62034 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Notices 

b. Program measures are reasonably 

consistent with achieving the goals of 

reducing existing non-compatible land 

uses around the airport and preventing 

the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses; 

c. Program measures would not create 

an undue burden on interstate or foreign 

commerce, unjustly discriminate against 

types or classes of aeronautical uses, 

violate the terms of airport grant 

agreements, or intrude into areas 

preempted by the Federal government; 

and 

d. Program measures relating to the 

use of flight procedures can be 

implemented within the period covered 

by the program without derogating 

safety, adversely affecting the efficient 

use and management of the navigable 

airspace and air traffic control systems, 

or adversely affecting other powers and 

responsibilities of the Administrator 

prescribed by law. 

Specific limitations with respect to 

FAA’s approval of an airport noise 

compatibility program are delineated in 

FAR Part 150, Section 150.5. Approval 

is not a determination concerning the 

acceptability of land uses under Federal, 

state, or local law. Approval does not by 

itself constitute an FAA implementing 

action. A request for Federal action or 

approval to implement specific noise 

compatibility measures may be 

required, and an FAA decision on the 

request may require an environmental 

assessment of the proposed action. 

Approval does not constitute a 

commitment by the FAA to financially 

assist in the implementation of the 

program nor a determination that all 

measures covered by the program are 

eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the 

FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, 

requests for project grants must be 

submitted to the FAA Airports District 

Office in Orlando, Florida. 

Sanford Airport Authority submitted 

to the FAA on January 6, 2006, the noise 

exposure maps, descriptions, and other 

documentation produced during the 

noise compatibility modification study 

conducted from March 8, 2004, through 

January 6, 2006. The Orlando Sanford 

International Airport noise exposure 

maps, submitted to the FAA on June 9, 

2005, were determined by FAA to be in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements on June 22, 2005. Notice 

of this determination was published in 

the Federal Register on June 22, 2005. 

The Orlando Sanford International 

Airport study contains a proposed 

modification to the noise compatibility 

program comprised of actions designed 

for phased implementation by airport 

management and adjacent jurisdictions 

from 2004 to the year 2009. It was 

requested that FAA evaluate and 

approve this material as a noise 

compatibility program modification as 

described in section 47504 of the Act. 

The FAA began its review of the 

program modification on March 3, 2006, 

and was required by a provisions of the 

Act to approve or disapprove the 

program within 180 days (other than the 

use of new or modified flight 

procedures for noise control). Failure to 

approve or disapprove such program 

within the 180-day period shall be 

deemed to be an approval of such 

program. 

The submitted program contained one 

(1) proposed action for noise mitigation 

off the airport. The FAA completed its 

review and determined that the 

procedural and substantive 

requirements of the Act and FAR Part 

150 have been satisfied. The overall 

program modification, therefore, was 

approved by the FAA effective August 

23, 2006. 

Outright approval was granted for all 

of the specific program elements. 

Approved actions include a 

modification to Land Use Measure H in 

which the airport proposes additional 

acquisition for noise abatement 

purposes those areas that are identified 

as non-compatible land uses and located 

in the 65 DNL noise contour in the 

updated NEM (2004). 

These determinations are set forth in 

detail in a Record of Approval signed by 

the FAA on August 23, 2006. The 

Record of Approval, as well as other 

evaluation materials and the documents 

comprising the submittal, are available 

for review at the FAA office listed above 

and at the administrative office of the 

Sanford Airport Authority. The Record 

of Approval also will be available online at http://www.faa.gov/arp/ 

environmental/14cfr150/index14.cfm. 

Issued in Orlando, Florida on September 

28, 2006. 

W. Dean Stringer, 

Manager, Orlando Airports District Office. 

[FR Doc. 06–8789 Filed 10–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Approval of Noise Compatibility 

Program; St. Lucie County 

International Airport, Fort Pierce, FL 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces its 

findings on the noise compatibility 

program submitted by the St. Lucie 

County Board of County Commissioners 

under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the 

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement 

Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Act’’) 

and 14 CFR part 150. These findings are 

made in recognition of the description 

of Federal and nonfederal 

responsibilities in Senate Report No. 

