steps preparatory to initiating flight, 
(iii) are unique to space launch, and (iv) are inherently so hazardous 
as to warrant the Department's regulatory oversight under Chapter 
701.'' NASA Authorization Act, FY 1996, H.R. Rep. No. 233, 104th Cong., 
1st Sess., at 60 (1995).
    The Office considered three possible options in defining ``launch'' 
for purposes of developing proposed regulations. The Office considered 
adopting its current ``gate to gate'' definition but was concerned that 
``gate to gate'' created a false impression that indemnification would 
be available for all commercial pre-launch activities taking place 
within the confines of a federal range. The Office also weighed the 
most narrow approach, which would employ the ordinary definition of 
``launch'' as only those flight activities beginning at ``T minus 0 (T-
0),'' or intentional first stage ignition; but the Office concluded 
that this approach failed to provide regulatory oversight of hazardous 
activities and that policy reasons in the form of international 
competition weighed against this formulation. A less expansive approach 
than ``gate to gate,'' one within the scope of the Office's mandate, 
would include within a license those activities that are part of a 
launch as contemplated by the Act's directive to license the ``launch 
of a launch vehicle.'' Under the approach the Office proposes in this 
Notice, because risks change shortly after the launch vehicle or its 
hazardous components enter the gate of a federal launch range, launch 
would begin, for purposes of licensing, upon the arrival of that 
vehicle at the federal launch range. The following discussion describes 
each of these three options and summarizes their advantages and 
disadvantages.
1. ``Gate to Gate''
    Certain equities favor continuation of ``gate to gate'' as the 
definition of ``launch.'' The ``gate to gate'' approach constitutes an 
attempt to treat different launch vehicles similarly. Whether a launch 
vehicle undergoes hazardous integration significantly in advance of 
flight, as the Delta and Pegasus do, or closer in time as an Atlas 
does, a license covers the same pre-launch activities: all launch 
related activities performed by a launch operator within the gates of a 
federal range. Additionally, ``gate to gate'' licensing ensures that 
the Office requires launch operators to demonstrate financial 
responsibility through the purchase of insurance coverage or other 
appropriate measures for possible damage arising out of commercial 
activities to government property. ``Gate to gate'' licensing also 
receives support because of the view that a launch operator would be 
indemnified for damage to third parties caused by pre-flight and post-
flight ground operations.
    The Office will not define ``launch'' to encompass all pre-flight 
activities by a launch operator on a federal range because not all 
activities are part of the launch of a launch vehicle. A launch 
operator may be present on the range, and engaged in preparatory 
activities, but not be working on a launch vehicle or its component 
parts in preparation for flight. A licensed launch operator may be 
present at a federal range between launches. The Office is aware of 
launch operators who perform

[[Page 13221]]

construction activities within the gates of a federal range months or 
years prior to any anticipated flight of a launch vehicle. At that 
point, the launch operator may or may not be engaged in the type of 
hazardous activities warranting DOT oversight or indemnification 
because construction activity, however hazardous, is not part of the 
process of preparing the vehicle itself for flight.
    In support of ``gate to gate'' licensing it has been suggested that 
pre-launch licensing authority arises out of the Act's directive to 
license ``operation of a launch site.'' See 49 U.S.C. 70104(a). This 
argument does not, however, accord with the Office's interpretation of 
what it means to ``operate a launch site.'' Now that the Office is 
preparing to license commercial operation of launch sites, it is 
necessary to differentiate between safety and control issues. The party 
in control of a site must be authorized by license to operate that 
site. In the case of a launch taking place from a federal range, the 
launch operator is not, in fact, operating a launch site. The site is 
operated by the federal range, under whose rules the launch operator 
operates and from which launch operators must obtain clearances and 
approvals. Range personnel perform services, make decisions regarding 
the activities of the launch operator and enforce the range's rules. 
Control over the site rests with the federal range rather than with the 
launch operator, and the launch operator does not operate the site.
    In addition to exceeding the mandate of the statute, ``gate to 
gate'' also results in contradictory treatment of similarly situated 
persons. The situation of Astrotech Space Operations, L.P. (Astrotech), 
a payload processing facility, highlights this problem because 
Astrotech is located on a federal range, or ``within the gate,'' at 
Vandenberg and ``outside the gate'' at Cape Canaveral. Astrotech's 
licensee customers at Vandenberg may well believe they would be 
indemnified were there an accident arising out of hazardous vehicle 
integration activities in light of the fact that current license 
coverage is so extensive. Yet Astrotech in Florida, which is not 
located on a federal range, is unable to offer its customers comparable 
benefits, even though it performs the same functions.
    In sum, although there are benefits to ``gate to gate'' licensing, 
because ``gate to gate'' appears to encompass activities outside of the 
definition of ``launch,'' the Office proposes that a launch license for 
launch of a launch vehicle will not commence when the launch operator 
enters a federal range.
2. ``T Minus 0 (T-0)'' or Intentional First Stage Ignition
    The Office also considered defining ``launch'' as the word is 
ordinarily understood. This would limit the scope of a launch license 
to activities commencing at intentional first stage ignition. Were a 
launch license to cover only those activities, the launch industry 
would no longer be eligible for so-called indemnification for damages 
arising out of any preparatory activities. The regulatory burden, 
however, would be correspondingly less. A licensee would not, for 
instance, be required to obtain a license as early in the process as it 
must for gate to gate, nor would it be required to provide the Office 
as much information. Likewise, this approach would result in similar 
treatment of licensees regardless of the type of vehicle employed or 
the timing or location of hazardous activities. The Office carefully 
weighed this approach.
    Statutory support for a narrow definition of ``launch'' and a 
correspondingly limited scope for a launch license is strong. As 
discussed previously, the Act does not provide for the licensing of all 
activities related to launch. The statute distinguishes between the 
conduct of a launch and preparation for a launch, characterizing the 
combination as ``launch services,'' for which no license is intended. 
See 49 U.S.C. 70102(5). ``Launch'' may be defined using the ordinary 
meaning of the word. In fact, Arianespace provides an even later onset 
for the commencement of indemnification, defining the commencement of 
launch as the time at which cable clamps open and release the launch 
vehicle.\3\ This takes place after intentional ignition by several 
seconds. That launch starts at intentional ignition is supported by 
industry practice and by comments made at the Office's public meeting 
in October 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Arianespace indemnification for third party liability takes 
effect the day of the launch and continues for thirty-six months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public meeting participants displayed consensus on the definition 
of ``launch.'' The Space Transportation Association (STA), which 
includes a number of launch providers as members, recommended that the 
Office's regulation of launches be limited to the transport elements of 
a launch. Tr. 67, 108-09. STA observed that once a ``transportation 
service has been completed, * * *, at that point the service has been 
terminated and it's up to the user to complete whatever it has to do,'' 
noting that in other transportation industries other agencies deal with 
the particularities of the cargo. Tr. 108-09. According to STA, only if 
the payload itself were hazardous would there be a role for the Office. 
Tr. 109. McDonnell Douglas thought that not all on-site operations 
should be considered pre-launch. Tr. 115. McDonnell Douglas noted that 
OSHA already regulates much of the ground activity. Tr. 116. With 
respect to Orbital Science Corporation's Pegasus vehicle, NASA Wallops 
stated that the takeoff of an airplane does not constitute the 
beginning of a launch, and recommended that ``launch'' for such a 
vehicle commence when the rocket is released. Tr. 141-42. Orbital 
Sciences Corporation preferred a ``wheels up'' definition of launch not 
only ``because of the indemnification that it provides but because 
`wheels up' has been defined collectively as the stage zero of the 
mission.'' Tr. 144. In written comments, OSC, in the context of 
recommending that a license consist of two parts, suggested that launch 
begin at ignition or aircraft roll forward. Comments of OSC at 1. In 
short, there is not a great deal of variation regarding what ``launch'' 
is commonly understood to mean.
    Despite this consensus, the Office proposes to define launch more 
broadly, and, as the commenters suggested in the context of license 
coverage, define ``launch'' in accordance with the point in time at 
which risks change. Weighing the burden to industry of more regulatory 
oversight against the benefits to it of indemnification and the benefit 
to the public of enhanced public safety, the Office proposes to define 
``launch'' more expansively than the ordinary definition of the word 
would suggest. This would mean that the Office may license more than 
simply the ignition, lift-off and flight portions of a launch. 
``Launch'' would commence when vehicle components enter the federal 
range. Were the Office to define ``launch'' only in terms of ignition 
and flight, it would ignore the fact that it is shortly after the 
arrival of the vehicle or its component parts that the risks to 
government property and to the public increase. With the arrival of the 
vehicle begin the inherently hazardous vehicle integration activities 
such as fuel tank testing, fueling, solid rocket motor handling and 
processing, and the installation of ordnance.
    A strict construction of the Act would also ignore considerations 
of international competition. The Act charges the Office with 
encouraging, facilitating and promoting launches by the commercial 
launch industry of the United States. 49 U.S.C. 70103(b)(1). The U.S. 
launch industry competes internationally with European, Russian,

[[Page 13222]]

Ukrainian and Chinese launch vehicles. The European launch vehicle, 
Ariane, which is the market leader, provides indemnification to its 
payload customers commencing the day of launch and extending for 
thirty-six months on orbit thereafter. It is commonly understood that 
the French government would accept responsibility for the payment of 
damages that may be awarded for damage caused by Arianespace launches. 
For certain launches, the member states of the European Space Agency in 
turn indemnify the French government, and Arianespace is obligated to 
reimburse the French government for amounts up to 400 million French 
francs per launch for any damages the French government is required to 
pay. As the report of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation noted, foreign government support of national launch 
systems provides advantages to vehicles such as the European Ariane and 
the Russian Proton. See S. Rep. No. 593, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988). 
Although the Act does not provide indemnification for on-orbit 
activities of customers of U.S. launch vehicles, greater coverage of 
preparatory activities would provide U.S. companies some measure of 
competitiveness with respect to their foreign competitors. In the 
interest of providing American launch companies competitive parity, the 
Office proposes to define ``launch'' more broadly than the common 
definition.
3. Vehicle at the Gate
    The Office proposes to license as launch those preparatory 
activities that may be considered part of a launch. The Act defines 
``launch'' to mean ``to place or try to place a launch vehicle and any 
payload--(A) in a suborbital trajectory; (B) in Earth orbit in outer 
space; or (C) otherwise in outer space.'' 49 U.S.C. 70102(3). Although 
the Act differentiates between the conduct of a launch and launch 
services, and only directs the licensing of launches, the definition of 
``launch'' itself speaks only of placing or trying to place a launch 
vehicle and any payload into an orbit or otherwise in outer space. This 
definition is silent as to when the act of launching or of ``placing'' 
commences. Because the statutory definition is as broad as it is, this 
lack of specificity requires the Office to determine, in the 
implementation of its rulemaking authority and on the basis of its 
experience and expertise, when ``launch'' begins.
    The Office proposes to include within the definition of ``launch'' 
the flight of a launch vehicle, and those hazardous pre-flight 
activities that are closely proximate in time to flight and are unique 
to space flight. There are certain pre-flight activities so integral to 
the launch of a launch vehicle that they should be considered part of 
the launch itself even though they do not constitute flight. 
Additionally, there are hazards associated with pre-flight activity 
that are proximate in time to flight and unique to space flight. The 
Office's regulatory charter encompasses more than flight.
    In order to advance the interests of safety, the Office proposes to 
define the commencement of launch as the moment at which hazardous 
activities related to the assembly and ultimate flight of the launch 
vehicle begin, which, for purposes of consistency and clarity, the 
Office deems to be when the major components of a licensee's launch 
vehicle enter, for purposes of preparing for flight, the gate of a 
federal launch range from which flight will occur.
    Defining ``launch'' as the arrival of the vehicle at the gate is in 
accord with the proposals of a number of commenters, who suggested that 
the Office define ``launch'' to begin when hazardous activities start. 
The Office is charged by statute with protecting the public, and a 
definition that recognizes hazards will address concerns regarding 
public health and safety. Only if an activity is so hazardous as to 
pose a threat to third parties should regulatory oversight by the 
Office be exercised, and ``indemnification'' to recompense third 
parties be available. Because shortly after vehicle components arrive, 
hazardous activities related to the assembly and ultimate flight of the 
launch vehicle begin, the arrival of the vehicle or its parts is a 
logical point at which the Office should ensure that a launch operator 
is exercising safe practices and is financially responsible for any 
damage it may cause. These hazardous activities include, but are not 
limited to, fuel tank wet testing, ordnance installation, spin 
balancing and the stacking of motors. They are hazardous because they 
expose third parties and government property to risk of damage or loss.
    For purposes of ascertaining the start of launch, the Office 
reviewed the hazardous activities associated with the launch of a 
launch vehicle to determine when those hazardous activities started. It 
is the experience of the Office that commercial launch vehicles share a 
number of hazardous procedures, and that most of those procedures take 
place once the vehicle is at the launch site in order to minimize 
hazardous transport and exposure time.
    The Office prepared a study in 1994, available in draft, titled 
``Prelaunch Hazardous Operations for the Delta, Atlas, Titan at Cape 
Canaveral Air Station, Pegasus at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Conestoga 
at Wallops Flight Facility and Black Brant at White Sands Missile 
Range.'' Copies are available through the docket. The study analyzed 
similarities in the risk profiles for pre-flight processing of these 
vehicles, and compared the pre-flight processing timelines for the 
various vehicles. The results complement information available in the 
Office's ``Hazard Analysis of Commercial Space Transportation,'' May 
1988. The amount of damage that a vehicle may cause varies among 
vehicles, depending upon such factors as the mass of the vehicle, the 
number of stages, the presence and number of solid rocket motors, and 
the type and quantity of propellants. The launch vehicles studied and 
their pre-flight processing procedures are similar in that each has a 
similar hazardous potential.
    The study showed that even though pre-flight processing procedures 
and the sequence of those procedures may vary among vehicles, the 
vehicles studied share such pre-flight processing procedures as solid 
rocket motor handling and processing, flight termination system or 
separation ordnance installation and checkout, and fueling. These 
activities occur at different times for different vehicles. The 
likelihood of a mishap \4\ resulting from these procedures is similar 
for each vehicle. These procedures constitute hazardous operations that 
have an identifiable or otherwise quantifiable probability of 
occurrence (Po) of a mishap. The probabilities that these 
operations will result in a mishap are approximately Po=10-4 
to 10-5 for solid rocket motor handling and processing; 
Po=10-5 for flight termination system or separation ordnance 
installation and checkout, and Po=10-3 to 10-6 for 
fueling. ``Eastern Launch Site Safety Programs,'' Louis J. Ullian 
(Commercial Space Risk and Insurance Symposium, Cocoa Beach, Florida, 
Oct. 26, 1988). These probabilities are relied upon by launch 
companies, federal agencies and federal ranges for their analyses of 
hazardous operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``mishap'' encompasses unplanned events resulting 
in injury, occupational illness, or damage to or loss of equipment 
or property, or damage to the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The operations are considered hazardous because their processes may 
lead to identifiable mishaps and dangerous consequences. Solid rocket 
motor handling and processing may result in ignition of the propellant,

