Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42475 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Email comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive an automatic email reply 

confirming receipt, then contact us at 

301–415–1677. 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) Federal workdays; 

telephone: 301–415–1677. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

• Comments that contain proprietary 

or sensitive information: Please contact 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document to determine the most 

appropriate method for submitting these 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Sapountzis, Office of Nuclear Security 

and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–287– 

3660, email: Alexander.Sapountzis@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0118 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information regarding 

this document. You may obtain 

publicly-available information related to 

this document by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2014–0118. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The draft 

regulatory basis document is available 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML14113A468. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2014– 

0118 in the subject line of your 

comment submission, in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Further Information 

On June 18, 2014 (79 FR 34641), the 

NRC published a request for public 

comment on a draft regulatory basis to 

support the potential amendments to 

revise a number of existing security 

related regulations relating to physical 

protection of SNM at NRC-licensed 

facilities and in transit, as well as the 

fitness for duty programs for security 

officers at certain fuel cycle facilities. 

The request for public comment asked 

commenters to consider and address 

certain questions as they develop and 

provide their remarks. The public 

comment period was originally 

scheduled to close on August 4, 2014. 

The NRC has decided to extend the 

public comment period on this 

document to allow more time for 

members of the public to develop and 

submit their comments. The deadline 

for submitting comments will be 

extended to October 17, 2014. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of July 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

George Wilson, 

Acting Director, Division of 

Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17217 Filed 7–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 400 and 401 

[Docket No.: FAA–2012–0045; Notice No. 

12–05A] 

RIN 2120–AJ90 

Exclusion of Tethered Launches From 

Licensing Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). 

SUMMARY: On August 23, 2012, the FAA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to exclude certain 

tethered launches from the FAA’s 

licensing and permitting requirements. 

The FAA is issuing this SNPRM because 

a commenter raised an issue regarding 

toxic propellants that was not discussed 

in the NPRM, but should be addressed. 

Therefore, the FAA is issuing this 

action, which proposes to amend the 

NPRM so that tethered launches using 

propellants that cause serious injury to 

the public would not be eligible for 

exclusion. This SNPRM also includes 

clarifications based on 

recommendations commenters made to 

the NPRM. These proposed changes are 

intended to enhance the safety of 

tethered launches and improve 

regulatory effectiveness. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

September 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2012–0045 

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 (DOT), 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42476 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

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

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the 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 Stewart Jackson, 

AST–300, Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–7903; email 

Stewart.Jackson@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this proposed 

rule, contact Sabrina Jawed, AGC–250, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8839; email Sabrina.Jawed@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 

1984, as amended and re-codified at 51 

U.S.C. 50901–50923 (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. 51 U.S.C. 50904, 50905. 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. 51 

U.S.C. 50905. Section 50901(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. The FAA is also 

responsible for encouraging, facilitating, 

and promoting commercial space 

launches by the private sector. 51 U.S.C. 

50903. 

I. Overview of SNPRM 

In its August 23, 2012 NPRM (77 FR 

50956), the FAA proposed to exclude 

certain tethered launches from chapter 

III requirements if the tethered launches 

met specified safety criteria. The 

proposed criteria did not address the 

use of toxic propellants onboard a 

launch vehicle. During the NPRM 

comment period, the FAA received a 

comment stating the agency should 

revise the proposed rule to protect the 

public from the potential harm exposure 

to a toxic propellant could cause. The 

FAA agrees that it should address toxic 

propellants. Therefore, this SNPRM 

proposes that if an operator chooses to 

use any of the toxic propellants 

identified in Tables I417–2 and I417–3 

in Appendix I of part 417, that launch 

must meet chapter III requirements. 

Also, this SNPRM includes two 

clarifications to the NPRM. First, the 

agency would remove the term 

‘‘established strength properties’’ from 

proposed § 400.2(c)(2)(i) to better clarify 

the proposed requirement and preserve 

the original intent, which is to ensure 

that the tether system can withstand the 

maximum dynamic load placed on it. 

Second, the FAA would revise proposed 

§ 400.2(c)(2)(iii) to clarify that the 

maximum flight limit of 75 feet for a 

tethered launch vehicle would be 

measured from the ground to a fullyextended tether’s attachment point to a 

vertically-oriented vehicle. 

II. Background 

A. Summary of NPRM 

In August 2012, the FAA issued an 

NPRM proposing to exclude tethered 

launches that met specified 

requirements for a safe launch from 

chapter III licensing, permitting, and 

waiver requirements. The NPRM 

proposed defining a tether system as a 

device that contains launch vehicle 

hazards by physically constraining a 

launch vehicle in flight to a specified 

range from its launch point. It would 

include all components, from the point 

where the tether attaches to the vehicle 

to a solid base, that experience load 

during a tethered launch. The NPRM 

proposed that the tether system had to: 

• Have established strength 

properties that would not yield or fail 

under the maximum dynamic load on 

the system or two times the maximum 

potential engine thrust; 

• have a minimum safety factor of 3.0 

for yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate 

stress; 

• constrain the launch vehicle within 

75 feet above ground level; 

• display no damage prior to the 

launch; and 

• be insulated or located such that it 

would not experience thermal damage 

from the launch vehicle exhaust. 

The NPRM additionally proposed 

separation distances for the tethered 

operation based on the amount of 

propellant onboard a launch vehicle. 

