|
OREM, Utah USA — The on-line public forum conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration on small-scale rockets has officially ended. The comments received will help the FAA in redefining the regulatory framework for small-scale rocket activities and a transcript of the public meeting will be posted on the AST Web site during the week of March 13th.
Written comments may still be submitted to the docket until March 24, 2000. Mail or deliver comments in duplicate to: U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, Docket No. FAA-1999-6574, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room Plaza 401, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be sent electronically to the FAA Documents Management System (DMS) at the following Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov/
Bruce Kelly, president of the Tripoli Rocketry Association, formally entered the TRA position to the forum before it closed. To provide those individuals who did not have a chance to read it an opportunity, the posts have been regenerated here in their entirety. The first post was a response to Question #1, while the second post was a post in the General Comments section.
As to Question 1; What existing and future launch activities could be conducted without FAA licensing? What criteria could be used to define these activities?
A NEED FOR COMMON LANGUAGE
The second part of this question really outlines the problem. The FAA desires to redefine "the regulatory framework for small-scale rocketry activities." So the problem is one of definition. If we were all on the same page, the FAA would not feel the need to redefine anything for small-scale rocketry activities. We need a common definition of "small-scale." The rocketry community has a different point of view than the FAA when it comes to "small-scale" rockets. Additionally, we need to define areas beyond small-scale.
By using the term "small-scale" the FAA has brought arguments into the forum that do not belong here, notwithstanding these statements, "The 1988 final rule, Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR Chapter III, exempted certain [small-scale] rocket activities..."
and
"...Congress did not intend the CSLA to encompass small-scale rocket launches from private sites conducted for recreational or educational purposes. The OCST stated that these types of launches do not warrant licensing and regulatory oversight under the CSLA." The Tripoli Rocketry Association agrees with these early positions, and we believe the FAA will not have the desire to redefine "small-scale rocketry activities" once we all come to terms with certain definitions and classifications.
Federal regulatory agencies (FAA, ATF, CPSC, DOT) each have their own definitions which impact our hobby. The DOT calls many of our rocket motors "flammable solids" while others call them "explosive." One agency even defines "explosive" differently from the other agencies. Moreover, the "inventing" of definitions to fit agendas within the Federal government has been most unhelpful when dealing with these agencies, especially out in the field or at the regional office level.
Since the FAA has recognized a need for public input, and has shown a willingness to listen and to grant occasional waivers on a case-by-case basis, AST should encourage FAA to use industry/hobby definitions in all of
their documents for defining rocketry activities. This should become the foundation of any set criteria used from now on.
The CFR's should be modified in the upcoming revisions to incorporate these definitions, rather than using the term "small-scale." ("Small" relative to what, a Saturn V?) Also, in Docket No. FAA-1999-6574, some additional language is used that is confusing to the hobby, such as: "In the 1988 final rule, launches of small-scale rockets of [limited performance] were termed [amateur] rocket activities." Adding words like "limited performance" and applying that terminology to "small-scale" does little to define anything, and the term "amateur" is no longer used, except by "old timers," in any current organized body. The language is "experimental" and has been consistently used for over a decade. By definition, Model Rockets are not typically amateur or experimental; High Power rockets are not typically amateur or experimental either. However, both categories can be. (I will explain this contradiction below.)
Within the hobby, some organizations have adopted standard definitions that are found in codes produced by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). These codes include NFPA 1122 Code for Model Rocketry and NFPA 1127
Code for High Power Rocketry. These codes were written by volunteers who are participants in the industry/hobby. In fact G. Harry Stine, who helped author the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, was the driving force behind NFPA 1122 and helped begin the process of NFPA 1127. Standardizing definitions between the FAA and rocketry groups would eliminate much confusion.
Like them or not, these codes are being adopted by reference in almost every state, including California. A representative from the California State Fire Marshall's office told me a few weeks ago that these codes are referenced in the new International Building Codes. California is slowly adopting some of the provisions of these building codes; other states have adopted them already in just the past few months. Therefore, by reference they will be in the hands of every state regulatory official eventually.
If the FAA and the industry/hobby is hesitant to adopt or reference these codes in full or in part, they should consider using the commonly defined terms for the different classes of rocketry, both by name and technical definition. I propose a total elimination of the terms small-scale, limited performance and amateur in the FAA sections of the CFR's and in all correspondence the FAA may have with the public. Small-scale should be replaced by referencing the class of rocketry being discussed, such as Model, High Power, or Experimental Rocketry. "Limited performance" terminology should be replaced with the "technical" criterion that defines these three classifications of rocketry. And, in all cases, "amateur" should be replaced with "experimental."
A NEED TO DEFINE THE BOUNDS OF EXPERIMENTAL FOR HOBBYISTS AND EXPERIMENTAL FOR COMMERCIAL ROCKETRY
There are some things I do not like about the NFPA codes, but some things I do like. These codes provide provisions for participation in both Model and High Power (using commercially-manufactured motors), but they ignore experimental rocketry activities which have been around much longer. Traditionally, these codes define (by default) motors that are made by individuals as "experimental." As far as the NFPA codes are concerned, the only accepted sport rocketry motor must be commercially made, tested and approved for consumer use. Therefore, all other motors that exist are experimental without regard to size, impulse or propellant weight.
Most people view Experimental Rocketry as being "large and more hazardous." To the contrary, there are more smaller-scale experimental motors being made than the so-called larger motors. And the majority of these are of solid composition rather than liquid. We also find within these definitions "overlapping" (i.e. experimental activities that may exceed current exemptions but are well under commercial/space categories). We have specific limits for Model Rocketry and we have specific limits for High Power Rocketry, but Experimental Rocketry can be both Model and High Power - and can also be something else.
It is obvious that those participating in Experimental Rocketry are giving the most passionate and technical input on these questions. They see the writing on the wall and realize the FAA is targeting their activity. The "grey" areas are caused by not having a clear definition of what Experimental Rocketry is and what the limits truly are. If there are no limits, how can we or the FAA distinguish between "extreme altitude" experimental rockets and "commercial sub-orbital" vehicles, final or experimental configuration?
Experimental Rocketry has no beginning - so where does it end? An experimental motor is traditionally non-commercial, but it can be as small as an "A" motor (see NFPA 1122) or much larger than an "O" motor (see NFPA 1127). However, experimental motors, for the purposes of this discussion, are neither more hazardous or less hazardous than their commercially-made counterparts. They should be viewed the same as far as performance is concerned. They can be judged the same by propellant type and weight, by total impulse, and by average thrust. The origin of manufacture should not be a consideration in any new regulations or in any redefining of current rocketry regulations as far as "small-scale" rocketry is concerned.
BACK TO THE QUESTION
To specifically give an answer to the question is difficult, but considering all of the factors stated above, and at the very least,
1) Future launch activities covered in NFPA 1122 (Model Rocketry-type) should be conducted without FAA licensing. The criteria can be found in the Code itself, which defines the motor impulse and safe launch distances and size of the launch site; and
2) Future launch activities covered in NFPA 1127 (High Power Rocketry-type) should be conducted without FAA licensing. The criteria can be found in the Code itself, which defines the motor impulse and safe launch distances and size of the launch site; and
3) Future launch activities involving Experimental Rocketry that fall within parameters set forth in NFPA 1122 and NFPA 1127 should be conducted without FAA licensing. A commercially-manufactured "A" motor will have the same impulse characteristics as a non-commercially-manufactured "A" motor; and
4) "Some" future launch activities involving Experimental Rocketry that fall OUTSIDE the parameters set forth above should be conducted without FAA licensing.
THOUGHTS ON ITEM #4
I said "some" and that is really the question. This cannot be answered without more study and debate. Some individuals say "light-licensing" should begin at 100,000 feet and others say it should began well beyond that. The arguments are all valid and have merit, but no satisfactory conclusions will be arrived at until all the bounds and limits of each category have been defined. Defining the bounds of each category will almost eliminate overlapping and regulation where it does not belong.
Model Rocketry, High Power Rocketry and Experimental Rocketry that fit the criterion of MR and HPR are the three categories many of us believe the FAA is calling "small-scale" and should remain unregulated. Still, others see room for unlicensed activity beyond those bounds.
On behalf of the Tripoli Rocketry Association, I request the FAA to take all of this under consideration, holding all action for further study, and invite all organizations who will be effected by any changes in regulation to a face-to-face meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be to define these grey, or overlapping areas before any steps are taken to place limits on the activity by license. I also request the FAA to provide the first draft language for the CFR's, based on all the comments in this forum, and distribute copies to the participants of this forum prior to the meeting. The FAA should also schedule the meeting with enough advance notice to allow all persons involved to arrange their schedules to attend.
Bruce E. Kelly, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association
--end--
RE: Docket No. FAA-1999-6574
TRIPOLI INVOLVEMENT WITH FAA/AST
In the Fall of 1994, Tripoli board member Dick Embry made contact with the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) to begin work on obtaining an exemption from licensing under 14 CFR 401.5. This paved the way for us to develop Tripoli-X, now called Tripoli Research, our experimental program.
A meeting was scheduled to discuss these issues with AST in Washington D.C. and Dick invited the National Association of Rocketry (NAR), the Reaction Research Society (RRS), and the Pacific Rocketry Society (PRS) to participate with us in this process. The NAR sent Jonathan Rains, who worked on previous FAA issues, to represent their organization. The RRS did not send a representative, but asked to be kept informed. The PRS did not respond.
After that meeting the NAR decided that the efforts of TRA to seek exemptions would not have an impact on their activities, so the NAR was no longer involved in the process. Tripoli continued to move forward, with Dick Embry continuing as our representative.
The fruits of those first efforts were (a) a renewed awareness of Tripoli and our activities by AST and (b) an exemption. The first goal was to obtain permission, without license, to extend the burn time of our motors. This was accomplished.
The formal request for exemption was made on November 26, 1995; it was granted on the 19th of August 1996 and published in the Tripoli Report, our association newsletter. The letter of exemption, signed by Chester F. Nolf Jr., Manager, Licensing and Safety Division states: "We have reviewed the information provided in support of your request on November 26, 1995, concerning proposed launches to be conducted at launch events sanctioned by Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA). The Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) will not license those launches conducted at launch events sanctioned by the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) that - - Take place in 1996 or 1997; and
- Are conducted in accordance with the High Power Rocketry Safety Code, as provided November 26, 1995, including Appendix C, Additional Tripoli Rulings; and
- Are conducted in accordance with 14 CFR 101; and
- Do not have a total motor burn time greater than 60 seconds.
Please advise AST if and when Tripoli Experimental is formed. If, at any time, Tripoli Experimental intends to request exemption, it should submit its request, and include a description of its planned events, and the physical characteristics of its rockets." (Tripoli Report, June 1997, pp. 13-14) Up to this time, Tripoli had a good working relationship with the FAA, and this exemption began a relationship with an important extended arm of the FAA, Commercial Space Transportation (now referred to as AST). It is also an official recognition by a Federal agency of Tripoli's new and developing experimental program. As this relationship developed, AST once again recognized Tripoli with another exemption letter, signed by Ronald K. Gress, Manager, Licensing and Safety Division, March 1998: "On November 26, 1997, the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) received your request to extend the exemption granted to Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) by AST on August 19, 1996. With two modifications, AST is pleased to do so for the next two years.
AST will exempt from the licensing requirements those launches conducted at TRA sanctioned launch events that - - Take place in 1998 and 1999; and
- Are conducted in accordance with the High Power Rocketry Safety Code, as provided November 26, 1995, including Appendix C, Additional Tripoli Rulings; and
- Are conducted in accordance with 14 CFR 101; and
- Do not involve rockets with a ballistic coefficient greater than or equal to 12 pounds per square inch; and
- Do not involve rockets with a total motor burn time greater than 60 seconds; and
- Do not involve rockets with a predicted altitude greater than 25,000 feet.
Two items, numbers (4) and (6), have been added to the exemption granted on August 19, 1996. First, like the earlier exemption, the purpose of this exemption is to allow TRA members to launch, without a license, rockets that do not meet the burn time requirement of 14 CFR 401.5. The requirements pertaining to ballistic coefficient and total impulse still apply. Number (4) was added to clarify this fact for ballistic coefficient. Total impulse is already covered in the High Power Rocketry Safety Code (the Code), which limits total impulse to levels below the regulatory requirement.
Second, although the Code limits the maximum altitude for TRA launches to 25,000 feet, the Code also states that the Tripoli Board of Directors may waive this restriction for specific launches (then references HPR Safety Code, May 1995, Appendix C, Section C-2.3). AST added number (6) because launch to altitudes greater than 25,000 feet may have a major impact on public health and safety and the safety of property and AST would require agency review of any such proposals to ensure safety. AST will gladly discuss this provision with TRA if altitude exemptions by the Tripoli Board of Directors are anticipated during the next two years. A license may be required for any such launch." (Tripoli Report, June 1998, p. 27) As you can see, AST did some homework between the two exemptions granted to Tripoli. We could see some possible changes on the horizon, but there was nothing imposed by AST that Tripoli could not live with. Everyone was still accountable for following the provisions of the CFR's with a few exemptions granted by AST, based on TRA's performance and safety record over the years and our working relationship with AST.
THE CAUSE OF RECENT FAA AND BLM SCRUTINY
About two years ago another organization came along and began making "demands" on AST for high altitude flights. When their demands were not granted, they left AST offices after also "demanding" AST look more closely at TRA activities. As a result of those demands there was an interruption of the waiver process for a few months. Tripoli members may recall our Prefectures were faced with having to list ALL rockets that would be flown at Tripoli events, which proved too difficult to do. How does one know who will show up for any given launch and from what state, or country they will arrive from?
AST assured Tripoli that these measures were temporary and were being taken to assess the current rocketry activity and any possible public safety issues. They wanted information about the rockets, including airframe materials, motor impulse and predicted altitudes. After AST was assured there was no real threat to public safety by the "usual" High Power rocketeer, they restored the waiver process that we were accustomed to following and began to focus on more extreme rocketry activities. Furthermore, they wanted to see some of these extreme activities.
Though Tripoli's "extreme" activities are well below what they wanted to see, I gave Dick Embry the "go-ahead" to formerly invite Randall Repcheck to attend one of our Black Rock launches. Ky Michaelson, of Rocketman Enterprises, also extended an invitation to attend. Mr. Repcheck accepted those invitations and met with us at the Tripoli National Experimental Launch (aka BALLS) two summers ago, along with a BLM official. I wanted him to see what we were doing and how we operated within the waiver guidelines imposed on us at Black Rock through normal FAA procedures. We gave our guests copies of our current Safety Codes and encouraged them to roam the flight line and visit with our members as rockets were being prepped. After a few hours, we met and discussed AST's future role in rocketry. Before leaving, they remarked how impressed they were by the organization of the launch, the participants, and they observed that the rules were being followed. They did not, at that time, see our High Power "experimental" activities coming close to what the "cheap access to space" (CATS) people were after.
(I should insert a note here about BLM involvement. This was NOT caused by rocketry activities. BLM involvement is caused by on-going efforts by environmental groups to restrict public use of the Black Rock Desert. Tripoli member and TMT Chairperson Sue McMurray has been busy working with the BLM on environmental impact studies in an effort to allow rocketeers to continue to use Black Rock as a launch site.)
The CATS representatives who made "demands" caused AST to consider new guidelines for rocketry, and the U.S. Department of Transportation Docket No. FAA-1999-6574 and the formation of this public forum are the results of those "demands." Like recent BLM involvement, this was NOT caused by the rocketry activities of Tripoli, the NAR, or any organized experimental group accustomed to using Black Rock or the Smoke Creek Desert as launching sites.
An important lesson was hopefully learned in this process - actually a few lessons. First, the value of working WITH federal agencies. Most agencies will work with you; there are no justifiable reasons to make "demands" without first going through established procedures. There are some exceptions, and there are also procedures in place for remedy and relief in those cases. Secondly, the value of experience. In the beginning, and as a new "player," CATS went so far as to ask for Tripoli's help in establishing their own guidelines for their sponsored "cheap access to space" altitude events. Tripoli board members Charles Rogers and Scott Bartel accepted that assignment. However, when it came to communicating with AST, CATS representatives went to Washington D.C. on their own, without seeking the advice or experience of others who have traveled this road before.
Even though there are clear definitions for some classifications of rocketry, none of us are "islands." We have an effect on each others' rocketry pursuits, and it is irresponsible to think we do not.
AN ISSUE TO CONSIDER - WHERE SHOULD LICENSING BEGIN?
When evaluating the virtues of what to license or what not to license, I believe it is important for the FAA to look at the activity that called all of the heretofore recognized and approved activities into question. The safety records of Model, High Power, and Experimental Rocketry activities, within the reasonable bounds described in the post I made answering Question #1, have never been at issue before. Experimental Rocketry activities going beyond those bounds have never been at issue either.
It is my opinion that the proposed "cheap access to space" activities, which started this whole process, should be a starting point for the new definitions as they relate to the other, possibly overlapping, activities and to public safety. This is where the FAA should look as far as licensing is concerned, "light" or otherwise. The majority of participants in the familiar and accepted classifications of rocketry should not be impacted by the desire of a few people to launch to altitudes exceeding 120 miles on "demand" at normal hobby-rocketry sites.
It should be telling to the FAA and the people in this forum that the person(s) involved in the CATS organization have not, so far as I have seen, been participants in this discussion. (Have they been here but just not identified themselves?) The "rotten egg" was laid and left for the rest of us to deal with.
Perhaps this is already defined well enough in existing regulations. Even though the sponsors of this activity are "non-profit," money is still involved. By the regulations already in place, this should be classified as "commercial space activity" and treated as such. Money is exchanging hands between the sponsors and the eventual winners. Sponsors of such events clearly cross over the line when they demand to use launch sites traditionally used for hobby, educational and experimental purposes. Launch sites currently used by established organizations, such as Tripoli, the NAR, RRS, PRS, RRI, etc. are not adequate for these extreme flights. The Black Rock Desert is surrounded by people like us who live and breathe. Therefore, there must be limits and they must be site specific.
One suggested alternative would be to "lower" the minimum requirements of the current classification of "Commercial Space" activities to cover CATS-type activities. This, in my opinion, would eliminate the need for additional licensing at other levels.
WE HAVE SITE SPECIFIC LIMITS NOW
AST established this forum to gather our thoughts on their proposals which we are in the process of doing. This will help AST distinguish differences between Model Rocketry, High Power Rocketry, Experimental Rocketry, Commercial Rocketry, or any un-named activities in between. In communications between AST and Tripoli representatives, AST admits that they recognize there are areas overlapping and in-between.
When AST was asked to "look more closely at TRA activities" by CATS representatives, they did so. As a result of their investigation they recognized that TRA altitudes were within the 100,000 feet allowed by the Tripoli Board of Directors for select sites; they recognized these altitudes were well BELOW altitudes being "demanded" by this new and unproven group.
So we have two issues here, the "overlapping" of activities and altitudes. While recognizing the desire of the FAA to implement a "streamlined licensing process... tailored to a clearly defined class of launch activity," I feel this is impractical without first defining the classes of what the overlapping activities are, as I explained in Question #1. Until that time, there will always be a need for waivers because nothing will be clear.
Even so, the waiver process still works. It is site specific. To tie everything up in a "neat little package" to avoid making case-by-case decisions will place an undue burden, by restriction or licensing, on a people participating in a proven activity.
TRIPOLI'S RECENT SILENCE AND PROPOSALS
Some people have asked recently why Tripoli has remained silent on this issue put forth by AST. Tripoli has been anything but silent. As you can see, Tripoli has been on top of this issue for several years now as evidenced by the two exemptions we obtained. We knew two years ago what AST was planning and made provisions for it on behalf of our members. Therefore, Dick Embry has continued to work with AST and, as of this date, continues to seek exemptions from the CFR's. Some of our recent proposals for exemption include launch angle adjustment and "wind weighting." Charles Rogers of Rogers Aeroscience has been working on a simplified program that will make the required calculations for the average (or slightly above average) rocketeer. Additionally, we are observing your comments to see what impact YOU feel these guidelines will have on YOUR activities.
Remember, Tripoli reached out to the NAR and to two experimental organizations several years ago - and we were left to pursue our program, which we did. Then, a new "player" comes along and rocks the boat. Tripoli recognizes that none of the other organizations were in tune to this new development until recently. All of these organizations need to be drawn into the process Tripoli started six years ago.
Interest is now being shown which did not previously exist. Based on what is published in the FAA Docket, and our negotiations with AST through Dick Embry, I know that Tripoli activities will not be affected because of exemptions that are already "in the works." However, I can see a possible impact on other organizations' activities.
Therefore, my official position representing 3,920 active High Power Rocketry participants, is to humbly petition the FAA - To gather and catalog comments on this public forum; and
- To consider the impact FAA proposals will have on all forms and classifications of rocketry activities; and
- Schedule a meeting with the organizations' representatives who have responded to the call for comments on this forum to review and discuss these comments and proposals; and
- Work together on modifications or new regulatory language that will be in the best interests of public safety, the interests of these organizations, and more importantly to discuss the impact any changes may have on the educational direction of rocketry in our country; and
- Postpone changes in the CFR's until all of this can take place.
Tripoli feels, given the nearly 60 year history of Experimental Rocketry safety, 43 years of Model Rocketry safety, and 37 years of High Power Rocketry safety, time used for additional study will not have an adverse impact on public safety if the Safety Codes continue to be followed by all parties involved.
In conversations with AST, Dick Embry was told the gist of the AST forum is to garner suggestions to facilitate those individuals and organizations that want to essentially launch above 50 miles with vehicles that have thrust levels above those defined in 14 CFR and above exemptions granted to TRA. The proposed "Light Rocket License" is, according to AST, meant to essentially bridge the gap between High Power Rocketry and Commercial Rocketry; it is not meant to have an impact on Model or High Power Rocketry, or even Experimental Rocketry within similar parameters.
Fifty miles, to some, is a logical lower limit and is essentially the higher limit for Experimental Rocketry as currently defined in some circles. The upper limit is, indeed, open for conjecture. Keep in mind this upper limit, in large part, is impacted by the requirement to not interfere with military and commercial orbiting payloads. However, if AST considers Tripoli proposals to meet and discuss all of these comments, this issue can be adequately addressed and settled to the satisfaction of all parties. We can write regulatory language we can all live with.
It is important not to confuse a couple of things. If "Light Licensing" is implemented by the FAA, the "license" will NOT give blanket approval for anyone to launch anywhere they want to! I believe the FAA will come to realize that all launches, especially in this category, will still have to be site specific. License or not, sites like Black Rock have their limits.
THE VALIDITY OF ALL PROPOSALS AND TECHNICAL SUBSTANTIATION
So far I have not seen any technical documentation from the FAA to show cause for additional regulation and/or licensing for activities beyond those already defined. I do not see any technical documents supporting the premise that performance of propulsion has changed significantly enough to merit reconsideration of the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984. The rocketry community deserves any information the FAA has access to that will substantiate this need.
Some have pointed out in these discussions that no one has been killed participating in these activities. I will take that a step further; no one has been so injured as to require hospitalization in over 45 years. Indeed, the only fatalities and serious injuries occurred while driving to or from a rocket launch on public highways.
Some have also made the statement that we do not want more regulations. I believe most of us feel this way. However, the FAA is going to do something and we had better give them useful input. It is much better to act than to be acted upon. This entire forum is just that - a forum for suggestions and a means to have direct input into this process. It is not an edict nor a proclamation of rules or regulations. It should be viewed as an opportunity to have the regulations written in such a way to support the growth of rocketry while considering aspects of public safety. This is a golden opportunity to be heard, let's treat it as such.
Even though this forum is coming to a close, the process is not finished. Written comments will be received until March 24th. If you have additional thoughts, I encourage you to send them to the address published in the Docket.
The Tripoli Rocketry Association thanks the FAA for this opportunity to be a part of the process. I look forward to participating in final discussions with my fellow rocketeers and with the FAA.
Bruce E. Kelly, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association
|