[[Page 13223]]

either explosively or otherwise. This may be caused by the 
unconstrained burning of a major portion of the propellant if a 
situation were to develop that did not allow the proper venting of the 
burning propellant. Casualties and property damage may result if an 
installed igniter initiates and causes an engine or solid rocket motor 
to become fully propulsive, as during flight. Casualties or damage may 
result from fire, explosion or toxic fumes that may be a by-product of 
combustion. These events may result in direct damage or casualties as 
the consequence of blast and debris effects. These events may also lead 
to secondary effects such as fires or explosions that may be caused by 
the direct blast and debris effects.
    Flight termination system or separation ordnance installation and 
checkout may result in lethal or damaging releases of energy. The 
inadvertent ignition of installed or uninstalled ordnance, including 
that of the flight termination system and explosive bolts installed on 
various separation systems could result in explosion and debris.
    Fueling may result in a range of consequences, including fires, 
either pool fires or fireballs, or the release of vapor clouds, which 
may be toxic or which may ignite. These events may occur because of 
leakage during fueling or spills during an accident. If such a mishap 
involves toxic propellants, toxic components of the fuels may be 
released into the atmosphere or spilled on the ground. If a vehicle 
releases its hazardous materials into the atmosphere, it could expose 
people at a launch site or in the public at large to those hazards.
    These findings are based on the Office's 1994 review of launch 
vehicle manufacturers' data, commercial launch baseline assessments, 
past maximum probable loss determination analyses and Ullian's 1988 
presentation at the Commercial Space Risk and Insurance Symposium. As a 
general rule, hazardous operations begin as soon as, or shortly after, 
a launch vehicle's major systems arrive at a government launch 
facility.
    The Office will continue to employ a geographic element by using 
entry of the launch vehicle onto a federal range as part of its 
definition of ``launch.'' This ensures consistency and clarity of 
interpretation. Consistency is guaranteed by the fact that regardless 
of vehicle type, each vehicle will receive the same regulatory 
coverage. Although some commenters maintain that launch begins at 
different points for different vehicles, because the Office wishes to 
treat launch operators in an equivalent fashion, the Office will not 
define ``launch'' on the basis of the launch vehicle. Moreover, 
reliance on a geographic element provides clarity of interpretation 
even for a launch operator of a new vehicle using different technology. 
An applicant seeking a license for a new vehicle will know to plan for 
license coverage at the time its vehicle enters a federal range.
    Additionally, the Office considers it inappropriate to license pre-
flight activities located outside of the federal range. Before the 
vehicle components are brought together at a federal range for 
integration or assembly in anticipation of flight, flight is not 
imminent and the separate components are thus not part of the process 
which Congress intended to protect through the risk management scheme 
of the Act. Additionally, it has not been shown that insurance is 
unavailable for manufacturing activities. Indeed, that commercial 
operations exist off-range to manufacture and process vehicle 
components and payloads indicates to the Office that the hazards are 
not so extreme as to stifle the development of facilities and services 
off a federal range.
    There are pre-flight activities that are unique to space flight and 
that may be considered part of launch, as the term is commonly 
understood. Countdown, for example, occurs prior to ignition and 
flight, yet may be considered part of a launch. Many of the activities 
that take place once major systems of a launch vehicle arrive at a 
federal range are unique to space flight as well. These include vehicle 
integration and testing, fueling and the other activities discussed 
earlier as hazardous.
    Another aspect of the Office's definition attempts to capture those 
activties that are proximate in time to flight. If activities are close 
in time to flight they are more likely to constitute necessary or 
integral elements of the launch. For example, fueling for liquid-fueled 
vehicles usually takes place not long before flight to minimize the 
risks attendant to the exposure of a fueled vehicle, and the Office 
would consider that activity to be a component of launch under the Act. 
On the other hand, the Office does not intend to license components 
stored at a federal range for a considerable period of time prior to 
flight. The Office is aware that the definition of launch may be 
construed to encompass motor storage as well. However, if motors arrive 
at a federal range for purposes of storage rather than as part of a 
launch campaign, the Office does not consider that storage part of a 
launch. The Office is interested in views regarding the ramifications 
of this approach to motor storage and with respect to any other 
activity which might arguably not constitute part of a pending launch 
campaign.
    Although initially producing licenses of considerable duration, the 
Office believes that its proposed ``vehicle at the gate'' definition of 
launch may, over time, result in licenses of shorter duration. As 
industry practices evolve, a vehicle's arrival at the range will be 
more closely proximate to the time of flight. Comments at the public 
meeting described industry's evolution toward ``just in time'' 
processing. A representative of the 45th Space Wing of the Air Force 
noted that launch operators are attempting to bring vehicle components 
to the range in final form with only some assembly required. Tr. II at 
33. Therefore, the arrival of vehicle components may eventually occur 
closer in time to ignition, lift-off and flight.
    Of interest to the Office are the answers to a number of related 
questions. For example, is it likely that the proposed definition of 
``launch'' might result in changed activity on the part of licensees? 
Would a licensee wait until its vehicle arrives to perform unrelated 
hazardous activities? If so, what are those activities?
4. When Does Launch End?
    The current practice of the Office is to define the end of a launch 
as the point after payload separation when the last action over which 
the licensee has direct or indirect control over the launch vehicle 
occurs. For a liquid-fueled stage, that point may be when any remaining 
fuel is emptied from the upper stage, and the vehicle tank is vented 
and otherwise ``safed.'' For solid rocket motors, that point may be 
when the upper stage is dead or inert and the payload is released.
    Others apply different definitions to the end of launch. The 1994 
House Committee Report suggests that launch ends when the payload is 
placed into orbit or in its planned trajectory in outer space. The 45th 
Space Wing considers a launch complete when all hazardous activities 
are secured and, for purposes of flight safety, upon orbital insertion. 
Tr. II at 66. Orbital insertion takes place when a launch vehicle 
achieves orbital velocity, or when its instantaneous impact point 
leaves the earth. McDonnell Douglas pointed out that there are a number 
of post-flight ground operations which would apply to reusable launch 
vehicles, such as draining propellants, pressuring down gas systems, 
securing all systems and refurbishing the launch pad. Tr. 90.

[[Page 13224]]

    The Office believes that defining launch to end at orbital 
insertion terminates oversight of a launch too soon for safety. Damage 
to other orbiting material may still ensue as the result of activities 
subsequent to orbital insertion. Risk exists of the possible collision 
of a launch vehicle or its components with other objects in space. The 
orbit of a launch vehicle may decay, and its possible reentry would 
endanger public health and safety and the safety of property on earth. 
Additionally, dangerous orbital debris might be generated.
    The Office proposes to retain its current practice of defining the 
cessation of launch. From a practical point of view, the Office 
believes that this definition keeps pace with technology. As the one 
with control over the launch vehicle, the licensee is in the best 
position to minimize the probability that the vehicle will cause harm. 
If improvements in technology increase a licensee's ability to control 
its vehicle, then the Office will expect the licensee to do so in a 
safe manner.
    With respect to ground operations, the Office's current practice is 
to consider post-flight ground operations part of a launch license and 
thus as part of launch. The Office does not propose to continue to 
regard post-flight ground operations for expendable launch vehicles as 
part of ``launch.'' The Office considered several options as to when 
ground operations were no longer considered part of a launch. Under the 
first option, ground operations would not be considered part of launch 
once the launch vehicle left the ground. Reentry activities aside, it 
has not been the Office's experience that post-flight activities 
involve the same levels of risk as pre-flight activities, where the 
handling, integration and fueling of the vehicle pose substantial 
hazards. Alternatively, ground operations for launch could end when 
launch ends in the context of flight, namely, when the last act over 
which the licensee has control occurs. This alternative would allow for 
at least part of the post-flight ground operations to be covered by the 
license. The end of launch for purposes of flight is not, however, 
related to activities on the ground. The Office is concerned that 
attempting to create such a connection would be arbitrary and might 
inappropriately influence a licensee's post-flight ground operation 
procedures. The third option considered by the Office was to define the 
end of ground operations for launch as that point at which all 
personnel may resume operations at the launch pad and related environs. 
This approach recognizes that hazardous operations do occur subsequent 
to ignition and lift off. These operations include securing ground 
propellant and pneumatic systems and verifying through inspection of 
the pad that no post-flight hazards exist. The operations cease upon a 
determination that the launch pad and other launch related facilities 
no longer endanger personnel.
    Because the hazards associated with ground operations subsequent to 
lift off are not related to the preparation of the vehicle for flight, 
the Office proposes to define the end of launch for purposes of ground 
operations as the point at which the launch vehicle leaves the ground. 
This analysis applies to expendable launch vehicles. For the time 
being, judgment is reserved with respect to reusable launch vehicles.

B. Formalizing Launch and Launch Operator Licenses

    In order to enable the Office to issue a license for a single 
mission or for multiple missions, the proposed licensing structure 
provides for two types of launch licenses, the launch-specific and the 
launch operator license.
    A launch specific license authorizes the licensee to conduct a 
single launch, or a specified number of identical launches, from a 
single launch site. The launch vehicle for each authorized launch must 
be the same and launch parameters must present no unique public safety 
issues or other issues affecting U.S. national interests. The 
licensee's authorization to conduct launches would terminate upon 
completion of all launches authorized by the license or the expiration 
date set forth in the license, whichever came first.
    A launch operator license authorizes the licensee to conduct 
launches from a specified launch site, using the same family of launch 
vehicles, carrying specified classes of payloads, within the range of 
launch parameters defined by the license. A launch operator license 
would authorize the conduct of launches for five years from the date of 
issuance.
    The option of issuing a launch operator license provides advantages 
both to the licensee and to the Office. Although the application 
preparation for and review of a launch operator license will be more 
extensive than for a launch specific license, use of this class of 
license will ultimately result in cost reductions and efficiency gains 
for licensees by reducing the number of applications that a company 
with an active launch schedule must submit, and that the Office must 
review. The Office's proposal to increase the term of a launch operator 
license from the current practice of two years to five years reflects 
the Office's experience with its licensees during the past few years.
    During that time, the Office has encountered no serious safety 
problems with launch operator licensees. On the basis of this record, 
the Office believes that a launch operator with a safe launch record 
should not be required to apply for a new license every two years. The 
Office will continue to verify, through compliance monitoring, that a 
licensee is operating in accordance with the terms and conditions of 
its license. In this regard, the longer the license term, the more 
important compliance monitoring is to enable the Office to remain 
informed regarding how a licensee implements its procedures.

C. Relationship Between DOT and Federal Government Launch Ranges

    The Office's proposed launch rules are limited to launches as they 
currently take place from Department of Defense (DOD) or NASA launch 
ranges. The Office intends to be receptive to the commenters' express 
desire to avoid duplication between the Office and the federal launch 
ranges in overseeing the safety of launches. The participants in the 
public meeting strongly supported avoidance of duplication of effort. 
The proposed rule is consistent with that desire. Although the Office 
proposes to require information and analyses not required by federal 
ranges to ensure that all flight safety issues are addressed, and to 
impose certain additional requirements derived from a National 
Transportation Safety Board investigation, the Office will not 
duplicate the safety assessments performed by federal launch ranges.
    Federal launch ranges manage the launch facilities from which 
commercial launches now take place. The federal ranges act, in effect, 
both as landlords and as providers of launch facilities and services. 
The ranges require compliance with their safety rules as a condition of 
using their facilities and services. Because different federal ranges 
confront different safety issues, practices are not always 
standardized, although recent Air Force efforts resulted in a joint set 
of documentation requirements and procedures, Eastern and Western Range 
Requirements 127-1 (Mar. 1995). In addition to protecting public 
safety, the federal launch range procedures protect government property 
and launch capability, and are designed, to some extent, to ensure 
mission success.
    Public meeting participants requested that the Office not duplicate 
federal range oversight. The Air Force itself

[[Page 13225]]

advised against a ``redundant set of requirements on commercial space 
activities on Federal ranges,'' and recommended that the Office 
``accept the approval of the responsible government agency at the 
launch site to satisfy all OCST safety approval requirements,'' with 
the exception of any information required to perform a financial 
responsibility analysis. Comments of Air Force Space Command at 1, 4. 
Orbital Sciences Corporation noted that ``National Range safety 
requirements have been developed over 30 years and OCST should feel 
comfortable adopting them as the core set of safety requirements needed 
to protect the public safety.'' Comments of OSC at 2. Others suggested 
that ``[l]aunch licensing should continue the general approach of 
requiring the minimal information needed to fulfill the mandates of the 
Act with regard to public safety, defense and international treaty, and 
environmental concerns.'' Weaver Aerospace Comments at 4.
    The Office fully recognizes the comprehensive and responsible 
safety oversight that DOD and NASA have exercised at their ranges for 
over thirty years. The Office also recognizes the scope of information 
that a launch operator employing federal range services must submit for 
approval in order to conduct launch operations. Therefore, for launches 
that take place from DOD or NASA launch ranges, the Office has designed 
its proposed regulatory program to make maximum use of information 
provided by an applicant to the federal launch range and of federal 
launch range analyses and approvals. This means that the Office would 
rely on the processes of the federal range and would not duplicate 
those safety analyses conducted by a federal range.
    Federal launch ranges require a launch operator to provide data 
regarding its proposed launch. The range evaluates the data to 
ascertain whether the launch operator will comply with range 
requirements. The range also uses the data to prepare range support for 
the mission. DOD ranges require that a launch operator apply for and 
obtain specific mandatory approvals from the range in order to conduct 
certain specified operations. For example, the Air Force's Eastern and 
Western Range Requirements 127-1 require a launch operator to obtain 
approvals for hazardous and safety critical procedures before the range 
will allow those operations to proceed. In the event that a launch 
operator's proposal does not fully comply with range requirements, a 
range may issue a deviation or a waiver if the mission objectives of 
the launch operator could not otherwise be achieved. A range may issue 
a deviation to allow a launch even when a launch operator's designs or 
proposed operations do not comply with range requirements. A range may 
issue a waiver when it is discovered after production that hardware 
does not satisfy range requirements or when it is discovered that 
operations do not meet range requirements after operations have begun 
at a federal range. A range will allow a deviation or grant a waiver 
only under unique and compelling circumstances.
    The Office performed baseline assessments of various federal launch 
ranges and found their safety services adequate. The Office will not 
require an applicant to demonstrate the adequacy of the range services 
it proposes to employ if the applicable baseline assessment included 
those services and if those services remain adequate. Certain showings 
regarding the applicant's own capabilities are still required. The 
Office proposes to require specific information regarding the interface 
between the safety organizations of a federal launch range and of an 
applicant. In the event that a service or procedure upon which an 
applicant proposes to rely is not within the documented experience of 
the federal launch range that the applicant proposes to utilize, the 
applicant would have to demonstrate the safety of that particular 
aspect of its launch. This is also true if a documented range safety 
service has changed significantly or has experienced a recent failure. 
In those cases, the burden of demonstrating safety shifts to the 
applicant.
    The proposed rules also codify Office guidelines containing 
National Transportation Safety Board recommendations concerning launch 
readiness and countdown procedures. The Office's guidelines implement 
National Transportation Safety Board recommendations made following an 
investigation of a commercial launch anomaly occurring during a launch 
from a federal launch range. These guidelines are designed to ensure 
that a launch licensee has clear lines of authority and communication 
during launch, and has specific procedures governing other safety 
aspects of its launch operations.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Part 401--Organization and Definitions

    Section 401.5 contains definitions of significant terms used in the 
Office's regulations. Proposed amendments include both changes to 
existing definitions and the addition of new terms. Certain changes are 
intended only to reflect changes resulting from the 1994 codification 
of the Act. Others are editorial.
Deletions
    The Office proposes to remove the terms ``Director,'' ``launch 
activity,'' ``mission,'' and ``safety operations.''
    ``Director'' no longer constitutes a title within the Office of the 
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation and is 
therefore deleted.
    ``Launch activity'' refers to activities licensed by the Office. 
The term is overly broad and unnecessary.
    ``Mission'' is no longer necessary because the Office proposes to 
modify and rename the mission review contained in part 415, subpart C.
    ``Safety operations'' does not appear in the proposed regulations 
and the Office therefore proposes to remove it.
Revisions
    Some of the proposed revisions merely reflect the codification of 
the Act. These include ``Act,'' ``launch site,'' ``launch vehicle,'' 
``payload,'' and ``person.''
    The Office proposes to revise the term ``launch,'' not only to 
reflect the codification of Pub. L. 98-575, but to clarify that launch, 
for purposes of licensing, includes the flight of a launch vehicle and 
those hazardous pre-flight activities that are closely proximate in 
time to flight and are unique to space flight. For launches from 
federal launch ranges, hazardous activities begin with the arrival of 
the launch vehicle at a federal launch range for purposes of 
preparation for flight. The term ``launch'' is addressed in greater 
detail earlier in this Notice.
    The definition of ``launch site'' reflects changes resulting from 
the codification of the Act, but additional clarification is in order. 
The definition of ``launch site'' in the original Commercial Space 
Launch Act includes ``facilities located on a launch site which are 
necessary to conduct a launch.'' 49 U.S.C. App. 2603(5) (emphasis 
added). The codified definition of ``launch site'' merely includes 
``necessary facilities'' with no mention of their location. 49 U.S.C. 
70102(6). According to a House Report explaining the codification, the 
statute omitted as surplus the words ``includes all * * * located on a 
launch site which are * * * to conduct a launch.'' Revision of Title 
49, United States Code, ``Transportation,'' H.R. Rep. No. 180, 103rd 
Cong., 1st Sess., at 463 (Jul. 15, 1994). Although no substantive 
changes were intended by the codification (see id. at 5), omission of 
``located on a

[[Page 13226]]

launch site'' from the law may create the impression that facilities 
may be located anywhere and still require a license under the statute. 
This is not the case. The Office does not believe that Congress 
intended to change the substance of the statute to provide for the 
licensing of all necessary facilities regardless of their location.
Additions
    New terms include ``Associate Administrator,'' ``federal launch 
range,'' ``hazardous materials,'' ``launch accident,'' ``launch 
incident,'' ``launch operator,'' ``mishap,'' ``Office,'' and 
``regulations.''
    ``Associate Administrator'' reflects a change in title of the 
person in charge of the Office and arises out of the transfer of the 
Office from the Office of the Secretary to the Federal Aviation 
Administration. The term describes the FAA's Associate Administrator 
for Commercial Space Transportation.
    ``Federal launch range'' means an installation from which launches 
take place that is owned and operated by the government of the United 
States. Federal launch ranges include Cape Canaveral Air Station, 
Vandenberg Air Force Base, White Sands Missile Range and Wallops Flight 
Facility.
    ``Hazardous materials'' means hazardous materials as defined in 49 
C.F.R. 172.101.
    ``Launch accident,'' ``launch incident,'' and ``mishap'' all 
address related issues. The term ``mishap'' is a general term for all 
unplanned events at a launch site or a launch resulting in injury, 
occupational illness, or damage to or loss of equipment or property. 
Mishaps include but are not limited to launch accidents and launch 
incidents. Launch accidents and launch incidents are included in the 
term ``mishap.'' ``Launch accident'' and ``launch incident'' derive 
from the Office's current definition of ``accident'' and ``incident'' 
as the terms appear in the Office's accident investigation plan. Both 
terms encompass unplanned events occurring during flight. ``Launch 
accident'' is defined by the seriousness of the results, and ``launch 
incident'' focusses on the failure of a safety system or process that 
may or may not have caused serious harm. Special reporting and 
investigation requirements attach if a launch accident or incident 
occurs. ``Accident'' is also defined in a Memorandum of Understanding 
with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A launch accident 
requires NTSB involvement. A ``launch incident'' may or may not require 
NTSB involvement, depending on the seriousness of the safety issues 
involved. Other mishaps, such as a mission failure, have fewer 
reporting and investigation requirements.
    ``Launch operator'' is defined as a person who launches or plans to 
launch a launch vehicle and any payload. The term is required in order 
to distinguish a launch operator from a ``site operator,'' a term that 
the Office intends to define in a future rulemaking concerning the 
operation of a launch site.
    ``Office'' means the office of the Associate Adminsitrator for 
Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
U.S. Department of Transportation.
    ``Regulations'' means regulations adopted by the Office pursuant to 
the Act, and describes those regulations contained in 14 CFR Chapter 
III.

