Proposed Rule2026-20391
Lightning Hazard Mitigation Burden-Reducing Exception
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 and reduce regulatory burden for license applicants. Specifically, FAA proposes to add an exception for compliance with lightning hazard mitigation requirements for certain licensed launch and reentry operations.
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 63199-63204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20391]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 450
[Docket No.: FAA-2026-9940; Notice No. 26-18]
RIN 2120-AM30
Lightning Hazard Mitigation Burden-Reducing Exception
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 and reduce
regulatory burden for license applicants. Specifically, FAA proposes to
add an exception for compliance with lightning hazard mitigation
requirements for certain licensed launch and reentry operations.
DATES: Send comments on or before November 4, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2026-9940
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#87cbeef4e6a9c2a9c4e6e4e4eee6f3e8f5e2c7e1e6e6a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6eacfd5c788e388e5c7c5c5cfc7d2c9d4c3e6c0c7c788c1c9d0">[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
with the goal of further streamlining the commercial licensing process.
Specifically, FAA proposes to add an exception for compliance with
lightning hazard mitigation requirements in 14 CFR 450.163(a) for
certain licensed launch and reentry operations. Under this proposal, an
operator would not be required to use a mitigation method listed in
Sec. 450.163(a) for descending phases of flight if, once a vehicle
descends to an altitude where lightning is foreseeable, the vehicle's
flight path is clear of members of the public and critical assets.
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 Executive Order 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 executive order.
Lightning hazard mitigation requirements for launch and reentry
license applicants are prescribed in 14 CFR 450.163. Section 450.163(a)
prescribes mitigation methods available to license applicants. Under
paragraph (a)(1), an operator may establish flight commit criteria that
mitigate the potential for a launch or reentry vehicle intercepting or
initiating a direct lightning strike, or encountering a nearby
discharge, by using a means of compliance accepted by the
Administrator. Alternatively, under paragraph (a)(2), an operator can
use a vehicle designed to protect safety-critical systems in the event
of a direct lightning strike or nearby discharge. Simply put, Sec.
450.163(a)(1) mitigates lightning through avoidance, while Sec.
450.163(a)(2) mitigates lightning through hardening. Section 450.163(b)
prescribes corresponding application
[[Page 63200]]
requirements based on the mitigation method selected.
However, during the licensing process, operators have also shown
that a reentry operation can mitigate some lightning hazards through
clearance. In these instances, operators demonstrated an equivalent
level of safety (ELOS) to the lightning mitigation regulation by
showing that the potential impacts of the vehicle, on an unguided
trajectory, were contained to an area clear of the public and critical
assets.
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
To allow more operators to take advantage of the rationale
underlying these ELOS determinations, the proposed rule would add
clearance of a vehicle's flight path to Sec. 450.163 as an exception
to the lightning mitigation requirement. Under a new proposed paragraph
(b), an operator would not be required to use a mitigation method
listed in Sec. 450.163(a) for descending phases of flight if, once a
vehicle descends to an altitude where lightning is foreseeable, the
vehicle's flight path is clear of members of the public and critical
assets. The proposed exception could apply to any licensed launch and
reentry operation that satisfies the relevant criteria, including first
stage returns.
The proposed exception preserves public safety because the hazards
of a lightning strike are mitigated by physical containment and
ensuring the area is clear of public and critical assets. Furthermore,
FAA anticipates that the exception would be a practicable alternative
for applicants because the region where a lightning-caused hazard could
occur is often limited, predictable, and bounded by hazard areas that
must be cleared to meet the safety criteria, in accordance with Sec.
450.133. For instance, a first stage returning to a barge in an area
cleared of the public and critical assets could likely use this
exception for the final phases of flight (i.e., during coast and
landing burn phases). However, even when the region where a lightning-
caused hazard could occur is not otherwise bounded by hazard areas that
must be cleared, the exception would still be available to an applicant
if the applicant can ensure that the region is clear of the public and
critical assets. Continuing with the example of a first stage returning
to a barge, if the region around the barge where the lightning-caused
hazard could occur is only partially bounded by hazard areas that are
otherwise required to be cleared to meet safety criteria, the operator
could still utilize the exception by performing surveillance of the
non-bounded area to ensure that the region is clear of the public and
critical assets. In this way, the applicant can ensure that even in the
event of a lightning strike, public safety is preserved.
The proposed rule would relocate the current application
requirements for lightning mitigation to new paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) and add application requirements for operators utilizing the
exception in new paragraph (c)(3). Under the proposal, an applicant
utilizing the exception would be required to submit (1) a description
of a valid method to determine the limits of the vehicle's flight path;
(2) representative limits of the vehicle's flight path; and (3) a
description of methods used to ensure that the flight path is cleared
of the public and critical assets. The first application requirement--a
description of the method to determine the limits of the flight path at
paragraph (c)(3)(i)--is necessary for FAA to evaluate compliance with
Sec. 450.101(g), which requires that any analysis used to demonstrate
compliance with Sec. 450.101 ``must use accurate data and scientific
principles and the analysis must be statistically valid. The method
must produce results consistent with or more conservative than the
results available from previous mishaps, tests, or other valid
benchmarks, such as higher-fidelity methods.'' As such, proposed
paragraph (c)(3)(i) includes a cross-reference to Sec. 450.101(g) to
help applicants identify this applicable standard when producing the
description. Furthermore, proposed paragraph (c)(3)(i) also requires
this description to identify the scientific principles and statistical
methods used with associated assumptions and their justifications, as
well as evidence for validation and verification. These items are
modeled on the flight safety analysis description of methods
requirements at Sec. 450.115(c)(1), (2), and (4). As with the flight
safety analysis method requirements, which are used by FAA to evaluate
compliance with Sec. 450.101(g) for the analyses that comprise the
flight safety analysis, the items listed at proposed Sec.
450.163(c)(3)(i) are necessary for showing that the analysis
determining the limits of the flight path complies with Sec.
450.101(g).
The second application requirement at paragraph (c)(3)(ii) requires
that the applicant provide representative limits of the flight path.
This means that the applicant must produce limits of the flight path by
conducting an analysis for a representative mission. The analysis must
utilize the method described by the applicant to meet paragraph
(c)(3)(i).
The third application requirement at paragraph (c)(3)(iii) requires
a description of methods used to clear the flight path of the public
and critical assets. The requirement is modeled on a similar
requirement in Sec. 450.110(c)(2) regarding using physical containment
as a hazard control strategy. The representative limits of the flight
path provided under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) would be used to evaluate
whether the operator's methods for clearance are appropriate for
operations under the license.
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. FAA is seeking comments on the following
analysis.
Currently, FAA provides two methods to demonstrate compliance with
lightning hazard mitigation requirements for launch and reentry license
applicants. This proposed rule would offer an exception for descending
phases of flight in certain conditions. Under this proposal, an
operator would not be required to use a mitigation method listed in
Sec. 450.163(a) for descending phases of flight if, once a vehicle
descends to an altitude where lightning is foreseeable, the vehicle's
flight path is clear of members of the public and critical assets.
In practice, when FAA encountered events where the two mitigation
methods could not be demonstrated, the vehicle contained an area clear
of the public and critical assets that satisfied the lightning hazard
mitigation regulation through an ELOS. This proposed rule would create
an exception allowing operators to satisfy the regulation in a similar
manner for certain phases of flight without needing to request an ELOS
determination. While the proposed rule does include new application
requirements for operators utilizing the exception, these application
requirements are not anticipated to increase costs for operators
because a similar set of documentation would be required for an
applicant applying for an ELOS. The
[[Page 63201]]
cost savings analysis below only estimates the administrative savings
gained from no longer submitting an ELOS request; it does not include
the costs of conducting the underlying safety analysis. Therefore, FAA
anticipates that the proposed rule would not increase costs to FAA or
industry and instead would provide small cost savings in the limited
events when this exception is used.
Removing the need for an applicant to request an ELOS determination
and FAA to respond to the request would result in minimal cost savings
per application. Per application, the proposed rule would save $715 for
industry and $3,013 for FAA. This amounts to a total of $3,729 per
application. The calculations for these estimates are shown in the
tables below. In Table 1, the industry and FAA wages are presented at
the base wage rate and with benefits included. FAA assumes three
different types of employee categories conduct an ELOS determination:
aerospace engineer, supervisory engineer, and attorney. These employees
are on the FAA Core Compensation Plan. The aerospace engineer is at a J
band \1\ with a base hourly rate of $95.33, the supervisory engineer
\2\ is at a K band with a base hourly rate of $109.62, and the attorney
\3\ is at a J band with a base hourly rate of $95.33. FAA uses a factor
of 1.3625 for benefits,\4\ which results in the total loaded hourly
wages of $129.88 for the aerospace engineer, $149.35 for the
supervisory engineer, and $129.88 for the attorney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA Engineering Pay Band J with Washington DC locality;
effective Jan. 2026, maximum salary $198,281, available at
<a href="http://www.faa.gov/jobs/working_here/benefits/pay/core_salary_with_conversion.xlsx">www.faa.gov/jobs/working_here/benefits/pay/core_salary_with_conversion.xlsx</a>.
\2\ FAA Engineering Pay Band K with Washington DC locality;
effective Jan. 2026, maximum salary $228,000, available at
<a href="http://www.faa.gov/jobs/working_here/benefits/pay/core_salary_with_conversion.xlsx">www.faa.gov/jobs/working_here/benefits/pay/core_salary_with_conversion.xlsx</a>.
\3\ FAA Specialized (Attorney) Pay Band J with Washington DC
locality; effective Jan. 2026, maximum salary $198,281., available
at <a href="http://www.faa.gov/jobs/working_here/benefits/pay/core_salary_with_conversion.xlsx">www.faa.gov/jobs/working_here/benefits/pay/core_salary_with_conversion.xlsx</a>.
\4\ Update to Civilian Position Full Fringe Benefit Cost Factor,
Federal Pay Raise Assumptions, and Inflation Factors used in OMB
Circular No. A-76, ``Performance of Commercial Activities,'' Office
of Management and Budget, March 11, 2008, available at
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/2008/m08-13.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/2008/m08-13.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For industry, FAA assumes there are two types of employees who will
work on an ELOS determination request: an aerospace engineer and an
office and administrative professional. The base 2024 wage rate of a
private industry worker working full-time as an aerospace engineer is
$67.88 per hour.\5\ When including benefits, the total compensation for
an aerospace engineer is $96.28 per hour.\6\ For the office and
administrative professional, the base wage rate is $32.99 per hour,\7\
and the total compensation is $46.79 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--May 2024,''
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee costs for private industry
workers in Series: 17-2011 Aerospace Engineers, available at
<a href="http://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/000000">data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/000000</a>.
\6\ The total compensation includes Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) compensation data. For 2024, BLS estimates that wages make up
70.5 percent of total compensation while benefits make up 29.5
percent. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--December 2024,
available at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03142025.htm">www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03142025.htm</a>. To
calculate total compensation, FAA multiplies the base wage by a
factor of 1.42 (rounded from 100/70.5). Therefore, the total
compensation for an aerospace engineers is $96.28 per hour ($67.88
per hour x 1.42).
\7\ BLS, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--May 2024,
Industry: Nonscheduled Air Transportation, Office and Administrative
Support Workers, All Other (43-9199), available at <a href="http://data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/481200">data.bls.gov/oes/#/industry/481200</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate FAA cost savings per application, the detailed process
for FAA is listed in Table 2. It entails staff intake of the ELOS
request, staff review of the ELOS request, staff discussion with the
applicant, staff draft of the ELOS approval, ELOS review and approval
by supervisory engineers, ELOS review and approval by an FAA attorney,
and staff correspondence of the ELOS approval. An ELOS determination
will take approximately five FAA staff aerospace engineers, two
supervisory engineers, and one attorney. The number of employees and
hours per employee for each phase of the process are shown in the
table. The total hours per application are 18 hours, with total cost
savings to FAA of $2,416 per application.
Table 1--Wages for FAA and Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly wage with
Employee Hourly wage benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA:
Aerospace Engineer............ $95.33 $129.88
Supervisory Engineer.......... 109.62 149.35
Attorney...................... 95.33 129.88
Industry:
Aerospace Engineer............ 67.88 96.28
Office and Administrative 32.99 46.79
Professional.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--FAA Staff, Hours, Wages, and Cost Savings per Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hours per Cost per
Event employees employee Total hours application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Staff ELOS Intake........................... 1 1 1 $129.88
FAA Staff Review................................ 5 1 5 649.42
FAA Staff--Applicant Discussion................. 5 1 5 649.42
FAA Staff draft ELOS Approval................... 1 1 1 129.88
FAA Supervisory ELOS Approval................... 2 2 4 597.40
FAA Attorney ELOS Approval...................... 1 1 1 129.88
FAA Staff sends ELOS Approval................... 1 1 1 129.88
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total--FAA.................................. .............. .............. 18 2,415.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The description ``FAA Staff'' in the event column corresponds to the aerospace engineer wage, while the
``FAA Supervisory'' description corresponds to the supervisory engineer wage.
[[Page 63202]]
To estimate the industry cost savings per application, the detailed
process for industry is listed in Table 3. It entails drafting the ELOS
request and discussion with FAA staff. An ELOS determination will take
one aerospace engineer and one administrative professional. The number
of employees and hours per employee for each phase of the process are
shown in the table. The total hours per application are 10 hours, with
total cost savings to industry of $715 per application.
Table 3--Industry Staff, Hours, Wages, and Cost Savings per Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours per Cost per
Event Number of employees employee Total hours application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELOS Draft............................ 1 Engineer.............. 4 4 $385.13
ELOS Draft............................ 1 Administrative 4 4 187.18
Professional.
FAA-Applicant Discussion.............. 1 Engineer.............. 1 1 96.28
FAA-Applicant Discussion.............. 1 Administrative 1 1 46.79
Professional.
-----------------------------------------------
Total--Industry................... ........................ .............. 10 715.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per application, this proposed rule would result in cost savings of
$715 for industry and $2,416 for FAA. This amounts to a total of $3,131
per application. This proposed rule would only impact for launch or
reentries with descending phases of flight in certain conditions. FAA
finds that there is uncertainty about how many launches or reentries
will occur per year; therefore, it can only provide a per-application
cost savings estimate.
Table 4--Total Cost Savings per Application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
savings per
application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA........................................................ $2,415.77
Industry................................................... 715.39
------------
Total.................................................... 3,131.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 add an
exception for compliance with lightning hazard mitigation requirements
for certain licensed launch and reentry operations, 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.
[[Page 63203]]
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,\8\ and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian
and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures,\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 65 FR 67249 (November 6, 2000).
\9\ See 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 ``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:
[[Page 63204]]
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. 450.163 to read as follows:
Sec. 450.163 Lightning hazard mitigation.
* * * * *
(b) Lightning hazard mitigation exception. An operator is not
required to comply with paragraph (a) of this section for descending
phases of flight if, once a vehicle descends to an altitude where
lightning is foreseeable, the vehicle's further flight path, including
that of any possible resulting debris, is constrained by physics to
remain within any area clear of the public and critical assets.
(c) Application requirements.
(1) An applicant electing to comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this
section must submit flight commit criteria that mitigate the potential
for a launch or reentry vehicle intercepting or initiating a direct
lightning strike, or encountering a nearby lightning discharge.
(2) An applicant electing to comply with paragraph (a)(2) of this
section must submit documentation providing evidence that the vehicle
is designed to protect safety-critical systems against the effects of a
direct lightning strike or nearby discharge.
(3) An applicant utilizing the exception described by paragraph (b)
of this section must submit the following:
(i) A description of a valid method for determining the limits of
the flight path, including that of any possible resulting debris. The
description must demonstrate compliance with Sec. 450.101(g) by
documenting:
(A) The scientific principles and statistical methods used, with
associated assumptions and their justifications; and
(B) Evidence for validation and verification.
(ii) Representative limits of the vehicles flight path, including
that of any possible resulting debris, as obtained by conducting an
analysis for a representative mission that utilizes the method
described by paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
(iii) A description of the methods used to ensure that the areas
are cleared of the public and critical assets.
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. 2026-20391 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.