[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24217]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 3, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 101
Model Rocket Operations; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. 26965; Amendment No. 101-6]
RIN 2120-AD84
Model Rocket Operations
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the operational guidelines of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 101 for model rockets that: use not
more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant; are made of paper,
wood, or breakable plastic; contain no substantial metal parts; and
weigh not more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces). This amendment is
necessary to provide for the operation of the technologically advanced,
larger category, model rockets and to ensure that their operation is in
concert with the maximum level of safety protection for aircraft,
flight crews, and the flying public. The FAA believes that this
amendment will foster important aeronautical education and research
activities, while retaining appropriate operational safety precautions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph C. White, Air Traffic Rules
Branch, ATP-230, Airspace Rules and Aeronautical Information Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 28, 1985, the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) and the
Hobby Industry Association (HIA) filed a joint petition requesting that
the FAA amend 14 CFR 101.1, by raising the upper weight limit on
excepted model rockets from 16 ounces to 1,500 grams (approximately 53
ounces) and the allowable propellant mass from 4 ounces to 125 grams
(approximately 4.4 ounces). At present, 14 CFR 101.1 exempts ``model''
rockets having no more than 4.0 ounces of propellant and weighing no
more than 16 ounces, including the propellent.
In response to the NAR/HIA joint petition, the FAA published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice 92-12, 57 FR 41628, Sep.
10, 1992. Notice 92-12 proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 101 by adding
Sec. 101.22, Special provisions for larger model rockets, and by
amending Sec. 101.25, Notice requirements, to accommodate larger model
rockets. In summary, model rockets that use not more than 125 grams of
propellant; that weigh not more than 1,500 grams, including the
propellant; that are constructed principally of paper, wood, or
breakable plastic, and continue to have no substantial metal parts; may
be operated in a controlled airspace, within 5 miles of the boundary of
any airport, within 1,500 feet of any person or property that is not
associated with the operations or at night. These operations may be
conducted, provided that persons operating these model rockets give
prior notification of launch activities and other pertinent launch
information to the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility nearest the
place of intended operation between 24 and 48 hours prior to beginning
the operation and the manager of any airport whose landing area or
runway is within 5 miles of the model rocket launch site.
Analysis of Comments
Interested persons were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written data, views, or arguments. All comments
received during the comment period were considered before making a
determination regarding this final rule.
During the comment period, a total of 117 comments were received in
response to Notice 92-12. Two comments were received from the NAR, and
one comment each, from the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), the
Arizona Pilots Association, the Airport Transport Association (ATA),
and the National Fire Protection Association. Ninety-one comments were
received from individuals, eight from pilots, six from model rocket
associations, three from teachers/professional educators, and one each
from a scientist, an aerospace educational organization, and a model
rocket manufacturer. A discussion of these comments follows:
One commenter supports the NPRM as written. All other commenters
oppose the NPRM and support, instead, either the original NAR petition
or the development of regulatory action which proposes fewer model
rocket notification requirements. Comments opposing the NPRM are
summarized in the following categories, each of which is subsequently
discussed more fully:
1. Approximately 95 commenters state there is no need for a
separate category of ``Large Model Rockets''; they favor adoption of
NAR's original petition for rulemaking.
2. Approximately 74 commenters believe the NPRM's proposed
notification requirements are burdensome and unnecessary.
3. Approximately 8 commenters state the FAA needs to update its
rules to reflect the current technology of model rocketry and to
promote the inherent educational value of the hobby.
4. Approximately 3 commenters oppose both the NPRM and NAR's
original petition for rulemaking.
5. Approximately 4 commenters suggest regulatory alternatives to
the NPRM.
A number of commenters oppose the proposal to establish a separate
category of ``Large Model Rockets'' and instead support the NAR's
original petition to broaden the exempt definition of model rockets.
Based upon NAR and FAA studies, commenters argue that air traffic will
not be adversely affected by the NAR's requested increase in the
maximum, unregulated model rocket liftoff and propellant weight. The
NAR reiterates that, ``not a single documented incident of model
rockets interfering with aviation, hitting or harming aircraft on
ascent or descent of the rocket, or impairing aircraft flight
operations has occurred''. Commenters attribute this enviable safety
record to rocketeers' voluntary compliance with the Model Rocket Safety
Code. Accordingly, they consider the code and a rocketeer's own visual
and aural check as sufficient launch safety measures. Moreover, several
commenters assert that increasing model rocket weight may actually
improve model rocket safety as heavier rockets are purported to have
larger drag coefficients, achieve lower altitudes, have shorter flight
duration, and be more easily seen by aircraft than lighter rockets.
The FAA agrees that the model rocket industry has a long and
distinguished record of safety. However, as noted in Notice 92-12, the
FAA must acknowledge the remote, yet inherent increase in hazard
potential that accompanies greater model rocket propellant/mass weight.
This consideration is particularly relevant for general aviation
aircraft and rotorcraft, which operate at a lower velocity and flight
altitude, making them especially vulnerable to collision with larger,
more powerful model rockets. In order to provide a maximum level of
safety protection to aircraft passengers and crew members, the FAA has
determined that operational safeguards, beyond the Model Rocket Safety
Code and rocketeers' own diligence, are needed for larger rockets with
greater propellant/mass weight. Therefore, a regulatory category that
segregates larger rockets from smaller rockets is required.
A number of commenters believe that the proposed notification
requirements for ``Large Model Rocket'' launches are unnecessary and
burdensome. Commenters argue that the FAA has cited ``no cases where
notification would have increased air safety above and beyond . . .
current regulations which require no notification.'' Several commenters
also mention the potential for conflict to occur between lawful
rocketeers and airport/ATC officials who are unfamiliar with model
rocketry and with 14 CFR Part 101 entitlement. Two commenters detail
occasions where misinformation was believed to have resulted in the
denial of waiver applications or the interruption of model rocket
launch competitions. Commenters are equally troubled by the requirement
to notify air traffic officials within 24 to 48 hours of ``Large Model
Rocket'' launches, regardless of where these launches occur.
The proposed notification requirements assist the FAA and airport
officials in determining how model rocket launch activities may affect
flight operations in a given area. The proposed requirements are not
intended to hinder or minimize model rocket activity, but merely to
ensure that airspace is mutually accommodating of both model rocket
operations and aircraft operations. To this end, FAA or airport
officials review model rocket launch information and make it available
to pilots, as necessary, via air traffic control or through Notice to
Airmen (NOTAM) publications. NOTAMs highlight events that may result in
airspace restrictions and give time frames in which restrictions will
be in effect. Review of NOTAMs offers pilots an opportunity to adjust
or reschedule their flight plans in light of planned aerial activity.
Because a pilot's awareness of model rocket launches enhances this
safety process, the proposed notification requirements are beneficial.
Additionally, to facilitate disclosure of requested model rocket launch
data, the NPRM proposed a decrease in the amount and specificity of
information currently required from rocketeers. For example, when there
are multiple participants at a single event, rather than give names and
addresses for every rocketeer, a single person may be designated as the
event launch coordinator for the operation. Similarly, rather than
provide the specific number, size, weight, and maximum altitude of each
rocket to be launched, the appropriate individual may estimate the
information. The FAA further concludes that the current level of safety
will not be decreased by utilizing the less restrictive reporting
requirements as proposed in the NPRM when a single name and address of
the person provided is that of the event launch coordinator, and this
person is the one who has provided the other required launch data
estimates for that event.
Several commenters recommend that notification of the airport
manager or FAA tower facility be required only when large model rockets
will be launched into controlled airspace or within 5 miles of an
airport.
The current prohibition against operating such model rockets in
controlled airspace, within 5 miles of an airport, within 1,500 feet of
any non-participant, or between sunset and sunrise, will not apply
provided the person operating the model rocket complies with the
proposed modified provisions of Sec. 101.25. The intent of the notice
requirement is not to exclude or hinder model rocket operations, but to
provide notification of such operations to afford an adequate level of
safety for person and property in the air, as well as on the ground.
Commenters maintain that the notice requirement is unrealistic for
several reasons: Model rocket launch times are inherently unpredictable
as they are dependent upon favorable cloud cover and weather
conditions; many impromptu launches occur at model rocket meets, making
it difficult to give prior disclosure of the total number of
participants and other launch information; the notification process may
prove too complex for novice or youthful rocketeers; and, the
notification process is likely to be cost intensive to the FAA, as the
agency will be forced to process a presumably high number of waiver
applications.
The FAA disagrees that the notification process may prove too
complex for novice or youthful rocketeers. Through voluntary compliance
with the Model Rocket Safety Code, model rocketeers of all ages have
proven a ready aptitude and willingness for ensuring launch safety and
have demonstrated an awareness of how to knowledgeably operate
scientific equipment. The effective handling of these important
responsibilities is believed to be an accurate indicator of rocketeers'
ability to adhere to the proposed notification requirements. The FAA
acknowledges that the agency will incur costs in receiving, recording,
and evaluating notification information; but, the agency determines
these costs to be minor.
Several commenters believe the FAA needs to update 14 CFR Part 101
to reflect the current technology of model rocketry and to promote the
inherent educational value of the hobby. According to the NAR, original
model rocket limitations were set in light of what was the only
foreseeable type of model rocket propellant at the time, black powder.
Over the years, new propellant technologies have emerged that are
vastly superior to black powder, both in terms of specific impulse and
a capability to accommodate more complex payloads, e.g. cameras, radio
control receivers, and computer equipment. One commenter mentions that
it is difficult to construct these payloads while remaining within the
present 16 ounce total weight limitation. Most commenters agree that
the more diverse payloads available with larger-sized rockets present
unique opportunities for promoting scientific study. Teachers and
rocketry clubs report using larger rockets as educational aids. Science
professionals use them in collecting data and conducting analysis.
These groups believe their efforts help the United States remain
academically and technologically competitive. As such, they assert that
the FAA's proposed restrictions on large model rockets are
counterproductive to scientific achievement and overall growth of the
model rocket industry.
Three major factors form the basis of the proposed amendment: (1)
The FAA's support in fostering public interest in aeronautics through
model rocketry; (2) the agency's recognition of the importance for
model rocketeers to utilize state-of-the-art technology to enhance
educational value and international competitiveness; and (3) the
agency's responsibility to ensure aircraft flight safety. Accordingly,
the proposed amendment reflects the FAA's desire to support the
advancement of model rocketry while maintaining an assurance that
larger and faster rockets do not jeopardize the safety of aircraft in
flight.
Several commenters oppose both the NPRM and NAR's original
petition. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Air Transport
Association (ATA) believe that the larger and more powerful rockets
pose a potential threat to air traffic safety. Both organizations
underscore the point that larger model rockets are capable of achieving
aircraft cruising altitudes. In this regard, ALPA believes collision
with a model rocket can cause aircraft damage beyond that ``comparable
to the impact of large hailstones'' and that penetration of the
aircraft wing skin is likely. For this reason, ALPA believes that the
current provisions of 14 CFR Part 101 best ensure safety and recommends
that the notification requirements be applied to any rocket firing
surpassing 1500 feet above ground level (AGL), regardless of airport
proximity. Additionally, ALPA recommends that a safety officer should
visually survey rocket firings in controlled areas and manufacturers
should provide a copy of applicable FAA regulations relating to launch
activities. The ATA favors ensuring safety by permitting no unmanned
rockets within a 30-mile radius of regulated airspace.
The FAA acknowledges a minimal risk increase in hazard potential
that accompanies the operation of larger, more powerful rockets. This
minimal risk increase was confirmed by a March 1991 FAA study, Model
Rocketry Hazard Study, conducted as part of the agency's analysis of
in-flight collision probability between aircraft and model rockets. In
concert with the study's final report recommendation, Notice 92-12
proposed certain guidelines for large model rocket launches. These
proposed guidelines, together with rocketeers' proven launch safety
vigilance, effectively lessen the minimal risk increase in hazard
potential associated with heavier model rockets.
One commenter concurs with the safety concerns raised by ATA and
ALPA and alleges that hazardous incidents have occurred with larger
model rockets. This commenter believes that present technology offers
model rockets sufficient propellant capacity so that the FAA should set
a maximum allowable rocket weight of 3 pounds and hold propellant mass
to a maximum 62.5 grams. To further ensure safety, this commenter
recommends that the FAA establish clear, defined limits for model
rocket construction material. The commenter contends that ``hi-tech''
paper and plastic are being used to construct more durable rockets than
14 CFR 101 intends.
No data was provided by the commenter to support the allegation,
and the FAA has no other data which substantiates any occurrence of
hazardous instances with larger model rockets. The FAA shares the
viewpoint that model rockets only be constructed of paper and other
breakable material. To reiterate this agency intent, Notice 92-12
maintains the current language of Sec. 101.1(c), which outlines
appropriate material for model rocket construction. However, to issue
explicit direction on the manufacture of model rockets, which appears
to be the commenter's suggestion, goes beyond the FAA's regulatory
purview.
Several commenters asked that the FAA create a uniform set of
regulations pertaining specifically to model rockets weighing greater
than 53 ounces launch weight.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' suggestions and concerns.
However, since Notice 92-12 conveyed only those proposals contained in
the original NAR petition. Recommendations to create an additional set
of uniform rules specifically for model rockets would be a separate
rulemaking action and is beyond the scope of this particular action.
The NAR and several other commenters assert that an apparent
typographical error in Notice 92-12 incorrectly reports the NAR's
estimate of model rocket launches as 250,000 since the inception of the
sport. Commenters state that the appropriate number, as submitted in
NAR's 1985 study, is 250,000,000.
The FAA has investigated the commenters' assertion and noted that
Notice 92-12 reference was ``250,000 launches of model rockets since
the inception of the sport . . .'' The estimate, as contained in the
NAR report is, ``At the time the NAR's petition was submitted in 1985,
NAR informed the FAA that more than 250,000,000 launches had been
made.'' Because the number of launches of model rockets since the
inception of the sport was not used in any FAA rulemaking calculations,
the correct figure is hereby noted in this document and has no further
bearing on this rulemaking activity.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The FAA has determined that this final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'', as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and benefits associated
with this final rule are summarized below. (A detailed discussion of
costs and benefits is contained in the full evaluation in the docket
for this final rule).
Costs
The final rule for unmanned rockets consists of provisions that
specify what persons operating certain model rockets (rockets using not
more than 125 grams of propellant; made of paper, wood, or breakable
plastic; containing no substantial metal parts, and weighing not more
than 1500 grams including propellant) would be required to do. The
final rule is designed to accommodate the advancement of model rocketry
with regulations that will also provide an adequate level of assurance
that such rockets will not jeopardize the safety of aircraft in flight.
The FAA estimates that the changes in the final rule will have a no
cost impact to users of model rockets. In fact, the changes might
produce a cost savings. The savings associated with these changes,
however are considered negligible and unquantifiable.
Section 101.22(a)(2), however, may impose minor costs on the FAA.
Persons operating model rockets will have to provide the information
required in existing Sec. 101.25 to the manager of that airport and to
the FAA ATC facility that is nearest the place of the intended
operation. The FAA would then incur costs associated with receiving,
recording, and evaluating the material that has been received. The FAA
believes that these costs will be minor.
Benefits
The final rule will provide benefits, in that the FAA has
determined that the final regulations will accommodate the advancement
of model rocketry and simultaneously provide an adequate level of
assurance that such rockets will not jeopardize the safety of aircraft
in flight.
Conclusions
Based upon the fact that there are little or no compliance costs
coupled with the potential benefits, the FAA concludes that the final
rule is cost beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires
agencies to review rules that may have ``a significant cost impact on a
substantial number of small entities.''
With regards to this regulatory evaluation, there is no cost
associated with any of the amendments. The FAA has determined that the
amendments contained herein will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The amendments apply to users of model rockets in the United States
only. There is no economic impact resulting from any of the amendments
and the FAA has determined that these regulations will not have an
impact on international trade.
Federalism Determination
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of part 101 were previously
approved under OMB Control No. 2120-0027. This amendment makes only
minor changes to those requirements.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with the U.S. obligations under the convention on
International Civil Aviation (ICAO), it is FAA policy to comply with
ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent
practicable. The FAA has determined that this regulation complies with
the ICAO SARP.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Assessment, the FAA has determined that this
regulation is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866. This rule is not considered significant under DOT Order
2100.5, Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). In
addition, the FAA certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A
regulatory evaluation of the final rule, including a Regulatory
Flexibility Determination and Trade Impact Assessment, has been placed
in the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the person
identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 101
Aircraft, Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration,
Recreation and recreation areas.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration finds that it would be in the public interest to adopt
the amendment as proposed. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority
delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 101 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 101) as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 101 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1348, 1354, 1372, 1421, 1442, 1443,
1472, 1510, and 1522; E.O. 11514; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).
Subpart C--Unmanned Rockets
2. Section 101.22 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 101.22 Special provisions for large model rockets.
Persons operating model rockets that use not more than 125 grams of
propellant; that are made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic; that
contain no substantial metal parts, and that weigh not more than 1,500
grams, including the propellant, need not comply with Sec. 101.23 (b),
(c), (g), and (h), provided:
(a) That person complies with all provisions of Sec. 101.25; and
(b) The operation is not conducted within 5 miles of an airport
runway or other landing area unless the information required in
Sec. 101.25 is also provided to the manager of that airport.
3. Section 101.25 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.25 Notice requirements.
No person may operate an unmanned rocket unless that person gives
the following information to the FAA ATC facility nearest to the place
of intended operation no less than 24 hours prior to and no more than
48 hours prior to beginning the operation:
(a) The names and addresses of the operators; except when there are
multiple participants at a single event, the name and address of the
person so designated as the event launch coordinator, whose duties
include coordination of the required launch data estimates and
coordinating the launch event;
(b) The estimated number of rockets to be operated;
(c) The estimated size and the estimated weight of each rocket; and
(d) The estimated highest altitude or flight level to which each
rocket will be operated.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 1994.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-24217 Filed 9-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
