Docket Management Facility 08/20/2007

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12--140

Washington, DC 20590

Charles P. Brinkman

Licensing and Safety Division (AST--200)

Commercial Space Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue

Washington, DC 20591

Re: \[Docket No. FAA--2007--27390; Notice No. 07--06\]

Requirements for Amateur Rocket Activities

From: Pat Gordzelik, Vice President, Tripoli Rocketry Association

16651 FM 1541

Canyon, Texas 79015

The Tripoli Rocketry Association, Inc. (TRA) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit
organization, dedicated to the promotion of nonprofessional rocketry. 
TRA has approximately 3000 members worldwide.  On behalf of TRA, I
respectfully wish to submit the following comments regarding this NPRM
encompassing 14 CFR 1.1 and 401.5.

> On pages 32817, the FAA notes that...
>
> "*B. The Need for New Regulations*

Historically, the FAA has 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. The
voluntary self-regulation has been carried out by the organizations
sponsoring these activities. When we amended part 101 in 1994, we
included provisions for large model rockets. The voluntary
self-regulation and state and local regulations were effective for
purposes of protecting public safety for model and large model rockets.
However, amateur rocket performance has continued to improve and
participation in amateur rocket launches has increased significantly.
Therefore, the once remote possibility of an accident or incident
resulting from amateur rocket activities has become more likely. The FAA
now believes these activities need regulation appropriate 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."......

And further more on pages 32817-32818....

"The FAA has identified a need to receive technical data from operators
of large amateur rockets in their initial applications to ensure public
safety is maintained. The FAA protects people and property from the
dangers of advanced rocket operations by using hazard areas and
operating limitations. A hazard area is any region where there is a
significant potential for harm from the rocket activity. Access to a
hazard area is controlled or monitored by the operator (or by others
through agreements) to protect the uninvolved public. To calculate these
hazard areas and operational limitations, technical information about
the rocket and its operations is needed. Currently, the waiver
application process requires repeated correspondence between the
applicant and the FAA to get the necessary information. This iterative
process reduces the time available to the FAA to do analyses, and
increases the chance of determining either an insufficient or excessive
hazard area."

Then, on page 32824, an example of the effects of this proposed ruling
was given....

The proposed rule would have virtually no impact upon the proposed Class
1 and 2 rockets. These classes would continue to operate essentially the
same as they did before the proposed rule. The information requirements
discussed above apply primarily to the proposed Class 3--- High-Power
Rocket and Class 4--- Advanced High-Power Rockets categories. However,
much of this data is already required to be provided to the FAA before a
proposed launch. In many cases, the FAA calls the launch operator before
the proposed launch and requests additional information. Therefore, the
proposed rule does not increase the information required for a proposed
launch, but rather formalizes and streamlines the process of providing
the information to the FAA prior to the launch. Therefore, the FAA
estimates that any incremental costs associated with this proposed rule
would be minimal.

An example of the potential effects of the proposed rule is provided by
a launch proposed by Montana State University in 2006. The University
proposed the launch under the existing rules.^4^ However, because the
existing application form did not specify all the information needed by
the FAA, we requested the remaining information by telephone. Under the
proposed rule, their launch would be categorized as a Class 3 launch.
The revised form for the University would specifically list all of the
necessary information. This form would streamline and speed up the
application process for both the University and the FAA.^5^ The proposed
rule would have a similar effect upon proposed class 4 launches.

The proposed rule provides benefits. As listed below, this proposed rule
would:

-   • Proactively preserve the existing high safety level of amateur
    rocket activities;

-   • Update the Federal Aviation Regulations to reflect current
    industry standards and procedures;

-   • Eliminate inconsistencies in the existing rules;

-   • Provide new definitions of amateur rocket categories that would
    allow amateur rocketeers to more easily

4 The University submitted an application with the basic information
required to the FAA.

5 Their proposed launch occurred in 2006.

determine what, if any, regulations they would have to comply with;

-   • Allow unlicensed launches of liquid rockets at optimum performance
    levels;

-   • Streamline and clarify the data collection process in cases where
    a proposed launch would require that the launches proposer provide
    data to the FAA;

-   • Insure that amateur rocket activities would be conducted in
    accordance with all international treaties;

-   • Insure that amateur rocket activities would not interfere with
    objects in orbit.

U.S. amateur rocketeers may receive cost savings by clarifications in
the FAA requirements for amateur rocket activities. The proposed
clarifications should make it quicker and easier for launch applicants
to provide the needed information to the FAA. The FAA is likely also to
incur cost savings because of this. The FAA, however, has not attempted
to quantify the cost savings that may accrue due to this specific
proposed rule.

The expected outcome of the proposed rule would be a minimal cost impact
with positive net benefits. The FAA requests comments with supporting
justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact.

