| FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM |
|
|
|
| 2008 Archived News by Planet News | |
| Wednesday, December 03, 2008 | |
|
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) called for the revamping of FAR 101, the federal regulations that apply to hobby rocketry activities in the United States. The FAA proposal called for the redefinition of what an "amateur rocket" is, the reclassification of existing model rocket and large model rocket classes, and the addition of two new classes to cover existing high power rockets and experimental rockets. In the NPRM, FAA was quick to point out the long-standing safety record of amateur, or hobby, rocketry, but recognized that the technological state of the hobby has grown considerably over the past 40 years, and proposed changes to bring current regulations up to speed with the hobby. In addition, as the upper end of hobby continues to push the altitude envelope, they saw a need to address concerns with the nation's valuable electronic equipment sitting in low-earth orbit above the country's airspace. Before this change, there were only three classifications of amateur rockets: Model Rockets, Large Model Rockets and Other. The FAA clarified FAR 101 by adding two new categories of amateur rocket operations and amending the definitions of the existing categories, numbering these categories from "Class 1" to "Class 4." Class 1 - Model Rockets
Class 2 – High-Power Rockets
Class 3 - Advanced High-Power Rockets
Class 4 - Other
The Final Rule summary and comments are below. For the full final ruling document, download the attached file. Document: Final Rule on FAA NPRM Docket#FAA-2007-27390 (232K Adboe PDF) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 1, 101, 400, 401, and 420 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27390; Amendment Nos. 1-62, 101-8, 400-2, 401-6, and 420-4] RIN 2120–2120-AI88 Requirements for Amateur Rocket Activities DATES: These amendments become effective [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this final rule contact Charles P. Brinkman, Licensing and Safety Division (AST-200), Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-7715, e-mail This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it . For legal questions concerning this final rule contact Gary Michel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3148. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for this Rulemaking Background The FAA believes these activities need appropriate regulation for continued safe operation. This rulemaking is intended to preserve the safety record of amateur rocket activities, address inconsistencies, and clarify existing amateur rocket regulations. Summary of the NPRM The proposal added two new categories of amateur rocket operations and amended the definitions of the existing two categories. The new category structure would be numbered from Class 1 to Class 4. The two new categories would be Class 3 – High-Powered Rocket and Class 4 – Advanced High-Power Rockets. These two new categories would capture amateur rockets that require significant FAA analyses to determine whether they can be safely operated within the National Air Space (NAS). The Class 1 and Class 2 rocket categories, meanwhile, would be slightly modified to incorporate current definitions of model rocket and large model rocket, respectively. We proposed to re-classify the existing information requirements and operating limitations currently required before a proposed launch for the more advanced amateur rocket activities. Low risk Class 1 – Model Rocket operators would continue to be exempt from information requirements. Operators of Class 2 – Large Model Rockets would continue to provide their names, addresses, highest anticipated altitude, location of the launch, date, time, and duration of the launch event. This information enables us to take appropriate action to ensure safe operation in the NAS. The notice also proposed to specify reporting practices for the new category Class 3 and Class 4 rockets. Operators of rockets with these characteristics generally file for a certificate of waiver or authorization to conduct their operations. They are exempt from launch license regulations in part 400. Operators are often contacted for additional information when the FAA receives their waiver application. As proposed, most, if not all, information would be submitted on the initial waiver application, which would save the FAA and the operator’s time and expense. Amateur rocket regulations were written when the amateur rocket community used mainly solid rocket motors. Now the amateur rocket community also uses liquid propellants. We proposed to redefine amateur rocket activity to reflect this advanced rocket environment and codify safe practices being used by the amateur rocket community. Summary of Comments In general, commenters supported the proposed requirements and suggested several changes. The comments fall into the following categories:
Discussion of the Final Rule Amateur Rocket Definitions The ROC commented that the value of 889,600 Newton-seconds falls in the middle of the “T” impulse range, using the values in common usage by amateur rocket hobbyists. As a result, the value in the NPRM definition does not correspond with any natural dividing line between impulse levels. The ROC recommended the FAA increase the total impulse limit for amateur rockets from 889,600 Newton-seconds to 1,310,720 Newton-seconds. The FAA believes the current total impulse limit represents a reasonable boundary based on the potential performance of a rocket with that total impulse. The FAA adopts the definition language in § 1.1, as proposed. Proposed § 101.22 would require an amateur rocket be launched on a suborbital trajectory. Two individual commenters suggested the FAA begin to consider rulemaking for amateur rockets that may go into Earth orbit. One addressed the limit of 150 km specified in § 1.1. The second suggested the FAA re-examine the requirement that amateur rockets be suborbital, as proposed in § 101.22. The FAA believes that 150 km is the best limit for amateur rocket launch operations. Any rocket that goes above the 150 km altitude limit will involve licensing issues, i.e., foreign policy, national security, and safety concerns. Location of Amateur Rocket Regulations Amateur Rocket Definitions The NAR, ROC, and 13 individual commenters noted that the only difference between Class 1 and Class 2 is weight. The NAR conducted computer flight simulations of these two classes of amateur rockets to demonstrate the “heavier models have far less velocity and altitude potential.” The NAR’s flight experience with rockets meeting the specifications of both classes indicates that both types can be flown using the operating limitations proposed for Class 1. The NAR, as well as the other commenters on this section, recommended combining Class 1 and Class 2 into a single classification – Class 1. The other classes would be renumbered. Therefore, requirements specified in the NPRM for Class 3 and Class 4 now apply to Class 2. The FAA created the two classes, model rocket and large model rocket, in 1994. Since that time amateur rocket hobbyists have established a history of safe operation for large model rockets. We have analyzed the performance of proposed large model rockets, in light of NAR’s suggestion, and found they can cause more significant damage to persons or property than model rockets. However, neither model rockets nor large model rockets can affect air traffic if operated in accordance with this regulation. Since local ordinances cover hazards due to the reckless use of model and large model rockets on ground-based property and persons, the FAA agrees that combining these two classes is appropriate. Therefore, the FAA combines the proposed Class 1-Model Rocket and Class 2 - Large Model Rocket into a single Class 1-Model Rocket. We have decided the operating limitations contained in § 101.24 of the NPRM are not necessary for the combined Class 1 Model Rockets, and, therefore, proposed § 101.24 is removed. We proposed a new Class 3-High-Power Rocket as an amateur rocket other than a model rocket or large model rocket propelled by a motor or motors having a combined total impulse of 163,840 Newton-seconds (36,818 pound-seconds) or less. Several commenters recommended the upper limit for Class 3 be reduced from 163,840 Newton-seconds to 40,960 Newton-seconds. They stated this reduction would place the upper limit at the “O” class, as documented in the TRA safety code. Some commenters noted that a rocket carrying a motor above the “O” class, or 40,960 Newton-seconds, could reach altitudes greater than 7,620 meters (25,000 feet). These commenters suggest any rocket with the ability to reach greater altitudes belongs in Class 4-Advanced High-Power Rockets. The FAA agrees. In addition to creating a class of rocketry that is inconsistent with the TRA safety code, the proposal, if adopted, would be inconsistent with the 2008 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1127 Code for High-Power Rockets. This code also addresses rockets having total impulse up to 40,960 Newton-seconds (9,208 pound-seconds) or “O” motor class. Further, most amateur rocket activities involve rockets with a total impulse of 40,960 Newton-seconds or less. The FAA has reconsidered this proposal and revises the criteria and class for high-power rockets. The Class 2 – High Power Rocket is defined as having a combined total impulse of 40,960 Newton-seconds (9,208 pound-seconds). Operating Limitations
We further included a condition that we may specify additional operating restrictions necessary to ensure that air traffic is not adversely affected, and public safety is not jeopardized. We received no comments on this section. These requirements are adopted, as proposed, although the section is renumbered as § 101.23. No comments were received on this proposal. However, after further review, we realize our intent was to apply this requirement to all classes of amateur rockets. We have removed any specific reference to Class 1 model rockets. These requirements now apply to amateur rockets in general. Amateur Rocket Activities Within 5 Miles of an Airport The FAA understands High-Power Rockets have a long history of safe operation within 5 statute miles of airport boundaries and agrees such operations should be allowed to continue, when appropriate, under a certificate of waiver or authorization. Separation Distances from Amateur Rocket Activities This distance from any person or property not associated with the operation also applies to Class 4-Advanced High-Power Rocket (§101.26). Several commenters questioned the requirement regarding proposed separation distances. One commenter requested clarification regarding whether uninvolved public includes spectators. The commenters note the 2008 Edition of NFPA 1127, Code for High Power Rocketry, specifies differing minimum separation distances for spectators and participants that relate to the classifications of rocket motors. Commenters recommended the FAA adopt the NFPA standards that establish minimum separation distances between the launch point, spectators, and other exposed elements of the public. Commenters also noted that both NAR and TRA follow the safety requirements of the rocketry-related codes published by NFPA. In developing this proposal, the FAA considered amateur rocketry events and participants involved, their families and friends, and a few casual spectators. Various rocketry groups do not include spectators in the 1,500 feet separation distance for persons or property not associated with the operations. In fact, the 2008 Edition of NFPA 1127 recognizes this disparity by providing separation distances for spectators and participants that are less stringent than the existing FAA requirement. However, we do not intend to encourage the presence of large crowds of spectators close to the launch because their presence would pose a significant threat to those spectators. Most commonly launched amateur rockets are small and their hazards typically are also small. No serious accidents or incidents have been reported by NAR and TRA. While there have been no reported accidents associated with launches of larger amateur rockets, the risk associated with a large amateur rocket launch could be considerably greater. Participants and spectators, clearly associated with the activity, are not required to comply with the specified separation. We retain the provision in § 101.23(b) to specify additional operating limitations, as necessary, to ensure air traffic operations are not adversely affected, and public safety is not jeopardized. The FAA routinely attaches conditions to certificates of waiver or authorization for larger amateur rocket launches specifying separation distances greater than 1,500 feet applicable to spectators and persons not associated with the operation. The FAA agrees, in principal, with the commenters’ suggestion to adopt the NFPA standard. Generally, those engaged in amateur rocket activities have applied the 457 meters (1,500 ft.) distance requirement to the uninvolved public. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA seeks primarily to codify existing practice. Current amateur rocket activities, especially those under the auspices of various rocketry associations, have not resulted in harm to persons not associated with the operations. The FAA believes the 1,500 feet separation distance has served a useful purpose, and we retain this separation minimum in the final rule for High-Power Rockets and Advanced High-Power Rockets. In consideration of the comments recommending the FAA adopt the NFPA 1127 separation distance requirements, we will require an additional separation distance from any person or property not associated with the operation. This decision is based on the minimum site dimensions provided in NFPA 1127. In the regulation, we instead specify this as an equivalent separation distance assuming the launch location is in the center of the site. This minimum separation distance is equal to one quarter of the expected maximum altitude or 457 meters (1,500 ft.), whichever is greater. Under normal conditions, this requirement will be adequate to protect public safety. When greater separation distances are required to protect spectators, the FAA will specify additional operating limitations in any certificate of waiver or authorization it may grant. The FAA believes its principal responsibility is to protect those individuals and property not associated with the launch. This approach differs somewhat from that taken under 14 CFR Chapter III where the FAA counts spectators as part of the public in its risk analysis. The rationale for this different approach reflects the good job rocketry associations do in protecting spectators. Usually, spectators viewing amateur rocket launches are more closely associated with the operations than those viewing FAA-licensed launches and do not have as great a potential for a catastrophic accident, such as loss of life or serious injury. Need for Presence of Someone at Least 18 Years Old Measures to Control Fire Caused by Amateur Rocket Activity Conversely, the ROC does not believe this provision is necessary or appropriate for codification. We disagree. This requirement is consistent with our mission to ensure the safety of any person or property not associated with the operations. In developing the proposed rule, our goal was to eliminate duplicate requirements imposed by other Federal agencies or state or local governments. For example, this proposal contains no explicit requirements concerning hazardous materials because other Federal and local laws are applicable. The proposal is intended to protect the “uninvolved” public, on the ground and in the air. It would not supersede any other laws or ordinances. Operators of high-power and advanced high-power rockets would be required to take reasonable precautions to control and report a fire. Additionally, operators would comply with local ordinances as applicable, because a fire in some of the remote areas where amateur rocket launches occur could have serious consequences. The FAA adopts § 101.25(g) as proposed. Operating Limitations Advanced High-Power Rockets Notice Requirements Three commenters expressed concern that this proposed rule means a temporary flight restriction (TFR) must be in place before an amateur rocket launch can occur. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) recommended adding clear guidance to prohibit the use of TFRs for amateur rocket activities. Two individual commenters urged that there be no change in the current NOTAM procedures. Another commenter questioned the necessity of collecting personal information about amateur rocket operators and requiring operators to apply for a certificate of waiver or authorization before conducting amateur rocket activities. The FAA stresses that the only change proposed was to the timeline for giving information to ATC. Operators must still notify ATC no less than 24 hours before amateur rocket activities begin. We proposed to change the second half of the timeline from ‘no more than 48 hours’ to ‘no more than 3 days’ before amateur rocket activities begin. This change would synchronize FAA regulations with FAA Order 7930.2, Para. 4-1-1, Notice to Airmen. We did not propose changes to requirements for NOTAMs or TFR procedures. Because we did not propose any changes, any ban on the use of TFRs for amateur rocket activities is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The information requested in the notice requirement is needed to ensure the safety and integrity of the NAS, to issue a NOTAM, or take other action. The FAA adopts the timeline requirements in § 101.27, as proposed. However, the title was changed to include ATC Latitude and Longitude, Information Required 45 Days Before Rocket Activities, and Estimated Number of Rockets The NAR, ROC, and eight individual commenters proposed a modification to this notice requirement. Previous sponsors of launch activities have submitted distances along a VOR radial to describe their location. An individual commenter noted that his organization has provided latitude and longitude coordinates in its certificate of waiver or authorization applications. According to this commenter, its organization has been asked to give the location as a VOR radial and distance. These commenters suggest there are other acceptable methods to locate a launch pad,, such as checking distance along a VOR radial. We find that latitude and longitude coordinates provide the most accurate method of fixing an exact location. Further, a latitude and longitude location is consistent with FAA charting practices. The FAA adopts the requirements of § 101.27(d) and § 101.29(a)(7), as proposed, except these requirements are located in § 101.29(a)(6). The NAR, TRA, ROC, and 16 individual commenters questioned the need for the 45 days in advance of the rocket activity. An individual commenter noted that due to uncertainties in schedules and weather, among other things, participants in rocket launch events involving High-Power Rockets may not know if the event is really going to occur, if they are going to attend, and what rockets they are going to fly until shortly before the event, the day of the event, or even during the event. The commenter contends these last-minute changes occur for bonafide reasons involving matters such as wind direction and speed and cloud cover that cannot be predicted with any assurance. The commenter further contends rocket launch events involve multiple participants who need to be able to have flexibility to lower their flight plans if weather deteriorates at the last minute or raise them if weather improves. The NAR and ROC cite the current practice of completing one annual certificate of waiver or authorization for all their planned amateur rocket events for a calendar year. That certificate describes the types of amateur rockets typically launched at these events. The certificate of waiver or authorization requires notification to the local ATC facility 48 hours prior to each flight activity. The NAR and ROC recommend adoption of requirements that reflect current practice. The FAA agrees. We intended to retain the current practice and have modified the language in the final rule to do so. When requesting a certificate of waiver or authorization, the FAA will require each person or organization to provide the requested information at least 45 days before the proposed operation. An organization can still submit an application for an annual certificate of waiver or authorization, detailing the events for the coming year. As proposed in § 101.29(a)(1), a person operating a High-Power Rocket that requires a certificate of waiver or authorization must provide the information requested on each rocket to be flown. The NAR, TRA, ROC, and 12 individual commenters objected strenuously to this provision. The ROC noted that rocketry clubs typically file a single certificate of waiver or authorization application for the year. They detail the dates for the event and the types of amateur rockets they expect to be flown. What they actually fly will depend on how many people show up, what rockets they bring with them, what the weather conditions are, and other factors. They state that adopting the NPRM as written would require them to complete Form 7711-2 for each rocket they expect to fly. In the case of the ROC, this could mean deluging the FAA with “multiple thousands of notices.” One commenter calculated that for a typical weekend launch, he “might bring 10 rockets, each of which can be flown with one of 10 different motors, and perhaps a similar number of pad and recovery choices, making 1,000 possible combinations. If there are 100 fliers at the event, the waiver documentation could be 100,000 pages.” He then notes that Form 7711-2 requires the information to be in triplicate. All the commenters on this issue urge that the FAA require the current practice for these launch events – that is, an approximate number of rockets to be flown and an aggregate of information on those rockets. That would mean the maximum size, weight, and power to be flown, and the maximum altitude and radius expected for these rockets. The FAA agrees and fully intended that current practice be reflected in the final rule. We now state that each person or organization must provide the information requested at least 45 days before the proposed operation and clarify that the 45-day requirement applies only when a certificate of waiver or authorization is necessary. Organizations may continue to aggregate the information and detail the maximum parameters they expect for a given event. Information Requirement for Type of Propulsion, Fuel(s), Oxidizer(s), Manufacturer, and Certification The NAR, TRA, ROC, and 11 individual commenters noted that requiring information on propulsion systems, fuels, oxidizers, manufacturers, and certifications does not contribute to preserving safety. The commenters recommended that this requirement be stricken entirely from the final rule. In lieu of striking the requirement, the NAR would note that the NFPA has established standards for the certification and production of amateur rocket motors in NFPA Code 1125, “Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors, 2007 Edition.” The NAR’s Standards and Testing Committee tests motors to this standard, and NAR members can only use engines on its ranges that have been tested and passed these standards. The FAA conducted more research into whether having knowledge of these elements has an impact on safety. We found that having information about the manufacturer and any certification of a rocket does not increase the FAA’s ability to determine the safe operation of amateur rocket activities. However, we do need to know the type of propulsion, fuels, and oxidizers involved because some of them are highly explosive or toxic. Therefore, the FAA removes the manufacturer and certification information requirement from the final rule. We retain the propulsion, fuels, and oxidizers information requirement, as proposed. Description of the Launcher(s) The NAR, TRA, ROC, and 11 individual commenters noted that requiring a description of the launcher does not contribute to preserving safety. They state there is no record of launcher-related failures resulting in an unsafe flight condition, life threatening injury, or property damage. The FAA disagrees because there are documented incidents where a balloon launcher failure occurred and started a fire on the ground. In addition, we find that having a description of the launcher adds a safety benefit to amateur rocket activities. A launcher failure could cause the rocket to veer in a different direction than intended. The FAA adopts § 101.29(a)(3), as proposed. Description of the Recovery System The FAA disagrees with these comments. This information allows the FAA to calculate the hazard area for an amateur rocket launch event. The FAA adopts § 101.29(a)(4), as proposed. Additional Safety Procedures While the FAA believes the NAR and TRA safety codes contribute to the safety of amateur rocket activities, we cannot make a blanket requirement accepting these safety codes. The codes may change in the future. The FAA would then be bound to whatever those changes might be. We must have the ability to require additional information as circumstances or technology changes might demand. The FAA adopts § 101.29(a)(8), as proposed. Miscellaneous Comments Since their criteria are similar to the information requirements detailed in the NPRM, they see no need to change the rule. The FAA disagrees because these requirements also apply to operations not sanctioned by TRA. The FAA adopts § 101.29, as proposed. One commenter suggested that the rule exempt Class 1 Model Rockets from US Postal Service (USPS) restrictions to allow mailing these “common goods” without special labeling and papers. The commenter suggested a number of other changes to the rule to facilitate shipping model rockets. These suggestions are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA has no authority to release amateur rocket enthusiasts from USPS regulations, nor can we impose regulations not associated with aviation on the USPS. |
| << Previous Article | Next Article >> |
|---|
Did I get it right?
Here in Vermont I think we'll be losing about 3K from our 10K waiver.
Kevin
Here in Vermont I think we'll be losing about 3K from our 10K waiver.
Kevin
That rule has been there all along. It just says that you can't launch HPR within 1500 feet of people not "involved" in the launch. people who travel to a launch to specifically watch launches are "involved" You just can't launch HPR from your local park, unless people who are there to do their own thing are at least 1500 feet from your HPR launch.
As well they may. However, they are not as likely to require this as we would be.
Stu
Stu
I think there should be a brush truck onsite along w/ some sort of EMS personel there at all launches. Especially at large launches.
I know it'd cost more for the club members. I'd rather pay a little extra for my membership/flight fees knowing that there's real help nearby.
As we all know most launches are in the middle of nowhere and it could be 15-20mins before help arrives. even by me in ny, it's a good 20mins to the nearest/ quickest hospital to get to.