50956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

modified by Supplemental Type Certificate 

(STC) SA927NW and Model 414A airplanes 

modified by STC SA892NW, all serial 

numbers, that are certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of a 

Cessna Model 414A airplane modified by 

STC SA892NW that experienced an 

asymmetrical flap condition causing an 

uncommanded roll when the pilot set the 

flaps to the approach position. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent failure of the flap system, 

which could result in an asymmetrical flap 

condition. This condition could result in loss 

of control. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection of the Flap Control System 

Within 60 days after the effective date of 

this AD, do a complete inspection of the flap 

control system following the Inspection 

Instructions section of Sierra Industries, Ltd. 

Service Bulletin SI09–82 Series-1, Rev. A, 

dated June 12, 2012. 

(h) Modification of the Flap Control System 

(1) If any damage to the flap bellcrank or 

bellcrank mounting structure is found in the 

inspection required in paragraph (g) of this 

AD, before further flight, repair the damage 

and modify the flap control system following 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Sierra 

Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin SI09–82 

Series-1, Rev. A, dated June 12, 2012. 

(2) If no damage to the flap bellcrank or 

bellcrank mounting structure is found in the 

inspection required in paragraph (g) of this 

AD, within 180 days after the effective date 

of this AD, modify the flap control system 

following the Accomplishment Instructions 

of Sierra Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin 

SI09–82 Series-1, Rev. A, dated June 12, 

2012. 

(i) Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 

Within 7 months after the effective date of 

this AD, or during your next annual 

inspection, whichever occurs earlier, 

incorporate Sierra Industries, Ltd. 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, 

82–1, Issue 1, dated June 12, 2012, into your 

FAA-approved maintenance program. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane 

Certification Office , FAA, has the authority 

to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Michael A. Heusser, Program 

Manager, Fort Worth ACO, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; 

phone: (817) 222–5038; fax: (817) 222–5160; 

email: michael.a.heusser@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Sierra Industries, Ltd, 122 

Howard Langford Drive, Uvalde, Texas 

78801; telephone: 888–835–9377; email: 

info@sijet.com; Internet: http:// 

www.sijet.com. You may review copies of the 

service information at the FAA, Small 

Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

816–329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

16, 2012. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20734 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 400 and 401 

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

12–05] 

RIN 2120–AJ90 

Exclusion of Tethered Launches From 

Licensing Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to exclude 

tethered launches as defined in this 

proposal from the existing licensing 

requirements. This proposed rule would 

maintain public safety for these 

launches by providing launch vehicle 

operators with clear and simple criteria 

for a safe tethered launch. The FAA 

would not require a license, permit or 

waiver for tethered launches that satisfy 

the design and operational criteria 

proposed here. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

October 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2012–0045, 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

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

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

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

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

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

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

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact Shirley McBride, 

Commercial Space Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–7470; email 

Shirley.McBride@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact Sabrina Jawed, 

AGC–240, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8839; email 

Sabrina.Jawed@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section for 

information on how to comment on this 

proposal and how the FAA will handle 

comments received. The ‘‘Additional 

Information’’ section also contains 

related information about the docket, 

privacy, and the handling of proprietary 

or confidential business information. In 

addition, there is information on 

obtaining copies of related rulemaking 

documents. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50957 

1Prior to 2008, ‘‘amateur rocket activities’’ was 

defined in 14 CFR § 401.5 as ‘‘launch activities 

conducted at private sites involving rockets 

powered by a motor or motors having a total 

impulse of 200,000 pound-seconds or less and a 

total burning or operating time of less than 15 

seconds, and a rocket having a ballistic 

coefficient—i.e., gross weight in pounds divided by 

frontal area of rocket vehicle—less than 12 pounds 

per square inch.’’ In 2008, the FAA moved the 

definition to 14 CFR part 1, chapter I and revised 

it as follows: ‘‘Amateur Rocket means an unmanned 

rocket that is propelled by a motor or motors having 

a combined total impulse of 889,600 Newtonseconds (200,000 pound-seconds) or less; and 

cannot reach an altitude greater than 150 kilometers 

(93.2 statute miles) above the earth’s surface.’’ 14 

CFR 1.1; Requirements for Amateur Rocket 

Activities, Final Rule, 73 FR 73781 (Dec. 4, 2008). 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 

1984, as amended and re-codified at 51 

U.S.C. 50901–50923 (the Act), 

authorizes the Department of 

Transportation and thus the FAA, 

through delegations, to oversee, license, 

and regulate commercial launch and 

reentry activities, and the operation of 

launch and reentry sites as carried out 

by U.S. citizens or within the United 

States. 51 U.S.C. 50904, 50905. The Act 

directs the FAA to exercise this 

responsibility consistent with public 

health and safety, safety of property, 

and the national security and foreign 

policy interests of the United States. 51 

U.S.C. 50905. Title 51 U.S.C. 50901(a)(7) 

directs the FAA to regulate only to the 

extent necessary, in relevant part, to 

protect the public health and safety and 

safety of property. The FAA is also 

responsible for encouraging, facilitating, 

and promoting commercial space 

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

50903. 

I. Background 

The FAA’s licensing and permitting 

requirements for commercial space 

launches are contained in 14 CFR 

chapter III. Section 400.2 specifies the 

requirements in chapter III apply to 

commercial space transportation 

activities conducted in the United States 

or by a U.S. citizen, but do not apply to 

amateur rocket activities or to space 

activities carried out by the United 

States Government on behalf of the 

United States Government. 

The FAA began hearing of tethered 

launches around 2002, when launch 

operators tested relatively small 

vehicles tethered to the ground with 

engines that burned for short periods of 

time. Operators later tested larger, more 

developed and costly vehicles by 

attaching them to a tether and attaching 

the tether to a crane or forklift to 

prevent the vehicle from hitting the 

ground. Some of these tethered launches 

met the FAA’s amateur rocket activity 

criteria,1 and thus were excluded from 

chapter III requirements. Those that did 

not meet the amateur rocket criteria 

should have been required to comply 

with chapter III. However, because these 

launches had a tether system that 

restrained the vehicle within a certain 

range, the FAA initially deemed them 

low risk and did not require operators 

to conduct tethered launches under 

chapter III. In 2008, the FAA reassessed 

this determination and found that 

launches that meet the applicability 

criteria of § 400.2, regardless of whether 

the launch vehicle is restrained by a 

tether, must be conducted under chapter 

III. That is, operators must apply for a 

license, permit or waiver. That year, the 

FAA reviewed and granted five chapter 

III waiver requests to conduct tethered 

launches. The agency now seeks an 

approach to tethered launches that 

would maintain public safety and be 

less burdensome on launch operators 

and the FAA. That approach is the 

subject of this proposed rule. 

II. Overview of Proposed Rule 

Title 51 U.S.C. 50901(a)(7) directs the 

FAA to regulate only to the extent 

necessary, in relevant part, to protect 

the public health and safety and safety 

of property. Therefore, the FAA 

proposes to reduce the scope of chapter 

III by excluding tethered launches that 

meet the requirements of this proposed 

rule. This proposal would maintain 

public safety by creating threshold 

criteria to determine whether chapter III 

needs to apply. FAA oversight would no 

longer be required for these launches 

because of the comprehensive 

protection the proposed launch vehicle, 

tether system, and operational criteria 

would provide. 

This rulemaking would not affect 

amateur rocket activities, regardless of 

whether they include a tether system, 

because chapter III regulations do not 

apply to the launch of amateur rockets. 

Those operators that conduct launches 

covered under chapter III and are not 

eligible for the exclusion proposed here, 

must continue to follow current 

requirements by applying for a license, 

permit or waiver. 

The FAA is proposing a number of 

changes consistent with the goals of 

Executive Order 13610, Identifying and 

Reducing Regulatory Burdens, 77 FR 

28469 (May 14, 2012). This proposal, if 

adopted, would require that the launch 

vehicle be unmanned, be powered by a 

liquid or hybrid engine, and carry no 

more than 5,000 pounds of propellant. 

It would also require that the tether 

system, including the points of 

attachment within the tether system, 

meet specified structural criteria, and 

that the tethered operations be carried 

out within specified separation 

distances from the public. The 

structural criteria would mitigate the 

hazards that can compromise the 

structural integrity of the tether system. 

The vehicle requirements and 

operational criteria would provide 

additional protection to the public by 

mitigating potential hazards posed by a 

tether system failure. 

The proposed rule would alleviate 

burdens on both the vehicle operator 

and the FAA. The operator would no 

longer incur the costs associated with 

submitting a launch license application, 

permit application or petition for waiver 

under chapter III. In addition, the 

operator would not incur the costs 

associated with any delay in processing 

applications or waivers. Finally, the 

FAA would not have to evaluate 

applications, conduct independent 

analyses, or issue licenses, permits or 

waivers. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

This proposal would amend two 

sections of part 400. It would revise 

§ 401.5 (Definitions) to add a definition 

for a tether system. It would also revise 

§ 400.2 (Scope) to add requirements for 

the launch vehicle and tether system, as 

well as separation distances from the 

public for the tethered launch 

operations. 

A. Proposed Definition (§ 401.5) 

The FAA proposes to define tether 

system as a device that would contain 

launch vehicle hazards by physically 

constraining a launch vehicle in flight to 

a specified range from its launch point. 

A tether system includes all 

components, from the point of 

attachment to the vehicle to a solid base, 

that experience load during a tethered 

launch. 

A tether system should prevent a 

vehicle from departing the launch site 

because the vehicle could pose a hazard 

to the public. Typically, a tether system 

is composed of at least three parts: one 

vehicle connection; one fixed 

connection; and at least one tether that 

has one end fastened to the vehicle 

connection and the other end fastened 

to a fixed connection to a solid base so 

as to limit the vehicle’s range of 

movement. A vehicle connection 

consists of all mechanical components 

that attach a tether to a launch vehicle. 

These include, for example, metal 

frames, bolts that attach the vehicle and 

metal frame together, and shackles. A 

fixed connection attaches a tether to a 

solid base, such as a crane, a forklift or 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2Models from the random sampling consisted of 

the Broderson IC20, Broderson IC35, Case 586G, 

JCB 930, John Deere 486E, Genie GTH5519, Genie 

GTH636, Genie GTH644, Gradall G6–42Z, Gradall 

G6–42P, Lull 644E–42. 

3Some operators provided voluntary information 

on their tether systems. The FAA looked at the 

different vehicles’ dry weights relative to the crane 

or forklift weight capacity. 

4See A.E.H. Love, A Treatise on the Mathematical 

Theory of Elasticity, 179–180, Cambridge 

University Press (2d ed. 1906). 

5A factor of safety of 1.0 implies that the design 

meets minimum requirements, but is on the point 

of failure with design uncertainties and no margin 

for variation or error. A factor of safety less than 1.0 

means the design does not meet the minimum 

requirements and is in a failed state. A factor of 

safety greater than 1.0 means the design exceeds the 

the ground, and it consists of all 

mechanical components that 

accomplish the attachment. Examples of 

these mechanical components include 

the component that attaches any crane 

to the rest of the system, such as 

shackles or a bolt that attaches a solid 

base and shackle together. 

The FAA’s proposed definition is 

broad enough to encompass all possible 

tether system configurations. This 

proposed definition would require 

operators, when determining if chapter 

III applies, to account for the effect of a 

tethered launch on every component 

from the point of attachment to the 

vehicle to a solid base, that experience 

load during a tethered launch. 

Accounting for a whole system would 

reduce the likelihood of a system failure 

caused by an overlooked component 

that was unable to withstand the 

maximum load exerted on it. 

In devising a tether system, the 

operator should take into account the 

vehicle’s structural integrity because if 

the tether were able to withstand the 

forces exerted on it, but the vehicle 

could not, then the vehicle could break 

free. If this were to happen and the 

vehicle exceeded the proposed flight 

limit of 75 feet above ground level 

(AGL), the operator would have failed to 

comply with the proposed requirement 

in § 400.2(c)(2)(iii). 

The FAA’s proposed definition 

accounts for only one tether, regardless 

of any other tethers within the system. 

A tether system containing multiple 

tethers or multiple attachment points is 

not necessarily more reinforced or safer: 

all of the applied forces may not be 

evenly distributed among the tethers. 

For instance, for a tether system with 

four tethers, if an operator assumes that 

the maximum load is evenly distributed 

among all four tethers of the system and 

designs each tether to withstand onefourth of the maximum load, the entire 

tether system could fail if the vehicle’s 

position shifted and more than onefourth of the maximum load was placed 

on a single tether. In other words, if one 

tether can fail, then all tethers within 

the system can fail. Accordingly, in 

order to reduce the likelihood of a tether 

system failure, the system must contain 

at least one tether capable of bearing the 

maximum force exerted on the tether 

system, regardless of the number of 

additional tethers within the system. 

Increasing the number of tethers within 

the system does not guarantee an 

increase in strength for the overall 

system. 

B. Proposed Launch Vehicle (§ 400.2 

(c)(1)) 

In order to avoid the applicability of 

chapter III, the FAA proposes that a 

launch vehicle would have to be 

unmanned and meet the requirements 

proposed below. 

1. Engine Type 

The FAA would require a launch 

vehicle excluded by tether from chapter 

III to have a liquid or hybrid motor; a 

solid rocket motor would not be 

permitted. Liquid or hybrid motors are 

composed of systems that require 

mixing of the propellants to combust, 

whereas solid motors consist of 

relatively simple systems where the 

propellants are already formulated with 

oxidizer dispersed in fuel. If a tethered 

vehicle were to lose control, the 

operator would rely on the tether system 

to constrain the vehicle and bring it to 

the ground. The fragile nature of liquid 

or hybrid motors ensures that ground 

impact would render them inoperable. 

2. Propellant Cap 

The FAA would not permit a launch 

vehicle to carry more than 5,000 pounds 

of propellant. The FAA’s records 

indicate that, historically, the most 

propellant that has been on board a 

launch vehicle for a tethered launch is 

approximately 1,000 pounds. Greater 

propellant amounts result in both a 

heavier launch vehicle and greater 

explosive energy. 

To determine this proposed cap, the 

FAA assessed the weight capacity of 

cranes and forklifts from a random 

sampling and from data used during 

past tethered launches. The data from 

the past launches indicate that the 

average weight capacity of these crane 

or forklift tether systems was 6,000 

pounds; however, there were gaps in the 

data because this information was 

voluntary and not all operators provided 

it. To fill in the gaps, the FAA randomly 

selected eleven crane and forklift 

models from several manufacturers.2

The data obtained from the random 

samples indicate that the average weight 

capacity of a crane or forklift is also 

approximately 6,000 pounds. For a 

tethered vehicle, the vehicle’s dry 

weight uses a maximum of 

approximately 15 percent of the crane or 

forklift weight capacity.3 This leaves 

approximately 85 percent of the weight 

capacity available for the propellant. To 

compute the maximum propellant 

amount that a tethered vehicle can 

carry, the FAA took the 6,000-pound 

crane or forklift weight capacity and 

multiplied it by 85 percent. This 

computation resulted in a maximum 

propellant weight of 5,100 pounds. To 

provide a margin for the weight capacity 

of the crane or forklift, the FAA rounded 

this value down to 5,000 pounds. 

C. Proposed Tether System 

(§ 400.2(c)(2)) 

The FAA proposes conservative 

technical and design criteria for an 

effective tether system. The FAA 

developed these criteria by determining 

what would prevent a tether from 

breaking and exposing the public to 

launch vehicle hazards. The FAA 

proposes five criteria as necessary to 

reduce the risk of a tether system 

failure: (1) Established strength 

properties, (2) minimum factor of safety, 

(3) launch vehicle constraint, (4) no 

damage displayed before launch, and (5) 

protection from launch vehicle exhaust 

plume. 

1. Established Strength Properties 

The FAA would require that an 

eligible tether system have established 

strength properties that would not yield 

or fail under the maximum dynamic 

load on the system or under a load 

equivalent to two times the maximum 

potential engine thrust. 

Because some operators may not 

readily know the maximum dynamic 

load for their tether systems, the FAA 

proposes an alternate means of 

determining whether the tether is of 

sufficient strength. If an operator does 

not know the maximum dynamic load, 

the operator may calculate the 

maximum load as follows: determine 

the maximum potential engine thrust of 

the tethered vehicle and then multiply 

the maximum engine thrust by a factor 

of two. Using the maximum potential 

engine thrust of two is an industry 

standard for estimating the dynamic 

load of any structural system.4

2. Minimum Factor of Safety 

The FAA would require operators to 

multiply the maximum load by a 

minimum factor of safety 5 of 3.0 for 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50959 

requirements by a multiple of that factor of safety 

and is in a safety state. 

6 Yield stress is the elastic limit. 

7Ultimate stress is when breakage occurs. 

8Nicholas E. Martino, Design and Analysis 

Guidelines for Launch Vehicle Tether Systems, 

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

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

is available in the docket for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. FAA–2012–0045). 

9These included Broderson Manufacturing Corp.; 

JCB; Genie; and Gradall Industries, Inc. 

yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate stress. 

All components would have to have 

established strength properties that 

could withstand the maximum load 

multiplied by the factors of safety. The 

FAA chose the proposed factors of 

safety based on their successful history 

in a similar context. 

The U.S. Air Force has used these 

same factors for similar operations. The 

U.S. Air Force conducts rocket 

operations at the Eastern and Western 

Ranges, including of tethered and 

ground-based systems. It recommends a 

minimum factor of safety of 3.0 for yield 

stress,6 and a factor of safety of 5.0 for 

ultimate stress,7 for the design of 

ground-based systems. This includes the 

tether and its attachments to launch 

facilities or ground equipment.8 This 

means that for a tether system, the 

components within the system would be 

able to endure three times the force 

required to permanently deform the 

components, and five times the force 

required to break the components. The 

U.S. Air Force has not experienced any 

tether failures, even for a Minuteman 

launch, using these factors. 

3. Launch Vehicle Constraint 

The FAA proposes that the launch 

vehicle be constrained so that its flight 

cannot exceed 75 feet AGL. This 

altitude limit is based on the FAA’s 

assessment of historical data on tether 

lengths and on the height of cranes and 

forklifts to determine a safe maximum 

altitude for tether systems. Based on this 

assessment, the FAA calculated an 

average crane or forklift height and an 

average tether length. The FAA then 

added these two values together to 

determine the launch vehicle’s potential 

altitude. 

Crane and forklift data from previous 

tethered launches and sampling indicate 

that the average height of the crane or 

forklift in a tether system is 43 feet. 

There were gaps in the data because the 

information was voluntary, and not all 

operators provided it. To fill the gaps, 

the FAA examined random samples of 

different crane and forklift heights, 

which indicated that operators typically 

use mid-sized cranes and forklifts to 

conduct their tethered operations. The 

FAA then took samples of mid-sized 

cranes and forklifts and averaged their 

heights and weight capacities to 

determine their physical limitations. 

The FAA obtained the samples from 

online brochures of manufacturers of 

cranes and forklifts.9 The sample 

information also indicates that the 

average crane or forklift height is 

approximately 43 feet. 

A launch vehicle’s potential altitude 

is a crucial element in determining how 

far debris can travel in the event of a 

crash or an explosion. Large tether 

lengths allow for high altitude flights, 

while short tether lengths limit the 

vehicle to low altitudes. This means that 

a tether system failure during flight can 

result in large vehicle ranges for long 

tethers and short vehicle ranges for 

short tethers, because altitude and range 

are proportional. In order to reduce the 

risk to the public during tethered 

launches, the tether length must not be 

too long. An appropriate length is also 

necessary to prevent hazardous events, 

such as the entanglement of the tether 

with launch support structures or other 

facilities. Moreover, an appropriate 

tether length would prevent a controlled 

airspace incursion. 

The FAA assumed that the maximum 

tether length for the average crane or 

forklift tether system would not be 

greater than the crane or forklift height 

because such a tether length could allow 

a launch vehicle to hit the ground and 

possibly explode. The FAA also 

assumed that the tether must be given 

room to stretch, because a 43-foot tether 

attached to a 43-foot high crane could 

allow the launch vehicle to hit the 

ground when the length of the vehicle 

and the elasticity of the tether are taken 

into account. Based on these 

assumptions, the FAA concluded that 

the tether length should be less than 43 

feet. 

The FAA examined past tether waiver 

applications to determine the 

appropriate tether length. The tether 

waiver data showed that the maximum 

tether length operators typically use is 

approximately 32 feet. The FAA would 

use a tether length of 32 feet, which 

provides a margin of 11 feet to account 

for the tether’s elasticity and the length 

of the vehicle, to calculate maximum 

altitude. This length is appropriate and 

reasonable for tethered flights because 

past tethered flights have demonstrated 

that the length allows the vehicle 

sufficient lateral movement for 

operators to conduct tethered activities, 

while limiting the vehicle to low 

altitudes and thereby reducing the risk 

to the public. 

When the average crane or forklift 

height of 43 feet is added to an 

appropriate tether length of 32 feet, the 

result is a maximum potential altitude 

of approximately 75 feet for the tethered 

vehicle. Accordingly, the FAA proposes 

to require that the tether system 

physically constrain the launch vehicle 

within an altitude of 75 feet AGL. This 

altitude does not require operators to 

use 43-foot high cranes or 32-foot long 

tethers; those measurements were only 

used to calculate an appropriate 

maximum altitude for a tethered launch 

that would not require FAA oversight. 

The proposed maximum altitude would 

protect the public by limiting the launch 

vehicle’s range. 

4. No Damage Displayed Before Launch 

(§ 400.2(c)(3)) 

The FAA would require that the 

tether system show no visual 

component damage before each launch. 

This requirement would reduce the risk 

of a tether system failure due to preexisting damage. A visual check of the 

tether system before each launch could 

prevent failure by identifying signs of 

damage such as component fatigue, 

fracture, wear, creep, corrosion, 

yielding, or thermal shock. While the 

initial stages of some of these forms of 

damage may not be visible to the naked 

eye, they may eventually become 

visible. The FAA offers the following 

definitions of these terms as guidance in 

conducting the visual check: 

D Fatigue is the progressive and 

localized structural damage that occurs 

when a material is subjected to cyclic 

loading. Fatigue occurs when a material 

is stressed repeatedly. 

D Fracture is the local separation of 

an object or material into two or more 

pieces under the action of stress. 

D Wear is the erosion of material from 

a solid surface by the action of another 

surface. Wear is related to surface 

interactions and more specifically to the 

removal of material from a surface as a 

result of mechanical action. 

D Creep is the tendency of a solid 

material to move slowly or deform 

permanently under the influence of 

stresses. 

D Corrosion is the disintegration of an 

engineered material into its constituent 

atoms due to chemical reactions with its 

surroundings. 

D Yielding is when a material begins 

to deform plastically; when the yield 

point is passed, some fraction of the 

deformation will be permanent and nonreversible. 

D Thermal shock is cracking as a 

result of rapid temperature change. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10The definitions of NEW and explosive 

equivalent weight are provided in 14 CFR 420.5. 

11Explosive Siting Requirements, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 76 FR 8923 (Feb. 16, 2011). 

12See DOD Ammunition and Explosive Safety 

standards, DoD 6055.9–STD, October 5, 2004, Table 

C9.T2. 

13 Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board 

Technical Paper 16, rev. 2, Methodologies for 

Calculating Primary Fragment Characteristics 

(2005). 

14For NEW of 0.5 pounds or less, the Department 

of Defense has chosen to use a distance of 236 feet. 

Because this rule proposes a cap of 5,000 pounds 

of propellant, the table accounts for up to the 

resulting maximum NEW of 1,000 pounds. 

15Explosive Siting Requirements, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 76 FR 8923 (Feb. 16, 2011). 

5. Protection From Launch Vehicle 

Exhaust Plume 

The FAA would require an operator to 

insulate or locate the tether system such 

that it will not experience thermal 

damage due to a launch vehicle’s 

exhaust. This requirement would 

mitigate the risk of a tether system 

failure due to thermal damage. 

Components exposed to the heat 

emitted from a launch vehicle’s exhaust 

plume may be damaged or severely 

weakened. Metallic components, for 

example, that are exposed to a vehicle’s 

exhaust plume may not visually show 

damage; however, all structural 

materials suffer significant strength 

degradation at elevated temperatures. 

D. Proposed Separation Distances 

(§ 400.2(c)(3)) 

The FAA proposes that tethered 

launches be conducted at a sufficient 

distance from the public and from 

property belonging to members of the 

public to mitigate the effects when a 

launch vehicle unintentionally 

separates from the tether system. A 

launch vehicle may transfer 

unanticipated loads into the tether 

system, resulting in tether system failure 

and vehicle separation. Although a 

properly designed and constructed 

tether system should not fail, adding 

distance between the launch point and 

members of the public is a prudent and 

relatively simple and inexpensive safety 

measure to implement. 

The FAA computed its proposed 

separation distances by first calculating 

a conservative maximum range of a 

vehicle that broke free of the tether 

system, and then calculating the 

hazardous fragment distance from the 

point of impact based on the type and 

amount of propellants onboard. Table 

A—Separation Distances for Tethered 

Launches in proposed § 400.2 would 

contain the separation distances 

required for a tethered launch that was 

excluded from chapter III. Each distance 

calculation in Table A is discussed 

below. 

1. The Maximum Range of the Vehicle 

Released From the Tether 

To determine a launch vehicle’s 

maximum range, the FAA used 

Newton’s equations of motion to 

estimate the maximum possible distance 

a vehicle that broke free of a tether 

could travel. The FAA simulated the 

scenarios where a tether system failed, 

and the vehicle followed a ballistic 

trajectory to the ground. The analysis 

consisted of the following assumptions: 

(1) The vehicle would be nonpropulsive upon release; (2) the initial 

release velocity of the vehicle was 

maximized; (3) the tether’s pull would 

not reduce the vehicle’s velocity; (4) the 

tether would fully extend upon release; 

(5) the release angle of the vehicle 

would be the angle that provided the 

maximum range; and (6) the vehicle 

would fly through a vacuum. Except for 

the non-propulsive nature of the 

vehicle, all assumptions are 

conservative from a public safety 

perspective. The non-propulsive 

assumption is reasonable because a 

vehicle that broke free of a tether would 

most likely be unstable and not able to 

sustain flight in any particular direction. 

The FAA also conducted a computer 

simulation of the same scenarios, using 

a trajectory analysis tool to verify the 

validity of the FAA’s maximum range 

calculations. The numerical results from 

the computer simulation were 

consistent with the results from the 

FAA’s computational analysis. 

2. The Hazardous Fragment Distance 

Based on the Propellant Onboard 

Upon impact at its maximum range, a 

launch vehicle with liquid propellants 

has the potential to explode, creating 

both overpressure and debris hazards. 

Explosive hazards associated with 

propellant quantities up to 5,000 

pounds are driven by fragment hazards. 

The FAA used the formulas provided in 

Table 1 below to determine the 

hazardous fragment distance given a 

launch vehicle impact. This distance is 

a function of the net explosive weight 

(NEW), or the explosive equivalent of 

the propellants used on the launch 

vehicle.10 Depending on the type of 

propellant, the explosive equivalent 

may vary from 10 to 20 percent, in 

accordance with Table E–2 of part 

420.11 For purposes of this rulemaking, 

the FAA applied a maximum NEW 

value of 20 percent for all propellant 

types. Using this conservative 

assumption simplifies the proposed 

rule. 

TABLE 1—HAZARDOUS FRAGMENT

DISTANCE 12

Net Explosive Weight 

(NEW) 

Hazardous fragment 

distance (d), feet 

≤0.5 pounds .............. d = 236 

0.5 pounds<NEW 

<100 pounds.

d = 291.3 + [79.2 

*ln(NEW)] 

100 pounds ≤ NEW 

≤1000 pounds.

d = ¥1133.9 + [389 

*ln(NEW)] 

NEW is in pounds; d is in feet; ln is natural 

logarithm. 

The hazardous fragment distance and 

NEW relationship of Table 1 is based on 

data obtained from Department of 

Defense Explosive Safety Board 

Technical Paper 16.13 Table 1 provides 

the formulas for NEW of less than 100 

pounds and for quantities between 100 

and 1,000 pounds.14 The Department of 

Defense Explosive Safety Board 

conducted tests that accounted for 

hazardous debris fragments based on a 

fragment that would cause a fatality, 

namely, one with a kinetic energy at 

impact of 58 foot-pounds. The 

hazardous fragment distance is the 

distance that a person approximately 6 

feet tall and 1 foot wide would have a 

1 percent probability of being struck by 

a fragment with a kinetic energy of 58 

foot-pounds or greater, given an 

explosive event at a given NEW.15

Because the Department of Defense, 

NASA, and the FAA have consistently 

applied the same standard, the 

hazardous fragment distance formulas 

provided in Table 1 provide an accepted 

level of safety to the general public. 

3. Table A—Separation Distances for 

Tethered Launches 

The FAA added the maximum impact 

range and the hazardous fragment 

distance results to calculate the total 

separation distance in proposed Table 

A. Proposed Table A would represent 

the distance from the launch point at 

which people and property belonging to 

the public would be safe from a launch 

vehicle mishap. This separation 

distance would be proportional to the 

amount of propellant on board the 

launch vehicle. That is, the greater the 

propellant on board, the greater the 

required separation distance. Distances 

would start at a value corresponding to 

a propellant load between 1 and 500 

pounds and increase in increments of 

500 pounds up to a maximum of 4,501 

to 5,000 pounds. Note that the FAA’s 

proposed separation distances would 

only be effective if the launch vehicle— 

D Was operated within an altitude of 

75 feet AGL; 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50961 

16Launches of amateur rockets are excluded from 

the requirements of chapter III. See 14 CFR 400.2 

(2011). 

17Operators launching amateur rockets on a 

tether would still be subject to part 101 and would 

continue to be excluded from chapter III. 

D Carried no more than 5,000 pounds 

of propellant; and 

D Had a liquid or hybrid engine. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed rule does not warrant a full 

evaluation, this order permits a 

statement to that effect and the basis for 

it to be included in the preamble if a full 

regulatory evaluation of the cost and 

benefits is not prepared. Such a 

determination has been made for this 

proposed rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

Currently, the FAA has licensing 

authority over tethered launches, which 

are considered launches under chapter 

III unless they meet the definition of an 

amateur rocket launch.16 To conduct 

such tethered non-amateur rocket 

launches, operators must obtain a 

launch license, permit or apply for a 

waiver from chapter III. Applying for 

waivers, licenses and permits impose a 

financial burden on vehicle operators 

and the FAA because of time and 

resources required to create and analyze 

these applications. 

The proposed rule establishes clear 

and simple criteria for an effective 

tether system. In addition, it proposes 

vehicle and operational criteria as 

added measures to protect the public in 

the event of a tether system failure. 

Operators would not have to apply for 

a launch license, permit or waiver from 

chapter III to conduct tethered launches 

of non-amateur rockets 17 that meet the 

proposed criteria for an effective tether 

system and the vehicle and operational 

criteria. Operators who meet the 

proposed criteria would not have to 

incur the costs of applying for a launch 

license, permit or waiver and would not 

have to sustain the costs associated with 

delay in the processing of these 

applications. The FAA would not have 

to conduct case-by-case analyses of 

tethered launches that meet the 

proposed criteria to verify public safety 

from a launch vehicle explosion or 

confirm that the tether system would 

not fail. Furthermore, launch operators 

that conduct tethered launches would 

not be compelled to follow the criteria 

in this proposal as they would still have 

the option of applying for a launch 

license, permit or waiver under chapter 

III. Therefore, the proposed rule 

imposes no additional requirements on 

operators, but provides an alternative to 

conducting a tethered launch under 

chapter III. If the operator deemed it 

more cost effective to apply for a 

license, permit or waiver than to follow 

the criteria proposed here, the operator 

would have that option. 

For the reasons discussed, the rule 

would be cost relieving to both 

operators and the FAA. The FAA 

requests comments with supporting 

justification about the agency’s 

determination of minimal impact. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

This proposed rule is expected to 

provide an alternative to conducting 

tethered launches under chapter III and 

therefore could alleviate the financial 

burden on operators who conduct 

tethered launches of applying for a 

launch license, permit or waiver to 

chapter III if they follow the 

requirements established in the 

proposal. The expected outcome would 

therefore have either a cost saving 

impact or no impact on small entities 

affected by the proposed rule. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies this 

proposed rule, if promulgated, would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FAA solicits comments 

regarding this determination. 

Specifically, the FAA requests 

comments on whether the proposed rule 

creates any compliance costs unique to 

small entities. Please provide detailed 

supporting information. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, establishing 

standards is not considered an 

unnecessary obstacle to the foreign 

commerce of the United States, so long 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it would have only 

a domestic impact and therefore no 

effect on international trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 

See the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ 

discussion in the ‘‘Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses’’ section elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s web page at http:// 

www.fdsys.gov. Copies may also be 

obtained by sending a request to the 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–9680. Commenters must 

identify the docket or notice number of 

this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 400 

Space transportation and exploration; 

licensing. 

14 CFR Part 401 

Space transportation and exploration. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter III of Title 

14 Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 400—BASIS AND SCOPE 

1. The authority citation for part 400 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923. 

2. Revise § 400.2 to read as follows: 

§ 400.2 Scope. 

These regulations set forth the 

procedures and requirements applicable 

to the authorization and supervision 

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

of commercial space transportation 

activities conducted in the United States 

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

this chapter do not apply to— 

(a) Space activities carried out by the 

United States Government on behalf of 

the United States government; 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50963 

(b) The launch of an amateur rocket 

as defined in § 1.1 of chapter I; or 

(c) A launch that meets the following 

criteria: 

(1) Launch vehicle. The launch 

vehicle must— 

(i) Be unmanned; 

(ii) Be powered by a liquid or hybrid 

rocket motor; and 

(iii) Carry no more than 5,000 pounds 

of propellant. 

(2) Tether system. The tether system 

must— 

(i) Have established strength 

properties that will not yield or fail 

under— 

(A) The maximum dynamic load on 

the system; or 

(B) A load equivalent to two times the 

maximum potential engine thrust. 

(ii) Have a minimum safety factor of 

3.0 for yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate 

stress. 

(iii) Constrain the launch vehicle 

within 75 feet above ground level. 

(iv) Display no damage prior to the 

launch. 

(v) Be insulated or located such that 

it will not experience thermal damage 

due to the launch vehicle’s exhaust. 

(3) Separation distances. The launch 

operator must separate its launch from 

the public and the property of the 

public by a distance no less than that 

provided for each quantity of propellant 

listed in Table A of this section. 

TABLE A—SEPARATION DISTANCES

FOR TETHERED LAUNCHES

Propellant carried (lbs) 

Distance (ft) 

from the 

launch point 

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

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

1,001–1,500 .......................... 1,350 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART 401—ORGANIZATION AND 

DEFINITIONS 

3. The authority citation for part 401 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 51 U.S.C. 50101–50923. 

4. Amend § 401.5 by adding the 

definition of tether system in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 401.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Tether system means a device that 

contains launch vehicle hazards by 

physically constraining a launch vehicle 

in flight to a specified range from its 

launch point. A tether system includes 

all components, from the point of 

attachment to the vehicle to a solid base, 

that experience load during a tethered 

launch. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 16, 

2012. 

George C. Nield, 

Associate Administrator, Commercial Space 

Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20686 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

19 CFR Part 351 

RIN 0625–AA91 

Modification of Regulations Regarding 

the Definition of Factual Information 

and Time Limits for Submission of 

Factual Information 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On July 10, 2012, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published a proposed rule 

in the Federal Register requesting 

comments regarding a proposed 

modification to the definition of factual 

information and to the time limits for 

the submission of factual information in 

antidumping (AD) and countervailing 

duty (CVD) proceedings. The 

Department has decided to extend the 

comment period, making the new 

deadline for the submission of public 

comment September 24, 2012. 

DATES: To be assured of consideration, 

comments must be received no later 

than September 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: All comments must be 

submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. ITA– 

2012–0004, unless the commenter does 

not have access to the internet. 

Commenters who do not have access to 

the internet may submit the original and 

two copies of each set of comments by 

mail or hand delivery/courier. All 

comments should be addressed to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Room 1870, 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The comments 

should also be identified by Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) 0625–AA91. 

The Department will consider all 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period. The Department 

will not accept comments accompanied 

by a request that part or all of the 

material be treated confidentially 

because of its business proprietary 

nature or for any other reason. All 

comments responding to this notice will 

be a matter of public record and will be 

available for inspection at Import 

Administration’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover 

Building) and online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and on the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/. 

Any questions concerning file 

formatting, document conversion, 

access on the internet, or other 

electronic filing issues should be 

addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import 

Administration Webmaster, at (202) 

482–0866, email address: webmastersupport@ita.doc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanna Theiss at (202) 482–5052 or 

Charles Vannatta at (202) 482–4036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

10, 2012, the Department published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

requesting comments regarding a 

proposed modification to the definition 

of factual information and to the time 

limits for the submission of factual 

information in AD and CVD 

proceedings. See Modification of 

Regulations Regarding the Definition of 

Factual Information and Time Limits for 

Submission of Factual Information, 77 

FR 40534 (July 10, 2012). That notice 

indicated that public comments are due 

on August 24, 2012. On August 14, 

2012, the Committee to Support U.S. 

Trade Laws requested that the 

Department extend this deadline. In 

response to this request, and to ensure 

parties have the opportunity to prepare 

thorough and comprehensive 

comments, the Department is extending 

the deadline for submitting comments 

by thirty days, until September 24, 

2012. Comments received after the end 

of the comment period will be 

considered, if possible, but their 

consideration cannot be assured. 

Dated: August 16, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20785 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS