WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — The Federal Aviation Administration has released their Final Rule on NPRM FAA-2007-27390, which has been submitted for publication in the Federal Register. The Final Rule will become effective 90 days after publication, taking effect around February 2, 2009.

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

Uses no more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant, ses a slow-burning propellant, is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic, contains no substantial metal parts, weighs no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces) including propellant

Class 2 – High-Power Rockets

A rocket other than a Class 1, propelled by a rocket motor or motors having a combined total impulse of 40,960 N-sec (9,208 lbsec) or less.

Class 3 - Advanced High-Power Rockets

Any amateur rocket other than a Class 1 or 2.

Class 4 - Other

Any unmanned rocket that is not an amateur rocket

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)
Document: Official Federal Register Publication E8-27390 (1604K Adboe PDF)

Requirements for Amateur Rocket Activities
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends amateur rocket regulations to preserve the level of safety associated with amateur rocketry and to reflect current industry practice. The new regulations update and align FAA regulations with widely used advances in the amateur rocket industry, specify the required information collected from operators of advanced amateur rocket launches, and define amateur rocket classifications. This action also corrects minor inconsistencies in the current rule.

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
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the agency’s authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections 40102, 40103, 40113-40114, and 44701 - 44702. Under those sections, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations that govern air traffic rules on the flight of aircraft (which include unmanned rockets). This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it defines classes of unmanned rockets and details the information the FAA would require to issue a certificate of waiver or authorization to allow launching of an amateur rocket.

Background
Historically, the FAA relied on State and local regulation, voluntary self-regulation, and its own analysis to fulfill its oversight responsibility for unmanned rocket operations under part 101. Until now, the voluntary self-regulation and State and local regulations adequately protected the public and ensuring safe operation of amateur rockets. Amateur rocket performance continued to improve and participation in amateur rocket launches increased significantly.

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 Requirements for Amateur Rocket Activities notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2007 (72 FR 32816).

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
The FAA received comments from 33 entities including rocketry associations, a pilot association, and individuals. Associations commenting on behalf of their memberships include the National Association of Rocketry (NAR), Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA), Rocketry Association of California (ROC), Rocketry of Central Carolina, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). Many individual commenters also identified themselves as members of these organizations.

In general, commenters supported the proposed requirements and suggested several changes. The comments fall into the following categories:

• Definition of classes for amateur rockets;
• Prohibition of amateur rocket activities within 5 miles of an airport;
• Separation distances from amateur rocket activities and participants, and persons or property not associated with the activities;
• Need for the presence of someone at least 18 years old;
• Need to take measures to control any fire caused by amateur rocket activities; and
• Specific information and notice requirements.

Discussion of the Final Rule
Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule as it relates to the comments we received.

Amateur Rocket Definitions
The FAA proposes to define amateur rocket as an unmanned rocket propelled by a motor or motors having a combined total impulse of 889,600 Newton-seconds (200,000 poundseconds) or less, and cannot reach an altitude greater than 150 km (93.2 statute miles) above the earth’s surface.

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
The FAA proposed to move the rules governing operation of model rockets from Subpart A – General (§ 101.1) to Subpart C – Unmanned Rockets (§ 101.21). This proposal would align all definitions and operating requirements for unmanned rockets in a single subpart. We would continue to allow model rockets to operate without FAA oversight. We received no comments on this action. The FAA adopts this proposal without change.

Amateur Rocket Definitions
We proposed two new classes of amateur rockets. We defined Class 1 as an amateur rocket using less than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of slow-burning propellant and weighing no more than 454 grams (16 ounces) including the propellant. We defined Class 2 as an amateur rocket using less than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of slow-burning propellant and weighing no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces) including propellant.

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 proposed the following general operating limitations for amateur rocket activities:

• An amateur rocket must be:
• Launched on a suborbital trajectory,
• Unmanned, and
• Not cross into the territory of a foreign country unless there is an agreement between the United States and the country of concern.

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.
We proposed an additional operating limitation for Class 1 model rockets in proposed §101.23. Specifically, persons operating this class of rocket must do so in a manner that does not create a hazard to persons, property, or other aircraft.

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
Proposed § 101.25(b) would prohibit operating High-Power Rockets within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of any airport boundary. We received comments from the NAR, ROC, Rocketry of Central Carolina, and 13 individual commenters stating the proposed rule does not provide flexibility for waiving this requirement. They commented further that the proposal does not consider airport size, frequency of flight operations, facilities, location, or history of safe operations, and maintained that it is unclear whether this requirement can be waived.

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
Proposed §§ 101.25 and 101.26 would stipulate that, no person may operate a high-power rocket or advanced high-power rocket within 457 meters (1,500 ft.) of any person or property not associated with the operation. The same separation distance exists in the current regulation.

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
Proposed § 101.25(f) stipulates that no person may operate a High-Power Rocket unless a person at least 18 years old is present; that person is charged with ensuring the safety of the operation and has final approval authority for initiating high-power rocket flight. The NAR supported this requirement. We received no other comments on this proposal. The FAA adopts § 101.25(f) as proposed.

Measures to Control Fire Caused by Amateur Rocket Activity
The FAA proposed that no person may operate a High-Power Rocket unless reasonable precautions are provided to report and control a fire caused by  rocket activity. The NAR supported the proposal and went on to reference the NFPA 1127 Code for High Power Rocketry.

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
The FAA proposed additional operating limitations for Advanced High-Power Rockets to ensure air traffic is not adversely affected and public safety is not jeopardized. We received no comments on this section. Therefore, the FAA adopts § 101.26 as proposed.

Notice Requirements
We proposed that FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) must receive notice requirement information no less than 24 hours before and no more than 3 days before the amateur rocket activities take place.

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
notification for all launches.

Latitude and Longitude, Information Required 45 Days Before Rocket Activities, and Estimated Number of Rockets
As proposed in the NPRM under § 101.27(d), no person may operate an unmanned rocket, other than a Class 1 – Model Rocket, unless that person provides the FAA with the location of the center of the affected area in latitude and longitude coordinates. Proposed § 101.29(a)(7) lists the launch site latitude and longitude among the detailed information requirements a person operating a High-Power Rocket must submit to the FAA when requesting a certificate of waiver or authorization. The information must be provided at least 45 days before the proposed operation.

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
As proposed in the NPRM under § 101.29(a)(2), a person operating a Class 3 - High-Power Rocket that requires a certificate of waiver or authorization must provide the FAA information on the type of propulsion, fuel(s), oxidizer(s), manufacturer, and certification, if any, for the rockets.

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)
As proposed in the NPRM under § 101.29(a)(3), operators must provide a description of the launcher(s) planned for their amateur rocket activities, including any airborne platform(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
As proposed in the NPRM under § 101.29(a)(4), operators must provide a description of their recovery system. The NAR, TRA, ROC, and 12 individual commenters propose this requirement be removed from the final rule. They maintain the FAA did not explain why such information is necessary for flight safety.

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
As proposed in the NPRM under § 101.29(a)(8), operators must provide any additional safety procedures that will be followed. The NAR, TRA, ROC, and 11 individual commenters found this section to be vague and unnecessary. Several commenters proposed this section should be modified to make clear that flying on NAR safety codes is an acceptable method to report this information.

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
One commenter suggested that § 101.29 be changed to require the information listed only for those flights that exceed 25,000 feet. TRA noted they have a precise procedure for reviewing and approving all flights held at TRA-sanctioned events that will exceed 24,000 feet in apogee.

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.

12-03-2008 07:01 PM  #1
Rocket Flier Certified Level Three   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 278	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: The FAA proposed that no person may operate a High-Power Rocket unless reasonable precautions are provided to report and control a fire caused by rocket activity. The NAR supported the proposal and went on to reference the NFPA 1127 Code for High Power Rocketry And "reasonable" to them may end up being a fire crew on site with a brush truck.

12-03-2008 09:00 PM  #2
denverdoc Hall Monitor   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 3200	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Apart from that, seems like we did ok with regard to the detailed and advance notice headaches, which is what I feared the most.

12-03-2008 09:22 PM  #3
rstaff3 Oddroc-eteer   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 326	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM My read is there is no real change to LPR, MPR 'large model rockets' are the main benefactor, HPR to 'O' impulse is not impacted much, but over that impulse there will be a lot of documentation hoops to go thru. Did I get it right?

12-03-2008 10:03 PM  #4
H_rocket Village Idiot   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 706	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM If I read this right the impulse limits that were in place for LMR have gone away and as such, if you have the 1500' distance you can launch a sub 3,3# rocket on a small H as long as it comes in under 125g. Or wasthe impulse limits part of NFPA?

12-03-2008 11:44 PM  #5
rstaff3 Oddroc-eteer   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 326	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM I thought the 1500' was only for Level 2 and up.

12-04-2008 01:16 AM  #6
plantman89 Certified Level 1   Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 13	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM This could have been really bad. Those who fly above "O" got the most headache with all the notifications, but who couldn't see something like that coming. All it takes is a few paranoid nutjobs in Washington, thinking those patriot missile kits are armed warheads for people to buy and build.

12-04-2008 04:32 AM  #7
Nesssalco A NOXious fellow   Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 48	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM One big change is the new setback requirements. For class 2 rockets, distances to uninvolved people are now 1500' or 1/4 the predicted altitude, whichever is greater. (page 10) Here in Vermont I think we'll be losing about 3K from our 10K waiver. Kevin

12-04-2008 03:27 PM  #8
knarfster New Member   Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 7	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: One big change is the new setback requirements. For class 2 rockets, distances to uninvolved people are now 1500' or 1/4 the predicted altitude, whichever is greater. (page 10) 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.

12-04-2008 05:36 PM  #9
StuBarrett Certified Level Eleven   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 154	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: And "reasonable" to them may end up being a fire crew on site with a brush truck. As well they may. However, they are not as likely to require this as we would be. Stu

12-04-2008 09:53 PM  #10
lawndart Certified Level Three   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 221	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: As well they may. However, they are not as likely to require this as we would be. 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.

12-04-2008 11:23 PM  #11
Steve_Shannon Super Moderator   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2435	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: I think there should be a brush truck onsite along w/ some sort of EMS personel there at all launches... Unconditional statements like this are the genesis of unreasonable rules. We launch from BLM land. We have a waiver to 46,000 AGL. We have six to eight people who launch regularly. Our site has very little fuel for fire and we still typically shut down during fire season. We coordinate closely with FAA, BLM, and USFS Fire Dispatch and we have prepared for the worst with an Indian brand fire pump, extra water cans, fire rakes and shovels. Requiring a truck for our site is not warranted and would simply mean that we would no longer have a launch site.

12-04-2008 11:50 PM  #12
n5wd NAR L1   Joined: May 2007 Posts: 102	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: 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. 15 years or so, ago, my volunteer department got $300-$400 for an 8-hour standby at dirt bike races or the occasional TV/movie production.... that was for a medic in a brush truck with a BLS first-aid bag and a cell phone to call for a ground unit or the helicopter if it was needed. More recently, the big city EMS service I managed the special services for charged a little over $100/hour (4-hour minumum plus mileage for out-of-town trips) for standby for an MICU ambulance with one medic and one EMT. Or, we'd give you one of our bicycle EMS teams for $80/hour. Neither of those charges included transporting a patient, by the way. I don't know of many clubs that could handle that kind of extra-service tarrif, do you?

12-05-2008 12:01 AM  #13
SecretSquirrel Nutty   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 209	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: 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. Ummmm, not t be a smart a** or anything, but have your read your own signature line lately?

12-05-2008 12:43 AM  #14
lawndart Certified Level Three   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 221	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM i wasn't alluding to it being a rule. and i know about how hobby's safety track record , which is very ,very good, it is something that i'd like to see at moderately sized launches. all launches maybe too much, and of course there's always an exception. i don't like being oppressed by a ton of rules either. but what are your going to do when a large estes rocket whacks someone badly? uh. we can do what if's all night if you want. I had an estes rocket go squirrelly(no pun intended) on a second flight on the same motor and hit a guy standing 25ft away in groin. Lucky for both no injuries. and to squirrel: fyi, i was broke 3yrs ago when i blew out my back truck driving. when there's a will, there's a way!! i have had a lot of help from people in this hobby help me fly until i got back on my feet in some sort. i wouldn't gotten that from any other hobby.

12-05-2008 12:47 AM  #15
lawndart Certified Level Three   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 221	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: 15 years or so, ago, my volunteer department got $300-$400 for an 8-hour standby at dirt bike races or the occasional TV/movie production.... that was for a medic in a brush truck with a BLS first-aid bag and a cell phone to call for a ground unit or the helicopter if it was needed. More recently, the big city EMS service I managed the special services for charged a little over $100/hour (4-hour minumum plus mileage for out-of-town trips) for standby for an MICU ambulance with one medic and one EMT. Or, we'd give you one of our bicycle EMS teams for $80/hour. Neither of those charges included transporting a patient, by the way. I don't know of many clubs that could handle that kind of extra-service tarrif, do you? probably not, but maybe there could be a set fee or donation to the volunteer service or if someone in the club is firefighter or ems , they could set something up. why do you call it a tarrif? it's not a tax. it's an opinion/idea.. don't hang me for it.

12-05-2008 12:58 AM  #16
SecretSquirrel Nutty   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 209	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: and to squirrel: fyi, i was broke 3yrs ago when i blew out my back truck driving. when there's a will, there's a way!! i have had a lot of help from people in this hobby help me fly until i got back on my feet in some sort. i wouldn't gotten that from any other hobby. I see I was too subtle

12-05-2008 01:10 AM  #17
lawndart Certified Level Three   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 221	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM we're still friends

12-05-2008 10:17 AM  #18
lawndart Certified Level Three   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 221	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: Ummmm, not t be a smart a** or anything, but have your read your own signature line lately? yes, fixed

12-05-2008 10:37 AM  #19
Steve_Shannon Super Moderator   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2435	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: yes, fixed I think he was saying that perhaps you had retained some flatulence right before coming up with the idea that all launches have a brush truck to fight fires.

12-05-2008 10:47 AM  #20
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1418	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM All of the bad offset distance rules from NFPA-1127 myself and Bob Kaplow have been warning the public about for years, just made it into FAA code. Jerry

12-05-2008 11:54 AM  #21
n5wd NAR L1   Joined: May 2007 Posts: 102	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: probably not, but maybe there could be a set fee or donation to the volunteer service or if someone in the club is firefighter or ems , they could set something up. why do you call it a tarrif? it's not a tax. it's an opinion/idea.. don't hang me for it. L-D, as I said... our vollie department did those standbys for donations - but we specified a minimum donation amount and if you wanted someone out there to cover you, you came up with at least the minimum donation! You could always donate MORE than that amount, but I never saw anyone who did. Don't get me wrong - it'd be great if a club could arrange to have a medic on standby at one of their launches, or have a firefighter with all of his gear and a rig to work with, but it's probably not practical on a regular basis. It all comes down to liability and costs. A licensed or certified professional assumes a certain amount of liability when he sets up shop and says "I'm here to provide service if it's needed". In most states, it's codified into law as a "duty to act". Basically it says 'if you tell someone you're going to be there to help them out in an emergency, you have a responsibility to do what you said you would to an expected level of competence if they call'. To do that without the equipment and necessary backup support is setting yourself up for all sorts of problems. It's a lot different if a medic drives up on something, or just happens to see something happen at an event where they're participating as a private citizen - then, they have no "duty to act" which they would if they were to set something up beforehand. And I'm just going by what you said earlier, regarding the word I used: tariff - if a club charges extra for services like that at a launch, then it's a user fee, just not one charged by the government.

12-05-2008 12:05 PM  #22
SecretSquirrel Nutty   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 209	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: I think he was saying that perhaps you had retained some flatulence right before coming up with the idea that all launches have a brush truck to fight fires. Yeah, that was it. I'm not saying it's a horrible idea and I understand how one would think it's good. But when you look into it I think the costs involved would quickly break almost any club's treasury.

12-05-2008 12:35 PM  #23
Steve_Shannon Super Moderator   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2435	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: Yeah, that was it. I'm not saying it's a horrible idea and I understand how one would think it's good. But when you look into it I think the costs involved would quickly break almost any club's treasury. I agree completely. I really think that Mike really meant that every club should do what is appropriate in order to prevent or minimize the chance of fire, including cancelling launches when necessary. In some cases that is very little (Black Rock). Different launch sites have different needs. The problem I was concerned about is that someone less familiar with rocketry and the variety of launch sites may read a statement like that out of context and surmise incorrectly, "Well, see here, even some rocketeers say that every launch should have a fire truck on hand. It must be a very dangerous sport!" Anyway, our current waiver includes language from the FAA requiring that we take steps to prevent fires. They don't specify the steps; that is best left to local authorities who control our launch site who are familiar with our site and local current fire conditions. Our waiver was one that was mentioned in the NPRM as an example of how FAA works with local rocket clubs. It was a very positive experience and Marcus Ward was easy for me to work with.

12-05-2008 12:43 PM  #24
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1418	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM There is a world of difference between suggesting in a conversation a fire truck is a good idea, if available, and mandating it in a rule or regulation, or even strongly suggesting it. There is already language to address user safety, crowd safety, fire suppression, trees and power lines and we now have a 100% effective safety record. If it ain't broke don't fix it. What we lack are boots on the ground. We need a surge. Jerry

12-05-2008 01:29 PM  #25
tmacklin Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 170	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM Quote: There is a world of difference between suggesting in a conversation a fire truck is a good idea, if available, and mandating it in a rule or regulation, or even strongly suggesting it. There is already language to address user safety, crowd safety, fire suppression, trees and power lines and we now have a 100% effective safety record. If it ain't broke don't fix it. What we lack are boots on the ground. We need a surge. Jerry I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, most of the world operates like this: "We recognize no problem; therefore there is none."

12-05-2008 01:34 PM  #26
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 4071	Re: Article: FAA issues final ruling on FAR 101 NPRM We had a rail put on a pad and insufficiently tightened during setup. The rail was attached to a head that had full vertical angle adjustment. The rail fell over and hit a member on top of his head. Luckily he was only a few feet from it so it didn't fall as far or as fast as it would have had he been close to the end of the 8' rail. I arrived just after this happened and administered first aid. It was a mild scalp wound and we iced it and cleaned it and kept a watch on him for signs of concussion. The person was fine and recovered without a trip to the hospital. It turns out I was the only person First Aid and CPR certified who attended the launch within the first few hours. We haven't formally discussed this but I think we may need to require that officers in the club are CPR and First Aid certified to help out in times like this.