Model Rocket Operations; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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