76714 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1The CSLCA adds government astronauts as a 

third category of people on board launch or reentry 

vehicles, excludes government astronauts from the 

definition of third party, adds space flight 

participants to the waiver of claims with operators, 

and expands the applicability of permits to more 

types of vehicles and operations. 

or North order. This action corrects that 

error. 

Correction to Final Rule 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, Amendment 

of Jet Route J–133 and Establishment of 

Area Navigation Route Q–801 in the 

Vicinity of Anchorage, SK, published in 

the Federal Register of August 30, 2024 

(89 FR 70474), FR Doc. 2024–19356, is 

corrected as follows: 

■ On page 70475, in column 2, under 

the heading ‘‘The Rule,’’ the second 

paragraph is revised to read as follows: 

J–133: Jet route J–133 extends 

between Anchorage, AK, VOR/DME and 

Galena, AK, VOR/DME. 

■ On page 70476, at the top of column 

3, the description for Jet Route J–133 is 

revised to read as follows: 

J–133 [Amended] 

From Galena, AK to Anchorage, AK. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

13, 2024. 

Frank Lias, 

Manager, Rules and Regulations Group. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21260 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 401, 413, 415, 431, 435, 

437, 440, 450, and 460 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–1656; Amdt. Nos. 

401–10, 413–13, 415–8, 431–8, 435–6, 437– 

4, 440–7, 450–3, 460–4] 

RIN 2120–AL19 

U.S. Commercial Space Launch 

Competitiveness Act Incorporation 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates 

various changes required by the United 

States Commercial Space Launch 

Competitiveness Act of 2015. This final 

rule provides regulatory clarity to 

applicants seeking licenses for space 

flight operations involving government 

astronauts by adding two new subparts 

to the human space flight regulations 

containing requirements for operators 

with government astronauts with and 

without safety-critical roles on board 

vehicles. 

DATES: Effective November 18, 2024. 

The compliance date for this final rule 

is November 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Huet, Space Policy Division, 

Space Regulations and Standards 

Branch, ASZ–210, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 306–9069; email 

charles.huet@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used in This Document 

Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) 

Maximum Probable Loss (MPL) 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) 

Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) 

United States Commercial Space 

Launch Competitiveness Act

(CSLCA) 

United States Government (USG) 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority for This Rulemaking 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

B. Changes From the Proposed Rule 

C. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

III. Background 

A. Summary of the NPRM 

B. General Overview of Comments 

C. Differences Between the NPRM and the 

Final Rule 

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final 

Rule 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. Environmental Analysis 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Electronic Access and Filing 

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

List of Subjects 

I. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 

1984, as amended and codified at 51 

U.S.C. 50901–50923 (the Act), 

authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation to oversee, license, and 

regulate commercial launch and reentry 

activities, and the operation of launch 

and reentry sites within the United 

States (U.S.) or as carried out by U.S. 

citizens. Section 50905 directs the 

Secretary 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. In addition, section 

50903 requires the Secretary to 

encourage, facilitate, and promote 

commercial space launches and 

reentries by the private sector. As 

codified in 49 CFR 1.83(b), the Secretary 

has delegated authority to the FAA 

Administrator to carry out these 

functions. 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

This rule makes several changes to 

incorporate government astronauts in 

the regulations, in accordance with the 

United States Commercial Space 

Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA).1

It amends title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) parts 401, 413, 

415, 431, 435, 437, 440, 450, and 460 by 

incorporating statutory changes 

resulting from the CSLCA. Specifically, 

it adds definitions for ‘‘Government 

astronaut,’’ ‘‘International partner 

astronaut,’’ and ‘‘International Space 

Station Intergovernmental Agreement,’’ 

and revises definitions of ‘‘Human space 

flight incident,’’ ‘‘Launch,’’ ‘‘Launch 

accident,’’ ‘‘Reenter; reentry’’ ‘‘Reentry 

accident,’’ and ‘‘Space flight 

participant,’’ to incorporate changes 

required by adding the definition of 

‘‘Government astronaut.’’ The rule also 

creates two new subparts in 14 CFR part 

460 that include requirements for 

operators and applicants whose licensed 

or permitted operations involve 

government astronauts with and 

without safety-critical roles on board a 

vehicle. The rule revises the human 

space flight sections of parts 415, 431, 

435, 437, and 450 to add government 

astronauts to the list of people who can 

be on board a launch or reentry vehicle, 

and adds certain additional provisions 

in part 460 to the list of provisions with 

which an operator must comply. 

Additionally, this rule expands the 

applicability of part 437 to include 

launching or reentering certain reusable 

suborbital vehicles. The rule also revises 

parts 401, 413, 415, 431, 435, 437, 440, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76715 

2 51 U.S.C. 50902 and 50914. 

450, and 460 to make conforming 

amendments to expand the eligibility 

for an experimental permit from 

reusable suborbital rockets to reusable 

suborbital vehicles. 

The rule revises part 440 in 

accordance with the statute and makes 

conforming amendments. Specifically, it 

updates the financial responsibility 

requirements in part 440 to exclude 

government astronauts from the 

definitions of ‘‘Third party’’ and 

‘‘Maximum probable loss (MPL)’’. It also 

adds space flight participants to the 

insurance requirements in § 440.9 and 

the reciprocal waiver of claims 

requirements in § 440.17. Finally, this 

rule removes the templates for waiver of 

claims and assumption of 

responsibilities in appendices B through 

E of part 440 from the regulations and 

places them in a separate advisory 

circular (AC). 

B. Changes From the Proposed Rule 

The final rule makes several changes 

from the proposed rule. It replaces the 

proposed term ‘‘human being,’’ 

proposed in the notice, with ‘‘crew, 

space flight participant, or government 

astronaut’’ in the human space flight 

requirements of 14 CFR 415.8, 431.8, 

435.8, and 437.21(b)(3). In 14 CFR 

440.3, the final rule does not adopt the 

proposed change to government 

personnel; and excludes government 

astronaut from the definitions of MPL 

and third party. The final rule amends 

the proposed language regarding the 

reciprocal waiver of claims templates to 

specify that the templates contained in 

advisory circular AC 440.17–1 satisfy 

the reciprocal waiver of claims 

requirements in 14 CFR 440.17. The 

final rule replaces the proposed 

requirement in 14 CFR 460.59(d)(1) to 

track and update government astronaut 

training in writing with the requirement 

to provide traceability to revisions or 

changes to government astronaut 

training. Finally, the final rule changes 

the proposed requirement for operators 

to train government astronauts in 14 

CFR 460.59 and 460.67 to a requirement 

that operators ensure government 

astronauts are trained. 

C. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

These changes have a minimal impact 

on licensed commercial space activity 

with government astronauts because the 

changes align regulations with the 

current statutory requirements and 

practices for crew, space flight 

participants, and government 

astronauts. The FAA has been applying 

the statutory changes since they went 

into effect in 2015. Since this rule 

codifies these current practices, there is 

effectively no change from the baseline 

practice without the rule, and therefore 

no measurable resulting benefits or 

costs. 

III. Background 

A. Summary of the NPRM 

On August 18, 2023, the FAA 

published the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘‘U.S. 

Commercial Space Launch 

Competitiveness Act Incorporation’’ (88 

FR 56546). The FAA also posted draft 

guidance material for the proposal in 

the form of a draft ‘‘AC 440.17–1 

Reciprocal Waiver of Claims 

Requirements’’ for comment in the 

NPRM docket. This NPRM proposed to 

amend 14 CFR parts 401, 413, 415, 431, 

435, 437, 440, 450, and 460 by 

incorporating statutory changes 

resulting from the CSLCA. The NPRM 

proposed to add definitions for 

‘‘Government astronaut,’’ ‘‘International 

partner astronaut,’’ and ‘‘International 

Space Station Intergovernmental 

Agreement’’ and revise other definitions 

required to address the addition of 

‘‘Government astronaut.’’ The NPRM 

also proposed expanding applicability 

of permitted operations for suborbital 

rockets to suborbital launch and reentry 

vehicles; revising the human space 

flight sections of parts 415, 431, 435, 

437, and 450 to include the term 

‘‘human being’’ to incorporate 

government astronauts; updating the 

financial responsibility requirements to 

exclude government astronauts from the 

definitions of ‘‘Third party’’ and 

‘‘Government personnel’’ in part 440; 

adding space flight participants to the 

insurance requirements in § 440.9, and 

the reciprocal waiver of claims 

requirements in § 440.17; and removing 

the templates for waiver of claims and 

assumption of responsibilities in 

appendices B through E of part 440 from 

the regulations and placing them in a 

separate advisory circular (AC). Finally, 

the NPRM proposed creating two new 

subparts in 14 CFR part 460 to include 

requirements for operators and 

applicants who’s licensed or permitted 

operations involve government 

astronauts with and without safetycritical roles on board a vehicle. 

B. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received 15 comments from 

individuals, industry associations, and 

launch and reentry operators. All of the 

commenters generally supported the 

proposed changes; however, some 

suggested changes to the proposal, as 

discussed more fully in Section IV. 

The FAA received comments on the 

following general areas of the proposal: 

1. Removing government astronauts 

from the definition of third party 

2. Duplication of requirements 

3. Informed consent of government 

astronauts 

4. Government astronauts without a 

safety-critical role 

5. Moving waiver of claims templates to 

an advisory circular 

6. Government astronauts on permitted 

operations 

7. Tracking government astronaut 

training requirements 

8. Environmental controls 

9. Use of the term ‘‘human being’’ 

10. Aeronautical knowledge 

requirement 

11. Permit eligibility 

12. Government astronauts on foreign 

vehicles 

13. Clarification on the role of 

international partner astronauts 

14. Training of space flight participants 

for safety critical roles 

15. Use of American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) standard for human 

spaceflight ontology 

16. Transparency of MPL Methodology 

17. Commercial Use of Asteroid or 

Space Resources 

C. Differences Between the NPRM and 

the Final Rule 

The final rule does not adopt the 

proposed change to the definition of 

‘‘government personnel’’ in 14 CFR 

440.3; and excludes government 

astronauts from the definitions of third 

party and maximum probable loss in the 

same section. The final rule replaces the 

proposed term ‘‘human being’’ with 

‘‘crew, space flight participant, or 

government astronaut’’ in 14 CFR 415.8, 

431.8, 435.8, and 437.21(b)(3). The FAA 

also amends the government astronaut 

training requirements in the final rule to 

make clear that an operator must ensure 

government astronauts are appropriately 

trained but is not required to conduct 

that training itself. Finally, the final rule 

allows electronic means of tracking 

government astronaut training. 

IV. Discussion of Comments and the 

Final Rule 

The FAA makes changes to this final 

rule in response to comments made by 

the public. Summaries of the comments 

and the FAA’s responses are grouped by 

category in the following subsections. 

A. Treatment of Government Astronauts 

Under Part 440 

In accordance with the CSLCA,2 this 

rule excludes government astronauts 

from the definition of third party. It also 

revises the definition of maximum 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
76716 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

3The NPRM proposed changing the definition of 

‘‘government personnel’’ but the final rule is not 

adopting that change. 

probable loss (MPL) such that 

government astronauts are not included 

in MPL calculations. It makes no change 

to the definition of government 

personnel.3

Title 51 U.S.C. chapter 509 requires a 

licensee to obtain insurance or 

demonstrate financial responsibility in 

amounts to compensate for the 

maximum probable loss from claims by 

third parties and the United States 

Government (USG) for certain specified 

claims. 51 U.S.C. 50914(a)(1). By 

excluding government astronauts from 

the definition of third party, government 

astronauts must also necessarily be 

excluded from the MPL calculation in 

§ 50914(a)(1)(A). The NPRM proposed to 

exclude government astronauts from the 

definition of ‘‘third party’’ and 

consequently the definition of 

‘‘government personnel’’ because 

government personnel are third parties 

under 14 CFR 440.3. Under the 

proposal, the presence of government 

astronauts during licensed or permitted 

activities would not affect the amount of 

insurance coverage operators are 

required to obtain under 14 CFR 440.9. 

