Conditional Expected Casualty Exception for Failures Resulting in an Uncontrolled Atmospheric Return

Issuing agencies

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 allow a launch and reentry vehicle operator to protect against high consequence events during an uncontrolled atmospheric return by showing that there would be sufficient breakup of the vehicle to ensure protection against a single event expected to produce multiple casualties.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 215 (Monday, November 9, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 215 (Monday, November 9, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70813-70817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22784]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 401 and 450

[Docket No.: FAA-2026-9942; Notice No. 26-20]
RIN 2120-AM33


Conditional Expected Casualty Exception for Failures Resulting in 
an Uncontrolled Atmospheric Return

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 
allow a launch and reentry vehicle operator to protect against high 
consequence events during an uncontrolled atmospheric return by showing 
that there would be sufficient breakup of the vehicle to ensure 
protection against a single event expected to produce multiple 
casualties.

DATES: Send comments on or before December 9, 2026.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2026-9942 
using any of the following methods:

[[Page 70814]]

    <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#df93b6acbef19af19cbebcbcb6beabb0adba9fb9bebef1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e52776d7f305b305d7f7d7d777f6a716c7b5e787f7f30797168">[email&#160;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 add an option by which applicants may comply with the 
high consequence event protection requirements in Sec.  450.101(c). The 
proposed rule would allow an applicant to meet the requirement for an 
uncontrolled atmospheric return (UAR), commonly called a ``random 
reentry,'' by showing that the UAR would result in sufficient breakup 
of the vehicle, including all vehicle components and undeployed 
payloads, to ensure protection against a single event expected to 
produce multiple casualties.

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

    FAAhasestablishedcommercial space regulations governing licensing 
of launch and reentry in 14 CFR chapter III. On December 10, 2020, FAA 
issued a final ruleconsolidatingall 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 executive order.
    In accordance with current FAA guidance, high consequence events 
include incidents that could involve multiple casualties, massive toxic 
exposures, extensive property or environmental damage, or events that 
jeopardize the national security or foreign policy interests of the 
United States.\1\ The term ``high consequence events'' does not 
generally include incidents that result in only one casualty. The 
potential for any casualties remains covered by the individual and 
collective risk criteria in Sec.  450.101(a) and (b). The objective of 
high consequence protection is to provide additional constraints beyond 
the individual and collective risk criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Advisory Circular 450.101-1B, ``High Consequence Event 
Protection,'' dated May 03, 2024, available at: <a href="http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_450.101-1B.pdf">www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_450.101-1B.pdf</a>; see also 
Footnote 65 in final rule titled ``Streamlined Launch and Reentry 
Requirements'' (85 FR 79566).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, in accordance with Sec.  450.101(c), an operator must 
protect against a high consequence event by one of three methods: 
flight abort, ensuring that conditional expected casualties 
(CE<INF>C</INF>) would fall below a specified threshold, or 
demonstrated reliability. However, these three methods are not well-
attuned for protection against high consequence events during a UAR. A 
UAR, commonly called a ``random reentry,'' occurs when a vehicle makes 
an uncontrolled descent from orbit as a result of natural orbital 
decay, rather than as a result of action by the operator.
    Currently, no UARs are close to attaining the demonstrated 
reliability necessary to protect against high consequence events, which 
makes compliance with Sec.  450.101(c)(3) improbable at this time. 
Likewise, any vehicle flight that could be aborted in accordance with 
Sec.  450.101(c)(1) is not a UAR because the operator is able to 
accomplish a controlled end to the flight; a UAR is always an 
uncontrolled end to flight. Thus, operators currently must comply with 
the CE<INF>C</INF> requirement in Sec.  450.101(c)(2), which can be a 
labor-intensive calculation.

IV. Discussion of the Proposal

    The proposed rule would amend Sec.  450.101(c)(2) to allow an 
operator to demonstrate protection against a high consequence event 
resulting from a UAR by showing that the UAR would result in sufficient 
breakup of the vehicle, including all vehicle components and payloads, 
to ensure protection against a single event expected to produce 
multiple casualties. The proposed method of demonstrating compliance to 
high consequence events for UARs provides an equivalent level of safety 
to the current requirements.
    An uncontrolled atmospheric return is fundamentally a return in 
which the operator has no control over the eventual impact site of the 
vehicle. Accordingly, the proposal would define ``uncontrolled 
atmospheric return'' in Sec.  401.7 to include two characteristics that 
limit the definition to cover only those returns over which the 
operator exercises no control. The first proposed defining 
characteristic of a UAR would be that only natural forces cause the 
orbit of an object to decay and eventually impact the Earth or burn up 
in the atmosphere. Natural forces that cause orbital decay include 
aerodynamic drag, gravitational variations, solar radiation, and third-
body gravitational effects. A perigee of

[[Page 70815]]

70 nautical miles (nm) or greater is considered the threshold of being 
in orbit (see definition of ``Deorbit'' in Sec.  401.7). Thus, a 
scenario in which propulsion (which is not a natural force) reduces the 
perigee below the 70 nm threshold would not be considered a UAR. 
However, a propulsion system that fails before the perigee reaches the 
threshold could result in a UAR. The second proposed defining 
characteristic of a UAR would be that the operator lacks control over 
the trajectory. Thus, a flight that uses orientation to control 
aerodynamic forces to reduce the perigee below the 70 nm threshold 
would not be considered a UAR. Likewise, a vehicle that falls out of 
orbit due to natural forces, but which an operator may abort or 
otherwise guide, would not be considered a UAR.
    The proposed method of demonstrating compliance to high consequence 
events at proposed Sec.  450.101(c)(2)(ii) would only be available for 
UARs (as opposed to controlled returns) because UARs have unique 
properties. First, the impact probability distributions from a UAR, 
which are the subject of Sec.  450.123(b), are extremely large. It is 
most likely that debris would impact in areas with relatively low 
population density because high-density populations are concentrated in 
small areas. In addition, when multiple fragments survive deorbit 
during a UAR, they are generally dispersed over a large geographical 
area, so it is unlikely that separate fragments would injure multiple 
people from the same UAR as long as the collective risk safety 
criterion in Sec.  450.101(a) or (b) is satisfied.
    The proposed requirement for operators to demonstrate sufficient 
breakup of the vehicle acts as an added layer of protection against 
multiple casualty events. Typically, deorbit produces extreme 
aerothermal and inertial forces that cause extensive breakup of 
vehicles that were not designed to survive substantially intact. 
However, extensive break-up is not always a guaranteed outcome. 
Therefore, an operator would be required to demonstrate that each piece 
of resulting debris from a UAR has a small enough effective casualty 
area to make multiple casualties an unlikely outcome. This 
demonstration would use the information already required by the debris 
analysis in accordance with Sec.  450.121 and consequence analysis in 
Sec.  450.135(b), so no additional analysis or application requirements 
would be needed.

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, most applicants meet the requirement in Sec.  450.101(c) 
to protect against high consequence events by ensuring that the 
consequence of any reasonably foreseeable failure mode, in any 
significant period of flight, is no greater than 1 x 10<SUP>-3</SUP> 
CE<INF>C</INF>. The proposed rule would allow an applicant to forgo 
this demonstration for a UAR if the applicant shows that there is 
sufficient breakup of the launch or reentry vehicle, including all 
vehicle components and undeployed payloads.
    The applicant would make the showing using the information already 
required by the debris analysis in accordance with Sec.  450.121 and 
consequence analysis in Sec.  450.135(b). Consequently, no additional 
analysis or application requirements would be needed.
    FAA estimates that forgoing the CE<INF>C</INF> demonstration for a 
UAR would save each applicant around 60 hours of labor. An aerospace 
engineer would complete this work. The base 2024 wage rate of a private 
industry worker working full-time as an aerospace engineer is $67.88 
per hour.\2\ When including benefits, the total compensation for an 
aerospace engineer \3\ is $96.28 per hour. Therefore, the total cost 
savings for industry would be $5,777 per application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``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>.
    \3\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For FAA, an aerospace engineer would take about 30 hours to provide 
guidance and review the data. The aerospace engineer is on the FAA Core 
Compensation Plan at a J band \4\ with a base hourly rate of $95.33. 
FAA uses a factor of 1.3625 for benefits \5\ which results in a total 
loaded hourly wage of $129.88. This results in total cost savings of 
$3,897 per application for FAA. Therefore, the total cost savings 
between FAA and an applicant would be $9,674 per application. Any cost 
savings would only impact new applicants, and FAA expects about 40 new 
applications in the next 5 years. However, not all applicants would 
apply to conduct operations where UARs are possible. Therefore, the 
total number of applications impacted would be less than 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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>.
    \5\ 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>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 70816]]

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 allow a 
launch and reentry vehicle operator to protect against high consequence 
events during an uncontrolled atmospheric return by showing that there 
would be sufficient breakup of the vehicle to ensure protection against 
a single event expected to produce multiple casualties, 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,\6\ and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 
and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures,\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 65 FR 67249 (November 6, 2000).
    \7\ 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 because it has total costs less than 
zero as it streamlines the licensing process and reduces regulatory 
burden for license applicants.

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

[[Page 70817]]

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

14 CFR Part 401

    Organization and functions (Government agencies), Space 
transportation and exploration.

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 401--ORGANIZATION AND DEFINITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 is revised to read as follows:


    Authority: 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509.

0
2. Amend Sec.  401.7 by adding the definition for ``Uncontrolled 
atmospheric return'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  401.7  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Uncontrolled atmospheric return means the passive descent of a 
launch or reentry vehicle from orbit that occurs as a result of natural 
orbital decay and where there is no ability to control the vehicle's 
trajectory.
* * * * *

PART 450--LAUNCH AND REENTRY LICENSE REQUIREMENTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 450 is revised to read as follows:


    Authority: 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509.

0
4. Amend Sec.  450.101 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  450.101  Safety criteria.

* * * * *
    (c) High consequence event protection. An operator must protect 
against a high consequence event in uncontrolled areas for each phase 
of flight by:
    (1) Using flight abort as a hazard control strategy in accordance 
with the requirements of Sec.  450.108;
    (2) Ensuring the consequence of any reasonably foreseeable failure 
mode, in any significant period of flight:
    (i) Is no greater than 1 x 10<SUP>-3</SUP> conditional expected 
casualties; or
    (ii) Results in sufficient breakup of the launch or reentry 
vehicle, including all vehicle components and undeployed payloads, 
during an uncontrolled atmospheric return; or
    (3) Establishing the launch or reentry vehicle has sufficient 
demonstrated reliability as agreed to by the Administrator based on 
conditional expected casualties criteria during that phase of flight.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 51 
U.S.C. chapter 509 in Washington, DC.
Anh Minh Ngoc Nguyen,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2026-22784 Filed 11-6-26; 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>