[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9885-9889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3916]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 413, 415, and 417

[Docket No. FAA-2000-7953; Notice No. 05-02]
RIN 2120-AG37


Licensing and Safety Requirements for Launch

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Availability of draft regulatory language; Notice of public 
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is making available a draft of changes to the 
commercial space transportation regulations governing licensing and 
safety requirements for launch. We intend the changes to identify, 
codify, and maintain the successful safety measures that have been 
implemented at the federal launch ranges belonging to the Department of 
Defense and NASA. We are also establishing clear safety requirements 
for launches from non-federal launch sites. We will hold a public 
meeting on March 29-31, 2005, to give stakeholders an opportunity to 
get information about, and provide comments on, the draft regulatory 
language.

DATES: Send your comments to reach us by May 2, 2005. The FAA will host 
a facilitated public meeting in Washington, DC on March 29-31, 2005 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m each day.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will take place in the Discovery I 
Conference Room of the Holiday Inn--Capitol at 550 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC. Persons who are unable to attend the meeting and who 
wish to file written comments may send comments identified by Docket 
Number FAA-2000-7953 using any of the following methods:
    DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 
instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. For 
more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of 
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Written comments to the docket will receive the same consideration as 
statements made at the public meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Ren[eacute] 
Rey, (202) 267-7538. For legal information: Laura Montgomery, (202) 
267-3150. If you would like to present a statement at the public 
meeting, have questions about the logistics of the meeting, or would 
like to arrange an accommodation, contact Brenda Parker, (202) 267-3674 
before March 15, 2005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Licensing and Safety Requirements for Launch Amendments

    The draft regulatory language includes changes to the commercial 
space transportation regulations governing licensing and safety 
requirements for launch. Some of the changes were originally part of a 
notice of proposed rulemaking published in 2000 (65 FR 63921, Oct. 25, 
2000) (2000 NPRM). Other changes were part of a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking published in 2002 (67 FR 49456, July 30, 2002) 
(2002 SNPRM).
    The FAA revisited the issue of how much cost to attribute to the 
draft rule. The FAA found there would potentially be certain costs 
associated with FAA review of federal launch range implementation of 
the proposed requirements. In an attempt to be responsive to industry's 
concerns about costs, the FAA obtained an independent economic analysis 
from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). SAIC's 
analysis validated the FAA's estimates. Both reports are available in 
the docket.
    In preparing the draft regulatory language, we have also made 
changes to the proposed language to clarify the FAA's position, respond 
to comments,

[[Page 9886]]

or adopt range practice, including a reorganization of part 415 and 
changes to various definitions. These changes are summarized below. A 
matrix showing the correspondences between the FAA draft regulatory 
language and Air Force requirements in EWR 127-1 and AFSPCMAN 91-710 
can be found at http://ast.faa.gov/um/. This matrix should facilitate 
the ability of interested parties to examine the commonality of 
requirements among the three documents. Certain internal range 
requirements, particularly in the area of flight safety analysis, will 
not be found in either of the Air Force requirements documents, but in 
internal Air Force handbooks. Those handbooks are not part of this 
matrix.

Reorganization, Licensee Requirements Moved From Part 415 to Part 417

    Part 415 contains requirements that an applicant must meet in order 
to obtain a license and requirements that a licensee must comply with 
during the term of the license. The draft regulatory language would 
move all licensee requirements from part 415 to part 417, subpart A, 
but would not change application requirements, except for the flight 
readiness requirements of Sec.  415.37.

Definition of ``Equivalent Level of Safety''

    The draft regulatory language defines ``equivalent level of 
safety'' as ``an approximately equal level of safety that may be 
determined by qualitative or quantitative means.'' The SNPRM proposed 
defining ``equivalent level of safety'' as ``an approximately equal 
level of safety. An equivalent level of safety may involve a change to 
the level of expected risk that is not statistically or mathematically 
significant as determined by qualitative or quantitative risk 
analysis.'' In light of the comments received, the FAA excluded the 
reference to risk. We did not want to create the impression that risk 
is the only measure of safety, when equivalence may be determined 
through quantitative or qualitative means.

Grandfathering of ``Meets Intent'' Certification and Waivers

    The FAA's two proposals regarding grandfathering have been further 
modified in response to industry concerns that the FAA was changing 
current practice. With these changes, concerns over grandfathering 
should no longer be an issue. The draft regulatory language differs 
from the proposal in that a launch operator no longer has to be 
licensed to be eligible for grandfathering a ``meets intent'' 
certification or waiver in Sec.  417.1(c). This change conforms to 
Federal launch range practice. The FAA also now requires that a launch 
operator, upon request, produce documentation of ``meets intent'' 
certifications or waivers to demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements of part 417. The proposal would have only allowed licensed 
launch operators to grandfather ``meets intent'' certifications or 
waivers and, contrary to current practice, did not require 
documentation.

New Performance Based Standard for Waterborne Vessel and Aircraft Risk 
Limit in Sec.  417.107(b)(3) and (4)

    In response to commenters' concerns, the FAA re-examined the 
waterborne vessel and aircraft risk limit originally proposed in Sec.  
417.107(b)(3) and (4). This re-examination focused on current range 
practice. Based upon this re-examination, the draft regulatory language 
makes the requirements more performance based and better reflects the 
current practices of the Western and Eastern Range. Under the draft 
regulatory language, a launch operator would implement waterborne 
vessel hazard areas and aircraft hazard areas that provide an 
equivalent level of safety to that provided by waterborne vessel hazard 
areas and aircraft hazard areas implemented for launch from a Federal 
range.

Addition of Sec.  417.107(e)(iii) To Protect Habitable Orbital Objects

    Section 417.107(e) of the draft regulatory language would require a 
launch operator to ensure that a launch vehicle, any jettisoned 
components, and its payload do not pass any closer than 200 kilometers 
to a habitable orbital object and to obtain a collision avoidance 
analysis for each launch. The draft regulatory language includes new 
subparagraph (iii) to protect habitable orbital objects during each 
subsequent orbital maneuver or burn from initial park orbit, or direct 
ascent to a higher interplanetary orbit, or until clear of all 
habitable objects, whichever occurs first. This captures the current 
practice for protection of habitable orbital objects at the Federal 
ranges.

Addition of Sec.  417.111(i)(5)(iii), (iv), (v) Requiring Contact With 
Local Authorities

    The draft regulatory language modifies proposed Sec.  417.111 in 
response to comments to require a launch operator to notify not only 
the Coast Guard and FAA Air Traffic Control when conducting a launch, 
as proposed, but also notifying any equivalent local authorities.

New Sec.  417.129, Safety at End of Launch

    The draft regulatory language includes new Sec.  417.129, which 
requires a launch operator to ensure no physical contact between the 
vehicle and payload after separation, as well as making sure that 
stored energy in the vehicle is depleted and thus not able to generate 
debris.

Addition of ``Equivalent Level of Fidelity'' in Sec.  417.203(c)

    The draft regulatory language modifies proposed Sec.  417.203(c) to 
add the concept of ``equivalent level of fidelity'' for alternate 
methods of analysis. This would require an operator to use accurate 
data and scientific principles when making the case for an alternate 
method of flight safety analysis. Use of an ``equivalent level of 
fidelity'' instead of ``equivalent level of safety'' clarifies that 
when a launch operator seeks to use an alternative method of flight 
safety analysis, the launch operator would have to use accurate data 
and scientific principles in doing so.

Addition of Sec.  417.218, Hold and Resume Gate Analysis

    The draft regulatory language includes new Sec.  417.218, which may 
permit a vehicle overflight or near overflight of a populated or 
otherwise protected area during some portion of a launch. A launch 
vehicle may perform overflight if a risk assessment is acceptable and 
if a flight termination system will not be used to destroy a vehicle 
while the vehicle is flying over the populated or protected area. A 
launch operator would be responsible for identifying the periods of 
time during vehicle flight in which use of a flight termination system 
would be more detrimental to a populated or protected area than not 
using such a system. Section 417.218 is an extension of the 
``overflight gate analysis'' proposed in the 2000 NPRM and appears in 
the draft regulatory language as Sec.  417.217. Section 417.217 would 
require a launch operator to conduct a risk analysis and ``hold'' use 
of a flight termination system once a vehicle passes a certain point or 
``gate.'' Section 417.218 would extend this concept and define those 
periods of time where a flight termination system must not be used. 
Adopting Sec.  417.218 may expand the number of trajectories for 
certain launch sites and potentially increase the number of inland 
launch sites.

[[Page 9887]]

Elimination of a Five-Sigma Cross Range Bound About the Nominal Vehicle 
Trajectory in Sec.  417.223

    The draft regulatory language includes Sec.  417.223, which would 
require a launch operator's flight hazard area analysis to establish 
aircraft and ship hazard areas that encompass a three-sigma impact 
dispersion area for each planned debris impact, instead of a five-sigma 
standard as proposed in the 2000 NPRM. This change is in response to 
comments and to adopt current range practice.

Change to Sec.  417.224, Probability of Failure Analysis

    The draft regulatory language includes changes to Sec.  417.224, 
which would require all flight safety analyses for a launch, regardless 
of hazard or phase of flight, to account for launch vehicle failure 
probability in a consistent manner. Section 417.224 also would require 
that a launch vehicle failure probability estimate use accurate data, 
scientific principles, and satisfy the principles of probability, 
statistics, and mathematics.
    Section A417.25(b)(5) in the 2002 SNPRM (proposed Sec.  
417.227(b)(6)(i-iii) in the 2000 NPRM) would have required a launch 
operator's debris risk analysis account for launch vehicle failure 
probability using theoretical or actual launch vehicle flight data in 
accordance with a specific prescribed method.
    The FAA recognizes that there is more than one way to establish an 
acceptable estimate of the probability of failure, especially for new 
launch vehicles. A performance standard permits a launch operator to 
employ these different methodologies so long as the methodologies 
satisfy the performance standards for expendable launch vehicle 
probability of failure analyses.

Addition of Sec.  417.301(d)

    The draft regulatory language would add new paragraph (d) to Sec.  
417.301 to clarify the flight safety system requirements for a licensed 
launch from a Federal launch range or a non-Federal launch site. For 
launch from a non-Federal launch site, compliance with the flight 
safety system requirements is demonstrated through licensing. If a 
Federal range oversees the safety of a licensed launch, the FAA will 
accept the flight safety system without any demonstration of compliance 
by the launch operator to the FAA with some necessary conditions, which 
recognize that not all Federal ranges have experience conducting all 
types of expendable launches. The FAA will accept a flight safety 
system used by a Federal launch range if a launch operator has 
contracted with a Federal launch range for the provision of flight 
safety system services and property, and the FAA has assessed the range 
and found that the range's systems and procedures satisfy the 
requirements of this subpart. Paragraph (d) also discusses the 
grandfathering provisions of Sec.  417.1(b).

New Version of Sec.  417.303(b)

    The draft regulatory language modifies Sec.  417.303(b) to require 
that a command control system and each subsystem, component, and part 
that can affect the reliability of a component have written performance 
specifications that demonstrate, and contain the details of, how each 
satisfies the requirements of this section.

Rewrite of Appendix B to Part 417

    The draft regulatory language includes a new appendix B to part 417 
that incorporates current practice at Federal ranges. Appendix B 
contains requirements that meet the public risk requirements for the 
protection of ships and aircraft contained in Sec.  417.107. Appendix B 
captures the current practice at the Federal ranges by requiring such 
things as notifications, notices to airmen and mariners, and hazard 
analysis for a launch site, downrange areas, ship, aircraft, and land 
areas.

Changes to Wind Weighting Analysis of Sec.  C417.5(c)

    The draft regulatory language includes substantive changes to the 
wind weighting analysis portion of Appendix C to part 417 from that 
proposed in the 2000 NPRM. The changes relate to the measurement of 
wind velocity and direction in Sec.  C417.5(c). The draft regulatory 
language would require that a launch operator measure wind velocity and 
direction at altitude increments such that the maximum correction 
between any two measurements does not exceed 5%. A launch operator 
would still have to measure winds four times, but the required 
altitudes would be different. Now, the maximum required altitude for 
the first measurement would be that necessary to account for 99% of the 
wind effect, instead of 90,000 feet. The maximum required altitude for 
the second measurement would be that necessary to account for 95% of 
the wind effect, instead of 50,000 feet. The maximum required altitude 
for the third and fourth measurement would be that necessary to account 
for 80% of the wind effect, instead of 5,000 feet. The draft regulatory 
language also clarifies that the last measurement would be required 
only to verify the third wind measurement data, not to set launcher 
azimuth and elevation.

Change to Definition of ``Bright Band'' in Sec.  G417.3

    The draft regulatory language would define ``bright band'' in 
Appendix G to part 417 as an enhancement of radar reflectivity caused 
by frozen hydrometeors falling and beginning to melt at any altitude 
where the temperature is 0 degrees Celsius or warmer. This recognizes 
that there can be multiple altitudes where the temperature is 0 degrees 
Celsius. Accordingly, there may be different altitudes where a bright 
band may occur, and the original proposal incorrectly implied that 
there could be only one.

New Definition of ``Cloud'' in Sec.  G417.3

    In response to comments, the draft regulatory language would define 
``cloud'' as a visible mass of water droplets or ice crystals produced 
by condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Change to Definition of ``Electric Field Measurement at the Surface of 
the Earth'' in Sec.  G417.3

    The draft regulatory language would change the definition of 
``electric field measurement at the surface of the Earth'' to no longer 
treat an interpolation based on electric field contours as a 
measurement. Electric field contours would no longer be used for 
electric field measurements.

Comments Invited

    You may comment on the draft regulatory language by sending written 
data, views, or arguments. We also invite comments relating to the 
environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that might result 
from adopting the draft regulatory language. Substantive comments 
should be accompanied by cost estimates. The most helpful comments are 
those that include a rationale or data. Comments must identify the 
regulatory docket number and be sent to one of the addresses listed 
above.
    You may also present comments at the public meeting. The FAA will 
prepare an agenda of speakers, which will be available at the meeting. 
If we receive your request after the date specified above, your name 
may not appear on the written agenda. To accommodate as many speakers 
as possible, the amount of time allocated to each speaker may be less 
than the amount of time requested. Persons

[[Page 9888]]

requiring audiovisual equipment should notify the FAA when requesting 
to be placed on the agenda.
    We will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this draft regulatory language. You may review the public 
docket containing comments to these proposed regulations in person in 
the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. The DOT Rules Dockets Office is on the plaza 
level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the 
above address. We will consider all comments received on or before the 
closing date before taking action on the draft regulatory language. We 
will consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable, and 
consistent with statutory deadlines. We may change the draft regulatory 
language in light of the comments we receive.
    Commenters who file comments by mail may receive an acknowledgement 
of receipt of their comments by including a pre-addressed, stamped 
postcard with those comments on which the following statement is made: 
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2000-7953.'' The postcard will be date 
stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Privacy Act

    Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can find 
and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the 
name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment on 
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review 
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published 
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information 
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a 
separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a 
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to 
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request 
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a 
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Public Meeting Procedures

    The FAA will present a description of the draft regulatory language 
at the public meeting. The FAA will use the following procedures to 
facilitate the meeting:
    (1) The meeting is designed to give interested parties an overview 
of the contents of the draft regulatory language to facilitate the 
public comment process. Therefore, the meeting will be informal and 
non-adversarial. No individual will be subject to cross-examination by 
any other participant; however, FAA representatives may ask questions 
to clarify a statement and to ensure a complete and accurate record. 
Participants will also have the opportunity to ask questions about the 
draft regulatory language.
    (2) There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend or to 
participate in the meeting. The meeting will be open to all persons who 
are scheduled to present statements or who register between 8:30 a.m. 
and 9 a.m. on the day of the meeting. While we will make every effort 
to accommodate all persons wishing to participate, admission will be 
subject to availability of space in the meeting room. The meeting may 
adjourn early if scheduled speakers complete their statements in less 
time than is scheduled for the meeting.
    (3) Speakers may be limited to a 10-minute statement. If possible, 
we will notify speakers if additional time is available.
    (4) We will try to accommodate all speakers. If the available time 
does not permit this, we will generally schedule speakers on a first-
come-first-served basis. However, we reserve the right to exclude some 
speakers if necessary to present a balance of viewpoints and issues.
    (5) Sign and oral interpretation can be available at the meeting, 
as well as an assistive listening device, if requested from the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at least 2 weeks 
before the meeting.
    (6) Representatives of the FAA will chair the meeting. A panel of 
FAA personnel involved in this proposal will be present.
    (7) We will make a transcript of the meeting using a court 
reporter. We will include in the public docket a transcript of the 
meeting and any material accepted by the FAA representatives during the 
meeting. Any person who is interested in buying a copy of the 
transcript should contact the court reporter directly. Additional 
transcript purchase information will be available at the meeting.
    (8) The FAA will review and consider all material presented by 
participants at the meeting. Position papers or material presenting 
views or arguments related to the draft regulatory language may be 
accepted at the discretion of the presiding officer and subsequently 
placed in the public docket. We request that persons participating in 
the meeting provide six copies of all materials presented for 
distribution to the FAA representatives. You may provide other copies 
to the audience at your discretion.
    (9) Statements made by FAA representatives are intended to 
facilitate discussion of the issues or to clarify issues. Any statement 
made during the meeting by an FAA representative is not intended to be, 
and should not be construed as, an official position of the FAA.

Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Morning--Introductory Remarks and Presentation by FAA and United States 
Air Force representatives
Afternoon--Licensing Requirements
    --Grandfathering, Meets Intent Certifications, and Waivers

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Morning--Cost Implications
Afternoon--Flight Safety Analysis/Flight Safety Systems

Thursday, March 31, 2005

    Continue discussion of technical issues and other concerns.

Availability of the Draft Regulatory Language and Other Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of the draft regulatory language, 
the draft regulatory evaluation, a section-by-section response to 
comments on the 2000 NPRM and the 2002 SNPRM, and the Independent 
Economic Assessment performed by SAIC using the Internet through the 
Department of Transportation Docket Management System at http://dms.dot.gov. Use the search feature of the Web site by entering the 
docket number for this rulemaking (7953). We have also established a 
Web site containing a cross-referencing tool that correlates the text 
of the draft regulatory language with Air Force launch requirements

[[Page 9889]]

documents. The Web address is http://ast.faa.gov/um/.
    You can also get a copy of the draft regulatory language by sending 
a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 
(202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number of this 
rulemaking.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 23, 2005.
George C. Nield,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 05-3916 Filed 2-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P