Additionally, by excluding government 

astronauts from the definition of 

‘‘government personnel’’ in § 440.3, 

government astronauts would have also 

necessarily been excluded as additional 

insureds under § 440.9(b). 

Multiple commenters indicated that it 

is not clear in the NPRM who is 

responsible for losses to government 

astronauts during licensed activities. 

Sierra Space commented that it believes 

section 112(j) of the CSLCA amended 

the definition of ‘‘third party’’ in 51 

U.S.C. 50902(26) to exclude government 

astronauts. Sierra Space found that this 

is a logical exclusion, as government 

astronauts are intentionally 

incorporated and integrated into launch 

missions and should not be treated as 

third parties for liability purposes. 

Virgin Galactic commented that the 

removal of government astronauts from 

the definition of government personnel 

removes the requirement for licensees to 

obtain an insurance policy to protect 

government astronauts from their 

potential liability in their involvement 

in launch or reentry services. Virgin 

Galactic also commented that the 

exclusion of government astronauts 

from the definition of third party will 

prevent the FAA from including 

potential government astronaut claims 

in MPL calculations. Virgin Galactic 

requested that the FAA address the 

implications the exclusion of 

government astronauts from the 

definition of third party will have on 

MPL determinations and 

indemnification eligibility under 51 

U.S.C. 50915. Virgin Galactic noted that 

it understands the proposed rule as 

preventing licensees from being eligible 

for government indemnification when 

carrying government astronauts as 

government astronauts are neither third 

parties nor government personnel. 

In the final rule, the FAA explicitly 

excludes government astronauts from 

the definition of ‘‘third party’’ in § 440.3 

by adding the phrase ‘‘excluding 

government astronauts’’ and adding text 

that excludes government astronauts 

from government personnel as it is used 

in the definition of ‘‘third party.’’ 

Excluding government astronauts from 

being considered a third party 

effectively means that government 

astronauts are not included in MPL 

calculations and are therefore prevented 

from bringing claims as third parties. 

The presence of government astronauts 

on board a launch or reentry vehicle 

would therefore not increase MPL 

values. Because government astronauts 

are not third parties, they cannot 

recover for bodily injury or property 

damage they may suffer during licensed 

activities using the licensee’s or 

permittee’s insurance required under 

§ 440.9. However, the USG could be 

responsible for losses to government 

astronauts who are USG employees 

because the USG agrees to be 

responsible for personal injury to, death 

of, or property damage or loss sustained 

by its own employees through the 

waiver of claims. 

Excluding government astronauts 

from the definition of third parties does 

not affect the government 

indemnification provisions in 51 U.S.C. 

50915. Section 50915 states that the 

USG, subject to appropriation or 

additional legislative authority, shall 

provide for the payment of certain 

successful claims by a third party as a 

result of licensed activity to the extent 

the total amount of successful claims 

related to one launch or reentry exceeds 

the insurance or demonstration of 

financial responsibility values and is 

less than the maximum amount set in 

§ 50915(a)(1)(B). Virgin Galactic stated 

that it understands the proposal would 

prevent licensees from being eligible for 

government indemnification when 

carrying government astronauts as the 

government astronauts are neither third 

parties nor government personnel under 

the proposed rule. 

The characterization of government 

astronauts as not being third parties 

under the CSLCA and part 440 does not 

affect whether a licensee receives 

government indemnification under 

§ 50915. Rather, the total number of 

successful claims, along with the 

necessary appropriations or legislation, 

are determining factors in whether a 

licensee receives government 

indemnification. A licensed activity 

with only government astronauts on 

board would not render that activity 

ineligible for government 

indemnification of a successful claim of 

a third party. 

In the final rule, the FAA does not 

amend the definition of government 

personnel in 14 CFR 440.3. By 

rulemaking finalized in 1998, the FAA 

added the term ‘‘government personnel’’ 

to part 440 and added government 

personnel to the list of additional 

insureds. Financial Responsibility 

Requirements for Licensed Launch 

Activities, Final Rule, 63 FR 45592 

(Aug. 26, 1998). As it explained in the 

preamble to the final rule, the FAA 

made these changes in response to a 

Senate Report stating that Congress 

intended for government personnel 

directly associated with the commercial 

launch operations to be classified as 

third parties. S. Rep. No. 100–593 

(1988). The FAA additionally stated in 

the Financial Responsibility 

Requirements for Licensed Launch 

Activities NPRM, published in 1996, 

that treating government personnel as 

third parties and naming them as 

additional insureds is in accord with the 

definition of third party contained in 

the statute. Financial Responsibility 

Requirements for Licensed Launch 

Activities, NPRM, 61 FR 38992 (July 25, 

1996). This is because employees of the 

USG are different than the USG as an 

entity. Because of this distinction, 

treating USG employees as third parties 

did not conflict with the statute. 

In 2015, Congress explicitly excluded 

government astronauts from the 

definition of third parties. There is no 

legislative history to suggest that 

Congress also wanted the FAA to 

exclude government astronauts who are 

USG personnel from being protected as 

additional insureds. In fact, under the 

CSLCA, Congress made changes to the 

additional insureds requirement in 51 

U.S.C. 50914(a)(4) by adding space 

flight participants as additional insureds 

but did not make any changes to 

explicitly exclude government 

astronauts. Therefore, government 

astronauts who are USG personnel 

should also be treated as additional 

insureds. The FAA need not make any 

changes to § 440.9(b) to include 

government astronauts because any 

government astronauts who are 

employees of the USG are necessarily 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76717 

included as additional insureds by 

being government personnel. 

B. Duplication of Requirements 

This rule finalizes the proposal to 

create two new subparts in part 460 to 

address the training of government 

astronauts with safety-critical and nonsafety-critical roles during licensed 

activity. The FAA revises the language 

in the proposal regarding training 

government astronauts to clarify that 

while an operator is responsible for 

ensuring that a government astronaut is 

appropriately trained, the operator itself 

is not required to conduct the training. 

SpaceX commented that the FAA’s 

proposed changes to part 460 would 

duplicate training requirements with no 

material increase to public safety and 

would place additional regulatory 

burden on operators. SpaceX argued 

that NASA’s training requirements are 

sufficient and should automatically be 

accepted by the FAA. SpaceX also noted 

that it believes the NPRM could 

potentially conflict with NASA’s or 

other government agencies’ training 

requirements in the future. SpaceX 

stated that the FAA already recognizes 

the appropriateness of certain NASA 

training requirements by referring to 

them in the NPRM. SpaceX also noted 

that all or nearly all of the part 460 

regulations could be met by current 

Crew Dragon training approved by 

NASA as part of the Commercial Crew 

Program. While SpaceX agreed with the 

FAA’s statements in the NPRM that the 

FAA has broader regulatory authority to 

protect public safety, SpaceX does not 

believe the FAA has articulated why a 

streamlined acceptance of NASA 

training requirements is insufficient to 

protect public safety. To support its 

position, SpaceX stated that the part 450 

payload review and determination 

requirements explicitly remove any 

duplication of government oversight in 

§ 450.43(b) in which the FAA defers 

payload review to agencies with 

principal regulatory responsibility. 

SpaceX noted that the FAA should 

adopt the same approach as it relates to 

government astronaut training 

requirements in part 460. SpaceX 

recommended that the FAA revise the 

final rule to codify that its training 

requirements are ‘‘not intended to 

duplicate, conflict with, or replace 

NASA’s training requirements for 

government astronauts’’ by following 

the § 450.43(b) model. SpaceX suggested 

a single update in § 460.59 applicable 

only to government astronauts that 

states ‘‘An operator must certify that 

each government astronaut is trained in 

accordance with requirements 

established or approved by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

for government astronauts.’’ SpaceX 

stated that these revisions will provide 

flexibility for any future updates to 

training processes with NASA or the 

incorporation of NASA-approved 

training regimens with other 

government agencies, both domestically 

and internationally. 

Under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509, the FAA 

has the authority and responsibility to 

protect public safety during launches 

and reentries. NASA does not share this 

public safety oversight authority. 

Because government astronauts may 

have the ability to affect public safety, 

the FAA must establish regulations to 

mitigate any public safety risk. 

Furthermore, the FAA notes that NASA 

does not currently provide all 

government astronaut training for a 

commercially operated mission. An 

operator would provide vehicle- and 

mission-specific training because it is 

the most familiar with the specific 

vehicle and operation. The FAA chose 

to use part 460 crew training 

requirements to evaluate past licenses 

involving government astronauts 

because crew similarly have the 

capability to affect public safety. An 

operator can meet part 460 requirements 

by leveraging the contractual obligations 

between NASA and the operator. NASA 

contractual obligations require the 

operator to comply with requirements 

NASA uses to certify operations to the 

International Space Station contained in 

the Crew Transportation Technical 

Management Process CCT–PLN–1120 

Section 6.3.1, Crew Transportation and 

Services Requirements Document CCT– 

REQ–1130 Section 3.8.5.1, and Crew 

Transportation Operations Standards 

CCT–STD–1150 Section 5. NASA 

certifies that government astronauts 

received the training required by 

contract, and the FAA uses that 

certification as verification that the 

operator meets the FAA regulations. 

NASA provides certification and the 

FAA evaluates the contractual 

requirements during the licensing 

process. The FAA notes that there will 

be no change to how licenses involving 

government astronauts are evaluated 

and issued as a result of this rule. 

The payload review requirements in 

14 CFR 450.43(b) specify that the FAA 

will not make a payload determination 

for those aspects of payloads that are 

subject to regulation by the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) or 

the Department of Commerce. The FAA 

will review all payloads to determine 

their effect on safety of launch but will 

not make a determination on those 

aspects of payloads that are subject to 

regulation by the FCC or the Department 

of Commerce. Streamlined Launch and 

Reentry License Requirements, Final 

Rule, 85 FR 79566, 79589 (Dec. 10, 

2020). Similarly, in this rule, the FAA 

finalizes requirements that allow the 

FAA to satisfy its responsibility to 

evaluate licenses for operations 

including government astronauts for the 

purposes of a government astronaut’s 

potential to affect public safety. 

While the FAA maintains its authority 

to issue regulations relating to the 

training of government astronauts to 

protect public safety, it acknowledges 

that the operator may not always be the 

entity conducting the training. For 

example, some training may be 

provided by NASA or by a contractor. 

Therefore, in this final rule the FAA 

changes the text in §§ 460.59 and 460.67 

training sections for government 

astronauts from ‘‘an operator must train 

each government astronaut’’ to ‘‘an 

operator must ensure that each 

government astronaut is trained’’. 

Instead of requiring operators to train 

each government astronaut, the FAA 

rule specifies that an operator must 

ensure that training has been provided 

to each government astronaut. This 

change clarifies that operators do not 

necessarily need to be the entity 

providing the training; however, the 

requirement is still levied on the 

operator to ensure that government 

astronauts have been trained in 

accordance with the regulatory 

requirements. 

C. Informed Consent of Government 

Astronauts 

This final rule does not require 

government astronauts to sign informed 

consent forms with operators. Two 

commenters disagreed with this 

approach. 

Virgin Galactic commented that not 

all potential government astronauts may 

be in the NASA Astronaut Corps or have 

the level of training to understand the 

inherent risks associated with 

spaceflight activities. Virgin Galactic 

also commented that there are several 

state statutes that protect licensees from 

liability when informed consent is 

provided. 

Blue Origin commented that the 

requirements in § 460.45 are intended to 

illuminate the specific risks and hazards 

associated with the commercial safety 

record of each launch vehicle, as well as 

the general risks of spaceflight. Blue 

Origin noted that it remains prudent to 

provide government astronauts with the 

same information and opportunities for 

dialogue available to space flight 

participants. Blue Origin also 

recommended that government 

astronauts without safety-critical roles 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
76718 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

4Permitted operations are operations conducted 

in accordance with 14 CFR part 437 Experimental 

Permits. 

be informed of the risks associated with 

spaceflight, similar to the informed 

consent space flight participants must 

provide. Blue Origin suggested that the 

FAA adopt language similar to § 460.45 

in its proposed subpart D to apply the 

same requirement to government 

astronauts without a safety-critical role. 

The FAA is not adding a requirement 

that government astronauts provide 

informed consent to the final rule 

because, as it stated in the NPRM, 

government astronauts are aware of the 

risks of space flight. As explained in the 

NPRM, the NASA Administrator 

designates government astronauts, and 

that designation implies appropriate 

knowledge and training for the 

performance of official duties. In 

addition, there is no statutory 

requirement for government astronauts 

to sign informed consent forms and 

doing so may interfere with their rights 

under the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act. Therefore, the U.S. 

government should inform government 

astronauts of any risks they may be 

exposed to while performing official 

duties. This applies to all government 

astronauts, including those with a 

safety-critical role. 

In response to Virgin Galactic’s 

concern that state statutes protect 

licensees from liability when informed 

consent is provided, in most, if not all, 

of these states the respective statutes 

provide specific informed consent 

language that serves as a waiver of 

claims between the operator and the 

participant. The consideration of 

informed consent as a waiver of claims 

is further reason why a government 

astronaut should not sign an informed 

consent agreement with the operator 

because government astronauts do not 

waive claims. 

In response to Blue Origin’s comment 

that government astronauts should 

receive the same mission information 

and opportunity to discuss that 

information with the operator, the FAA 

notes that the fact that there is not a 

regulatory requirement for government 

astronauts to sign an informed consent 

form does not preclude operators from 

providing information to and speaking 

with government astronauts. An 

operator may inform a government 

astronaut about the unique risks and 

safety record of the vehicle, but the FAA 

will not require a government 

astronaut’s signature on an informed 

consent agreement. 

D. Moving Waiver of Claims Templates 

to an AC 

This rule finalizes the proposal to 

move the templates for waiver of claims 

in appendix B through E of part 440 to 

a separate advisory circular and adds 

language to clarify that these templates 

are approved by the FAA and may be 

used to meet the requirements in 

§ 440.17. 

SpaceX disagreed with moving the 

templates to a separate advisory 

circular. Specifically, SpaceX noted that 

the inclusion of cross-waivers in the 

part 440 appendices has streamlined 

negotiations related to cross-waivers 

between licensees or permittees and 

customers and has therefore also 

lessened FAA’s burden to review crosswaiver submissions to ensure 

compliance with the regulations. 

SpaceX stated that although the current 

language of § 440.17 allows for 

submission of a ‘‘form that otherwise 

provides all the same obligations and 

benefits’’ as the cross-waivers contained 

in the part 440 appendices, as a 

practical matter, licensees simply 

submit the cross-waiver forms contained 

in the appendices. SpaceX emphasized 

that moving the sample forms out of an 

appendix into a separate advisory 

circular will be confusing to less 

frequent signers of cross-waivers and 

will encourage more negotiation 

between the licensee or permittee and 

the individuals or entities required to 

sign cross-waivers. SpaceX noted that 

any such negotiation that results in 

changes to the cross-waiver language 

will then add to the FAA’s burden by 

requiring the FAA to spend additional 

time reviewing the submission to ensure 

compliance with § 440.17. 

Sierra Space commented that the 

language proposed in § 440.17 could 

potentially be read to imply that the 

Administrator must approve the form 

used for the waivers in each case. Sierra 

Space recommended rewording the 

language in § 440.17 to clarify that 

review or approval by the Administrator 

is not required if a licensee adopts the 

language already set forth in a template 

published by the FAA. 

An individual commented that they 

support the FAA’s proposal to move the 

cross-waiver templates to an advisory 

circular because the templates are 

merely examples of how to meet a 

regulation and are not themselves 

regulatory. 

This rule moves the waiver of claims 

templates from the part 440 appendices 

to an advisory circular because these 

templates are not regulatory, but simply 

examples, and moving them to an 

advisory circular provides greater 

flexibility to update or revise as needed. 

These templates are provided to assist 

operators with meeting the reciprocal 

waiver of claims requirements but are 

not the only means by which an 

operator may meet those requirements. 

They are, therefore, more appropriately 

located in an advisory circular. SpaceX 

and Sierra Space commented that the 

language in the NPRM’s proposed 

§ 440.17 was not clear that the waiver of 

claims forms in the advisory circular 

would be acceptable and approved by 

the FAA without the need for additional 

legal review, unless modified. 

Therefore, the FAA is revising the 

language in § 440.17 to state: ‘‘The 

reciprocal waiver of claims must be in 

a form acceptable to the Administrator, 

such as those contained in advisory 

circular AC 440.17–1.’’ This change will 

clarify that the reciprocal waiver of 

claims templates found in AC 4401.17– 

1, or any future updates, are acceptable 

to the FAA and may be used to meet the 

requirements in § 440.17. 

E. Government Astronauts on Permitted 

Operations 

The final rule would not prohibit 

government astronauts from being 

onboard during permitted operations.4

Some commenters questioned whether 

government astronauts would ever be 

part of a permitted operation. 

Ascendant Spaceflight Services 

(Ascendant) commented that the FAA 

should delete references to ‘‘government 

astronaut’’ in permitted operations 

because suborbital vehicles in the 

development or experimental phase 

would not be carrying government 

astronauts. Rather, those vehicles would 

only be carrying crew. Ascendant 

asserted that experimental permit 

human space flight requirements in 

§ 437.5 only apply to crew. 

The FAA does not agree. While 

§ 437.5 does identify launch or reentry 

for the purpose of crew training as 

eligible for an experimental permit, 

§ 437.5(b) states that eligibility for a 

permit also includes a showing of 

compliance with requirements for 

obtaining a license. An operator may 

choose to conduct an operation with 

government astronauts on board under 

an experimental permit to demonstrate 

compliance with a requirement to 

obtain a license. Although no 

government astronauts have flown on a 

permitted vehicle to date, it is possible 

they might in the future to train for a 

licensed mission. 

F. Tracking Astronaut Training 

Requirements 

The final rule revises proposed 

§ 460.59(d)(1) to require operators 

ensure government astronaut training is 

up to date by incorporating lessons 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76719 

learned from training and operational 

missions by providing traceability to 

revisions or changes. The proposed rule 

would have required operators to track 

each revision of the training plan and 

update training in writing. 

The FAA received two comments on 

this issue. ALPA supported the FAA’s 

proposals requiring operators to track 

and update the training of government 

astronauts. SpaceX, however, 

recommended providing more 

flexibility for tracking changes to 

training. SpaceX explained that it 

utilizes a sophisticated change control 

system to track updates to training and 

suggested revising proposed 

§ 460.59(d)(1) to require an operator to 

update the government astronaut 

training continually to ensure the 

training incorporates lessons learned 

from training and operational missions 

by providing traceability to revisions or 

changes. 

The FAA agrees with SpaceX’s 

suggested change. Proposed 

§ 460.59(d)(1) would require all 

revisions to training to be tracked in 

written form. The FAA finds that 

SpaceX’s recommended change would 

provide FAA with sufficient compliance 

insight through traceability, which 

meets the intent of the FAA’s initial 

proposed § 460.59(d)(1), while also 

permitting operators to use modern 

electronic systems. The FAA adopts 

SpaceX’s proposed language in the final 

rule. 

G. Environmental Controls 

This rule finalizes the proposal to 

require operators to establish 

environmental controls for operations 

involving government astronauts with a 

safety-critical role because, as with 

crew, the FAA found that government 

astronauts would likewise need to be 

protected from atmospheric conditions 

and receive training that is necessary for 

the safety of the public on the ground, 

in air, and in space. 

The FAA received two comments on 

this issue. An individual questioned 

whether environmental controls referred 

to life support systems or environmental 

impacts. Environmental controls in 

these regulations do refer to life support 

systems. SpaceX commented that 

humidity is not a safety-critical metric 

of determining suitable atmospheric 

conditions for human beings and that 

compared to other conditions listed 

within the subparts to § 460.61, 

humidity is an outlier given that it is not 

a direct risk to life and consciousness. 

The FAA retains humidity in 

§ 460.61(a)(2) in the final rule. The FAA 

notes that while very high humidity 

environments could influence core body 

temperature, the time high humidity 

would take to cause an impact would be 

much longer than impacts from pressure 

and temperature changes in the 

inhabited area of a vehicle. However, if 

a flight crew depended on visual 

information through a window, 

humidity control would be necessary to 

avoid windows fogging and 

condensation that can hinder a pilot’s 

vision and could therefore impact 

public safety. 

H. Use of the Term ‘‘Human Beings’’ 

In this rule, the FAA replaces the 

proposed term ‘‘human beings’’ with the 

defined terms ‘‘space flight participant,’’ 

‘‘crew,’’ and ‘‘government astronaut’’ 

where appropriate. In the NPRM, the 

FAA proposed to use the term ‘‘human 

being’’ to encompass all three categories 

of persons who can currently be carried 

on board a vehicle: government 

astronaut, space flight participant, and 

crew. 

The FAA received two comments on 

this issue. Sierra Space commented that 

the NPRM’s use of the term ‘‘human 

beings’’ could potentially lead 

individuals, lawmakers, courts, and 

licensees to incorrectly assume that 

there is some other category of humans 

who may be present on board licensed 

operations besides those that have 

already been defined (space flight 

participants, crew, and government 

astronauts). Sierra Space stated that the 

FAA should remove the use of ‘‘human 

beings’’ and instead revert to listing 

each category of individuals to which 

the language applies. An individual 

similarly commented that the 

classification of non-astronaut workers 

as ‘‘human beings’’ is an unnecessary 

classification that would only 

overcomplicate future requirements on 

these workers. 

The FAA finds that using the term 

‘‘human beings’’ could cause 

unnecessary confusion among 

stakeholders and therefore is removing 

that term in the final rule. Instead, the 

FAA is replacing ‘‘human beings’’ with 

the defined terms ‘‘space flight 

participant,’’ ‘‘crew,’’ and ‘‘government 

astronaut’’ where appropriate. 

I. Aeronautical Knowledge Requirement 

This rule finalizes proposed 

§ 460.59(b)(3), which requires an 

operator to ensure any government 

astronaut with a safety-critical role 

possesses aeronautical knowledge, 

experience, and skills necessary to pilot 

and control the launch or reentry 

vehicle that will operate in the National 

Airspace System (NAS). The regulation 

specifies that aeronautical experience 

may include hours in flight, ratings, and 

training. 

SpaceX commented that proposed 

§ 460.59(b)(3) would transfer an existing 

requirement onto operators to ensure 

government astronauts are trained, and 

that NASA should continue to hold this 

responsibility and set forth any 

requirements it deems suitable for 

designated astronauts as set forth in 51 

U.S.C. 50902(4). To support its position, 

SpaceX noted that the training 

requirement is tailored to winged 

vehicles rather than fully automated 

capsules, such as its Crew Dragon, 

which are not maneuverable during 

launch and reentry, and which utilize 

Notices to Air Missions and Notices to 

Mariners to remove the need for inflight and real-time coordination within 

airspace. SpaceX therefore found that 

the aeronautical knowledge, including 

hours in aircraft flight, required by 

proposed § 460.59(b)(3) is irrelevant to 

safe vehicle operation and 

recommended that FAA remove this 

requirement as overly prescriptive and 

inapplicable. 

The FAA disagrees that proposed 

§ 460.59(b)(3) should be removed from 

the final rule. The requirement for 

aeronautical knowledge only applies to 

government astronauts who have the 

capability to control, in real time, a 

launch or reentry vehicle’s flight path 

during a phase of flight capable of 

endangering the public. The 

requirement is not a blanket 

requirement for all government 

astronauts. Autonomous vehicles where 

government astronauts do not have any 

input for phases of flight going through 

the NAS would not need to comply with 

this requirement as such aeronautical 

knowledge, experience, and skills 

would not be necessary. Any NASA 

requirement for aeronautical knowledge 

for government astronauts that pilot a 

vehicle is not redundant because it can 

be used to demonstrate compliance with 

the FAA requirement. 

J. Permit Eligibility 

This rule finalizes the proposal to 

replace the term ‘‘reusable suborbital 

rocket’’ with ‘‘reusable suborbital 

vehicle’’ in § 437.5. It also finalizes the 

proposal to remove the term ‘‘new’’ 

from § 437.5(a) to allow research and 

development of existing design 

concepts, equipment, or operating 

techniques, consistent with the CSLCA. 

Ascendant commented that 

experimental permits should not be 

limited to suborbital launch vehicles. 

Ascendant stated that there is no 

difference in risk to the public between 

any experimental launch or reentry 

vehicle, suborbital or orbital, which 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
76720 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

does not carry commercial payloads and 

paid occupants. Ascendant noted that 

the limited applicability of experimental 

permits places additional burden on 

developers of orbital or expendable 

suborbital vehicles which require 

licenses before test flight can begin. 

Ascendant also asked for clarification 

regarding whether the training 

referenced in § 437.5 refers to training 

crew in flight to operate a licensed 

vehicle, or training crew to operate a 

vehicle for which a license would be 

issued (for example, to complete 

integrated testing with humans). 

The training referenced in § 437.5 

refers to training crew in flight to 

operate a licensed vehicle. The FAA’s 

statutory authority to issue experimental 

permits only applies to suborbital 

vehicles, and therefore the FAA does 

not have the authority to expand the 

applicability of experimental permits to 

any orbital vehicles. Title 51 U.S.C. 

50906 states that the Secretary may 

issue a permit only for reusable 

suborbital rockets or reusable launch 

vehicles that will be launched into a 

suborbital trajectory or reentered under 

that permit solely for research and 

development to test design concepts, 

equipment, or operating techniques; 

showing compliance with requirements 

as part of the process for obtaining a 

license under this chapter; or crew 

training for a launch or reentry using the 

design of the rocket or vehicle for which 

the permit would be issued. The FAA is 

only expanding eligibility to launch or 

reentry vehicles on a suborbital 

trajectory to align with the CSLCA. 

Therefore, the FAA will not expand the 

applicability of experimental permits to 

any orbital vehicles. 

K. Government Astronauts on Foreign 

Vehicles 

This rule defines ‘‘government 

astronaut’’ to match the statutory 

definition and provides regulatory 

clarity to applicants seeking FAA 

licenses for space flight operations 

involving government astronauts. 

An individual commented that it may 

be beneficial to acknowledge U.S. 

government astronauts flying on board 

international partner spacecraft and 

international launch providers. The 

individual noted that the International 

Space Station (ISS) currently uses Soyuz 

vehicles from Russia and that there 

could be advances in vehicles from ESA 

and JAXA, for example. 

The FAA does not license foreign 

launch or reentry vehicles that are 

launching or reentering outside the U.S., 

and therefore addressing government 

astronauts flying on board foreign 

spacecraft that launch or reenter outside 

the U.S. is outside the scope of the 

FAA’s regulatory authority and this 

rulemaking. 

L. Clarification on the Role of 

International Partner Astronauts 

This rule defines an ‘‘International 

partner astronaut’’ as an individual 

designated under Article 11 of the 

International Space Station 

Intergovernmental Agreement, by a 

partner to that agreement other than the 

U.S., as qualified to serve as an ISS crew 

member. This definition was taken 

directly from the CSLCA. 

Sierra Space encouraged the FAA to 

further clarify the role of international 

partner astronauts, including clarifying 

who would not qualify as an 

international partner astronaut. Sierra 

Space stated that since the NPRM’s 

definition of ‘‘international partner 

astronaut’’ applies only to astronauts 

contributed by ISS partner states who 

are crewmembers on board the ISS, the 

term would not apply to international 

astronauts from non-partner states, nor 

would it apply to any international 

astronaut serving missions unrelated to 

the ISS. Sierra Space concluded that all 

such individuals would be considered 

space flight participants under the 

proposed regulations and would 

therefore be subject to the waiver and 

informed consent requirements 

applicable to space flight participants. 

Sierra Space noted that there may be 

cases in which foreign governments may 

be unwilling to allow or require their 

employees to enter the waivers of claims 

required of space flight participants, or 

to personally assume the risk of human 

space flight operations as required by 

the informed consent regime. Sierra 

Space stated that the FAA should 

consider granting latitude to operators 

carrying astronauts from foreign 

countries by waiving informed consent 

and individual waiver requirements, 

especially if those countries have 

sufficiently mature astronaut training 

programs and are willing to accept 

financial responsibility for claims 

brought by their employees. 

The FAA is adopting the statutory 

definition of international partner 

astronaut. The FAA realizes that the 

statutory definition only applies to ISS 

partner astronauts. Any foreign 

astronaut who does not meet the 

definition of international partner 

astronaut would be considered a space 

flight participant under FAA regulations 

and would have to comply with space 

flight participant regulations. An 

operator may request a waiver to the 

waiver of claims requirement for space 

flight participants for those instances in 

which a foreign astronaut is 

characterized as a space flight 

participant rather than an international 

partner astronaut. 

M. Training of Space Flight Participants 

for Safety Critical Roles 

SpaceX commented that, in the 

interest of public safety and the safety 

of those on board launch and reentry 

vehicles, the FAA should update the 

final rule to reflect in its regulations that 

space flight participants should be 

trained appropriately to conduct 

potentially lifesaving functions during 

an emergency to protect both 

themselves and the public, including 

operating a vehicle during launch or 

reentry in a manner to protect public 

safety. SpaceX noted that the definitions 

for crew, government astronaut, and 

space flight participant within 51 U.S.C. 

50902 were developed at a time when 

Congress anticipated all crewed vehicles 

to be operated either by crew or by 

government astronauts. However, 

SpaceX noted that while the statute 

provides training for crew and 

government astronauts, missions that 

have only had space flight participants 

on board have occurred for both orbital 

and suborbital systems. Furthermore, 

SpaceX stated that the statutory 

definition of space flight participants, 

defined in 51 U.S.C. 50902 to be any 

person that is not crew or a government 

astronaut, does not prohibit the FAA 

from requiring an operator to train space 

flight participants to operate a vehicle 

during launch or reentry. SpaceX 

concluded that, therefore, the FAA 

should revise its regulations to allow an 

operator to train space flight 

participants to operate a vehicle during 

launch or reentry because the 

underlying statute does not prohibit 

space flight participant training. 

Sierra Space similarly commented 

that the FAA should adopt common 

requirements for training which apply 

to any passenger or remote operator in 

a safety critical role, regardless of how 

that individual is classified under the 

regulations. Sierra Space stated these 

common requirements should clarify 

what constitutes a ‘‘safety-critical role’’ 

to limit the definition to those 

individuals who are essential to 

ensuring that the vehicle operates in 

real time to ensure public safety. 

In the NPRM, the FAA did not 

propose to add training requirements for 

space flight participants. The FAA 

explained that whereas the definition of 

crew in title 51 expressly acknowledges 

a crew member’s ability to perform 

activities directly relating to operation 

of the vehicle, the definition of space 

flight participant contains no express 

authority to do so. Furthermore, current 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76721 

crew qualification and training 

requirements include a demonstration 

of the ability to withstand the stresses 

of space in sufficient condition to safely 

carry out duties so the vehicle will not 

harm the public. Each crew member 

with a safety-critical role is also 

required to possess and carry an FAA 

second-class medical certificate. 

Similarly, government astronauts who 

perform a safety-critical role must be 

trained to carry out that role because it 

may affect the safety of the public. An 

operator may choose to train space flight 

participants to conduct potentially 

lifesaving functions during an 

emergency to protect themselves, 

however, the regulations do not require 

this training because it is not necessary 

to protect public safety. 

The FAA has already addressed 

training requirements for those missions 

that only have space flight participants 

onboard. Under § 460.51, an operator 

must train each space flight participant 

before flight on how to respond to 

emergency situations, including smoke, 

fire, loss of cabin pressure, and 

emergency exits. An operator may also 

provide mission-specific training to 

space flight participants for missions 

without crew or government astronauts. 

The FAA therefore finds that the 

training required by § 460.51 is 

sufficient to satisfy missions with only 

space flight participants on board. 

N. Use of ANSI Standard for Human 

Spaceflight Ontology 

This rule updates definitions relating 

to commercial space launch and reentry 

vehicles and occupants to reflect current 

legislative definitions. 

Both the Space Infrastructure 

Foundation (SIF) and an individual 

commented that the FAA should use 

terms identified in AIAA/ANSI S–153 

2021 Human Spaceflight: Spacecraft 

Architecture and Systems Engineering 

Ontology Standard (S–153) in its 

applicable commercial space 

regulations. 

SIF stated that because the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) compels government 

organizations to adopt industry 

standards developed under a voluntary 

consensus process, and failure to do so 

must be justified to Congress on a caseby-case basis, the FAA should use the 

standards identified in S–153. An 

individual stated that S–153 is critical 

for U.S. commercial spaceflight because 

it establishes the baseline of the 

ontology, streamlines interdisciplinary 

communication, and enables strategic 

planning, and the FAA should consider 

S–153’s integration into the current 

rulemaking. 

The FAA does not adopt S–153 into 

its regulations because the updated 

definitions are required by Congress to 

reflect current legislative definitions in 

51 U.S. Code 50902. Furthermore, the 

terminology in S–153 does not align 

with the purpose of this rulemaking 

because the terminology in S–153 

focuses on human spaceflight spacecraft 

from an architectural and system 

engineering perspective, rather than on 

the statutorily required definitions the 

FAA must incorporate into its 

regulations. 

O. Transparency of MPL Methodology 

An individual commented that 

publishing the MPL methodology would 

provide greater transparency and reduce 

uncertainty for commercial space 

businesses, insurance companies, and 

investors. The commenter noted that 

this transparency would pose no risks to 

national security and that publishing 

the MPL methodology in an AC would 

not require notice and comment for 

modification. The commenter 

recommended amending § 440.7(a) or 

(b) to include that the method for 

determining MPL is set forth in an AC. 

The scope of this rulemaking is to 

codify current statutory requirements 

mandated by the CSLCA. The FAA finds 

that providing MPL methodology in an 

AC is beyond the scope of the 

rulemaking because it is not a change 

required by the CSLCA, and this final 

rule does not pertain to MPL 

methodology. 

P. Commercial Use of Asteroid or Space 

Resources 

Space Law & Policy Solutions noted 

that the CSLCA contains a provision in 

title IV which authorizes U.S. citizens to 

perform non-governmental space 

activities aimed at the recovery, 

possession, ownership, use, and sale of 

asteroid or space resources. Space Law 

& Policy Solutions noted that the NPRM 

does not mention title IV nor its 

enactment in 51 U.S.C. 51303 and asked 

the FAA a series of related questions. 

Such questions included (i) why space 

resources are not mentioned in the 

NPRM; (ii) whether the FAA deems title 

IV of the CSLCA as providing the FAA 

with congressional authority to license 

space resource activities and if so, 

whether an amendment is required to its 

regulations; (iii) whether the FAA 

deems itself the proper Article VI 

authorizing agency to review and 

license a space resource activity; and 

(iv) whether the FAA believes it 

requires additional authority from 

Congress to include on orbit authority to 

oversee space resource activities. Space 

Law & Policy Solutions noted that it 

understands its questions are beyond 

the scope of the FAA’s request in the 

NPRM, but that the FAA should address 

the lack of clarity on the licensing and 

implementation of space resources. 

The FAA does not have statutory 

authority to regulate space resources, 

and the commenter’s questions are out 

of scope for the current rulemaking. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider impacts of 

regulatory actions under a variety of 

Executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866, Executive Order 13563, and 

Executive Order 14094 (‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review’’), direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify the 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. 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 that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. The current threshold after 

adjustment for inflation is $183 million 

using the most current (2023) Implicit 

Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic 

Product. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this rule: will result 

in benefits that justify costs; is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, as amended; will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; 

will not create unnecessary obstacles to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States; and will not impose an unfunded 

mandate on State, local, or Tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

This rule amends 14 CFR parts 401, 

413, 415, 431, 435, 437, 440, 450, and 

460 by incorporating statutory changes 

resulting from the CSLCA. This rule 

adds a definition for ‘‘government 

astronaut’’ and updates other definitions 

to account for that addition. This rule 

also updates financial responsibility 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
76722 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements in part 440 to exclude 

government astronauts from the 

definitions of ‘‘third party’’ and adds 

space flight participants to the 

insurance requirements in § 440.9. 

Templates for reciprocal waiver of 

claims agreements are moved from part 

440 appendices B through E to an AC. 

This rule also adds two new subparts to 

part 460 to address operator 

requirements for government astronauts 

playing safety-critical and non-safetycritical roles during launches and 

reentries. In addition, the FAA replaces 

the terms ‘‘crew’’ and ‘‘space flight 

participant’’ with ‘‘crew, space flight 

participant, or government astronaut’’ in 

§§ 415.8, 431.8, and 435.8 for applicants 

seeking a license for operations 

involving human space flight and that 

must demonstrate compliance with 

human space flight requirements. This 

change accommodates the creation of 

the government astronaut category in 

part 460. 

This rule affects all U.S. commercial 

space operators and launches and 

reentries licensed under 14 CFR parts 

401, 413, 415, 431, 435, 437, 440, 450, 

and 460 that will carry a government 

astronaut on board. Table 1 details the 

changes in each part. 

There are no changes in the final rule 

from the proposed rule that notably 

change the analysis presented for the 

proposed rule. 

TABLE 1—CHANGES BY SECTION

Section Change Effect of change 

§ 401.5 Definitions ........................................................ Add definitions for ‘‘Government Astronaut,’’ ‘‘International partner astronaut,’’ and ‘‘International 

Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement.’’ Revising definitions for ‘‘Human space flight incident,’’ 

‘‘Launch,’’ ‘‘Launch accident,’’ ‘‘Reenter,’’ ‘‘Reentry 

accident,’’ and ‘‘Space flight participant’’.

None. The FAA has been applying these definitions 

in accordance with the statute since the CSLCA 

went into effect. This change provides regulatory 

clarity. 

§ 401.7 Definitions ........................................................ Add definitions for ‘‘Government Astronaut,’’ ‘‘International partner astronaut,’’ and ‘‘International 

Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement.’’ Revising definition for ‘‘Space flight participant’’.

None. The FAA has been applying these definitions 

in accordance with the statute since the CSLCA 

went into effect. This change provides regulatory 

clarity. 

§ 413.3(f) ....................................................................... Replace the term ‘‘rocket’’ with the term ‘‘vehicle’’ to 

align with the increase in scope from § 437.3.

None. The FAA has been applying these definitions 

in accordance with the statute since the CSLCA 

went into effect. This change provides regulatory 

clarity. 

§ 415.8 Human Space Flight in Part 415, LAUNCH LICENSE.Replace ‘‘flight crew or a space flight participant’’ with 

‘‘a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut.’’ Add sections 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 

to the list of sections with which an applicant proposing to conduct a launch with a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut on board 

must demonstrate compliance.

None. The FAA has been applying these requirements to government astronauts in accordance 

with the statute since the CSLCA went into effect. 

This change provides regulatory clarity. 

§ 431.8 Human Space Flight in Part 431, LAUNCH 

AND REENTRY OF A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV).

Replace ‘‘flight crew or a space flight participant’’ with 

‘‘a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut.’’ Add sections 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 

to the list of sections with which an applicant proposing to conduct a launch with a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut on board 

must demonstrate compliance.

None. The FAA has been applying these requirements to government astronauts in accordance 

with the statute since the CSLCA went into effect. 

This change provides regulatory clarity. 

§ 435.8 Human Space Flight in Part 435, REENTRY 

OF A REENTRY VEHICLE OTHER THAN A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV).

Replace ‘‘flight crew or a space flight participant’’ with 

‘‘a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut.’’ Add sections 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 

to the list of sections with which an applicant proposing to conduct a launch with a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut on board 

must demonstrate compliance.

None. The FAA has been applying these requirements to government astronauts in accordance 

with the statute since the CSLCA went into effect. 

This change provides regulatory clarity. 

§ 437.3 Definitions in Part 437, EXPERIMENTAL 

PERMITS.

Replaced suborbital rocket with suborbital vehicle in 

the definitions for ‘‘envelope expansion’’, ‘‘exclusion area’’, and ‘‘reentry impact point’’. Updated 

the definition of ‘‘permitted vehicle’’ to include reusable launch vehicles that are launched on a suborbital trajectory or are reentered. Updated the definition of ‘‘permitted vehicle’’ to add that it includes 

‘‘a reusable launch vehicle that will be launched 

into a suborbital trajectory or reentered from a suborbital trajectory’’.

None. The FAA has been applying these definitions 

in accordance with the statute since the CSLCA 

went into effect. This change provides regulatory 

clarity. 

§§ 437.5, 437.7, 437.9, 437.21, 437.23, 437.25, 

437.31, 437.33, 437.53, 437.57, 437.59, 437.61, 

437.71, 437.85., 437.91, and 437.95.

Replace ‘‘suborbital rocket’’ with ‘‘reusable suborbital 

vehicle’’.

None. The FAA has been applying these definitions 

in accordance with the statute since the CSLCA 

went into effect. This change provides regulatory 

clarity. 

§ 437.5(a) ...................................................................... Remove ‘‘new’’ to allow research and development of 

existing design concepts, equipment, or operating 

techniques.

None. The FAA has been applying these definitions 

in accordance with the statute since the CSLCA 

went into effect. This change provides regulatory 

clarity. 

§ 437.21(b)(3) ............................................................... Replace ‘‘flight crew or a space flight participant’’ with 

‘‘a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut.’’ Add sections 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 

to the list of sections with which an applicant proposing to conduct a launch with a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut on board 

must demonstrate compliance.

None. The FAA has been applying these requirements to government astronauts in accordance 

with the statute since the CSLCA went into effect. 

This change provides regulatory clarity. 

Move appendices B–E in part 440, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, to an AC........................................................................................ None. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76723 

TABLE 1—CHANGES BY SECTION—Continued 

Section Change Effect of change 

§ 440.3 .......................................................................... Revise definition of permit and permitted activity. Exclude government astronaut from losses to government personnel in the definition of ‘‘MPL’’’’. Exclude government astronaut from the definition of 

‘‘Third party’’.

None. Updates to the definition of permit and permitted activity align statue with current practice. 

Excluding government astronaut from third party 

means that they are not included in MPL calculations and are prevented from making claims as 

third parties in alignment with current practice. 

Government astronauts that are employed by the 

US government would be covered by insurance required under § 440.9(b) because they are government personnel. 

§ 440.9(b) ...................................................................... Add space flight participants to the list in which a licensee or permittee must obtain and maintain in 

effect a policy or policies of liability insurance to 

protect their respective potential liabilities against 

covered claims by a third party for bodily injury or 

property damage resulting from a licensed or permitted activity.

None. The FAA has been requiring the addition of 

space flight participants to the insurance requirements with operators in accordance with the statute since the CSLCA went into effect. This change 

provides regulatory clarity. 

§ 440.17(c), (d), and (e) ................................................ Add language to require the licensee or permittee to 

enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement, 

in a form acceptable to the Administrator such as 

those contained in advisory circular AC 440.17–1, 

with each space flight participant.

None. The FAA has been requiring reciprocal waiver 

of claims in accordance with existing regulations. 

This change provides regulatory flexibility by moving the templates from regulatory language to an 

advisory circular. 

§ 440.17(f) and (g) ........................................................ Add requirement for reciprocal waiver of claims between operators and space flight participants as 

section (f). Move current section (f) to section (g).

None. The FAA has been requiring reciprocal waiver 

of claims between operators and space flight participants in accordance with the statute since the 

CSLCA went into effect. This change provides regulatory clarity. Current section (f) is moved to section (g) without changes to accommodate the addition of section (f). 

§ 450.45(e)(3)(ii)(E) Human Space Flight in part 450 .. Replace ‘‘rocket’s’’ with ‘‘vehicle’s’’ ............................. None. The FAA has been applying these definitions 

in accordance with the statute since the CSLCA 

went into effect. This change provides regulatory 

clarity. 

§ 450.45(e)(5) ............................................................... Replace ‘‘flight crew or a space flight participant’’ with 

‘‘a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut.’’ Add sections 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 

to the list of sections with which an applicant proposing to conduct a launch with a space flight participant, crew, or government astronaut on board 

must demonstrate compliance.

None. The FAA has been applying these requirements in accordance with the statute since the 

CSLCA went into effect. This change provides regulatory clarity. 

Add Subpart C, Launch and Reentry with a Government Astronaut With a Safety-Critical Role, after 

Subpart B in § 460 Scope, HUMAN SPACE 

FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS.

Add requirements applicable to government astronauts with a safety-critical role.None. Operators have been training government astronauts in order to satisfy NASA contractual requirements. This change makes some of that training required by regulation. 

Add Subpart D, Launch and Reentry with a Government Astronaut Without a Safety-Critical Role after 

Subpart C in § 460 Scope, HUMAN SPACE 

FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS.

Add requirements applicable to government astronauts without a safety-critical role.None. Operators have been training government astronauts in order to satisfy NASA contractual requirements. This change makes some of that training required by regulation. 

These changes will have a minimal 

impact on licensed commercial space 

activity with government astronauts 

because the changes align regulations 

with the current statutory requirements 

for crew, for space flight participants, 

and with current practices. The FAA 

has been applying the statutory changes 

since they went into effect in 2015. 

Since this rule codifies these current 

practices, there is effectively no change 

from the baseline without the rule and, 

therefore, no measurable resulting 

benefits or costs. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121) and the Small Business Jobs 

Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240), requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of the regulatory action on small 

business and other small entities and to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

comprises small businesses and not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

This rule updates definitions relating 

to commercial space launch and reentry 

vehicles and occupants to reflect current 

statutory definitions and requirements, 

as well as implements clarifications to 

financial responsibility requirements in 

accordance with the CSLCA. The FAA 

has been applying the statutory changes 

since they went into effect in 2015. 

Since this rule codifies these current 

practices, the FAA certifies that this rule 

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, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such 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. The FAA has assessed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
76724 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

5 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

6FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available 

at www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf. 

the potential effects of this rule and 

determined that it will not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs 

the issuance of Federal regulations that 

require unfunded mandates. An 

unfunded mandate is a regulation that 

requires a State, local, or Tribal 

government or the private sector to 

incur direct costs without the Federal 

Government having first provided the 

funds to pay those costs. The FAA 

determined that this final rule will not 

result in the expenditure of $183 

million or more by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector, in any one year. 

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 is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

F. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f for regulations and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, 

Federalism. The FAA has determined 

that this action will 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, 

will not have federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,5 and 

FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation 

Policy and Procedures,6 the FAA 

ensures that Federally Recognized 

Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

regarding proposed Federal actions that 

have the potential to have substantial 

direct effects on one or more Indian 

Tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes; or to 

affect uniquely or significantly their 

respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA 

has not identified any unique or 

significant effects, environmental or 

otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this 

final rule. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(May 18, 2001). The FAA has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under the Executive 

order and is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action will have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of the NPRM, all comments 

received, this final rule, and all 

background material may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

docket number listed above. A copy of 

this final rule will be placed in the 

docket. Electronic retrieval help and 

guidelines are available on the website. 

It is available 24 hours each day, 365 

days each year. An electronic copy of 

this document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at www.federalregister.gov and 

the Government Publishing Office’s 

website at www.govinfo.gov. A copy 

may also be found at the FAA’s 

Regulations and Policies website at 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies. 

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) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this final rule, including 

economic analyses and technical 

reports, may be accessed in the 

electronic docket for this rulemaking. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 401 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies), Space 

transportation and exploration. 

14 CFR Part 413 

Confidential business information, 

Space transportation and exploration. 

14 CFR Part 415 

Aviation safety, Environmental 

protection, Investigations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Space 

transportation and exploration. 

14 CFR Part 431 

Launch and reentry safety, Aviation 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rockets, Space 

transportation and exploration. 

14 CFR Part 435 

Launch and reentry safety, Aviation 

safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rockets, Space 

transportation and exploration. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76725 

14 CFR Part 437 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Space 

transportation and exploration. 

14 CFR Part 440 

Indemnity payments, Insurance, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

14 CFR Part 450 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Environmental protection, 

Investigations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Space 

transportation and exploration. 

14 CFR Part 460 

Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Space transportation and 

exploration. 

The Amendments 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Aviation 

Administration amends chapter III of 

title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 401—ORGANIZATION AND 

DEFINITIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 401 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 2. Amend § 401.5 by: 

■ a. Adding definitions in alphabetical 

order for ‘‘Government astronaut’’, 

‘‘International partner astronaut’’, and 

‘‘International Space Station 

Intergovernmental Agreement’’; and 

■ b. Revising the definitions for 

‘‘Human space flight incident’’, 

‘‘Launch’’, ‘‘Launch accident’’, 

‘‘Reenter; reentry’’, ‘‘Reentry accident’’, 

and ‘‘Space Flight participant’’. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 401.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Government astronaut means an 

individual who— 

(1) Is designated by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

under Title 51, United States Code, 

Section 20113(n); 

(2) Is carried within a launch vehicle 

or reentry vehicle in the course of their 

employment, which may include 

performance of activities directly 

relating to the launch, reentry, or other 

operation of the launch vehicle or 

reentry vehicle; and 

(3) Is either— 

(i) An employee of the United States 

Government, including the uniformed 

services, engaged in the performance of 

a Federal function under authority of 

law or an Executive act; or 

(ii) An international partner astronaut. 

* * * * * 

Human space flight incident means 

an unplanned event that poses a high 

risk of causing a serious or fatal injury 

to a space flight participant, crew, or 

government astronaut. 

* * * * * 

International partner astronaut means 

an individual designated under Article 

11 of the International Space Station 

Intergovernmental Agreement, by a 

partner to that agreement other than the 

United States, as qualified to serve as an 

International Space Station crew 

member. 

International Space Station 

Intergovernmental Agreement means the 

Agreement Concerning Cooperation on 

the International Space Station, signed 

in Washington, DC, on January 29, 1998 

(TIAS 12927). 

* * * * * 

Launch means to place or try to place 

a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle and 

any payload, space flight participant, 

crew, or government astronaut from 

Earth in a suborbital trajectory, in Earth 

orbit in outer space, or otherwise in 

outer space, and includes preparing a 

launch vehicle for flight at a launch site 

in the United States. Launch includes 

the flight of a launch vehicle and 

includes pre- and post-flight ground 

operations as follows: 

(1) Beginning of launch. (i) Under a 

license, launch begins with the arrival 

of a launch vehicle or payload at a U.S. 

launch site. 

(ii) Under a permit, launch begins 

when any pre-flight ground operation at 

a U.S. launch site meets all of the 

following criteria: 

(A) Is closely proximate in time to 

flight, 

(B) Entails critical steps preparatory to 

initiating flight, 

(C) Is unique to space launch, and 

(D) Is inherently so hazardous as to 

warrant the FAA’s regulatory oversight. 

(2) End of launch. (i) For launch of an 

orbital expendable launch vehicle 

(ELV), launch ends after the licensee’s 

last exercise of control over its launch 

vehicle. 

(ii) For launch of an orbital reusable 

launch vehicle (RLV) with a payload, 

launch ends after deployment of the 

payload. For any other orbital RLV, 

launch ends upon completion of the 

first sustained, steady-state orbit of an 

RLV at its intended location. 

(iii) For a suborbital ELV or RLV 

launch, launch ends after reaching 

apogee if the flight includes a reentry, 

or otherwise after vehicle landing or 

impact on Earth, and after activities 

necessary to return the vehicle to a safe 

condition on the ground. 

Launch accident means— 

(1) An event that causes a fatality or 

serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 

830.2) to any person who is not 

associated with the flight; 

(2) An event that causes damage 

estimated to exceed $25,000 to property 

not associated with the flight that is not 

located at the launch site or designated 

recovery area; 

(3) An unplanned event occurring 

during the flight of a launch vehicle 

resulting in the impact of a launch 

vehicle, its payload, or any component 

thereof: 

(i) For an expendable launch vehicle, 

outside designated impact limit lines; 

and 

(ii) For a reusable launch vehicle, 

outside a designated landing site. 

(4) For a launch that takes place with 

a person on board, a fatality or serious 

injury to a space flight participant, crew, 

or government astronaut. 

* * * * * 

Reenter; reentry means to return or 

attempt to return, purposefully, a 

reentry vehicle and its payload, space 

flight participant, crew, or government 

astronaut, if any, from Earth orbit or 

from outer space to Earth. The term 

‘‘reenter; reentry’’ includes activities 

conducted in Earth orbit or outer space 

to determine reentry readiness and that 

are critical to ensuring public health 

and safety and the safety of property 

during reentry flight. The term ‘‘reenter; 

reentry’’ also includes activities 

conducted on the ground after vehicle 

landing on Earth to ensure the reentry 

vehicle does not pose a threat to public 

health and safety or the safety of 

property. 

Reentry accident means— 

(1) Any unplanned event occurring 

during the reentry of a reentry vehicle 

resulting in the impact of the reentry 

vehicle, its payload, or any component 

thereof, outside a designated reentry 

site; 

(2) An event that causes a fatality or 

serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 

830.2) to any person who is not 

associated with the reentry; 

(3) An event that causes damage 

estimated to exceed $25,000 to property 

not associated with the reentry and not 

located within a designated reentry site; 

and 

(4) For a reentry that takes place with 

a person on board, a fatality or serious 

injury to a space flight participant, crew, 

or government astronaut. 

* * * * * 

Space flight participant means an 

individual, who is not crew or a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
76726 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

government astronaut, carried on board 

a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 401.7 by: 

■ a. Adding definitions in alphabetical 

order for ‘‘Government astronaut’’, 

‘‘International partner astronaut’’, and 

‘‘International Space Station 

Intergovernmental Agreement’’; and 

■ b. Revising the definition for ‘‘Space 

flight participant’’. 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 401.7 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Government astronaut means an 

individual who— 

(1) Is designated by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

under Title 51, United States Code, 

Section 20113(n); 

(2) Is carried within a launch vehicle 

or reentry vehicle in the course of their 

employment, which may include 

performance of activities directly 

relating to the launch, reentry, or other 

operation of the launch vehicle or 

reentry vehicle; and 

(3) Is either— 

(i) An employee of the United States 

Government, including the uniformed 

services, engaged in the performance of 

a Federal function under authority of 

law or an Executive act; or 

(ii) An international partner astronaut. 

* * * * * 

International partner astronaut means 

an individual designated under Article 

11 of the International Space Station 

Intergovernmental Agreement, by a 

partner to that agreement other than the 

United States, as qualified to serve as an 

International Space Station crew 

member. 

International Space Station 

Intergovernmental Agreement means the 

Agreement Concerning Cooperation on 

the International Space Station, signed 

in Washington, DC, on January 29, 1998 

(TIAS 12927). 

* * * * * 

Space flight participant means an 

individual, who is not crew or a 

government astronaut, carried on board 

a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle. 

* * * * * 

PART 413—LICENSE APPLICATION 

PROCEDURES 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 413 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 5. Amend § 413.3 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 413.3 Who must obtain a license or 

permit. 

* * * * * 

(f) A person, individual, or foreign 

entity otherwise requiring a license 

under this section may instead obtain an 

experimental permit to launch or 

reenter a reusable suborbital vehicle 

under part 437 of this chapter. 

PART 415—LAUNCH LICENSE 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 415 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 7. Revise § 415.8 to read as follows: 

§ 415.8 Human space flight. 

To obtain a launch license, an 

applicant proposing to conduct a launch 

with a space flight participant, crew, or 

government astronaut on board must 

demonstrate compliance with §§ 460.5, 

460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 

460.51, 460.53, 460.59, 460.61, and 

460.67 of this subchapter. 

PART 431—LAUNCH AND REENTRY 

OF A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE 

(RLV) 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 9. Revise § 431.8 to read as follows: 

§ 431.8 Human space flight. 

To obtain a license, an applicant 

proposing to conduct a reusable launch 

vehicle mission with a space flight 

participant, crew, or government 

astronaut on board must demonstrate 

compliance with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 

460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51, 

460.53, 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 of 

this subchapter. 

PART 435—REENTRY OF A REENTRY 

VEHICLE OTHER THAN A REUSABLE 

LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV) 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 435 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 11. Revise § 435.8 to read as follows: 

§ 435.8 Human space flight. 

To obtain a reentry license, an 

applicant proposing to conduct a 

reentry with a space flight participant, 

crew, or government astronaut on board 

the vehicle must demonstrate 

compliance with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 

460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51, 

460.53, 460.59, 460.61, and 460.67 of 

this subchapter. 

PART 437—EXPERIMENTAL PERMITS 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 437 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 13. Revise § 437.3 to read as follows: 

§ 437.3 Definitions. 

Envelope expansion means any 

portion of a flight where planned 

operations will subject a reusable 

suborbital vehicle to the effects of 

altitude, velocity, acceleration, or burn 

duration that exceed a level or duration 

successfully verified during an earlier 

flight. 

Exclusion area means an area, within 

an operating area, that a reusable 

suborbital vehicle’s instantaneous 

impact point may not traverse. 

Operating area means a threedimensional region where permitted 

flights may take place. 

Permitted vehicle means a reusable 

suborbital rocket or a reusable launch 

vehicle that will be launched into a 

suborbital trajectory or reentered that is 

operated by a launch or reentry operator 

under an experimental permit. 

Reentry impact point means the 

location of a reusable suborbital 

vehicle’s instantaneous impact point 

during its unpowered exoatmospheric 

suborbital flight. 

■ 14. Revise § 437.5 to read as follows: 

§ 437.5 Eligibility for an experimental 

permit. 

The FAA will issue an experimental 

permit to a person to launch or reenter 

a reusable suborbital vehicle only for— 

(a) Research and development to test 

design concepts, equipment, or 

operating techniques; 

(b) A showing of compliance with 

requirements for obtaining a license 

under this subchapter; or 

(c) Crew training for a launch or 

reentry using the design of the reusable 

suborbital vehicle for which the permit 

would be issued. 

■ 15. Amend § 437.7 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 437.7 Scope of an experimental permit. 

An experimental permit authorizes 

launch or reentry of a reusable 

suborbital vehicle. The authorization 

includes pre- and post-flight ground 

operations as defined in this section. 

* * * * * 

(b) A post-flight ground operation 

includes each operation necessary to 

return the reusable suborbital vehicle to 

a safe condition after it lands or 

impacts. 

■ 16. Revise § 437.9 to read as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76727 

§ 437.9 Issuance of an experimental 

permit. 

The FAA issues an experimental 

permit authorizing an unlimited number 

of launches or reentries for a reusable 

suborbital vehicle design for the uses 

described in § 437.5. 

■ 17. Amend § 437.21 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (iv), (b)(3), (c), 

and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 437.21 General. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) General. The FAA is responsible 

for complying with the procedures and 

policies of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

Executive Orders to consider and 

document the potential environmental 

effects associated with proposed 

reusable suborbital vehicle launches or 

reentries. An applicant must provide the 

FAA with information needed to 

comply with such requirements. The 

FAA will consider and document the 

potential environmental effects 

associated with proposed reusable 

suborbital vehicle launches or reentries. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Information requirements. An 

application must include an approved 

FAA Environmental Assessment, 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

categorical exclusion determination, or 

written re-evaluation covering all 

planned permitted activities in 

compliance with NEPA and the Council 

on Environmental Quality Regulations 

for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of NEPA. 

* * * * * 

(3) Human space flight. An applicant 

proposing to conduct a permitted 

operation with a space flight 

participant, crew, or government 

astronaut on board a reusable suborbital 

vehicle must demonstrate compliance 

with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 

460.15, 460.17, 460.51, 460.53, 460.59, 

460.61, and 460.67 of this subchapter. 

(c) Use of a safety element approval. 

If an applicant proposes to use any 

reusable suborbital vehicle, safety 

system, process, service, or personnel 

for which the FAA has issued a safety 

element approval under part 414 of this 

chapter, the FAA will not reevaluate 

that safety element to the extent its use 

is within its approved scope. As part of 

the application process, the FAA will 

evaluate the integration of that safety 

element into vehicle systems or 

operations. 

(d) Inspection before issuing a permit. 

Before the FAA issues an experimental 

permit, an applicant must make each 

reusable suborbital vehicle planned to 

be flown available to the FAA for 

inspection. The FAA will determine 

whether each reusable suborbital 

vehicle is built as represented in the 

application. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend § 437.23 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 437.23 Program description. 

(a) An applicant must provide— 

(1) Dimensioned three-view drawings 

or photographs of the reusable 

suborbital vehicle; and 

(2) Gross liftoff weight and thrust 

profile of the reusable suborbital 

vehicle. 

(b) An applicant must describe— 

(1) All reusable suborbital vehicle 

systems, including any structural, flight 

control, thermal, pneumatic, hydraulic, 

propulsion, electrical, environmental 

control, software and computing 

systems, avionics, and guidance systems 

used in the reusable suborbital vehicle; 

(2) The types and quantities of all 

propellants used in the reusable 

suborbital vehicle; 

(3) The types and quantities of any 

hazardous materials used in the 

reusable suborbital vehicle; 

(4) The purpose for which a reusable 

suborbital vehicle is to be flown; and 

(5) Each payload or payload class 

planned to be flown. 

■ 19. Amend § 437.25 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 437.25 Flight test plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) For each operating area, provide 

the planned maximum altitude of the 

reusable suborbital vehicle. 

■ 20. Revise and republish § 437.31 to 

read as follows: 

§ 437.31 Verification of operating area 

containment and key flight-safety event 

limitations. 

(a) An applicant must identify, 

describe, and provide verification 

evidence of the methods and systems 

used to meet the requirement of 

§ 437.57(a) to contain its reusable 

suborbital vehicle’s instantaneous 

impact point within an operating area 

and outside any exclusion area. The 

description must include, at a 

minimum— 

(1) Proof of physical limits on the 

ability of the reusable suborbital vehicle 

to leave the operating area; or 

(2) Abort procedures and other safety 

measures derived from a system safety 

engineering process. 

(b) An applicant must identify, 

describe, and provide verification 

evidence of the methods and systems 

used to meet the requirements of 

§ 437.59 to conduct any key flight-safety 

event so that the reusable suborbital 

vehicle’s instantaneous impact point, 

including its expected dispersions, is 

over unpopulated or sparsely populated 

areas, and to conduct each reusable 

suborbital vehicle flight so that the 

reentry impact point does not loiter over 

a populated area. 

■ 21. Revise § 437.33 to read as follows: 

§ 437.33 Landing and impact locations. 

An applicant must demonstrate that 

each location for nominal landing or 

any contingency abort landing of the 

reusable suborbital vehicle, and each 

location for any nominal or contingency 

impact or landing of a component of 

that reusable suborbital vehicle, satisfies 

§ 437.61. 

■ 22. Amend § 437.53 by revising the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 437.53 Pre-flight and post-flight 

operations. 

A permittee must protect the public 

from adverse effects of hazardous 

operations and systems in preparing a 

reusable suborbital vehicle for flight at 

a launch site in the United States and 

returning the reusable suborbital vehicle 

and any support equipment to a safe 

condition after flight. At a minimum, a 

permittee must— 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Amend § 437.57 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 437.57 Operating area containment. 

(a) During each permitted flight, a 

permittee must contain its reusable 

suborbital vehicle’s instantaneous 

impact point within an operating area 

determined in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section and outside 

any exclusion area defined by the FAA 

in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(c) The FAA may prohibit a reusable 

suborbital vehicle’s instantaneous 

impact point from traversing certain 

areas within an operating area by 

designating one or more areas as 

exclusion areas, if necessary to protect 

public health and safety, safety of 

property, or foreign policy or national 

security interests of the United States. 

An exclusion area may be confined to a 

specific phase of flight. 

■ 24. Amend § 437.59 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text and (b) 

to read as follows: 

§ 437.59 Key flight-safety event limitations. 

(a) A permittee must conduct any key 

flight-safety event so that the reusable 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
76728 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

suborbital vehicle’s instantaneous 

impact point, including its expected 

dispersion, is over an unpopulated or 

sparsely populated area. At a minimum, 

a key flight-safety event includes: 

* * * * * 

(b) A permittee must conduct each 

reusable suborbital vehicle flight so that 

the reentry impact point does not loiter 

over a populated area. 

■ 25. Amend § 437.61 by revising the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 437.61 Landing and impact locations. 

For a nominal or any contingency 

abort landing of a reusable suborbital 

vehicle, or for any nominal or 

contingency impact or landing of a 

component of that reusable suborbital 

vehicle, a permittee must use a location 

that— 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Revise and republish § 437.71 to 

read as follows: 

§ 437.71 Flight rules. 

(a) Before initiating flight, a permittee 

must confirm that all systems and 

operations necessary to ensure that 

safety measures derived from §§ 437.55, 

437.57, 437.59, 437.61, 437.63, 437.65, 

437.67, and 437.69 are within 

acceptable limits. 

(b) During all phases of flight, a 

permittee must— 

(1) Follow flight rules that ensure 

compliance with §§ 437.55, 437.57, 

437.59, and 437.61; and 

(2) Abort the flight if it would 

endanger the public. 

(c) A permittee may not operate a 

reusable suborbital vehicle in a careless 

or reckless manner that would endanger 

any member of the public during any 

phase of flight. 

(d) A permittee may not operate a 

reusable suborbital vehicle in areas 

designated in a Notice to Airmen under 

14 CFR 91.137, 91.138, 91.141, or 

91.145, unless authorized by: 

(1) Air Traffic Control; or 

(2) A Flight Standards Certificate of 

Waiver or Authorization. 

(e) For any phase of flight where a 

permittee operates a reusable suborbital 

vehicle like an aircraft in the National 

Airspace System, a permittee must 

comply with the provisions of 14 CFR 

part 91 specified in an experimental 

permit issued under this part. 

■ 27. Amend § 437.85 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 437.85 Allowable design changes; 

modification of an experimental permit. 

(a) The FAA will identify in the 

experimental permit the type of changes 

that the permittee may make to the 

reusable suborbital vehicle design 

without invalidating the permit. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Revise § 437.91 to read as follows: 

§ 437.91 For hire prohibition. 

No permittee may carry any property 

or human being for compensation or 

hire on a reusable suborbital vehicle. 

■ 29. Revise § 437.95 to read as follows: 

§ 437.95 Inspection of additional reusable 

suborbital vehicles. 

A permittee may launch or reenter 

additional reusable suborbital vehicles 

of the same design under the permit 

after the FAA inspects each additional 

reusable suborbital vehicle. 

PART 440—FINANCIAL 

RESPONSIBILITY 

■ 30. The authority citation for part 440 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 31. Amend § 440.3 by revising the 

definitions of ‘‘Maximum probable 

loss’’, ‘‘Permit’’, ‘‘Permitted activity’’, 

and ‘‘Third party’’ to read as follows: 

§ 440.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Maximum probable loss (MPL) means 

the greatest dollar amount of loss for 

bodily injury or property damage that is 

reasonably expected to result from a 

licensed or permitted activity; 

(1) Losses to third parties, excluding 

Government personnel and other launch 

or reentry participants’ employees 

involved in licensed or permitted 

activities and neighboring operations 

personnel, that are reasonably expected 

to result from a licensed or permitted 

activity are those that have a probability 

of occurrence of no less than one in ten 

million. 

(2) Losses to Government property 

and Government personnel, excluding 

government astronauts, involved in 

licensed or permitted activities and 

neighboring operations personnel that 

are reasonably expected to result from 

licensed or permitted activities are those 

that have a probability of occurrence of 

no less than one in one hundred 

thousand. 

* * * * * 

Permit means an authorization the 

FAA issues under this subchapter for 

the launch or reentry of a reusable 

suborbital vehicle. 

Permitted activity means the launch 

or reentry of a reusable suborbital 

vehicle conducted under a permit 

issued by the FAA. 

* * * * * 

Third party means— 

(1) Any person other than: 

(i) The United States, any of its 

agencies, and its contractors and 

subcontractors involved in launch or 

reentry services for a licensed or 

permitted activity; 

(ii) A licensee, permittee, and its 

contractors and subcontractors involved 

in launch or reentry services for a 

licensed or permitted activity; 

(iii) A customer and its contractors 

and subcontractors involved in launch 

or reentry services for a licensed or 

permitted activity; 

(iv) A member of a crew; 

(v) A space flight participant; and 

(vi) A government astronaut. 

(2) Government personnel, as defined 

in this section and excluding 

government astronauts, are third parties. 

* * * * * 

■ 32. Amend § 440.9 by revising and 

republishing paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 440.9 Insurance requirements for 

licensed or permitted activities. 

* * * * * 

(b) A licensee or permittee must 

obtain and maintain in effect a policy or 

policies of liability insurance, in an 

amount determined by the FAA under 

paragraph (c) of this section, that 

protects the following persons as 

additional insureds to the extent of their 

respective potential liabilities against 

covered claims by a third party for 

bodily injury or property damage 

resulting from a licensed or permitted 

activity: 

(1) The licensee or permittee, its 

customer, and their respective 

contractors and subcontractors, and the 

employees of each, involved in a 

licensed or permitted activity; 

(2) The United States, its agencies, 

and its contractors and subcontractors 

involved in a licensed or permitted 

activity; 

(3) Government personnel; and 

(4) Space flight participants. This 

paragraph (b)(4) shall cease to be 

effective on September 30, 2025, unless 

public law modifies the limitation in 

section 50914 of Title 51 of the U.S. 

Code. 

* * * * * 

■ 33. Amend § 440.17 by revising 

paragraphs (c) introductory text, (d) 

introductory text, (e) introductory text, 

and (f) and adding paragraph (g) to read 

as follows: 

§ 440.17 Reciprocal waiver of claims 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) For each licensed or permitted 

activity in which the United States, or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76729 

its contractors and subcontractors, is 

involved or where property insurance is 

required under § 440.9(d), the Federal 

Aviation Administration of the 

Department of Transportation, the 

licensee or permittee, and each first-tier 

customer must enter into a reciprocal 

waiver of claims agreement. The 

reciprocal waiver of claims must be in 

a form acceptable to the Administrator, 

such as those contained in advisory 

circular AC 440.17–1, and must provide 

that: 

* * * * * 

(d) For each licensed or permitted 

activity in which the United States or its 

contractors and subcontractors are 

involved, the Federal Aviation 

Administration of the Department of 

Transportation and each space flight 

participant must enter into or have in 

place a reciprocal waiver of claims 

agreement. The reciprocal waiver of 

claims must be in a form acceptable to 

the Administrator, such as those 

contained in advisory circular AC 

440.17–1. 

* * * * * 

(e) For each licensed or permitted 

activity in which the United States or its 

contractors and subcontractors is 

involved, the Federal Aviation 

Administration of the Department of 

Transportation and each crew member 

must enter into or have in place a 

reciprocal waiver of claims agreement. 

The reciprocal waiver of claims must in 

a form acceptable to the Administrator, 

such as those contained in advisory 

circular AC 440.17–1. 

* * * * * 

(f) The licensee or permittee and each 

space flight participant must enter into 

a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement 

under which each party waives and 

releases claims against the other party to 

the waiver, and agrees to assume 

financial responsibility for property 

damage it sustains and for bodily injury 

or property damage, and to hold 

harmless and indemnify each other from 

bodily injury or property damage, 

resulting from a licensed or permitted 

activity, regardless of fault. This 

paragraph (f) shall cease to be effective 

as of September 30, 2025, unless public 

law modifies the limitation in section 

50914 of Title 51 of the U.S. Code. 

(g) Any waiver, release, assumption of 

responsibility or agreement to hold 

harmless and indemnify pursuant to 

this section does not apply to claims for 

bodily injury or property damage 

resulting from willful misconduct of any 

of the parties to the reciprocal waiver of 

claims, the contractors and 

subcontractors of any of the parties to 

the reciprocal waiver of claims, and in 

the case of licensee or permittee and 

customers and the contractors and 

subcontractors of each of them, the 

directors, officers, agents and employees 

of any of the foregoing, and in the case 

of the United States, its agents. 

Appendix B Through E to Part 440— 

[Removed] 

■ 34. Remove appendices B through E to 

part 440. 

PART 450—LAUNCH AND REENTRY 

LICENSE REQUIREMENTS 

■ 35. The authority citation for part 450 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 36. Amend § 450.45 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(E) and (e)(5) to read 

as follows: 

§ 450.45 Safety review and approval. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(E) For an unguided suborbital launch 

vehicle, the location of the vehicle’s 

center of pressure in relation to its 

center of gravity for the entire flight 

profile. 

* * * * * 

(5) Human space flight. For a 

proposed launch or reentry with a space 

flight participant, crew, or government 

astronaut on board a vehicle, an 

applicant must demonstrate compliance 

with §§ 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 

460.15, 460.17, 460.51, 460.53, 460.59, 

460.61, and 460.67 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 460—HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 37. The authority citation for part 460 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

■ 38. Add subpart C to read as follows: 

Subpart C—Launch and Reentry with a 

Government Astronaut with a Safety-Critical 

Role 

Sec. 

460.55 Scope. 

460.57 Applicability. 

460.59 Training of government astronauts 

with a safety-critical role. 

460.61 Environmental control and life 

support systems. 

Subpart C—Launch and Reentry with a 

Government Astronaut with a SafetyCritical Role 

§ 460.55 Scope. 

This subpart establishes requirements 

for operators and applicants whose 

licensed or permitted operations involve 

government astronauts on board a 

vehicle. 

§ 460.57 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to: 

(a) An applicant for a license or 

permit under this chapter who proposes 

to have a government astronaut with a 

safety-critical role on board a vehicle. 

(b) An operator licensed or permitted 

under this chapter who has a 

government astronaut with a safetycritical role on board a vehicle. 

§ 460.59 Training of government 

astronauts with a safety-critical role. 

(a) An operator must ensure that each 

government astronaut with a safetycritical role is trained on— 

(1) How to carry out their safetycritical role on board or on the ground 

so that the vehicle will not harm the 

public; and 

(2) Their role in nominal and nonnominal conditions, including abort 

scenarios and emergency operations, to 

the extent that performance of their role 

could impact public safety. 

(b) An operator must ensure any 

government astronaut who has the 

capability to control, in real time, a 

launch or reentry vehicle’s flight path 

during a phase of flight capable of 

endangering the public: 

(1) Receives vehicle and missionspecific training for each phase of flight 

capable of endangering the public and 

over which the government astronaut 

has the capability to control the vehicle 

by using one or more of the following: 

(i) A method or device that simulates 

the flight; 

(ii) An aircraft whose characteristics 

are similar to the vehicle or that has 

similar phases of flight to the vehicle; 

(iii) Flight testing; or 

(iv) An equivalent method of training 

approved by the FAA through the 

license process. 

(2) Trains for each mode of control or 

propulsion, including any transition 

between modes, such that the 

government astronaut is able to control 

the vehicle. 

(3) Possesses aeronautical knowledge, 

experience, and skills necessary to pilot 

and control the launch or reentry 

vehicle that will operate in the National 

Airspace System (NAS). Aeronautical 

experience may include hours in flight, 

ratings, and training. 

(c) With respect to training device 

fidelity, an operator must: 

(1) Ensure that any government 

astronaut training device used to meet 

the training requirements realistically 

represents the vehicle’s configuration 

and mission; or, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
76730 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Inform the government astronaut 

being trained of the differences between 

the training device and the vehicle’s 

configuration and mission. 

(d) An operator must update the 

government astronaut training to ensure 

that the training incorporates lessons 

learned from training and operational 

missions including— 

(1) Providing traceability to revisions 

or changes; and 

(2) Documenting the completed 

training for each government astronaut 

and maintaining the documentation for 

each active government astronaut. 

(e) An operator must establish a 

recurrent training schedule and ensure 

that all training of government 

astronauts performing safety-critical 

roles is current before launch or reentry. 

(f) For licensed missions supporting 

U.S. Government contracts, operators 

may meet the training requirements of 

this section through U.S. Government’s 

contractual requirements. 

§ 460.61 Environmental control and life 

support systems. 

(a) An operator must provide 

atmospheric conditions adequate to 

sustain life and consciousness for all 

inhabited areas within a vehicle that 

house a government astronaut. The 

operator must monitor and control the 

following atmospheric conditions in the 

inhabited areas or demonstrate through 

the license or permit process that an 

alternate means provides an equivalent 

level of safety— 

(1) Composition of the atmosphere, 

which includes oxygen and carbon 

dioxide, and any revitalization; 

(2) Pressure, temperature and 

humidity; 

(3) Contaminants that include 

particulates and any harmful or 

hazardous concentrations of gases, or 

vapors; and 

(4) Ventilation and circulation. 

(b) An operator must provide an 

adequate redundant or secondary 

oxygen supply for any government 

astronaut with a safety-critical role. 

(c) An operator must provide a 

redundant means of preventing cabin 

depressurization; or prevent 

incapacitation of any government 

astronaut with a safety-critical role in 

the event of loss of cabin pressure. 

■ 39. Add subpart D to read as follows: 

Subpart D—Launch and Reentry with a 

Government Astronaut Without a SafetyCritical Role 

Sec. 

460.63 Scope. 

460.65 Applicability. 

460.67 Training of government astronauts 

without a safety-critical role. 

Subpart D—Launch and Reentry with a 

Government Astronaut Without a 

Safety-Critical Role 

§ 460.63 Scope. 

This subpart establishes requirements 

for operators and applicants whose 

licensed or permitted operations involve 

government astronauts on board a 

vehicle without a safety-critical role. 

§ 460.65 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to: 

(a) An applicant for a license or 

permit under this chapter who proposes 

to have a government astronaut without 

a safety-critical role on board a vehicle. 

(b) An operator licensed or permitted 

under this chapter who has a 

government astronaut without a safetycritical role on board a vehicle. 

§ 460.67 Training of government 

astronauts without a safety-critical role. 

An operator must ensure that each 

government astronaut without a safetycritical role is trained on how to 

respond to emergency situations, 

including smoke, fire, loss of cabin 

pressure, and emergency exit. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f) and 51 U.S.C. 509 in 

Washington, DC. 

Michael Gordon Whitaker, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20900 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Part 4044 

Allocation of Assets in SingleEmployer Plans; Interest Assumptions 

for Valuing Benefits 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 

regulation on Allocation of Assets in 

Single-Employer Plans to prescribe the 

spreads component of the interest 

assumption under the asset allocation 

regulation for plans with valuation dates 

of October 31, 2024–January 30, 2025. 

These interest assumptions are used for 

valuing benefits under terminating 

single-employer plans and for other 

purposes. 

DATES: Effective October 31, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monica O’Donnell (odonnell.monica@

pbgc.gov), Attorney, Office of the 

General Counsel, Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, 445 12th Street 

SW, Washington, DC 20024–2101, 202– 

229–8706. If you are deaf or hard of 

hearing or have a speech disability, 

please dial 7–1–1 to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PBGC’s 

regulation on Allocation of Assets in 

Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 

4044) prescribes actuarial 

assumptions—including an interest 

assumption—for valuing benefits under 

terminating single-employer plans 

covered by title IV of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(ERISA). The interest assumption is also 

posted on PBGC’s website 

(www.pbgc.gov). 

PBGC uses the interest assumption in 

§ 4044.54 to determine the present value 

of annuities in an involuntary or 

distress termination of a singleemployer plan under the asset 

allocation regulation. The assumptions 

in part 4044 of PBGC’s regulations are 

also used in other situations where it is 

appropriate for liabilities to align with 

private sector group annuity prices. For 

example, PBGC’s regulations on Notice, 

Collection, and Redetermination of 

Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) 

and Duties of Plan Sponsor Following 

Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) 

provide that these assumptions are used 

to value liabilities for purposes of 

determining withdrawn employers’ 

reallocation liability in the event of a 

mass withdrawal from a multiemployer 

plan. Multiemployer plans that receive 

special financial assistance under the 

regulation on Special Financial 

Assistance by PBGC (29 CFR part 4262) 

must, as a condition of receiving special 

financial assistance, use the interest 

assumption to determine withdrawal 

liability for a prescribed period. 

Additionally, plan sponsors are required 

to use some, or all of these assumptions 

for specified purposes (e.g., reporting 

benefit liabilities in filings required 

under PBGC’s regulation on Annual 

Financial and Actuarial Information 

Reporting (29 CFR part 4010) or 

determining certain amounts to transfer 

to PBGC’s Missing Participants Program 

on behalf of a missing participant of a 

terminating defined benefit plan under 

PBGC’s regulation on Missing 

Participants (29 CFR part 4050)) and 

may use them for other purposes (e.g., 

to ensure that plan spinoffs comply with 

section 414(l) of the Internal Revenue 

Code (the Code)). 

On June 6, 2024, PBGC issued a final 

rule at 89 FR 48291 that changes the 

structure of the interest assumption for 

valuation dates on or after July 31, 2024, 

from the select and ultimate approach to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1