Proposed Rule2026-20388
Streamlining Flight Safety Analysis Methodology Means of Compliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 5, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Aviation Administration
Abstract
FAA proposes to amend its commercial space launch and reentry licensing regulations to streamline the licensing process. Specifically, FAA proposes to alleviate regulatory burden for license applicants by consolidating information required for an operator's flight safety analysis.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 191 (Monday, October 5, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 191 (Monday, October 5, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63190-63199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20388]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 450
[Docket No.: FAA-2026-9936; Notice No. 26-23]
RIN 2120-AM40
Streamlining Flight Safety Analysis Methodology Means of
Compliance
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FAA proposes to amend its commercial space launch and reentry
licensing regulations to streamline the licensing process.
Specifically, FAA proposes to alleviate regulatory burden for license
applicants by consolidating information required for an operator's
flight safety analysis.
DATES: Send comments on or before November 4, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2026-9936
using any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and
follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
<bullet> Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations; U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 5th
Floor (W58-213), Washington, DC 20590-0001.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W58-213 of the West Building, 5th Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
<bullet> Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to inform its rulemaking process better. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
<a href="http://www.dot.gov/privacy">www.dot.gov/privacy</a>.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W58-213 of
the West Building 5th Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa E. Cacciatore, Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 880-1489;
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b5772687a355e35587a7878727a6f74697e5b7d7a7a357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b1732283a751e75183a3838323a2f34293e1b3d3a3a753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 14335, ``Enabling
Competition in the Commercial Space Industry,'' FAA proposes to amend
its commercial space launch and reentry regulations at 14 CFR part 450
to further streamline the commercial licensing process. Specifically,
FAA proposes to revise requirements for a license applicant's flight
safety analysis (FSA) by
[[Page 63191]]
identifying certain application requirements that can be applied to the
FSA method as a whole, rather than to each individual analysis that
comprises the overarching FSA method. Currently, a license applicant
must address six items listed in Sec. 450.115(c) each time the FSA
regulations at Sec. 450.117 through Sec. 450.139 and the flight abort
regulations at Sec. 450.108 require a description of the methods used
to undertake an analysis. Under the proposed change, three of the items
in Sec. 450.115(c) would be addressed through a single submission,
rather than one submission for each description of methods. The
remaining three requirements would continue to apply to each of the
description of methods but would be condensed into two paragraphs.
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and codified at
51 U.S.C. 50901-50924, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry
activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites within the
United States (U.S.) or as carried out by U.S. citizens. Section 50905
directs the Secretary to exercise this responsibility consistent with
public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security
and foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, section
50903 requires the Secretary to encourage, facilitate, and promote
commercial space launches and reentries by the private sector. As
codified in 49 CFR 1.83(b), the Secretary has delegated authority to
the FAA Administrator to carry out these functions.
III. Background
FAA has established commercial space regulations governing
licensing of launch and reentry in 14 CFR chapter III. On December 10,
2020, FAA issued a final rule consolidating all substantive launch and
reentry licensing regulations into a new part 450 (85 FR 79566) that
went into effect on March 10, 2021.
On August 13, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14335, ``Enabling
Competition in the Commercial Space Industry,'' requiring the Secretary
of Transportation to ``reevaluate, amend, or rescind'' the part 450
regulations for the purpose of further streamlining the commercial
licensing process. This proposed rule is being published in furtherance
of this E.O.
Section 450.101 provides that a vehicle operator may only initiate
launch or reentry of a vehicle if the risks to the public meet the
safety criteria of that section. To demonstrate that these criteria are
satisfied, an operator must perform and document an FSA for all phases
of flight, with limited exceptions (14 CFR 450.113). An FSA is a
quantitative evaluation of the risks to members of the public and
critical assets during flight of a launch or reentry vehicle,
accounting for all reasonably foreseeable events and failures of
safety-critical systems during nominal and non-nominal launch or
reentry operations.
The requirements for FSAs are located in the eleven sections
beginning at Sec. 450.113 and ending at Sec. 450.139. Sections
450.113 and 450.115 set out requirements that apply to the FSA
generally. Sections 450.117 through 450.139, meanwhile, require an
operator to conduct analyses that comprise the FSA.\1\ In this proposed
rule, these analyses required by Sec. Sec. 450.117 through 450.139 are
referred to as ``FSA sub-analyses'' or simply ``sub-analyses'' to
distinguish them from the overarching FSA. Accordingly, Sec. Sec.
450.117 through 450.139 are referred to in this proposed rule as ``FSA
sub-analysis sections'' because they contain requirements for the FSA
sub-analyses.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The first five sections (Sec. Sec. 450.117, 450.119,
450.121, 450.123, and 450.131) require analyses necessary to develop
quantitative input data. The last four sections (Sec. Sec. 450.133,
450.135, 450.137, and 450.139) require an applicant to use the input
data to produce risk analyses, thereby developing the products
necessary to evaluate compliance with the safety criteria in Sec.
450.101.
\2\ An FSA sub-analysis section may require more than one sub-
analysis. For instance, Sec. 450.139 requires an operator to
conduct both a toxic release hazard analysis and a toxic risk
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements in Sec. 450.115(a) and (b) are for the flight
safety analysis method (FSA method), which is the overarching method of
conducting the FSA. The FSA method is comprised of (1) the methods used
to develop the FSA sub-analyses required by Sec. Sec. 450.117 through
450.139 (referred to in this proposed rule as ``FSA sub-analysis
methods'' or simply ``sub-analysis methods''); and (2) methods of
developing flight safety limits under Sec. 450.108 (referred to in
this proposed rule as ``flight safety limits methods''), if
applicable.\3\ Paragraph (a) of Sec. 450.115 identifies the scenarios
an operator must account for using the FSA method. Paragraph (b) of
Sec. 450.115 discusses the level of fidelity required for the FSA
method, with the fundamental principle that the level of fidelity of
the FSA need only be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the
safety criteria of Sec. 450.101, accounting for uncertainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Notably, the development of flight safety limits under Sec.
450.108 is not technically an FSA requirement. Rather, Sec. 450.108
sets out requirements for applicants utilizing flight abort as a
hazard control strategy. Nonetheless, an operator utilizing flight
abort cannot produce an FSA without accounting for flight safety
limits, and the level of fidelity of the FSA method cannot be
assessed without including the methods used to develop flight safety
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the FSA sub-analysis sections requires that an operator
submit a description of the sub-analysis method or methods used to
develop the required sub-analysis or sub-analyses. Similarly, Sec.
450.108(g)(1) requires an operator to submit a description of the
flight safety limits methods. Each of these descriptions must, in turn,
address six items required by Sec. 450.115(c): the scientific
principles and statistical methods used ((c)(1)); all assumptions and
their justifications ((c)(2)); the rationale for the level of fidelity
((c)(3)); evidence for validation and verification ((c)(4)); the extent
to which the benchmark conditions are comparable to the foreseeable
conditions of the intended operations ((c)(5)); and the extent to which
risk mitigations were accounted for in the analyses ((c)(6)).
The goal of requiring this thorough description of FSA sub-analysis
methods and flight safety limits methods is twofold. First, a robust
description is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the fidelity
requirement of Sec. 450.115(b). The level of fidelity of the FSA
method cannot be assessed without an understanding of the methods that
comprise it. Second, the description is necessary to assess compliance
of FSA sub-analysis methods and flight safety limits methods (and
thereby the foundation of FSAs they formulate) with Sec. 450.101(g),
which requires that ``[f]or any analysis used to demonstrate compliance
with [14 CFR 450.101], an operator must use accurate data and
scientific principles and the analysis must be statistically valid.''
In the first seven FSA sub-analysis sections (Sec. Sec. 450.117
through 450.135), the regulations contain an explicit reference to
Sec. 450.115(c), requiring that the descriptions of methods be ``in
accordance with Sec. 450.115(c).'' \4\ The last two FSA sub-analysis
sections (Sec. Sec. 450.137 and 450.139) do not explicitly reference
Sec. 450.115(c). Nonetheless, consistent with the intent expressed in
the final rule preamble,\5\
[[Page 63192]]
FAA has required that applicants address the requirements in Sec.
450.115(c)(1) through (6) in the description of the methods used to
satisfy the requirements in all the FSA sub-analysis sections,
including those in Sec. Sec. 450.137 and 450.139.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Sec. Sec. 450.117(d)(1), 450.119(c)(1) and (2),
450.121(d)(2) and (3), 450.123(c)(1), 450.131(f)(1), and
450.135(c)(1).
\5\ ``There are 11 performance-based sections with FSA
requirements that fall into three groups. The first group,
Sec. Sec. 450.113 and 450.115, provides requirements on the scope
and fidelity of the analyses required by the remaining nine
sections. The second group, which consists of five sections from
Sec. 450.117 through Sec. 450.131, specifies the requirements for
analyses necessary to develop quantitative input data used by the
last four sections. The last group consists of four sections that
specify quantitative risk analyses with products necessary to
evaluate compliance with the safety criteria in Sec. 450.101. All
of the FSA sections must use methods that comply with Sec.
450.101(g) because they are essential to demonstrating compliance
with the safety criteria in Sec. 450.101.'' Streamlined Launch and
Reentry Licensing Requirements, Final Rule (85 FR 79566, 79630).
\6\ Though the introductory text to Sec. 450.115(c) could also
be read to require a description of the overarching FSA method, FAA
has never required an applicant to submit this description because
the descriptions of the sub-analysis methods are sufficient for
evaluating the FSA method as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although requiring all six items under Sec. 450.115(c) for each
description of methods in the FSA sub-analysis sections and Sec.
450.108 has served the purpose of enabling FAA to find compliance with
Sec. Sec. 450.115(b) and 450.101(g), FAA is now proposing a more
efficient approach that could serve this purpose and save significant
time for both applicants and FAA reviewers.
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
FAA proposes to amend Sec. 450.115 such that an applicant would no
longer need to submit the following items for each FSA sub-analysis
method and flight safety limits method: rationale for the level of
fidelity, the extent to which the benchmark conditions are comparable
to the foreseeable conditions of the intended operations, and the
extent to which risk mitigations were accounted for in the analysis.
Rather, those items would only be submitted once for the FSA method as
a whole. To accomplish this, the revised text would divide the
application information between a revised paragraph (c), describing
what is required for each FSA sub-analysis method and flight safety
limits method to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g), and a
new paragraph (d) describing what is required to be submitted for the
FSA method as a whole to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.115(b).
Revised Section 450.115(c)
In revised paragraph (c), FAA would continue to require that
descriptions of FSA sub-analysis methods in Sec. Sec. 450.117 through
450.139 and flight safety limits methods under Sec. 450.108 include
(1) the scientific principles and statistical methods, (2) assumptions
with justifications, and (3) evidence for verification and validation.
Based on past licensing actions, FAA has found that receiving these
items for each sub-analysis method and flight safety limits method is
critical to determining whether the corresponding analysis complies
with Sec. 450.101(g).
The proposed paragraph would revise the introductory text of Sec.
450.115(c) to read: ``(c) Descriptions of methods. Descriptions of
analysis methods required under Sec. 450.108 and Sec. Sec. 450.117
through 450.139 must demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g) by
documenting. . . .'' The revision amends the current text in three
important ways. First, the paragraph would state that descriptions of
FSA sub-analysis methods and flight safety limits methods must
``demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g)'' by documenting the
listed items. Although FAA has always used the items required by
current Sec. 450.115(c)(1), (2), and (4) to demonstrate compliance
with Sec. 450.101(g), the current regulatory text only references
Sec. 450.101(g) in reference to validation and verification. The
proposed revision would clarify that the requirements to provide
scientific principles and statistical methods, assumptions with
justifications, and evidence for verification and validation are all
necessary to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g). FAA
anticipates that this change would provide greater clarity for
applicants and evaluators on what is sufficient documentation to
demonstrate the validity of the analyses.
Second, the proposed introductory text to Sec. 450.115(c) would no
longer frame the paragraph as an application requirement. However, the
change would not mean applicants no longer need to submit the items in
Sec. 450.115(c) as part of their applications. The proposal would
retain application requirements in FSA sub-analysis and flight safety
limits sections requiring descriptions of methods. The proposed update
to Sec. 450.115(c) only modifies what each description must contain.
In other words, to meet an application requirement for a description of
methods in an FSA sub-analysis section or Sec. 450.108, that
description of methods would continue to include the items required by
Sec. 450.115(c).
Finally, proposed Sec. 450.115(c) would add a cross-reference to
the FSA sub-analysis sections (Sec. Sec. 450.117 through 450.139) and
Sec. 450.108 to clarify the paragraph's applicability. Although FAA
has always interpreted Sec. 450.115(c) to apply to Sec. 450.108 and
Sec. Sec. 450.117 through 450.139, consistent with the intent stated
in the final rule preamble, the lack of a single, clear statement about
the paragraph's applicability in the regulations has led to some
confusion among FAA staff and applicants. This is particularly true for
Sec. 450.108, which is not an FSA section, and Sec. Sec. 450.137 and
450.139, which currently do not contain cross-references for the
descriptions of methods to be ``in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c).''
The clarifying change would align with the intent stated in the final
rule preamble: Sec. 450.115(c) applies to required descriptions of
methods in all FSA sub-analysis sections, from Sec. 450.117 to Sec.
450.139, as well as Sec. 450.108.
FAA also proposes to combine current paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)
into one paragraph. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require
descriptions of FSA sub-analysis methods and flight safety limits
methods to document ``[t]he scientific principles and statistical
methods used, with associated assumptions and their justifications.''
Since part 450 became effective, FAA has determined that separating
``the scientific principles and statistical methods used'' (current
paragraph (c)(1)) and ``all assumptions and their justifications''
(current paragraph (c)(2)) results in applicants needing to discuss
these closely intertwined requirements repetitively. By combining the
requirements into one paragraph, applicants would be able to address
these related requirements only once. FAA anticipates that this change
would streamline the application process for applicants and application
review for FAA.
Finally, FAA also proposes to remove a reference to Sec.
450.101(g) currently located in paragraph (c)(4). As discussed earlier
in this section, the proposed introductory language to paragraph (c)
includes a new reference to Sec. 450.101(g) to clarify that scientific
principles and statistical methods, assumptions with justifications,
and evidence for verification and validation are all necessary to
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g). Currently paragraph
(c)(4) also contains a reference to Sec. 450.101(g): ``(4) The
evidence for validation and verification required by Sec. 450.101(g) .
. . .'' To avoid duplicative language, FAA proposes to remove the
reference to Sec. 450.101(g) in proposed paragraph (c)(2), which is
adapted from current paragraph (c)(4). The new paragraph would read:
``(2) The evidence for validation and verification.'' However, the
intent of proposed paragraph (c)(2) would remain unchanged from the
current regulation: an applicant must provide evidence that
verification and validation activities have occurred for the specific
method. Specifically, in accordance with the
[[Page 63193]]
second sentence of Sec. 450.101(g), the applicant must show that the
method has been validated against a valid benchmark, such as a previous
mishap, test, or high fidelity method.
New Section 450.115(d)
In proposed paragraph (d), FAA would set an application requirement
for the FSA method as a whole. Specifically, an applicant would need to
submit: (1) the rationale for the level of fidelity, (2) the extent to
which benchmark conditions are comparable to the foreseeable conditions
of the intended operations, and (3) the extent to which risk
mitigations were accounted for in the FSA. Those items correspond to
current paragraphs (c)(3), (5), and (6).
As discussed previously, the twin goals of current Sec. 450.115(c)
are to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g) and demonstrate
compliance with Sec. 450.115(b). However, the current regulatory
requirement overshoots the mark. Requiring each description of an FSA
sub-analysis method and the description of methods in Sec. 450.108 to
identify items in Sec. 450.101(c)(3), (5), and (6) is not necessary to
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g) and is an inefficient
method of demonstrating compliance with Sec. 450.115(b). FAA only
needs to review these items once, for the FSA method as a whole, to
determine that the FSA method has a level of fidelity sufficient to
meet Sec. 450.115(b). As such, proposed paragraph (d) would only
require submittal of these items once and only as they pertain to the
FSA method as a whole. The remainder of this section discusses each of
these items in more detail.
First, the current requirement at paragraph (c)(3), to provide a
``rationale for the level of fidelity'' for each FSA sub-analysis
method and each flight safety limit method is inefficient, given that
FAA's determination on the acceptable level of fidelity for these
methods depends in part on an evaluation of how well those fit together
to support the overall level of fidelity of the FSA method. Therefore,
a description of the rationale for the level of fidelity of the FSA
method as a whole offers a more efficient and effective approach to
explaining how the level of fidelity selected for each of the FSA sub-
analysis methods and each of the flight safety limits methods supports
the overall level of fidelity of the FSA method as a whole required by
Sec. 450.115(b).
Likewise, FAA has found that, with respect to the current
requirement at paragraph (c)(5), it is often inefficient to evaluate
the extent to which each benchmark used to validate an individual sub-
analysis method or flight safety limits method compares to the
foreseeable conditions of the intended operations. The purpose of the
comparison is to identify sources of uncertainty so that they are
accounted for in accordance with Sec. 450.115(b), including
uncertainty arising when a model is applied outside the regime in which
it has been validated. However, in many instances, a detailed
comparison of the specific validation benchmarks to the foreseeable
conditions of the intended operation provides limited value where the
findings would not meaningfully affect the level of fidelity of the FSA
method. For instance, while a comparison of benchmarks used to validate
an individual method with foreseeable conditions of the operation may
show that the method is subject to uncertainty, there nonetheless may
be high confidence that the results of the method are conservative and
therefore not influential to the fidelity of the FSA method.
The proposed change would eliminate this exercise in favor of a
more balanced approach. Instead of requiring an applicant to compare
every benchmark to the foreseeable conditions of the intended
operations, the proposed rule would require an operator to make the
comparison only for benchmarks for which significant uncertainty would
impact the fidelity of the FSA method. This approach achieves the goal
of reducing workload for applicants while still enabling FAA to
evaluate whether the FSA method produces valid results.
Lastly, requiring a description of risk mitigations for each FSA
sub-analysis method and flight safety limits method, as currently
required by paragraph (c)(6), is duplicative, given that risk
mitigations (such as flight abort) are often only applicable to the FSA
method as a whole. Therefore, proposed paragraph (d) would require
submission of the extent to which risk mitigations were accounted for
in the FSA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Whereas the original requirement in paragraph (c)(6)
referred to ``the extent to which risk mitigations were accounted
for in the analyses,'' the proposed paragraph (d)(3) now refers to
``the flight safety analysis'' because the proposed update is
intended to apply to the FSA method as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly to the way in which the revised introductory text to
paragraph (c) would reference Sec. 450.101(g), FAA also proposes to
include a reference to Sec. 450.115(b) in the introductory text of new
paragraph (d). The items required in proposed paragraph (d) are
specifically aimed at demonstrating compliance with Sec. 450.115(b),
and the proposed revision would make that connection explicit. FAA
anticipates that this change would provide clarity for applicants and
evaluators on what constitutes sufficient documentation to meet new
paragraph (d).
Terminology Updates
In addition, FAA proposes to amend several FSA sub-analysis
descriptions of methods requirements \8\ to replace the term
``methodology'' with ``methods.'' Currently, the terminology used in
these sections refers to sub-analysis methods as both ``methods'' and
``methodology.'' For instance, Sec. 450.117(d)(1) requires an
applicant to submit ``a description of the methods,'' but Sec.
450.119(c)(1) and (2) require an applicant to submit ``a description of
the methodology.'' The terms are currently treated as synonymous (a
methodology is a system of methods used in a particular area of study
or activity). However, the proposed rule would amend FSA sub-analysis
sections using the term ``methodology'' to instead refer to ``methods''
in order to match the terminology used in proposed Sec. 450.115(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See proposed Sec. Sec. 450.119(c)(1) and (2),
450.133(e)(1), and 450.139(f)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions to Sections 450.137 and 450.139
The proposed rule would revise descriptions of methods requirements
in Sec. Sec. 450.137 and 450.139 to include the phrase ``in accordance
with Sec. 450.115(c).'' As discussed previously, FAA has consistently
interpreted Sec. 450.115(c) as applying to all descriptions of methods
requirements in FSA sub-analysis sections, regardless of whether the
requirements specifically reference Sec. 450.115(c). However, the lack
of a clear cross-reference to Sec. 450.115(c) in those sections has
caused confusion for both FAA staff and applicants. Therefore, the
proposed text would add the reference to Sec. 450.115(c) in Sec.
450.137(c)(2) through (c)(5) and Sec. 450.139(f)(7) and (f)(8). In
conjunction with the changes to the introductory language of Sec.
450.115(c), FAA anticipates that this change would significantly
clarify the regulatory requirements.
In addition, the proposed rule would revise Sec. 450.139(f)(7)(ii)
and (f)(8) to more clearly state that those paragraphs require a
description of methods. Section 450.139(f)(7) requires an operator to
submit a toxic release hazard analysis. As part of the toxic release
hazard analysis, Sec. 450.139(f)(7)(ii) requires ``the methodology and
representative results of an applicant's
[[Page 63194]]
determination of the worst-case or maximum-credible quantity of any
toxic release that might occur during the flight of a vehicle . . . .''
Although FAA has always interpreted this ``methodology'' requirement as
implicitly requiring a description of the methodology of conducting a
toxic release hazard analysis, the proposed paragraph would make the
requirement explicit by requiring: ``[a] description of the methods
used in the toxic release hazard analysis.'' The proposal would move
the remainder of the existing requirement verbatim into a new
paragraph, Sec. 450.139(f)(7)(iii): ``representative results of an
applicant's determination of the worst-case or maximum-credible
quantity of any toxic release that might occur during the flight of a
vehicle.''
Section 450.139(f)(8) requires a toxic risk assessment. As part of
the toxic risk assessment, Sec. 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(A) requires ``[a]
demonstration that the safety criteria in Sec. 450.101 will be met . .
. .'' Although FAA has interpreted this required ``demonstration'' to
constitute a description of methods used to conduct the toxic risk
assessment, the proposed change would make the requirement explicit by
replacing the current text at paragraph (f)(8)(ii)(A) with ``[a]
description of the methods for conducting the toxic risk assessment, in
accordance with Sec. 450.115(c)'' and redesignating the existing
paragraphs (A) through (D) as paragraphs (B) through (E).
Revision to Section 450.108
FAA has also interpreted Sec. 450.108(g)(1) as requiring an
applicant to submit a description of methods for the development of
flight safety limits in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c). However,
paragraph (g)(1) currently states that the description must be
submitted in accordance with Sec. 450.115 rather than Sec.
450.115(c). The proposed rule would amend this paragraph to update the
reference to ``Sec. 450.115(c).''
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
E.O. 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and E.O. 13563
(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') require agencies to
regulate in the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs,'' and to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on
society.'' The Office of Management and Budget has determined this
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Currently, applicants must address six items in Sec. 450.115(c)
when describing FSA sub-analysis methods and flight safety limits
methods that make up the FSA method. Under the proposed rule, half of
these six application requirements would instead be required for the
overall FSA method, rather than once for each individual method. The
regulatory text amendments are set out in Table 1.
Table 1--Regulatory Text Revisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Current regulatory text Revised regulatory text Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 450.108(g)(1)................. Cross references Corrects the cross- No Impact--correction.
``450.115''. reference to
``450.115'' to
``450.115(c)''.
Sec. 450.115(c).................... ``Application ``Description of Depending on type of
requirements. An methods. Descriptions application as a
applicant must submit of analysis methods modification or new,
a description of the required under Sec. FAA expects cost
flight safety analysis 450.108 and Sec. Sec. savings for both
methodology, including 450.117 through industry and FAA from
identification of:''. 450.139 must this due to reduced
demonstrate compliance labor burden.
with Sec. 450.101(g)
by documenting:''.
Sec. 450.115(c)(1)................. ``The scientific Combined into new Sec. Depending on type of
principles and 450.115(c)(1): application as a
statistical methods ``The scientific modification or new,
used''. principles and FAA expects cost
statistical methods savings for both
used, with associated industry and FAA from
assumptions and their this due to reduced
justifications; and''. labor burden.
Sec. 450.115(c)(2)................. ``All assumptions and Combined into new Sec. Depending on type of
their justifications''. 450.115(c)(1): application as a
``The scientific modification or new,
principles and FAA expects cost
statistical methods savings for both
used, with associated industry and FAA from
assumptions and their this due to reduced
justifications; and''. labor burden.
Sec. 450.115(c)(3)................. ``The rationale for the Changed into new Sec. Depending on type of
level of fidelity;''. 450.115(d)(1). application as a
modification or new,
FAA expects cost
savings for both
industry and FAA from
this due to reduced
labor burden.
Sec. 450.115(c)(4)................. ``The evidence for Changed into new Sec. Depending on type of
validation and 450.115(c)(2). application as a
verification required ``Evidence for modification or new,
by Sec. validation and FAA expects cost
450.101(g);''. verification.''. savings for both
industry and FAA from
this due to reduced
labor burden.
Sec. 450.115(c)(5)................. ``The extent to which Changed into new Sec. Depending on type of
the benchmark 450.115(d)(2): application as a
conditions are ``The extent to which modification or new,
comparable to the the benchmark FAA expects cost
foreseeable conditions conditions are savings for both
of the intended comparable to the industry and FAA from
operations''. foreseeable conditions this due to reduced
of the intended labor burden.
operations; and''.
Sec. 450.115(c)(6)................. ``The extent to which Changed into new Sec. Depending on type of
risk mitigations were 450.115(d)(3): application as a
accounted for in the ``The extent to which modification or new,
analyses.''. risk mitigations were FAA expects cost
accounted for in the savings for both
flight safety industry and FAA from
analysis.''. this due to reduced
labor burden.
[[Page 63195]]
Sec. 450.119(c)(1)................. ``A description of the ``A description of the No Impact--language
methodology used to methods used to added for consistency.
characterize the characterize the
vehicle's flight vehicle's flight
behavior throughout behavior throughout
malfunction flight, in malfunction flight, in
accordance with Sec. accordance with Sec.
450.115(c).''. 450.115(c).''.
Sec. 450.119(c)(2)................. ``A description of the ``A description of the No Impact--language
methodology used to methods used to added for consistency.
determine the limits determine the limits
of a useful mission, of a useful mission,
in accordance with in accordance with
Sec. 450.115(c).''. Sec. 450.115(c).''.
Sec. 450.133(e)(1)................. ``A description of the ``A description of the No Impact--language
methodology to be used methods to be used in added for consistency.
in the flight hazard the flight hazard area
area analysis in analysis, in
accordance with Sec. accordance with Sec.
450.115(c), 450.115(c),
including:''. including:''.
Sec. 450.137(c)(2)................. ``A description of the ``A description of the No Impact--language
methods used to methods used to added for
compute the compute the clarification.
foreseeable explosive foreseeable explosive
yield probability yield probability
pairs, and the pairs, in accordance
complete set of yield- with Sec.
probability pairs, 450.115(c), and the
used as input to the complete set of yield-
far-field overpressure probability pairs,
analysis;''. used as input to the
far-field overpressure
analysis;''.
Sec. 450.137(c)(3)................. ``A description of the ``A description of the No Impact--language
methods used to methods used to added for
compute peak incident compute peak incident clarification.
overpressures as a overpressures as a
function of distance function of distance
from the explosion and from the explosion and
prevailing prevailing
meteorological meteorological
conditions, including conditions, in
sample calculations accordance with Sec.
for a representative 450.115(c), including
range of the sample calculations
foreseeable for a representative
meteorological range of the
conditions, yields, foreseeable
and population center meteorological
locations;''. conditions, yields,
and population center
locations;''.
Sec. 450.137(c)(4)................. ``A description of the ``A description of the No Impact--language
methods used to methods used to added for
compute the compute the clarification.
probability of window probability of window
breakage, including breakage, in
tabular data and accordance with Sec.
graphs for the 450.115(c), including
probability of tabular data and
breakage as a function graphs for the
of the peak incident probability of
overpressure for a breakage as a function
representative range of the peak incident
of window types, overpressure for a
building types, and representative range
yields accounted of window types,
for;''. building types, and
yields accounted
for;''.
Sec. 450.137(c)(5)................. ``A description of the ``A description of the No Impact--language
methods used to methods used to added for
compute the compute the clarification.
probability of probability of
casualty for a casualty for a
representative representative
individual, including individual, in
tabular data and accordance with Sec.
graphs for the 450.115(c), including
probability of tabular data and
casualty, as a graphs for the
function of location probability of
relative to the window casualty, as a
and the peak incident function of location
overpressure for a relative to the window
representative range and the peak incident
of window types, overpressure for a
building types, and representative range
yields accounted of window types,
for;''. building types, and
yields accounted
for;''.
Sec. 450.139(f)(7)(ii)............. ``The methodology and ``A description of the No Impact--language
representative results methods used in the added for
of an applicant's toxic release hazard clarification and
determination of the analysis, in consistency.
worst-case or maximum- accordance with Sec.
credible quantity of 450.115(c); and''.
any toxic release that
might occur during the
flight of a vehicle;''.
Sec. 450.139(f)(7)(iii)............ N/A.................... ``Representative Depending on type of
results of an application as a
applicant's modification or new,
determination of the FAA expects cost
worst-case or maximum- savings for both
credible quantity of industry and FAA from
any toxic release that this due to reduced
might occur during the labor burden.
flight of a vehicle;''.
Sec. 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(A).......... ``A demonstration that Changed into new Sec. Depending on type of
the safety criteria in 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(B). application as a
Sec. 450.101 will be ``A demonstration that modification or new,
met;''. the safety criteria in FAA expects cost
Sec. 450.101 will be savings for both
met;''. industry and FAA from
this due to reduced
labor burden.
[[Page 63196]]
Sec. 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(B).......... ``The population Changed into new Sec. Depending on type of
characteristics in 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(C). application as a
receptor locations ``The population modification or new,
that are identified by characteristics in FAA expects cost
toxic dispersion receptor locations savings for both
modeling as toxic that are identified by industry and FAA from
hazard areas;''. toxic dispersion this due to reduced
modeling as toxic labor burden.
hazard areas;''.
Sec. 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(C).......... ``A description of any Changed into new Sec. Depending on type of
risk mitigations 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(D). application as a
applied in the toxic ``A description of any modification or new,
risk assessment; and''. risk mitigations FAA expects cost
applied in the toxic savings for both
risk assessment; and''. industry and FAA from
this due to reduced
labor burden.
Sec. 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(D).......... ``A description of the Changed into new Sec. Depending on type of
population exposure 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(E). application as a
input data used in ``A description of the modification or new,
accordance with Sec. population exposure FAA expects cost
450.123.''. input data used in savings for both
accordance with Sec. industry and FAA from
450.123.''. this due to reduced
labor burden.
Sec. 450.139(f)(8)(ii)(A).......... N/A.................... ``A description of the No Impact--language
methods for conducting added for
the toxic risk clarification.
assessment, in
accordance with Sec.
450.115(c);''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, for clarification, in Sec. 450.137 and Sec. 450.139,
FAA proposes adding the text ``in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c),''
but this change would have no economic impact. In Sec. 450.108(g), FAA
proposes fixing the cross-reference to ``450.115'' to instead read
``450.115(c),'' but this too would have no economic impact. FAA also
proposes to clarify that Sec. 450.139(f)(7) and (f)(8) require a
description of methods, but this does not depart from current practice
and therefore would have no economic impact. Lastly, for clarification,
the term ``methodology'' would be changed to ``methods'' in Sec. Sec.
450.119, 450.133, and 450.139 for consistent terms that match the
terminology used in proposed Sec. 450.115(c), which would have no
economic impact from the baseline.
FAA anticipates that the proposed rule would result in a
considerable reduction in the cost of compliance for applicants. FAA
does not have enough data to analyze the impact quantitatively;
however, a summary of the time burden of the licensing process is
provided below. FAA is uncertain of the hours for each new application
and for each modification. This uncertainty is driven by two factors.
For new applications, the uncertainty arises because each license
application is different due to the varying types of operations.
Second, for modifications, the uncertainty arises because FAA is unable
to predict in advance which aspect of the license would be modified. As
a result, the time burden differs between new applications and license
modifications, and FAA does not have the ability to analyze the impact
quantitatively.
In addition, while FAA can identify the general labor categories
involved in the FSA, accurately forecasting the proportional allocation
of labor hours among these disciplines carries a high degree of
statistical uncertainty. Furthermore, pursuant to 14 CFR 450.45(b),
operators may elect to utilize the services of a Federal entity.
Exercising this option significantly alters both the anticipated time
burden and the requisite personnel composition for the FSA.
FAA expects between two to five new applications per year. Over the
past five years, there have been 17 new applications. For modification
requests, there have been 179 in the past five years, for an average of
approximately 35 per year. Thus, FAA cannot estimate an average number
of hours per license as it is license-dependent. However, based on
current licenses, for example, for one licensee, there have been six
modifications over one year that resulted in 10,747 hours spent by FAA.
Another license required 13 modifications that resulted in 6,846 hours
spent by FAA. These hours are based on internal FAA data.
Flight safety analysis takes up a significant amount of this time
for industry and FAA. Therefore, FAA expects considerable cost savings
for both industry and FAA from this proposed rulemaking due to reduced
labor burden. Further, FAA requests public comment on these estimates
and the expected savings from this proposed rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612),
agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the
rulemaking on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency
certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. FAA has concluded and
hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore,
an analysis is not included.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, they be the basis for U.S. standards.
FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and
determined that it would not create unnecessary obstacles to the
foreign commerce of the United States.
[[Page 63197]]
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State,
local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs
without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay
those costs. FAA determined the proposed rule would not result in the
expenditure of $193,000,000 or more ($100,000,000 adjusted for
inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross
Domestic Product) by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. FAA has determined 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. FAA has
determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that
correspond to these proposed regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this
notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.). FAA has determined
this proposed rule is categorically excluded pursuant to FAA Order
1050.1G. Categorical exclusions are categories of actions FAA has
determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). In analyzing
the applicability of a categorical exclusion, FAA must also consider
whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the
preparation of an EA or EIS. This rulemaking, which would alleviate
regulatory burden for license applicants by consolidating information
required for an operator's flight safety analysis, is categorically
excluded pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1G, Appendix B, Paragraph B-2.6(f),
which categorically excludes issuance of regulatory documents. FAA does
not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
VI. E.O. Determinations
A. E.O. 13132, Federalism
FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined 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.
B. E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments,\9\ and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian
and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures,\10\ FAA
ensures Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity
to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal
actions that have the potential to affect uniquely or significantly
their respective Tribes. At this point, FAA has not identified any
unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes
resulting from this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 65 FR 67249 (November 6, 2000).
\10\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (January 28, 2004), available at
<a href="http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf">www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. E.O. 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
FAA analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FAA has determined it would not be
a ``significant energy action'' under the E.O. and would not be likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy.
D. E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,
promotes international regulatory cooperation to (1) meet shared
challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental,
and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or (2) prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action
under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 and has
determined this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.
E. E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an
E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
VII. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or views. FAA also invites comments
relating to the economic, environmental, 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 submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
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 rule. Before acting on this proposal, FAA will
consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for
comments. FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
B. Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important you clearly
designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your
submission containing CBI as
[[Page 63198]]
``PROPIN.'' FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of
this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Any
commentary FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will
be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
C. Electronic Access and Filing
A copy of this NPRM, all comments received, any final rule, and all
background material may be viewed online at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> using
the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and
guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also
be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a> and the Government Publishing Office's website
at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. A copy may also be found at FAA's Regulations and
Policies website at <a href="http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies">www.faa.gov/regulations_policies</a>.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
Requesters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) requires FAA to comply
with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance
with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity
with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA
official or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA
on the internet, visit <a href="http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/">www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/</a>.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 450
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Environmental protection,
Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space
transportation and exploration.
The Proposed Amendments
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter III of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 450--LAUNCH AND REENTRY LICENSE REQUIREMENTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 450 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509.
0
2. Revise Sec. 450.108(g)(1) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) A description of the methods used to demonstrate compliance
with paragraph (c) of this section, including descriptions of how each
analysis constraint in paragraph (d) of this section is satisfied, in
accordance with Sec. 450.115(c).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 450.115 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.115 Flight safety analysis methods.
* * * * *
(c) Descriptions of methods. Descriptions of analysis methods
required under Sec. 450.108 and Sec. Sec. 450.117 through 450.139
must demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g) by documenting:
(1) The scientific principles and statistical methods used, with
associated assumptions and their justifications; and
(2) Evidence for validation and verification.
(d) Application requirements. An applicant must demonstrate that
the flight safety analysis method complies with paragraph (b) of this
section by submitting:
(1) The rationale for the level of fidelity;
(2) The extent to which the benchmark conditions are comparable to
the foreseeable conditions of the intended operations; and
(3) The extent to which risk mitigations were accounted for in the
flight safety analysis.
0
4. Amend Sec. 450.119 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 450.119 Trajectory analysis for malfunction flight.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) A description of the methods used to characterize the vehicle's
flight behavior throughout malfunction flight, in accordance with Sec.
450.115(c).
(2) A description of the methods used to determine the limits of a
useful mission, in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c).
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 450.133 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 450.133 Flight hazard area analysis.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) A description of the methods to be used in the flight hazard
area analysis, in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c), including:
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 450.137 by revising paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 450.137 Far-field overpressure blast effects analysis.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A description of the methods used to compute the foreseeable
explosive yield probability pairs, in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c),
and the complete set of yield-probability pairs, used as input to the
far-field overpressure analysis;
(3) A description of the methods used to compute peak incident
overpressures as a function of distance from the explosion and
prevailing meteorological conditions, in accordance with Sec.
450.115(c), including sample calculations for a representative range of
the foreseeable meteorological conditions, yields, and population
center locations;
(4) A description of the methods used to compute the probability of
window breakage, in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c), including tabular
data and graphs for the probability of breakage as a function of the
peak incident overpressure for a representative range of window types,
building types, and yields accounted for;
(5) A description of the methods used to compute the probability of
casualty for a representative individual, in accordance with Sec.
450.115(c), including tabular data and graphs for the probability of
casualty, as a function of location relative to the window and the peak
incident overpressure for a representative range of window types,
building types, and yields accounted for;
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 450.139:
0
a. Revise paragraph (f)(7)(ii);
0
b. Add paragraph (f)(7)(iii);
[[Page 63199]]
0
c. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(8)(ii)(A) through (D) as paragraphs
(f)(8)(ii)(B) through (E); and
0
d. Add new paragraph (f)(8)(ii)(A).
The amendments read as follows:
Sec. 450.139 Toxic hazards for flight.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) A description of the methods used in the toxic release hazard
analysis, in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c); and
(iii) Representative results of an applicant's determination of the
worst-case or maximum-credible quantity of any toxic release that might
occur during the flight of a vehicle;
(8) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) A description of the methods for conducting the toxic risk
assessment, in accordance with Sec. 450.115(c);
* * * * *
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 51
U.S.C. chapter 509 in Washington, DC.
Minh A. Nguyen,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Commercial Space
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2026-20388 Filed 10-2-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 5, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.