Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8923 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 420 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0105; Notice No. 11– 

03] 

RIN 2120–AJ73 

Explosive Siting Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

abandon its separation requirements at 

launch sites for storing liquid oxygen, 

nitrogen tetroxide, hydrogen peroxide in 

concentrations equal to or below 91 

percent, and refined petroleum-1 (RP–1) 

unless they are within an intraline 

distance of another incompatible 

energetic liquid, or will be co-located on 

a launch vehicle. The FAA’s current 

separation requirements for storing 

these energetic liquids unnecessarily 

duplicate the requirements of other 

regulatory regimes. The FAA also 

proposes to reduce the separation 

distances required for division 1.1 

explosives and liquid propellants with 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalents of less 

than or equal to 450 pounds. The 

revised separation requirements reflect 

protection against fragment hazards, the 

main hazard at these quantities. The 

FAA would impose a new formula for 

determining distances to public areas 

containing a member of the public in 

the open. Finally, the FAA would 

reduce the separation distances for 

division 1.3 explosives as well. The 

proposed rule would increase flexibility 

for launch site operators in site planning 

for the storage and handling of 

explosives. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before May 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2011–0105 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the rulemaking 

process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of the docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Charles Huet, 

Commercial Space Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–7427; facsimile (202) 267–3686, 

e-mail charles.huet@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this proposed rule 

contact Laura Montgomery, AGC 200, 

Senior Attorney for Commercial Space 

Transportation, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3150; facsimile 

(202) 267–7971, e-mail 

laura.montgomery@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

related rulemaking documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 

1984, as codified and amended in Title 

49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) 

Subtitle IX—Commercial Space 

Transportation, chapter 701, 

Commercial Space Launch Activities, 

49 U.S.C. 70101–70121 (the Act), 

authorizes the Department of 

Transportation and thus the FAA, 

through delegations, to oversee, license, 

and regulate commercial launch and 

reentry activities, and the operation of 

launch and reentry sites as carried out 

by U.S. citizens or within the United 

States. 49 U.S.C. 70104, 70105. The Act 

directs the FAA to exercise this 

responsibility consistent with public 

health and safety, safety of property, 

and the national security and foreign 

policy interests of the United States. 49 

U.S.C. 70105. The FAA is also 

responsible for encouraging, facilitating, 

and promoting commercial space 

launches by the private sector. 49 U.S.C. 

70103. 

Authority for this particular 

rulemaking is derived from 49 U.S.C. 

70105, which requires that the FAA 

issue a license to operate a launch site 

consistent with public health and safety. 

See also 49 U.S.C. 322(a), 49 U.S.C. 

70101(a)(7). Section 70101(a)(7) directs 

the FAA to regulate only to the extent 

necessary, in relevant part, to protect 

the public health and safety and safety 

of property. 

Background 

In 2000, the FAA issued regulations 

governing the storing and handling of 

explosives as part of its regulations 

governing the licensing and operation of 

a launch site. Licensing and Safety 

Requirements for Operation of a Launch 

Site; Final Rule, 65 FR 62812 (Oct. 19, 

2000) (Launch Site Rule). The FAA has 

requirements for obtaining a license to 

operate a launch site in Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 

420. Part of the application for a license 

requires an applicant to provide the 

FAA with an explosive site plan that 

complies with the explosive siting 

requirements of part 420. The plan must 

show how a launch site operator will 

separate explosive hazard facilities from 

the public. The plan must identify the 

location of the explosives and how the 

public is safeguarded. The explosive 

siting requirements of part 420 mandate 

how far apart a launch site operator 

should site its explosive hazard 

facilities based on the quantities of 

energetic materials housed in each 

facility. Distances vary based on the 

quantities at issue, the storing or 

handling of the energetic materials at a 

given facility, and whether or not the 

distance being calculated is a distance 

to a public area. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
8924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The DDESB updated the DOD Standard in 2004. 

Notice of Revision of Department of Defense 

6055.9–STD Department of Defense Ammunition 

and Explosives Safety Standards, 70 FR 24771 (May 

11, 2005) (2004 DOD Standard). DOD released a 

new edition in 2008, but the 2004 changes are the 

ones relevant to this rulemaking. The new standard 

bases its separation distances on Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

standards for classes I through III flammable and 

combustible liquids and liquid oxygen, and on 

NFPA standards for classes 2 and 3 liquid oxidizers. 

The 2004 DOD Standard contains less restrictive 

requirements for explosive division 1.1 solid 

explosives with a net explosive weight of less than 

450 pounds, and for energetic liquids with a TNT 

equivalency of less than 450 pounds. 

2A related device would include an engine 

undergoing engine testing or static firing. 

Since the original rulemaking, the 

FAA’s experience with the requirements 

has led it to propose changes. At the 

time it promulgated the original 

requirements, the FAA anticipated that 

any new launch sites would be devoted 

to expendable launch vehicles, and, 

therefore, relied on the siting 

requirements of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) Explosive Siting Board’s 

(DDESB) DOD Ammunition and 

Explosive Safety Standard, 6055.9–STD 

(1997) (1997 DOD Standard).1 Instead, 

for the most part, the FAA has issued a 

number of licenses for the operation of 

launch sites at existing airports, such as 

Mojave Air and Space Port. At these 

airports, the presence of jet fuels 

regulated under existing requirements 

creates conditions requiring the FAA to 

reconcile its launch vehicle liquid 

propellant requirements with the 

presence of other industrial chemicals, 

such as aircraft fuels. Based on 

experience with these launch sites and 

on research on other regimes that 

address explosive materials, the FAA 

proposes to make changes to its own 

requirements. 

Changes to definitions would be 

changes of general effect. Additionally, 

the FAA proposes to increase the 

flexibility it has in applying its 

explosive siting requirements by 

recognizing that approaches other than 

those mandated by part 420 may 

provide a level of safety equivalent to 

part 420. The FAA also proposes to 

dispense with separation distance 

requirements for storing liquid oxidizers 

and Class I, II and III flammable and 

combustible liquids. When oxidizers are 

isolated from incompatible energetic 

liquids and compliant with the design 

and operational requirements of other 

regulatory regimes, they do not pose a 

risk of fire or explosion. Isolating the 

storing of liquid oxidizers from a fuel 

source minimizes the risk associated 

with chemical explosion due to the 

mixing of the two. In accordance with 

current DDESB and National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) practice, 

the FAA proposes to dispense with the 

hazard groups of tables E–3 through 

E–6 of appendix E of part 420 as a 

means of classification because the 

NFPA classification system is more 

commonly used. A number of those 

changes are editorial, but the FAA also 

proposes to identify the minimum 

separation distances to public areas and 

public traffic routes for quantities 

between less than half a pound and 450 

pounds of division 1.1 explosives and 

liquid propellants with TNT 

equivalency. The FAA would impose a 

new formula for determining distances 

to public areas containing a member of 

the public in the open. The FAA also 

proposes to change its separation 

requirements for division 1.3 

explosives. 

I. Changes of General Effect 

The FAA proposes to clarify an 

existing definition and to add four new 

ones. We would clarify the meaning of 

‘‘explosive hazard facility.’’ We would 

define ‘‘energetic liquid,’’ ‘‘liquid 

propellant,’’ ‘‘maximum credible event,’’ 

and ‘‘public traffic route.’’ 

The FAA proposes to define 

‘‘energetic liquids’’ to mean a liquid, 

slurry, or gel, consisting of, or 

containing an explosive, oxidizer, fuel, 

or combination, that may undergo, 

contribute to, or cause rapid exothermic 

decomposition, deflagration, or 

detonation. ‘‘Energetic liquids’’ would 

thus include liquid fuels and oxidizers, 

monopropellant, hybrid, and liquid 

bipropellant systems. 

The FAA would define ‘‘liquid 

propellants’’ to mean a monopropellant 

or incompatible energetic liquids colocated for purposes of serving as 

propellants on a launch vehicle or a 

related device,2 such as an attitude 

control propulsion system. A 

monopropellant serves as a liquid 

propellant only if located on a launch 

vehicle. When not located on a launch 

vehicle a monopropellant is treated as a 

fuel or an oxidizer. Part 420 does not 

define ‘‘liquid propellant,’’ but refers to 

liquid fuel and oxidizers as liquid 

propellants whether stored in a storage 

tank and segregated from each other, or 

co-located as part of a launch vehicle 

assembly. In applying this term, the 

FAA has had to address uncertainty and 

confusion regarding its meaning. When 

part 420 was issued, most launch 

operations took place at federal launch 

ranges. There are now launch sites 

located at airports that house many of 

the same energetic liquids. The term 

‘‘liquid propellant’’ as it applies to 

storing liquid fuel and oxidizer, such as 

kerosene and liquid oxygen, causes 

confusion. Kerosene has found a use in 

some new developmental launch 

vehicles as a liquid fuel, but is 

traditionally known for its use as a jet 

fuel. Liquid oxygen is commonly used 

as the oxidizer for launch vehicles, but 

is also widely used in the medical field 

and other industrial purposes. The 

labeling of these materials as liquid 

propellants, is, therefore, no longer 

suitable because of their multiple uses. 

To remove the confusion, the FAA 

would classify what it has been 

generically referring to as liquid 

propellants as energetic liquids, and 

would limit the use of the term ‘‘liquid 

propellant’’ to its more precise usage, 

namely, incompatible energetic liquids 

co-located for purposes of propulsion or 

operating power in rockets and related 

devices. With this definition, liquid 

fuels and oxidizers that are not yet part 

of a vehicle assembly or a propulsion 

unit would not be referred to as a liquid 

propellant, thus removing the ambiguity 

caused by the current characterization 

of too many energetic liquids as liquid 

propellants. 

Limiting the use of the term would be 

more consistent with typical uses of the 

term ‘‘liquid propellants.’’ Explosive 

siting experts typically consider the 

term to mean incompatible energetic 

liquids that are co-located for purposes 

of serving as propellants on a launch 

vehicle. In other words, the same 

energetic liquid is a propellant if on a 

rocket, but not if in a storage tank. This 

special meaning is not obvious, but is 

understood by those persons who work 

on these issues. The FAA proposes to 

confine use of the term to § 420.69, 

which governs launch pads where solid 

explosives and energetic liquids are all 

within intraline distances of each other 

because they are used as fuels for a 

launch vehicle. 

The FAA proposes to clarify that an 

‘‘explosive hazard facility’’ means not 

only a facility, as identified in the 

present definition, but a location at a 

launch site where solid explosives, 

energetic liquids, or other explosives are 

stored or handled. Part 420 currently 

defines an ‘‘explosive hazard facility’’ as 

a facility at a launch site where solid 

propellant, liquid propellant, or other 

explosives are stored or handled. There 

are circumstances where it is not always 

clear what satisfies this definition. For 

example, under this definition, 

explosive hazard facility could be 

misinterpreted to only apply to 

buildings or storage sites. Clarifying that 

an explosive hazard facility is not only 

a facility, but is also any other location, 

would more clearly include hazardous 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8925 

areas such as launch pads and static 

firing areas with explosives or 

propellant present. 

The FAA proposes to define 

‘‘maximum credible event’’ to mean a 

hypothesized worst-case event, 

including an accident, explosion, fire, or 

agent release that is likely to occur from 

a given quantity and disposition of 

explosives, chemical agents, or reactive 

material. A ‘‘maximum credible event’’ 

is one with a reasonable probability of 

occurring, taking into account the 

propagation of the predicted explosion, 

burn rate, and physical protection such 

as barriers located around the explosive 

materials. 

Although the FAA cites ‘‘public traffic 

route distance’’ in § 420.65, there is no 

definition for the term in the current 

rule. ‘‘Public traffic route’’ means any 

road or other mode of transportation on 

a launch site that serves the general 

public, and the FAA now proposes to 

codify that working definition. A 

‘‘public traffic route’’ is a public area, but 

one that may permit shorter separation 

distances than other public areas due to 

the ability of a launch site operator to 

close off the public traffic route and the 

sporadic presence of members of the 

public. 

II. Section 420.63 Map Scale and 

Equivalent Level of Safety 

Section 420.63 contains general 

requirements applicable to the 

preparation of an explosive siting plan, 

the explosive siting requirements for a 

launch site located on a federal range, 

and provision for establishing an 

equivalent level of safety for explosive 

siting issues not otherwise addressed by 

part 420. The FAA proposes only 

editorial changes to its explosive siting 

requirements at § 420.63, with two 

exceptions. The first is that the FAA 

proposes an explosive site map using a 

scale sufficient to show distance and 

structural relationships. The other 

substantive change would be proposed 

paragraph (d), which would allow a 

launch site operator to propose a 

different separation distance if able to 

clearly and convincingly demonstrate 

level of safety equivalent to that 

required by part 420. 

The FAA proposes to require an 

explosive site map using a scale 

sufficient to show whether distances 

and structural relationships satisfy the 

requirements of this part. The FAA has 

had difficulty reviewing explosive site 

maps provided by some launch 

operators because they employed scales 

where 1 inch equaled 1500 feet or more. 

As a result, the maps lacked the fidelity 

necessary to determine compliance with 

part 420. The FAA intends by this 

proposal to ensure the scale is 

appropriate to the site while still being 

able to determine compliance. 

Proposed § 420.63(d) would permit a 

launch site operator to separate each 

explosive hazard facility by distances 

other than those required by part 420 if 

the launch site operator could clearly 

and convincingly demonstrate a level of 

safety equivalent to that required by this 

part. Section 420.63(c) currently 

provides that for explosive siting issues 

not otherwise addressed by the 

regulations, a launch site operator must 

clearly and convincingly demonstrate a 

level of safety equivalent to that 

otherwise required by part 420. This has 

meant that there has been confusion 

over whether the FAA would permit a 

demonstration of an equivalent level of 

safety for explosive materials that part 

420 already addresses. Proposed 

paragraph (d) is necessary to clarify that 

the FAA intended to permit alternative 

means of demonstrating an equivalent 

level of safety to what part 420 

addressed as well as to what part 420 

did not address. In the discussion 

accompanying the rulemaking 

promulgating part 420, the FAA noted 

that it would allow alternatives to the 

quantity-distance (Q–D) requirements in 

the form of, for example, hardening of 

structures or barricades, if the launch 

site operator demonstrated that such an 

approach clearly and convincingly 

provided an equivalent level of safety. 

See Launch Site Rule, 65 FR at 62821; 

Licensing and Safety Requirements for 

Operation of a Launch Site; Proposed 

Rule, (Launch Site NPRM), 64 FR 34316, 

34322 (Jun. 25, 1999). However, as 

finally codified, § 420.63(c) states only 

that it applies to explosive siting issues 

not otherwise addressed by the 

requirements of part 420. Thus, 

allowing a launch site operator, under 

proposed paragraph (d), to demonstrate 

an equivalent level of safety for any 

explosive siting requirement of part 420 

would resolve the apparent 

discrepancies between the explanatory 

preamble and § 420.63(c). 

III. Proposed § 420.66 and Storage of 

Energetic Liquids That Are Otherwise 

Regulated and Are Isolated From Each 

Other 

A. Energetic Liquids That Would Not Be 

Subject to FAA Regulation for Storage 

Section 420.67 addresses both storing 

and handling of energetic liquids. This 

is confusing and the FAA proposes to 

separate storing and handling into two 

separate sections, relying on proposed 

§ 420.66 for storing and § 420.67 for the 

handling of energetic liquids. The FAA 

proposes to reduce its requirements for 

appropriate separation distances to 

address only the highly hazardous 

energetic liquids. The FAA would 

dispense with separation distance 

requirements for the storing of liquid 

oxidizers and RP–1 when they are 

sufficiently isolated from each other that 

a mishap associated with one material 

would not affect the other. This means 

the FAA would no longer impose 

separation requirements for RP–1 or for 

the oxidizers, liquid oxygen, nitrogen 

tetroxide, and hydrogen peroxide in 

concentrations below 91 percent. These 

energetic liquids are all currently 

governed by § 420.67(b) and tables E–3 

through E–6 of Appendix E of this part. 

The FAA bases this proposal on two 

factors: first, when isolated from 

incompatible materials, energetic 

liquids such as liquid oxygen and RP– 

1 do not pose a threat of chemical 

explosion due to accidental mixing, 

and, second, other federal and local 

requirements address fire prevention for 

most industrial chemicals. There are 

situations where these energetic liquids 

may contribute to the risks associated 

with explosions, and the FAA will 

continue to regulate them in that 

context under § 420.63(c). 

For example, part 420 treats liquid 

oxygen as an explosive hazard because, 

when combined with incompatible 

materials, chemical explosion may 

occur. However, when stored as 

required by intraline distance 

requirements with appropriate 

mitigation measures to prevent contact 

with incompatible materials, such an 

effect should not result. The FAA 

proposes to reclassify liquid oxygen 

because current separation requirements 

always treat liquid oxygen as an 

explosive hazard, even when stored in 

the appropriate intraline distance away 

from the incompatible materials. 

When the FAA promulgated part 420, 

it focused almost entirely on safety 

measures for expendable launch 

vehicles, including the safety issues 

surrounding storing and handling of 

energetic liquids, such as liquid 

propellants. The FAA modeled its 

separation requirements for table E–3’s 

Hazard Groups I through III liquid 

propellants on the requirements 

employed at the federal launch ranges, 

where the majority of FAA licensed 

launches took place. Accordingly, the 

FAA followed the 1997 DOD Standard. 

Consequently, the FAA did not take into 

account the pervasive use by federal, 

state and local jurisdictions of 

requirements that address the storage of 

these classes of materials. Nor did the 

commercial space regulations account 

for the airport requirements governing 

fuels. See e.g., 14 CFR 139.321 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
8926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(requiring each certificate holder to 

establish standards for protecting 

against fire and explosion in storing, 

dispensing and otherwise handling fuel 

on an airport); Aircraft Fuel Storage, 

Handling, and Dispensing on Airports, 

Advisory Circular (AC) No. 150/5230– 

4A (Jun. 18, 2004) (2004 AC for Aircraft 

Fuel). This 2004 AC for Aircraft Fuel 

accepts NFPA 407, Standard for Aircraft 

Fuel Servicing, as it pertains to fire 

safety in the safe storage, handling, and 

dispensing, of fuels used in aircraft on 

airports certificated under 14 CFR part 

139. The federal Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) 

regulates the storing and handling of 

energetic liquids to provide for worker 

safety. OSHA provides procedural and 

design requirements for the materials at 

issue. See 29 CFR 1910.101, 1910.104, 

1910.106 and 1910.119. OSHA regulates 

RP–1 under 29 CFR 1910.106 with 

separation distance, procedural, and 

design requirements, as well as with 

OSHA process safety management 

requirements for more than 10,000 

pounds of RP–1 under 29 CFR 

1910.119(a)(1)(ii). OSHA also regulates 

any quantity of liquid oxygen that is 

stored in ‘‘cylinders, portable tanks, rail 

tankcars or motor vehicle cargo tanks’’ 

by incorporating Compressed Gas 

Association (CGA) Pamphlet P–1 (1965) 

by reference in 29 CFR 1910.101(b). 

OSHA regulations for liquid oxygen 

address design, operational, and 

separation distance requirements. See 

29 CFR 1910.104. For stationary tanks, 

OSHA regulates storage of liquid oxygen 

in quantities in excess of 13,000 cubic 

feet for a connected system or more than 

25,000 cubic feet for an unconnected 

system at a normal temperature and 

pressure. 29 CFR 1910.104(b)(1). OSHA 

process safety management 

requirements apply to storage of more 

than 7500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide 

that is more than 52 percent 

concentration by weight or more than 

250 pounds of nitrogen tetroxide. 29 

CFR 1910.119 App A. The process 

safety management requirements 

include design and operational 

procedure requirements, but do not 

impose explicit separation 

requirements. The employer must 

guarantee the mechanical integrity of 

the system, including the pressure 

vessels and storage tanks, piping 

systems, emergency shutdown systems, 

controls, and pumps. 29 CFR 

1910.119(j). In the initial construction, 

the employer must ensure these systems 

are adequate for their functions and 

must maintain the components. 29 CFR 

1910.119(j)(6). To some extent, the 

OSHA requirements protect the public 

as an ancillary benefit. See 29 CFR 

1910.5(d) (clarifying that although a 

standard may on its face protect persons 

who are not employees, the standard 

only applies in the employment 

context). 

Additionally, state and local codes 

use standards devised by organizations, 

such as the CGA, the International Code 

Council, the International Fire Code 

Institute, and NFPA. Several states 

where launch sites are located 

implement some form of the 

requirements recommended by these 

organizations. The exceptions are 

California, Florida and Texas. 

B. Historical Background 

The issue of overlapping requirements 

was first brought to light by the FAA’s 

experience in regulating the East Kern 

Airport District (EKAD), the launch site 

operator of Mojave Air and Space Port. 

Before Mojave acquired launch 

customers, it operated as an airport. 

Consequently, it followed the FAA 

airport and local fire codes, including 

the requirements of NFPA. With the 

advent of reusable launch vehicles, 

EKAD confronted a host of siting issues, 

including the storing and handling of 

liquid oxygen, kerosene, and isopropyl 

alcohol. 

In 2004, the FAA waived EKAD’s 

compliance with § 420.67, which 

governs the storage and handling of 

liquid propellants, including liquid 

oxygen and kerosene, and permitted 

EKAD to comply with DOD 6055.9–STD 

instead. Commercial Space 

Transportation; Waiver of Liquid 

Propellant Storage and Handling 

Requirements for Operation of a Launch 

Site at the Mojave Airport in California, 

69 FR 41327 (Jul. 8, 2004) (Waiver to 

Section 420.67 or Waiver Notice). As 

conditions for granting a waiver, the 

FAA required EKAD to follow positive 

measures used by OSHA and the NFPA 

for spill containment and control for 

isolated storage of energetic liquids. Id. 

at 41328, par. F. The FAA also required 

using OSHA or NFPA guidance 

referenced in the DDESB requirements 

for storing and handling conventional 

flammable energetic liquids and liquid 

oxidizers, where no significant blast and 

fragment hazards were expected. Id. 

Minimum blast and fragment distances 

apply, according to DOD 6055.9–STD, 

C9.5.6.1, to NFPA and OSHA Class I–III 

flammable and combustible liquids and 

to conventional oxidizers such as liquid 

oxygen. 

In December 2007, in response to 

EKAD’s request, the FAA again waived 

explosive siting storage requirements for 

EKAD by issuing new license terms and 

conditions. This time, the FAA stated 

that, for the storage of liquid oxygen, 

kerosene and isopropyl alcohol, EKAD 

had to comply with NFPA Standard No. 

55 (2005 ed.) and No. 33 (2008 ed.) for 

separation distances and spill 

containment. EKAD License Order No. 

LSO 04–009A (Rev. 1) (Dec. 20, 2007). 

Recently, the FAA waived storage 

requirements of part 420 for liquid 

oxygen and RP–1 for the Jacksonville 

Aviation Authority (JAA) for its 

operation of portions of Cecil Field as a 

launch site. JAA, License Order No. LSO 

09–012 (Jan. 11, 2010). In its evaluation 

of the request for a waiver, the FAA 

noted that DDESB adopted NFPA 

standards for storing conventional 

liquid fuels and oxidizers such as liquid 

oxygen and RP–1. DoD 6055.9–STD 

(2004). A review of the accident and test 

data of a number of fuels, oxidizers, and 

monopropellants against NFPA Hazard 

Instability Rating system defined by 

NFPA 704 (1996) Standard System for 

the Identification of the Hazards of 

Materials for Emergency Response, led 

DDESB to consider alternative standards 

for storing liquid propellants, such as 

liquid oxygen and RP–1. DDESB 

concluded that the main hazard 

associated with hydrocarbon fuels such 

as RP–1 is fire. This means that when 

it is not co-located with an oxidizer, 

RP–1 does not pose a threat of a 

chemical explosion due to accidental 

mixing with that oxidizer. DDESB also 

considered an NFPA standard for liquid 

oxygen based on the NFPA 704 

Standard for the Identification of the 

Fire Hazards of Materials for Emergency 

Response (1996). Although liquid 

oxygen is a strong oxidizer and may 

create a serious fire hazard when 

combined with combustible materials, 

liquid oxygen is not flammable when 

separated and on its own. Accordingly, 

DDESB found that even an unlimited 

quantity of liquid oxygen need only 

maintain a distance of 100 feet between 

the location of its storage and 

incompatible energetic liquids, and 50 

feet to compatible energetic liquids. In 

this context, liquid oxygen and RP–1, on 

their own, did not pose an explosive 

hazard. Hence, JAA’s deviation from the 

separation standards of tables E–4 and 

E–5 of appendix E, for liquid oxygen 

and RP–1 did not jeopardize public 

safety. The FAA granted the waiver. 

C. Reasons for Proposed Changes 

The FAA has a number of reasons for 

proposing to dispense with separation 

distance requirements for storing liquid 

oxygen, nitrogen tetroxide, hydrogen 

peroxide in concentrations equal to or 

below 91 percent and RP–1. These 

energetic materials do not create 

explosive hazards when in isolation, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8927 

3Table E–1 uses a dotted line rather than 

repeating the distance of 1,250 feet. The FAA has 

been applying this to mean that any quantity below 

30,000 pounds has a separation distance of 1,250 

feet. 

that is, when not co-located on a launch 

vehicle as liquid propellants. 

Additionally, the FAA does not want its 

launch separation requirements to 

conflict with other federal requirements, 

which are more comprehensive in that 

they contain design and operational 

requirements as well as separation 

requirements. Achieving safety is more 

complicated than merely having 

adequate separation distances. As has 

long been the case, safety can be 

achieved by a combination of separation 

distances, safety design, operational 

control requirements, hazard 

communication, or other mechanism, 

such as process safety management, so 

that the risk of a catastrophic incident 

associated with storing and handling of 

hazardous materials occurring may be 

kept to a minimum. As discussed above, 

OSHA and the FAA’s own requirements 

for airports under 14 CFR part 139 

address many of the fire hazards of 

these energetic materials through these 

means. The states, as well, impose 

requirements. The FAA’s history of 

issuing waivers demonstrates that its 

own separation requirements are not 

necessary for achieving safety. 

The FAA’s waivers were based on 

DDESB standards, which are now 

incorporating the NFPA standards. 

DDESB standards themselves do not 

apply to civilian commercial activities. 

Nonetheless, the federal regulations that 

do apply adequately address the FAA’s 

concerns. 

D. Proposed Change to Classification 

System 

Part 420, Appendix E, table E–3, 

currently classifies by hazard group, the 

following energetic liquids: hydrogen 

peroxide, hydrazine, liquid hydrogen, 

liquid oxygen, nitrogen tetroxide, RP–1, 

unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine 

(UDMH) and the combination of UDMH 

and hydrazine. Each group represents 

different levels of hazard. Group I, 

which consists of nitrogen tetroxide and 

RP–1, is a fire hazard. Group II, which 

consists of hydrogen peroxide and 

liquid oxygen, is a group of strong 

oxidizers that may exhibit vigorous 

oxidation or rapid combustion in 

contact with materials, such as organic 

matter, possibly resulting in serious 

fires. Group III, which consists of 

hydrazine, liquid hydrogen, UDMH, and 

the combination of hydrazine and 

UDMH, presents hazards from the 

pressure rupture of a storage container 

resulting in fire, deflagration, or vapor 

phase explosions. Either pressure 

rupture of a container or vapor phase 

explosion can cause a fragment hazard 

from the container and any protective 

structure. In accordance with the 

current DDESB and NFPA practice, the 

FAA proposes to dispense with these 

hazard groups because the more 

commonly used classification system is 

that of the NFPA. The NFPA classifies 

energetic liquids based on instability 

ratings, as noted above in section III B. 

IV. Separation Distance Requirements 

for Handling of Division 1.1 and 1.3 

Explosives Under § 420.65 

The FAA proposes clarifying changes 

to its requirements for the separation 

distances for handling divisions 1.1 and 

1.3 explosives under § 420.65 and 

accompanying tables E–1 through E–4 of 

appendix E of this part. The FAA 

proposes to make editorial changes, 

abandon the use of linear interpolation, 

provide more increments for the 

quantities in its tables, and provide 

formulas for calculating acceptable 

distances between explosive hazard 

facilities. The FAA proposes a number 

of editorial and organizational changes 

to improve clarity. The FAA would no 

longer refer to the solid explosives 

governed by this section as solid 

propellants because, technically, the 

provision applies to more than just solid 

propellants. Currently, § 420.65 states 

that it applies to solid propellants, 

which are used in expendable launch 

vehicles (ELVs) for propulsion. Solid 

propellants are division 1.3 explosives. 

Explosives used in an ELV’s flight 

termination system are division 1.1 

explosives. Strictly speaking, the latter 

are not propellants, so the FAA 

proposes the title and the language of 

this section more precisely identify 

what it governs to avoid 

misunderstanding. 

The FAA proposes to no longer 

permit the use of linear interpolation 

under § 420.65(d)(4) for any quantities 

because it was incorrect for divisions 

1.1 and 1.3 explosives and, given the 

requirements of the provision, it is 

unclear when it applies. The lack of 

clarity is evident from the fact that, on 

the one hand, this section allows a 

launch site operator to use linear 

interpolation for the net explosive 

weight (NEW) quantities between 

entries in table E–1. On the other hand, 

the table itself either rigidly provides a 

distance of 1,250 feet for all NEW 

quantities of 30,000 pounds or less,3 or 

it provides exponential formulas to 

calculate distances for quantities in 

excess of 30,000 pounds, thus 

apparently ruling out the use of linear 

interpolation for quantities of explosives 

above and below 30,000 pounds. This 

makes it unclear when to employ linear 

interpolation. Because the relationship 

between quantity and distance is, in 

fact, exponential rather than linear, the 

use of linear interpolation is incorrect, 

even if it were clear where it applied. 

The FAA would also reorganize the 

tables that accompany this section for 

purposes of greater clarity. Currently, 

appendix E contains a single table, table 

E–1, for public area and intraline 

distances for divisions 1.1 and 1.3 

explosives. The table identifies 

quantities in increments starting with 

zero to 1,000 pounds, and progresses 

through quantities between 1,000 and 

5,000 pounds, and then advances in 

increments of 10,000 and 100,000 

pounds up to 1,000,000 pounds. 

The FAA proposes that table E–1 

show the minimum separation distances 

to public areas and public traffic routes 

for quantities of division 1.1 explosives 

with a NEW for quantities less than or 

equal to 450 pounds. Currently, the 

minimum distance from an explosive 

hazard facility to a public area for 

quantities between zero and 30,000 

pounds is 1,250 feet, regardless of 

whether the quantity is, for example, 

two pounds or 9,000 pounds. This 

greater level of precision would provide 

launch site operators greater flexibility 

while still maintaining appropriate 

distances to public areas and public 

traffic routes. The FAA would also 

provide formulas to calculate distances 

for quantities that fall between the 

entries in the table. The formulas would 

account for NEW of less than 100 

pounds and for quantities between 100 

and 450 pounds: 

NEW ≤ 0.5 lbs: d = 236. 

0.5 lbs < NEW < 100 

lbs: 

d = 291.3 + [79.2 × 

ln(NEW)]. 

100 lbs ≤ NEW ≤ 450 

lbs: 

d = ¥ 1133.9 + [389 

× ln(NEW)]. 

Where NEW is in pounds; d is distance 

in feet, and ln is natural logarithm. 

The FAA has allowed licensees to 

demonstrate an equivalent level of 

safety by using the formulas proposed 

here. The formulas account for the fact 

that fragments are the primary hazard 

associated with division 1.1 explosives 

for quantities of 450 pounds or less. Air 

blast can carry or propel fragments, but 

it is the fragments that cause the damage 

to persons. The proposed formula in 

table E–1 would account for the 

probability that one hazardous fragment 

would land within a 600 square feet 

area for a given quantity of division 1.1 

explosive. The relationship is a natural 

logarithmic function when calculating 

distance based on NEW. When 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
8928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

calculating permissible NEW from 

distance, the inverse function of the 

natural logarithmic function, or the 

exponential function, is used. 

The relationship is based on data 

obtained from DDESB TP 16, rev. 2, 

2005 Methodologies for Calculating 

Primary Fragment Characteristics. 

DDESB conducted tests that accounted 

for hazardous debris fragments based on 

a fragment that would cause a fatality, 

namely, one with a kinetic energy at 

impact of 58 foot-pounds. A kinetic 

energy of 58 foot-pounds equates to a 

one percent probability of a person 

approximately six feet tall and one foot 

wide being struck by that fragment at a 

given separation distance from a given 

NEW. For quantities between 450 and 

30,000 pounds, the minimum separation 

distance of 1,250 feet remains 

unchanged. For quantities of 30,000 

pounds or more, the hazards include 

blast, fragments, and debris. When 

public areas are protected from blast 

effect by a separation distance between 

40 NEW1/3 and 50 NEW1/3, persons in 

the open are not expected to experience 

serious injuries arising out of blast 

effects. DoD Standard 6055.9—STD 

C2.2.5.7.3 (2004). The FAA does not 

propose to change the methodology for 

calculating separation distances for 

quantities greater than 30,000 pounds. 

Table E–2 would also contain the 

public traffic route distances for 

division 1.1 explosives. In 

§ 420.65(d)(3), the FAA already permits 

a launch site operator to employ the 

more lenient public traffic route 

separation distance, but only for 

division 1.1 explosives. Although a 

public traffic route is a public area, this 

section permits a separation distance of 

60 percent of the public area distance. 

Thus, for convenience, proposed table 

E–2 would show the distance currently 

permitted by § 420.65(d)(3). 

Table E–2 would also contain a 

formula by which a launch site operator 

could determine the maximum NEW it 

could handle in an explosive hazard 

facility as would be permitted by the 

proposed § 420.65(e)(3). The proposed 

formulas reflect the inverse function of 

the equations provided by current table 

E–1. Publishing them would allow a 

launch site operator to calculate the 

maximum quantities it could have in an 

existing explosive hazard facility based 

on distances. This will increase the 

flexibility of launch site operators who 

already have constructed sites, but wish 

to expand their operations into serving 

as launch sites. 

Proposed table E–3 would contain 

intraline distance formulas currently 

contained in table E–1 for division 1.1 

solid explosives. For division 1.1 

explosives, the FAA would decrease the 

increments between quantities for 

greater convenience. Also, the proposed 

table would provide a formula for 

calculating separation distances for 

quantities that fall between table entries. 

For division 1.3 explosives, proposed 

table E–4 would contain minimum 

separation distances to public areas and 

public traffic routes, and intraline 

distances. The distances the FAA 

proposes reflect the exponential 

relationship, between the quantity of 

division 1.3 explosives and the 

necessary separation distances, rather 

than the inaccurate linear interpolation 

relationship currently expressed in the 

rules. Accordingly, the distances would 

be smaller than those currently required 

by table E–1. 

Proposed § 420.65(d)(3) would require 

a launch site operator to separate each 

public area containing any member of 

the public in the open by a distance 

equal to ¥1133.9 + [389 * ln(NEW)] 

where the NEW is greater than 450 

pounds and less than 600,000 pounds. 

Under current part 420, the FAA does 

not distinguish between public areas 

that are buildings, where people are 

sheltered, and those where people are 

out in the open. For a net explosive 

weight up to 30,000 pounds, fragments 

rather than blast can injure people in 

the open. DoD Standard 6055.9—STD 

C2.2.5.7.3 (2004). Even at 1,250 feet, the 

distance mandated by current 

§ 420.65(c) and (d) and current table 

E–1, a person may be injured by 

fragments. Id. This proposed formula 

also applies to liquid propellants where 

explosive equivalent weights apply so 

that a launch site operator may employ 

proposed table E–2. This will result in 

greater distances for some public areas 

than are required under current rules, 

but should not result in increased 

distances for siting buildings. The 

proposed requirement would impose a 

constraint on operations more than on 

siting facilities. 

This new requirement would not 

affect the siting of facilities in 

relationship to public traffic routes such 

as roads. The facility could still be sited 

at sixty percent of the distance to a 

public area. However, if there were 

people in the open on a public road 

during an operation involving division 

1.1 explosives or liquid propellants, the 

members of the public would have to be 

kept at the distance mandated by the 

formula. Depending on the net 

explosive weight, the distance could be 

less than or greater than the public area 

or public traffic route distances. The 

FAA does not consider persons in 

moving vehicles to be in the open. 

The FAA also proposes to permit 

launch site operators to determine 

permissible NEW or TNT equivalent 

weight for existing facilities under 

proposed paragraph (e). Not all launch 

sites are built from the ground up. As 

experience over the past few years 

demonstrates, airports may apply for a 

license to operate a launch site. On 

occasion, the operator will want to use 

existing facilities for handling of 

division 1.1 explosives or liquid 

propellants. The FAA would provide a 

formula for the operator to calculate the 

maximum quantity permitted. The 

formula provided in table E–1 is based 

on fragment hazard tests that DDESB 

conducted, which can be found in 

DDESB TP 16, rev. 2. The formula 

provided in table E–2 is based on 

current table E–1 for blast overpressure 

equations. The operator would have to 

measure the distance from the explosive 

hazard facility using the measuring 

requirements of proposed § 420.70. 

V. Separation Distance Requirements 

for Storage of Hydrogen Peroxide, 

Hydrazine, and Liquid Hydrogen and 

Any Energetic Liquids Incompatible 

With and Stored Within an Intraline 

Distance of Any of Them 

Through proposed § 420.66, the FAA 

will continue to impose storage 

requirements for hydrazine, liquid 

hydrogen, and hydrogen peroxide in 

concentrations of greater than 91 

percent because of concerns regarding a 

greater risk for a chemical explosion 

associated with these energetic liquids, 

but will not address quantities below 

100 pounds for liquid hydrogen and 

hydrazine. Under current requirements, 

table E–3 shows that all three of these 

energetic liquids belong to Hazard 

Group III, which means that table E–4 

applies. Under the proposed 

requirements, the distances would not 

change in proposed table E–8. The FAA 

recognizes that OSHA addresses liquid 

hydrogen and hydrazine, but the FAA is 

not going to rely on OSHA for quantities 

of liquid hydrogen above 100 pounds 

because OSHA requires no more than 

100 feet for outdoor storage of quantities 

up to 30,000 gallons. Part 420 separation 

distances vary depending on quantity. 

Likewise, OSHA addresses hydrazine, 

but the separation distances for 

quantities in excess of 100 pounds 

remain of concern to the FAA for public 

safety purposes in that they pose a 

threat of catastrophic consequences. 

Even in storage, accidents can happen 

with these materials. NFPA standards, 

which are incorporated by other 

regulators as discussed above, address 

the storage of hydrogen peroxide in high 

concentrations, but the FAA will keep 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8929 

4Although ethyl alcohol and JP–10 are in the 

family of Class I–III flammable and combustible 

liquids, which the FAA proposes to stop addressing 

in part 420, if either are within an intraline distance 

of the incompatible hydrogen peroxide, separation 

distances would apply under proposed 

§ 420.66(a)(4). 

its requirements for this energetic 

liquid. The NFPA standards are silent 

regarding separation distances for 

quantities above 10,000 pounds. 

The FAA proposes to create a new 

§ 420.66 to govern the storage of these 

materials for greater clarity. Current 

§ 420.67, which governs the storage and 

handling of liquid propellants, already 

contains most of these requirements. 

The FAA proposes to relocate the rules 

governing measurement to proposed 

§ 420.70. 

Proposed § 420.66 would apply to 

hydrogen peroxide in concentrations of 

greater than 91 percent, hydrazine, 

liquid hydrogen, or any energetic liquid 

that is incompatible with and is stored 

within an intraline distance of any of 

them. As with the current requirements, 

a launch site operator would first 

determine the total quantity of energetic 

liquids it would store on its launch site. 

As with the current rule, a launch site 

operator must convert each of the 

energetic liquid’s quantity from gallons 

to pounds. The formula would remain 

unchanged, but we propose to add, in 

proposed table E–6, conversion factors 

for additional energetic liquids not 

currently addressed by table E–3 of the 

current rule. The FAA obtained the 

conversion factors for ethyl alcohol,4

and red fuming nitric acid from the 

2004 DDESB standard. The FAA will 

continue to require that a launch site 

operator determine distances for 

compatible energetic liquids in the same 

manner as the current rule, but would 

increase flexibility in siting with respect 

to those public areas that are public 

traffic routes. For co-located 

incompatible energetic liquids where 

explosive equivalents apply, under 

proposed § 420.67(c)(2), the FAA 

proposes to permit using a public traffic 

route distance for incompatible 

energetic liquids that are within an 

intraline distance of each other. This 

would provide incompatible energetic 

liquids the same treatment accorded to 

division 1.1 solid explosives. Section 

420.65(d)(3) permits division 1.1 solid 

explosives to be separated from public 

traffic routes by a distance of 60 percent 

of the public area distance. In light of 

the fact that the explosion of 

incompatible energetic liquids can be 

expressed in an explosive equivalent of 

division 1.1 explosives, there appears to 

be no reason not to offer these energetic 

liquids the same opportunity to employ 

a shorter distance to public traffic 

routes. 

Currently, table E–5 prescribes 

separation distances for hydrogen 

peroxide without specifying the 

concentration levels to which it applies. 

Proposed table E–7 would contain 

separation distances for high 

concentrations of hydrogen peroxide 

(greater than 91 percent) in quantities 

above 10,000 pounds. Because the 

current distances encompass hydrogen 

peroxide at lower concentrations, the 

distances proposed would be greater 

than those currently required. This 

reflects the 2004 DOD Standard. As 

noted in the section discussing storage 

requirements, OSHA imposes process 

safety management requirements in 

quantities greater than 7500 pounds and 

in concentrations of greater than 52 

percent by weight. 

Proposed table E–8 would contain the 

requirements of current table E–6 for 

hydrazine and liquid hydrogen. The 

FAA proposes to dispense with 

separation requirements for quantities of 

liquid hydrogen and hydrazine of less 

than 100 pounds because OSHA 

regulates these materials in quantities 

below 100 pounds. OSHA’s regulation 

of liquid hydrogen includes separation 

distance, design, and operational 

procedure requirements. The 

requirements apply to storage of all 

liquid hydrogen except portable 

containers of less than 150 liters (39.63 

gallons). 29 CFR 1910.103(a)(2)(ii). 

Requirements for separation distances 

may be found at 29 CFR 

1910.103(c)(2)(ii)(b). Design 

requirements may be found at 29 CFR 

1910.103(c)(1) and operational 

constraints at 29 CFR 1910.103(c)(4). 

OSHA regulates hydrazine with 

separation distance, design, and 

operational procedure requirements. 

OSHA provides separation distance 

requirements for outdoor containers of 

hydrazine. 29 CFR 1910.106(a)(27), 

(d)(6)(i) and (d)(6)(ii)(b). OSHA applies 

design and testing requirements. 29 CFR 

1910.106(b)(7), 1910.106(c)(6), and 

1910.106(d)(2)–(5). Operational 

procedure requirements may be found at 

29 CFR 1910.106(b)(1)(iv)(a), 

1910.106(b)(1)(v)(a), and 

1910.106(b)(5)(vi). The FAA remains 

concerned about and will continue its 

regulation of the greater quantities 

because of their potential for 

catastrophic events. 

Currently, § 420.67(b) requires a 

launch site operator to determine hazard 

and compatibility groups and separate 

liquid propellants from each other and 

from each public area using the 

distances identified in tables E–4 

though E–7 of Appendix E of this part. 

The only substantive change the FAA 

now proposes to this paragraph arises 

out of the FAA’s proposal to dispense 

with the hazard compatibility groups of 

table E–3. As noted in the discussion of 

the storage of liquid propellants, the 

FAA proposes to dispense with 

classifying certain liquid propellants as 

members of Hazard Groups I, II or III. 

Currently, table E–3 identifies what 

hazard group a material belongs to, and 

tables E–4, E–5 and E–6 impose 

separation distances for each of those 

hazard groups. These classifications 

would be unnecessary because the 

hazard groups only apply to storage 

distances, and, once we focus only on 

certain energetic liquids, we no longer 

would require these broad 

classifications. 

VI. Separation Distances for the 

Handling of Incompatible Energetic 

Liquids That Are Co-Located 

At times, incompatible energetic 

liquids must be co-located and even 

mixed to fulfill their intended functions 

as liquid propellants. Most obviously, 

many launch vehicles’ performance 

come from the propulsion power 

provided by liquid bipropellant systems 

consisting of a liquid fuel and oxidizer. 

Engine tests also require the handling of 

energetic liquids when in close enough 

proximity to create a hazard of an 

explosion occurring. Once liquid 

propellants are co-located for these or 

other operational purposes, different 

separation distances to the public apply 

than for the storage of energetic liquids. 

If incompatible energetic liquids are colocated, the handling distances of 

§ 420.67 apply for determining intraline 

and public area distances. The FAA also 

notes that although it proposes to 

dispense with requirements for NFPA 

Class I–III flammable and combustible 

liquids for storage, it will still require 

that a launch site operator account for 

them when determining separation 

distances for combinations. 

Section 420.67 would narrow in 

scope. Currently, it applies as written to 

liquid propellants at a launch site. In 

practice, this has meant that when a 

launch operator is located at an airport, 

requirements that were originally 

intended for launch vehicles and engine 

testing applied to jet fuels and other 

energetic liquids for which there were 

already requirements. Section 420.67(a) 

would limit its applicability to rocket 

engines. Specifically, it would apply 

where incompatible energetic liquids 

are co-located in a launch or reentry 

vehicle tank or other vessel, such as a 

propulsion unit, on the vehicle. This 

would include such obvious 

applications as a vehicle on a launch 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
8930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5This reflects the contents of current 

§ 420.67(a)(2)(iii). 

pad or runway. It would also include 

engine firing, for test or other purposes. 

In short, § 420.67 would apply to rocket 

engines at a launch site because the 

FAA wishes to confine its launch site 

regulations to energetic liquids used for 

space and not aviation applications. 

For the reasons provided in the 

discussion of § 420.65, the FAA 

proposes to provide tables and formulas 

for quantities up to 450 pounds rather 

than requiring a distance of 1,250 feet 

for all quantities up to 30,000 pounds. 

As clarified in proposed § 420.67(d)(4), 

which would clarify and expand upon 

current § 420.67(b)(5), for explosive 

hazard facilities of a single customer, a 

launch site operator must use the greater 

intraline distance to separate the 

facilities from each other.5 For example, 

a launch site operator may plan to have 

a customer who will use a launch pad 

and a runway for horizontal take-off of 

a launch vehicle. These two explosive 

hazard facilities need only be separated 

by an intraline distance, but it must be 

the distance that reflects the larger 

quantity. Thus, if an expendable launch 

vehicle at a launch pad required a 

distance of 1,250 feet, while a horizontal 

take-off vehicle required a distance of 

only 700 feet, the runway and the 

launch pad would have to be located 

1,250 feet from each other. 

Proposed § 420.67(d)(4) would also 

clarify that for explosive hazard 

facilities used by different customers, a 

launch site operator must use the greater 

public area distance to separate the 

explosive hazard facilities from each 

other. This is implicit in the current 

requirements because different launch 

operators are the public with respect to 

each other. Section 420.5 defines the 

public as persons not involved in 

supporting a launch, and includes any 

other launch operator and its personnel. 

Accordingly, under the existing rules, if 

the public area distance created by 

launch operator A’s vehicle at one 

launch pad was 1250 feet and 700 feet 

for launch operator B’s launch pad, the 

launch pads would have to be separated 

by the greater distance of 1,250 feet. An 

explicit requirement would increase 

clarity. 

Under proposed § 420.67(c)(2), the 

FAA would permit a launch site 

operator to use the shorter distances of 

table E–1 for liquid propellants with 

explosive equivalencies in quantities 

below or equal to 450 pounds. In 

promulgating part 420, the FAA created 

table E–1 to show separation distance 

requirements for solid explosives. Table 

E–1 requires a separation distance of 

1,250 feet to a public area for division 

1.1 explosives in quantities between 

zero and 30,000 pounds. As discussed 

earlier, the FAA now proposes to 

achieve a higher level of fidelity so that 

for a site where liquid propellants are 

handled or co-located more accurate 

separation distances to public areas 

would be available for liquid as well as 

solid propellants. The FAA recognized 

the need for greater fidelity when it 

waived § 420.67 for XCOR Aerospace’s 

operations on a runway at Mojave Air 

and Space Port, where it was fueling its 

vehicle with liquid oxygen and 

kerosene. Although the XCOR 

Aerospace waiver applied to the 

handling of liquid propellants, table 

E–1 applied because energetic liquids 

are translated into their ‘‘explosive 

equivalent’’ in TNT to determine their 

equivalence in explosive yield. As the 

FAA explained when it first proposed 

part 420, if fuels and oxidizers are 

located within close enough distances of 

each other, the distance to the public 

must account for the hazardous 

consequences of their potential 

combination. See Launch Site NPRM, 64 

FR 34335. The combination is measured 

in terms of explosive equivalency, a 

measure of the blast effects from 

explosion of a given quantity of a fuel 

and oxidizer mixture expressed in terms 

of the weight of TNT that would 

produce the same blast effects when 

detonated. Id. 

VII. Separation Distance Requirements 

for Co-Location of Divisions 1.1 and 1.3 

Explosives and Liquid Propellants 

For launch vehicles that require strapon solid rocket motors and are equipped 

with flight termination systems, liquid 

propellants are in close proximity to 

class 1.1 or class 1.3 explosives. Section 

420.69 applies on those occasions. 

The FAA proposes to revise its 

requirements for separation distances 

for co-located division 1.1 and 1.3 

explosives and liquid propellants. The 

distances to public areas and public 

traffic routes will be shorter to correct 

the FAA’s error in § 420.69(b). Current 

§ 420.69 requires that a launch site 

operator determine the separation 

distances for solid propellant division 

1.1 and 1.3 explosives and then 

determine the separation distances for a 

liquid propellant combination within an 

intraline distance. Having determined 

the separation distance for each, a 

launch site operator must add the two 

separation distances together to achieve 

a minimum distance to a public area. 

For example, if a launch pad contains 

20 pounds of division 1.1 explosives, 

which generates a public area distance 

of 529 feet, and liquid oxygen and 

kerosene with an explosive equivalent 

of 45,000 pounds, which generates a 

public area distance of 1,423 feet, the 

resulting public area distance under 

current requirements must be the sum of 

the two distances, which is 1,952 feet. 

As the FAA recognized in its 

discussion of the issue at the time it 

promulgated this section, a 

simultaneous explosion of both the 

solid and liquid propellants, although 

unlikely, is not improbable. Launch Site 

Rule, 65 FR 62821. Accordingly, the 

FAA decided the separation distance 

applicable to the liquid propellants had 

to be added to the separation distance 

applicable to the solid propellant under 

§ 420.69(b) and (c). This was a mistake. 

As with the other approaches to 

determining correct separation 

distances, the weights of the various 

propellants, solid and liquid both, are 

added before determining the distances. 

Thus, using the example above, once a 

launch site operator determines that the 

total NEW of the solid propellants is 20 

pounds and the explosive equivalent of 

the liquid propellants is 45,000 pounds, 

the total NEW of 45,020 pounds yields 

a distance of 1,423 feet rather than the 

1,952 feet of current § 420.69. The 

proposed methodology would apply to 

both division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives. 

VIII. Measuring Requirements 

The FAA proposes a new § 420.70 to 

contain all the measuring requirements 

for calculating the distances by which 

explosive hazard facilities must be 

separated from each other and from the 

public. Separation distance 

requirements are currently spread from 

§§ 420.65 through 420.69. Consolidating 

those requirements into a single section, 

§ 420.70, would ensure that a launch 

site operator would need to look in only 

one place to find the measuring 

requirements it must meet. The majority 

of these requirements are already in part 

420. They include the requirements for 

measuring separation distances for solid 

propellants, currently located in 

§ 420.65(d)(5), and energetic liquids, 

currently located in § 420.67(b)(1). New 

measurement requirements would 

include requiring a launch site operator 

to employ straight lines, as would be 

required by proposed § 420.70(b) 

measuring from taxiways and runways 

as required by proposed § 420.70(c), and 

measuring to a public traffic route by 

using its nearest side as required by 

proposed § 420.70(c)(2). The FAA is 

proposing the new requirements 

because there has been confusion over 

which points to use as starting points 

for measurements. These requirements 

would reduce any such confusion and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8931 

ensure the FAA treats all launch site 

operators’ measurements the same. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

The FAA has determined that there 

would be no new information collection 

associated with the proposed 

requirement to collect data required for 

performing launch site location 

analysis. Approval to collect such 

information previously was approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was assigned OMB 

Control Number 2120–0644. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. This is not 

an aviation rulemaking, and the FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows. 

The FAA proposes to dispense with 

separation distance requirements for 

storing liquid oxidizers and Class I, II 

and III flammable and combustible 

liquids because they are unnecessarily 

conservative as explained earlier. The 

FAA proposes to dispense with the 

hazard groups of tables E–4 through E– 

6 of appendix E of part 420 as a means 

of classification. This would allow for 

closer siting of explosives without 

degrading safety. Safety would not be 

degraded because of the operational 

controls and design requirements of 

other standards. In addition, the FAA 

proposes to identify the minimum 

separation distances to public areas and 

public traffic routes for quantities 

between less than half a pound and 450 

pounds of division 1.1 explosives and 

liquid propellants with TNT 

equivalency. 

Because of these changes launch sites 

might be able to use the infrastructure 

of existing airport facilities and, 

therefore, the proposed rule would be 

cost relieving. The proposed rule would 

also allow for the development of more 

launch sites where the more 

conservative siting requirements of the 

current regulation might constrain their 

development. 

Certain proposed changes would add 

clarity to the current regulations and 

result in reduced ambiguity and 

confusion. For instance, clarifying the 

meaning of explosive hazard facility to 

state that it can be a location as well as 

a facility avoids the possibility of 

misinterpreting the current definition to 

apply only to buildings or storage sites. 

The proposed rule would remove 

ambiguities over the labeling of 

materials to different users of the same 

material. The rule would also clarify 

that the FAA intended to permit 

alternative means of demonstrating an 

equivalent level of safety to what part 

420 addressed as well as to what part 

420 did not address. These changes are 

expected to be cost neutral. 

The proposed rule would add a 

requirement to § 420.63 that the 

explosive site map be at a scale 

sufficient to determine compliance with 

part 420. The FAA is proposing this to 

avoid a reiterative process to obtain a 

map at an appropriate scale. Situations 

have arisen where the FAA has received 

maps that were difficult to read. As a 

result, considerable time was expended 

determining distances between elements 

on the map. In this respect, the proposal 

can be cost relieving. The rule could 

require some operators to redraw 

existing maps. However, we expect that 

with programs like AutoCAD and 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

software, the cost to change the scale 

will be minimal. We don’t believe that 

anyone would be required to redraw an 

existing map by hand due to this 

requirement. The FAA calls for 

comments regarding whether this 

provision will be cost relieving, and if 

not, provide sufficient documentation 

such that we can provide an accurate 

cost estimate. 

Under current part 420, the FAA does 

not distinguish between public areas 

that are buildings, where people are 

sheltered, and those where people are 

out in the open. This proposal would 

result in greater distances for some 

public areas than are required under 

current rules, but should not result in 

increased distances for siting buildings. 

The operational constraints themselves 

should not increase costs because a 

launch site operator currently must 

ensure under § 420.55 that its customers 

schedule their hazardous operations so 

as not to harm members of the public. 

A site operator may incur minimal costs 

in performing these new calculations 

and updating its procedures to reflect 

any changes in distances. The FAA calls 

for comments on whether this new 

requirement will impose costs. 

By dispensing with the current 

separation distance requirements for 

certain energetic liquids and reducing 

separation distance requirements for 

divisions 1.1 and 1.3 explosives and 

liquid propellants the rule would be 

cost relieving. The FAA proposes this 1) 

for energetic liquids that are fire hazards 

rather than explosive hazards because 

when sufficiently isolated from each 

other, these liquids do not pose a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
8932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

chemical explosion hazard; and 2) for 

liquids that are already addressed by 

other federal requirements. 

Because this proposed rule would 

relieve launch sites from storage 

requirements for most energetic liquids 

and reduce the separation distances 

requirements for divisions 1.1 and 1.3 

explosives and liquid propellants, the 

expected outcome would be reduced 

cost. The possible benefits would be the 

proposal might encourage the 

development of more launch sites. By 

encouraging existing launch sites to 

more effectively use their infrastructure 

and by allowing colocation of launch 

sites with some existing airports, the 

proposed rule would provide benefits 

and be cost relieving. There might also 

be cost savings if the FAA issues fewer 

waivers as a result of this rule. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The proposed rule does not impose 

costs on industry because it provides 

options to launch sites with regards to 

explosive siting but does not require 

launch site operators to increase the 

distances around where they have sited 

explosives and because other 

requirements are consistent with 

industry practice. Consequently, the 

FAA certifies that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This rule would have 

only a domestic impact. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore the 

requirements of Title II do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 310f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order, because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and 

it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8933 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket or notice number of 

this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 420 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Space 

transportation and exploration. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter III of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 420—LICENSE TO OPERATE A 

LAUNCH SITE 

1. The authority citation for part 420 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101–70121. 

2. Amend § 420.5 by revising the 

definition of Explosive hazard facility 

and by adding the definitions of 

Energetic liquid, Liquid propellant, 

Maximum credible event, and Public 

traffic route, in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 420.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Energetic liquid means a liquid, 

slurry, or gel, consisting of, or 

containing an explosive, oxidizer, fuel, 

or combination of the above, that may 

undergo, contribute to, or cause rapid 

exothermic decomposition, deflagration, 

or detonation. 

* * * * * 

Explosive hazard facility means a 

facility or location at a launch site 

where solid explosives, energetic 

liquids, or other explosives are stored or 

handled. 

* * * * * 

Liquid propellant means a 

monopropellant or incompatible 

energetic liquids co-located for purposes 

of serving as propellants on a launch 

vehicle or a related device. 

Maximum credible event means a 

hypothesized worst-case accidental 

explosion, fire, or agent release that is 

likely to occur from a given quantity 

and disposition of explosives, chemical 

agents, or reactive material. 

* * * * * 

Public traffic route means any public 

highway or railroad that the general 

public may use. 

* * * * * 

3. Revise § 420.63 to read as follows: 

§ 420.63 Explosive siting. 

(a) Except as otherwise provided by 

paragraph (b) of this section, a licensee 

must ensure the configuration of the 

launch site follows its explosive site 

plan, and the licensee’s explosive site 

plan complies with the requirements of 

§§ 420.65 through 420.70. The explosive 

site plan shall include: 

(1) A scaled map that shows the 

location of all explosive hazard facilities 

at the launch site and that shows actual 

and minimal allowable distances 

between each explosive hazard facility 

and all other explosive hazard facilities, 

each public area, including the launch 

site boundary and any public traffic 

route; 

(2) A list of the maximum quantity of 

energetic liquids, solid propellants and 

other explosives to be located at each 

explosive hazard facility, including the 

class and division for each solid; 

(3) A description of each activity to be 

conducted in each explosive hazard 

facility; and 

(4) An explosive site map using a 

scale sufficient to show whether 

distances and structural relationships 

satisfy the requirements of this part. 

(b) A licensee operating a launch site 

located on a federal launch range does 

not have to comply with the 

requirements in §§ 420.65 through 

420.70 if the licensee complies with the 

federal launch range’s explosive safety 

requirements. 

(c) For explosive siting issues not 

addressed by the requirements of 

§§ 420.65 through 420.70, a launch site 

operator must clearly and convincingly 

demonstrate a level of safety equivalent 

to that otherwise required by this part. 

(d) A launch site operator may 

separate an explosive hazard facility 

from another explosive hazard facility 

or a public area by a distance different 

from one required by this part only if 

the launch site operator clearly and 

convincingly demonstrates a level of 

safety equivalent to that required by this 

part. 

4. Revise § 420.65 to read as follows: 

§ 420.65 Separation distance requirements 

for handling division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives. 

(a) A launch site operator must 

determine the maximum total quantity 

of division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives by 

class and division, in accordance with 

49 CFR part 173, Subpart C, to be 

located in each explosive hazard facility 

where division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives 

will be handled. 

(b) When division 1.1 and 1.3 

explosives are located in the same 

explosive hazard facility, the total 

quantity of explosive must be treated as 

division 1.1 for determining separations 

distances; or, a launch site operator may 

add the net explosive equivalent weight 

of the division 1.3 items to the net 

weight of division 1.1 items to 

determine the total quantity of 

explosives. 

(c) A launch site operator must 

separate each explosive hazard facility 

where division 1.1 and 1.3 explosives 

are handled from all other explosive 

hazard facilities, all public traffic routes, 

each public area, including the launch 

site boundary, by a distance no less than 

that provided for each quantity and 

explosive division in appendix E of this 

part as follows: 

(1) For division 1.1 explosives, the 

launch site operator must use tables 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
8934 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

E–1, E–2, and E–3 of appendix E of this 

part to determine the distance to each 

public area and public traffic route and 

each intraline distance. 

(2) For division 1.3 explosives, the 

launch site operator must use table 

E–4 of appendix E of this part to 

determine the distance to each public 

area, public traffic route, and intraline 

distance. 

(d) A launch site operator must: 

(1) Employ no less than the applicable 

public area distance to separate an 

explosive hazard facility from each 

public area, including the launch site 

boundary. 

(2) Employ no less than an intraline 

distance to separate an explosive hazard 

facility from all other explosive hazard 

facilities used by a single customer. 

(3) Separate each public area 

containing any member of the public in 

the open by a distance equal to ¥1133.9 

+ [389 * ln(NEW)] where the NEW is 

greater than 450 pounds and less than 

600,000 pounds. 

(e) A launch site operator may: 

(1) For a division 1.1 explosive only, 

employ no less than the public traffic 

route distance of tables E–1 and E–2 of 

appendix E of this part, to separate an 

explosive hazard facility from a public 

area that consists only of a public traffic 

route. 

(2) Use the applicable equation 

provided by tables E–1, E–2, E–3, and 

E–4 of appendix E of this part to 

determine the separation distance for 

NEW quantities that fall between table 

entries. 

(3) Use a distance to calculate 

maximum permissible NEW using the 

applicable equation of tables E–1, E–2, 

E–3, and E–4 of appendix E of this part. 

5. Add § 420.66 to read as follows: 

§ 420.66 Separation distance requirements 

for storage of hydrogen peroxide, 

hydrazine, and liquid hydrogen and any 

incompatible energetic liquids stored within 

an intraline distance. 

(a) Separation of energetic liquids and 

determination of distances. A launch 

site operator must separate each 

explosive hazard facility from each 

other explosive hazard facility and each 

public area in accordance with the 

minimum separation distance 

determined under this section for each 

explosive hazard facility storing: 

(1) Hydrogen peroxide in 

concentrations of greater than 91 

percent; 

(2) Hydrazine; 

(3) Liquid hydrogen; or 

(4) Any energetic liquid that is: 

(i) Incompatible with any of the 

energetic liquids of paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section; and 

(ii) Stored within an intraline distance 

of any of them. 

(5) A launch site operator must 

measure each distance as required by 

§ 420.70. 

(b) Quantity. A launch site operator 

must determine the minimum 

separation distance between each 

explosive hazard facility and all other 

explosive hazard facilities and each 

public area and public traffic route as 

follows: 

(1) For each explosive hazard facility, 

a launch site operator must determine 

the total quantity of all energetic liquids 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section. The quantity of energetic liquid 

in a tank, drum, cylinder, or other 

container is the net weight in pounds of 

the energetic liquid in the container. 

The determination of quantity must 

include any energetic liquid in 

associated piping to any point where 

positive means exist for: 

(i) Interrupting the flow through the 

pipe, or 

(ii) Interrupting a reaction in the pipe 

in the event of a mishap. 

(2) A launch site operator must 

convert the quantity of each energetic 

liquid from gallons to pounds using the 

conversion factors provided in table 

E–6 of appendix E of this part and the 

following equation: 

Pounds of energetic liquid = gallons × 

density of energetic liquid (pounds 

per gallon). 

(3) Where two or more containers of 

compatible energetic liquids are stored 

in the same explosive hazard facility, 

the total quantity of energetic liquids is 

the total quantity of energetic liquids in 

all containers, unless: 

(i) The containers are each separated 

from each other by the distance required 

by paragraph (c) of this section; or 

(ii) The containers are subdivided by 

intervening barriers that prevent mixing, 

such as diking. Where two or more 

containers of incompatible energetic 

liquids are stored within an intraline 

distance of each other, paragraph (d) of 

this section applies. 

(c) Determination of distances for 

compatible energetic liquids. A launch 

site operator must determine separation 

distances for compatible energetic 

liquids as follows: 

(1) To determine each intraline, 

public area, and public traffic route 

distance, a launch site operator must 

use the following tables in appendix E 

of this part: 

(i) Table E–7 for hydrogen peroxide in 

concentrations of greater than 91 

percent; and 

(ii) Table E–8 for hydrazine and liquid 

hydrogen. 

(2) For liquid hydrogen and 

hydrazine, a launch site operator must 

use the ‘‘intraline distance to compatible 

energetic liquids’’ for the energetic 

liquid that requires the greater distance 

under table E–8 of appendix E of this 

part as the minimum separation 

distance between compatible energetic 

liquids. 

(d) Determination of distances for 

incompatible energetic liquids. If 

incompatible energetic liquids are 

stored within an intraline distance of 

each other, a launch site operator must 

determine the explosive equivalent in 

pounds of the combined liquids as 

provided by paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section unless intervening barriers 

prevent mixing. 

(1) If intervening barriers prevent 

mixing, a launch site operator must 

separate the incompatible energetic 

liquids by no less than the intraline 

distance that tables E–7 and E–8 of 

appendix E of this part apply to 

compatible energetic liquids using the 

quantity or energetic liquid requiring 

the greater separation distance. 

(2) A launch site operator must use 

the formulas provided in table E–5 of 

appendix E of this part, to determine the 

explosive equivalent in pounds of the 

combined incompatible energetic 

liquids. A launch site operator must 

then use the explosive equivalent in 

pounds requiring the greatest separation 

distance to determine the minimum 

separation distance between each 

explosive hazard facility and all other 

explosive hazard facilities and each 

public area and public traffic route as 

required by tables E–1, E–2 and E–3. 

6. Revise § 420.67 to read as follows: 

§ 420.67 Separation distance requirements 

for handling incompatible energetic liquids 

that are co-located. 

(a) Separation of energetic liquids and 

determination of distances. Where 

incompatible energetic liquids are colocated in a launch or reentry vehicle 

tank or other vessel, a launch site 

operator must separate each explosive 

hazard facility from each other 

explosive hazard facility and each 

public area in accordance with the 

minimum separation distance 

determined under this section for each 

explosive hazard facility. 

(b) Quantity. A launch site operator 

must determine the minimum 

separation distance between each 

explosive hazard facility and all other 

explosive hazard facilities and each 

public area and public traffic route as 

follows: 

(1) For each explosive hazard facility, 

a launch site operator must determine 

the total quantity of all energetic 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8935 

liquids. The quantity of energetic liquid 

in a launch or reentry vehicle tank is the 

net weight in pounds of the energetic 

liquid. The determination of quantity 

must include any energetic liquid in 

associated piping to any point where 

positive means exist for: 

(i) Interrupting the flow through the 

pipe, or 

(ii) Interrupting a reaction in the pipe 

in the event of a mishap. 

(2) A launch site operator must 

convert each energetic liquid’s quantity 

from gallons to pounds using the 

conversion factors provided by table 

E–6 of appendix E of this part and the 

following equation: 

Pounds of energetic liquid = gallons × 

density of energetic liquid (pounds 

per gallon). 

(c) Determination of separation 

distances for incompatible energetic 

liquids. A launch site operator must 

determine separation distances for 

incompatible energetic liquids as 

follows: 

(1) A launch site operator must use 

the formulas provided in appendix E of 

this part, table E–5, to determine the 

explosive equivalent in pounds of the 

combined incompatible energetic 

liquids; and 

(2) A launch site operator must use 

the explosive equivalent in pounds to 

determine the minimum separation 

distance between each explosive hazard 

facility and all other explosive hazard 

facilities and each public area and 

public traffic route as required by tables 

E–1, E–2 and E–3 of appendix E of this 

part. 

(d) Separation distance by weight and 

table. A launch site operator must: 

(1) For an explosive equivalent weight 

from one pound through and including 

450 pounds, determine the distance to 

any public area and public traffic route 

following table E–1 of appendix E of 

this part. 

(2) For explosive equivalent weight 

greater than 450 pounds, determine the 

distance to any public area and public 

traffic route following table E–2 of 

appendix E of this part. 

(3) A launch site operator must 

separate each explosive hazard facility 

from all other explosive hazard facilities 

of a single customer using the intraline 

distance provided by table E–3 of 

appendix E of this part. 

(4) For explosive hazard facilities of a 

single customer, a launch site operator 

must use the greater intraline distance 

to separate the facilities from each other. 

For explosive hazard facilities used by 

different customers a launch site 

operator must use the greater public 

area distance to separate the facilities 

from each other. 

7. Revise § 420.69 to read as follows: 

§ 420.69 Separation distance requirements 

for co-location of division 1.1 and 1.3 

explosives with liquid propellants. 

(a) A launch site operator must 

separate each explosive hazard facility 

from each other explosive hazard 

facility and each public area in 

accordance with the minimum 

separation distance determined under 

this section for each explosive hazard 

facility where division 1.1 and 1.3 

explosives are co-located with liquid 

propellants. A launch site operator must 

determine each minimum separation 

distance from an explosive hazard 

facility where division 1.1 and 1.3 

explosives and liquid propellants are to 

be located together, to each other 

explosive hazard facility and public area 

as follows: 

(b) For liquid propellants and division 

1.1 explosives located together, a launch 

site operator must: 

(1) Determine the explosive 

equivalent weight of the liquid 

propellants as provided by § 420.67(c); 

(2) Add the explosive equivalent 

weight of the liquid propellants and the 

NEW of division 1.1 explosives to 

determine the combined net explosive 

weight; and 

(3) Use the combined NEW to 

determine the distance to each public 

area, public traffic route, and each other 

explosive hazard facility by following 

tables E–1, E–2, and E–3 of appendix E 

of this part. 

(c) For liquid propellants and division 

1.3 explosives located together, a launch 

site operator must separate each 

explosive hazard facility where liquid 

propellants and division 1.3 explosives 

are located together from other 

explosive hazard facilities, public area, 

and public traffic routes using either of 

the following two methods: 

(1) Method 1: 

(i) Determine the explosive equivalent 

weight of the liquid propellants by 

following § 420.67(c). 

(ii) Add to the explosive equivalent 

weight of the liquid propellants, the net 

explosive weight of each division 1.3 

explosive, treating division 1.3 

explosives as division 1.1 explosives. 

(iii) Use the combined net explosive 

weight to determine the distance to 

public area, public traffic route, and 

distance to other explosive hazard 

facilities by following tables E–1, E–2, 

and E–3 of appendix E of this part. 

(2) Method 2: 

(i) Determine the explosive equivalent 

weight of each liquid propellant by 

following § 420.67(c). 

(ii) Add to the explosive equivalent 

weight of the liquid propellants, the 

NEW equivalent weight of each division 

1.3 explosive to determine the 

combined net explosive weight. 

(iii) Use the combined NEW to 

determine the minimum separation 

distance to each public area, public 

traffic route, and each other explosive 

hazard facility by following tables E–1, 

E–2, and E–3 of appendix E of this part. 

(d) For liquid propellants, division 1.1 

and 1.3 explosives located together, the 

launch site operator must: 

(1) Determine the explosive 

equivalent weight of the liquid 

propellants by following § 420.67(c). 

(2) Determine the total explosive 

quantity of each division 1.1 and 1.3 

explosive by following § 420.65(b). 

(3) Add to the explosive equivalent 

weight of the liquid propellants to the 

total explosive quantity of division 1.1 

and 1.3 explosives together to determine 

the combined net explosive weight. 

(4) Use the combined net explosive 

weight to determine the distance to each 

public area, public traffic route, and 

each other explosive hazard facility by 

following tables E–1, E–2, and E–3 of 

appendix E of this part. 

(e) The launch site operator must 

analyze the maximum credible event 

(MCE) or the worst case explosion 

expected to occur. If the MCE shows 

there will be no simultaneous explosion 

reaction of the liquid propellant tanks 

and the solid propellant motors, then 

the minimum distance between the 

explosive hazard facility and all other 

explosive hazard facilities and public 

areas must be based on the MCE. 

8. Add § 420.70 to read as follows: 

§ 420.70 Separation distance 

measurement requirements. 

(a) This section applies to all 

measurements of distances performed 

under §§ 420.63 through 420.69. 

(b) A launch site operator must 

measure each separation distance along 

straight lines. For large intervening 

topographical features such as hills, the 

launch site operator must measure over 

or around the feature, whichever is the 

shorter. 

(c) A launch site operator must 

measure each minimum separation 

distance from the closest hazard source, 

such as a container, building, segment, 

or positive cut-off point in piping, in an 

explosive hazard facility. When 

measuring, a launch site operator must: 

(1) For a public traffic route distance 

measure from the nearest side of the 

public traffic route to the closest point 

of the hazard source; and 

(2) For an intraline distance measure 

from the nearest point of one hazard 

source to the nearest point of the next 

hazard source. The minimum separation 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
8936 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

distance must be the distance for the 

explosive quantity or NEW that requires 

the greater distance. 

9. Revise Appendix E to part 420 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix E to Part 420—Tables for 

Explosive Site Plan 

TABLE E–1—DIVISION 1.1 DISTANCES TO A PUBLIC AREA OR PUBLIC TRAFFIC ROUTE NEW ≤ 450 LBS

NEW (lbs.) Distance to public area 

(ft) 1 2

Distance to public traffic 

route distance (ft) 2

≤0.5 .......................................................................................................................................... 236 142 

0.7 ............................................................................................................................................ 263 158 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 291 175 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 346 208 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 378 227 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 419 251 

7 ............................................................................................................................................... 445 267 

10 ............................................................................................................................................. 474 284 

15 ............................................................................................................................................. 506 304 

20 ............................................................................................................................................. 529 317 

30 ............................................................................................................................................. 561 337 

31 ............................................................................................................................................. 563 338 

50 ............................................................................................................................................. 601 361 

70 ............................................................................................................................................. 628 377 

100 ........................................................................................................................................... 658 395 

150 ........................................................................................................................................... 815 489 

200 ........................................................................................................................................... 927 556 

300 ........................................................................................................................................... 1,085 651 

450 ........................................................................................................................................... 1,243 746 

1To calculate distance d to a public area from NEW: 

NEW ≤ 0.5 lbs: d = 236 

0.5 lbs < NEW < 100 lbs: d = 291.3 + [79.2 * ln(NEW)] 

100 lbs ≤ NEW ≤ 450 lbs: d = ¥1133.9 + [389 * ln(NEW)] 

NEW is in lbs; d is in ft; ln is natural logarithm. 

To calculate maximum NEW given distance d (noting that d can never be less than 236 ft): 

0 ≤ d < 236 ft: Not allowed (d cannot be less than 236 ft) 

236 ft ≤ d < 658 ft: NEW = exp [(d/79.2) ¥ 3.678] 

658 ft ≤ d < 1250 ft: NEW = exp [(d/389) + 2.914] 

NEW is in lbs; d is in ft; exp[x] is ex. 2The public traffic route distance is 60 percent of the distance to a public area. 

TABLE E–2—DIVISION 1.1 DISTANCE TO PUBLIC AREA AND PUBLIC TRAFFIC ROUTE FOR NEW > 450 LBS

NEW (lbs) Distance to public area (ft) 1 Distance to public traffic route (ft) 

450 lbs < NEW ≤ 30,000 lbs ............................. 1,250 ................................................................. 750. 

30,000 lbs < NEW ≤ 100,000 lbs ...................... 40 * NEW 1/3 ..................................................... 0.60 * (Distance to Public Area). 

100,000 lbs < NEW ≤ 250,000 lbs .................... 2.42 * NEW 0.577 ............................................... 0.60 * (Distance to Public Area). 

250,000 lbs < NEW ........................................... 50 * NEW 1/3 ..................................................... 0.60 * (Distance to Public Area). 

1To calculate NEW from distance d to a public area: 

1,243 ft < d ≤ 1,857 ft: NEW = d3/64,000. 

1,857 ft < d ≤ 3,150 ft: NEW = 0.2162 * d 1.7331. 3,150 ft < d: NEW = d3/125,000. 

NEW is in lbs; d is in ft. 

TABLE E–3—DIVISION 1.1 INTRALINE DISTANCES 123

NEW (lbs) Intraline 

distance (ft) 

50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 

70 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 

100 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84 

150 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 96 

200 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105 

300 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 

500 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 143 

700 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 160 

1,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 180 

1,500 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 206 

2,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 227 

3,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 260 

5,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 308 

7,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 344 

10,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 388 

15,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 444 

20,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 489 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8937 

TABLE E–3—DIVISION 1.1 INTRALINE DISTANCES 123—Continued 

NEW (lbs) Intraline 

distance (ft) 

30,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 559 

50,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 663 

70,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 742 

100,000 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 835 

150,000 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 956 

200,000 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,053 

300,000 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,205 

500,000 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,429 

700,000 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,508 

1,000,000 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,800 

1,500,000 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,060 

2,000,000 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,268 

3,000,000 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,596 

5,000,000 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,078 

1To calculate intraline distance d from NEW: 

d = 18*NEW1/3

NEW is in pounds; d is in feet 

2To calculate maximum NEW from given intraline distance d: 

NEW = d3/5,832 

NEW is in pounds; d is in feet 

3A NEW greater than 500,000 lbs is not allowed for division 1.1 explosives. Therefore, the parts of the table that list NEW values of more than 

500,000 lbs are only applicable to liquid propellants with TNT equivalents equal to those NEW values. 

TABLE E–4—DIVISION 1.3 SEPARATION DISTANCES

NEW (lbs) 

Distance to public area 

or public traffic route 

(ft) 1

Intraline distance (ft) 2

≤1000 ....................................................................................................................................... 75 50 

1,500 ........................................................................................................................................ 82 56 

2,000 ........................................................................................................................................ 89 61 

3,000 ........................................................................................................................................ 101 68 

5,000 ........................................................................................................................................ 117 80 

7,000 ........................................................................................................................................ 130 88 

10,000 ...................................................................................................................................... 145 98 

15,000 ...................................................................................................................................... 164 112 

20,000 ...................................................................................................................................... 180 122 

30,000 ...................................................................................................................................... 204 138 

50,000 ...................................................................................................................................... 240 163 

70,000 ...................................................................................................................................... 268 181 

100,000 .................................................................................................................................... 300 204 

150,000 .................................................................................................................................... 346 234 

200,000 .................................................................................................................................... 385 260 

300,000 .................................................................................................................................... 454 303 

500,000 .................................................................................................................................... 569 372 

700,000 .................................................................................................................................... 668 428 

1,000,000 ................................................................................................................................. 800 500 

1,500,000 ................................................................................................................................. 936 577 

2,000,000 ................................................................................................................................. 1,008 630 

1To calculate distance d to a public area or traffic route from NEW: 

NEW ≤1,000 lbs 

d = 75 ft 

1,000 lbs < NEW ≤ 96,000 lbs 

d = exp [2.47 + 0.2368 * (ln(NEW)) + 0.00384 * (ln(NEW))2] 

96,000 lbs < NEW ≤1,000,000 lbs, 

d = exp [7.2297 ¥0.5984 * (ln(NEW)) + 0.04046 * (ln(NEW))2] 

NEW > 1,000,000 lbs 

d = 8 * NEW 1/3

NEW is in pounds; d is in feet; exp[x] is ex; ln is natural logarithm 

To calculate NEW from distance d to a public area or traffic route (noting that d cannot be less than 75 ft): 

0 ≤ d < 75 ft: 

Not allowed (d cannot be less than 75 ft) 

75 ft ≤ d ≤ 296 ft 

NEW = exp [¥30.833 + (307.465 + 260.417 * (ln(d)))1/2] 

296 ft < d ≤ 800 ft 

NEW = exp [7.395 + (¥124.002 + 24.716 * (ln(d)))1/2] 

800 ft < d 

NEW = d3/512 

NEW is in lbs; d is in ft; exp[x] is ex; ln is natural logarithm 2To calculate intraline distance d from NEW: 

NEW ≤ 1,000 lbs 

d = 50 ft 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
8938 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1,000 lbs < NEW ≤ 84,000 lbs 

d = exp [2.0325 + 0.2488 * (ln(NEW)) + 0.00313 * (ln(NEW))2] 

84,000 lbs < NEW ≤ 1,000,000 lbs 

d = exp [4.338 ¥0.1695 * (ln(NEW)) + 0.0221 * (ln(NEW))2] 

1,000,000 lbs < NEW 

d = 5*NEW1/3

NEW is in pounds; d is in feet; exp[x] is ex; ln is natural logarithm 

To calculate NEW from an intraline distance d: 

0 ≤ d < 50 ft: 

Not allowed (d cannot be less than 50 ft) 

50 ft ≤ d ≤ 192 ft 

NEW = exp[¥39.744 + (930.257 + 319.49 * (ln(d)))1/2] 

192 ft < d ≤ 500 ft 

NEW = exp[3.834 + (¥181.58 + 45.249 * (ln(d)))1/2] 

500 ft < d 

NEW = d3/125 

NEW is in pounds; d is in feet; exp[x] is ex; ln is natural logarithm 

TABLE E–5—ENERGETIC LIQUID EXPLOSIVE EQUIVALENTS 123

Energetic liquids TNT equivalence TNT equivalence 

Static test stands Launch pads 

LO2/LH2 .............................................................. See Note 3 ....................................................... See Note 3. 

LO2/LH2 + LO2/RP–1 ......................................... Sum of (see Note 3 for LO2/LH2) + (10% for 

LO2/RP1).

Sum of (see Note 3 for LO2/LH2) + (20% for 

LO2/RP1). 

LO2/RP–1 ........................................................... 10% .................................................................. 20% up to 500,000 lbs 

Plus 10% over 500,000 lbs. 

IRFNA/UDMH .................................................... 10% .................................................................. 10%. 

N2O4/UDMH + N2H4 .......................................... 5% .................................................................... 10%. 

1A launch site operator must use the percentage factors of table E–5 to determine TNT equivalencies of incompatible energetic liquids that are 

within an intraline distance of each other. 2A launch site operator may substitute the following energetic liquids to determine TNT equivalency under this table as follows:

Alcohols or other hydrocarbon for RP–1 

H2O2 for LO2 (only when LO2 is in combination with RP–1 or equivalent hydrocarbon fuel) 

MMH for N2H4, UDMH, or combinations of the two. 3 TNT equivalency for LO2/LH2 is the larger of: 

(a) TNT equivalency of 8 * W 2/3, where W is the weight of LO2/LH2 in lbs; or 

(b) 14 percent of the LO2/LH2 weight. 

TABLE E–6—FACTORS TO USE WHEN CONVERTING ENERGETIC LIQUID DENSITIES

Item Density (lb/gal) Temperature (°F) 

Ethyl alcohol ................................................................................................................................................ 6.6 68 

Hydrazine ..................................................................................................................................................... 8.4 68 

Hydrogen peroxide (90 percent) .................................................................................................................. 11.6 68 

Liquid hydrogen ........................................................................................................................................... 0.59 ¥423 

Liquid oxygen ............................................................................................................................................... 9.5 ¥297 

Red fuming nitric acid (IRFNA) ................................................................................................................... 12.9 77 

RP–1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 6.8 68 

UDMH .......................................................................................................................................................... 6.6 68 

UDMH/Hydrazine ......................................................................................................................................... 7.5 68 

TABLE E–7—SEPARATION DISTANCE CRITERIA FOR STORAGE OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE IN CONCENTRATIONS OF MORE

THAN 91 PERCENT 1, 2, 3,

Quantity (lbs) 

Intraline distance or distance to public area or 

distance to public traffic 

route (ft) 

10,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 510 

15,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 592 

20,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 651 

30,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 746 

50,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 884 

70,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 989 

100,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1114 

150,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1275 

200,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1404 

300,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1607 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8939 

TABLE E–7—SEPARATION DISTANCE CRITERIA FOR STORAGE OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE IN CONCENTRATIONS OF MORE

THAN 91 PERCENT 1, 2, 3,—Continued 

Quantity (lbs) 

Intraline distance or distance to public area or 

distance to public traffic 

route (ft) 

500,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1905 

1 Multiple tanks containing hydrogen peroxide in concentrations of greater than 91 percent may be located at distances less than those required by table E–7; however, if the tanks are not separated from each other by 10 percent of the distance specified for the largest tank, then the 

launch site operator must use the total contents of all tanks to calculate each intraline distance and the distance to each public area and each 

public traffic route. 2A launch site operator may use the equations below to determine permissible distance or quantity between the entries of table E–7: 

W > 10,000 lbs Distance = 24 * W1/3

Where Distance is in ft and W is in lbs. 

To calculate weight of hydrogen peroxide from a distance d: 

d > 75 ft W = d3/13824 

Where distance d is in ft and W is in lbs. 

3For storage of Class 4 oxidizer inside of a building, the launch site operator must provide sprinkler protection in accordance with NFPA 430. 

TABLE E–8—SEPARATION DISTANCE CRITERIA FOR STORAGE OF LIQUID HYDROGEN AND BULK QUANTITIES OF

HYDRAZINE

Pounds of energetic 

liquid 

Pounds of 

energetic 

liquid 

Public area 

and intraline 

distance to incompatible energetic liquids 

Intraline distance to compatible energetic liquids 

Pounds of 

energetic 

liquid 

Pounds of 

energetic 

liquid 

Public area 

and intraline 

distance to incompatible energetic liquids 

Intraline distance to compatible energetic liquids 

Over Not Over Distance in 

feet 

Distance in 

feet 

Over Not Over Distance in 

feet 

Distance in 

feet 

60,000 70,000 1,200 130 

100 ............................... 200 600 35 70,000 80,000 1,200 130 

200 ............................... 300 600 40 80,000 90,000 1,200 135 

300 ............................... 400 600 45 90,000 100,000 1,200 135 

400 ............................... 500 600 50 100,000 125,000 1,800 140 

500 ............................... 600 600 50 125,000 150,000 1,800 145 

600 ............................... 700 600 55 150,000 175,000 1,800 150 

700 ............................... 800 600 55 175,000 200,000 1,800 155 

800 ............................... 900 600 60 200,000 250,000 1,800 160 

900 ............................... 1,000 600 60 250,000 300,000 1,800 165 

1,000 ............................ 2,000 600 65 300,000 350,000 1,800 170 

2,000 ............................ 3,000 600 70 350,000 400,000 1,800 175 

3,000 ............................ 4,000 600 75 400,000 450,000 1,800 180 

4,000 ............................ 5,000 600 80 450,000 500,000 1,800 180 

5,000 ............................ 6,000 600 80 500,000 600,000 1,800 185 

6,000 ............................ 7,000 600 85 600,000 700,000 1,800 190 

7,000 ............................ 8,000 600 85 700,000 800,000 1,800 195 

8,000 ............................ 9,000 600 90 800,000 900,000 1,800 200 

9,000 ............................ 10,000 600 90 900,000 1,000,000 1,800 205 

10,000 .......................... 15,000 1,200 95 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,800 235 

15,000 .......................... 20,000 1,200 100 2,000,000 3,000,000 1,800 255 

20,000 .......................... 25,000 1,200 105 3,000,000 4,000,000 1,800 265 

25,000 .......................... 30,000 1,200 110 4,000,000 5,000,000 1,800 275 

30,000 .......................... 35,000 1,200 110 5,000,000 6,000,000 1,800 285 

35,000 .......................... 40,000 1,200 115 6,000,000 7,000,000 1,800 295 

40,000 .......................... 45,000 1,200 120 7,000,000 8,000,000 1,800 300 

45,000 .......................... 50,000 1,200 120 8,000,000 9,000,000 1,800 305 

50,000 .......................... 60,000 1,200 125 9,000,000 10,000,000 1,800 310 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 

2011. 

George Nield, 

Associate Administrator for Commercial 

Space Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3487 Filed 2–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1