B. Part 411--Policy

    The Office proposes to delete as unnecessary and to reserve part 
411, which establishes the policies of the Office for licensing 
commercial launch activities. This part identifies two reviews, safety 
and mission reviews, which, pursuant to the proposed rules, would be 
addressed in parts 413, 415 and 417.

C. Part 413--License Application Procedures

    Proposed part 413 continues to describe those license application 
procedures applicable to all license applications. The procedures apply 
to license applications to launch a launch vehicle or to operate a 
launch site. More specific requirements applicable to obtaining a 
launch license or site operator license are set forth in parts 415 and 
417, respectively. The majority of the revisions to this part are 
editorial or self-explanatory. A few revisions bear individual mention.
    Proposed Sec. 413.3 identifies who must obtain a license to launch 
a launch vehicle or to operate a launch site. Any person proposing to 
launch a launch vehicle or to operate a launch site within the United 
States must obtain a license authorizing the launch or the operation of 
the launch site. A U.S. citizen or entity proposing to launch outside 
the United States or to operate a launch site outside of the United 
States must obtain a license authorizing the launch or the operation of 
the launch site. A foreign corporation, partnership, joint venture, 
association or other foreign entity controlled by a U.S. citizen and 
proposing to launch from, or to operate a launch site within, 
international territory or waters must obtain a license if the United 
States does not have an agreement with a foreign nation providing that 
the foreign nation shall exercise jurisdiction. A foreign corporation, 
partnership, joint venture, association or other foreign entity 
controlled by a U.S. citizen does not require a license to launch from 
foreign territory, unless that foreign nation has agreed that the U.S. 
shall exercise jurisdiction over the launch.
    Proposed Sec. 413.5 requires a prospective applicant to consult 
with the Office prior to submitting an application. This pre-
application consultation would become mandatory in order to allow both 
the applicant and the Office the opportunity to identify potential 
issues relevant to the Office's licensing determination. Consultations 
may be made by telephone.
    Proposed Sec. 413.7 contains a change in the name of the Office. 
Effective November 15, 1995, the Office became a part of the Federal 
Aviation Administration, where it now operates as the FAA's seventh 
line of business. With that move, the Office name was changed from the 
Office of Commercial Space Transportation to the Office of the 
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. Proposed 
Sec. 413.5(a) reflects that change.
    Proposed Sec. 413.7(b)(2) requires an applicant to provide the 
Office with one or more points of contact who should receive notices 
from the Office.
    Proposed Sec. 413.9 describes how an applicant may request 
confidential treatment for trade secrets or proprietary commercial or 
financial data.
    Proposed Sec. 413.11 describes the process by which applications 
are accepted or rejected. Proposed Sec. 413.11(a) provides for an 
initial screening of an application in order for the Office to 
determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to allow the 
Office to initiate the required reviews. The Act requires the Office to 
complete its review of an application within 180 days. The Office 
determines when an application is sufficiently complete for the 180 
days review period to commence and how those 180 days will be measured. 
If the Office receives an application which fails to provide sufficient 
information for the Office to conduct a meaningful review, then a 
review cannot be performed. Accordingly, the 180-day review period will 
start to run only upon receipt of an acceptable application. The Office 
considered the option of not commencing any review of an application 
and thus of not starting to count the 180-day statutory time limit 
until the application was complete to ensure that the Office did not 
receive piecemeal applications. The Office also considered rejecting or 
denying an incomplete application, which would

[[Page 13227]]

also prevent the 180-day review period from commencing. The Office 
determined that if an applicant presented sufficient material to allow 
at least some meaningful review to commence, the Office would do so in 
the interests of the applicant. Commencing the review of even an 
incomplete application should allow for earlier identification of 
required information not addressed, hasten the process and increase 
efficiency. In order for the Office to review an application, the 
application must be sufficiently complete to allow review to commence. 
Although review of an incomplete application may commence, proposed 
Sec. 413.13 requires an applicant to complete an incomplete 
application.
    Proposed Sec. 413.15 tolls the review period of 180 days when an 
applicant fails to provide information required for the Office to 
complete its review. If an application does not address requests for 
required information in sufficient detail, or if the application 
contains inconsistencies, the Office may advise the applicant and 
provide a time by which the requested information must be provided. 
Once the deadline has passed, and while the Office waits for any 
information necessary to complete its review, the 180-day time limit on 
the Office does not run. The Office considered the option of returning 
the application for resubmission if the requested information were not 
submitted within the time provided. Because of the new submission of 
the application, a new 180-day review period would commence. This 
course would provide the applicant a strong incentive to respond to the 
Office's information request in a timely fashion, and, perhaps, result 
in the processing of only those applications where the applicant 
possesses the actual capacity to respond. This would accordingly 
discourage frivolous applications. The Office determined that most 
applicants, provided with information regarding how soon the Office 
would require information necessary to complete a review, would respond 
in the time allotted. Thus, so extreme an incentive would not be 
required. However, it has been the Office's experience that applicants 
do not always respond in a timely fashion to requests from the Office 
for clarification or additional information. Accordingly, some 
incentive to respond promptly is necessary, and in the event an 
applicant fails to respond within the time provided, the Office 
proposes to toll the 180-day statutory review period.
    Proposed Sec. 413.17 describes an applicant's responsibility for 
the continuing accuracy and completeness of the information contained 
in the applicant's license application. The applicant must advise the 
Office of any proposed material change in any representation contained 
in its application, including its launch plans or operations, launch 
procedures, classes of payloads, orbital destinations, safety 
requirements, the type of launch vehicle, flight path, and range, or 
any safety related system, policy, procedure, requirement, criteria or 
standard, related to commercial space launch or launch site operation 
activities, that may affect public health and safety, the safety of 
property, including government property, or hazards to the environment. 
Because the Office proposes to rely upon federal ranges for safety 
considerations, as discussed in other parts of this Notice, the 
applicant must also notify the Office in the event the applicant 
applies to the federal range for a waiver to, or deviates from the 
federal range's safety requirements or procedures.
    This section also, while permitting an applicant to modify or 
supplement its license application, notes that changes to an 
application may lengthen the time that the Office requires to complete 
its reviews. The Office will reserve to itself the right to toll the 
180-day review period in the event that modifications to an application 
so radically change the applicant's proposal that the change, in 
effect, constitutes a new application. The Office's experience, 
however, has been that most modifications, while important, have a 
relatively minor impact on the processing time, particularly if those 
modifications are submitted in a timely manner.
    Proposed Sec. 413.19 addresses issuance of a license.
    Proposed Sec. 413.21 contains the procedures employed by the Office 
when it denies an applicant a license, and describes the recourse 
available to that applicant. The applicant may attempt to correct the 
deficiencies which resulted in the denial of its application and 
request reconsideration of its application, or it may request a hearing 
to show why the application should not be denied.
    Proposed Sec. 413.23 allows a licensee to apply for renewal of an 
expiring license. A licensee seeking authorization to conduct 
activities that are substantially or significantly different from those 
authorized under the expiring license is not eligible for renewal of 
the license and must apply for a new license.

D. Part 415--Launch License

    Proposed part 415 establishes requirements applicable to obtaining 
a license to launch a launch vehicle and establishes post-licensing 
requirements. The provisions of this part apply to prospective and 
licensed launch operators and, possibly, to prospective payload owners 
and operators, and should be read in conjunction with the general 
application requirements of part 413. A flow chart of the launch 
license application process is provided in Figure 1.
    Proposed subpart A describes the scope and types of launch 
licenses, required approvals or determinations and procedures governing 
issuance or transfer of a launch license. Proposed Sec. 415.1 explains 
that part 415 prescribes requirements for obtaining a launch license 
and prescribes post-licensing requirements. Proposed Sec. 415.3 
addresses the types of launch licenses issued, as discussed previously 
in this Notice.
    Proposed Secs. 415.5 and 415.7 identify the approvals and 
determinations required to qualify for a launch license. These sections 
would require a license applicant to obtain policy and safety approvals 
from the Office. The applicant would also be required to obtain a 
payload determination unless the payload were otherwise exempt from 
Office consideration. The owner or operator of the proposed payload may 
also apply for a payload determination. In addition to these approvals 
or determinations that the Office requires of an applicant for a launch 
license, an applicant should bear in mind that the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Office, prior to 
considering a license application, to perform environmental reviews of 
major federal actions such as issuing a launch license. Accordingly, if 
a proposed launch vehicle is not otherwise already encompassed by the 
Office's 1986 Programmatic Environmental Assessment of Commercial 
Expendable Launch Vehicle Programs, then NEPA may direct the Office to 
perform the requisite environmental review. No other approvals or 
determinations are required from the Office in order for an applicant 
to obtain a license for launch of a launch vehicle.
    This subpart also contains provisions for issuance and transfer of 
a launch license. Once an applicant has obtained all required 
approvals, the Office will issue a launch license under proposed 
Sec. 415.9. Proposed Sec. 415.11 allows the Office to amend a launch 
license at any time by modifying or adding terms and conditions to the 
license to ensure compliance with the Act and regulations. Although 
standard license terms and conditions, as proposed in subpart E, apply 
to all licensees, it is the experience of the Office that a particular

[[Page 13228]]

launch proposal or a particular licensee may present unique 
circumstances which apply only to that licensee. In that event, the 
Office may issue or amend a license with terms and conditions not 
identified in subpart E to protect public health and safety, safety of 
property, U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, or 
international obligations of the United States. Should a licensee wish 
to protest an Office modification of its license, it is entitled to a 
hearing pursuant to Sec. 406.1(a)(3) of part 406. In the event safety 
requires that additional terms and conditions be applied to all 
licensees, the Office would revise subpart E by rulemaking to implement 
any such standardized terms. A licensee may also initiate license 
modification. As provided in part 413, a licensee may request 
modification of its license to reflect changes in its proposed 
launches.
    Under proposed Sec. 415.13 only the Office may issue or transfer a 
license, and only upon application by the transferee. The prospective 
transferee must satisfy all requirements for obtaining a license as 
specified in parts 413 and 415.
    Subpart B describes the proposed requirements for a policy review. 
The proposed policy review is currently known as a mission review under 
14 CFR part 411. Because the Office proposes to separate a payload 
determination from any mission review, it proposes to change the name 
of the review to policy review to more accurately identify its purpose. 
Under proposed Secs. 415.21 and 415.23, a policy review would address 
whether some aspect of a proposed launch presented an issue affecting 
U.S. national security or foreign policy interests or is inconsistent 
with international obligations of the United States. Launch safety 
issues would be addressed only in the safety review although the Office 
proposes to address payload safety issues in the course of a payload 
determination. Only a launch license applicant may request a policy 
approval. An applicant must provide the information required by subpart 
B so that the Office may review those aspects of an applicant's launch 
proposal that are not related to safety. The Office coordinates this 
review with other government agencies, including the Departments of 
Defense, State, and Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission. An applicant 
may choose to submit an application for policy review separately from 
its license application, or, as do most applicants, it may submit a 
complete license application. The Office proposes to allow separate 
submission of a request for a policy review because of the possibility 
that an applicant might be uncertain about policy issues surrounding 
its proposal, and might wish to allay concerns over reactions to its 
proposed launch. An applicant might then request only a policy review 
prior to undertaking the additional effort necessary to prepare a 
complete license application. Past experience indicates that the Office 
accomplishes mission reviews relatively quickly in comparison with a 
safety review.
    Proposed Sec. 415.25 describes the information an applicant would 
be required to provide to obtain a policy approval. The information 
requested reflects current Office information requests. The Office 
requires this information in order to inform itself and other agencies 
as to what is being launched, by whom, for what purpose, and where a 
vehicle and its payload are going. The State Department, for example, 
may be interested in overflight issues regarding particular countries. 
Accordingly, the Office proposes to require that an applicant supply it 
with sufficient information to describe a proposed launch vehicle and 
its mission.
    The information requested by proposed Sec. 415.25(b) is required in 
the event there are any policy issues surrounding the launch vehicle 
itself. The Office requires a brief description of the launch vehicle, 
including the propellants used and the vehicle's major systems, such as 
its structural, pneumatic, propulsion, electrical or avionics systems. 
For example, policy questions may arise over the use of nuclear power. 
The Department of Defense may have concerns over the allocation of 
resources to a commercial launch if a sole source manufacturer is 
involved. The Office is interested in views regarding whether this 
level of detail is overly burdensome.
    The information requested by proposed Sec. 415.25(c)(2) is intended 
to provide the Departments of State and Defense the identities of any 
foreign interests involved in a licensed launch. These agencies express 
interest in foreign involvement in the U.S. launch industry. Also, 
there may be issues with respect to whether possible government payment 
of excess third-party claims is available to foreign launch 
participants. The Office proposes to request the identity of any 
foreign owners possessing a ten percent or greater interest in a 
license applicant. The Office believes that a ten percent ownership 
interest is sufficiently high for a foreign owner to be able to 
influence a prospective licensee. The Office is aware that a publicly 
traded corporation will not always know the identity of each of its 
smaller shareholders. However, such an applicant should be aware of any 
shareholders possessing that significant an interest in the 
corporation. Reporting requirements of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission and the Department of Defense are often triggered by an 
ownership interest of ten percent or more and the Office believes that 
this constitutes a reasonable threshold. The Office is interested in 
comments addressing whether a ten percent threshold provides sufficient 
information concerning the ability of foreign interests to influence 
licensee decisions.
    Proposed Sec. 415.25(d)(3) requires information regarding the 
sequence of major launch events during flight. In this regard, the 
Office expects to be informed of events such as approximate engine burn 
times of all stages, stage separation events, yaw maneuvers and engine 
cutoff. The applicant may provide this information through a text 
explanation or through diagrams and charts.
    Proposed Sec. 415.25(d)(4) requests a description of the range of 
nominal impact areas for all spent motors and other discarded mission 
hardware. The area identified for each impacting component shall 
include that area within three standard deviations of the nominal 
impact point, a calculation otherwise known as a 3-sigma footprint.
    Proposed section 415.27 contains procedures employed by the Office 
when it denies an applicant a policy approval and describes the 
recourse available to that applicant. If an applicant fails to obtain a 
policy approval, the applicant may attempt to correct the deficiencies 
which resulted in the denial and request reconsideration of the denial, 
or, upon denial of a license, it may request a hearing.
    Proposed subpart C addresses the Office's safety evaluation process 
for license applications for launches from a federal launch range. 
Because of the history and safety record of the federal launch ranges, 
and because the Office's baseline assessments provide a written record 
of the federal launch range's experience relevant to commercial space 
transportation, the Office accepts that a federal launch range will 
perform its safety role. Accordingly, the Office's information 
requirements are directed more toward an applicant's own safety 
capabilities. The Office requires information regarding the applicant's 
safety organization, vehicle design and operational safety practices. 
In this

[[Page 13229]]

subpart the Office proposes standards regarding acceptable flight risk 
and requires an applicant to submit procedures and plans that 
demonstrate that it will satisfy certain other safety requirements if 
it obtains a license.
    The Office recognizes that federal launch ranges provide a number 
of safety services for launch operators, and that these sites have an 
historically good record of safety. Proposed Sec. 415.31 explains that 
the Office will issue a license to an applicant proposing to launch 
from a federal launch range if the applicant satisfies the requirements 
of subpart C and has contracted with the federal launch range for the 
provision of launch services and property, as long as the launch 
services and proposed use of property are within the experience of the 
federal launch range. All other safety services and property associated 
with an applicant's proposal are evaluated on an individual, case by 
case basis.
    The Office has assessed the four federal launch ranges which 
provide launch services and facilities. The federal ranges assessed 
include Cape Canaveral Air Station, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Wallops 
Flight Facility and White Sands Missile Range. The Office does not 
duplicate federal launch range analyses nor routinely review those 
analyses during the launch safety review conducted by the Office. 
Instead, the Office relies on its knowledge of the range processes as 
documented in the Office's baseline assessments. The Office's 
assessments provide a basis for the Office's reliance on the adequacy 
of the services provided by each of the federal launch ranges. Some 
safety issues, however, may not be adequately addressed by a federal 
launch range. The failure of federal launch range safety systems or 
procedures may, for example, affect the Office's ability to rely on a 
federal launch range. The Office may ascertain this during the course 
of a pre-application consultation or once an applicant submits its 
application. The Office may then require the applicant to demonstrate 
safety with respect to those specific areas of concern on an individual 
or case by case basis. In addition to requiring a showing of safety 
from the applicant, the Office will also work with the federal launch 
range to address the issue, and will update the Office's baseline 
assessment as appropriate.
    The Office also makes maximum use of the information an applicant 
must provide a federal launch range. The applicant, to save paperwork, 
may submit to the Office either entire, or appropriate sections of, 
documents it prepares and submits to the federal launch range that are 
relevant to the applicant's launch application. It has been the 
Office's experience that because information requested by federal 
launch ranges provides greater detail than the Office requires, the 
Office's requirements may be satisfied by this material.
    To aid applicants in identifying those sections of documents 
submitted to federal launch ranges that are relevant to the applicant's 
launch application, the Office has prepared ``Comparison of OCST Safety 
Approval Requirements for Launches from a Federal Launch Range with Air 
Force Range User Requirements.'' Figure 2. This comparison may be used 
by an applicant as a guide to satisfying subpart C requirements. It is 
illustrative only, and where it appears to conflict with the proposed 
regulations, the regulations govern. Although the comparison applies 
only to launch ranges operated by the Air Force, the Office intends it 
to be helpful for applicants using all federal launch ranges. The 
Office plans to prepare similar matrices for other federal launch 
ranges in the near future, and invites industry comments on this 
approach.
    Proposed Sec. 415.33 requires an applicant to document its safety 
organization. The applicant must possess a functioning safety 
organization because an applicant cannot ensure safety without someone 
designated as responsible for safety issues. The Office will evaluate 
whether the structure, lines of communication, and approval authority 
the applicant establishes will enable the applicant to identify and 
address safety issues and to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
range safety and the Office's regulations. How the federal launch 
range's safety services are integrated with the licensee is also 
relevant. The Office expects that for launches from federal launch 
ranges the applicant will structure its safety organization to ensure 
compliance with federal launch range requirements, such as, for 
example, Eastern and Western Range Regulation 127-1 for Air Force 
launch ranges. The Office believes that charts are the most efficient 
way to depict much of the required information. An applicant should 
include one or more, as appropriate, organizational charts that will 
delineate the lines of communication and the internal decision making 
process. In providing this information, the applicant should include 
those services of the federal launch range upon which the applicant 
proposes to rely, and those of any other organization providing flight 
safety services. The applicant's description must include interfaces 
with the federal launch range and should explain how the safety 
policies and procedures of all segments of the safety organization 
identified above will be implemented.
    Proposed Sec. 415.33(b) would require an applicant to have a safety 
official possessing safety authority. In order to keep safety concerns 
separate from mission goals, the person responsible for safety should 
have the ability to perform independently of those parts of the 
applicant's organization responsible for mission assurance, and should 
also have the authority to report directly to the person in charge of 
licensed launches. The safety official should be identified by title or 
position and by qualifications rather than by name.
    Although risk is inherent in the launch of a launch vehicle, 
proposed Sec. 415.35 establishes limits on how much risk the Office 
will allow for a commercial launch. Proposed Sec. 415.35 explains that 
acceptable flight risk through orbital insertion is measured in terms 
of collective risk. Collective risk constitutes the sum total risk to 
that part of the public which constitutes an exposed population over a 
region exposed to a launch. The public includes everyone except 
essential launch area personnel. Accordingly, government personnel who 
are not essential to a launch are defined as the public for purposes of 
measuring acceptable risk. The Office proposes to prohibit certain 
eventualities to reduce flight risk following orbital insertion.
    Pursuant to proposed Sec. 415.35(a), the collective risk associated 
with an applicant's proposed launch, measured by expected casualty 
(Ec), shall not exceed 30  x  10-6. The Office's proposed 
risk threshold reflects acceptable collective risk. Individual annual 
risk describes the probability of serious injury or death to a single 
person, and is, perhaps, the more common measure of risk. The launch 
industry's common measure of risk is collective risk, which may then be 
measured as individual risk in light of the factors associated with any 
given launch. Individual risk may be correspondingly less than 
collective risk, depending on the size of the population exposed. This 
means that a collective risk of Ec of 30  x  10-6 is more 
strict than an individual risk of 1  x  10-6 (1 per million). For 
example, with a collective risk of 30  x  10-6, and a population 
of one hundred thousand exposed to a particular launch, the risk to any 
one individual is .3  x  10-9 (three tenths per billion). For 
purposes of comparison, the Office notes that the Air Force describes 
the collective risk level proposed as no greater than that

[[Page 13230]]

voluntarily accepted in normal daily activity. Eastern and Western 
Range 127-1 Range Safety Requirements, Sec. 1.4, 1-12 (Mar. 31, 1995). 
For example, a person has a one in 600,000 chance over a lifetime of 
being hit by lightning, which is a greater risk than the Office 
proposes to allow for launch. The Office invites public comment 
regarding the adequacy, for purposes of safety, of the standard it 
proposes.
    This standard derives from launch risk guidance employed by the Air 
Force at Cape Canaveral Air Station and Vandenberg Air Force Base to 
define acceptable risk. The Office proposes to adopt this standard 
because the Office believes that commercial launches should not expose 
the public to risk greater than normal background risk. NASA employs an 
Ec of 1  x  10-6 at its Wallops Flight Facility, for the 
launch of small launch vehicles. Only a few commercial launches have 
taken place at Wallops since 1988. Rather than employing the standard 
used by NASA for its Wallops launches, the Office decided to use the 
Air Force standard, reflecting as it does the standard already in place 
for the majority of commercial U.S. launches, and for the majority of 
government launches of vehicles of a comparable size. No casualties 
arising out of a government or commercial launch have occurred to the 
public under this standard.
    The Office is aware that the Air Force implements this standard as 
``acceptable launch risk without high management (Range Commander) 
review.'' Eastern and Western Range 127-1 Range Safety Requirements, 
Sec. 1.4.1, 1-12. This means that based on national need and the 
approval of a range or wing commander the Air Force may allow a launch 
with a predicted expected casualty risk of greater than 30  x  
10-6. Id. The Office believes that the proposed standard should be 
met for all commercial launches, however, so that the general public 
will not be exposed to a higher than normal risk from a commercial 
activity. The Office recognizes that many commercial launches carry 
government payloads, and that there may be a national need to launch a 
critical national payload with a predicted launch risk of greater than 
30  x  10-6. An applicant proposing to launch such a payload would 
have to request a waiver from the Office and show that national need 
warranted waiver of this standard. The Office would also work with any 
government payload owner or operator to resolve such an issue.
    Proposed Sec. 415.35(c) requires an applicant to submit an analysis 
identifying hazards and assessing risks for flight under nominal and 
non-nominal conditions. A federal launch range will sometimes perform a 
quantitative analysis for flight until orbital insertion, or, for a 
suborbital mission, until impact, or, for example, may determine that 
an analysis of previously approved missions applies or may serve as a 
basis for a comparative analysis. If an applicant's previously 
submitted application contains a risk assessment, the applicant need 
not submit additional analyses for similar launches. In such cases, a 
comparative analysis may be supplied. So long as a federal launch 
range's analysis takes into account all aspects of an applicant's 
proposed launch, the Office will accept a hazard identification and 
risk analysis performed by a federal launch range.
    As an alternative to relying on federal launch range procedures, an 
applicant may perform its own quantitative risk analysis. Pursuant to 
proposed Sec. 415.35(c), although an applicant may submit a federal 
range risk analysis, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating 
that predicted risk does not exceed an expected casualty of 30  x  
10-6. To assist applicants, the Office has documented the range 
safety process for each of the federal ranges. A launch hazard event 
tree, such as the one described in the Office's Hazard Analysis of 
Commercial Space Transportation, provides an acceptable method for 
identifying hazards and assessing risks.
    The Office is interested in comments on this proposed approach. Two 
other approaches were considered. One was to have no application 
requirements for hazard identification or risk analysis at all. This 
approach was not selected because it would not provide the Office with 
the necessary assurance that predicted risk would remain within 
acceptable levels, namely Ec  30  x  10-6. The 
second approach the Office considered was to require an applicant to 
develop its own criteria and procedures for identifying hazards and 
assessing risks for flight until orbital insertion, and to demonstrate 
compliance with the Office's standard without the use of any federal 
launch range analysis. The Office, however, believed that requiring an 
applicant to invent its own procedures would ignore the experience and 
capability of the federal launch ranges as documented in the Office's 
baseline assessments and would put an unnecessary burden on the 
industry. Instead, the approach chosen maximizes the use of federal 
launch range analyses, while at the same time ensuring that the Office 
licenses only those applicants who do not expose the public to risks 
greater than Ec  30  x  10-6.
    Under proposed Sec. 415.35(b), an applicant's launch proposal must 
ensure that for all launch vehicle stages or components that reach 
earth orbit that there is no unintended physical contact of the vehicle 
or its components with the payload after payload separation. The 
applicant's proposal must also ensure that debris generation will not 
result from the conversion of energy sources into energy that fragments 
the vehicle or its components. Those involved in commercial, defense 
and scientific uses of space are voicing a growing space safety concern 
due to the increasing number of objects being placed in orbit, which 
increases the potential for collisions between objects in space. 
Collisions in turn create additional space debris. The operation of 
launch vehicles in space affects and is affected by hazards associated 
with space debris. Accordingly, the Office proposes the requirements of 
paragraph (b) to mitigate hazards associated with space debris.
    Federal launch ranges do not evaluate risks posed by either the 
launch vehicle upper stages or the attached payload while on orbit or 
reentering. Federal launch ranges perform a collision avoidance 
analysis, commonly referred to as a COLA, prior to launch to ensure 
that manned or potentially manned spacecraft will not be affected 
during the first 24 hours following orbital insertion of the launch 
vehicle.
    Proposed Sec. 415.37 requires that an applicant design and operate 
its launch vehicle to ensure that the flight of the launch vehicle does 
not exceed acceptable flight risk. This means that integration of the 
applicant's launch vehicle, procedures, personnel, support equipment, 
and facilities with a federal launch range's flight support resources 
and services will result in a calculated flight risk, measured by 
expected casualty, for any one launch that does not exceed 30  x  
10-6, and that the requirements of Sec. 415.35(b) are satisfied as 
well.
    Section 415.37(a) proposes to require an applicant to identify and 
describe its launch vehicle structure, the vehicle's hazardous and 
safety-critical systems and provide drawings and schematics for each 
system identified. Because federal launch ranges require an applicant 
to provide a detailed description of the applicant's launch vehicle and 
its systems, including drawings and schematics, the requirements of 
paragraph (a) may be satisfied by providing the Office with a copy of 
all or appropriate portions of the documentation provided to a federal

[[Page 13231]]

launch range. The Office would not use the data to duplicate the 
federal launch range's design approval process, but to document the 
characteristics of the launch vehicle being licensed.
    Section 415.37(b) proposes to require a description of the 
information necessary for ensuring that launch operations satisfy the 
criteria contained in proposed Sec. 415.35. Section 415.37(b) proposes 
to require an applicant to describe the launch operations and 
procedures that the applicant will employ to mitigate risks for flight 
both before and after orbital insertion. The applicant should eliminate 
or control by design all identified hazards to acceptable levels. 
Typical hazard controls for flight until orbital insertion used at 
current launch ranges include flight termination systems, azimuth and 
elevation adjusting based on real-time wind weighting analysis, 
evacuating personnel from high risk areas, modifying vehicle trajectory 
to avoid high risk areas, and delaying launch until more favorable 
conditions exist. Applicants may rely on the methods used by federal 
launch ranges to identify hazard controls and to ensure that the hazard 
controls will be effective. A number of standard industry practices 
reduce potential on-orbit risks arising out of flight following orbital 
insertion. A launch operator may maneuver its launch vehicle orbital 
stage after payload separation to minimize the likelihood that the 
orbital stage will recontact the payload. This avoids the consequences 
of either a malfunctioning payload or orbital debris. In order to 
reduce the possibility of future explosions that could create orbital 
debris, a launch operator may render liquid fueled orbital stages as 
inert as possible by expelling all propellants and pressurants and 
protecting batteries from spontaneous explosion. A launch operator may 
keep stage-to-stage separation devices and other potential debris 
sources captive to a stage with lanyards or other means. Also, a launch 
operator may choose launch times to geosynchronous earth orbit designed 
to align the final orbit of the orbital stage so as to lower the 
perigee of the stage more quickly than other orbits.
    Section 415.37(c) proposes to implement the Office's current flight 
readiness guidelines. The requirements proposed arise out of 
recommendations from a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)\5\ 
investigation of an anomaly that occurred during a commercial launch 
from a federal launch range. Requirements intended to ensure the 
readiness of a launch team include designation of an individual 
responsible for flight readiness, launch readiness reviews, use of a 
safety directive, countdown checklists, dress rehearsals procedures, 
and procedures for crew rest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The NTSB is an independent agency, and is not part of the 
Department of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office recognizes that there are many reviews conducted of a 
launch system from its initial design up to flight. However, in 
proposed section 415.37(c)(1), the Office places special emphasis on a 
flight readiness review, or its equivalent. A review is typically 
conducted not more than one or two days prior to scheduled flight. In 
most cases a flight readiness review is standard practice at federal 
launch ranges, but the Office considers the review, and the topics 
required in this section, to be so important that the applicant must, 
in its application, commit to a meeting and identify the topics to be 
addressed. This review must ensure that all system and personnel 
readiness problems are identified and are associated with a plan to 
resolve them, that all systems needed for launch have been checked out 
and are ready, and that each participant is cognizant of his or her 
role on the day of launch. If this review revealed unresolved issues, 
the licensee would be able to assess its ability to resolve those 
issues before the intended launch time or to delay the launch, as 
appropriate.
    Proposed Sec. 415.37(c)(2) would require an applicant to possess 
procedures that ensure mission constraints, rules and abort procedures 
are contained in a single document approved by licensee flight safety 
and federal launch range personnel.
    Proposed Sec. 415.37(c)(3) would require an applicant to employ 
procedures that ensure that all launch countdown checklists are current 
and consistent. Past inconsistencies in critical countdown checklists 
and procedures have raised serious safety concerns. The Office 
recognizes that it may be impractical for all launch participants to 
have identical checklists due to differences in the roles of launch 
participants. The applicant should, however, have some process, such as 
a master countdown manual, to ensure the currency and consistency of 
all participants' checklists during countdown to flight. This will 
ensure that confusion and uncertainties on launch day are minimized, 
that flight safety critical procedures are completed successfully, and 
that those individuals with launch decision authority know what is 
going on and are able to make sound decisions.
    Proposed Sec. 415.37(c)(4) requires an applicant to have procedures 
for the conduct of dress rehearsals. As demonstrated in the past, the 
poor performance of a dress rehearsal may indicate the lack of 
readiness of individuals or systems responsible for safety. The 
applicant's procedures should include criteria for determining when 
dress rehearsals are not necessary. The Office recognizes that although 
dress rehearsals may not be necessary in every case, they may be 
critical to those launch companies which are new to a launch site, or 
to those that are launching a new launch vehicle. A number of launch 
companies have been conducting routine launches of the same vehicle for 
many years. If an applicant does not plan to hold dress rehearsals 
prior to any of its launches under any circumstances, the applicant 
should explain why rehearsals are not necessary. However, even those 
launch operators that routinely conduct launches typically have certain 
criteria and procedures in place to verify that the launch team is 
ready for launch, especially if a considerable period of time has 
elapsed since the last launch took place.
    For those situations where dress rehearsals are necessary, the 
dress rehearsal should simulate both nominal and non-nominal 
conditions, induced not only by the launch vehicle or payload, but by 
the range safety system as well. Anomalies introduced during the 
rehearsal should exercise and prove the abilities of all launch 
participants, including federal launch site personnel, to recognize an 
event that compels a launch hold or delay. The Office is interested in 
views as to any need for future standards relating to rehearsals and 
the criteria for deciding, based on performance during the rehearsal, 
that it is acceptable to proceed with the launch.
    Proposed Sec. 415.37(c)(5) responds to another NTSB recommendation, 
and requires that an applicant ensure that its flight safety personnel 
adhere to federal launch range crew rest rules. Experience has shown 
that launch crew rest criteria for all those involved in supporting 
launch operations are extremely important and can have a significant 
impact on public health and safety. Federal launch ranges typically 
have such requirements. Based on current knowledge and the demonstrated 
safety history of the federal ranges, the Office would consider 
adequate a commitment by the applicant to adhere to these requirements. 
Other rest criteria proposed by an applicant may be acceptable if the 
applicant requests a waiver of the Office's rules and

[[Page 13232]]

demonstrates that the criteria would be adequate. The Office is 
interested in any opinions regarding the need for established minimum 
standards for crew rest.
    Proposed Sec. 415.39 requires an applicant to submit a 
communications plan that ensures that licensee and federal launch range 
personnel receive safety-critical information during countdown and 
flight. The NTSB, after its investigation of a launch anomaly, 
concluded that effective communications are critical to the conduct of 
a safe flight. Everyone involved in a launch needs to know not only 
what channel has been assigned for particular communications, but the 
proper protocol for communicating on that channel. The Office 
recognizes that a number of different individuals typically have input 
and decision authority with respect to the readiness of various launch 
and safety systems. Past experience has shown that serious mishaps 
could result if these relationships are not clearly defined and 
understood by all parties. These relationships should therefore be 
identified by the applicant. Identifying persons with authority to make 
``hold'' and ``go/no-go'' decisions is critical to ensuring that on 
launch day, everyone knows who can call a ``hold'' and, more 
importantly, who has the authority to authorize the resumption of the 
countdown. This will help eliminate confusion and cross-talk that could 
cause a miscommunication leading to an unsafe condition. In addition, 
at approximately five or ten minutes prior to flight, the Office 
requires that everyone who has a decision-making role, or who, by 
action or inaction can either prevent or allow a launch to take place, 
be on the same predetermined channel.
    Proposed Sec. 415.41 requires an applicant to submit an accident 
investigation plan. The accident investigation plan should comply with 
the reporting requirements identified in proposed section 415.41(b), 
and should contain procedures for responding to a launch accident, 
incident or other mishap.
    Proposed Sec. 415.43 contains procedures employed by the Office 
when it denies an applicant a safety approval and describes the 
recourse available to that applicant. If an applicant fails to obtain a 
safety approval, the applicant may attempt to correct the deficiencies 
which resulted in the denial and request reconsideration of the denial, 
or, upon denial of a license, it may request a hearing.
    The Office proposes to conduct a payload review and determination 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sec. 70104(c) of the Act. The Act provides that 
the Secretary of Transportation may prevent the launch of a particular 
payload if the Secretary determines that the payload's launch would 
jeopardize the public health and safety, safety of property, or 
national security or foreign policy interests or international 
obligations of the United States. Proposed subpart D explains when a 
payload review and determination are required and the elements of that 
review. Addition of this subpart constitutes a change from current 
practice because the payload review would no longer be performed as 
part of the policy review proposed by the new rules. This subpart would 
also allow either a launch license applicant or a payload owner or 
operator to apply for a payload determination separately from a launch 
operator's license application. A launch license applicant's decision 
to seek a payload determination separately from a license application 
might be based on uncertainty with respect to payload issues and a 
desire to gain a payload determination before undertaking the 
additional effort required to prepare a complete launch license 
application.
    Although a payload determination is required for a license, it is 
not necessarily a requirement imposed on a license applicant. A license 
applicant may not receive a license without a payload determination, 
unless the payload is otherwise exempt, but an applicant need not 
itself apply for a payload determination if it has otherwise been 
issued. In addition to the fact that many payloads are exempt from 
Office consideration, an applicant may incorporate by reference a 
payload determination issued earlier to the applicant or to a payload 
owner or operator. Alternatively, an applicant may reference a separate 
application submitted by another launch license applicant for a payload 
determination and request that the Office incorporate its earlier 
determination.
    The Office does not believe that this flexible approach would 
affect the statutory requirement that the Office complete its license 
application review within 180 days. Submission of a request for a 
payload determination does not constitute the filing of a complete 
application, and a license application is not complete without a 
request for a payload determination. The Office is considering issuing 
conditional licenses on those occasions when a request for a payload 
determination has yet to be completed. This would mean that a license 
would be issued subject to or conditional upon issuance of a payload 
determination. The Office once issued a conditional license to an 
applicant who proposed to launch a reentry vehicle as its payload. The 
reentry vehicle was still under development, but the Office issued a 
launch license conditioned upon eventual submission of all required 
payload information and a final determination by the Office regarding 
the payload.
    The Office also addresses payload safety issues because payload 
safety is not otherwise part of the safety evaluation of the launch. 
Payload issues considered during the review include, but are not 
limited to, unique launch safety issues, the payload owner(s), and the 
payload function. For example, a past payload issue included the nature 
of the cargo. In that case the payload cargo consisted of cremains, 
which are human remains reduced to small pellets. A safety issue 
addressed was whether the pellets would be dispersed while in orbit.
    Proposed Sec. 415.51 describes the scope of an Office payload 
review. Pursuant to proposed Sec. 415.53, the Office will not review 
payloads owned and operated by the government of the United States or 
those that are subject to the regulation of the Federal Communications 
Commission or the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration.
    Proposed Sec. 415.55 allows the Office to make a determination 
regarding a proposed class of payloads, including, for example, 
communications, remote sensing or navigation satellites. When an 
applicant requests an operator license to conduct unspecified but 
similar launches over a period of five years, the applicant will not 
always be able to identify specifically each payload to be launched. 
The applicant must describe the class or classes of payloads proposed 
for launch under the license and general characteristics of those 
payloads. In these cases, the licensee must later provide additional 
descriptive information regarding the specific payload prior to flight 
as described in Sec. 415.79(a).
    Proposed Sec. 415.57 provides procedures an applicant must follow 
to obtain a payload determination. The Office coordinates a payload 
review with other government agencies such as the Departments of 
Defense, State, and Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission. The 
information requested under proposed Sec. 415.59 is required to 
identify and address possible safety and policy issues related to the 
payload, and to

[[Page 13233]]

conduct any necessary interagency review. In most instances, the 
information submitted may be brief, but in cases which present 
potential unique safety concerns considerable detail may be necessary 
regarding the physical characteristics, functional description and 
operations of the payload.
    Proposed Sec. 415.61(a) explains that the Office will issue a 
payload determination unless policy or safety considerations prevent 
launch of the payload. Proposed Sec. 415.61(b) contains the procedures 
employed by the Office were it to deny an applicant a payload 
determination and describes the recourse available to that applicant. 
If an applicant fails to obtain a payload determination, the applicant 
may attempt to correct the deficiencies which resulted in a denial and 
request reconsideration of the denial, or, upon denial of a license, it 
may request a hearing.
    Proposed Sec. 415.63 addresses incorporation of a payload 
determination into subsequent license reviews. It also explains that 
any change in information provided to the Office must be reported in 
accordance with applicable rules.
    Proposed subpart E addresses post-licensing requirements, including 
license terms and conditions. This subpart describes a licensee's 
public safety responsibilities under proposed Sec. 415.71. Proposed 
Sec. 415.73 describes the circumstances which require a licensee to 
apply for an amendment to its license. A launch licensee must ensure 
the continuing accuracy of representations contained in its application 
for the term of its license, and must conduct its licensed launches as 
it has represented that it will. This means that if any information a 
licensee provides pursuant to part 415 is no longer accurate, a 
licensee must apply for an amendment to its license. For example, if a 
licensee intends to alter its accident investigation plan, it must 
request an amendment to do so.
    The remainder of subpart E contains license terms and conditions 
applicable to all licensees. Proposed Sec. 415.75 requires a licensee 
to enter into an agreement with the federal launch range from which it 
proposes to launch. Proposed Sec. 415.77 requires a licensee to 
maintain those records that pertain to activities carried out under a 
license issued by the Office. Proposed Sec. 415.79 requires a licensee 
to report certain information before each launch. Proposed Sec. 415.81 
contains requirements for registration of space objects, including a 
new provision that a licensee need not register objects owned and 
registered by the government of the United States. Proposed Sec. 415.83 
requires a licensee to comply with financial responsibility 
requirements as specified in a license or license order. Proposed 
Sec. 415.85 explains that a licensee is required to cooperate with the 
compliance monitoring responsibilities of the Office.
    Proposed subpart F describes the Office's safety review for a 
proposed launch from a launch site not operated by a federal launch 
range. The Office will conduct a review on an individual, case by case 
basis until it issues regulations of general applicability.
    Proposed subpart G incorporates the Office's environmental review 
requirements, current Secs. 415.31 and 415.33, which require the Office 
to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations, and state 
that the applicant must provide the Office with the information 
required for doing so. The proposed relocation represents no 
substantive change from the current regulations.

E. Part 417--Site Operator License

    Because the Office proposes to remove and reserve part 411, which 
contains Sec. 411.3 governing the licensing of the operation of a 
launch site, the Office proposes part 417 to govern the licensing of 
the operation of a launch site. The Office will license the operation 
of a launch site on an individual, case by case basis until it issues 
regulations of general applicability. Until then, an applicant for a 
site operator license should refer to the Office's draft guidelines for 
application requirements.

V. Statutory Authority for Proposed Rules

    These proposed rule changes are proposed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
Subtitle IX, Commercial Space Transportation, ch. 701--Commercial Space 
Launch Activities, Secs. 70101-70119, formerly the Commercial Space 
Launch Act of 1984, as amended.

VI. Regulatory Burden and Costs

    This NPRM has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 
under E.O. 12866. Under regulatory policies and procedures of the 
Department of Transportation, this proposed rule is considered 
significant because there is substantial public interest in the 
rulemaking. 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the proposed 
regulatory action was performed as is required by Executive Order 
12866. A baseline case was stipulated which assumes that every licensed 
commercial space launch is issued one and only one license, and that 
that license covers all activities (beginning when the launch operator 
commences launch-related activities on the federal range).\6\ This 
baseline was then compared to current practice under which launch 
operator licenses for up to two years are issued to cover launch 
activities beginning when the licensee begins preparation for launch on 
the federal range. Then the provisions of the proposed regulation were 
compared to current practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although the Office practice has evolved toward the multiple 
license approach contained in the proposed regulations, it was 
believed that it would be more appropriate to use the previous 
Office practice as a baseline, so the economic impacts identified in 
such a comparison would reflect the real impacts of the changes from 
current regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary impacts of the proposed regulations are on licensees 
(generally launch firms) as the primary regulated community and on the 
government of the United States (the Office as the implementer of the 
regulations and the U.S. Treasury). The effects on launch companies are 
reduced paperwork costs, and increased business certainty (i.e., 
reduced uncertainty relating to license requirements and resulting 
costs). Specific impacts on launch firms include:
     Reduced paperwork and administrative costs resulting from 
the availability of the launch operator license,
     Increased certainty regarding requirements attendant with 
obtaining and maintaining a license,
     Increased certainty that would result from being issued a 
launch operator license covering multiple launches as compared with a 
license for each launch,
     Greater certainty regarding the scope of a launch license,
     Possibly increased risk due to narrower definition of 
launch period (and consequently narrower period during which licensee 
might be indemnified by the government).
    The more narrow definition of launch would result in less time 
during which the activities of a licensee would be subject to the 
financial responsibility and risk allocation scheme of the Act. This 
means that the possibility of indemnification is correspondingly 
shorter. During the time that a launch company is present at a federal 
launch range, but its launch vehicle is not present, there would be no 
possibility of indemnification under the proposed definition of launch 
were an accident to occur. Instead, a launch operator would

[[Page 13234]]

have to make its own evaluations regarding the necessity for and amount 
of insurance required for its activities. The Office believes that 
insurance for industrial operations is available, but does not have 
information regarding its necessity or the impacts, if any, on the 
price of insurance, financial risk investment decisions or other 
financial impacts of the Office's proposal to truncate the possibility 
of indemnification. Accordingly, the Office requests comments regarding 
these issues.
    Annual savings to industry resulting from the paperwork and 
administrative impacts were estimated to be $536,000 when current 
practice is compared with the baseline and $180,000 when the proposed 
regulation is compared with current practice. The benefits of increased 
certainty were not quantifiable. The impact of possibly higher risk was 
considered to be so low as to be considered inconsequential.
    The specific impacts on the Office are greater certainty about 
future operations and better ability to plan due to the institution of 
launch operator licenses. Another impact is reduced paperwork and 
administrative costs that result from processing fewer, albeit more 
costly licenses. This is expected to result in cost savings to the 
Office of about $1,266,000 annually when current practice is compared 
with the baseline, and $177,000 annually when the proposed regulation 
is compared with current practice. Over the four-year time horizon \7\ 
of this analysis, total benefits to both industry and government total 
approximately $7,208,000 when current practice is compared with the 
baseline and about $1,428,000 when the proposed regulation is compared 
with current practice. There is also a slightly lower risk to the U.S. 
Treasury that it would be called upon to indemnify for third-party 
damages under the indemnification provision of the statute, because the 
launch phase is more limited under the regulation. This risk is 
expected to be extremely low and has not been quantified. The overall 
primary impacts of the regulation are expected to result in net 
benefits to industry and the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Statute has a five-year sunset clause of which one year 
has already passed--hence the four year consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Limited secondary impacts on payload owners, new market entrants, 
and insurance firms were found but were not quantified. It was 
impossible to predict the direction of impacts on insurance firms, 
while identified potential impacts on payload owners and new market 
entrants were likely to provide net benefits.
    A copy of the regulatory evaluation analysis is filed in the docket 
and may also be obtained from the Office.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    I certify that this rule would not, if adopted as proposed, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Small Business Administration has defined small businesses in the 
space industry as entities composed of fewer than 1000 employees. The 
Office licenses approximately half a dozen entities for launch from 
federal ranges. Only one licensee has fewer than 1000 employees. In 
addition, a modest annual savings to industry resulting from paperwork 
and administrative impacts were estimated to be $536,000 when current 
practice is compared with the baseline and $180,000 when the proposed 
regulation is compared with current practice. Accordingly, the proposed 
rules are not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The impact of the proposed rule on international trade is expected 
to be beneficial. The proposed rule streamlines the launch license 
procedures to the benefit of U.S. industry, and provides prospective 
site operators greater information and certainty to the ultimate 
benefit of their ability to plan. These approaches should redound to 
the benefit of U.S. industry as it confronts foreign competition.

D. Federalism Implications

    The proposed regulations would not have substantial direct effects 
on the states, on the relationship between the federal 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 the proposed regulation 
does not have sufficient federalism impacts to warrant the preparation 
of a federalism assessment.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Parts 413 and 415 of the proposed rules contain information 
collection requirements. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the information collection 
requirements associated with these proposed rules are being submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under OMB No. 2105-
0515, TITLE: Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations. The 
information to be collected includes data to support policy and safety 
reviews, data to support payload reviews, and environmental impact 
information. The required information will be used to determine if a 
license applicant is eligible for a license to launch a launch vehicle.
    The annual cost per year is calculated by multiplying the estimated 
cost per application by the total number of applications received on a 
yearly basis. The estimated cost per application is calculated by 
multiplying the estimated hourly wage rate by the estimated average 
hours required for processing by the government and for industry 
preparation of an application. The unit cost for each launch license 
application is calculated by employing a cost of $59.00 per hour. This 
cost includes programmatic costs associated with government personnel 
and overhead. The industry rate is also $59.00 per hour for industry 
managerial, engineering and clerical personnel involved in gathering, 
reviewing and formatting the information required for each application. 
Burden hours were obtained based on engineering information. The burden 
is expected to decrease compared with existing paperwork requirements 
because the proposed regulations clarify the application requirements. 
Average burden hours per application are expected to approximate 518 
hours for a launch operator license and 421 hours for a launch specific 
license.
    Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should 
be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, 
Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Aviation Administration. It is 
requested that comments sent to OMB also be sent to the rulemaking 
docket for this proposed action, FAA Rules Docket Federal Aviation 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 
(AGC-200), Docket No. 49815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20591.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 13235]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MR97.143



BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

[[Page 13236]]



  Figure 2.--Comparison of FAA/CST Safety Approval Requirements for Launch From a Federal Launch Range With Air 
                                          Force Range User Requirements                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Related Air Force range requirements                                      
                                           (Eastern and Western Range                                           
    Proposed FAA/CST  regulations       Regulation (EWRR) 127-1, Mar. 31,          Requirement comparison       
                                                      1995)                                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     415.33 Safety Organization                                                                                 
                                                                                                                
(a) Maintain a safety organization    Sec.  1B.1.3.1: The range user is     The parts of the SSPP related to    
 and document it by identifying        required to describe its system       flight safety may meet FAA's       
 lines of communication and approval   safety organization in a System       requirement if all of FAA's        
 authority for all flight safety       Safety Program Plan (SSPP), to        required elements are addressed.   
 decisions. Lines of communication     include:                                                                 
 shall ensure that personnel perform     safety organizational and                                      
 flight safety operations in             functional relationships;                                              
 accordance with range safety and        lines of communication                                         
 subpart C requirements. Approval        (Sec.  1B.1.2c);                                                       
 authority shall ensure compliance       responsibility and                                             
 with range safety and subpart C         authority of personnel;                                                
 requirements.                           staffing of the safety                                         
                                         organization;                                                          
                                         the decision process for                                       
                                         safety related issues;                                                 
                                         and identification of the                                      
                                         organizational unit responsible                                        
                                         for performing each task.                                              
(b) Safety Official. Identify a       Sec.  1B.1.1.2: The range user is     The safety official required by the 
 qualified safety official             required to establish and maintain    combination of Sec.  1B.1.1.2 and  
 authorized to:                        a key system safety position for      Sec.  1B.1.3.1 may meet FAA's      
   examine all aspects of      each program. The individual in       requirement if all of FAA's        
   flight safety operations,           this position must be directly        required elements are addressed.   
   monitor independently       responsible to the range user                                            
   personnel compliance with safety    program manager for safety matters.                                      
   policies and procedures, and                                                                                 
   report directly to the                                                                               
   person responsible for approval                                                                              
   of launches, who shall ensure                                                                                
   that all of the safety official's                                                                            
   concerns are addressed prior to                                                                              
   launch.                                                                                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    415.35 Acceptable Flight Risk                                                                               
                                                                                                                
(a) Flight risk through orbital       Sec.  1.4.1: Acceptable launch risk   The Federal Range Commander may     
 insertion.                            without high management review is     approve risk levels higher than    
  Acceptable risk level: ECC30 x 10-6.               EC30 x 10-6 where       
   eq>30 x 10-6.                                                             national interests require.        
(b) Flight risk following orbital     Sec.  1.3.7.2: Range safety control   FAA's requirements are not required 
 insertion. Prevent physical contact   ends at orbital insertion. A range    by the range.                      
 between vehicle or its components     uses Collision Avoidance (COLA)                                          
 and payload. Prevent debris           data to determine the risk of                                            
 generation from conversion of         collision with a manned or mannable                                      
 energy sources into energy that       object.                                                                  
 fragments the vehicle or its                                                                                   
 components.                                                                                                    
(c) Hazard analysis and risk          Sec.  2.6, 2.8, 2.11: The range user  If the applicant submits the hazard 
 assessment.                           is required to provide the data       analysis and risk assessment       
  Submit an analysis assessing risks   necessary for range safety to         performed by the range, the hazard 
   to public health and safety and     perform a hazard analysis and risk    analysis and risk assessment       
   safety of property associated       assessment for the range user's       addresses all flight risks and the 
   with nominal and non-nominal        specific vehicle.                     risk meets the requirement of EC30 x 10-6 for a single      
                                                                             launch, the FAA requirement is met.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   415.37 Launch Safety Design and                                                                              
             Operations                                                                                         
                                                                                                                
(a) Provide overview of launch        Sec.  3A.2.3: The range requires the  A copy of the overview that         
 vehicle, including structure and      user to provide an overview of the    satisfies the range requirements   
 hazardous and safety-critical         launch vehicle.                       will satisfy FAA's requirement.    
 subsystems. Include drawings and                                                                               
 schematics for each system.                                                                                    
(b) Identify all launch operations    Sec.  1.3.8: The range requires the   The portions of the documents       
 and procedures that must be           user to submit documents regarding    provided to the range that identify
 performed to ensure acceptable        flight safety for review and          launch operations and procedures   
 flight risks.                         approval. These documents must        related to flight safety may meet  
                                       include the information the range     FAA's requirement if all of FAA's  
                                       needs in order to conduct flight      required elements are addressed.   
                                       safety operations.                    Range flight safety procedures     
                                                                             documented in the FAA's Baseline   
                                                                             Assessment may also be referenced  
                                                                             to identify launch operations and  
                                                                             procedures performed by a range.   

[[Page 13237]]

                                                                                                                
(c) Flight readiness requirements.    Sec.  7.2.2: The Chiefs of Safety of  FAA's requirement for the applicant 
 Designate an individual responsible   the 45th and 30th Space Wings, or     to designate an individual         
 for flight readiness, and submit      their designated representatives,     responsible for flight readiness is
 (1) through (5):                      are responsible for:                  not a range requirement.           
                                         Providing range users                                          
                                         with a Range Safety Launch                                             
                                         Operations Approval Letter no                                          
                                         later than a Launch Readiness                                          
                                         Review (LRR); and                                                      
                                         Providing the final range                                      
                                         safety approval to launch.                                             
                                         Issuance of the Launch Operations                                      
                                         Approval Letter depends on the                                         
                                         range user having obtained the                                         
                                         previously required approvals                                          
                                         (e.g., Sec.  1.5.2.1 items a                                           
                                         through f; Sec.  1.5.2.2 items a                                       
                                         through n).                                                            
                                      Sec.  7.2.3: During countdown, a                                          
                                       Missile Flight Control Officer is                                        
                                       responsible for determining whether                                      
                                       a launch should proceed.                                                 
(1) Procedures that ensure a launch   The range holds a LRR to determine    FAA requires the applicant to       
 readiness review is conducted with    if the range is ready to support a    conduct a meeting to verify        
 applicant's flight safety personnel   particular launch operation. This     readiness of the vehicle and launch
 and federal launch range personnel    review covers all elements of         team, which includes range support.
 involved in the launch. The review    support that the range will provide   The LRR held by the range may meet 
 must provide the following to the     to the range user. The requirement    FAA's requirement if all of FAA's  
 individual responsible for flight     for the LRR is contained in           required elements are addressed.   
 readiness:                            AFSPACECOM Regulation 55-32                                              
   Flight readiness of         ``Operations Readiness Review of                                         
   federal launch range property and   Space and Missile Systems.''                                             
   services;                                                                                                    
   Flight readiness of                                                                                  
   launch vehicle and payload;                                                                                  
   Flight readiness of                                                                                  
   flight safety systems;                                                                                       
   Mission rules and launch                                                                             
   constraints;                                                                                                 
   Abort, hold, and recycle                                                                             
   procedures;                                                                                                  
   Results of dress                                                                                     
   rehearsals and simulations;                                                                                  
   Unresolved safety issues                                                                             
   and plans for resolution; and                                                                                
   Other safety information                                                                             
   to determine flight readiness.                                                                               
(2) Procedures that ensure mission    Sec.  6.17 At a minimum, procedures   The FAA requirement is not required 
 constraints, rules, and abort         for the launch countdown and          by the range, but an applicant may 
 procedures are listed and             prelaunch count shall contain the     rely on the mission rules and      
 consolidated in a safety directive    operations safety functions for the   operations requirements developed  
 or notebook;                          specific launch vehicle and payload   by the range to satisfy a portion  
                                       systems.                              of the FAA requirement and may     
                                      Sec.  6A.2.4a List all non-            employ them in the applicant's     
                                       hazardous, hazardous, and safety      safety directive or notebook.      
                                       critical procedures. . . .                                               
                                      Sec.  7.4.5 A copy of the final                                           
                                       range user countdown checklist for                                       
                                       each operation shall be provided. .                                      
                                       . .                                                                      
                                      Sec.  7.2.4.1: The range develops                                         
                                       mission rules in conjunction with                                        
                                       the range user.                                                          
                                      Sec.  7.4: Range safety develops a                                        
                                       Range Safety Operations Requirement                                      
                                       (RSOR) and an Operations Supplement                                      
                                       (OpsSup).                                                                
(3) Procedures that ensure currency   Sec.  7.2.8: The range user is        The FAA requirement is not required 
 and consistency of applicant and      required to provide telemetry         by the range, because the range    
 federal range countdown checklists;   measurement lists, countdown          requirement does not require       
                                       checklist, and special command        procedures that specifically ensure
                                       requirements and requests.            currency and consistency of        
                                                                             checklists.                        
                                      Sec.  6B1.5: One copy of procedures                                       
                                       involving hazardous or safety                                            
                                       critical operations shall be                                             
                                       submitted to range safety and one                                        
                                       copy to operations safety for                                            
                                       review and approval. . . . Final                                         
                                       approved, published procedures                                           
                                       incorporating range safety comments                                      
                                       shall be submitted to range safety.                                      
                                       . . .                                                                    
(4) Dress rehearsal procedures;       The range does not require dress      The FAA requirement is not required 
                                       rehearsals.                           by the range.                      
(5) Procedures for ensuring the       Sec.  6.5.1.4: The range user is      The FAA requirement is satisfied    
 applicant's flight safety personnel   required to comply with range work    when the applicant commits to      
 adhere to federal launch range crew   time restrictions.                    meeting the range requirements.    
 rest rules.                                                                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 13238]]

                                                                                                                
     415.39 Communications Plan                                                                                 
                                                                                                                
(a) Submit communications plan        The range user requests all range     The federal range sets up a         
 providing applicant and federal       support, including communications     communications system to support   
 launch range personnel                support in an Operations              launch operations. The range also  
 communications procedures during      Requirement (OR) document; the        provides any additional            
 countdown and flight. Plan must       range responds in an Operations       communications capabilities        
 ensure effective issuance and         Directive (OD). This is a Universal   required by the range user as      
 communication of safety-critical      Documentation System requirement.     specified in the OR and OD. The    
 information during countdown         Sec.  7.11: The flight control         range support may serve as a       
 including hold/resume, go/no go,      communication circuits shall be       portion of the applicant's         
 and abort commands, and describe      specified in the applicable Range     communications plan, but because   
 authority of personnel to issue       Safety Operations Requirements        the range does not address the     
 these commands. Ensure that:          (RSOR). An RSOR shall be developed    requirements of Sec.  415.39(a)(1)-
  (1) Communication networks are       and published for each applicable     (3), an applicant must satisfy     
   assigned so that personnel have     Program Requirements Document (PRD)   those additional requirements.     
   direct access to real-time safety-  or OR prepared by a range user.                                          
   critical information;                                                                                        
  (2) Personnel monitor common                                                                                  
   intercom channels during                                                                                     
   countdown and flight; and                                                                                    
  (3) A protocol is established for                                                                             
   utilizing clearly defined                                                                                    
   communications terminology.                                                                                  
(b) Submit procedures that ensure     Sec.  7.4.1: The range user requests  The FAA requirement is not required 
 applicant and federal launch range    communications support in an          by the range.                      
 personnel receive the                 Operations Requirement (OR)                                              
 communications plan that has been     document; the range responds in an                                       
 concurred in by the federal launch    Operations Directive (OD). This is                                       
 range.                                a Universal Documentation System                                         
                                       requirement.                                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 415.41 Accident Investigation Plan                                                                             
                (AIP)                                                                                           
                                                                                                                
(a) Submit an AIP containing the      Sec.  1.10.1: The range investigates  The range does not require the range
 applicant's procedures for            all mishaps involving Air Force       user to submit an AIP.             
 reporting and responding to launch    personnel and resources in                                               
 accidents, launch incidents, or       accordance with Air Force                                                
 other mishaps.                        Instruction (AFI) 91-204.                                                
(b) Reporting requirements. The AIP   Sec.  6.4.7.2: The range user must    The FAA's requirement is not        
 shall provide for immediate           include an accident notification      required by the range.             
 notification to the FAA Operations    plan in its Ground Operations Plan,                                      
 Center, and submission of a written   and must provide proper and timely                                       
 preliminary report in the event of    notification to the range of                                             
 a launch accident or launch           mishaps involving Air Force                                              
 incident.                             property and all significant                                             
                                       mishaps.                                                                 
(c) Response Plans. The AIP shall     Sec.  6.4.7.2: The range user         If the range conducts a portion of  
 contain procedures that:              notifies the range if a mishap        FAA's required response, then range
   ensure the consequences     occurs.                               involvement would be a component of
   of a launch accident, launch       Sec.  1.10.1: If a mishap involves     an applicant's response plans.     
   incident, or other mishap are       Air Force personnel or resources,                                        
   contained and minimized;            the range responds and                                                   
                                       investigates.                                                            
   ensure data and physical                                                                             
   evidence are preserved;                                                                                      
   require applicant to                                                                                 
   report to and cooperate with the                                                                             
   FAA and NTSB;                                                                                                
   designate point(s) of                                                                                
   contact; and                                                                                                 
   identify and adopt                                                                                   
   preventive measures.                                                                                         
(d) Investigation Plans. The AIP      Sec.  1.10.1: The range investigates  If the range conducts a portion of  
 shall contain procedures for          all mishaps involving Air Force       FAA's required investigation, then 
 investigating the cause of a launch   personnel and resources. Sec.         range involvement would be a       
 accident, launch incident, or other   1.10.2: Range safety may              component of an applicant's        
 mishap, for reporting investigation   participate in non-Air Force mishap   investigation plans.               
 results to the FAA, and delineation   investigations and must be provided                                      
 of responsibilities for personnel     investigation results.                                                   
 assigned to conduct investigations.                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 401, 411, 413, 415 and 417

    Confidential business information, Environmental protection, 
Organization and functions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Rockets, Space transportation and exploration.

Proposed Regulation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 14, Chapter III of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended to read as 
follows:

PART 401--ORGANIZATION AND DEFINITIONS.

    1. The authority citation for part 401 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70102.

    2. Section 401.5 is amended by removing the terms Director, Launch 
activity, Licensee, Mission, and Safety operations, by revising the 
terms Act, Launch, Launch vehicle, Payload, and Person, and by adding 
the terms Associate Administrator, Federal launch range, Hazardous 
materials, Launch accident, Launch incident, Launch operator, Launch 
site, Mishap, and Office:

[[Page 13239]]

Sec. 401.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Act means 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Commercial Space Transportation, 
ch. 701--Commercial Space Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. Secs. 70101-
70119 (1994).
* * * * *
    Associate Administrator means the Associate Administrator for 
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, or 
any person designated by the Associate Administrator to exercise the 
authority or discharge the responsibilities of the Associate 
Administrator.
    Federal launch range means an installation from which launches take 
place that is owned and operated by the government of the United 
States.
    Hazardous materials means hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR 
Sec. 172.101.
    Launch means to place or try to place a launch vehicle and any 
payload in a suborbital trajectory, in Earth orbit in outer space, or 
otherwise in outer space. The term launch includes the flight of a 
launch vehicle, and those hazardous pre-flight activities that are 
closely proximate in time to flight and are unique to space flight. For 
launches from a federal launch range, hazardous pre-flight activities 
begin with the arrival of a launch vehicle at a federal launch range.
    Launch accident means an unplanned event occurring during the 
flight of a launch vehicle resulting in the known impact of a launch 
vehicle, its payload or any component thereof outside designated impact 
limit lines; or a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 
Sec. 830.2) to any person who is not associated with the flight; or any 
damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the 
flight where the property is not located at the launch site or 
designated recovery area.
    Launch incident means an unplanned event occurring during the 
flight of a launch vehicle, other than a launch accident, involving a 
malfunction of a flight safety system or failure of the licensee's 
safety organization, design or operations.
    Launch operator means a person who conducts or who will conduct the 
launch of a launch vehicle and any payload.
    Launch site--means the location on Earth from which a launch takes 
place (as defined in a license the Secretary issues or transfers under 
this chapter) and necessary facilities located at the site.
    Launch vehicle means a vehicle built to operate in, or place a 
payload in, outer space and a suborbital rocket.
    Mishap means an unplanned event or series of events resulting in 
injury, occupational illness, or damage to or loss of equipment or 
property. Mishaps include, but are not limited to, launch accidents and 
launch incidents.
    Office means the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space 
Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration, U. S. Department 
of Transportation.
* * * * *
    Payload means an object that a person undertakes to place in outer 
space by means of a launch vehicle, including components of the vehicle 
specifically designed or adapted for that object.
    Person means an individual or an entity organized or existing under 
the laws of a state or country.
* * * * *

SUBCHAPTER C--LICENSING

PART 411--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

    3. Part 411 is removed and reserved.
    4. Part 413 is revised to read as follows:

PART 413--LICENSE APPLICATION PROCEDURES

Sec.
413.1  Scope.
413.3  Who must obtain a license.
413.5  Pre-application consultation.
413.7  Applications.
413.9  Confidentiality.
413.11  Acceptance of applications.
413.13  Complete application.
413.15  Review period.
413.17  Continuing accuracy of applications; supplemental 
information; modifications.
413.19  Issuance of a license.
413.21  Denial of a license application.
413.23  License renewal.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70119.


Sec. 413.1  Scope.

    This part prescribes the procedures applicable to all applications 
submitted under this chapter to conduct licensed activities. These 
procedures apply to applications for issuance of a license, transfer of 
an existing license and renewal of an existing license. More specific 
requirements applicable to obtaining a launch license or a site 
operator license are contained in parts 415 and 417 of this chapter, 
respectively.


Sec. 413.3  Who must obtain a license.

    (a) Any person must obtain a launch license to launch a launch 
vehicle from the United States or a site operator license to operate a 
launch site within the United States.
    (b) An individual who is a United States citizen or an entity 
organized or existing under the laws of the United States or any state 
must obtain a launch license to launch a launch vehicle outside of the 
United States or a site operator license to operate a launch site 
outside of the United States.
    (c) A foreign entity in which a United States citizen has a 
controlling interest, as defined in Sec. 401.5 of this chapter, must 
obtain a launch license to launch a launch vehicle from or a site 
operator license to operate a launch site within----
    (1) Any place that is both outside the United States and outside 
the territory of any foreign nation, unless there is an agreement in 
force between the United States and a foreign nation providing that 
such foreign nation shall exercise jurisdiction over the launch or the 
operation of the launch site; or
    (2) The territory of any foreign nation if there is an agreement in 
force between the United States and that foreign nation providing that 
the United States shall exercise jurisdiction over the launch or the 
operation of the launch site.


Sec. 413.5  Pre-application consultation.

    Prospective applicants shall consult with the Office before 
submitting an application to discuss the application process and 
potential issues relevant to the Office's licensing decision. Early 
consultation enables the applicant to identify potential licensing 
issues at the planning stage when changes or modifications to a license 
application or to proposed licensed activities are less likely to 
result in significant delay or costs to the applicant.


Sec. 413.7  Applications.

    (a) Form. An application must be in writing and filed in duplicate 
with the Federal Aviation Administration, Associate Administrator for 
Commercial Space Transportation, AST-200, Room 5402a, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Attention: Licensing and Safety 
Division, Applications Review.
    (b) Administrative information. The application must identify the 
following:
    (1) The name and address of the applicant;
    (2) The name, address, and telephone number of person(s) to whom 
inquiries and correspondence should be directed; and
    (3) The type of license for which the applicant is applying.
    (c) Signature and certification of accuracy. The application must 
be legibly signed, dated, and certified as true, complete, and accurate 
by one of the following:

[[Page 13240]]

    (1) For a corporation: an officer authorized to act for the 
corporation in licensing matters.
    (2) For a partnership or a sole proprietorship: a general partner 
or proprietor, respectively.
    (3) For a joint venture, association, or other entity: an officer 
or other individual duly authorized to act for the joint venture, 
association, or other entity in licensing matters.


Sec. 413.9  Confidentiality.

    (a) Any person furnishing information or data to the Office may 
request in writing that trade secrets or proprietary commercial or 
financial data be treated as confidential. The request must be made at 
the time the information or data is submitted, and state the period of 
time for which confidential treatment is desired.
    (b) Information or data for which any person or agency requests 
confidentiality must be clearly marked with an identifying legend, such 
as ``Proprietary Information,'' ``Proprietary Commercial Information,'' 
``Trade Secret,'' or ``Confidential Treatment Requested.'' Where this 
marking proves impracticable, a cover sheet containing the identifying 
legend must be securely attached to the compilation of information or 
data for which confidential treatment is requested.
    (c) If a person requests that previously submitted information or 
data be treated confidentially, the Office will do so to the extent 
practicable in light of any prior distribution of the information or 
data.
    (d) Information or data for which confidential treatment has been 
requested or information or data that qualifies for exemption under 
section 552(b)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, will not be disclosed 
unless the Associate Administrator determines that the withholding of 
the information or data is contrary to the public or national interest.


Sec. 413.11  Acceptance of applications.

    The Office will initially screen an application to determine 
whether the application is sufficiently complete to enable the Office 
to initiate the reviews or evaluations required under any applicable 
part of this chapter. After completion of the initial screening, the 
Office notifies the applicant, in writing, of one of the following:
    (a) The application is accepted and the Office will initiate the 
reviews or evaluations required for a licensing determination under 
this chapter; or
    (b) The application is so incomplete or indefinite as to make 
initiation of the reviews or evaluations required for a licensing 
determination under this chapter inappropriate, and the application is 
rejected. The notice will state the reason(s) for rejection and 
corrective actions necessary for the application to be accepted. The 
Office may return a rejected application to the applicant or may hold 
it pending additional submissions by the applicant.


Sec. 413.13  Complete application.

    Acceptance by the Office of an application does not constitute a 
determination that the application is complete.


Sec. 413.15  Review period.

    (a) 180-day review. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the 
Office reviews and makes a determination on a license application 
within 180 days of receipt of an accepted application.
    (b) Review period tolled. If an accepted application does not 
provide sufficient information to continue or complete the reviews or 
evaluations required by this chapter for a licensing determination, or 
an issue exists that would affect the licensing determination, the 
Office notifies the applicant, in writing, and informs the applicant of 
any information required to complete the application. If further review 
is impracticable, the 180-day review period shall be tolled pending 
receipt by the Office of the requested information.
    (c) 120-day notice. If the Office has not made a licensing 
determination within 120 days of receipt of an accepted application, 
the Office informs an applicant, in writing, of any outstanding 
information needed to complete the reviews or evaluations required by 
this chapter for a licensing determination, or of any pending issues 
that would affect the licensing determination.


Sec. 413.17  Continuing accuracy of applications; supplemental 
information; modification.

    (a) An applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and 
completeness of information furnished to the Office as part of a 
pending license application. If at any time information provided by an 
applicant as part of a license application is no longer accurate and 
complete in all respects, the applicant shall submit a statement 
furnishing the new or corrected information. As part of its submission, 
the applicant shall recertify the accuracy and completeness of the 
application in accordance with Sec. 413.7. An applicant's failure to 
comply with any of the requirements set forth in this paragraph is a 
sufficient basis for denial of a license application.
    (b) An applicant may modify or supplement a license application at 
any time prior to issuance or transfer of a license.
    (c) Willful false statements made in applications and documents 
relating to applications or licenses are punishable by fine and 
imprisonment under section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code, and by 
appropriate administrative sanctions in accordance with part 405 of 
this chapter.


Sec. 413.19  Issuance of a license.

    After the Office completes its reviews and issues the approvals and 
determinations required by this chapter for a license, the Office 
issues a license to the applicant in accordance with this chapter.


Sec. 413.21  Denial of a license application.

    (a) The Office informs a license applicant, in writing, if its 
application has been denied and states the reasons for denial.
    (b) An applicant whose license application is denied may do either 
of the following:
    (1) Attempt to correct any deficiencies identified by the Office 
and request reconsideration of the revised application. The Office has 
60 days or the number of days remaining in the 180-day review period, 
whichever is greater, within which to reconsider its licensing 
determination; or
    (2) Request a hearing in accordance with the applicable rules in 
part 406 of this chapter, for the purpose of showing why the 
application should not be denied.
    (c) An applicant whose license application is denied after 
reconsideration under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may request a 
hearing in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.


Sec. 413.23  License renewal.

    (a) Eligibility. A holder of a launch operator or site operator 
license may apply to renew the license by submitting to the Office a 
written application for renewal of the license at least 90 days before 
the expiration date of the license.
    (b) Application. (1) A license renewal application shall satisfy 
the requirements set forth in this part and and any other applicable 
part of this chapter.
    (2) The application may incorporate by reference information 
provided as part of the application for the expiring license or any 
amendment to that license.
    (3) The applicant must describe any proposed changes in its conduct 
of

[[Page 13241]]

licensed activities and provide any additional clarifying information 
required by the Office.
    (c) Review of application. The Office conducts the reviews required 
under this chapter for a license to determine whether the applicant's 
license may be renewed for an additional term. The Office may 
incorporate by reference any findings that are part of the record for 
the expiring license.
    (d) Grant of license renewal. After completion by the Office of the 
reviews required by this chapter for a license and issuance of the 
requisite approvals and determinations, the Office issues an order 
amending the expiration date of the license. The Office may impose 
additional or revised terms and conditions necessary to protect public 
health and safety and the safety of property and to protect U.S. 
national security and foreign policy interests.
    (e) Denial of license renewal. The Office informs the licensee, in 
writing, if the licensee's application for renewal has been denied and 
states the reasons for denial. A licensee whose application for renewal 
is denied may follow the procedures set forth in Sec. 413.21 of this 
part.

PART 415--LAUNCH LICENSES

    5. The authority citation for part 415 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70119.

    6. In part 415, subpart D is redesignated as subpart G.
    7. Sections 415.31 and 415.33 are redesignated as sections 415.101 
and 415.103, respectively.
    8. In part 415, subparts A through C are revised and new subparts D 
through F are proposed to be added to read as follows:

Subpart A--General

Sec.
415.1  Scope.
415.3  Types of launch licenses.
415.5  Policy and safety approvals.
415.7  Payload determination.
415.9  Issuance of a launch license.
415.11  Additional license terms and conditions.
415.13  Transfer of a launch license.
415.15  Rights not conferred by launch license.
415.16-415.20  [Reserved]

Subpart B--Policy Review and Approval

415.21  General.
415.23  Policy review.
415.25  Application requirements for policy review.
415.27  Denial of policy approval.
415.28-415.30  [Reserved]

Subpart C--Safety Review and Approval for Launch From a Federal Launch 
Range

415.31  General.
415.33  Safety organization.
415.35  Acceptable flight risk.
415.37  Launch safety design and operations.
415.39  Communications plan.
415.41  Accident investigation plan (AIP).
415.43  Denial of safety approval.
415.44-415.50  [Reserved]

Subpart D--Payload Review and Determination

415.51  General.
415.53  Payloads not subject to review.
415.55  Classes of payloads.
415.57  Payload review.
415.59  Information requirements for payload review.
415.61  Issuance of payload determination.
415.63  Incorporation of payload determination in license 
application.
415.64-415.70  [Reserved]

Subpart E--Post-Licensing Requirements--Launch License Terms and 
Conditions

415.71  Public safety responsibility.
415.73  Continuing accuracy of license application; application for 
amendment.
415.75  Agreement(s) with federal launch range.
415.77  Records.
415.79  Launch reporting requirements.
415.81  Registration of space objects.
415.83  Financial responsibility requirements.
415.85  Compliance monitoring.
415.86-515.90  [Reserved]

Subpart F--Safety Review and Approval for Launch From a Launch Site Not 
Operated by a Federal Launch Range

415.91  General.
415.93  Denial of safety approval.
415.94-415.100  [Reserved]

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70119.

Subpart A--General


Sec. 415.1  Scope.

    This part prescribes requirements for obtaining a launch license 
and post-licensing requirements with which a licensee shall comply to 
remain licensed. Requirements for preparing a license application are 
contained in part 413 of this subchapter.


Sec. 415.3  Types of launch licenses.

    (a) Launch-specific license. A launch-specific license authorizes a 
licensee to conduct one or more launches, having the same launch 
parameters, of one type of launch vehicle from one launch site. The 
license identifies, by name or mission, each launch authorized under 
the license. A licensee's authorization to launch terminates upon 
completion of all launches authorized by the license or the expiration 
date stated in the license, whichever occurs first.
    (b) Launch operator license. A launch operator license authorizes a 
licensee to conduct launches from one launch site, within a range of 
launch parameters, of launch vehicles from the same family of vehicles 
transporting specified classes of payloads. A launch operator license 
remains in effect for five years from the date of issuance.


Sec. 415.5  Policy and safety approvals.

    To obtain a launch license, an applicant must obtain policy and 
safety approvals from the Office. Requirements for obtaining these 
approvals are contained in subparts B and C of this part. Only a launch 
license applicant may apply for the approvals, and may apply for either 
approval separately and in advance of submitting a complete license 
application, using the application procedures contained in part 413 of 
this subchapter.


Sec. 415.7  Payload determination.

    A payload determination is required for a launch license unless the 
proposed payload is exempt from payload review under Sec. 415.53 of 
this part. The Office conducts a payload review, as described in 
subpart D of this part, to make the determination. Either a launch 
license applicant or a payload owner or operator may request a review 
of its proposed payload using the application procedures contained in 
part 413 of this subchapter. Upon receipt of an application, the Office 
may conduct a payload review independently of a launch license 
application.


Sec. 415.9  Issuance of a launch license.

    (a) The Office issues a launch license to an applicant who has 
obtained all approvals and determinations required under this chapter 
for a license.
    (b) A launch license authorizes a licensee to conduct a commercial 
space launch or launches in accordance with the representations 
contained in the licensee's application, subject to the licensee's 
compliance with terms and conditions contained in license orders 
accompanying the license, including financial responsibility 
requirements.


Sec. 415.11  Additional license terms and conditions.

    The Office may amend a launch license at any time by modifying or 
adding license terms and conditions to ensure compliance with the Act 
and regulations.


Sec. 415.13  Transfer of a launch license.

    (a) Only the Office may transfer a launch license.
    (b) An applicant for transfer of a launch license shall submit a 
license application in accordance with part 413 of this subchapter and 
shall meet the requirements of part 415 of this subchapter. The Office 
will transfer a license to an applicant who has obtained all of the 
approvals and determinations required under this

[[Page 13242]]

chapter for a license. In conducting its reviews and issuing approvals 
and determinations, the Office may incorporate by reference any 
findings made part of the record to support the initial licensing 
determination. The Office may amend a license to reflect any changes 
necessary as a result of a license transfer.


Sec. 415.15  Rights not conferred by launch license.

    Issuance of a launch license does not relieve a licensee of its 
obligation to comply with other applicable requirements of law or 
regulations that may apply to its activities, nor does issuance confer 
any proprietary, property or exclusive right in the use of any federal 
launch range or related facilities, airspace, or outer space.


Secs. 415.16-415.20  [Reserved]

Subpart B--Policy Review and Approval


Sec. 415.21  General.

    The Office issues a policy approval to a license applicant unless 
the Office determines that a proposed launch would jeopardize U.S. 
national security or foreign policy interests, or international 
obligations of the United States. A policy approval is part of the 
licensing record on which the Office's licensing determination is 
based.


Sec. 415.23  Policy review.

    (a) The Office reviews a license application to determine whether 
it presents any issues affecting U.S. national security or foreign 
policy interests, or international obligations of the United States.
    (b) Interagency consultation. (1) The Office consults with the 
Department of Defense to determine whether a license application 
presents any issues affecting U.S. national security.
    (2) The Office consults with the Department of State to determine 
whether a license application presents any issues affecting U.S. 
foreign policy interests or international obligations.
    (3) The Office consults with other federal agencies, including the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, authorized to address 
issues identified under paragraph (a) of this section, associated with 
an applicant's launch proposal.
    (c) The Office advises an applicant, in writing, of any issue 
raised during a policy review that would impede issuance of a policy 
approval. The applicant may respond, in writing, or revise its license 
application.


Sec. 415.25  Application requirements for policy review.

    In its launch license application, an applicant shall--
    (a) Identify the model and configuration of any launch vehicle(s) 
proposed for launch by the applicant.
    (b) Identify structural, pneumatic, propellant, propulsion, 
electrical and avionics systems used in the launch vehicle and all 
propellants.
    (c) Identify foreign ownership of the applicant as follows:
    (1) For a sole proprietorship or partnership, identify all foreign 
ownership;
    (2) For a corporation, identify any foreign ownership interests of 
10% or more; and
    (3) For a joint venture, association, or other entity, identify any 
participating foreign entities.
    (d) Identify proposed vehicle flight profile(s), including:
    (1) Launch site;
    (2) Flight azimuths, trajectories, and associated ground tracks and 
instantaneous impact points;
    (3) Sequence of planned events or maneuvers during flight;
    (4) Range of nominal impact areas for all spent motors and other 
discarded mission hardware, within three standard deviations of the 
mean impact point (a 3-sigma footprint); and
    (5) For orbital missions, the range of intermediate and final 
orbits of vehicle upper stages, and their estimated orbital lifetimes.


Sec. 415.27  Denial of policy approval.

    The Office notifies an applicant, in writing, if it has denied 
policy approval for a license application. The notice states the 
reasons for the Office's determination. The applicant may respond to 
the reasons for the determination and reapply for policy approval.


Secs. 415.28-415.30  [Reserved]

Subpart C--Safety Review and Approval for Launch From a Federal 
Launch Range


Sec. 415.31  General.

    (a) The Office conducts a safety review to determine whether an 
applicant is capable of launching a launch vehicle and its payload 
without jeopardizing public health and safety and safety of property. 
The Office issues a safety approval to a license applicant proposing to 
launch from a federal launch range if the applicant satisfies the 
requirements of this subpart and has contracted with the federal launch 
range for the provision of safety-related launch services and property, 
as long as those launch services and the proposed use of launch 
property are within the federal launch range's experience. The Office 
evaluates on an individual basis all other safety-related launch 
services and property associated with an applicant's proposal. A safety 
approval is part of the licensing record on which the Office's 
licensing determination is based.
    (b) The Office advises an applicant, in writing, of any issue 
raised during a safety review that would impede issuance of a safety 
approval. The applicant may respond, in writing, or revise its license 
application.


Sec. 415.33  Safety organization.

    (a) An applicant shall maintain a safety organization and document 
it by identifying lines of communication and approval authority for all 
launch safety decisions. Lines of communication, both within the 
applicant's organization and between the applicant and a federal launch 
range, shall be employed to ensure that personnel perform launch safety 
operations in accordance with range safety requirements and with plans 
and procedures required by this subpart. Approval authority shall be 
employed to ensure compliance with range safety requirements and with 
plans and procedures required by this subpart.
    (b) Safety official. An applicant shall identify a qualified safety 
official authorized to examine all aspects of the applicant's launch 
safety operations and to monitor independently personnel compliance 
with the applicant's safety policies and procedures. The safety 
official shall report directly to the person responsible for an 
applicant's licensed launches, who shall ensure that all of the safety 
official's concerns are addressed prior to launch.


Sec. 415.35  Acceptable flight risk.

    (a) Flight risk through orbital insertion. Acceptable flight risk 
through orbital insertion is measured in terms of the probability of 
occurrence and the expected average number of casualties (Ec) to 
the collective members of the public for any one launch. To obtain 
safety approval, the risk level associated with an applicant's launch 
proposal shall not exceed a collective risk of 30 casualties in one 
million launches (Ec  30  x  10-6).
    (b) Flight risks following orbital insertion. An applicant's launch 
proposal shall ensure that for all vehicle stages or components that 
reach earth orbit--
    (1) There is no unplanned physical contact between the vehicle or 
its

[[Page 13243]]

components and the payload after payload separation; and
    (2) Debris generation will not result from the conversion of energy 
sources into energy that fragments the vehicle or its components. 
Energy sources include chemical (e.g., fuel), pressure (e.g., 
pneumatic), and kinetic (e.g., gyroscopes) energy.
    (c) Hazard analysis and risk assessment. An applicant shall submit 
an analysis assessing risks to public health and safety and safety of 
property associated with nominal and non-nominal flight under its 
launch proposal. The methodology used shall ensure that all flight 
hazards are identified and risks to public health and safety and safety 
of property are assessed.


Sec. 415.37  Launch safety design and operations.

    (a) A launch vehicle, including its safety systems, shall be 
designed to ensure that flight risks satisfy the criteria set forth in 
Sec. 415.35 of this part. An applicant shall identify and describe the 
following:
    (1) Launch vehicle structure, including physical dimensions and 
weight;
    (2) Hazardous and safety critical systems, including propulsion 
systems; and
    (3) Drawings and schematics for each system identified under 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (b) A launch vehicle shall be operated in a manner that ensures 
that flight risks satisfy the criteria set forth in Sec. 415.35 of this 
part. An applicant shall identify all launch operations and procedures 
that must be performed to ensure acceptable flight risks.
    (c) Flight readiness requirements. An applicant shall designate an 
individual responsible for flight readiness. The applicant shall submit 
the following flight readiness procedures for verifying readiness for 
safe flight:
    (1) Launch readiness review procedures involving the applicant's 
flight safety personnel and federal launch range personnel involved in 
the launch. The procedures shall ensure a launch readiness review is 
conducted during which the individual designated under paragraph (c) of 
this section is provided with the following information to make a 
judgement as to flight readiness:
    (i) Flight-readiness of safety-related launch property and services 
to be provided by a federal launch range;
    (ii) Flight-readiness of launch vehicle and payload;
    (iii) Flight-readiness of flight safety systems;
    (iv) Mission rules and launch constraints;
    (v) Abort, hold and recycle procedures;
    (vi) Results of dress rehearsals and simulations conducted in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this section;
    (vii) Unresolved safety issues as of the launch readiness review 
and plans for addressing and resolving them; and
    (viii) Any additional safety information required by the individual 
designated under paragraph (c) of this section to determine flight 
readiness.
    (2) Procedures that ensure mission constraints, rules and abort 
procedures are listed and consolidated in a safety directive or 
notebook approved by licensee flight safety and federal launch range 
personnel;
    (3) Procedures that ensure currency and consistency of licensee and 
federal launch range countdown checklists;
    (4) Dress rehearsal procedures that--
    (i) Ensure crew readiness under nominal and non-nominal flight 
conditions;
    (ii) Contain criteria for determining whether to dispense with one 
or more dress rehearsals; and
    (iii) Verify currency and consistency of licensee and federal 
launch range countdown checklists.
    (5) Procedures for ensuring the licensee's flight safety personnel 
adhere to federal launch range crew rest rules.


Sec. 415.39  Communications plan.

    (a) An applicant shall submit a communications plan providing 
licensee and federal launch range personnel communications procedures 
during countdown and flight. Effective issuance and communication of 
safety-critical information during countdown shall include hold/resume, 
go/no go and abort commands by licensee and federal launch range 
personnel during countdown. The communications plan shall describe the 
authority of licensee and federal launch range personnel, by individual 
or position title, to issue these commands. The communications plan 
shall also ensure that--
    (1) Communication networks are assigned so that personnel 
identified under paragraph (a) of this section have direct access to 
real-time safety-critical information required for issuing hold/resume, 
go/no go and abort decisions and commands;
    (2) Personnel identified under paragraph (a) of this section 
monitor common intercom channel(s) during countdown and flight; and
    (3) A protocol is established for utilizing clearly defined radio 
telephone communications terminology.
    (b) An applicant shall submit procedures that ensure that licensee 
and federal launch range personnel receive a copy of the communications 
plan and that the federal launch range concurs in the communications 
plan.


Sec. 415.41  Accident investigation plan (AIP).

    (a) An applicant shall submit an accident investigation plan (AIP) 
containing the applicant's procedures for reporting and responding to 
launch accidents, launch incidents, or other mishaps, as defined in 
Sec. 401.5 of this chapter. The AIP shall be signed by an individual 
authorized to sign and certify the application in accordance with 
Sec. 413.7(c) of this chapter, and the safety official designated under 
Sec. 415.33(b) of this subpart.
    (b) Reporting requirements. An AIP shall provide for--
    (1) Immediate notification to the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) Operations Center in case of an event identified in paragraph (a) 
of this section.
    (2) Submission of a written preliminary report in the event of a 
launch accident or launch incident, as defined in Sec. 401.5 of this 
chapter, within five days of the event. The report shall identify the 
event as either a launch accident or launch incident, and shall include 
the following information:
    (i) Date and time of occurrence;
    (ii) Description of event;
    (iii) Location of launch;
    (iv) Launch vehicle;
    (v) Payload(s), if applicable;
    (vi) Vehicle impact points outside designated impact lines, if 
applicable;
    (vii) Number and general description of any injuries;
    (viii) Property damage, if any, and an estimate of its value;
    (ix) Identification of hazardous materials, as defined in 
Sec. 401.5 of this chapter, involved in the event, whether on the 
launch vehicle, payload, or on the ground;
    (x) Action taken by any person to contain the consequences of the 
event; and
    (xi) Weather conditions at the time of the event.
    (c) Response plan. An AIP shall contain procedures that--
    (1) Ensure the consequences of a launch accident, launch incident 
or other mishap are contained and minimized;
    (2) Ensure data and physical evidence are preserved;
    (3) Require the licensee to report to and cooperate with Office or 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigations and 
designate one or more points of contact for the Office or NTSB; and

[[Page 13244]]

    (4) Require the licensee to identify and adopt preventive measures 
for avoiding recurrence of the event.
    (d) Investigation plan. An AIP shall contain--
    (1) Procedures for investigating the cause of a launch accident, 
launch incident or other mishap;
    (2) Procedures for reporting investigation results to the Office; 
and
    (3) Delineated responsibilities, including reporting 
responsibilities for personnel assigned to conduct investigations and 
for any unrelated entities retained by the licensee to conduct or 
participate in investigations.


Sec. 415.43  Denial of safety approval.

    The Office notifies an applicant, in writing, if it has denied 
safety approval for a license application. The notice states the 
reasons for the Office's determination. The applicant may respond to 
the reasons for the determination and reapply for safety approval.


Secs. 415.44-415.50  [Reserved]

Subpart D--Payload Review and Determination


Sec. 415.51  General.

    The Office reviews a payload proposed for launch to determine 
whether a license applicant or payload owner or operator has obtained 
all required licenses, authorization, and permits, unless the payload 
is exempt from review under Sec. 415.53 of this subpart. If not 
otherwise exempt, the Office reviews a payload proposed for launch to 
determine whether its launch would jeopardize public health and safety, 
safety of property, U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, 
or international obligations of the United States. A payload 
determination is part of the licensing record on which the Office's 
licensing determination is based.


Sec. 415.53  Payloads not subject to review.

    The Office does not review payloads that are--
    (a) Subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) or the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA); or
    (b) Owned or operated by the U.S. Government.


Sec. 415.55  Classes of payloads.

    The Office may review and issue findings regarding a proposed class 
of payload, e.g., communications, remote sensing or navigation. 
However, each payload is subject to compliance monitoring by the Office 
before launch to determine whether its launch would jeopardize public 
health and safety, safety of property, U.S. national security or 
foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the United 
States. The licensee is responsible for providing current information, 
in accordance with Sec. 415.59, regarding a payload proposed for launch 
not later than 60 days before a scheduled launch.


Sec. 415.57  Payload review.

    (a) Timing. A payload review may be conducted as part of a license 
application review or may be requested by a payload owner or operator 
in advance of or apart from a license application.
    (b) Interagency consultation. The Office consults with other 
agencies to determine whether launch of a proposed payload would 
present any issues affecting public health and safety, safety of 
property, U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, or 
international obligations of the United States.
    (1) The Office consults with the Department of Defense to determine 
whether launch of a proposed payload would present any issues affecting 
U.S. national security.
    (2) The Office consults with the Department of State to determine 
whether launch of a proposed payload would present any issues affecting 
U.S. foreign policy interests or international obligations.
    (3) The Office consults with other federal agencies, including the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, authorized to address 
issues identified under paragraph (b) of this section, associated with 
an applicant's launch proposal.
    (c) The Office advises a person requesting a payload determination, 
in writing, of any issue raised during a payload review that would 
impede issuance of a license to launch that payload. The person 
requesting payload review may respond, in writing, or revise its 
application.


Sec. 415.59  Information requirements for payload review.

    (a) A person requesting review of a particular payload or payload 
class shall identify the following:
    (1) Payload name;
    (2) Payload class;
    (3) Physical dimensions and weight of the payload;
    (4) Payload owner and operator, if different from the person 
requesting payload review;
    (5) Orbital parameters for parking, transfer and final orbits;
    (6) Hazardous materials, as defined in Sec.  401.5 of this chapter, 
and radioactive materials, and the amounts of each;
    (7) Intended payload operations during the life of the payload; and
    (8) Delivery point in flight at which the payload will no longer be 
under the licensee's control.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec. 415.61  Issuance of payload determination.

    (a) The Office issues a favorable payload determination unless it 
determines that launch of the proposed payload would jeopardize public 
health and safety, safety of property, U.S. national security or 
foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the United 
States. The Office advises any person who has requested a payload 
review of its determination, in writing. The notice states the reasons 
for the determination in the event of an unfavorable determination.
    (b) Any person issued an unfavorable payload determination may 
respond to the reasons for the determination and request another 
payload review.


Sec. 415.63  Incorporation of payload determination in license 
application.

    A favorable payload determination issued for a payload or class of 
payload may be included by a license applicant as part of its 
application. However, any change in information provided under 
Sec. 415.59 of this subpart must be reported in accordance with 
Sec. 413.15 of this chapter. The Office determines whether a favorable 
payload determination remains valid in light of reported changes and 
may conduct an additional payload review.


Sec. 415.64-415.70  [Reserved]

Subpart E--Post-Licensing Requirements--Launch License Terms and 
Conditions


Sec. 415.71  Public safety responsibility.

    A launch licensee is responsible for ensuring the safe conduct of a 
licensed launch and for ensuring that public safety and safety of 
property are protected at all times during the conduct of a licensed 
launch.


Sec. 415.73  Continuing accuracy of license application; application 
for amendment.

    (a) A launch licensee is responsible for the continuing accuracy of 
representations contained in its application for the entire term of the 
license. A launch licensee must conduct a licensed launch and carry out 
launch safety procedures in accordance with its application. A 
licensee's failure to comply with the requirements of this paragraph is 
sufficient basis for revocation of a license.

[[Page 13245]]

    (b) After a launch license has been issued, a licensee must apply 
to the Office to amend the license if:
    (1) The launch licensee proposes to conduct a launch or carry out a 
launch safety procedure or operation in a manner that is not authorized 
by the license; or
    (2) Any representation contained in the license application that is 
material to public health and safety or safety of property is no longer 
accurate and complete or does not reflect the launch licensee's 
procedures governing the actual conduct of a launch. A change is 
material to public health and safety or safety of property if it alters 
or affects the licensee's launch plans or procedures submitted in 
accordance with subpart D of this part, class of payload, orbital 
destination, safety requirements, type of launch vehicle, flight path, 
launch site, or any safety system, policy, procedure, requirement, 
criteria or standard.
    (c) An application to amend a launch license shall be prepared and 
submitted in accordance with part 413 of this chapter. The launch 
licensee shall indicate any part of its license or license application 
that would be changed or affected by a proposed amendment.
    (d) The Office reviews approvals and determinations required by 
this chapter to determine whether they remain valid in light of the 
proposed amendment. The Office approves an amendment that satisfies the 
requirements set forth in this part.
    (e) Upon approval of an amendment, the Office issues either a 
written approval to the launch licensee or a license order amending the 
license if a stated term or condition of the license is changed, added 
or deleted. A written approval has the full force and effect of a 
license order amendment and is part of the licensing record.


Sec. 415.75  Agreement(s) with federal launch range.

    For a license to launch from a federal launch range, prior to 
conducting a licensed launch, a launch licensee or applicant shall 
enter into an agreement(s) with a federal launch range providing for 
access to and use of U.S. Government property and services required to 
support licensed launch from the facility and for public safety related 
operations and support. The agreement(s) shall be in effect for the 
term of the license. A launch licensee shall comply with any 
requirements of the agreement(s) that may affect public safety and 
safety of property during the conduct of a licensed launch, including 
flight safety procedures and requirements.


Sec. 415.77  Records.

    (a) A launch licensee shall maintain all records, data and other 
material necessary to verify that licensed launches are conducted in 
accordance with representations contained in the licensee's 
application. A launch licensee shall retain records for three years 
after completion of all launches conducted under the license.
    (b) In the event of a launch accident or launch incident, as 
defined in Sec. 405.1 of this chapter, a launch licensee shall preserve 
all records related to the event. Records shall be retained until 
completion of any federal investigation and the Office advises the 
licensee that the records need not be retained. The licensee shall make 
available to federal officials for inspection and copying all records 
required to be maintained under the regulations.


Sec. 415.79  Launch reporting requirements.

    (a) Not later than 60 days before each launch conducted under a 
launch operator license, a licensee shall provide the following launch-
specific information:
    (1) Payload information in accordance with Sec. 415.59 of this 
part;
    (2) Flight information, including the launch vehicle, planned 
flight path, including staging and impact locations, and on-orbit 
activity of the launch vehicle including payload deliver point(s); and
    (3) Mission specific launch waivers, approved or pending, from a 
federal launch range from which the launch will take place, that are 
unique to the launch and may affect public safety.
    (b) Not later than 15 days before each licensed launch a licensee 
shall submit a completed Department of Transportation/U.S. Space 
Command (DOT/USSPACECOM) Launch Notification Form.
    (c) A launch licensee shall report a launch accident, launch 
incident, or other mishap immediately to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) Operations Center and provide a written 
preliminary report in the event of a launch accident or launch 
incident, in accordance with the accident investigation plan (AIP) 
submitted as part of its license application under Sec. 415.41 of this 
part.


Sec. 415.81  Registration of space objects.

    (a) In accordance with Article IV of the 1975 Convention on 
Registration of Objected Launched into Outer Space, each licensee shall 
register with the Office all objects placed in space by a licensed 
launch, including a launch vehicle and any components, except:
    (1) Objects owned and registered by the U.S. Government; and
    (2) Objects owned by a foreign entity. Registration of objects 
owned by a foreign entity is the responsibility of the foreign entity.
    (b) For each object that must be registered in accordance with this 
section, not later than thirty (30) days following the conduct of a 
licensed launch a licensee shall submit the following information:
    (1) The international designator of the space object(s);
    (2) Date and location of launch;
    (3) General function of the space object; and
    (4) Basic final orbital parameters, including:
    (i) Nodal period;
    (ii) Inclination;
    (iii) Apogee; and
    (iv) Perigee.


Sec. 415.83  Financial responsibility requirements.

    A launch licensee shall comply with financial responsibility 
requirements specified in a license or license order.


Sec. 415.85  Compliance monitoring.

    A launch licensee shall allow access by and cooperate with federal 
officers or employees or other individuals authorized by the Office to 
observe any activities of the licensee, or of the licensee's contractor 
or subcontractors, associated with the conduct of a licensed launch.


Sec. 415.86-415.90  [Reserved]

Subpart F--Safety Review and Approval for Launch From a Launch Site 
not Operated by a Federal Launch Range


Sec. 415.91  General.

    The Office evaluates on an individual basis the safety-related 
elements of an applicant's proposal to launch a launch vehicle from a 
launch site not operated by a federal launch range. The Office issues a 
safety approval to a license applicant proposing to launch from a 
launch site not operated by a federal launch range whose launch 
proposal satisfies the criteria for acceptable flight risk set forth in 
subpart C of this part. A safety approval is part of the licensing 
record on which the Office's licensing determination is based.


Sec. 415.93  Denial of safety approval.

    The Office notifies an applicant, in writing, if it has denied 
safety approval for a license application. The notice states the 
reasons for the Office's determination. The applicant may respond to 
the reasons for the

[[Page 13246]]

determination and reapply for safety approval.


Secs. 415.94--415.100  [Reserved]

    9. Subchapter C of Chapter III, Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, would be amended by adding a new part 417 to read as 
follows:

PART 417--SITE OPERATOR LICENSE

Sec.
417.101  General.
417.103  Issuance of a site operator license.
417.105  Denial of a site operator license.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70119.


Sec. 417.101  General.

    The Office evaluates on an individual basis an applicant's proposal 
to operate a launch site.


Sec. 417.103  Issuance of a site operator license.

    (a) The Office issues a license to a license applicant proposing to 
operate a launch site whose operation does not jeopardize public health 
and safety, safety of property, U.S. national security or foreign 
policy interests, or international obligations of the United States.
    (b) A site operator license authorizes a licensee to operate a 
launch site in accordance with the representations contained in the 
licensee's application, subject to the licensee's compliance with terms 
and condition contained in license orders accompanying the license.


Sec. 417.105  Denial of a site operator license.

    The Office notifies an applicant, in writing, if it has denied a 
license application. The notice states the reasons for the Office's 
determination. The applicant may respond to the reasons for the 
determination and reapply for a license.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 26th day of February 1997.
Patricia G. Smith,
Acting Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 97-6607 Filed 3-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P