Those distances are listed in proposed 

Table A of the NPRM. Lastly, the NPRM 

proposed requiring that the launch 

vehicle be unmanned, have a liquid or 

hybrid motor, and carry no more than 

5,000 pounds of propellant. 

B. Summary of Comments 

The comment period for the NPRM 

closed on October 22, 2012. The FAA 

received comments from three 

commercial space companies: Masten 

Space Systems, Inc. (Masten); 

Unreasonable Rocket; and, SpeedUp, 

LLC. In addition, the agency received 

comments from four individuals, 

making a total of seven commenters. 

Two of the seven commenters, 

SpeedUp, LLC and Mr. W. Andrew 

Shrader, supported the proposal. The 

other commenters raised issues that are 

summarized and discussed below. 

Toxic Propellants 

The FAA did not address toxic 

propellants in the NPRM. One 

commenter, Mr. Chad W. Thrasher, 

suggested that the FAA consider the 

harmful characteristics of some liquid 

propellants. He pointed out that many 

liquid rocket propulsion systems use 

liquids that are animal carcinogens, 

corrosive, and potentially explosive 

when mixed in specific ratios. He also 

pointed out that exposure to certain 

propellants may result in damage to the 

lungs, liver, kidneys, the central 

nervous system, and may also result in 

coma or death by asphyxiation. Mr. 

Thrasher suggested that the FAA revise 

proposed § 400.2(c)(3) to ensure that 

operators and the public are upwind of 

the test location or at least twice the 

distance defined in proposed Table A if 

downwind. 

Mr. Thrasher proposed protecting the 

operators themselves. The Commercial 

Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended 

and re-codified at 51 U.S.C. 50901– 

50923, authorizes the agency through 

delegation to regulate launch and 

reentry activities to ensure the public 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42477 

1 In the NPRM, § 400.2(c)(1)(iii) proposed to limit 

the amount of fuel the launch vehicle could carry 

to 5,000 pounds. For the SNPRM, this proposed 

requirement would be moved to new paragraph 

(c)(1)(iv) of § 400.2. 

2 Joseph P. Vidosic, ‘‘Design Stress Factors,’’ 

Proceedings of the American Society for 

Engineering Education, Vol. 55, 1947–48, pp 653– 

658. 

3NASA STD 8719.9, ‘‘Standard for Lifting 

Devices and Equipment,’’ May 2, 2002. 

4Air Force Space Command Manual 91–710, Air 

Force Space Command, Range Safety User 

Requirement Manual, Vol. 3 (July 1, 2004). 

5C.S. Sharma and Kamlesh Purohit, Design of 

Machine Elements (2005); Rajendra Karwa, A 

Testbook of Machine Design (2005); Richard M. 

Phelan, Fundamentals of Mechanical Design (1957). 

health and safety, safety of property, 

and the national security and foreign 

policy interests of the United States. 

Public safety as defined in § 401.5 refers 

to the safety of people and property that 

are not involved in supporting the 

launch. Therefore, the proposal is not 

intended to protect the launch operator 

or the launch operator’s personnel who 

are involved in carrying out the launch. 

As this proposal pertains to the 

public, the FAA agrees with Mr. 

Thrasher that the NPRM should have 

addressed the harmful characteristics of 

certain propellants. However, the 

agency believes the best solution to 

keeping the public safe and retaining 

the burden-relieving components of the 

proposal would be to exclude from 

chapter III requirements only those 

eligible tethered launches that do not 

use propellants that cause serious 

injury. Mr. Thrasher suggested changing 

the proposed rule by stating that Table 

A would apply only if one is upwind of 

the test location. He suggested that if 

one is downwind of the test location, 

one should be at least one and a half 

times the separation distances stated in 

Table A. Basing the separation distances 

on wind direction, and increasing the 

separation distances for anyone 

standing downwind of the test location 

would add a level of complexity to the 

proposal that the FAA does not intend. 

Thus, the agency would amend 

proposed § 400.2(c)(1)(iii) 1 to clarify 

that chapter III continues to apply to a 

tethered launch using toxic propellants 

listed in Table I417–2 and Table I417– 

3 in Appendix I of part 417. If launch 

operators wish to use a toxic propellant, 

they would still be required to conduct 

their launch under chapter III. 

Established Strength Properties 

The FAA would withdraw the 

proposed requirement that a tether 

system eligible for exclusion from 

chapter III requirements possess 

‘‘established strength properties.’’ 

Section 400.2(c)(2)(i) of the NPRM 

proposed that an eligible tether system 

have established strength properties that 

would not yield or fail under the 

conditions listed in §§ 400.2(c)(2)(i)(A) 

and 400.2 (c)(2)(i)(B). One commenter, 

Mr. Alexander Salvato, suggested that 

the phrase ‘‘established strength 

properties’’ was too vague, and it was 

not clear how the strength properties of 

the tether system would be established, 

or by whom. He suggested clarifying the 

phrase with substitute language or 

integrating the alternate test for tether 

strength provided in the NPRM. 

The FAA agrees that the phrase 

‘‘established strength properties’’ is too 

vague for the reasons Mr. Salvato 

provided, and no longer proposes it 

because the remainder of the provision 

would address the FAA’s concerns with 

sufficient specificity. New proposed 

§ 400.2 (c)(2)(i) would require that an 

eligible tether system not yield or fail 

under (1) the maximum dynamic load 

exerted on the system, or (2) a load 

equivalent to two times the maximum 

potential engine thrust. 

Factors of Safety 

For the tether system, the FAA 

proposes a minimum factor of safety of 

3.0 for yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate 

stress. Three commenters, Masten, Mr. 

Thrasher, and Mr. Salvato, expressed 

concern about the FAA’s proposed 

factors of safety. 

Masten commented that while the 

proposed factors of safety may be 

appropriate for military development 

applications, they place unnecessary 

financial and schedule burdens on 

commercial reusable launch vehicle 

(RLV) developers without materially 

increasing public safety. Masten also 

stated the performance characteristics of 

commercial RLVs are driven by market 

rather than military requirements. As a 

result, the robust attachment hardware 

that may be required for a tether system 

with a yield stress safety factor of 3.0 

and an ultimate stress safety factor of 

5.0 may prove heavier than can 

reasonably be flown by a commercial 

RLV under tether test conditions. 

Masten suggested the proposed factors 

of safety may be appropriate for military 

development purposes, where ordnance 

or weapons systems requirements may 

drive a need for reliance on high yield 

and ultimate stress safety factors; 

however, commercially competitive 

RLV developers do not face the same 

military-based performance, 

maintainability, and interoperability 

requirements that U.S. Air Force 

developers address. Commercial RLV 

developers do face financing and price 

competition challenges that are not 

present in military system development. 

Masten suggested that based on its 

extensive experience designing and 

operating RLVs and tether systems, a 

safety factor of 2.0 for yield stress and 

4.0 for ultimate stress would be 

consistent with commercial RLV 

operator practices and would ensure the 

tether system design was sufficiently 

safe but not so robust as to inhibit 

meaningful tether test activity. 

The FAA acknowledges that its 

proposed factors of safety are also used 

for military applications. However, the 

FAA does not agree that the proposed 

factors of safety should be revised 

because they are too stringent for 

commercial operations. In addition to 

the U.S. Air Force, academia, and NASA 

have also recommended or used the 

proposed factors of safety. In 1948, 

Joseph P. Vidosic established guidelines 

that recommended when to apply a 

factor of safety ranging from 1.25 to 4.0 

based on yield strength.2 Since then, 

various industries have accepted these 

guidelines as basic guidance that can be 

used when experience and empirical 

data are otherwise not available. For 

brittle material, these guidelines 

recommend doubling the factor of safety 

for yield strength. With better known 

materials that are to be used in 

uncertain environments or subjected to 

uncertain stresses, the guidelines 

recommend using a factor of safety of 3 

to 4. NASA used a factor of safety of 3 

for yield and 5 for ultimate stress for its 

lifting slings.3 Similarly, the U.S. Air 

Force uses a minimum factor of safety 

of 3 for yield stress and 5 for ultimate 

stress for design of ground-based 

systems, including tether systems.4

Furthermore, several engineering 

textbooks contain the same factor of 

safety guidelines.5

As noted previously, the goal of this 

rulemaking is to maintain public safety 

while relieving the industry and the 

FAA from chapter III licensing, 

permitting, and waiver requirements for 

tethered launches. Because the FAA 

would not be overseeing the tethered 

launches covered under the proposed 

rule, and because of the inherent 

uncertainties of the test environment, 

the agency believes it is reasonable to 

impose conservative design 

requirements to ensure the public is 

protected from a potential accident or 

incident. The factors of safety the FAA 

proposed (3.0 for yield stress, which is 

the elastic limit; and, 5.0 for ultimate 

stress, which is where breakage occurs) 

are based on guidance from academia, 

from successful usage by NASA, and 

proven results as documented by the 

U.S. Air Force’s application to its 

operations at the Eastern and Western 

Ranges involving tethered and groundVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:55 Jul 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22JYP1.SGM 22JYP1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42478 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6Nicholas E. Martino, Design and Analysis 

Guidelines for Launch Vehicle Tether Systems, 

Aerospace Report No. ATR–2008 (5377)–1, The 

Aerospace Corporation (Sept. 30, 2007). This report 

is available in the docket for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. FAA–2012–0045). 

based systems. Thus, the proposed 

factors of safety would render FAA 

oversight unnecessary. 

The FAA does not agree with Masten 

that it will be too costly for commercial 

companies to comply with these factors 

of safety. To the contrary, selecting 

conservative factors allows an operator 

to avoid the cost of analysis associated 

with FAA oversight. The selection of an 

appropriate factor of safety is based on 

the level of uncertainties regarding 

loading conditions, material properties, 

and environmental factors. The criteria 

used to select the factor of safety is 

based on accumulated knowledge 

associated with the design of the 

system, historical empirical knowledge, 

engineering judgment, judgment based 

on experience, and best practices that 

ensure safety. The factors of safety 

applied in industries such as aviation 

and aerospace reflect years of 

experience and the accumulation of 

empirical test data that provide an indepth understanding of how loading 

conditions affect the system. Since 

1948, engineers in various industries, 

including the aircraft and spacecraft 

industries, have achieved a better 

understanding of how to obtain factors 

of safety values for various loading 

conditions by implementing expensive, 

high fidelity validation and verification 

testing. 

Typically, aircraft and spacecraft 

industries perform high fidelity 

verification and validation testing of 

vehicle structures to ascertain how these 

structures will perform under actual 

load conditions and to address how to 

reduce uncertainties. These test results 

provide an understanding of the actual 

loading characteristics associated with 

the system. With a significant reduction 

in uncertainties, an operator could 

reduce the factors of safety values. To 

achieve these lower factors of safety 

values, an operator would have to 

conduct a thorough structure analysis 

and high cost test programs. For 

example, if a vehicle attached to a tether 

started flying erratically and became 

uncontrollable, an operator would need 

to conduct costly testing to determine 

the worst loading condition. However, 

an operator could use closed-loop 

analyses and the proposed factors of 

safety to address uncertainties at lower 

cost without compromising public 

safety. With higher factors of safety, it 

is possible to reduce the need for high 

fidelity testing and analysis with a 

resulting reduction in costs. The FAA is 

not proposing a high fidelity analysis, 

and is instead focused on factors that 

protect public safety while making FAA 

oversight unnecessary. 

Mr. Thrasher commented that the 

NPRM incorrectly interprets the 

intended minimum safety factor of the 

tether system by selecting the case 

requiring the highest, most conservative 

safety factors. He pointed out that the 

Martino report 6 the FAA cited in the 

NPRM references three case studies. The 

first case addresses the expected or 

nominal loads based on the expected 

thrust levels in the desired direction 

with the proper dispersions. For this 

case, Mr. Thrasher suggested that the 

safety factors of 3.0 for yield stress and 

5.0 for ultimate stress should be used for 

the expected nominal loads. He stated 

that in most cases this would be 100 

percent of the thrust level of the system. 

The second case addresses structures 

designed to restrain a system during 

testing. He stated the second case 

provides safety factors if the structure is 

actually tested to designated loads, and 

another set of safety factors if it is just 

analyzed but not tested. He stated the 

second set of safety factors is more 

conservative to allow for minor errors in 

the structural analysis. He suggested 

that the third case, using safety factors 

of 2.0 for yield stress and 3.0 for 

ultimate stress, should be used in offnominal cases. The proposed method to 

calculate the maximum dynamic load 

by multiplying the maximum potential 

engine thrust by a factor of two is 

consistent with an off-nominal event 

such as an explosion. Mr. Thrasher 

stated the tether system must satisfy all 

three load cases—nominal, ground 

structures, and off-nominal—and, 

systems must be designed to meet the 

case with the highest design loads. Mr. 

Thrasher further commented that to 

determine the highest design loads of a 

system, one must calculate each case, 

and then use the highest loads for both 

yield and ultimate stress. Based on his 

calculations, he stated that the proposed 

rule would require the tether system to 

withstand a 33 percent greater yield 

load and a 40 percent greater ultimate 

stress load to those recommended in the 

Martino report. He recommended that 

the FAA revise proposed § 400.2(c)(2) as 

follows: 

(2) Tether system. The tether system 

must— 

(i) Have established strength 

properties that will not yield or fail 

under— 

(A) The maximum dynamic load of 

the system; and 

(B) The nominal maximum dynamic 

load on the system with a safety factor 

of 3.0 for yield stress and 5.0 for 

ultimate stress; and 

(C) The off-nominal dynamic load 

cases, calculated as the equivalent to 

two times the maximum potential 

engine thrust, shall have a minimum 

safety factor of 2.0 for yield stress and 

3.0 for ultimate stress. 

In the NPRM, the FAA used the 

Martino Report to show that a factor of 

safety of 3 for yield stress and 5 for 

ultimate stress are accepted industry 

standards for the design of ground-based 

systems, including a tether and its 

attachments to launch facilities or 

ground equipment. The FAA did not 

intend to adopt all the load cases 

discussed in the Martino Report. 

Instead, the FAA strives to achieve 

simplicity and clarity in its proposed 

rule without compromising safety. 

Because the FAA would not provide 

oversight for eligible tethered launches, 

the FAA selected robust and industryacceptable factors of safety that would 

not necessitate FAA scrutiny. 

Mr. Salvato stated the term ‘‘safety 

factor’’ is too vague. He said although 

the FAA discusses in the NPRM what 

the terms ‘‘yield stress’’ and ‘‘ultimate 

stress’’ mean, the agency only references 

factor of safety in its supplementary 

materials. He recommended including 

an abbreviated definition in the 

regulation of safety factor based on the 

more lengthy definition contained in the 

supplemental material, or referencing 

the attached supplemental material in 

the preamble to the rule. 

The FAA does not believe it is 

necessary to define the term ‘‘safety 

factor’’ in the rule because it is a widely 

recognized industry term. However, the 

agency offers the following brief 

explanation to clarify the term as it is 

used in the preamble discussion: The 

factor of safety (FoS), also called safety 

factor (SF), is the ratio of the maximum 

load that a system is expected to 

withstand against the allowable design 

load applied or the ratio of absolute 

strength (structural capacity) to actual 

applied design load. 

Yield Stress 

In the preamble to the NPRM, the 

FAA stated that yield stress is the point 

of the elastic limit. Unreasonable Rocket 

generally supported the rule, but was 

unclear as to why the FAA described 

the tether yield point as the point of 

elastic limit instead of the point of 

plastic limit for a system that is meant 

to be stretchy. It stated that all of 

Unreasonable Rocket’s testing used 

climbing rope designed to yield (i.e., to 

arrest a climber’s fall without snapping 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42479 

7Stephen W. Attaway, Rope System Analysis 

(1996); William Storage and John Ganter, Physics 

for Cavers: Loads, and Energy (1990 & 1998); 

Tendon, Dynamic and Static Ropes Manual. 

8Stephen W. Attaway, Rope System Analysis 

(1996); William Storage and John Ganter, Physics 

for Cavers: Loads, and Energy (1990 & 1998); 

Tendon, Dynamic and Static Ropes Manual. 

9A. E. H. Love, Mathematical Theory of 

Elasticity, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press 

(1906), pgs. 179–180. 

him in half). It then recommended the 

FAA define yield stress in the rule as 

the point of plastic yield. 

The FAA does not agree. Elastic limit 

is the maximum stress that may be 

developed such that there is no 

permanent or residual deformation (the 

elements subjected to the loading; for 

example, the tether dynamic rope) when 

the load is entirely removed. The FAA 

proposed yield stress for the tether 

system as the elastic limit rather than 

the plastic limit because once the plastic 

limit is reached, the elastic capability of 

the material ends and permanent 

deformation occurs. If the applied load 

continues to increase, the element will 

weaken and ultimately breakage will 

occur.7

Flight Altitude Limit 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

confine an eligible launch to one 

constrained within 75 feet above ground 

level (AGL). Two commenters asked the 

FAA to increase the proposed flight 

limit, but the FAA does not agree. As 

the agency discussed in the NPRM, to 

determine a safe flight limit, the FAA 

calculated the average length of a tether 

(32 feet) and the average height of a 

crane/forklift (43 feet) and added the 

two figures together. These averages are 

based on historical data from past 

tethered launches. The FAA also used a 

random sampling of the height of 

cranes/forklifts from various 

manufacturers to help determine the 

average crane/forklift height. 

Two commenters, Masten and Mr. 

Thrasher, stated that the proposed flight 

limit is too restrictive and should be 

increased. Masten recommended 

increasing the flight limit by 275 feet to 

350 feet AGL to accommodate existing 

and contemplated commercial tether 

launch activities, which would include 

larger, higher-performance RLVs. Mr. 

Thrasher suggested increasing the 

maximum allowable tether length to 40 

feet to avoid ground effects from the 

propulsion system, and increasing the 

flight limit by 15 feet to 90 feet AGL to 

account for longer tether lengths and 

slightly larger than average cranes. 

Masten pointed out that to comply 

with the proposed flight limit, the 

combined length of the launch vehicle, 

the vehicle connection, the tether and 

the fixed connection could not exceed a 

37.5-foot radius from the fixed 

connection to the end of the launch 

vehicle, and that this threshold would 

severely limit the availability of the 

proposed exclusion to larger and higherperformance RLVs. 

The FAA does not agree with this 

reasoning. First, the length of the launch 

vehicle would not be included in the 

flight limit calculation, as described in 

greater detail below. Second, regarding 

Masten’s concern that the proposed 

flight limit would not account for larger, 

higher-performance RLVs, the FAA’s 

intent is to provide design and 

operational criteria for the safe tethered 

launch of small, liquid or hybrid 

propulsion launch vehicles similar to 

those for which the agency has issued 

past waivers. It is not the agency’s intent 

to exclude from FAA oversight the 

larger, higher-performance launch 

vehicles Masten describes in its 

comment, specifically Morpheus, 

Minuteman, and XEUS. 

In response to Mr. Thrasher’s 

comment suggesting the FAA increase 

the maximum allowable tether length, 

the FAA notes that the NPRM explicitly 

states that launch operators are not 

required to use the same measurements 

for tether length and crane/forklift 

height in their tether system design that 

the agency used to calculate the 

proposed flight limit. Even so, they 

would still be required to comply with 

the maximum flight limit threshold in 

order to be excluded from chapter III 

requirements. For example, an operator 

could use a 10-foot crane and a 30-foot 

tether, or a 50-foot crane and a 25-foot 

tether. In both scenarios, the maximum 

flight limit would not exceed 75 feet 

AGL. If an operator needed to adjust its 

tether length to avoid ground effects 

from the propulsion system, as Mr. 

Thrasher suggested, it would be free to 

do so as long as the vehicle did not 

exceed the flight limit for exclusion 

from chapter III. 

Mr. Thrasher also suggested 

increasing the maximum flight limit 15 

feet to account for longer tether lengths 

and slightly larger than average cranes. 

The FAA does not agree that increasing 

the flight limit 15 feet is a necessary or 

beneficial change from the proposed 

rule. The proposed 75-foot flight limit is 

adequate for vehicles that are equivalent 

in height to the average size of those 

vehicles for which the FAA granted a 

launch waiver to conduct tethered 

launches in the past. Also, Mr. Thrasher 

did not provide any rationale that 

addresses the FAA’s safety concerns in 

support of his proposal. The FAA also 

reiterates that its intention is not to 

exclude larger than the average size of 

those vehicles that the FAA granted a 

launch waiver from chapter III 

requirements. 

Additionally, the agency wishes to 

clarify the proposed threshold for flight 

limit. In the NPRM, proposed 

§ 400.2(c)(2)(iii) stated the tether system 

would ‘‘constrain the launch vehicle 

within 75 feet above ground level.’’ The 

FAA now proposes to clarify that the 

restriction would measure from the 

ground to the point where the tether 

attaches to the vehicle. To calculate 

whether a launch vehicle exceeded the 

proposed threshold, the operator would 

measure from the ground to the tether’s 

attachment point to a vertically oriented 

vehicle. In other words, if the 

attachment point was to the launch 

vehicle’s base, the nose of the launch 

vehicle could be at an altitude greater 

than 75 feet. The maximum flight limit 

would not include the height of the 

vehicle itself. 

Slack Tether 

The FAA proposed that a tether 

system be able to withstand the 

maximum dynamic load on the system 

or a load equivalent to two times the 

maximum potential engine thrust. One 

commenter, Mr. Andrew Swallow, 

suggested that ‘‘rules are needed to 

permit slack tethers, such as defining 

their breaking strength, as well as 

tethers under static load.’’ He also stated 

that a tethered vehicle starts and stops 

on the ground so will need a few inches 

of slack. The FAA would permit a 

tethered launch vehicle to be eligible to 

be excluded from chapter III. A slack 

tether may, in some circumstances, 

allow loading in excess of the proposed 

criteria. A slack tether, particularly a 

static rope, could increase the 

magnitude of the applied load placed on 

the tether system because the velocity of 

the vehicle would quickly eliminate the 

slack, and the tether could rapidly 

decelerate the vehicle. This rapid 

deceleration would cause the vehicle 

and the tether system to be subjected to 

high dynamic loading called shock 

loading. Shock is produced when an 

object (e.g., a launch vehicle) in motion 

suddenly halts.8 Shock loading can 

produce as much as twice the load 

impact compared to static loading.9 The 

force produced by the sudden stoppage 

of motion could in some cases cause not 

just damage to the tether or vehicle, but 

tether separation, because it would 

exceed the maximum produced loads. 

If the tether system could not 

withstand the dynamic load exerted on 

it and was damaged, and if tether 

separation occurred and the launch 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42480 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10 In the NPRM (77 FR 50959), in section heading 

(C)(4), the FAA inadvertently cited the proposed 

rule paragraph as § 400.2(c)(3). The correct 

proposed paragraph is § 400.2(c)(2). 

11Launches of amateur rockets are excluded from 

the requirements of chapter III. See 14 CFR 400.2 

(2011). 

12Operators launching amateur rockets on a 

tether would still be subject to part 101 of chapter 

I and would continue to be excluded from chapter 

III. 

vehicle exceeded the flight limit, the 

operator would have failed to comply 

with two key proposed requirements: (1) 

Ensuring the tether system could 

withstand the specified dynamic load 

placed on it; and (2) constraining the 

launch vehicle to the maximum flight 

limit. Additionally, the FAA does not 

agree that a vehicle starts and stops a 

tethered launch on the ground. An 

operator could elect to suspend the 

vehicle in the air. The FAA does not 

believe it is necessary to add 

requirements for the use of slack tethers 

to the proposed rule because the rule 

requires the tether design to sustain 

dynamic (or shock) loading conditions. 

Inspection of Tether System 

Proposed § 400.2(c)(2)(B)(iv) 10 would 

require that a tether system not display 

damage prior to the launch. In the 

NPRM’s preamble, the FAA provided 

guidance on conducting a visual 

inspection of the tether system to 

identify damage such as component 

fatigue, fracture, and wear. 

One commenter, Mr. Thrasher, 

suggested that the FAA require a launch 

operator to inspect tether hardware 

because the FAA is relying on visual 

inspections to ensure there is no 

component damage. Mr. Thrasher also 

recommended that effective inspections 

of metal components for pre-existing 

damage, fracture, corrosion, and wear 

require all surfaces to be bare metal or 

have clear protective coatings. Further, 

he noted that any paint or improperly 

bonded covering used to prevent 

thermal damage could prevent detection 

of damage. He proposed that any 

thermal protective coverings be 

installed after inspection and any 

components that require thermal 

protection be bonded, be visually 

inspected, and used only one time. He 

recommended revising proposed 

§ 400.2(c)(2)(B)(iv) to add the following: 

‘‘Metal components must be inspected 

unpainted and free of any coverings or 

coatings that would interfere with visual 

inspection. Any metal using bonded 

protective thermal coatings shall be 

visually inspected and used only one 

time.’’ 

Mr. Thrasher’s comment implies the 

FAA intended the visual inspection to 

be a primary means of ensuring the 

structural integrity of the tether system. 

The FAA’s intent for the visual 

inspection is to provide an added 

measure of safety to reinforce the safety 

criteria the agency is proposing. Primary 

among these safety requirements are the 

proposed conservative factors of safety. 

The FAA does not intend for the visual 

inspection to be a primary means of 

determining if the tether system is safe. 

The expectation is the operator will 

conduct a visual inspection on the eve 

of the launch, after full compliance with 

all other required design and 

operational criteria. However, this does 

not preclude launch operators from 

conducting a more substantive 

inspection if they believe it is necessary 

to ensure compliance and a safe 

tethered launch. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that 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 rule does not warrant a full 

evaluation, this order permits a 

statement to that effect and the basis for 

it to 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 is discussed below. 

The FAA has licensing authority over 

tethered launches, which are considered 

launches under chapter III unless they 

meet the definition of an amateur rocket 

launch.11 To conduct such tethered nonamateur rocket launches, operators must 

obtain a launch license, experimental 

permit, or apply for a waiver from 

chapter III. Applying for waivers, 

licenses, and permits impose a financial 

burden on vehicle operators and the 

FAA because of time and resources 

required to create and analyze these 

applications. 

The proposed rule would establish 

clear and simple criteria for an effective 

tether system. In addition, it proposes 

vehicle and operational criteria as 

added measures to protect the public in 

the event of a tether system failure. 

Operators would not have to apply for 

a launch license, permit, or waiver from 

chapter III to conduct tethered launches 

of non-amateur rockets 12 that met the 

proposed criteria for an effective tether 

system and the vehicle and operational 

criteria. Operators that met the proposed 

criteria would not have to incur the 

costs of applying for a launch license, 

permit, or waiver and would not have 

to sustain the costs associated with 

delay in the processing of these 

applications. The FAA would not have 

to conduct case-by-case analyses of 

tethered launches that met the proposed 

criteria to verify public safety from a 

launch vehicle explosion or confirm 

that the tether system would not fail. 

Furthermore, launch operators that 

conducted tethered launches would not 

be compelled to follow the criteria in 

this proposal as they would still have 

the option of applying for a launch 

license, permit, or waiver under chapter 

III. Therefore, the proposed rule would 

impose no additional requirements on 

operators, but would provide an 

alternative to conducting a tethered 

launch under chapter III. If the operator 

deemed it more cost effective to apply 

for a license, permit, or waiver than to 

follow the criteria proposed here, the 

operator would have that option. 

For the reasons discussed, the rule 

would be cost relieving to both 

operators and the FAA. The FAA 

requested but received no comments on 

its conclusion in the NPRM that the rule 

would be cost relieving to operators and 

the FAA. 

This SNPRM revises the FAA’s 

original proposal by not excluding from 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42481 

chapter III tethered launches that use 

specified toxic propellants from chapter 

III requirements. Even with the change, 

the rule is still cost relieving relative to 

the current regulations, even though 

tethered launches using toxic fuel must 

comply with chapter III requirements as 

they currently do. There would be no 

additional costs or cost savings due to 

the change to the NPRM. Operators 

launching vehicles that are eligible for 

the chapter III exclusion would still 

benefit from cost savings relative to the 

current chapter III requirements. The 

FAA has determined that this proposed 

rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

B. 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-for 

profit 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. 

This proposed rule is expected to 

provide an alternative to conducting 

tethered launches under chapter III and 

therefore could alleviate the financial 

burden of applying for a launch license, 

permit, or waiver to chapter III if an 

operator met the proposed criteria. The 

expected outcome would therefore have 

either a cost saving impact or no impact 

on small entities affected by the 

proposed rule. Under this SNPRM, 

launches that use toxic propellants 

would have to comply with chapter III, 

which they have to do currently. 

Although the changes introduced with 

the SNPRM might reduce the number of 

launch vehicles that would be exempt 

from chapter III, the rule would still 

have either a cost saving impact or no 

impact on small entities. The FAA did 

not receive comments when it reached 

the same conclusion in the NPRM. 

Therefore, as provided in section 

605(b), the head of the FAA certifies this 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. International 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, establishing 

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 as 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. If a foreign launch 

operator were to conduct a tethered 

launch in the United States that meets 

the requirements of this proposed rule, 

it would be eligible for the proposed 

exclusion from chapter III. The FAA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

proposed rule and determined that it 

would have the same impact on 

domestic and international entities and 

thus have a neutral trade impact. 

D. 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 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

E. 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. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

Public comments: The FAA did not 

receive comments to the NPRM on its 

determination that the proposed rule 

would not impose new paperwork 

requirements. 

F. 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. No ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. 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. 

This rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 

See the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ 

discussion in the ‘‘Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses’’ section elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42482 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

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, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Do not file proprietary or 

confidential business information in the 

docket. Such information must be sent 

or delivered directly to the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document, and marked as proprietary or 

confidential. If submitting information 

on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM, and identify 

electronically within the disk or CD 

ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. Proprietary 

information is held in a separate file to 

which the public does not have access, 

and the FAA places a note in the docket 

that it has received it. If the FAA 

receives a request to examine or copy 

this information, it treats it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

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

FAA processes such a request under 

Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from 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.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained 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. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 400 

Space transportation and exploration, 

Licensing, Safety. 

14 CFR Part 401 

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 400—BASIS AND SCOPE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 400 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 2. Revise § 400.2 to read as follows: 

§ 400.2 Scope. 

These regulations set forth the 

procedures and requirements applicable 

to the authorization and supervision 

under 51 U.S.C. subtitle V, chapter 509, 

of commercial space transportation 

activities conducted in the United States 

or by a U.S. citizen. The regulations in 

this chapter do not apply to— 

(a) Space activities carried out by the 

United States Government on behalf of 

the United States government; 

(b) The launch of an amateur rocket 

as defined in § 1.1 of this title; or 

(c) A launch of a tethered launch 

vehicle that meets the following criteria: 

(1) Launch vehicle. The launch 

vehicle must— 

(i) Be unmanned; 

(ii) Be powered by a liquid or hybrid 

rocket motor; 

(iii) Not use any of the toxic 

propellants of Table I417–2 and Table 

I417–3 in Appendix I of part 417 of this 

chapter; and 

(iv) Carry no more than 5,000 pounds 

of propellant. 

(2) Tether system. The tether system 

must— 

(i) Not yield or fail under— 

(A) The maximum dynamic load on 

the system; or 

(B) A load equivalent to two times the 

maximum potential engine thrust. 

(ii) Have a minimum safety factor of 

3.0 for yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate 

stress. 

(iii) Constrain the launch vehicle 

within 75 feet above ground level as 

measured from the ground to the 

attachment point of the vehicle to the 

tether. 

(iv) Display no damage prior to the 

launch. 

(v) Be insulated or located such that 

it will not experience thermal damage 

due to the launch vehicle’s exhaust. 

(3) Separation distances. The launch 

operator must separate its launch from 

the public and the property of the 

public by a distance no less than that 

provided for each quantity of propellant 

listed in Table A of this section. 

TABLE A—SEPARATION DISTANCES

FOR TETHERED LAUNCHES

Propellant carried 

(lbs.) 

Distance (ft.) from 

the launch point 

1–500 .............................. 900 

501–1,000 ....................... 1,200 

1001–1,500 ..................... 1,350 

1,501–2,000 .................... 1,450 

2,001–2,500 .................... 1,550 

2,501–3,000 .................... 1,600 

3,001–3,500 .................... 1,650 

3,501–4,000 .................... 1,700 

4,001–4,500 .................... 1,750 

4,501–5,000 .................... 1,800 

PART 401—ORGANIZATION AND 

DEFINITIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 

401continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50101–50923. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules 42483 

■ 4. Amend § 401.5 by adding the 

definition of Tether system in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 401.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Tether system means a device that 

contains launch vehicle hazards by 

physically constraining a launch vehicle 

in flight to a specified range from its 

launch point. A tether system includes 

all components, from the tether’s point 

of attachment to the vehicle to a solid 

base, that experience load during a 

tethered launch. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2014. 

George C. Nield, 

Associate Administrator, Commercial Space 

Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16954 Filed 7–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Chapter I 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0463] 

Policy on the Non-aeronautical Use of 

Airport Hangars 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Policy; 

Request for Comments 

SUMMARY: Under Federal law, airport 

operators that have accepted federal 

grants and/or those that have obligations 

contained in property deeds for 

property transferred under various 

Federal laws such as the Surplus 

Property Act generally may use airport 

property only for aviation-related 

purposes unless otherwise approved by 

the FAA. Compliance inspections by 

FAA staff, as well as audits by the 

Government Accountability Office, have 

found that some hangars intended for 

aircraft storage are routinely used to 

store non-aeronautical items such as 

vehicles and large household items. In 

some cases, this storage interferes 

with—or entirely displaces— 

aeronautical use of the hangar. 

Moreover, many airports have a waiting 

list for hangar space, and a tenant’s use 

of a hangar for non-aeronautical 

purposes prevents aircraft owners from 

obtaining access to hangar storage on 

the airport. At the same time, the FAA 

realizes that storage of some small 

incidental items in a hangar that is 

otherwise used for aircraft storage will 

have no effect on the aeronautical utility 

of the hangar. The FAA is proposing a 

statement of policy on use of airport 

hangars to clarify compliance 

requirements for airport sponsors, 

airport manager, airport tenants, state 

aviation officials, and FAA compliance 

staff. This notice solicits public 

comment on the proposed policy 

statement. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before September 5, 2014. The FAA will 

consider comments on the proposed 

policy statement. Any necessary or 

appropriate revisions resulting from the 

comments received will be adopted as 

of the date of a subsequent publication 

in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

[identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2014–0463] using any of the following 

methods: 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: To Docket 

Operations, Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

For more information on the notice 

and comment process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

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

or to Room W12–140 on the ground 

floor of the West Building, 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: 

Kevin C. Willis, Manager, Airport 

Compliance Division, ACO–100, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 

267–3085; facsimile: (202) 267–4629. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

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). 

Availability of Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of this 

Policy and all other documents in this 

docket using the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking portal (http://

www.faa.gov/regulations/search); 

(2) Visiting 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/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis, 

800 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–3085. Make sure to identify 

the docket number, notice number, or 

amendment number of this proceeding. 

Authority for the Policy 

This notice is published under the 

authority described in Title 49 of the 

United States Code, Subtitle VII, part B, 

chapter 471, section 47122(a). 

Background 

Airport Sponsor Obligations 

Airport sponsors that have accepted 

grants under the Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP) have agreed to comply 

with certain Federal policies included 

in each AIP grant agreement as sponsor 

assurances. The Airport and Airway 

Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA), as 

amended and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 

47107(a)(1), and the contractual sponsor 

assurances require that the airport 

sponsor make the airport available for 

aviation use. Grant assurance 22, 

Economic Nondiscrimination, requires 

the sponsor to make the airport 

available on reasonable terms without 

unjust discrimination for aeronautical 

activities, including aviation services. 

Grant assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, prohibits an airport 

sponsor from causing or permitting any 

activity that would interfere with use of 

airport property for airport purposes. In 

some cases, sponsors who have received 

property transfers through surplus 

property and nonsurplus property 

agreements have similar federal 

obligations. 

The sponsor may designate some 

areas of the airport for non-aviation 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS