Licensing and Safety Requirements for Launch, 9885-9889 [05-3916]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
PART 70—VOLUNTARY GRADING OF
POULTRY PRODUCTS AND RABBIT
PRODUCTS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4. The authority citation for part 70
continues to read as follows:
14 CFR Parts 413, 415, and 417
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.
5. Section 70.71 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 70.71
On a fee basis.
(a) Unless otherwise provided in this
part, the fees to be charged and
collected for any service performed, in
accordance with this part, on a fee basis
shall be based on the applicable rates
specified in this section.
(b) Fees for grading services will be
based on the time required to perform
such services for class, quality, quantity
(weight test), or condition, whether
ready-to-cook poultry, ready-to-cook
rabbits, or specified poultry food
products are involved. The hourly
charge shall be $65.00 and shall include
the time actually required to perform
the work, waiting time, travel time, and
any clerical costs involved in issuing a
certificate.
(c) Grading services rendered on
Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays
shall be charged for at the rate of $75.12
per hour. Information on legal holidays
is available from the Supervisor.
6. In § 70.77, paragraph (a)(4) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 70.77 Charges for continuous poultry or
rabbit grading performed on a resident
basis.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(4) For poultry grading: An
administrative service charge based
upon the aggregate weight of the total
volume of all live and ready-to-cook
poultry handled in the plant per billing
period computed in accordance with the
following: Total pounds per billing
period multiplied by $0.00039, except
that the minimum charge per billing
period shall be $260 and the maximum
charge shall be $2,875. The minimum
charge also applies where an approved
application is in effect and no product
is handled.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 24, 2005.
Barry L. Carpenter,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–3929 Filed 2–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Feb 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA–2000–7953; Notice No. 05–
02]
RIN 2120–AG37
Licensing and Safety Requirements for
Launch
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Availability of draft regulatory
language; Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is making available
a draft of changes to the commercial
space transportation regulations
governing licensing and safety
requirements for launch. We intend the
changes to identify, codify, and
maintain the successful safety measures
that have been implemented at the
federal launch ranges belonging to the
Department of Defense and NASA. We
are also establishing clear safety
requirements for launches from nonfederal launch sites. We will hold a
public meeting on March 29–31, 2005,
to give stakeholders an opportunity to
get information about, and provide
comments on, the draft regulatory
language.
Send your comments to reach us
by May 2, 2005. The FAA will host a
facilitated public meeting in
Washington, DC on March 29–31, 2005
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m each day.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will
take place in the Discovery I Conference
Room of the Holiday Inn—Capitol at
550 C Street, SW., Washington, DC.
Persons who are unable to attend the
meeting and who wish to file written
comments may send comments
identified by Docket Number FAA–
2000–7953 using any of the following
methods:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://
dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions
for sending your comments
electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the
plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9885
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the
rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments
we receive, without change, to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information you provide. For more
information, see the Privacy Act
discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to
https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to
Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Written
comments to the docket will receive the
same consideration as statements made
at the public meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
´
technical information: Rene Rey, (202)
267–7538. For legal information: Laura
Montgomery, (202) 267–3150. If you
would like to present a statement at the
public meeting, have questions about
the logistics of the meeting, or would
like to arrange an accommodation,
contact Brenda Parker, (202) 267–3674
before March 15, 2005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Licensing and Safety Requirements for
Launch Amendments
The draft regulatory language
includes changes to the commercial
space transportation regulations
governing licensing and safety
requirements for launch. Some of the
changes were originally part of a notice
of proposed rulemaking published in
2000 (65 FR 63921, Oct. 25, 2000) (2000
NPRM). Other changes were part of a
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking published in 2002 (67 FR
49456, July 30, 2002) (2002 SNPRM).
The FAA revisited the issue of how
much cost to attribute to the draft rule.
The FAA found there would potentially
be certain costs associated with FAA
review of federal launch range
implementation of the proposed
requirements. In an attempt to be
responsive to industry’s concerns about
costs, the FAA obtained an independent
economic analysis from Science
Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). SAIC’s analysis validated the
FAA’s estimates. Both reports are
available in the docket.
In preparing the draft regulatory
language, we have also made changes to
the proposed language to clarify the
FAA’s position, respond to comments,
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
9886
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
or adopt range practice, including a
reorganization of part 415 and changes
to various definitions. These changes
are summarized below. A matrix
showing the correspondences between
the FAA draft regulatory language and
Air Force requirements in EWR 127–1
and AFSPCMAN 91–710 can be found
at https://ast.faa.gov/um/. This matrix
should facilitate the ability of interested
parties to examine the commonality of
requirements among the three
documents. Certain internal range
requirements, particularly in the area of
flight safety analysis, will not be found
in either of the Air Force requirements
documents, but in internal Air Force
handbooks. Those handbooks are not
part of this matrix.
Reorganization, Licensee Requirements
Moved From Part 415 to Part 417
Part 415 contains requirements that
an applicant must meet in order to
obtain a license and requirements that a
licensee must comply with during the
term of the license. The draft regulatory
language would move all licensee
requirements from part 415 to part 417,
subpart A, but would not change
application requirements, except for the
flight readiness requirements of
§ 415.37.
Definition of ‘‘Equivalent Level of
Safety’’
The draft regulatory language defines
‘‘equivalent level of safety’’ as ‘‘an
approximately equal level of safety that
may be determined by qualitative or
quantitative means.’’ The SNPRM
proposed defining ‘‘equivalent level of
safety’’ as ‘‘an approximately equal level
of safety. An equivalent level of safety
may involve a change to the level of
expected risk that is not statistically or
mathematically significant as
determined by qualitative or
quantitative risk analysis.’’ In light of
the comments received, the FAA
excluded the reference to risk. We did
not want to create the impression that
risk is the only measure of safety, when
equivalence may be determined through
quantitative or qualitative means.
Grandfathering of ‘‘Meets Intent’’
Certification and Waivers
The FAA’s two proposals regarding
grandfathering have been further
modified in response to industry
concerns that the FAA was changing
current practice. With these changes,
concerns over grandfathering should no
longer be an issue. The draft regulatory
language differs from the proposal in
that a launch operator no longer has to
be licensed to be eligible for
grandfathering a ‘‘meets intent’’
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Feb 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
certification or waiver in § 417.1(c). This
change conforms to Federal launch
range practice. The FAA also now
requires that a launch operator, upon
request, produce documentation of
‘‘meets intent’’ certifications or waivers
to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of part 417. The proposal
would have only allowed licensed
launch operators to grandfather ‘‘meets
intent’’ certifications or waivers and,
contrary to current practice, did not
require documentation.
New § 417.129, Safety at End of Launch
New Performance Based Standard for
Waterborne Vessel and Aircraft Risk
Limit in § 417.107(b)(3) and (4)
In response to commenters’ concerns,
the FAA re-examined the waterborne
vessel and aircraft risk limit originally
proposed in § 417.107(b)(3) and (4). This
re-examination focused on current range
practice. Based upon this reexamination, the draft regulatory
language makes the requirements more
performance based and better reflects
the current practices of the Western and
Eastern Range. Under the draft
regulatory language, a launch operator
would implement waterborne vessel
hazard areas and aircraft hazard areas
that provide an equivalent level of
safety to that provided by waterborne
vessel hazard areas and aircraft hazard
areas implemented for launch from a
Federal range.
The draft regulatory language
modifies proposed § 417.203(c) to add
the concept of ‘‘equivalent level of
fidelity’’ for alternate methods of
analysis. This would require an operator
to use accurate data and scientific
principles when making the case for an
alternate method of flight safety
analysis. Use of an ‘‘equivalent level of
fidelity’’ instead of ‘‘equivalent level of
safety’’ clarifies that when a launch
operator seeks to use an alternative
method of flight safety analysis, the
launch operator would have to use
accurate data and scientific principles
in doing so.
Addition of § 417.107(e)(iii) To Protect
Habitable Orbital Objects
Section 417.107(e) of the draft
regulatory language would require a
launch operator to ensure that a launch
vehicle, any jettisoned components, and
its payload do not pass any closer than
200 kilometers to a habitable orbital
object and to obtain a collision
avoidance analysis for each launch. The
draft regulatory language includes new
subparagraph (iii) to protect habitable
orbital objects during each subsequent
orbital maneuver or burn from initial
park orbit, or direct ascent to a higher
interplanetary orbit, or until clear of all
habitable objects, whichever occurs
first. This captures the current practice
for protection of habitable orbital objects
at the Federal ranges.
Addition of § 417.111(i)(5)(iii), (iv), (v)
Requiring Contact With Local
Authorities
The draft regulatory language
modifies proposed § 417.111 in
response to comments to require a
launch operator to notify not only the
Coast Guard and FAA Air Traffic
Control when conducting a launch, as
proposed, but also notifying any
equivalent local authorities.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The draft regulatory language
includes new § 417.129, which requires
a launch operator to ensure no physical
contact between the vehicle and
payload after separation, as well as
making sure that stored energy in the
vehicle is depleted and thus not able to
generate debris.
Addition of ‘‘Equivalent Level of
Fidelity’’ in § 417.203(c)
Addition of § 417.218, Hold and Resume
Gate Analysis
The draft regulatory language
includes new § 417.218, which may
permit a vehicle overflight or near
overflight of a populated or otherwise
protected area during some portion of a
launch. A launch vehicle may perform
overflight if a risk assessment is
acceptable and if a flight termination
system will not be used to destroy a
vehicle while the vehicle is flying over
the populated or protected area. A
launch operator would be responsible
for identifying the periods of time
during vehicle flight in which use of a
flight termination system would be
more detrimental to a populated or
protected area than not using such a
system. Section 417.218 is an extension
of the ‘‘overflight gate analysis’’
proposed in the 2000 NPRM and
appears in the draft regulatory language
as § 417.217. Section 417.217 would
require a launch operator to conduct a
risk analysis and ‘‘hold’’ use of a flight
termination system once a vehicle
passes a certain point or ‘‘gate.’’ Section
417.218 would extend this concept and
define those periods of time where a
flight termination system must not be
used. Adopting § 417.218 may expand
the number of trajectories for certain
launch sites and potentially increase the
number of inland launch sites.
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Elimination of a Five-Sigma Cross
Range Bound About the Nominal
Vehicle Trajectory in § 417.223
The draft regulatory language
includes § 417.223, which would
require a launch operator’s flight hazard
area analysis to establish aircraft and
ship hazard areas that encompass a
three-sigma impact dispersion area for
each planned debris impact, instead of
a five-sigma standard as proposed in the
2000 NPRM. This change is in response
to comments and to adopt current range
practice.
Change to § 417.224, Probability of
Failure Analysis
The draft regulatory language
includes changes to § 417.224, which
would require all flight safety analyses
for a launch, regardless of hazard or
phase of flight, to account for launch
vehicle failure probability in a
consistent manner. Section 417.224 also
would require that a launch vehicle
failure probability estimate use accurate
data, scientific principles, and satisfy
the principles of probability, statistics,
and mathematics.