96–52 (1980). On February 23, 2006, the 

FAA determined that the noise exposure 

maps submitted by the St. Lucie County 

Board of County Commissioners under 

part 150 were in compliance with 

applicable requirements. On August 21, 

2006, the FAA approved the St. Lucie 

County International Airport noise 

compatibility program. Most of the 

recommendations of the program were 

approved. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of the FAA’s approval of the St. Lucie 

County International Airport noise 

compatibility program is August 21, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lindy McDowell, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Orlando Airports 

District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National 

Dr., Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822, 

(407) 812–6331, Extension 130. 

Documents reflecting this FAA action 

may be reviewed at this same location. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces that the FAA has 

given its overall approval to the noise 

compatibility program for St. Lucie 

County International Airport, effective 

August 21, 2006. 

Under Section 47504 of the Act, an 

airport operator who has previously 

submitted a noise exposure map may 

submit to the FAA a noise compatibility 

program which sets forth the measures 

taken or proposed by the airport 

operator for the reduction of existing 

non-compatible land uses and 

prevention of additional non-compatible 

land uses within the area covered by the 

noise exposure maps. The Act requires 

such programs to be developed in 

consultation with interested and 

affected parties including local 

communities, government agencies, 

airport users, and FAA personnel. 

Each airport noise compatibility 

program developed in accordance with 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 

150 is a local program, not a Federal 

Program. The FAA does not substitute 

its judgment for that of the airport 

proprietor with respect to which 

measure should be recommended for 

action. The FAA’s approval or 

disapproval of FAR Part 150 program 

recommendations is measured 

according to the standards expressed in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Notices 62035 

Part 150 and the Act, and is limited to 

the following determinations: 

a. The noise compatibility program 

was developed in accordance with the 

provisions and procedures of FAR Part 

150. 

b. Program measures are reasonably 

consistent with achieving the goals of 

reducing existing non-compatible land 

uses around the airport and preventing 

the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses; 

c. Program measures would not create 

an undue burden on interstate or foreign 

commerce, unjustly discriminate against 

types or classes of aeronautical uses, 

violate the terms of airport grant 

agreements, or intrude into areas 

preempted by the Federal government; 

and 

d. Program measures relating to the 

use of flight procedures can be 

implemented within the period covered 

by the program without derogating 

safety, adversely affecting the efficient 

use and management of the navigable 

airspace and air traffic control systems, 

or adversely affecting other powers and 

responsibilities of the Administrator 

prescribed by law. 

Specific limitations with respect to 

FAA’s approval of an airport noise 

compatibility program are delineated in 

FAR Part 150, Section 150.5. Approval 

is not a determination concerning the 

acceptability of land uses under Federal, 

State, or local law. Approval does not by 

itself constitute an FAA implementing 

action. A request for Federal action or 

approval to implement specific noise 

compatibility measures may be 

required, and an FAA decision on the 

request may require an environmental 

assessment of the proposed action. 

Approval does not constitute a 

commitment by the FAA to financially 

assist in the implementation of the 

program nor a determination that all 

measures covered by the program are 

eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the 

FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, 

requests for project grants must be 

submitted to the FAA Airports District 

Office in Orlando, Florida. 

St. Lucie County Board of County 

Commisioners submitted to the FAA on 

December 21, 2005, the noise exposure 

maps, descriptions, and other 

documentation produced during the 

noise compatibility planning study 

conducted from August 2003 through 

December 2005. The St. Lucie County 

International Airport noise exposure 

maps were determined by FAA to be in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements on February 23, 2006. 

Notice of this determination was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 23, 2006. 

The St. Lucie County Airport study 

contains a proposed noise compatibility 

program comprised of actions designed 

for phased implementation by airport 

management and adjacent jurisdictions 

from the year 2005 to the year 2010. It 

was requested that FAA evaluate and 

approve this material as a noise 

compatibility program as described in 

section 47504 of the Act. The FAA 

began its review of the program on 

February 23, 2006, and was required by 

a provision of the Act to approve or 

disapprove the program within 180 days 

(other than the use of new or modified 

flight procedures for noise control). 

Failure to approve or disapprove such 

program within the 180-day period shall 

be deemed to be an approval of such 

program. 

The submitted program contained 

fourteen (14) proposed actions for noise 

mitigation on an off the airport. The 

FAA completed its review and 

determined that the procedural and 

substantive requirements of the Act and 

FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The 

overall program, therefore, was 

approved by the FAA effective August 

21, 2006. 

Outright approval was granted for a 

number of the specific program 

elements. Three (3) measures were 

disapproved; one pending submission of 

additional information to make an 

informed analysis, one based on issues 

outside of the 65 DNL contour, and one 

due to lack of expected noise benefits. 

Operational Measures 

1. Discourage Stage 1 Aircraft 

Operations Unless for Life Safety, 

Emergency or Aircraft Recertification 

Implement the voluntary 

discouragement of State 1 aircraft 

operations at FPR unless for life safety, 

emergency, or aircraft recertification. 

(Supplemental sponsor letter dated May 

15, 2006; NCP, page ES–2, NCP 

Recommendations; pages 133–134, 

including Table 11.5; Figure 11.3.) 

FAA Action: Approved as voluntary, 

for purposes of Part 150. This measure 

is recommended on a voluntary basis, 

and may not be imposed as mandatory 

nor may aircraft owners or pilots be 

penalized if they do not choose to 

voluntarily comply. Estimated benefits 

of implementing the measure on a 

voluntary basis are shown on page 134, 

and show a reduction of impacts to 47 

people presently within the 60 DNL 

noise contour. 

2. Maintain Voluntary Touch and Go 

Training Procedures 

• Touch and Go training acceptable 

between 8 a.m. and 2 hours after sunset 

(Monday through Saturday), and Touch 

and Go training not acceptable on 

Sundays or Holidays (Sponsor 

supplemental letter dated May 15, 2006 

and NCP, pages ES–2, 134–136, and 

Table 11.7). 

FAA Action: Disapproved pending 

submission of additional information to 

make an informed analysis. The NCP 

did not evaluate the benefit of this 

specific measure. The FAA recognizes 

that the procedures are currently being 

used on a voluntary basis as traffic, 

weather and airspace safety and 

efficiency permit. This disapproval does 

not prohibit the sponsor from 

implementing this voluntary procedure. 

3. Runway 14 Preferred in Calm Wind 

Runway 14 is preferred for calm wind 

operation (until construction of the new 

runway 9L/27R) (Sponsor supplemental 

letter dated May 15, 2006; NCP, page 

ES–2, NCP Recommendations; pages 

136–138 and Table 11.8, analysis of the 

measure; Figure 11.9 and Table 11.9, 

page 165, Estimated Population and 

Sensitive Receptors for 2005 DNL 

Alternatives). 

FAA Action: Approved on a voluntary 

basis during clam winds as traffic, 

weather, and airspace safety and 

efficiency permit. The NCP shows the 

preferred use of Runway 14 would 

reduce the population within the DNL 

60 dB impacted by nine people (Figure 

11.9 and Table 11.9.). 

4. New Runway 9L/27R Preferred for 

Flight Training to the Extent Possible 

During the five-year planning 

timeframe, FPR will construct a parallel 

runway 9L–27R. This runway is 

designed to accommodate flight-training 

aircraft, which are prevalent at FPR. 

(Sponsor supplemental letter dated May 

15, 2006; NCP, pages ES–2, NCP 

Recommendations; 160–162, and page 

165, Figures 11.18 and 11.20; and Table 

11.15). 

FAA Action: Approved on a voluntary 

basis as traffic, weather, and airspace 

safety and efficiency permit. The FPR 

Air Traffic Control Tower has stated that 

multiengine training would remain 

primarily on the existing runway once 

the proposed parallel runway is 

constructed. Capacity considerations 

could also affect the number of 

operations on the new runway. Further, 

this measure must not be construed as 

a mandatory procedure for noise 

abatement purposes. The FAA is not 

responsible for monitoring or regulating 

the number/volume of operations other 

than for safety and efficiency, nor is it 

responsible for ‘‘enforcing’’ noise 

abatement/voluntary actions. The FPR 

ATCT will select runways and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
62036 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Notices 

procedures that maximize the efficiency 

of air traffic flow at all times; noise 

abatement procedures are voluntary and 

may be used when operating conditions 

permit. By shifting a portion of training 

operations to this runway, an overall 

reduction in the number of persons 

affected by noise would occur. Figures 

5.10a and 5.10b illustrate touch-and-go 

flight tracks would occur primarily over 

airport property, thereby benefiting 

populations outside the 65 DNL noise 

contour by reducing over flights over 

those noise sensitive areas. 