Based on the minimal cost finding the FAA has, therefore, determined
that this proposed rule is not a ''significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not
''significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures."

The Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) applauds the FAA's concerns on
amateur rocketry, and certainly understands the university example
given. The mechanism given in this NPRM will streamline such an
application submitted by one or two rocket launches of this sort. We
feel TRA has proven expertise and the track record to submit comments
and requests for waivers for both Class 3 and Class 4 to selected sub
parts as listed below.

TRA agrees that changes described under "Class 1 and Class 2" type
rocket launches would have little or no impact on rocketry participant's
activities.

However, regarding proposed Class 3 rocket launches, we feel that the
information requested is neither necessary nor practical when such
launches are held under the auspices of the TRA. TRA is comprised of 111
clubs or "Prefectures"
([http://www.tripoli.org/prefecture/whatis.shtml](../FAA200727390TRA.doc))
from all over the world, of which 96 are located in the United States.
Each Prefecture is chartered on an annual basis, and each follows the
rules and safety codes of TRA
([http://www.tripoli.org/documents/policies.shtml](../~$A200727390TRA.doc))
to maintain that charter.

The current mechanics of a Prefecture organizing a launch is as follows.

1.  The Prefecture first must secure a launch site, and gain the
    landowner's approval.

2.  That approval is then submitted to the TRA Insurance Agent as TRA
    carries its own insurance protecting not only its members and launch
    site owners, (most generally private landowners or BLM land), but
    also spectators.

3.  Usually, the Prefecture leader (Prefect) applies for the FAA waiver.
    Waivers are usually requested for a year in advance, with monthly
    dates applied for throughout. The waiver is ***collective*** as it
    covers virtually all rocketry activities for the date(s) of a
    particular launch, except as noted below in #4. (It is worth noting
    that our insurance recognizes, accepts, and covers the collective
    nature of these waivers)

4.  If the FAA grants a waiver over 25,000 feet AGL for that location,
    prospective flights that may attain or exceed that altitude are
    reviewed internally and individually by the TRA Board of Directors.
    ([http://www.tripoli.org/documents/policies.shtml](../~$A200727390TRA.doc)

5.  All safety codes and safe distances, based on NFPA 1127, must be
    observed during the launches.

6.  If a launch is going to allow fast growing "research" or
    "experimental" motors, the launch must be applied for internally
    within TRA for approval.

> The collective nature of TRA launches means that the number of rockets
> launched by the 96 CONUS Prefectures in the 4.4 oz propellant up
> (proposed Class 3) category per year is estimated by TRA to exceed
> 50,000 (fifty thousand rockets). Whereas these rockets are currently
> launched under approximately 400 (four hundred) waiver applications,
> it is clear that the suggested Class 3 proposal will increase the
> amount of paperwork from 400 units to at least 50,000 units-an
> increase of a factor of ***over one hundred.***
>
> Regarding 101.25 section (d) and (e):

**§ 101.25 Operating Limitations for Class**

**3---High Power Rockets.**

In addition to the General Operating

Limitations of § 101.22, no person may

operate a Class 3---High-Power Rocket---

\(a\) Unless that person complies with

§ 101.24 except paragraph (f);

\(b\) Within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of

any airport boundary;

\(c\) In controlled airspace without

prior authorization from the FAA in

accordance with § 101.29(a) of this part;

\(d\) Within 457 meters (1,500 feet) of

any person or property that is not

associated with the operations;

\(e\) Between sunset and sunrise;

\(f\) Unless a person at least eighteen

years old is present, is charged with

ensuring the safety of the operation, and

has final approval authority for

initiating high-power rocket flight; and

\(g\) Unless reasonable precautions are

provided to report and control a fire

caused by rocket activity.

10\. Add new § 101.26 to Subpart C to

read as follows:

\(g\) Any other pertinent information

requested by the ATC facility.

12\. Add § 101.29 to Subpart D to read

as follows:

And regarding proposed Class 3 and 4 rockets...

**§ 101.29 Information requirements.**

1.  \(a\) *Information requirements for operating Class 3---High-Power
    Rockets*. A person operating one or more Class 3---High Power
    Rockets in controlled airspace must provide the information below on
    each rocket to the FAA at least 45 days before the proposed
    operation. The FAA may request additional information if necessary
    to ensure the proposed operations can be safely conducted. The
    information shall include:

2.  \(1\) Estimated number of rockets to be operated in each class,

3.  \(2\) Type of propulsion, fuel(s), oxidizer(s), manufacturer, and
    certification, if any,

    1.  \(3\) Description of the launcher(s) planned to be used,
        including any airborne platform(s),

    2.  \(4\) Description of recovery system,

4.  \(5\) Description of how applicant will meet § 101.25 (Operating
    Limitations for Class 3---High Power Rockets).

5.  \(6\) Highest altitude, above ground level, expected to be reached,

6.  \(7\) Launch site latitude, longitude, and elevation.

7.  \(8\) Any additional safety procedures that will be followed.

\(b\) *Information requirements for*

*operating Class 4---Advanced High-*

*Power Rocket*s. A person operating one

or more Class 4---Advanced High-Power

Rockets in controlled airspace must

provide the information below for each

rocket to the FAA at least 45 days before

the proposed operation. The FAA may

request additional information if

necessary to ensure the proposed

operations can be safely conducted. The

information shall include:

\(1\) The information requirements of

paragraph (a) of this section.

\(2\) Maximum possible range,

\(3\) The dynamic stability

characteristics for the entire flight

profile,

\(4\) A description of all major rocket

systems, including structural,

pneumatic, propellant, propulsion,

ignition, electrical, avionics, recovery,

wind-weighting, flight control, and

8.  tracking,

\(5\) A description of other support

equipment necessary for a safe

operation,

\(6\) The planned flight profile and

sequence of events,

\(7\) All nominal impact areas,

including those for any spent motors

and other discarded hardware, within

three standard deviations of the mean

impact point,

\(8\) Launch commit criteria,

\(9\) Countdown procedures,

\(10\) A description of how the

applicant will meet § 101.26 (Operating

Limitations for Class 4---Advanced High

Power Rockets), and

\(11\) Mishap procedures.

TRA feels that its internal checks and balances, procedure
documentation, safety codes, training programs, and internal reviews
offers "due diligence" towards safety of the public. TRA also realizes
that it is impractical, if not impossible, to offer accurate information
in advance of a launch on a per rocket basis, or even motor impulse
categories. The typical launch is a compilation of variables based on
weather, cloud cover, wind, etc. A TRA member often does not know which
rocket he/she is going to fly the day of the event. Any estimation by a
waiver applicant would have to encompass every possible rocket. The
sheer number of rockets launched in this category would make such
information gathering a huge and undue burden to both the FAA and
activity organizers. As for Class 4 rockets, Tripoli has demonstrated an
in depth knowledge and practical application of professional procedures
and rules ranging from our integral involvement and support of the CSXT
project at Black Rock as well as our demonstrated performance with the X
prize event of 2005 and 2006. Indeed Tripoli is constantly contacted by
X prize hierarchy for guidance and expertise. Tripoli expertise is also
apparent to numerous colleges and universities throughout the country,
as we are sought out by them as partners in their own rocketry programs
designed to enhance their engineering curricula. Universities including
Embry Riddle and Texas Tech University have benefited from proven, safe
programs developed by TRA.

What Tripoli would suggest is a waiver to 101.25 (d) and (e) and 101.29
to wit: (Tripoli Rocket Association Inc. is waived in lieu of their
Policies and Procedures IAW NFPA 1127). The code in itself encompasses a
federal regulation in force.

TRA's safety code has provided a safe venue for decades of hundreds of
thousands of Class 3 rocket launches as well as launches under Class 4.
Our insurance carriers have repeatedly decreased our policy premiums
because we have proved to them that our internal checks and balances
result in a safe, accident free environment.

TRA has also enjoyed a tremendous rapport with the FAA for years. Our
relationship with the individual FAA regions is mature and has grown
into a well established program dedicated to the efficient use of
airspace and public safety. Dismantling this relationship and reverting
back to a system of reporting information for every waiver, on a per
rocket basis, would place an undue burden on the FAA, negate federal
regulations requiring reduction of paperwork, as well as exceeding
projected man-hours proposed.

Our relationship with AST since 1995 is long and enduring. Tripoli
embraced the spirit and intent of the CSLA of 1984 and as result became
a driving force in coalescing factions of Amateur Rocketry including
Reaction Research Society and NAR in the late 1990's to the present day.
This relationship resulted in a waiver to burn time of 15 seconds to 60
seconds available to TRA members only. Tripoli members encompass a wide
spectrum with in the Aerospace Industry. We have members deeply involved
in the Aerospace industry ranging from the Orion moon program to the
participants and competitors of the X prize. Certainly the epitome of
our professionalism and relationship with AST was demonstrated during
the X prize competition held in Las Cruses New Mexico. In place
coordination with AST personnel validating Wind Weighting/6 DOF software
as well as strict adherence to our safety regulations resulted in
successful launches of over 10 high performance rockets as advertised
and without injury.

In summary, Tripoli Rocketry Association Inc is committed to providing
the foundation, educational support and drive to fuel President Bush's
administration's continued access to Space mandate. As a long term
partner in safety with the FAA and AST, we feel we have the expertise to
be the major player to support America's continued commitment to Science
and Space given the tools to do so.

Respectfully,

Pat Gordzelik

Vice President

TRA Inc.