Section A417.25(b)(5) in the 2002
SNPRM (proposed § 417.227(b)(6)(i–iii)
in the 2000 NPRM) would have required
a launch operator’s debris risk analysis
account for launch vehicle failure
probability using theoretical or actual
launch vehicle flight data in accordance
with a specific prescribed method.
The FAA recognizes that there is more
than one way to establish an acceptable
estimate of the probability of failure,
especially for new launch vehicles. A
performance standard permits a launch
operator to employ these different
methodologies so long as the
methodologies satisfy the performance
standards for expendable launch vehicle
probability of failure analyses.
Addition of § 417.301(d)
The draft regulatory language would
add new paragraph (d) to § 417.301 to
clarify the flight safety system
requirements for a licensed launch from
a Federal launch range or a non-Federal
launch site. For launch from a nonFederal launch site, compliance with
the flight safety system requirements is
demonstrated through licensing. If a
Federal range oversees the safety of a
licensed launch, the FAA will accept
the flight safety system without any
demonstration of compliance by the
launch operator to the FAA with some
necessary conditions, which recognize
that not all Federal ranges have
experience conducting all types of
expendable launches. The FAA will
accept a flight safety system used by a
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Feb 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
Federal launch range if a launch
operator has contracted with a Federal
launch range for the provision of flight
safety system services and property, and
the FAA has assessed the range and
found that the range’s systems and
procedures satisfy the requirements of
this subpart. Paragraph (d) also
discusses the grandfathering provisions
of § 417.1(b).
New Version of § 417.303(b)
The draft regulatory language
modifies § 417.303(b) to require that a
command control system and each
subsystem, component, and part that
can affect the reliability of a component
have written performance specifications
that demonstrate, and contain the
details of, how each satisfies the
requirements of this section.
Rewrite of Appendix B to Part 417
The draft regulatory language
includes a new appendix B to part 417
that incorporates current practice at
Federal ranges. Appendix B contains
requirements that meet the public risk
requirements for the protection of ships
and aircraft contained in § 417.107.
Appendix B captures the current
practice at the Federal ranges by
requiring such things as notifications,
notices to airmen and mariners, and
hazard analysis for a launch site,
downrange areas, ship, aircraft, and
land areas.
Changes to Wind Weighting Analysis of
§ C417.5(c)
The draft regulatory language
includes substantive changes to the
wind weighting analysis portion of
Appendix C to part 417 from that
proposed in the 2000 NPRM. The
changes relate to the measurement of
wind velocity and direction in
§ C417.5(c). The draft regulatory
language would require that a launch
operator measure wind velocity and
direction at altitude increments such
that the maximum correction between
any two measurements does not exceed
5%. A launch operator would still have
to measure winds four times, but the
required altitudes would be different.
Now, the maximum required altitude for
the first measurement would be that
necessary to account for 99% of the
wind effect, instead of 90,000 feet. The
maximum required altitude for the
second measurement would be that
necessary to account for 95% of the
wind effect, instead of 50,000 feet. The
maximum required altitude for the third
and fourth measurement would be that
necessary to account for 80% of the
wind effect, instead of 5,000 feet. The
draft regulatory language also clarifies
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9887
that the last measurement would be
required only to verify the third wind
measurement data, not to set launcher
azimuth and elevation.
Change to Definition of ‘‘Bright Band’’
in § G417.3
The draft regulatory language would
define ‘‘bright band’’ in Appendix G to
part 417 as an enhancement of radar
reflectivity caused by frozen
hydrometeors falling and beginning to
melt at any altitude where the
temperature is 0 degrees Celsius or
warmer. This recognizes that there can
be multiple altitudes where the
temperature is 0 degrees Celsius.
Accordingly, there may be different
altitudes where a bright band may
occur, and the original proposal
incorrectly implied that there could be
only one.
New Definition of ‘‘Cloud’’ in § G417.3
In response to comments, the draft
regulatory language would define
‘‘cloud’’ as a visible mass of water
droplets or ice crystals produced by
condensation of water vapor in the
atmosphere.
Change to Definition of ‘‘Electric Field
Measurement at the Surface of the
Earth’’ in § G417.3
The draft regulatory language would
change the definition of ‘‘electric field
measurement at the surface of the
Earth’’ to no longer treat an
interpolation based on electric field
contours as a measurement. Electric
field contours would no longer be used
for electric field measurements.
Comments Invited
You may comment on the draft
regulatory language by sending written
data, views, or arguments. We also
invite comments relating to the
environmental, energy, federalism, or
economic impact that might result from
adopting the draft regulatory language.
Substantive comments should be
accompanied by cost estimates. The
most helpful comments are those that
include a rationale or data. Comments
must identify the regulatory docket
number and be sent to one of the
addresses listed above.
You may also present comments at
the public meeting. The FAA will
prepare an agenda of speakers, which
will be available at the meeting. If we
receive your request after the date
specified above, your name may not
appear on the written agenda. To
accommodate as many speakers as
possible, the amount of time allocated to
each speaker may be less than the
amount of time requested. Persons
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
9888
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
requiring audiovisual equipment should
notify the FAA when requesting to be
placed on the agenda.
We will file in the docket all
comments received, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this draft regulatory language. You may
review the public docket containing
comments to these proposed regulations
in person in the Dockets Office between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The
DOT Rules Dockets Office is on the
plaza level of the NASSIF Building at
the Department of Transportation at the
above address. We will consider all
comments received on or before the
closing date before taking action on the
draft regulatory language. We will
consider late-filed comments to the
extent practicable, and consistent with
statutory deadlines. We may change the
draft regulatory language in light of the
comments we receive.
Commenters who file comments by
mail may receive an acknowledgement
of receipt of their comments by
including a pre-addressed, stamped
postcard with those comments on which
the following statement is made:
‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2000–
7953.’’ The postcard will be date
stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Privacy Act
Using the search function of our
docket web site, anyone can find and
read the comments received into any of
our dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Proprietary or Confidential Business
Information
Do not file in the docket information
that you consider to be proprietary or
confidential business information. Send
or deliver this information directly to
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document. You must mark the
information that you consider
proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
and also identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or
confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are
aware of proprietary information filed
with a comment, we do not place it in
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Feb 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
the docket. We hold it in a separate file
to which the public does not have
access, and place a note in the docket
that we have received it. If we receive
a request to examine or copy this
information, we treat it as any other
request under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We
process such a request under the DOT
procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Public Meeting Procedures
The FAA will present a description of
the draft regulatory language at the
public meeting. The FAA will use the
following procedures to facilitate the
meeting:
(1) The meeting is designed to give
interested parties an overview of the
contents of the draft regulatory language
to facilitate the public comment process.
Therefore, the meeting will be informal
and non-adversarial. No individual will
be subject to cross-examination by any
other participant; however, FAA
representatives may ask questions to
clarify a statement and to ensure a
complete and accurate record.
Participants will also have the
opportunity to ask questions about the
draft regulatory language.
(2) There will be no admission fee or
other charge to attend or to participate
in the meeting. The meeting will be
open to all persons who are scheduled
to present statements or who register
between 8:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. on the day
of the meeting. While we will make
every effort to accommodate all persons
wishing to participate, admission will
be subject to availability of space in the
meeting room. The meeting may adjourn
early if scheduled speakers complete
their statements in less time than is
scheduled for the meeting.
(3) Speakers may be limited to a 10minute statement. If possible, we will
notify speakers if additional time is
available.
(4) We will try to accommodate all
speakers. If the available time does not
permit this, we will generally schedule
speakers on a first-come-first-served
basis. However, we reserve the right to
exclude some speakers if necessary to
present a balance of viewpoints and
issues.
(5) Sign and oral interpretation can be
available at the meeting, as well as an
assistive listening device, if requested
from the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at
least 2 weeks before the meeting.
(6) Representatives of the FAA will
chair the meeting. A panel of FAA
personnel involved in this proposal will
be present.
(7) We will make a transcript of the
meeting using a court reporter. We will
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
include in the public docket a transcript
of the meeting and any material
accepted by the FAA representatives
during the meeting. Any person who is
interested in buying a copy of the
transcript should contact the court
reporter directly. Additional transcript
purchase information will be available
at the meeting.
(8) The FAA will review and consider
all material presented by participants at
the meeting. Position papers or material
presenting views or arguments related to
the draft regulatory language may be
accepted at the discretion of the
presiding officer and subsequently
placed in the public docket. We request
that persons participating in the meeting
provide six copies of all materials
presented for distribution to the FAA
representatives. You may provide other
copies to the audience at your
discretion.
(9) Statements made by FAA
representatives are intended to facilitate
discussion of the issues or to clarify
issues. Any statement made during the
meeting by an FAA representative is not
intended to be, and should not be
construed as, an official position of the
FAA.
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Morning—Introductory Remarks and
Presentation by FAA and United
States Air Force representatives
Afternoon—Licensing Requirements
—Grandfathering, Meets Intent
Certifications, and Waivers
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Morning—Cost Implications
Afternoon—Flight Safety Analysis/
Flight Safety Systems
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Continue discussion of technical
issues and other concerns.
Availability of the Draft Regulatory
Language and Other Documents
You can get an electronic copy of the
draft regulatory language, the draft
regulatory evaluation, a section-bysection response to comments on the
2000 NPRM and the 2002 SNPRM, and
the Independent Economic Assessment
performed by SAIC using the Internet
through the Department of
Transportation Docket Management
System at https://dms.dot.gov. Use the
search feature of the Web site by
entering the docket number for this
rulemaking (7953). We have also
established a Web site containing a
cross-referencing tool that correlates the
text of the draft regulatory language
with Air Force launch requirements
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
documents. The Web address is https://
ast.faa.gov/um/.
You can also get a copy of the draft
regulatory language 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) 267–9680. Make sure to identify
the docket number of this rulemaking.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 23,
2005.
George C. Nield,
Deputy Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 05–3916 Filed 2–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Part 1310
[Docket No. DEA–254P]
RIN 1117–AA90
Control of Sodium Permanganate as a
List II Chemical
Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Controlled Substances
Act (CSA) provides the Attorney
General with the authority to specify, by
regulation, additional chemicals as ‘‘List
II’’ chemicals if they are used in the
manufacture of a controlled substance
in violation of the CSA. The Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) is
proposing the addition of sodium
permanganate as a List II chemical
because of its direct substitutability for
potassium permanganate (a List II
chemical) in the illicit production of
cocaine.
As a List II chemical, handlers of
sodium permanganate would be subject
to CSA chemical regulatory controls
including recordkeeping, reporting, and
import/export requirements. DEA has
determined that these controls are
necessary to prevent the diversion of
this chemical to cocaine laboratories.
DEA is also proposing that a
cumulative threshold of 55 kilograms
and 500 kilograms be established
(respectively) for domestic and
international transactions. As such, all
transactions which meet or exceed these
quantities (in a calendar month) shall be
considered regulated transactions,
subject to recordkeeping, reporting and/
or import/export notification
requirements. Additionally DEA is
proposing that sodium permanganate
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:21 Feb 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
chemical mixtures having less than or
equal to 15 percent sodium
permanganate shall qualify for
automatic exemption from CSA
chemical regulatory controls pursuant to
21 CFR part 1310.
All handlers of the List II chemical
sodium permanganate would also be
subject to the applicable civil and
criminal penalty provisions found in 21
U.S.C. 841, 842, 843, 959 and 960.
DATES: Written comments must be
postmarked, and electronic comments
must be sent, on or before May 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling
of comments, please reference ‘‘Docket
No. DEA–254’’ on all written and
electronic correspondence. Written
comments being sent via regular mail
should be sent to the Deputy
Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Washington, DC 20537,
Attention: DEA Federal Register
Representative/CCD. Written comments
sent via express mail should be sent to
DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA
Federal Register Representative/CCD,
2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway,
Alexandria, VA 22301. Comments may
be directly sent to DEA electronically by
sending an electronic message to
dea.diversion.policy@usdoj.gov.
Comments may also be sent
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov using the
electronic comment form provided on
that site. An electronic copy of this
document is also available at the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site.
DEA will accept attachments to
electronic comments in Microsoft word,
WordPerfect, Adobe PDF, or Excel file
formats only. DEA will not accept any
file format other than those specifically
listed here.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine A. Sannerud Ph.D., Chief,
Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section,
Office of Diversion Control, Drug
Enforcement Administration,
Washington DC 20537 at (202) 307–
7183.
The
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its
implementing regulations, specifically
21 U.S.C. 802(35) and 21 CFR
1310.02(c), provide the Attorney
General with the authority to specify, by
regulation, additional chemicals as ‘‘List
II’’ chemicals if they are used in the
manufacture of a controlled substance
in violation of the CSA. This authority
has been delegated to the Administrator
of DEA by 28 CFR 0.100 and redelegated
to the Deputy Administrator under 28
CFR 0.104 (subpart R) Appendix section
12.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9889
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) proposes the addition of
sodium permanganate as a List II
chemical. Additionally, this NPRM
proposes that a threshold of 55
kilograms and 500 kilograms be
established (respectively) for domestic
and international transactions.
DEA is also proposing that chemical
mixtures (containing sodium
permanganate) having less than or equal
to 15 percent sodium permanganate
shall qualify for automatic exemption
from CSA chemical regulatory controls
pursuant to 21 CFR part 1310. Since
DEA recognizes that the concentration
limit exemption criteria cannot identify
all mixtures that should receive
exemption status, DEA has
implemented an application process to
exempt additional mixtures (21 CFR
1310.13). This application process was
finalized in a Final Rule published in
the Federal Register May 1, 2003 (68 FR
23195). Under the application process,
manufacturers may submit an
application for exemption for those
mixtures that do not qualify for
automatic exemption. Exemption status
can be granted if DEA determines that
the mixture is formulated in such a way
that it cannot be easily used in the illicit
production of a controlled substance
and the listed chemical cannot be
readily recovered (i.e., it meets the
conditions in 21 U.S.C. 802(39)(A)(v)).
An application may be for a single or a
multiple number of formulations.
Sodium Permanganate Industry and
Legitimate Uses
Sodium permanganate is an inorganic
oxidant that is a direct substitute for
potassium permanganate. Due to its
high solubility in water, sodium
permanganate has distinct advantages
over potassium permanganate in many
industrial applications. It is becoming
widely used for industrial purposes,
including (1) printed circuit board
production, (2) pharmaceutical and
chemical synthesis, (3) soil and
groundwater remediation, (4) metal
cleaning formulations, (5) acid mine
drainage and (6) hydrogen sulfide odor
control.
DEA has identified only one domestic
producer of sodium permanganate.
However, sodium permanganate is also
imported into the United States and
there are at least three other major
suppliers of sodium permanganate in
the United States.
The U.S. firm that manufactures
sodium permanganate distributes it
through 15–20 major authorized
distributors and more than 100 branch
distributors. This U.S. supplier has
advised DEA that it is aware of ‘‘one
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9885-9889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3916]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 413, 415, and 417
[Docket No. FAA-2000-7953; Notice No. 05-02]
RIN 2120-AG37
Licensing and Safety Requirements for Launch
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Availability of draft regulatory language; Notice of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is making available a draft of changes to the
commercial space transportation regulations governing licensing and
safety requirements for launch. We intend the changes to identify,
codify, and maintain the successful safety measures that have been
implemented at the federal launch ranges belonging to the Department of
Defense and NASA. We are also establishing clear safety requirements
for launches from non-federal launch sites. We will hold a public
meeting on March 29-31, 2005, to give stakeholders an opportunity to
get information about, and provide comments on, the draft regulatory
language.
DATES: Send your comments to reach us by May 2, 2005. The FAA will host
a facilitated public meeting in Washington, DC on March 29-31, 2005
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m each day.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will take place in the Discovery I
Conference Room of the Holiday Inn--Capitol at 550 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. Persons who are unable to attend the meeting and who
wish to file written comments may send comments identified by Docket
Number FAA-2000-7953 using any of the following methods:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. For
more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Written comments to the docket will receive the same consideration as
statements made at the public meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information: Ren[eacute]
Rey, (202) 267-7538. For legal information: Laura Montgomery, (202)
267-3150. If you would like to present a statement at the public
meeting, have questions about the logistics of the meeting, or would
like to arrange an accommodation, contact Brenda Parker, (202) 267-3674
before March 15, 2005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Licensing and Safety Requirements for Launch Amendments
The draft regulatory language includes changes to the commercial
space transportation regulations governing licensing and safety
requirements for launch. Some of the changes were originally part of a
notice of proposed rulemaking published in 2000 (65 FR 63921, Oct. 25,
2000) (2000 NPRM). Other changes were part of a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking published in 2002 (67 FR 49456, July 30, 2002)
(2002 SNPRM).
The FAA revisited the issue of how much cost to attribute to the
draft rule. The FAA found there would potentially be certain costs
associated with FAA review of federal launch range implementation of
the proposed requirements. In an attempt to be responsive to industry's
concerns about costs, the FAA obtained an independent economic analysis
from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). SAIC's
analysis validated the FAA's estimates. Both reports are available in
the docket.
In preparing the draft regulatory language, we have also made
changes to the proposed language to clarify the FAA's position, respond
to comments,
[[Page 9886]]
or adopt range practice, including a reorganization of part 415 and
changes to various definitions. These changes are summarized below. A
matrix showing the correspondences between the FAA draft regulatory
language and Air Force requirements in EWR 127-1 and AFSPCMAN 91-710
can be found at https://ast.faa.gov/um/. This matrix should facilitate
the ability of interested parties to examine the commonality of
requirements among the three documents. Certain internal range
requirements, particularly in the area of flight safety analysis, will
not be found in either of the Air Force requirements documents, but in
internal Air Force handbooks. Those handbooks are not part of this
matrix.
Reorganization, Licensee Requirements Moved From Part 415 to Part 417
Part 415 contains requirements that an applicant must meet in order
to obtain a license and requirements that a licensee must comply with
during the term of the license. The draft regulatory language would
move all licensee requirements from part 415 to part 417, subpart A,
but would not change application requirements, except for the flight
readiness requirements of Sec. 415.37.
Definition of ``Equivalent Level of Safety''
The draft regulatory language defines ``equivalent level of
safety'' as ``an approximately equal level of safety that may be
determined by qualitative or quantitative means.'' The SNPRM proposed
defining ``equivalent level of safety'' as ``an approximately equal
level of safety. An equivalent level of safety may involve a change to
the level of expected risk that is not statistically or mathematically
significant as determined by qualitative or quantitative risk
analysis.'' In light of the comments received, the FAA excluded the
reference to risk. We did not want to create the impression that risk
is the only measure of safety, when equivalence may be determined
through quantitative or qualitative means.
Grandfathering of ``Meets Intent'' Certification and Waivers
The FAA's two proposals regarding grandfathering have been further
modified in response to industry concerns that the FAA was changing
current practice. With these changes, concerns over grandfathering
should no longer be an issue. The draft regulatory language differs
from the proposal in that a launch operator no longer has to be
licensed to be eligible for grandfathering a ``meets intent''
certification or waiver in Sec. 417.1(c). This change conforms to
Federal launch range practice. The FAA also now requires that a launch
operator, upon request, produce documentation of ``meets intent''
certifications or waivers to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of part 417. The proposal would have only allowed licensed
launch operators to grandfather ``meets intent'' certifications or
waivers and, contrary to current practice, did not require
documentation.
New Performance Based Standard for Waterborne Vessel and Aircraft Risk
Limit in Sec. 417.107(b)(3) and (4)
In response to commenters' concerns, the FAA re-examined the
waterborne vessel and aircraft risk limit originally proposed in Sec.
417.107(b)(3) and (4). This re-examination focused on current range
practice. Based upon this re-examination, the draft regulatory language
makes the requirements more performance based and better reflects the
current practices of the Western and Eastern Range. Under the draft
regulatory language, a launch operator would implement waterborne
vessel hazard areas and aircraft hazard areas that provide an
equivalent level of safety to that provided by waterborne vessel hazard
areas and aircraft hazard areas implemented for launch from a Federal
range.
Addition of Sec. 417.107(e)(iii) To Protect Habitable Orbital Objects
Section 417.107(e) of the draft regulatory language would require a
launch operator to ensure that a launch vehicle, any jettisoned
components, and its payload do not pass any closer than 200 kilometers
to a habitable orbital object and to obtain a collision avoidance
analysis for each launch. The draft regulatory language includes new
subparagraph (iii) to protect habitable orbital objects during each
subsequent orbital maneuver or burn from initial park orbit, or direct
ascent to a higher interplanetary orbit, or until clear of all
habitable objects, whichever occurs first. This captures the current
practice for protection of habitable orbital objects at the Federal
ranges.
Addition of Sec. 417.111(i)(5)(iii), (iv), (v) Requiring Contact With
Local Authorities
The draft regulatory language modifies proposed Sec. 417.111 in
response to comments to require a launch operator to notify not only
the Coast Guard and FAA Air Traffic Control when conducting a launch,
as proposed, but also notifying any equivalent local authorities.
New Sec. 417.129, Safety at End of Launch
The draft regulatory language includes new Sec. 417.129, which
requires a launch operator to ensure no physical contact between the
vehicle and payload after separation, as well as making sure that
stored energy in the vehicle is depleted and thus not able to generate
debris.
Addition of ``Equivalent Level of Fidelity'' in Sec. 417.203(c)
The draft regulatory language modifies proposed Sec. 417.203(c) to
add the concept of ``equivalent level of fidelity'' for alternate
methods of analysis. This would require an operator to use accurate
data and scientific principles when making the case for an alternate
method of flight safety analysis. Use of an ``equivalent level of
fidelity'' instead of ``equivalent level of safety'' clarifies that
when a launch operator seeks to use an alternative method of flight
safety analysis, the launch operator would have to use accurate data
and scientific principles in doing so.
Addition of Sec. 417.218, Hold and Resume Gate Analysis
The draft regulatory language includes new Sec. 417.218, which may
permit a vehicle overflight or near overflight of a populated or
otherwise protected area during some portion of a launch. A launch
vehicle may perform overflight if a risk assessment is acceptable and
if a flight termination system will not be used to destroy a vehicle
while the vehicle is flying over the populated or protected area. A
launch operator would be responsible for identifying the periods of
time during vehicle flight in which use of a flight termination system
would be more detrimental to a populated or protected area than not
using such a system. Section 417.218 is an extension of the
``overflight gate analysis'' proposed in the 2000 NPRM and appears in
the draft regulatory language as Sec. 417.217. Section 417.217 would
require a launch operator to conduct a risk analysis and ``hold'' use
of a flight termination system once a vehicle passes a certain point or
``gate.'' Section 417.218 would extend this concept and define those
periods of time where a flight termination system must not be used.
Adopting Sec. 417.218 may expand the number of trajectories for
certain launch sites and potentially increase the number of inland
launch sites.
[[Page 9887]]
Elimination of a Five-Sigma Cross Range Bound About the Nominal Vehicle
Trajectory in Sec. 417.223
The draft regulatory language includes Sec. 417.223, which would
require a launch operator's flight hazard area analysis to establish
aircraft and ship hazard areas that encompass a three-sigma impact
dispersion area for each planned debris impact, instead of a five-sigma
standard as proposed in the 2000 NPRM. This change is in response to
comments and to adopt current range practice.
Change to Sec. 417.224, Probability of Failure Analysis
The draft regulatory language includes changes to Sec. 417.224,
which would require all flight safety analyses for a launch, regardless
of hazard or phase of flight, to account for launch vehicle failure
probability in a consistent manner. Section 417.224 also would require
that a launch vehicle failure probability estimate use accurate data,
scientific principles, and satisfy the principles of probability,
statistics, and mathematics.
Section A417.25(b)(5) in the 2002 SNPRM (proposed Sec.
417.227(b)(6)(i-iii) in the 2000 NPRM) would have required a launch
operator's debris risk analysis account for launch vehicle failure
probability using theoretical or actual launch vehicle flight data in
accordance with a specific prescribed method.
The FAA recognizes that there is more than one way to establish an
acceptable estimate of the probability of failure, especially for new
launch vehicles. A performance standard permits a launch operator to
employ these different methodologies so long as the methodologies
satisfy the performance standards for expendable launch vehicle
probability of failure analyses.
Addition of Sec. 417.301(d)
The draft regulatory language would add new paragraph (d) to Sec.
417.301 to clarify the flight safety system requirements for a licensed
launch from a Federal launch range or a non-Federal launch site. For
launch from a non-Federal launch site, compliance with the flight
safety system requirements is demonstrated through licensing. If a
Federal range oversees the safety of a licensed launch, the FAA will
accept the flight safety system without any demonstration of compliance
by the launch operator to the FAA with some necessary conditions, which
recognize that not all Federal ranges have experience conducting all
types of expendable launches. The FAA will accept a flight safety
system used by a Federal launch range if a launch operator has
contracted with a Federal launch range for the provision of flight
safety system services and property, and the FAA has assessed the range
and found that the range's systems and procedures satisfy the
requirements of this subpart. Paragraph (d) also discusses the
grandfathering provisions of Sec. 417.1(b).
New Version of Sec. 417.303(b)
The draft regulatory language modifies Sec. 417.303(b) to require
that a command control system and each subsystem, component, and part
that can affect the reliability of a component have written performance
specifications that demonstrate, and contain the details of, how each
satisfies the requirements of this section.
Rewrite of Appendix B to Part 417
The draft regulatory language includes a new appendix B to part 417
that incorporates current practice at Federal ranges. Appendix B
contains requirements that meet the public risk requirements for the
protection of ships and aircraft contained in Sec. 417.107. Appendix B
captures the current practice at the Federal ranges by requiring such
things as notifications, notices to airmen and mariners, and hazard
analysis for a launch site, downrange areas, ship, aircraft, and land
areas.
Changes to Wind Weighting Analysis of Sec. C417.5(c)
The draft regulatory language includes substantive changes to the
wind weighting analysis portion of Appendix C to part 417 from that
proposed in the 2000 NPRM. The changes relate to the measurement of
wind velocity and direction in Sec. C417.5(c). The draft regulatory
language would require that a launch operator measure wind velocity and
direction at altitude increments such that the maximum correction
between any two measurements does not exceed 5%. A launch operator
would still have to measure winds four times, but the required
altitudes would be different. Now, the maximum required altitude for
the first measurement would be that necessary to account for 99% of the
wind effect, instead of 90,000 feet. The maximum required altitude for
the second measurement would be that necessary to account for 95% of
the wind effect, instead of 50,000 feet. The maximum required altitude
for the third and fourth measurement would be that necessary to account
for 80% of the wind effect, instead of 5,000 feet. The draft regulatory
language also clarifies that the last measurement would be required
only to verify the third wind measurement data, not to set launcher
azimuth and elevation.
Change to Definition of ``Bright Band'' in Sec. G417.3
The draft regulatory language would define ``bright band'' in
Appendix G to part 417 as an enhancement of radar reflectivity caused
by frozen hydrometeors falling and beginning to melt at any altitude
where the temperature is 0 degrees Celsius or warmer. This recognizes
that there can be multiple altitudes where the temperature is 0 degrees
Celsius. Accordingly, there may be different altitudes where a bright
band may occur, and the original proposal incorrectly implied that
there could be only one.
New Definition of ``Cloud'' in Sec. G417.3
In response to comments, the draft regulatory language would define
``cloud'' as a visible mass of water droplets or ice crystals produced
by condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Change to Definition of ``Electric Field Measurement at the Surface of
the Earth'' in Sec. G417.3
The draft regulatory language would change the definition of
``electric field measurement at the surface of the Earth'' to no longer
treat an interpolation based on electric field contours as a
measurement. Electric field contours would no longer be used for
electric field measurements.
Comments Invited
You may comment on the draft regulatory language by sending written
data, views, or arguments. We also invite comments relating to the
environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that might result
from adopting the draft regulatory language. Substantive comments
should be accompanied by cost estimates. The most helpful comments are
those that include a rationale or data. Comments must identify the
regulatory docket number and be sent to one of the addresses listed
above.
You may also present comments at the public meeting. The FAA will
prepare an agenda of speakers, which will be available at the meeting.
If we receive your request after the date specified above, your name
may not appear on the written agenda. To accommodate as many speakers
as possible, the amount of time allocated to each speaker may be less
than the amount of time requested. Persons
[[Page 9888]]
requiring audiovisual equipment should notify the FAA when requesting
to be placed on the agenda.
We will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this draft regulatory language. You may review the public
docket containing comments to these proposed regulations in person in
the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The DOT Rules Dockets Office is on the plaza
level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the
above address. We will consider all comments received on or before the
closing date before taking action on the draft regulatory language. We
will consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable, and
consistent with statutory deadlines. We may change the draft regulatory
language in light of the comments we receive.
Commenters who file comments by mail may receive an acknowledgement
of receipt of their comments by including a pre-addressed, stamped
postcard with those comments on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2000-7953.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Privacy Act
Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can find
and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the
name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment on
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Public Meeting Procedures
The FAA will present a description of the draft regulatory language
at the public meeting. The FAA will use the following procedures to
facilitate the meeting:
(1) The meeting is designed to give interested parties an overview
of the contents of the draft regulatory language to facilitate the
public comment process. Therefore, the meeting will be informal and
non-adversarial. No individual will be subject to cross-examination by
any other participant; however, FAA representatives may ask questions
to clarify a statement and to ensure a complete and accurate record.
Participants will also have the opportunity to ask questions about the
draft regulatory language.
(2) There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend or to
participate in the meeting. The meeting will be open to all persons who
are scheduled to present statements or who register between 8:30 a.m.
and 9 a.m. on the day of the meeting. While we will make every effort
to accommodate all persons wishing to participate, admission will be
subject to availability of space in the meeting room. The meeting may
adjourn early if scheduled speakers complete their statements in less
time than is scheduled for the meeting.
(3) Speakers may be limited to a 10-minute statement. If possible,
we will notify speakers if additional time is available.
(4) We will try to accommodate all speakers. If the available time
does not permit this, we will generally schedule speakers on a first-
come-first-served basis. However, we reserve the right to exclude some
speakers if necessary to present a balance of viewpoints and issues.
(5) Sign and oral interpretation can be available at the meeting,
as well as an assistive listening device, if requested from the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at least 2 weeks
before the meeting.
(6) Representatives of the FAA will chair the meeting. A panel of
FAA personnel involved in this proposal will be present.
(7) We will make a transcript of the meeting using a court
reporter. We will include in the public docket a transcript of the
meeting and any material accepted by the FAA representatives during the
meeting. Any person who is interested in buying a copy of the
transcript should contact the court reporter directly. Additional
transcript purchase information will be available at the meeting.
(8) The FAA will review and consider all material presented by
participants at the meeting. Position papers or material presenting
views or arguments related to the draft regulatory language may be
accepted at the discretion of the presiding officer and subsequently
placed in the public docket. We request that persons participating in
the meeting provide six copies of all materials presented for
distribution to the FAA representatives. You may provide other copies
to the audience at your discretion.
(9) Statements made by FAA representatives are intended to
facilitate discussion of the issues or to clarify issues. Any statement
made during the meeting by an FAA representative is not intended to be,
and should not be construed as, an official position of the FAA.
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Morning--Introductory Remarks and Presentation by FAA and United States
Air Force representatives
Afternoon--Licensing Requirements
--Grandfathering, Meets Intent Certifications, and Waivers
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Morning--Cost Implications
Afternoon--Flight Safety Analysis/Flight Safety Systems
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Continue discussion of technical issues and other concerns.
Availability of the Draft Regulatory Language and Other Documents
You can get an electronic copy of the draft regulatory language,
the draft regulatory evaluation, a section-by-section response to
comments on the 2000 NPRM and the 2002 SNPRM, and the Independent
Economic Assessment performed by SAIC using the Internet through the
Department of Transportation Docket Management System at https://
dms.dot.gov. Use the search feature of the Web site by entering the
docket number for this rulemaking (7953). We have also established a
Web site containing a cross-referencing tool that correlates the text
of the draft regulatory language with Air Force launch requirements
[[Page 9889]]
documents. The Web address is https://ast.faa.gov/um/.
You can also get a copy of the draft regulatory language 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) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number of this
rulemaking.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 23, 2005.
George C. Nield,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 05-3916 Filed 2-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