5. Jet Aircraft Use ‘‘Close-in’’ Noise 

Abatement Departure Profile 

Recommend the voluntary use of 

‘‘close-in’’ noise abatement departure 

profiles for use by jet aircraft operators 

on all runways. The existing FPR noise 

abatement program requests that jet 

pilot use NBAA noise abatement 

departure profiles to minimize noise 

exposure in residential areas 

immediately off the runway ends. 

(Sponsor supplemental letter dated May 

15, 2006; NCP, page ES–2, NCP 

Recommendations; pages 141–142, 

Figure 11.17; and Table 11.12). 

FAA Action: Approved as a 

continuation of a voluntary measures as 

traffic, weather, and airspace safety and 

efficiency permit. The referenced 

Figures and Tables in the NCP show a 

benefit on a single event basis when this 

procedure is used. The decision on how 

to operate each aircraft that uses St. 

Lucie County International Airport 

remains with the pilot in command. 

6. Study the Feasibility of a 1,500-foot 

Westward Shift of Runway 9R/27R 

The shift of Runway 9/27 to the west 

would alleviate over flight of aircraft 

over residential neighborhoods. The 

analysis indicates there would be a 

reduction of approximately 50 percent 

in the number of currently affected 

persons in the 60–65 DNL contour 

intervals and the elimination of all 

currently affected persons in the 65–70 

DNL contour. (Sponsor supplemental 

letter dated May 15, 2006; NCP, page 

ES–2, NCP Recommendations; pages 

162–163; and Table 11.16). 

FAA Action: Approved for further 

study. The NCP recommends this 

measure be further studied. Table 11.16 

shows a reduction in DNL impacts to 95 

people and 3 sensitive receptors in the 

long-range timeframe. If the study 

results in a final recommendation to 

shift the runway 1,500 feet, it may not 

be implemented unless it meets all 

applicable FAA criteria. These criteria 

include, but may not be limited to, 

addressing the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 14 CFR part 150 study 

update criteria, applicable airspace and 

operational criteria, and airport 

standards criteria. Federal funding 

assistance will be based on availability 

of funds and justification at the time of 

application. 

Land Use Measures 

1. Update County Airport Zoning 

Regulations 

Consistent with Florida statute and 

with Florida DOT’s District 4 

recommendations, updated county 

regulations would include: Add 4 NM 

airport notification; add school 

construction zones per Florida State 

Chapter 333; publish noise zones at 

least three times a year; require noise 

easements and/or sound insulation for 

new residential construction within the 

DNL 60 dB noise contour. (Sponsor 

supplemental letter dated May 15, 2006; 

NCP at page ES–2, NCP 

Recommendations; pages 182–184 and 

Table 12.2 at page 185; page 189; and 

page 194, Recommended Land Use 

Compatibility Alternatives at section 

12.6. Also see Figures 12.6, and 12.7.) 

FAA Action: Approved. The Federal 

government has no authority to control 

local land use; the local government has 

the authority to implement this 

measure. Approval of this measure does 

not commit the FAA to federal funding 

assistance. 

2. Provide Ability to St. Lucie County to 

Purchase Land, Aviation Easements, or 

Other Remedies to Minimize the 

Development of Noncompatible Land 

Uses 

This recommendation includes 

approval of remedial land use 

recommendations so the County may 

acquire land relocate existing residences 

within the current conditions (2005) 

DNL 60 dB notice contour (see Table 

10.2), or to alternately provide sound 

insulation or noise easements for homes 

within that noise contour. (Sponsor 

supplemental letter dated May 15, 2006; 

NCP, pages ES–2, Table 10.2 at page 

123, and page 194 section 12.6). 

FAA Action: Disapproved for 

purposes of Part 150 with respect to 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

Funding. The areas proposed for 

mitigation lie solely outside the DNL 65 

dB noise contour. Section 189 of Public 

Law 108–176, Vision 100-Century of 

Aviation Reauthorization Act, December 

12, 2003 specifically prohibits FAA 

approval of Part 150 program measures 

that require AIP funding to mitigate 

aircraft noise outside DNL 65 dB 

(through Fiscal Year 2007). section 189 

does not preclude the use of airport 

revenue outside DNL 65 dB. Also, the 

FAA reminds the County of its policy 

that no structures built after October 1, 

1998, are eligible for Federal funding for 

remedial mitigation (see FAA policy at 

63 FR 16409). 

Implementation Measures 

1. Pilot Education Program 

St. Lucie County would publish noise 

abatement information to enhance pilot 

participation. This is a continuation of 

an existing measure. FPR has an 

established voluntary noise abatement 

program that has been developed in 

close coordination with airport 

neighbors and users. This program is 

published on the airport’s Web site and 

distributed to all tenants on the airport. 

In addition, publications are distributed 

to all flight schools at other area airports 

to familiarize them with FPR’s noise 

abatement policies. (Sponsor 

supplemental letter dated May 15, 2006; 

NCP, page ES–3, NCP 

Recommendations; Section 12.7 of NCP, 

‘‘Implementation Related Elements’’

page 195). 

FAA Action: Approved. Inserts or 

other information must not be construed 

as mandatory air traffic procedures; the 

content of the inserts are subject to 

specific approval by appropriate FAA 

officials outside of the FAR Part 150 

process and are not approved in 

advance by this determination. 

2. Community Information Program 

St. Lucie County will publish noise 

contours at least three times a year in a 

local paper of largest circulation and 

notify the board of realtors. The pilot 

education program (IM–1, above) will 

effectively reach the operators at FPR 

and will be structured to meet the needs 

of pilots. This information must be 

translated into easy to understand 

terminology and details for the general 

public. (Sponsor supplemental letter 

dated May 15, 2006; NCP, pages ES–2 

and ES–3, NCP Recommendations, 

pages 182–184 and page 196) 

FAA Action: Approved. 

3. Routine review of NCP 

Implementation 

This measure recommends that 

implementation of the NCP be received 

periodically to determine the need for 

update. At a minimum, it is 

recommended that the NEM be updated 

at the end of the five-year forecast 

period. (Sponsor supplemental letter 

dated May 15, 2006; NCP, pages ES–3, 

NCP Recommendations, and page 196). 

FAA Action: Approved. An update to 

the NCP if made necessary be NEM 

changes would address requirements of 

150.23(e)(9). The FAA clarifies herein 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Notices 62037 

the requirements of 150.21, as described 

in the NCP at pages ES–3 and 196. 

Section 150.21(d), as amended states 

that the NEM should be updated if there 

is either a substantial new 

noncompatible use within the DNL 65 

dB contour, or if there is a significant 

reduction in noise over existing 

noncompatible land uses [69 FR 57622, 

dated 9/24/04]. 

4. FAA ATCT Procedures Development 

The NCP contains several measures 

that will be implemented by the FAA 

and the local ATC staff. In order to 

document and formalize the 

recommended touch and go procedures, 

it is recommended a tower order be 

developed. Tower orders are typically 

implemented under a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) between the airport 

sponsor (St. Lucie County) and the FAA. 

The sponsor will coordinate 

development of existing and 

recommended procedures (listed at page 

197) with ATCT controllers to ensure 

continuity. Costs are not eligible for 

State or Federal funding. (Sponsor 

supplemental letter date May 15, 2006; 

NCP, page ES–3, NCP 

Recommendations, and page 196–197). 

FAA Action: Approved in concept. 

Coordination between the sponsor and 

FAA could help ensure continuity. Not 

all measures listed on page 197 are 

appropriate for inclusion in a tower 

order. Existing and operational 

measures within the NCP and approved 

in this ROA, that normally would be 

included in a tower order (for example, 

the touch and go procedures and 

altitudes), may be appropriate for 

consideration. The FAA will determine 

the appropriate elements of the noise 

compatibility program to include in any 

tower order, and the language 

describing them, consistent with 

applicable Federal requirements. 

5. Traffic Pattern Notification Lights for 

Training Aircraft 

St. Lucie International Airport is 

home to one of the largest flight training 

schools in the Treasure Coast Region 

(see pages 182–184), with over 81,000 

training operations per year. In order to 

minimize the repeated noise of training 

aircraft over residential areas located 

directly east of the airport, a system of 

permanently mounted lights is 

recommended to be installed along U.S. 

Highway 1 to act as a further landmark 

for student pilots, if practical, to initiate 

their downwind/upwind leg of the 

training operation when utilizing 

Runway 9/27. (Sponsor supplemental 

letter dated May 15, 2006; NCP page 

ES–3, NCP Recommendations, and page 

197). 

FAA Action: Disapproved. There is 

insufficient analysis of the placement of 

lighting or the expected noise benefits. 

There are no FAA-approved standard 

for traffic pattern notification lights. 

6. Noise Office Staffing 

St. Lucie County should continue to 

employ a noise office staff person. The 

monitoring of nighttime operations, 

program education, and compliance and 

complaint response are an integral part 

of the noise program. Costs for this 

position are not eligible for FAA 

funding. (Sponsor supplemental letter 

dated May 15, 2006; NCP, page ES–3, 

NCP Recommendations; and page 198.) 

FAA Action: Approved. 

These determinations are set forth in 

detail in a Record of Approval signed by 

the FAA on August 21, 2006. The 

Record of Approval, as well as other 

evaluation materials and the documents 

comprising the submittal, are available 

for review at the FAA office listed above 

and at the administrative office of the 

St. Lucie County Board of County 

Commissioners. The Record of Approval 

also will be available on-line at 

http://www.faa.gov/arp/environmental/ 

14cfr150/index14.cfm. 

Issued in Orlando, Florida, on October 4, 

2006. 

W. Dean Stringer, 

Manager, Orlando, Airports District Office. 

[FR Doc. 06–8790 Filed 10–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Commercial Space Transportation; 

Waiver of License Requirement for 

Blue Origin’s Pre-flight Preparatory 

Activities Conducted at a U.S. Launch 

Site 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of waiver. 

SUMMARY: The FAA waived a 

requirement for Blue Origin, LLC (Blue 

Origin), to obtain a launch license for 

certain launch processing activities at 

West Texas Launch Site. Blue Origin is 

authorized to conduct suborbital rocket 

launches under Experimental Permit 

No. EP 06–001, which was issued by the 

FAA on September 15, 2006. The FAA 

finds that waiving the requirement to 

obtain a launch license for certain 

launch processing activities conducted 

in preparation for flight is in the public 

interest and will not jeopardize public 

health and safety, safety of property, or 

national security and foreign policy 

interests of the United States. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Sherman Council, Systems Engineering 

and Training Division, Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267–8308. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation (AST) implements its 

licensing and permitting authority 

under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701—

Commercial Space Launch Activities 

(chapter 701), which states that a license 

or permit is required ‘‘to launch a 

launch vehicle.’’ 49 U.S.C. 70104(a). On 

September 15, 2006, the FAA issued an 

experimental permit to Blue Origin. The 

experimental permit authorizes Blue 

Origin to conduct an unlimited number 

of launches of a Propulsion Module 1 

(PM1) vehicle from West Texas Launch 

Site for one year from the effective date 

of the permit. PM1 will be a lowaltitude demonstrator vehicle, using 

2,042 kilograms (4,500 pounds) of 

hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a 

monopropellant, and is capable of 

reaching an altitude of no more than 610 

meters (2,000 feet) with a mission time 

of less than one minute. Each PM1 

vehicle will take off and land vertically 

using rocket propulsion. The PM1 

vehicle is designed to carry no crew, no 

space flights participants, and no 

payload. 

West Texas Launch Site, which 

contains the entire PM1 operating area, 

consists of an 18,600 acre plot of land, 

and will be enclosed by a fence. The 

launch site is privately owned and will 

be exclusively used by Blue Origin. The 

proposed operating area is uninhabited 

and controlled by Blue Origin. Blue 

Origin will limit access to the launch 

site to launch personnel and invited 

guests. 

Blue Origin plans to ship PM1 to the 

launch site over ground. The panels and 

nose cap of its aeroshell will be shipped 

separately. PM1 will arrive at the launch 

site in a completely inert state, with no 

helium pressurant or H202 propellant 

onboard. Once on the launch site, PM1 

will be removed from its shipping 

fixture and the aeroshell will be 

installed on the PM1 in a vehicle 

processing facility (VPF). The PM1 will 

be assembled and undergo check-out 

and pre-flight procedures inside the 

VPF. 

Launch processing inside the VPF 

will include functional checks of the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES