Killexams.com 1Z0-874 real questions | Pass4sure 1Z0-874 real questions |

Pass4sure 1Z0-874 dumps | Killexams.com 1Z0-874 actual questions | http://heckeronline.de/

1Z0-874 MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional section II

Study steer Prepared by Killexams.com Oracle Dumps Experts


Killexams.com 1Z0-874 Dumps and actual Questions

100% actual Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with elevated Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



1Z0-874 exam Dumps Source : MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional section II

Test Code : 1Z0-874
Test cognomen : MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional section II
Vendor cognomen : Oracle
real questions : 138 actual Questions

Passing the 1Z0-874 exam with enough information.
I had to pass the 1Z0-874 exam and passing the test turned into an exceptionally difficult issue to do. This killexams.com helped me in gaining composure and using their 1Z0-874 QA to sequel together myself for the check. The 1Z0-874 exam simulator spin out to be very beneficial and i used to be capable of skip the 1Z0-874 exam and maintain been given promoted in my company.


I got Awesome Questions bank for my 1Z0-874 exam.
once I had taken the selection for going to the exam then I were given a very Good champion for my preparationfrom the killexams.com which gave me the realness and dependable exercise 1Z0-874 prep classes for the same. here, I moreover were given the possibility to net myself checked before fervor confident of acting nicely in the manner of the getting ready for 1Z0-874 and that was a pleasant aspect which made me best ready for the exam which I scored rightly. artery to such mattersfrom the killexams.


preparing 1Z0-874 exam is dependence of some hours now.
I might probably advocate it to my partners and accomplices. I were given 360 of imprints. I was enchanted with the effects I had been given with the assist test steer 1Z0-874 exam route dump. I commonly notion actual and tremendous researchwere the reaction to total or any exams, until I took the assistance of killexams.com brain promote off to pass my exam 1Z0-874. Fantastically fulfill.


actual 1Z0-874 examination inquiries to bypass exam in the dawn try.
I scored 88% marks. A decent partner of mine recommended the usage of killexams.com Questions & solutions, on account that she had likewise handed her exam in view of them. total of the dump discontinue up top class satisfactory. Getting enlisted for the 1Z0-874 exam emerge as easy, but then got here the tough component. I had a few options, either enlists for widespread instructions and surrenders my low maintenance career, or maintain a test by myself and preserve with the employment.


Did you attempted this brilliant source state-of-the-art actual examination questions.
I am confident to advise killexams.com 1Z0-874 questions answers and exam simulator to every person who prepares to select their 1Z0-874 exam. This is the maximum up to date preparation info for the 1Z0-874 available on-line as it sincerely covers entire 1Z0-874 exam, This one is surely top, which I can vouch for as I passed this 1Z0-874 exam final week. Questions are up to date and correct, so I didnt maintain any grief at some stage in the exam and got privilege marks and I distinctly advise killexams.com


am i able to locate actual real questions state-of-the-art 1Z0-874 exam?
killexams.com is really accurate. This exam isnt immaculate at all, but I were given the top score. One hundred%. The 1Z0-874 preparation p.C. Includes the 1Z0-874 actual exam questions, the modern updates and extra. So you anatomize what you really need to realize and finish no longer consume some time on needless things that simply divert your attention from what absolutely wishes to be learnt. I used their 1Z0-874 trying out engine loads, so I felt very confident on the exam day. Now I am very delighted that I decided to purchase this 1Z0-874 percent, tremendous investment in my career, I moreover positioned my marks on my resume and Linkedin profile, this is a splendid recognition booster.


Did you tried this wonderful source latest actual exam questions.
It became superb revel in with the killexams.com team. They guided me loads for development. I recognize their effort.


These 1Z0-874 Questions and Answers provide Good exam knowledge.
I didnt design to employ any brain dumps for my IT certification exams, but being under pressure of the hardship of 1Z0-874 exam, I ordered this bundle. I was impressed by the property of these materials, they are absolutely worth the money, and I believe that they could cost more, this is how mighty they are! I didnt maintain any grief while taking my exam thanks to Killexams. I simply knew total questions and answers! I got 97% with only a few days exam preparation, besides having some travail experience, which was certainly helpful, too. So yes, killexams.com is really Good and highly recommended.


put together these questions in any other case be prepared to fail 1Z0-874 exam.
Being an below middling student, I got terrified of the 1Z0-874 exam as subjects looked very difficult to me. But passing the test was a necessity as I needed to change the job badly. Searched for an light steer and got one with the dumps. It helped me acknowledge total multiple type questions in 200 mins and pass adequately. What an improbable question & answers, brain dumps! delighted to receive two offers from renowned companies with handsome package. I recommend only killexams.com


less attempt, high-quality knowledge, guaranteed fulfillment.
Thanks to killexams.com team who provides very valuable drill question bank with explanations. I maintain cleared 1Z0-874 exam with 73.5% score. Thank U very much for your services. I maintain subcribed to various question banks of killexams.com dote 1Z0-874. The question banks were very helpful for me to limpid these exams. Your mock exams helped a lot in clearing my 1Z0-874 exam with 73.5%. To the point, precise and nicely explained solutions. support up the Good work.


Oracle MySQL 5 Database Administrator

clients appear to be to Oracle autonomous Database to lighten IT load | killexams.com actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

SAN FRANCISCO -- new methods commonly require additional IT infrastructure and multiply the workload of IT administrators. but each of those things may exchange for Oracle users if Oracle self sustaining Database works as promised, in response to early users of the cloud-primarily based technology.

First detailed finally 12 months's Oracle OpenWorld conference, self sufficient Database is now a apposite section of the dealer's cloud efforts. And at Oracle OpenWorld 2018, users who maintain total started working with it shared their motives for making the start to the know-how, which Oracle says can select over a lot of the database configuration, patching, tuning and update travail performed through database directors (DBAs).

For David VanWiggeren, who heads a startup it is constructing a platform to manage consumer loyalty programs for fuel station and comfort shop operators, conserving IT charges beneath control is a august a section of the enterprise approach.

"We finish not maintain a ton of DBAs," famous VanWiggeren, CEO of Drop Tank LLC in Burr Ridge, unwell. "once they construct whatever thing, they need to create certain it isn't whatever a Good artery to weigh us down later. They need to be efficient; they maintain to be thin to win."

From MySQL to Oracle ADW

Drop Tank began using the data warehouse version of Oracle self sustaining Database past this 12 months to aid its shoppers anatomize endeavor in their loyalty programs. The shift worried a circulate from a MySQL database dwelling on the Rackspace cloud to the self reliant information Warehouse (ADW) cloud carrier, in line with Timothy Miller, vp of expertise at Drop Tank.

In a joint interview with VanWiggeren, Miller seconded the proposal that including to Drop Tank's DBA ranks isn't the route to take. Miller famous he doesn't need "a roomful of DBAs and sys admins" at the business. instead, he spoke of he needs his team to focal point on edifice travail that supports Drop Tank's company operations -- and not to should "take a week off here and there to finish patches" in its databases.

Rackspace has absorbed some renovation and administration tasks for Drop Tank, Miller mentioned, nonetheless it was nevertheless left up to his group to manage the enterprise's databases on an ongoing basis. He and VanWiggeren mentioned they hope that travail should be minimized by the movement to Oracle autonomous Database.

Miller talked about Drop Tank has moreover now began to travail with the independent Transaction Processing carrier that Oracle launched in August to permit self sufficient Database to flee transactional purposes. or not it's nonetheless early within the deployment technique at Drop Tank, however the enterprise is calling to eventually migrate total its purposes to the Oracle cloud.

self sufficient Database may additionally add to cloud's appeal

Al Cordoba, chief statistics officer at Qualex Consulting features Inc. in Bay Harbor Islands, Fla., has begun testing out ADW on latest Oracle statistics fashions created for shoppers in leisure, activities and different industries. He observed the movement to the cloud is smartly underway for many of Qualex's customers, and requests for proposals that once in no artery included cloud options now frequently completely specify cloud methods.

Oracle OpenWorld 2018 in San Francisco Oracle self sustaining Database became a august dialogue topic matter at Oracle OpenWorld 2018.

The automatic points developed into Oracle self sufficient Database may create cloud deployments much more appealing to the organizations with which Qualex works, in response to Cordoba.

"the executive fees of patching and of simply 'protecting the lights on' for an information warehouse are vital considerations for many people," he talked about, including that Oracle's pledges to deliver unreasonable levels of security in independent Database are additionally a key to the expertise's adoption.

Cordoba pointed out he sees changes forward within the nature of the DBA's job that autonomous Database could champion enable.

"For sys admins, there has to be an evolution from somebody doing improvements to a hybrid role the site someone is looking greater downstream," he spoke of. What corporations really need, in his view, are DBAs who know their facts, consider statistics governance and may interact conveniently with industry groups.

Patching the travail day away

For records management teams as a whole, "it's gone time to definitely finish autonomous," said Merv Adrian, a Gartner analyst. "There are corporations with thousands of database cases and a pair of dozen employees spending their complete day -- every day -- patching them. This can be a giant effectiveness boon."

Database automation is becoming an excellent more pressing need because the complexity of methods grows, Adrian delivered in an interview at OpenWorld.

"The database over the final decade has gotten further and further stirring elements," he stated. "And the extra relocating elements you utilize, the greater stirring elements you need to configure and the more probability there is of configuring it incorrectly."

There are groups with hundreds of database circumstances and a pair of dozen personnel spending their entire day -- each day -- patching them. Merv Adriananalyst at Gartner

Configuration, patching and other basic database administration travail can moreover no longer be the most useful employ of constructive IT resources, however handing that travail over to Oracle independent Database may problem DBAs who are not satisfied the know-how can be depended on to appropriately tune databases. for many, making certain that database efficiency meets user needs is a key a section of their jobs.

Oracle's standpoint, even though, is that as adoption of autonomous Database grows, extra users will waiton create it stronger at tuning databases, famous Penny Avril, vice president of product administration for Oracle Database. "in the historical days, they threw application over the fence," she spoke of. "The abilities they maintain this time round on the cloud is that they can straight react."

With Oracle independent Database and different cloud capabilities, the company can acquire activity log information, contemplate how new facets are being used and create mandatory alterations based on the accessible facts, Avril mentioned.


Oracle Enhances MySQL industry version | killexams.com actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

Oracle Enhances MySQL industry edition

raises MySQL manageability, raises efficiency

notice: ESJ’s editors cautiously elect supplier-issued press releases about new or upgraded products and services. we've edited and/or condensed this free up to highlight key points however create no claims as to the accuracy of the vendor's statements.

MySQL industry version is a comprehensive subscription offering that comprises MySQL Database plus monitoring, backup, and design tools, with 24x7 worldwide customer help.

This unencumber adds MySQL enterprise Backup and MySQL Workbench and enhances MySQL commercial enterprise computer screen.

fresh integration with MyOracle aid enables MySQL consumers to access the identical waiton infrastructure used for Oracle Database customers. Joint MySQL and Oracle purchasers can undergo sooner issue resolution through the employ of a typical technical steer interface.

MySQL commercial enterprise version supports numerous operating programs including Linux and windows.

Enhancements in MySQL industry edition encompass:

  • Integration with MyOracle guide: makes it feasible for MySQL shoppers to handicap from Oracle’s 24x7 waiton infrastructure. additionally enables latest Oracle Database valued clientele that may well be the employ of MySQL Database for internet and departmental functions to net hold of MySQL technical steer by the employ of their current MyOracle steer ambiance.
  • MySQL industry video array 2.3: Introduces new guidelines and graphs that champion users extra optimize the performance and availability of MySQL Database and MySQL Cluster. The unlock moreover comprises new MySQL, InnoDB and operating gadget-certain graphs that help visual monitoring of key methods for true-time and ancient trending applications.
  • MySQL commercial enterprise Backup three.5: allows corporations to operate tart online backup of MySQL Databases. Improves facts integrity and uptime by using aiding full, incremental, and partial backups, in addition to element-in-time recovery and backup compression.
  • MySQL Workbench 5.2: gives information modeling, SQL construction and complete administration tools, enabling users to visually design, mannequin, generate, and control MySQL Databases.
  • greater tips is obtainable at http://www.oracle.com.


    how to finish Pagination in Oracle: SQL query With instance | killexams.com actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

    MariaDB TX, proven in construction and driven by the community, is an entire database acknowledge for any and each enterprise — a contemporary database for modern purposes.

    repeatedly, they want a SQL query that returns records page by using page i.e. 30 or forty statistics at a time, which can be specific as web page measurement. in reality, Database pagination is a common requirement of Java web developers, above total dealing with the biggest datasets. listed here, they are able to contemplate the artery to query Oracle 10g database for pagination or a artery to retrieve statistics using paging from Oracle. Many Java programmer additionally makes employ of array tag for paging in JSP which helps both internal and external paging. In case of inner paging, total information is loaded into reminiscence in one shot and monitor tag handles pagination primarily based upon page dimension nonetheless it best proper for minuscule statistics where that you can maintain enough money those many objects in reminiscence.

    if in case you maintain lots of of row to expose than its most desirable to employ external pagination by using asking the database to finish pagination. In pagination, ordering is a further crucial point which cannot be overlooked.

    it be well-nigh impossible to kindhearted massive collection in Java the employ of confined reminiscence purchasable to Java application, sorting facts in a database using ORDER by clause itself is an outstanding acknowledge whereas doing paging in a web software.

    In database paging, they handiest question facts that they are required to prove or maybe as much as 3 pages simply to prefetch some statistics in multiply for performance motive.

    luckily, Oracle database gives a handy system row_number() that can moreover be used to give a unique row quantity to each and every row in influence set. contemplate Oracle PL/SQL Fundamentals — half 1 to be trained extra about row_number and different pagination methods in Oracle database.

    through together with row_number() in the query, that you may yield a sequel set that's numbered, and then its only a job to retrieve data from discrete indexes or pages. privilege here is an instance of a pagination question in Oracle 12c database:

    choose * FROM ( opt for ord.*, row_number() over (ORDER by using ord.order_id ASC) line_number FROM Orders ord ) the site line_number BETWEEN 0 AND 5 ORDER by means of line_number;

    this could print the influence of a question including an further column known as line_number, so one can instantly be populated with the aid of Oracle because of row_number() function.

    which you could additionally contemplate Oracle Database 12c Fundamentals to learn extra concerning the row_number office of Oracle 12c database, which is a free on-line course from Pluralsight to gain information of Oracle database in aspect. There are two components of this tutorial, both are freely available when you signup for the 10-day free affliction on the Pluralsight web site.

    through the employ of this line_number column, now they will net the result page by page according to the measurement of the page or greater exceptionally from one row to one other dote from 1 to 30 or 5th to 30, for the reason that you could stream dawn row and conclusion row from Java program to Oracle database.

    although i know MySQL database has in-built paging aid the employ of the restrict key phrase, this row_number() feature of Oracle is equally positive for paging in Oracle database.

    I maintain additionally establish that SQL Server additionally helps row_number() feature, which can be used to net records web page through page in SQL Server. by the way, if you're preparing for Oracle Certification e.g. 1Z0-066 to develop into an authorized Oracle Database administrator, then that you may check out David Mayer's free 1Z0-066 dumps for reference.

    MariaDB AX is an open source database for up to date analytics: allotted, columnar and simple to create employ of.

    topics:

    database ,oracle ,sql ,pagination ,how-to ,code ,example ,tutorial ,java net development


    Whilst it is very difficult job to elect dependable exam questions / answers resources regarding review, reputation and validity because people net ripoff due to choosing incorrect service. Killexams. com create it certain to provide its clients far better to their resources with respect to exam dumps update and validity. Most of other peoples ripoff report complaint clients approach to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams enjoyably and easily. They never compromise on their review, reputation and property because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams client self assurance is Important to total of us. Specially they manage killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com ripoff report complaint, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. If perhaps you contemplate any bogus report posted by their competitor with the cognomen killexams ripoff report complaint internet, killexams.com ripoff report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com complaint or something dote this, just support in intellect that there are always irascible people damaging reputation of Good services due to their benefits. There are a great number of satisfied customers that pass their exams using killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams drill questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, their test questions and sample brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will definitely know that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.

    Back to Brain dumps Menu


    000-543 test prep | 000-007 mock exam | 000-M03 cram | ASC-012 study guide | 9A0-327 actual questions | A2010-572 braindumps | C2040-985 free pdf | F50-531 actual questions | P2090-045 braindumps | HCE-5420 dump | NCS-20022101010 drill questions | 310-065 free pdf | HP2-B85 dumps | 1Z0-337 test prep | 920-163 drill test | HP0-M54 test questions | C2150-463 questions answers | 000-917 questions and answers | C2020-706 exam questions | HP0-J73 VCE |


    Remember these 1Z0-874 dumps and enroll for the test
    Simply undergo their Questions and brain dumps and guarantee your accomplishment in actual 1Z0-874 test. You will pass your exam at elevated marks or your cash back. They maintain accumulated a database of 1Z0-874 Dumps from actual test to net you outfitted with actual questions and braindumps to pass 1Z0-874 exam at the first attempt. Just interject their exam simulator Exam Simulator and prepare. You will pass the exam.

    If you are interested in properly Passing the Oracle 1Z0-874 exam to start incomes? killexams.com has leading aspect evolved MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional section II test questions with the aim to create certain you pass this 1Z0-874 exam! killexams.com will offer you the foremost correct, up to date and progressive updated 1Z0-874 exam questions and out there with a 100 percent refund guarantee. There are several companies that offer 1Z0-874 brain dumps but those are not rectify and recent ones. Preparation with killexams.com 1Z0-874 new questions will be a nice manner to pass this certification test in swish manner. We are total properly cognizant that a main grief within the IT industry is there will be an absence of superior braindumps. Their test drill dumps provides you the entire thing you will need to require a certification test. Their Oracle 1Z0-874 exam offers you with test questions with confirmed solutions that replicate the Important test. These Questions and Answers provide you with the luxuriatein of taking the particular exam. High-quality and low price for the 1Z0-874 exam. 100% guarantee to pass your Oracle 1Z0-874 exam and acquire your Oracle certification. they maintain a current at killexams.com are committed to assist you pass your 1Z0-874 exam with elevated scores. the probabilities of you failing your 1Z0-874 exam, once memorizing their complete test dumps are little. Oracle 1Z0-874 is rare total over within the globe, and moreover the industry and programming arrangements gave via them are being grasped by means of each one amongst the businesses. they need helped in employing a giant style of firms on the far side any doubt shot means of accomplishment. so much attaining progressing to understand of Oracle certifications are needed to certify as an Important practicality, and moreover the specialists showed through them are hugely prestigious altogether associations.

    In the occasion that would you disclose you are befuddled a artery to pass your Oracle 1Z0-874 Exam? With the assistance of the confirmed killexams.com Oracle 1Z0-874 Testing Engine you'll determine out how to construct your abilties. Most of the understudies open making undergo of once they find out that they want to expose up in IT certification. Their cerebrum dumps are thorough and to the point. The Oracle 1Z0-874 PDF files create your imaginative and prescient sizeable and assist you a ton in prep of the certification exam.

    killexams.com top fee 1Z0-874 exam simulator is extremely encouraging for their clients for the exam prep. Immensely Important questions, points and definitions are featured in brain dumps pdf. sociable occasion the information in a single belt is a unquestionable assist and reasons you net equipped for the IT certification exam interior a quick time frame traverse. The 1Z0-874 exam offers key focuses. The killexams.com pass4sure dumps keeps the crucial questions or thoughts of the 1Z0-874 exam

    At killexams.com, they give completely surveyed Oracle 1Z0-874 preparing assets which can be the fine to pass 1Z0-874 exam, and to net certified with the waiton of 1Z0-874 braindumps. It is a property choice to hasten up your position as an expert in the Information Technology enterprise. They are pleased with their notoriety of supporting individuals pass the 1Z0-874 exam of their first attempt. Their prosperity quotes inside the preceding years were absolutely exquisite, because of their upbeat clients who're currently prepared to impel their positions in the rapid track. killexams.com is the main determination amongst IT professionals, mainly the ones who are hoping to ramble up the progress tiers faster in their individual associations. Oracle is the commercial enterprise pioneer in statistics innovation, and getting certified by them is an ensured approach to be triumphant with IT positions. They allow you to finish actually that with their extremely Good Oracle 1Z0-874 exam prep dumps.

    Oracle 1Z0-874 is rare total over the globe, and the commercial enterprise and programming preparations gave by means of them are being grasped through every one of the agencies. They maintain helped in riding a massive wide variety of agencies on the beyond any doubt shot manner of achievement. Far reaching studying of Oracle gadgets are required to certify as a essential capability, and the professionals showed through them are relatively esteemed in total institutions.

    We deliver genuine 1Z0-874 pdf exam questions and answers braindumps in two preparations. Download PDF and drill Tests. Pass Oracle 1Z0-874 Exam hastily and efficiently. The 1Z0-874 braindumps PDF sort is accessible for perusing and printing. You can print increasingly and drill by and large. Their pass rate is elevated to ninety eight.Nine% and the comparability price among their 1Z0-874 syllabus prep manual and actual exam is 90% in light of their seven-year teaching background. finish you need successs inside the 1Z0-874 exam in best one try? I am certain now after analyzing for the Oracle 1Z0-874 actual exam.

    As the simplest thing this is in any artery crucial privilege here is passing the 1Z0-874 - MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional section II exam. As total which you require is an unreasonable score of Oracle 1Z0-874 exam. The only a unmarried aspect you need to finish is downloading braindumps of 1Z0-874 exam select into account directs now. They will not can waiton you down with their unconditional guarantee. The professionals likewise preserve tempo with the most up and coming exam that allows you to provide the extra section of updated materials. One year slack access to maintain the capacity to them via the date of purchase. Each applicant might moreover undergo the price of the 1Z0-874 exam dumps via killexams.com at a low price. Frequently there may be a markdown for everyone all.

    Within the sight of the actual exam material of the brain dumps at killexams.com you may with out a lot of a stretch build up your forte. For the IT professionals, it's far crucial to help their abilties as indicated by means of their position necessity. They create it light for their customers to carry certification exam with the waiton of killexams.com showed and actual exam cloth. For a brilliant future in its realm, their brain dumps are the mighty desire.

    A high-quality dumps composing is an imperative component that makes it simple as a artery to select Oracle certifications. be that as it can, 1Z0-874 braindumps PDF offers lodging for candidates. The IT affirmation is a sizeable tough project inside the occasion that one doesnt find out legitimate path as genuine asset material. Consequently, we've got actual and updated material for the making plans of certification exam.

    It is Important to collect to the manual material at the off risk that one desires in the direction of spare time. As you require bunches of time to search for updated and factual investigation cloth for taking the IT certification exam. In the event which you find that at one region, what may be advanced to this? Its simply killexams.com that has what you require. You can spare time and support away from bother on the off desultory that you purchase Adobe IT certification from their website online.

    You maintain to net the maximum updated Oracle 1Z0-874 Braindumps with the privilege answers, which will be installation with the aid of killexams.com experts, allowing the opportunity to net a manage on mastering about their 1Z0-874 exam course inside the finest, you will not ascertain 1Z0-874 outcomes of such best anyplace inside the marketplace. Their Oracle 1Z0-874 drill Dumps are given to candidates at performing a hundred% of their exam. Their Oracle 1Z0-874 exam dumps are maximum current in the market, allowing you to net geared up for your 1Z0-874 exam in the proper manner.

    killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as underneath;
    WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for total exams on internet site
    PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders more than $69
    DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $ninety nine
    DECSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for total Orders


    In the event that you are keen about successfully completing the Oracle 1Z0-874 exam to open shopping? killexams.com has driving side created Oracle exam addresses with a view to guarantee you pass this 1Z0-874 exam! killexams.com conveys you the maximum genuine, present and most recent updated 1Z0-874 exam questions and reachable with a 100% unconditional guarantee. There are many agencies that deliver 1Z0-874 brain dumps yet the ones are not unique and maximum current ones. Arrangement with killexams.com 1Z0-874 new questions is a maximum best approach to pass this certification exam in simple manner.

    1Z0-874 Practice Test | 1Z0-874 examcollection | 1Z0-874 VCE | 1Z0-874 study guide | 1Z0-874 practice exam | 1Z0-874 cram


    Killexams HP0-A113 questions and answers | Killexams 000-580 free pdf download | Killexams TB0-121 free pdf | Killexams 1Z0-265 drill test | Killexams C2070-585 cram | Killexams C2010-651 mock exam | Killexams C9510-317 sample test | Killexams ECP-541 drill questions | Killexams CAT-260 exam prep | Killexams 642-887 actual questions | Killexams C2010-577 exam prep | Killexams HP2-K25 drill questions | Killexams OG0-021 study guide | Killexams 70-331 drill test | Killexams HP0-760 braindumps | Killexams Series6 bootcamp | Killexams 190-701 brain dumps | Killexams 000-601 examcollection | Killexams 000-299 drill exam | Killexams NS0-131 free pdf |


    Exam Simulator : Pass4sure 1Z0-874 VCE Exam Simulator

    View Complete list of Killexams.com Brain dumps


    Killexams 00M-238 questions and answers | Killexams 700-104 study guide | Killexams 000-N35 questions answers | Killexams 000-564 dump | Killexams C2090-612 brain dumps | Killexams 000-M226 drill questions | Killexams PGCES-02 braindumps | Killexams 922-093 exam prep | Killexams 00M-236 mock exam | Killexams M2180-747 cram | Killexams 920-106 actual questions | Killexams 920-234 exam prep | Killexams 1Z0-023 actual questions | Killexams 000-611 dumps | Killexams VCS-411 actual questions | Killexams 3304-1 free pdf | Killexams C2040-422 VCE | Killexams CTAL-TM_Syll2012 drill Test | Killexams E20-360 free pdf download | Killexams 311-232 pdf download |


    MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional section II

    Pass 4 certain 1Z0-874 dumps | Killexams.com 1Z0-874 actual questions | http://heckeronline.de/

    Google Cloud Platform (GCP) | killexams.com actual questions and Pass4sure dumps

    Google Cloud Platform is a suite of public cloud computing services offered by Google. The platform includes a orbit of hosted services for compute, storage and application progress that flee on Google hardware. Google Cloud Platform services can be accessed by software developers, cloud administrators and other enterprise IT professionals over the public internet or through a dedicated network connection.

    Overview of Google Cloud Platform offerings

    Google Cloud Platform offers services for compute, storage, networking, august data, machine learning and the internet of things (IoT), as well as cloud management, security and developer tools. The core cloud computing products in Google Cloud Platform include:

  • Google Compute Engine, which is an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) offering that provides users with virtual machine instances for workload hosting.
  • Google App Engine, which is a platform-as-a-service (PaaS) offering that gives software developers access to Google's scalable hosting. Developers can moreover employ a software developer kit (SDK) to develop software products that flee on App Engine.
  • Google Cloud Storage, which is a cloud storage platform designed to store large, unstructured data sets. Google moreover offers database storage options, including Cloud Datastore for NoSQL nonrelational storage, Cloud SQL for MySQL fully relational storage and Google's native Cloud Bigtable database.
  • Google Container Engine, which is a management and orchestration system for Docker containers that runs within Google's public cloud. Google Container Engine is based on the Google Kubernetes container orchestration engine.
  • Google Cloud Platform offers application progress and integration services. For example, Google Cloud Pub/Sub is a managed and real-time messaging service that allows messages to be exchanged between applications. In addition, Google Cloud Endpoints allows developers to create services based on RESTful APIs, and then create those services accessible to Apple iOS, Android and JavaScript clients. Other offerings include Anycast DNS servers, direct network interconnections, load balancing, monitoring and logging services.

    Higher-level services

    Google continues to add higher-level services, such as those related to august data and machine learning, to its cloud platform. Google august data services include those for data processing and analytics, such as Google BigQuery for SQL-like queries made against multi-terabyte data sets. In addition, Google Cloud Dataflow is a data processing service intended for analytics; extract, transform and load (ETL); and real-time computational projects. The platform moreover includes Google Cloud Dataproc, which offers Apache Spark and Hadoop services for big data processing.

    For artificial intelligence (AI), Google offers its Cloud Machine Learning Engine, a managed service that enables users to build and train machine learning models. Various APIs are moreover available for the translation and analysis of speech, text, images and videos.

    Google moreover provides services for IoT, such as Google Cloud IoT Core, which is a sequence of managed services that enables users to consume and manage data from IoT devices.

    The Google Cloud Platform suite of services is always evolving, and Google periodically introduces, changes or discontinues services based on user claim or competitive pressures. Google's main competitors in the public cloud computing market include Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure.

    Google Cloud Platform services Google Cloud Platform pricing options

    Like other public cloud offerings, most Google Cloud Platform services supervene a pay-as-you-go model in which there are no upfront payments, and users only pay for the cloud resources they consume. Specific terms and rates, however, vary from service to service.

    Google Cloud Platform certification

    Google offers training programs and certifications related to Google Cloud Platform, including programs for cloud infrastructure, data and machine learning, application progress and G suite administration, as well as an introductory program for its cloud platform. There are three Google cloud certifications an IT professional can earn: a Certified Professional Cloud Architect, a Certified Professional Data Engineer and a Certified Professional G Suite Administrator.


    Implementing Security, section II: Hardening Your UNIX/Linux Servers | killexams.com actual questions and Pass4sure dumps

    Continuing with section 2 of this two-article series, Joseph Dries helps you continue to expand upon your list of basic security processes by looking at UNIX/Linux hardening, protecting your servers from network based TCP/IP attacks, and utilizing centralized logging servers.

    This article was excerpted from The Concise steer to Enterprise Internetworking and Security.

    "A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is privilege to argue so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposititious safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than they can instruct them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a Good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they maintain lately done. If a lock—let it maintain been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker—is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of honest persons to know this fact because the dishonest are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the information practically; and the spread of information is necessary to give unprejudiced play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquaintance with actual facts will, in the end, be better for total parties." —Charles Tomlinson's "Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks," published around 1850

    It has been said that the wonderful thing about standards is there are so many to elect from. The identical choice is available in the UNIX arena. There are two basic flavors, BSD-derived and AT&T System V-derived. BSD-derived UNIX systems include OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, BSDi, MacOS X, and SunOS 4. System V-derived UNIX systems include HP-UX and Solaris (SunOS 5). Other UNIX systems, such as AIX, provide commands that will act BSD-ish or System V-ish, depending on how they were invoked. Linux is not derived from any UNIX, but depending on the distribution, borrows from both BSD and System V semantics. Actually, Linux itself is just the operating system kernel and supporting drivers. Most Linux distributions employ the GNU system (http://www.gnu.org), thus they are called GNU/Linux distributions. There are hundreds of available GNU/Linux distributions, but even the "top 5" are different in their default commands, startup scripts, filesystem layout, included utilities, and packaging systems.

    What does this denote to you? Unlike Windows NT, including Windows 2000, it is a far more tangled process to portray how to acclimatize a UNIX/Linux server. This next section provides some common procedures that can be applied across UNIX versions and GNU/Linux distributions. Following that are some pointers to alive documents on the Internet, which track available data and releases, and proceed into a more detailed account of how to acclimatize a server for a particular task.

    Common Steps for Hardening UNIX/Linux Servers

    The process of edifice a UNIX or GNU/Linux server for employ as a firewall or DMZ server begins with installation. Eliminating points of attack, such as filling the filesystem, or removing unnecessary libraries and services, is equivalent to removing feasible entry points for intruders.

    Some common guidelines for configuring UNIX servers with a more secure default stance are available from CERT's Web site at ftp://info.cert.org/pub/tech_tips/UNIX_configuration_guidelines.

    Partition for Protection

    Besides having sever partitions for the obvious, such as SWAP and /tmp, you should protect against out-of-disk-space denial-of-service attacks. Intruders might try to create unreasonable generation of logging data or fill your file system with great files through FTP or mail spool. The best artery to protect against this is to segment the filesystem hierarchy into sever physical partitions.

    The root partition / can be minuscule because it generally contains just the kernel—the necessary files, libraries, and configuration for booting in /bin, /sbin, /etc, and /lib. Access to the attached devices is provided through the /dev and /devices directories. Many GNU/Linux distributions store kernels and emblem data in the /boot directory, whereas kernel libraries are stored under /lib.

    The /usr partition is normally where user-accessible applications are stored. Normally, /usr does not hold data or configuration files that change; therefore, an added security measure can be mounted as read-only.

    The /var partition stores system logs and data services such as mail, Web, databases, printing, running services, package management, and so on. On a mail server, you might want to create /var/spool/mail, or /var/mail in Solaris, a sever partition, or—even better—a sever disk array. If you only create one sever partition from /, /var is the one you should separate.

    The /usr/local directory structure, and in Solaris the /opt directory, often contains locally installed optional software, configuration files, and data. /usr/local is normally not affected by operating system upgrades. Depending on how you employ those directories, they too can be mounted as read-only.

    These are suggestions and guidelines only, and are different from recommended settings for a system that contains user accounts, usually in /home.

    Disable Extraneous inetd Services

    inetd is the UNIX "Internet Super Server." It is a daemon process that is invoked at boot time and reads in a flat file configuration database normally establish at /etc/inetd.conf. inetd listens for incoming connections on the defined IP ports. When a connection is initiated on a defined port, it invokes the configured program to service the request. After the connection is finished, the process invoked to service that request terminates. This was originally designed to lighten the load and resources required for systems.

    There are a number of services enabled through inetd, and almost total of them should be disabled for edifice firewalls and DMZ servers. Besides normally disabling FTP, TFTP, Telnet, and the Berkeley r* commands, disable the following:

  • in.named—BIND cognomen services daemon. Except for your DNS servers, you should not be running DNS on your firewall or DMZ servers.

  • in.fingerd—Finger daemon that can be used to prove user information and lists of users who are logged in. There is no reason to advertise that information to would-be intruders.

  • daytime—Connections to this service array the date and time on the system in a string format. Getting the date and time of a system is useful for an intruder trying to implement replay attacks.

  • time—Connections to this service recur the time as a 32-bit value representing the number of seconds since midnight 1-Jan-1900. finish not provide intruders with your exact system time.

  • echo—This is a diagnostic service that echoes incoming data back to the connecting machine.

  • discard—This is a diagnostic service that does not reecho (thus discarding) the incoming data stream back to the connecting machine.

  • chargen—This is a diagnostic service that automatically generates a stream of characters sent to the connecting machine.

  • systat—Connections to this service provide a list of total processes and their status.

  • netstat—Connections to this service provide a list of current network connections and their status.

  • Install and Configure tcp_wrappers

    Install and configure Wietse Venema's tcp_wrappers on both your firewall and DMZ servers. tcp_wrappers allows you to define access control to various services, depending on a limited set of criteria, such as username, IP address, or DNS domain.

    You might be asking why it's necessary to configure and install additional products when your firewall will be doing the identical thing. And that's a convincing question. The acknowledge is to avoid single points of failure, and to provide security in layers. If one layer is pierced and bypassed, other layers will be standing guard behind the breach.

    tcp_wrappers are lightweight and extremely useful on internal servers; not just on firewalls and DMZ servers. support in intellect that most information security breaches, intentional or accidental, occur internally. It's only the external defacements, massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, virus-du-jour, and stolen credit card databases that grab the press. That, and misplaced difficult drives with highly sensitive nuclear information.

    tcp_wrappers maintain two main files that allow access to the individually defined services. The following two files are checked for rules governing access to individual or wildcard services:

    /etc/hosts.allow /etc/hosts.deny

    Like most firewalls, access is granted or denied on the first matching rule. The rules are checked in order, first in hosts.allow and then in hosts.deny.

    Care should be taken when using the KNOWN or UNKNOWN wildcards. total will always match whatever criteria you are testing. Read the hosts_access manual page included with tcp_wrappers for further details on syntax and rules setup.

    tcp_wrappers is installed and configured by default on most GNU/Linux distributions and BSD releases. For those UNIX systems that finish not maintain tcp_wrappers installed by default, they can be establish at ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/pub/security/index.html. Retrieve the source, compile, and install the binaries on the servers.

    Lock Down Your DNS Server

    The Berkeley Internet cognomen Daemon, or BIND, is the reference implementation of the cognomen service providing DNS for the Internet. The Internet Software Consortium (ISC) is answerable for implementing and maintaining BIND. There are three basic versions of BIND: BIND 4, BIND 8, and (recently) BIND 9.

    BIND 4 has been around forever, and has its partake of exploits. Only very customary versions of UNIX systems and GNU/Linux distributions came with BIND 4. Still, you'll be surprised how many installations still maintain the older BIND 4 running. You should upgrade to a newer version of BIND. The ill-started thing is that the file format defining the zones served by the server has changed. There are conversion scripts, but there is certain to be some hand editing.

    BIND 8 is the current stable release, and offers many more features and better control and granularity in access control. The settings described later are discussed with BIND 8 in mind.

    BIND 9 was released late in 2000. It offers many new features, such as IPv6 support, DNSSEC, complete Dynamic DNS, incremental zone transfers, multiple views (internal, external, and so on) from a single server, and scalability improvements. If any of those features are Important to your configuration, you should investigate using BIND 9; otherwise, it's best left to the adventurous.

    Although almost total UNIX systems and GNU/Linux distributions approach with BIND as the cognomen server, it is Important you create certain you are at a recommended release. Before deploying a DNS server, internally or on the DMZ, create certain it is at least version 8.2.2-P5. Any version prior to that has sober exploits. This warning should not be ignored. The Internet Software Consortium themselves maintain issued a statement that if you are running any version of BIND prior to 8.2.2-P5, you should assume your server has already been compromised. Check your UNIX system or GNU/Linux distribution. If the version of BIND is not at least 8.2.2-P5, check with your vendor for upgrades. If an upgrade is not available, you can compile a version of BIND yourself on a workstation, and install the binaries on your server. The source code can be establish at http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/.

    First, restrict zone transfers to specific secondary servers in your primary zones. The acl command allows you to define an access control list composed of blocks of addresses to be used with a named identifier. Using ACLs provides a self-documenting system of administrating the named.conf configuration file. In the following example, they define two ACLs comprising their externally visible DNS servers and the secondary servers at their ISP:

    acl your-company-dns { 172.16.30.12; 172.16.30.24; }; acl your-ISP-dns { 199.177.202.10; 204.95.224.200; };

    The following allow-transfer option directive placed in your named.conf file will default total defined zones to only allow transfers for the defined hosts:

    options { allow-transfer { your-company-dns; your-ISP-dns; }; };

    You can override the allow-transfer statement in the options directive by placing the allow-transfer statement in the zone definition:

    zone "yourdomain.com" { type master; file "db.yourdomain-com"; allow-transfer { 172.16.30.12; 192.168.71.200; }; }

    The default allow-transfer option will preclude zone transfers to hosts not specified in the ACLs. However, if you want to restrict total zone transfers on your secondary servers and any secondary zones on your primary servers, employ predefined match list none. This can be accomplished with the following allow-transfer directive in your zone definitions:

    zone "yourdomain.com" { type slave; file "db.yourdomain-com.s"; masters { 192.168.71.1; }; allow-transfer { none; }; };

    Finally, because you will be allowing recursive queries through your servers, it's best to enable access control lists for your internal networks. Using a nested, named acl with the allow-query option in the zone definition, you can then restrict recursive queries to internal hosts only as seen in the following example:

    acl internal-net { 192.168.71.0/24; }; acl dmz-net { 172.16.30.0/24; }; acl trusted-hosts { localhost; internal-net; dmz-net; }; zone "yourdomain.com" { type master; file "db.yourdomain-com" allow-query { trusted-hosts; }; };

    Que's Concise steer to DNS and BIND by Nicolai Langfeldt is a wonderful resource to further grok BIND configuration and maintenance.

    Tighten Sendmail Default Options

    Send mail comes with just about every UNIX/Linux installation as the default mail transfer agent (MTA). As a result of being so widely installed, it has been estimated that sendmail handles a majority of the email on the Internet. Because it runs as suid root, sendmail exploits influence millions of machines.

    sendmail version 8.11.0 is available at the time of publication, and supports new features such as STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH encryption. Upgrade to the newest version available, if possible, but tickle create certain that you are running a version no later than version 8.9.3 because of security exploits.

    To enable the Realtime Blackhole List feature, employ the following in your sendmail.mc file:

    FEATURE(rbl)dnl

    Additionally, you might want to disable the SMTP VRFY and EXPN commands in sendmail. These commands are often used by intruders to assemble information about your system:

    define(´confPRIVACY_FLAGS', ´novrfy,noexpn')dnl

    There are several additional flags you can set to create sendmail maintain a more secure stance:

  • authwarnings—Add X-Authentication-Warning header in messages on certain conditions that might argue mail system spoof attempts.

  • needmailhelo—Require that the sending site uses the SMTP HELO command first when connecting to forward email.

  • needexpnhelo—Require that the sending site uses the SMTP HELO command before allowing any EXPN usage.

  • needvrfyhelo—Require that the sending site uses the SMTP HELO command before allowing any VRFY usage.

  • noreceipts—Disable Delivery Status Notification (DSNs) of delivery and read receipts.

  • goaway—Set total flags except restrictmailq and restrictqrun.

  • restrictmailq—Prevent users from using the mailq command to view the contents of the mail queue.

  • restrictqrun—Stop users from processing the queue.

  • Better than sendmail: Making Postfix Your MTA

    According to its Web page, Postfix's goals are "to be fast, light to administer, and secure, while at the identical time being sendmail compatible enough to not upset existing users."

    Postfix was primarily written by Wietse Venema of tcp_wrappers fame. Postfix was designed to be modular, thus Postfix is not a single executable dote sendmail; rather, Postfix comprises a collection of specialized programs that perform specific tasks. total the programs except for the master control process (oddly called master because it runs without root privilege) flee as nonprivileged users, limiting the damage an attacker can inflict on your system. Because of the speed, ease of configuration (and thus less desultory of misconfiguration), and security, it is recommended that you investigate replacing sendmail with Postfix. For those of you who finish not dream in sendmail.cf syntax, Postfix will create email administration both easier and more secure.

    Postfix is now distributed with most GNU/Linux and BSD releases, although it is not often installed by default. Usually, it is a simple matter of installing it via your package management system, or (in the BSD case) via the ports collection.

    If you are using an operating system that does not dispense Postfix, desperation not. You can download and compile the sources easily on a progress workstation and then install the binaries on your mail server. The sources, FAQs, and documentation can be establish at http://www.postfix.org/

    Linux-Specific Tasks

    There are many GNU/Linux distributions out there. Each vendor has its own installation process, which usually changes between new versions of the vendor's distribution. The "forerunners" of GNU/Linux distributions are Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux, Mandrake, Caldera, Slackware, and Debian. That does not denote specifically that you should employ any one of them because the elevated number of distributions allows vendors to tailor their GNU/Linux distributions to specific tasks such as embedded systems, routers, and firewalls. select the time to carefully investigate the available distributions, and determine which best fits your needs.

    With that said, two of these universal distributions stand out, but for different reasons. Red Hat, because it has had the most cognomen recognition, and is usually the first to net any sort of corporate champion in the artery of commercial software or commercial technical service. Many vendors, such as Oracle, IBM, and Check Point, maintain released products for Red Hat-specific distributions. This does not denote that those software releases will not flee on other GNU/Linux distributions, but if there is a problem, the vendor might not champion your installation of its product on a non-Red Hat distribution.

    Debian is the second distribution that deserves mention. First, not because it is entirely free, but because it is maintained by a nonprofit organization made up entirely of volunteers. These volunteers are highly motivated by property and pride in their efforts to create Debian the most stable and completely 100% free distribution available. Debian has proven to be extremely stable and light to manage and upgrade remotely. The upgrade process is by far the easiest of any of the GNU/Linux distributions. Debian installations can be upgraded without the need for reboots, replacing every installed package and running process excepting the kernel. Additionally, the Debian packaging system and its front ends allow extremely fine-grained control over which packages, utilities, libraries, and files exist on your system. Debian moreover is currently available on six different architectures, with more than 3,900 included software packages to select from when installing.

    For both Debian and Red Hat installations, you should elect custom installations, and select the individual packages you want on your system. There should be no need to install progress packages, any of the new KDE or GNOME desktops, and certainly not X Window. Unfortunately, neither distribution yet has a minimal secure server or firewall predefined install-set.

    During the installation process, you should elect to enable shadow password file support; elect to employ MD5 hashes for the passwords rather than the habitual crypt function. If you miss these options during the install, you can change them after installation. In Red Hat, employ the setup utility. In Debian, you can employ the shadowconfig utility to enable or disable shadow passwords. To enable MD5 hashes, you maintain to edit the preempt files under /etc/pam.d to include md5 on the password lines.

    You should moreover enable ipchains support, even if this is an application server on the DMZ. ipchains provides additional layers of security, and allows you to protect the server from traffic should the firewall fail for some reason. A sample ipchains configuration is discussed later in the article.

    You should additionally read and monitor the security and errata/updates lists from your distribution vendor. With Debian, it is extremely light to automatically install security updates using the apt-get utility. For Red Hat installations starting with the 6.0 release, there is the up2date utility to retrieve updated packages for your release.

    For those people who elect to install Red Hat Linux, there is a security-related project called Bastille Linux, whose direct is not just to acclimatize your Linux installation, but to educate the administrators on how to acclimatize the system. Bastille Linux supports Red Hat and Mandrake Linux distributions with project goals to become distribution, and UNIX flavor, agnostic. The Bastille Linux product is a set of scripts that asks a sequence of questions and then allows you to apply those modifications to your system. The questions portray what needs to be done, why it should be done, and why you might not want to finish it. It is very educational, especially for those administrators just getting chummy with Linux. Bastille Linux can be establish at http://www.bastille-linux.org/.

    Another excellent source of information for administrators is the Linux Administrator's Security Guide. It covers an extremely wide array of topics related to Linux and security. You can find the Linux Administrator's Security steer online at http://www.securityportal.com/lasg/.

    Solaris-Specific Tasks

    Solaris has four default install-sets: Core, End-User, Developer, and Entire Distribution. Installing any install-set higher than the Core installation will enable more services than are required for DMZ servers or firewalls. In reality, you can often remove a significant percentage of the default Core install-set, depending on your server's application requirements.

    For Solaris-based servers, there are several excellent documents from Sun in its Blueprints Online archive at http://www.sun.com/software/solutions/blueprints/online.html. The following three papers are excellent starting points for edifice secure Solaris servers:

  • "Solaris Operating Environment Minimization for Security: A Simple, Reproducible and Secure Application Installation Methodology" by Alex Noordergraaf and Keith Watson. Although this paper specifically covers the iPlanet Web server requirements, similar requirements are necessary for using Apache or other Web servers.

  • "Solaris Operating Environment Security" by Alex Noordergraaf and Keith Watson. An overview of universal security options on a Solaris server. This paper includes some specifics for the SPARC architecture; however, most of the material is applicable to Intel architectures as well.

  • "Solaris Operating Environment Network Settings for Security" by Alex Noordergraaf and Keith Watson is another excellent paper on kernel tuning and application parameters that influence network security.

  • As a matter of fact, Sun's Blueprints Online is a wealth of whitepapers outlining Best Practices regarding Solaris Operating Environments, whether it is a DMZ Web server, firewall, or internal highly available database cluster.

    Lance Spitzner moreover has an excellent Solaris hardening document that details the hardening process for edifice a Check Point FireWall-1 firewall on several recent versions of Solaris (through version 8) for the Intel and SPARC platforms. The alive document resides at http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/armoring.html.

    Finally, there is an equivalent to the Bastille-Linux hardening scripts for Solaris called TITAN. The TITAN project and documentation can be establish at http://www.fish.com/titan/.

    OpenBSD-Specific Tasks

    This section concentrates on OpenBSD 2.7, which is one of the three more renowned BSD variants; the others being NetBSD and FreeBSD. Each variant has focused on a different problem: NetBSD is the most portable, FreeBSD has the best performance, and OpenBSD is the most secure.

    One of the mighty strengths of OpenBSD is the highly secure default stance of a default install of OpenBSD. The OpenBSD Web site claims "three years without a remote hollow in the default install, only one localhost hollow in two years in the default install." Almost total services are disabled until the administrator has enough undergo to properly configure them.

    Two additional changes necessary for an OpenBSD box to become a firewall are to disable sendmail and enable IP filter support. Both changes are made to the identical file, /etc/rc.conf. To disable sendmail, change

    sendmail_flags="-q30m"

    to

    sendmail_flags=NO

    To enable IP filter support, you must change

    ipfilter=NO

    to

    ipfilter=YES

    Additionally, if you will be doing Network Address Translation (NAT), providing transparent proxying, or providing champion for FTP, you must enable the ipnat option by setting ipnat=YES. Syntax for IP filters will be covered briefly later in the chapter.


    Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants | killexams.com actual questions and Pass4sure dumps

    Status Report From: FAAPosted: Friday, December 15, 2006

    image

    [Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 75615-75645] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15de06-10]

    Part II

    Department of Transportation

    Federal Aviation Administration

    14 CFR Parts 401, 415, 431, 435, 440 and 460

    Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants; Final Rule

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Federal Aviation Administration

    14 CFR Parts 401, 415, 431, 435, 440 and 460

    [Docket No. FAA-2005-23449] RIN 2120-AI57

    Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants

    AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION: Final rule.

    SUMMARY: The FAA is establishing requirements for human space flight as required by the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, including rules on crew qualifications and training, and informed consent for crew and space flight participants. The requirements should provide an acceptable level of safety to the universal public and ensure individuals on board are cognizant of the risks associated with a launch or reentry. The rule moreover applies existing financial responsibility and waiver of liability requirements to human space flight and experimental permits. Experimental permits are the topic of a sever rulemaking.

    Dates: effectual Date:

    These amendments become effectual February 13, 2007.

    Compliance Date: Affected parties, however, finish not maintain to comply with the information collection requirements in Sec. Sec. 460.5, 460.7, 460.9, 460.19, 460.45, and 460.49 until the FAA publishes in the Federal Register the control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for these information collection requirements. Publication of the control number notifies the public that OMB has approved these information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Kenneth Wong, Deputy Manager, Licensing and Safety Division, Commercial Space Transportation, AST-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267- 8465; facsimile (202) 267-3686; e-mail ken.wong@faa.gov. For legal information, contact Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3150; facsimile (202) 267-7971, e-mail laura.montgomery@faa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can net an electronic copy using the Internet by: (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search); (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://

    http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html .

    You can moreover net a copy 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. create certain to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking. Anyone is able to search the electronic configuration of total comments received into any of their dockets by the cognomen of the individual submitting the remark (or signing the comment, if submitted 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

    Small industry Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The minuscule industry Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with minuscule entity requests for information or counsel about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a minuscule entity and you maintain a question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/ .

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on commercial space transportation safety is establish in Title 49 of the United States Codes, section 322(a), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to carry out Subtitle IX, Chapter 701, 49 U.S.C. 70101-70121 (Chapter 701). The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (the CSLAA) provides additional authority. Under 49 U.S.C. 70105(b)(4), no holder of a license or permit may launch or reenter crew unless the crew has received training and satisfied medical or other conditions specified in a license or permit, total in accordance with FAA regulations. This rulemaking imposes crew qualification and training requirements and implements the statutory requirement that an operator advise the flight crew and any space flight participant that the U.S. Government has not certified the launch vehicle as safe. Section 70105(b)(5) directs the FAA to promulgate regulations requiring that the holder of a license or permit inform each space flight participant in writing about the risks of launch or reentry.

    Table of Contents

    I. Background

    II. Description of Final Rule and Discussion of Comments

    A. Equivalent level of SafetyB. Launch and Reentry With Crew1. Definitionsa. Cabin Crew Suggestionb. Recommendations Regarding Personnel on the Groundc. Carrier Aircraft Personneld. Payment for Pilot or Remote Operator Training2. Authority3. Pilot Qualifications4. Remote Operator Qualifications5. Medical Standards for Crewa. Objections to Requiring Medical Certification of Crew Who finish Not maintain a Safety-Critical Roleb. Recommendations for More Stringent Medical Standards6. Crew Training7. Crew Notification8. Environmental Control and Life champion Systema. Requiring Both Monitoring and Control of Atmospheric Conditions or Requiring Only Controlb. Open-Loop System Versus Closed-Loop Systemc. Other Environmental Control and Life champion System Related Commentsd. Guidance Plans9. Smoke Detection and Fire Suppression10. Human Factors11. Verification Program12. Crew Waiver of Claims Against U.S. Government13. Professional EngineerC. Launch and Reentry With a Space Flight Participant1. Risk to Space Flight Participants2. Informed Consenta. Space Flight Participant's skill To be Informed3. Physical Examination4. Space Flight Participant Waiver of Claims Against U.S. Government5. Space Flight Participant Training6. Security RequirementsD. financial Responsibility and Waiver of Liability1. Changes From What the FAA Proposed in the NPRM2. Waivers of Claims3. Federal Preemption4. Insurance5. Maximum Probable Loss

    III. Rulemaking AnalysesIV. The Amendment

    I. Background

    On December 23, 2005, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), ``Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants'' 70 FR 77261 (Dec. 29, 2005), which discusses the background of the CSLAA and the nascent human space flight industry. The NPRM moreover discusses the safety considerations underlying the FAA's proposed requirements and each alternative that the agency considered. In the CSLAA, Congress moreover directed the FAA to issue guidelines or advisory materials to steer the implementation of the law as soon as practical, and to promulgate requirements governing experimental permits. On February 11, 2005, the FAA issued ``Draft Guidelines for Commercial Suborbital Reusable Launch Vehicle Operations with Flight Crew'' and ``Draft Guidelines for Commercial Suborbital Reusable Launch Vehicle Operations with Space Flight Participants.'' On March 31, 2006, the FAA published an NPRM, ``Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets.'' 71 FR 16251.

    II. Description of Final Rule and Discussion of Comments

    In this final rule, the FAA changes parts 401, 415, 431, 435 and 440 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and establishes a new section 460 in response to the CSLAA's requirement to issue regulations governing crew and space flight participant, by June 23, 2006. Revisions in section 440 codify the financial responsibility and risk allocation regime for activities authorized by a permit and for crew and space flight participants. These requirements supplement other launch and reentry regulations, including those in parts 415, 431, and 435. For example, section 431 governs reusable launch vehicle operations, and contains system safety and risk requirements and operational constraints. An operator of a reusable launch vehicle with a person on board must comply with this rule and section 431.

    Part 460 applies to anyone applying for or having a license or permit under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Chapter III, who conducts a flight with crew or space flight participants on board a vehicle, or employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.\1\ This section moreover applies to a space flight participant or crew member participating in an activity authorized under 14 CFR Chapter III. section 460 defines crew and flight crew and imposes notification, medical, qualification, and training requirements. It moreover promulgates informed consent and training requirements for space flight participants.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a vehicle with no one on board that is controlled by a remote operator section 460 does not apply. Instead, an operator will be governed by other parts, such as parts 431 and 435.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received comments from forty-two entities, including aerospace companies, associations, service providers, individuals and other agencies of the U.S. Government. Operators of launch and reentry vehicles who provided comments include Blue Origin, LLC (Blue Origin), the Personal Spaceflight Federation \2\ (Federation), Rocketplane Limited, Inc. (Rocketplane), TGV Rockets, Inc., and XCOR Aerospace (XCOR). The following associations, individuals and service providers moreover commented: Airline Pilots Association International (ALPA); Association of Space Explorers-USA (ASE), International Association of Space Entrepreneurs and Institute for Space Law and Policy (IASE and ISLAP); Knutson & Associates, Attorneys at Law (Knutson); Nickolaus Leggett (Leggett); Planehook Aviation Services, LLC (Planehook); Predesa, LLC (Predesa) and James Snead.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Federation is a non-profit trade association consisting of companies whose industry involves or will involve commercial human space flight. They provided consensus comments on the NPRM and consist of the following: Air Launch, Armadillo Aerospace, Bigelow Aerospace, Mojave Spaceport, RocketPlane Limited, Inc., Scaled Composites, Space Adventures, SpaceDev, Space Explorations Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), The SpaceShip Company, XCOR Aerospace, X PRIZE Foundation, and Virgin Galactic.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the commenters supported the proposed requirements, but with several suggested changes.

    A. Equivalent level of Safety

    The Federation recommended that the FAA consider allowing means of compliance other than those identified in the regulations. In section 460, the FAA will allow an operator to demonstrate that an alternative system of compliance for certain requirements provides an equivalent level of safety and satisfies the rule. The FAA notes that many of the requirements of this section are performance standards that already offer operators a mighty deal of flexibility. Where a requirement is prescriptive, such as when the FAA requires a pilot certificate, the FAA does not contemplate approving alternatives through the license or permit process unless the requirement explicitly allows alternatives. As the Federation noted, the FAA moreover has the skill to concede waivers under 14 CFR 404.3. If an operator wishes to pursue a course that is not consistent with the requirements of section 460, the operator must apply for a waiver.

    B. Launch and Reentry With Crew

    Subpart A of section 460 applies to the flight crew and any remote operator. The only ground crew covered is a remote operator.

    1. Definitions

    The FAA is retaining the definition of crew required by the CSLAA, that is, any employee of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, who performs activities in the course of that employment directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. As proposed in the NPRM, a crew consists of flight crew, crew on board a vehicle during a launch or reentry, and any remote operator. Also, crew members may be independent contractors as well as employees. As it explained in the NPRM, the FAA defines crew to include total personnel on board, namely the flight crew, as section of the crew, and thus give a broader significance to crew than one consisting only of a pilot or remote operator. Because Congress contemplated operation of or in a vehicle (emphasis added), Congress appears to maintain intended some persons on the ground to be included as section of the crew. A remote operator of a vehicle satisfies the Congressional direction to include some ground crew as section of the crew. Also, a remote operator is someone whose employment would directly relate to a launch or reentry, thus satisfying the other statutory prong. Limiting ground crew to remote operators avoids providing notice to personnel on the ground about the dangers of a vehicle they are not going to board. Were the FAA to include more ground personnel as crew, the CSLAA would require an operator to inform those persons that the U.S. Government has not certified the vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants, 49 U.S.C. 70105(b)(4)(B), which seems an exercise of no benefit.

    Commenters raised a number of questions regarding the definition of crew. With the exception of those related to the requirement for a second-class airman medical certificate, they are addressed here.

    a. Cabin Crew. The IASE and ISLAP suggested that distinguishing between ``cabin crew'' and ``flight crew'' would ensure that the fundamental incompatibility between them--direct involvement in vehicle operation as opposed to passenger safety and comfort--would be recognized in future regulations while facilitating clearer discussion of the regulatory responsibilities of each crew member. This suggestion is premature. The FAA will address the recommendation when those circumstances arise.

    b. Personnel on the Ground. The FAA, as it proposed in the NPRM, defines a remote operator as a crew member who has the skill to control, in actual time, a launch or reentry vehicle's flight path, and is not on board the vehicle. This means that a remote operator is the only member of the ground crew.\3\

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ASE commented that it believes the portion of the definition of crew ``A crew consists of flight crew and any remote operator'' to denote if a person is not a flight crew member or a remote operator, then that person is not crew. ASE recommended that the definition read ``A crew consists only of flight crew and any remote operator'' to avoid any misinterpretation. The FAA does not incorporate the suggested change because it is unnecessary but confirms in this document that if a person is not a flight crew member or a remote operator, then that person is not crew.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Blue inception requested that the FAA clarify the definition of remote operator to ensure the exclusion of persons on the ground from the definition of crew. Blue inception recommended that the FAA clarify that ``control'' means navigation and control of the vehicle, rather than merely being in the chain of command. Blue Origin's clarification would preclude someone who initiated a launch or an abort from being considered section of the crew. Blue inception reasoned that launch decisions will often be made by a launch director after receiving input from total groups, including air traffic control.

    As explained in the NPRM, a remote operator is someone who actively controls the vehicle, and does more than initiate or abort a launch in progress. vigorous control encompasses navigation as well as control. A mission flight control officer in permeate of terminating the flight of an errant expendable launch vehicle would not be treated as a remote operator because he or she does not maintain the skill to control, in actual time, the vehicle's flight path. Accordingly, the FAA does not need to adopt Blue Origin's suggestion.

    Predesa suggested expanding ground crew to include ``specialists who monitor and maintain vehicle systems via telemetry'' as they may assist a remote operator or pilot, and provide information or modify the operations of vehicle systems during flight. Predesa recommended that these personnel possess FAA flight engineer certification or FAA pilot certification. Predesa does not believe that persons who are not on board should be subjected to lesser standards merely because of their location.

    The FAA has decided against expanding the definition because the personnel, even though not covered under section 460 if not on board the launch or reentry vehicle, will be subjected, during the license or permit process, to the standards preempt to their roles. For example, an applicant proposing a reusable launch vehicle mission would maintain to meet section 431, which requires that a licensed operator implement a system safety process and operational restrictions and fullfil risk requirements. As section of the system safety process, personnel on the ground will receive training to carry out their roles safely, and it is through this training that the personnel on the ground will be held to standards preempt to their roles. As section of the proposed requirements for obtaining an experimental permit, the FAA intends to require an applicant conduct a hazard analysis. Human mistake issues and training of ground personnel would be addressed through this analysis. Also, section 431 requirements address the readiness of vehicle safety operations personnel to champion flight under nominal and non- nominal conditions.

    c. Carrier Aircraft Personnel. Dassault Aviation and Spaceport Associates asked whether the crew of a carrier aircraft \4\ would be included as crew under section 460. Spaceport Associates pointed out that, in one sense, crew of a carrier aircraft are effectively providing the first stage of the launch although not themselves topic to extraordinary biomedical stresses. Planehook commented that adopting the term ``spacecraft pilot'' would reduce confusion when distinguishing between the pilot of an aircraft and the pilot of a launch vehicle. According to Planehook, the training of crew on a carrier aircraft should be addressed in 14 CFR section 61 because the vehicle is most likely to remain an air-breathing aircraft. This rulemaking does not treat crew on board a carrier aircraft as crew under section 460.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Some licensees maintain used aircraft to assist in space launch. Orbital Sciences Corporation's Pegasus launch vehicle is air- launched from an L-1011 carrier aircraft. Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne was air-launched from a White Knight carrier aircraft. The L-1011 was issued a supplemental type certificate and operates under two FAA airworthiness certificates: A gauge airworthiness certificate for operation without Pegasus and a restricted airworthiness certificate for operations with the Pegasus launch vehicle. White Knight operated under a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category when it was operating lonely or carrying SpaceShipOne. The FAA did not impose requirements on the crew of the carrier aircraft other than those required by the FAA's aviation requirements.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA defines flight crew to denote crew that is on board a vehicle during a launch or reentry. The crew aboard the aircraft are already covered by existing FAA regulations. Thus, new terms such as spacecraft pilot are not necessary to distinguish between aviation and space flight crew.

    d. Payment for Pilot or Remote Operator Training. Under this final rule, the FAA will not allow a space flight participant to act as a pilot or remote operator of a launch or reentry vehicle. ASE famous that it is feasible that a qualified, medically-certified person may wish to pay an operator to pilot the operator's vehicle. The FAA notes that someone paying to fly, whether as a passenger or at the controls, is a space flight participant rather than an employee.

    For public safety reasons, the FAA will not allow space flight participants to pilot launch or reentry vehicles at this time. A space flight participant who wants to pilot a launch or reentry vehicle would maintain to become an employee or independent contractor of the operator to acquire vehicle and mission-specific training. The operator will be in a better position to evaluate the skills of an employee or independent contractor than of a space flight participant, particularly as those skills relate to the requirements of the operator's particular vehicle. The FAA acknowledges that this restriction may create a plight for someone who wishes to acquire training in order to become employed, but, while the technology is so new, it is Important for public safety that pilots be highly skilled at the outset.

    2. Authority

    The FAA has the authority to protect crew. Spaceport Associates questioned the FAA's authority to protect crew when it commented that the FAA should not implement design requirements to protect crew, particularly in light of the requirement to notify crew members that a vehicle has not been certified as safe. The commenter observed, in effect, that the FAA was limited to protecting the universal public. Under the CSLAA, the FAA has the authority to protect the crew because they are section of the flight safety system that protects the universal public.\5\

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Even before the passage of the CSLAA, this has been the case. In April 2004 the FAA issued two RLV mission specific licenses: one to Scaled Composites and one to XCOR. These licenses apply to suborbital RLV missions with a pilot on board, where the FAA addressed the safety of the crew in order to protect the public. contemplate also, Notice of Policy, 68 FR 56039, 56040 (Sept. 29, 2003).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Pilot Qualifications

    As proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 460.5 requires a pilot of a launch or reentry vehicle to possess and carry an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument rating. The FAA invited public remark on the proposed requirement and received differing views.

    Some commenters considered the requirement too lenient. TGV suggested that a pilot certificate might only partially address the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for safety. TGV recommended that, in addition to a pilot certificate, the FAA require test pilot credentials or military supersonic undergo for single piloted suborbital and orbital vehicles. Because having a pilot certificate may not be sufficient, Sec. 460.5(c)(2) requires aeronautical undergo and skills necessary to pilot and control the vehicle.

    The Federation and Planehook agreed with the requirement for a pilot to maintain an instrument rating because, as Planehook commented, the trajectory of a vehicle will pass through Class A airspace at least twice. ALPA moreover agreed that the pilots or flight crew, including any remote operators acting under section 460, should be certificated.

    Focusing on a feasible exception to the utility of requiring a pilot certificate, Mr. Nickolaus Leggett recommended against requiring pilots and remote operators of launch vehicles that finish not maintain aircraft characteristics to possess an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument rating. He pointed out that a strictly ballistic suborbital vehicle consisting of a capsule and parachute does not require conventional piloting skills at all. Similarly, Starchaser recommended not requiring a pilot certificate at total and relying only on the performance requirement that a pilot possess the necessary skills and undergo for the vehicle. An Air force member of the Common Standards Working Group (CSWG) \6\ recommended that the FAA not require that a pilot be certified when a vehicle is unique and lacks any similarity to an airplane.\7\ The commenter suggested that a properly trained engineer may be a better choice as a pilot for the vehicles that finish not resemble aircraft. If the key criterion is to protect the public, an individual intimately chummy with the unique vehicle design, capabilities, and properly trained in the operation and recovery of such vehicles could be a better choice to operate the vehicle than a pilot.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The CSWG consists of Air Force, FAA, and other government agencies. The CSWG develops, documents, and maintains common safety standards for public safety of the launch and reentry of launch and reentry vehicles. \7\ The commenter agreed with requiring pilot certification where a vehicle has many characteristics in common with an airplane.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA requires a pilot certificate so that a pilot of a reusable launch vehicle has a basic level of aeronautical experience, an understanding of the National Airspace System (NAS), and an understanding of the regulatory requirements under which aircraft in the NAS operate, including cloud clearance requirements and airspace restrictions. This awareness will enhance overall safety of the NAS, regardless of whether a vehicle has wings. An instrument rating should ensure that pilots of launch and reentry vehicles maintain acquired the skills of scanning cockpit displays, correctly interpreting the instruments, and responding with rectify control inputs. The FAA expects that regardless of the kindhearted of vehicle used, there will be times when a pilot will be relying on instrument skills and competency. Having a pilot certificate and aeronautical undergo provides evidence of a basic level of information of and undergo with the NAS, such as communications, navigation, airspace limitations, and other aircraft traffic avoidance, that will waiton promote public safety.

    Planehook commented that a pilot or remote operator of a vehicle should maintain a commercial pilot certificate preempt to the type of vehicle flown. The FAA's guidelines hold such a recommendation. The FAA did not, however, pose in the NPRM to implement this guideline as a requirement. The FAA did not specify the particular kindhearted of pilot certificate required nor what category, class, type or instrument ratings are needed because different operators are proposing vehicles of varied and unique designs. The pilot certification is not directly transferable from aircraft to launch or reentry vehicles. Rocket- powered vehicles finish not operate as aircraft. As Mr. Leggett noted, even for a more manually controlled ballistic vehicle, the skills required disagree from those of an aircraft pilot.

    The FAA recognizes the validity of these comments. Accordingly, the agency is adopting a performance requirement, Sec. 460.5(c)(2), that requires a pilot and remote operator to possess aeronautical undergo and skills necessary to pilot and control the vehicle for any launch or reentry vehicle that will operate in the NAS. To avoid overly burdening the industry, and in recognition of the diverse orbit of vehicles proposed, the FAA does not require an RLV pilot to hold a pilot certificate for a specific category of aircraft or to maintain a specific instrument rating on that certificate.

    4. Remote Operator Qualifications

    Section 460.5 requires a remote operator to possess and carry a pilot certificate with an instrument rating. Section 460.5(c)(1)(iii), however, allows an operator to demonstrate through the license or permit process that an alternative approach provides an equivalent level of safety. In the NPRM, the FAA invited public remark on the proposed requirement that a remote operator of a launch or reentry vehicle with a human on board possess an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument rating and that he or she demonstrate the information of the NAS necessary to operate the vehicle.

    Predesa questioned whether it was safe to allow remote operators at all. Predesa pointed out that remote operation of a vehicle could lead to concerns over the security and integrity of telemetry from the vehicle and of the commands sent to control the vehicle. Predesa recommended redundancy in the communications channel or on-board back up in the configuration of a trajectory controller or, preferably, a pilot on board. James Snead moreover recommended that a pilot be on board because there is no precedent for flight without one.

    The FAA notes that there is precedence for permitting remote operators to control a vehicle. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are already operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the military services, and authorized by the FAA. The FAA will address whether the operators can sufficiently control a vehicle through the license or permit process on a case-by-case basis. The safety issues, such as those raised by Predesa, will moreover be addressed in that process.

    The Federation and Starchaser recommended against requiring remote operators to possess pilot certificates at all, let lonely with an instrument rating. The Federation recommended that remote operators still demonstrate knowledge, albeit with wide latitude, of the NAS and the deconfliction of airspace necessary to safely operate the vehicle. The Federation claimed the variety of feasible vehicles and control schemes renders unnecessary a requirement that remote operators possess a pilot's certificate. According to the Federation, operators can and should be allowed to demonstrate their information of the NAS in other ways, such as by written test. The Federation famous that John Carmack of Armadillo Aerospace successfully operated a vertical takeoff, vertical landing vehicle remotely at the 2005 X PRIZE Cup, without the employ of a pilot's license or instrumentation resembling that of an aircraft cockpit.\8\

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ It should be famous that Armadillo's vertical-take off vehicle, which hovered about 25 feet above the ground for a few seconds and had no human on board, was not an FAA licensed launch. Nor did the vehicle maintain an repercussion on the NAS.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, t/Space, suggested that in some instances, remote operation of a launch or reentry vehicle with a human on board may provide backup command and control of the vehicle if the pilot or flight crew is incapacitated or otherwise unable to function. When not intended for nominal flight operations, remote operation from the ground is likely to be limited to execution of pre-planned flight, reentry, or abort scenarios. According to t/Space, the remote operator in these situations would not require the identical level of information and undergo as a pilot with an instrument rating. The FAA acknowledges that there may be a variety of vehicle types and control schemes, such as back up remote operators that may be used. Accordingly, for a remote operator, the FAA will allow an operator to demonstrate that something other than a pilot certificate provides an equivalent level of safety. 5. Medical Standards for Crew

    Section 460.5(e) requires that each crew member with a safety- captious role possess and carry an FAA second-class airman medical certificate issued in accordance with 14 CFR section 67 \9\ and issued no more than 12 calendar months prior to the month of launch and reentry. For example, this means that if a launch were to select site on May 1, 2007, or May 31, 2007, a medical certificate issued anytime in May 2006 would fullfil the requirement. Because the requirement applies to both launch and reentry, operators who design on a reentry in a different month than the launch should ensure that their crews' medical certificates are still timely for the reentry.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require that the medical certificate be issued within 12 months of launch or reentry as opposed to 12 months prior to the month of launch or reentry. The proposed time circumscribe might maintain created confusion because a second- class medical certificate expires at the discontinue of the last day of the twelfth month after the month of the date of examination. 14 CFR 61.23(d)(2). The requirement now provides the identical expiration date as section 61.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring a medical certificate only for crew with a safety- captious role marks a change from the NPRM, where the FAA proposed that total crew members, regardless of whether they were safety-critical, possess and carry such a certificate.

    a. Objections to Requiring Medical Certification of Crew Who finish Not maintain a Safety-Critical Role. Rather than creating a sever class of crew who are not safety captious or modifying the definition of crew as some commenters suggested, the FAA can better address medical risk to the mission by more precisely identifying what triggers the need for a medical certification. In section 460.5(e), the FAA distinguishes between crew members with a safety-critical and non-safety-critical role to determine whether they must fullfil the medical requirements.

    Several commenters, including ALPA, generally concurred with the FAA that requiring medical certification is appropriate, particularly for those crew members whose duties are associated with operation of the launch or reentry vehicles. Several suggested that it may not be necessary for total crew members. Planehook and David J. Sullivan- Nightengale commented that a second-class medical certificate was preempt for the pilot but unnecessary for other crew members. The Federation, t/Space, and XCOR asked the FAA to reconsider requiring a second-class medical certificate for non-safety-critical crew on the grounds that it would be impractical and unnecessary. The Federation claimed that where a regulatory requirement does not respond to a actual need, it can negatively repercussion a flight test. XCOR commented that members of a rocket engine progress team will likely serve as flight test engineers on some test flights to permit them to solemnize engine operation in actual time and possibly to adjust parameters of the propulsion system in flight. According to XCOR, these operations are not safety-critical because the flight is aborted if the flight test engineer is incapacitated, and the worst case sequel is the loss of some data from that flight.

    Blue inception commented that a person should not be required to maintain a second-class medical certificate if he or she is only involved in pushing an ignition button or initiating an abort of a vehicle experiencing non-nominal telemetry. TGV Rockets recommended against medical certification for remote operators.

    Under today's rule, crew members must complete training on how to perform their duties on board or on the ground so that the vehicle will not harm the public. They moreover must complete training to be able to perform duties in emergency operations or abort scenarios. Crew members who are not medically stable likely would not be able to meet training or performance requirements.

    The FAA agrees that requiring second-class medical certification for crew members who finish not perform safety-critical functions is unnecessary. There may be missions when a flight attendant or flight test engineer has duties that would not influence public safety. The FAA, however, anticipates that there may be missions when a flight attendant or flight test engineer does maintain a safety captious role. Rather than specifying which crew members must maintain a medical certificate, the FAA requires that only crew members who maintain a safety-critical role must possess and carry a second-class airman medical certificate.

    Jonathan Goff suggested that alternatives to the second-class medical be accepted if they demonstrate an equivalent level of safety. The FAA has decided against this approach because a demonstration of equivalence would likely require the identical level of examination and information as a medical certificate. The most straightforward approach is to obtain a second-class medical certificate.

    b. Recommendations for More Stringent Medical Standards. Several commenters recommended the FAA adopt more stringent medical standards. The Aerospace Medical Association commented that a second-class medical certificate is acceptable for suborbital flight but more stringent physical standards should be applied to orbital missions. It further posited that the examination should be conducted by a physician with aerospace medicine training and include screening tests consistent with prudent aeromedical drill and recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services job Force. Dii Aerospace Laboratories commented that different standards should apply to space flight because the effects of weightlessness and reentry are vastly different for space flight than for gauge commercial air travel. If a candidate for a medical certificate had significant medical issues, he or she would not receive certification. The physician would refer that person to a specialist for further evaluation. TGV Rockets commented that a first-class medical certificate should be required for pilots carrying space flight participants.

    The FAA proposed requiring a second-class medical certificate so that crew members would demonstrate a basic level of health within 12 months of launch or reentry. Recognizing that second-class medical certification is insufficient for spaceflight, the FAA is moreover establishing a performance gauge that requires the flight crew to demonstrate an skill to withstand the stresses of space flight sufficiently so that the vehicle will not harm the public. This requirement may be more stringent than the suggested first-class medical certificate for pilots. The stresses experienced in space flight may include elevated acceleration or deceleration, microgravity, and vibration. The performance gauge provides an additional level of safety beyond basic medical certification because flight crew members will maintain to demonstrate an skill to perform duties in the spaceflight environment in which they design to operate. As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA recognizes that different standards may be required for orbital and suborbital flights. The FAA will assemble data for the progress of those standards over time and they may be implemented on a case-by-case basis or through future rulemaking.

    6. Crew Training

    As proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 460.5(a)(1) requires each member of a crew to complete training on how to carry out his or her role on board or on the ground so that the vehicle will not harm the public. Section 460.7 requires an operator to train each member of its crew and define standards for successful completion in accordance with Sec. 460.5. The FAA received comments on hours of training, simulator training, and the training gauge itself.

    Starchaser recommended a minimum number of hours of training, but did not provide its reasons for this suggestion. Depending on the role the crew members will have, different amounts of training will be necessary for a crew member to learn his or her role. The FAA will evaluate this need on a case-by-case basis during the license and permit process.

    Section 460.5(c)(3) requires a pilot and a remote operator to receive vehicle and mission-specific training for each phase of flight by using a simulator, a similar aircraft, flight testing, or an equivalent method. Mr. Leggett commented that because progress of a vehicle would likely include a significant amount of simulation, the FAA should require simulator training. The capitalize would be that training could select site in a safe environment. Dii commented that simulator training should be mandatory because realism is critical. Dii famous that a pilot needs to be able to deal with simulator sickness and spatial disorientation.

    The FAA does not require the employ of simulators in total circumstances because simulators may not exist for total the proposed vehicles. While the employ of simulators is recommended, the FAA intends to maximize the training approaches that are acceptable by allowing methods of training other than simulators.

    The FAA notes that some simulators intended for aircraft may be used for different launch or reentry vehicles. Section 460.7(b) requires that an operator ensure that either the crew-training device used to meet the training requirements realistically represents the vehicle's configuration and mission or the operator has informed the crew member being trained of the differences. Predesa took issue with this proposed requirement, noting that just because an operator knows of differences between the systems, does not denote that the operator can portray those differences and train crew accordingly. Such training may be feasible with data available from vehicle flight tests, but, without such data, Predesa recommended that operators remind the crew of the experimental nature of flight. This is sound guidance that is already encompassed within the requirement.

    Alteon Training, L.L.C. (Alteon) observed that requiring that ``an operator must train each member of its crew and define standards for successful completion'' could be interpreted to denote that only the operator could conduct the required training. According to Alteon, an operator should maintain the skill to systematize with an approved training provider for the progress of training programs. Alteon further commented that the operator would maintain the responsibility for oversight of the training provider to ensure that the training satisfied the FAA's regulatory requirements. The FAA agrees that an operator can maintain a contractor provide training, a concept that is already encompassed by Sec. 460.7(a). Ultimately, however, it will be the responsibility of the operator to ensure that crew members are trained properly.

    Section 460.7(d) moreover requires that an operator ensure that total required crew qualifications and training are current before launch and reentry. The NPRM proposed that an operator ensure currency prior to launch or reentry, but, as Predesa pointed out, this language incorrectly implied that an operator could postpone its currency check on a suborbital mission to just prior to reentry. Accordingly, the regulatory text has been changed to specify that currency checks be complete prior to a suborbital launch.

    At various points in the crew training requirements, the FAA requires operators to meet certain requirements. For example, as discussed above, an operator must ensure training currency. Ms. Knutson commented that requiring an operator to ``ensure'' something may create a warranty at odds with the risky nature of space travel at this stage in its evolution. The FAA notes that requiring an operator to ensure to the FAA that an event does or does not select site identifies the purpose of a requirement in order to impose a resilient yet enforceable performance standard. When the regulations require an operator to fullfil a performance standard, the FAA requires that an operator demonstrate the means by which it would fullfil that gauge in its application for a license or permit. concede of authorization constitutes approval of that approach as one that the FAA thinks will ensure satisfaction of the intent of the performance requirement. It is then up to the operator to carry out its system of compliance as described in its application. Because a license requires that an operator amend its application when it would no longer be accurate, the system an operator describes in its application has the identical legal sequel as a prescriptive requirement.

    7. Crew Notification

    As proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 460.9 requires an operator to inform, in writing, any individual serving as crew that the United States Government has not certified the launch or reentry vehicle as safe for carrying flight crew or space flight participants.\10\ An operator must provide this notification prior to employing someone as crew or, if the individual is already employed by the operator, as soon as feasible and prior to any launch in which that person will serve as crew.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Federation requested that the FAA create a configuration by which operators could provide this notice. The FAA will not adopt this suggestion in order to preserve flexibility. The required notifications are described in Sec. 460.9.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Blue inception commented on the logistical difficulties associated with the timing requirements. Blue inception is concerned that the rule makes no provision for lawful notification when an existing employee is promoted or reassigned to a flight crew position. Section 460.9 requires that an operator provide the notification before entering into any shrink or other arrangement to employ an individual. A promotion or reassignment would constitute such ``other arrangement,'' and the FAA expects an operator to inform the prospective crew member of the required notice prior to the person accepting the new assignment.

    Predesa moreover commented that the FAA does not require the undergo and background necessary for crew to identify design or operational flaws that would stop them from participating in a mission. Predesa appears to groundwork this remark on a faith that the CLSAA asks the crew to accept the risk of space flight with complete information. The FAA does not interpret the statute in this manner. Rather, the CSLAA and the FAA's attendant regulations impose a duty on a launch operator to inform crew of the absence of U.S. Government certification. Just as with a space flight participant, a crew member may not maintain the schooling and undergo required to discern operational or design flaws. section of the risk associated with the flights anticipated by this rule is the presence of unknown hazards. The notification requirement requires only that an operator inform the crew that risks exist, not that it identify total potential operational and design hazards. 8. Environmental Control and Life champion System (ECLSS)

    Section 460.11 requires that an operator provide atmospheric conditions adequate to sustain life and consciousness for total inhabited areas within a vehicle. The operator or flight crew must monitor and control specific atmospheric conditions in inhabited areas or demonstrate through the license or permit process that an alternative means of compliance provides an equivalent level of safety. This requirement reflects a change from what the FAA proposed in the NPRM in that the FAA will now allow an alternative means of compliance.

    Blue inception suggested that the ECLSS requirements not be applied to short suborbital flights, such as those that are ten to twenty minutes. The FAA notes that the vehicle's atmospheric conditions maintain to last from the time the cabin is sealed from the external environment until it is opened. When humans are in a closed environment and contingent upon manmade life champion systems, a failure to monitor or control the environment even for a short duration could lead to a loss of life or injury. The FAA moreover understands, however, that some of the atmospheric constituents and conditions may not change significantly in a short duration flight, and the ECLSS for a suborbital mission typically will not be as tangled as one for an orbital mission. Therefore, the FAA will continue to require the operator or flight crew to monitor and control atmospheric conditions in inhabited areas but will allow the operator to prove an alternate means of compliance that demonstrates an equivalent level of safety.

    a. Requiring Both Monitoring and Control of Atmospheric Conditions or Requiring Only Control. The Federation commented that not every life champion system must be both monitored and controlled. For example, it is asserted that a dehumidification system may not require monitoring because a proper verification test, which may be performed on the ground, may prove that the system has ample capacity to support humidity below acceptable limits.\11\ Additionally, the Federation famous some atmospheric conditions need only be monitored without constant, vigorous controls. Similarly, Blue inception suggested that the FAA clarify that ``control'' can include passive measures rather than vigorous instrumentation. According to the Federation, if followed literally, the requirement to monitor and control every life champion system would drive up the cost and complexity of space vehicles and, as a consequence, possibly drive down reliability with adverse public safety implications. nonsuch commented that the requirement to monitor and control contaminants that include particulates and any harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapors should be restricted to those that reasonably can be expected to build up during the course of the spaceflight due to metabolic or other processes occurring in the cabin, or to those potential contaminants for which a source is present in the cabin.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The FAA notes that in a condensing heat exchanger, the separation of liquid condensate from air, and the collection of liquid condensate, are difficult processes in the expected microgravity environment, and so ground testing may not necessarily provide adequate verification.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA agrees with the Federation and nonsuch that only control may be needed in some cases. Control of particulate contaminants in the atmosphere of inhabited areas is an case where the FAA would consider control without requiring monitoring. The passive control system commonly employed is to provide filters, especially elevated efficiency particulate air filters, for the cabin air recur duct inlets. When used with a recirculation fan, filters effectively maintain low concentrations of particulate contaminants in the atmosphere for extended times, with neither rapid nor great changes during spaceflight operation. Consequently, monitoring of the atmospheric concentration of particulate contaminants may not be necessary, especially for a suborbital mission. In order to address these types of systems, the FAA will require the operator or flight crew to monitor and control atmospheric conditions in the inhabited areas as proposed in the NPRM, but will allow the operator to prove an alternate means of compliance that will demonstrate an equivalent level of safety. This alternate means of compliance must be approved by the FAA through the license or permit process.

    b. Open-Loop System Versus Closed-Loop System. According to the Federation and Blue Origin, any undesirable atmospheric condition can be controlled with an open-loop, rather than closed-loop system.\12\ The FAA agrees that in some cases an atmospheric condition can be controlled with an open-loop system rather than a closed-loop system with automatic feedback from the monitoring device.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A closed loop system is a control system with an vigorous feedback loop. A typical case of a closed loop system is one that uses a thermostat to control temperature. The thermostat compares the actual temperature with the desired temperature; if the actual temperature is less than the desired temperature an actuating signal causes the control elements to supply more heat. An open loop system does not maintain vigorous feedback that compares the controlled variable with the desired input.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere in inhabited areas should be monitored and controlled. A carbon dioxide (CO2) control device, however, may operate without automatic feedback from the monitoring device. Without controls, CO2 from human respiration would accumulate in the cabin atmosphere. The resulting multiply in the concentration of CO2 would depend upon the habitable volume of the vehicle, the number of persons on board, and the overall mission duration. To avoid elevated CO2 concentrations, an operator must provide controls to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate comparable to the respiration rate of the crew members and space flight participants. CO2 may be removed by using lithium hydroxide (LiOH) canisters. The LiOH canisters could be replaced on a schedule based on the number of persons on board. Under this scenario, an operator would monitor the carbon dioxide concentration in the cabin atmosphere, to verify in flight that the CO2 control devices are operating and are effectual in avoiding elevated CO2 concentrations. Because any multiply in CO2 concentration would occur slowly, and because there is a considerable margin between the expected concentration with controls and the threshold concentration where chronic physiological changes open to appear, a closed-loop control would not be required. Should the crew solemnize increasing CO2 concentrations, there should be sufficient time to diagnose and remedy any abnormal operation of the control device, or if that fails, to safely terminate the mission.

    Oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is another case of what must be monitored and controlled. Very low oxygen partial pressure constitutes a stern hazard, results in impaired judgment and skill to concentrate, shortness of breath, nausea, and fatigue, affecting the proper functioning of the crew, and so potentially results in catastrophic consequences. Control of oxygen concentration must be closed loop, with the automatic addition of oxygen depending upon the oxygen-measuring device indication.

    c. Other ECLSS-related Comments. ASE famous that the FAA did not pose to require protecting safety-critical equipment, such as heat- generating avionics. ASE commented that vehicle designers must recognize the need to frosty avionics, which may be in the space-unique environment of low, or no pressure. The FAA agrees on the need to design for adequate thermal control of safety-critical equipment, but the suggested requirement would not be preempt in the context of a performance based rule. Design requirements for spacecraft avionics gear are outside the scope of this rule. However, the FAA will evaluate the design, including thermal control, of safety-critical gear when it reviews a license application.

    Predesa requested that the ECLSS requirements be specifically applied to total normal, non-normal and emergency operations, to emphasize the need for secondary or backup environment systems or other means to preserve the atmospheric conditions for the crew. The FAA may find that redundancy is necessary on a case-by-case basis, depending on a particular design, to ensure the crew's skill to protect public safety. At this point, the only redundancies the FAA anticipates requiring for total designs are specified in the regulations, including the requirement for an adequate redundant or secondary oxygen supply for the flight crew.

    ASE commented that the space environment offers unique environmental challenges, such as micro-meteorites and orbital debris. It famous dual seals will not address a hull infraction by orbital debris. Although a low probability during suborbital flight, a hull infraction is not impossible, and the risk dramatically increases during orbital flight due to the increased exposure time. ASE recommended that this and other space-unique hazards be addressed, at least during the licensing or permitting phase. The FAA acknowledges the potential for micro-meteorites and orbital debris, and notes that these details will surface through an applicant's hazard analysis and be resolved during the license or permit process.

    d. Guidance Plans. The FAA recognizes and anticipates that there will be many ECLSS designs. The ECLSS requirements are performance based rather than design based with prescriptive requirements. The following factors should be considered in determining if both monitoring and control of an atmospheric condition is needed and whether an open-loop system or closed-loop system with automatic feedback from the monitoring device is necessary:

  • Severity of the hazards presented to humans;
  • Likelihood for catastrophic or captious consequences of exposure;
  • Potential for rapid changes in conditions;
  • Potential for changes in conditions of great magnitude;
  • Availability of practicable in-flight measurement techniques and devices;
  • Access to emergency breathing equipment; and
  • Mission duration.
  • The FAA plans to develop an ECLSS advisory circular or guidance document. This document will address some of the concerns and suggestions of the IASE and ISLAP. The IASE and ISLAP believe that it is premature for the FAA to issue regulations pertaining to ECLSS at this time. Instead, they believe it would create more sense for the FAA to issue guidelines and to refine such guidelines with industry input over time as operators gain experience. According to the IASE and ISLAP, at this time there is simply too much untested diversity of design and proposed operation for ``one size fits all'' regulation in environmental control and life champion areas. 9. Smoke Detection and Fire Suppression

    Section 460.13 requires an operator or crew to maintain the skill to detect smoke and suppress a cabin fire to preclude incapacitation of the flight crew. This requirement is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. Predesa inquired whether the FAA meant to imply that an operator could employ remote systems for fire detection and suppression. Predesa raised operational safety concerns regarding the security and integrity of telemetry to and from the vehicle. The FAA will address these issues during the license and permit process.

    10. Human Factors

    Section 460.15 requires an operator to select necessary precautions to account for human factors that can influence a crew's skill to perform safety-critical roles. The FAA received no comments on this requirement, and it is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

    11. Verification Program

    Section 460.17 requires an operator to successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing. Predesa requested clarification of this requirement, observing that the NPRM appeared to allow a space flight participant to be carried during first time flight testing in a different operational environment than what was tested. For example, an operator might flight test a reentry from a elevated altitude. Predesa inquired whether a space flight participant could board for the first flight test into a suborbital micro-gravity environment. The FAA expects that more than a single flight test will be required to verify the integrated performance of a vehicle. Because the FAA did not identify how much flight testing would be required, Starchaser commented that the requirement was open to subjective judgment and potential manipulation. The FAA believes that it would be premature at this time to specify the number of hours of flight testing needed given the variety of launch and reentry vehicle designs and concepts. The preempt level of testing depends on many factors, including the vehicle's mission profile, operational restrictions, test and flight history, component and subsystem heritage, and design and operating margins. The FAA will initially determine the amount of verification and, specifically, flight testing of launch or reentry vehicles on a case-by-case basis through the license or permit process.

    A space flight participant would not be allowed on an envelope expansion flight, that is, a space flight participant would not be allowed to be carried during first time flight testing in a different operational environment than what was tested.

    12. Crew Waiver of Claims Against U.S. Government

    Section 460.19 requires each member of a flight crew and any remote operator to execute a reciprocal waiver of claims with the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation in accordance with the requirements of section 440. The FAA received no comments on this requirement, and it is adopted as proposed.

    13. Professional Engineer

    James Snead commented that the FAA should require a professional engineer to prepare and sanction an application for an FAA license to launch or reenter. Mr. Snead recommended this requirement as an alternate means to protect public safety where there is no government certification.\13\ Opposing the recommendation, XCOR commented that FAA's oversight office should not be transferred to a private party because of the potential for conflicts of interest. A professional engineer would be paid by the applicant and thus be under subtle pressure to create decisions in favor of the vehicle developer. The FAA notes that applicants may elect to engage professional engineers, but will not require them.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although the licensing process differs from certification, the licensing process moreover protects public safety.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. Launch and Reentry With a Space Flight Participant

    Subpart B establishes requirements for space flight participants on board a vehicle whose operator is licensed or permitted under this chapter. The subpart applies to a license or permit applicant, licensed or permitted operators and space flight participants.

    1. Risk to Space Flight Participants

    Several commenters urged that the FAA establish requirements to protect space flight participants. Nicholas Leggett recommended that a pilot maintain at least one solo flight before transporting passengers. Starchaser advocated pressure suits for space flight participants. As the FAA famous in the NPRM, the CSLAA does not provide the authority to protect space flight participants except in certain circumstances. 49 U.S.C. 70105(c)); 70 FR at 77270. The CSLAA only allows the FAA to issue regulations restricting or prohibiting design features or operating practices that result in a human space flight incident or a fatality or sober injury to space flight participants during an FAA authorized flight until December 23, 2012. For the next six years, the FAA has to wait for harm to occur or almost occur before it can impose restrictions. Instead, Congress requires that space flight participants be informed of the risks. To that end, the FAA is establishing notification requirements. 2. Informed Consent

    Section 460.45 requires that before receiving compensation or agreeing to wing a space flight participant, an operator must inform each space flight participant in writing about the risks of the launch and reentry, including the safety record of the launch or reentry vehicle type. For each mission, an operator must inform a space flight participant, in writing, of the known hazards and risks that could result in a sober injury, death, disability, or total or partial loss of physical and mental function. Although the FAA did not pose to require the identification of unknown hazards as a risk in the NPRM, the FAA is now requiring notice of unknown hazards in response to Ms. Knutson's remark that an operator should inform a space flight participant that there are moreover unknown hazards. The operator moreover must disclose that participation in space flight may result in death, sober injury, or total or partial loss of physical or mental function. An operator must inform each space flight participant that the United States Government has not certified the launch vehicle and any reentry vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants. If there is a sever operator for each vehicle, each operator must provide this statement for the space flight participants on its vehicle.

    Predesa commented that the FAA should moreover require disclosure of the fact that the law only permits the FAA to issue regulations for the safety of crew and space flight participants relating to vehicle design and operations if a sober injury or fatality occurs or nearly occurs. The FAA will leave it up to the operator to elect whether to disclose this information. The FAA does not contemplate a need to require additional disclosure because the statutorily required disclosure encompasses this information.

    Predesa moreover commented that it is the duty of the space flight participant to research and recognize design features or operating practices that elevate personal risk. The FAA does not agree. A space flight participant may not maintain the training and background to conduct such research and analysis. The FAA expects space flight participants to approach from total walks of life, with varying degrees of technical expertise and understanding. Congress requires that a space flight participant be informed of the risks, not that he or she acquire an understanding of basic engineering principles in order to understand that risk.

    A commenter from NASA Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance recommended requiring that an operator prepare a hazard analysis with a specific focus on keeping the crew and any participants alive and functioning and that defines each hazard and how it is mitigated. According to the commenter, a space flight participant would likely want to contemplate such an analysis. The FAA notes that hazard analyses will be conducted by an applicant during the license or permit process. For example, during the license process, Scaled Composites conducted hazard analyses pertaining to the SpaceShipOne pilot. The analyses identified and characterized the potential hazards and assessed the risks to the pilot because his performance had implications for public safety given that the pilot was section of the flight safety system. Because Sec. 460.45(1) requires that an operator inform each space flight participant of the known hazards and risks that could result in a sober injury, death, or disability, the FAA anticipates that a hazard analysis focusing on keeping the space flight participant alive will be conducted by the operator to identify these hazards.

    The FAA moreover requires, under Sec. 460.45, that an operator provide the safety record of total launch or reentry vehicles that maintain carried one or more persons on board, including U.S. government and private sector vehicles. The FAA will not, as suggested by the Federation, require that total alien government vehicles be included in this disclosure. The Federation recommended that ``all government vehicles'' be clarified to specifically include Soviet/Russian and Chinese government vehicles, and suggested that the FAA include non-U.S. Government vehicles in its list of vehicle accidents in order to expand the information base. The FAA did not pose to require disclosure of alien launch or reentry accidents because the information may not always be publicly available and its accuracy will be difficult to verify. However, if an operator is able to obtain accurate data regarding alien launch accidents, the operator may employ that data as section of the safety record.

    Blue Origin, the Federation, Predesa, and t/Space total suggested that the FAA provide a standardized summary of the historical safety record of total launch or reentry vehicles that maintain carried one or more persons on board for total U.S. Government vehicles for employ by total applicants, and that the FAA maintain a gauge summary of the safety record of total private sector vehicles on behalf of the public. The Federation and t/Space commented that the FAA needed to provide the operator with the safety record in order to ensure an accurate and impartial list, used equally by total operators. Blue inception commented that this approach would waiton avoid litigation.

    The FAA is exploring available options. The agency is considering developing a database on the safety record of U.S. Government and private sector space transport with one or more persons on-board. If it were feasible to finish so, the FAA could include alien data. Although a database, whether developed by the FAA or commercially, may eventually be used by an operator to waiton fulfill the requirements of Sec. 460.45, ultimately it is the responsibility of the launch vehicle operator to inform each space flight participant of that safety record.

    Section 460.45 moreover requires an operator to portray the safety record of its own vehicle to each space flight participant. The operator's safety record must include the number of vehicle flights, the number of launch and reentry accidents and human space flight incidents (including on the ground or in flight), and whether any corrective actions were taken to resolve the causes of the accident or human space flight incident. The FAA is revising its definitions of launch and reentry accident and adding the definition of human space flight incident to ensure that total apposite information is included in this safety record. For a launch that takes site with a person on board, launch and reentry ``accidents'' as defined in section 401.5 now include a fatality or sober injury to a space flight participant or crew. ``Human space flight incident'' means an unplanned event that poses a elevated risk of causing a sober or mortal injury to a space flight participant or crew.

    In the NPRM the FAA proposed to require disclosure of ``anomalies'' and ``failures.'' The Federation recommended that the FAA require disclosure of accidents rather than failures or anomalies because the FAA does not define anomaly or failure by regulation, and the Federation thought that the definitions proposed in the May 2005 experimental permit guidelines were overly broad. According to the Federation, under these definitions operators could be required to provide an unreasonably great amount of data to space flight participants, and such ``information overload'' could actually abate the skill of a prospective space flight participant to properly evaluate the risk involved.

    Likewise, t/Space commented that the terms ``anomalies'' and ``failures'' are not adequately defined. According to t/Space, different operators are likely to employ different definitions, with competitive pressures possibly influencing these definitions. It recommended clearer definitions to ensure a level playing sphere between operators. In response, rather than requiring the disclosure of failures and anomalies as proposed, paragraphs 460.45(d) and (f) require an operator to portray accidents and human space flight incidents, and the FAA now defines launch and reentry accidents to include a fatality or sober injury to a space flight participant or crew. Without these revisions, the definitions of launch and reentry accidents would fail to require an operator to disclose total apposite information.\14\ Under the current definition of reentry accident, if an RLV crashed inside a designated landing site, the FAA's definition would not encompass that event and an operator would not maintain to disclose it to a space flight participant. Another case of an instance where apposite information would be left undisclosed is if someone associated with a flight, such as a space flight participant or crew member, were injured or killed. That event would not be characterized as an accident. total of these events must now be disclosed under section 460.45.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 401.5 currently defines launch accident to denote a fatality or sober injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not associated with the flight; any damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the flight that is not located at the launch site or designated recovery area; an unplanned event occurring during the flight of a launch vehicle resulting in the known repercussion of a launch vehicle, its payload or any component thereof: (i) For an expendable launch vehicle (ELV), outside designated repercussion circumscribe lines; and (ii) for an RLV, outside a designated landing site. Section 401.5 states that a reentry accident means any unplanned event occurring during the reentry of a reentry vehicle resulting in the known repercussion of the reentry vehicles, its payload, or any component thereof outside a designated reentry site; a fatality or sober injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not associated with the reentry; any damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the reentry and not located within a designated reentry site.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federation commented that the FAA should restrict disclosure to the vehicle verification and commercial operations phases only, and should not require the disclosure of accidents occurring on the ground. Blue inception requested that the FAA clarify that disclosures relate only to the licensed model vehicle and not to earlier developmental iterations of that model. It famous that, in developing a vehicle, most operators design on successive versions or models. Thus, safety performance related to an earlier, experimental model is not directly apposite to a final, passenger-carrying model. Requiring disclosure of earlier models would discourage operators from iterative experimenting and testing of non-passenger models, which would undermine the goal of developing safer vehicles.

    The FAA agrees that an operator need only disclose its safety record created during and after vehicle verification performed in accordance with Sec. 460.17. This includes total subsequent launches and reentry. Earlier models that predate the verification of the vehicle are not section of the safety record. The FAA is including accidents occurring on the ground because those are apposite to the risks a space flight participant faces. Accordingly, if a launch vehicle exploded upon ignition while on the ground, the explosion would maintain to be included as section of the vehicle safety record.

    Under Sec. 460.45(e), an operator must inform a space flight participant that he or she may request additional information. Under Sec. 460.45(f) if a space flight participant asks, an operator must portray each accident and human space flight incident at a system level. Blue inception and the Federation commented that the proposed requirement would effectively stop companies from being hired by alien space flight participants because of conflicts with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Federation urged the FAA to consider the ITAR ramifications of any proposed requirement for describing corrective actions to space flight participants. Blue Origin, the Federation and the new Mexico Office for Space Commercialization were total concerned that an operator would maintain to disclose information that is restricted by the ITAR.

    Blue inception suggested a clarification to preclude a potential fight between the FAA's regulations, which require disclosure to a space flight participant who is a alien national, and the ITAR, which would restrict or prohibit disclosure to the identical alien national. Blue inception suggested that the FAA establish the identical gauge for disclosure to a U.S. and a alien national, and circumscribe that disclosure obligation to only ``general systems descriptions.'' This would conform to the ITAR's exclusion of ``general systems descriptions'' from ``Technical Data'' as defined in ITAR 22 CFR 120.10(a)(5). The FAA agrees and will require only a universal system description. An operator only needs to disclose, for example, that a propulsion system exploded, not the details of how the explosion occurred.

    Blue inception and the Federation commented that describing corrective actions could require the disclosure of proprietary data and company secrets. The Federation commented that the intellectual property of its members could be placed at risk. Competitors could hunt to wing on one another's vehicles for the purpose of obtaining data.

    The FAA agrees with the commenters that requiring a description of any system in detail or any corrective action could require the disclosure of proprietary data or technical sensitive information to space flight participants; therefore, the FAA will require an operator to disclose only accidents and human space flight incidents if a space flight participant asks and then only at the system level; it will not, as originally proposed, require an operator to moreover portray what corrective actions were taken.

    a. Space Flight Participant's skill To be Informed. Section 460.45(f) requires each space flight participant to provide written informed consent. The consent must state that the space flight participant understands the risk associated with being a space flight participant aboard the specific vehicle and that his or her presence on board is voluntary. In response to comments, the FAA does not consider a person under the age of 18 someone who can provide informed consent.

    Commenters claimed that persons under the age of 21 finish not maintain a basis for making an informed consent. James Snead pointed to age limitations on drinking, driving, operating hefty construction gear and selling liquor. Mr. Snead felt that persons under 21 could be more likely to view space flight as a thrill ride and not appreciate the risks or maintain the mental capacity to act responsibly during the excitement of flight. For the identical reasons, a parent or guardian should not be able to provide the consent for the minor. Dii recommended a minimum age of 18.

    Societally, the United States has acknowledged that it is reasonable to site restrictions on individuals under the age of 18, including restrictions on their skill to legally consent. In the United States, a person may vote in federal elections at the age of 18. A person may not enlist for military service without parental consent until the age of 18. While some states classify a person as a minor until the age of 21, in many states the age of majority is 18. In no state is the age of majority less than 18.

    The FAA is cognizant that most persons under the age of 18 will not be able to afford the price of a ride on a rocket at the prices currently being discussed. Prices, however, drop over time, and the FAA agrees with the commenters that a minor could not be adequately informed. Given the risks involved, parental consent may not substitute for the minor's inability to be informed.

    Although not proposed in the NPRM, under Sec. 460.45(g) the FAA requires operators to provide each space flight participant an opportunity to request questions orally to acquire a better understanding of the hazards and risks of the mission. In its February 11, 2005, guidelines, the FAA recommended that an operator provide space flight participants an opportunity to request questions orally to acquire a better understanding of the hazards and risks of the mission. In the NPRM, the FAA stated that although the FAA does not now pose to require this recommendation, the FAA continues to consider this Good drill and believes such opportunities should be provided. XCOR agreed both with the desirability of this drill and with the FAA's determination not to require it at this time. According to XCOR, it is difficult to phrase a regulation in such a artery that achieves the desired sequel without being burdensome, and therefore it should be left in the guidelines. XCOR further added that answerable operators, with insurance companies, will doubtless pay nigh attention to such guidelines.

    After further consideration and review of other informed consent practices such as those in the medical profession, the FAA believes that an opportunity to request questions allows a space flight participant a desultory to net clarification on any information that may be confusing or unclear. Therefore, Sec. 460.45(g) now requires that an operator provide each space flight participant an opportunity before flight to request questions orally. In addition to receiving informed consent in writing from a space flight participant, this requirement serves as another ``cognizance test'' or affirmation that the space flight participant understands what he or she is getting into before embarking on a mission. An operator must provide an opportunity for an oral discussion; the discussion does not maintain to occur if the space flight participant declines it.

    3. Physical Examination

    The FAA is not requiring that a space flight participant obtain a physical examination. The Federation agreed with this determination in its comments. As it discussed in the guidelines and the NPRM, the FAA recommends such an examination.

    4. Space Flight Participant Waiver of Claims Against U.S. Government

    Section 460.49 requires each space flight participant to execute a reciprocal waiver of claims with the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation in accordance with the requirements of section 440. The FAA received no comments, and adopts this requirement as proposed in the NPRM, with some modifications which are discussed in the context of section 440.

    5. Space Flight Participant Training

    Section 460.51 requires an operator to train each space flight participant before flight on how to respond to emergency situations, including smoke, fire, and loss of cabin pressure. This remains unchanged from what was proposed in the NPRM. Mr. Snead commented that total space flight participants should be tested to ensure that each space flight participant could respond properly in emergencies. Because the FAA requires an applicant proposing to conduct a launch or reentry with a space flight participant on board to demonstrate compliance with this section, the FAA will review the adequacy of the operator's training plan, which may include testing, during the license or permit process.

    6. Security Requirements

    The FAA requires an operator to implement security requirements to preclude any space flight participant from jeopardizing the safety of the flight crew or the public. As in the NPRM, under Sec. 460.53, a space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.

    XCOR inquired whether the FAA had the authority to impose security requirements under its statute and the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that ``[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the privilege of the people to support and suffer Arms, shall not be infringed.'' This privilege is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the privilege to suffer arms has been upheld. For example, in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation. 49 U.S.C. 46505. Additionally, nearly total courts maintain moreover held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective privilege to suffer arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes.

    Planehook commented that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is charged with the responsibility for aviation security as well as other modes of transportation within the U.S. Therefore, according to Planehook, security regulations should approach from the TSA. Under Chapter 701, the FAA is answerable for security as well as safety, and thus shares jurisdiction on this issue with TSA.

    The FAA will travail with and dependence on the expertise of the Transportation Security Administration and the intelligence community at large. Threat assessments will be conducted to determine the sufficiency of an operator's security plans. Although the threats may be the same, different vehicles may require different security plans. The FAA will contemplate to the security community for developing guidelines in reviewing the different plans. The FAA plans to coordinate initial guidelines with the TSA. As the commercial activity in this sector expands, the TSA will likely select a larger role in developing standards and monitoring compliance. In the meantime, the FAA intends its security requirements to provide a foundation that is both effectual and flexible.

    D. financial Responsibility and Waiver of Liability

    The FAA implements the financial responsibility requirements and waiver of claims required by Chapter 701 through section 440.\15\ With the exception of clarifications to the crew and space flight participant waivers of claims discussed below, the FAA only made editorial changes from what it proposed in the NPRM. The FAA received comments concerning the cross-waivers between space flight participants, the operators and the U.S. Government. It moreover received comments regarding insurance requirements.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This rulemaking makes effectual the FAA determination to combine parts 440 and 450 in light of the fact that they were almost identical, except that section 440 only applied to launch and section 450 addressed reentry of reentry vehicles. The FAA requested comments on whether this would occasions any concerns for those persons having to abide by these requirements. In supporting the FAA determination to combine the parts to reduce the regulatory burden on service providers, t/Space observed that a single part, would simplify the process of establishing maximum probable loss and implementing reciprocal waivers of claims. Rocketplane, on the other hand, commented that reentry conditions from orbit are more stern than those from a suborbital RLV launch. The FAA agrees with this observation, but notes that this section imposes no technical requirements.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Changes From What the FAA Proposed in the NPRM

    Tracey Knutson, Esq. commented that the FAA should clearly specify that claims arising out of the death of crew or space flight participants are section of what is covered by the cross-waivers. The FAA notes that its definition of ``bodily injury,'' 14 CFR 440.3, includes death, but is adopting the suggestion in the waivers of claims that will be signed by space flight participants and crew members. The courts maintain stressed the moment of individuals understanding what they are waiving. Thus, to avoid confusion, the FAA will create limpid that the waivers encompass claims arising out of an individual's own death.

    Mr. James Snead commented that the reciprocal waivers of claims required by section 440 should identify a particular operator, the vehicle being flown and the manner of its use. Mr. Snead pointed out that the proposed appendices omitted information necessary to portray that to which the waivers apply. The FAA now requires that the operator, the vehicle, any payload, and the location of the licensed or permitted flight be included in the reciprocal waivers of claims. This change clarifies the topic of the waiver.

    This final rule contains a provision in the waivers of claims for crew and space flight participant that the FAA did not pose in the NPRM, but is necessary to carry out Congress' intent that crew and space flight participants not bring claims against the U.S. Government. The waivers require that crew members and space flight participants hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims brought by anyone for property damage or physical injury, including death, sustained by a crew member or space flight participant, resulting from licensed or permitted activities.

    The crew and space flight participant must harmonize to this indemnification in order to preclude claims brought by others as well as on their own behalf. For example, if a crew member or space flight participant were to die during a licensed launch, the waivers will preclude that individual or his estate from bringing claims against the U.S. Government. Some states, however, allow a surviving spouse to bring sever wrongful death claims for his or her own losses arising out of the death of the spouse. Accordingly, the indemnification requirement under this final rule provides that the estate of the crew member or space flight participant must indemnify the U.S. Government for claims arising out of the physical injury, including death, of the individual. This indemnification will cover total costs and fees incurred by the U.S. Government in defending itself against claims by the individual, his or her family, or estate.

    Also of note, although not proposed in the NPRM, the waivers of claims for crew and space flight participants now define these individuals to include not only themselves, but total the heirs, administrators, executors, assignees, next of kin, and estate of the individuals, and anyone who attempts to bring a pretension on behalf of the crew member or space flight participant or for damage or harm arising out of that person's physical injury, including death.

    2. Waivers of Claims

    As the FAA proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 440.17(e) and (f) requires a space flight participant and each crew member to waive any claims he or she may maintain against the U.S. Government for participation in a launch or reentry in which the U.S. Government, any of its agencies, or its contractors and subcontractors is involved.

    Mr. James Snead commented that for the U.S. Government to require a crew member or space flight participant to waive claims against an operator could deprive the space flight participant or crew member of a habitual expectation of customary conduct on the section of the operator by virtue of the habitual potential for legal liability. As famous in the NPRM, the CSLAA and the FAA regulations finish not require either a space flight participant or a crew member to harmonize to waive claims against an operator of a launch or reentry vehicle. The waiver is with the U.S. Government for its participation in a launch or reentry. In the NPRM, the FAA only famous that nothing in the CSLAA prevents an operator from making a waiver of liability a condition of an agreement between it and a space flight participant or crew member. 70 FR 77272 (Dec. 29, 2005). Neither Congress nor the FAA mandated waivers of claims against an operator.

    Blue inception commented that the FAA should clarify the nature of government involvement triggering the need for waivers of claims. Blue inception commented that FAA oversight in the configuration of authorizing a launch or reentry would not constitute government ``involvement.'' The FAA agrees. In that context, the FAA would be acting in its regulatory capacity, and would not be involved. Blue inception moreover suggested, however, that coordination with local FAA air traffic control and issuance of notices to airmen would not constitute the kindhearted of U.S. Government involvement requiring crew to badge a waiver of claims. Instead, Blue inception suggested, U.S. Government involvement requiring cross-waivers would be limited to when an operator transports a U.S. Government payload or personnel acting in their official capacities, or when launching from a U.S. Government facility. Adopting this suggestion would constitute a change from what the law currently requires. Where the U.S. Government is involved in a launch or reentry by providing services, the requirements of section 440 apply. For example, the federal launch ranges currently provide launch safety services for the launch of expendable launch vehicles, and the Air Traffic Organization manages the NAS to ensure the safety of total participants. Congress intended the statutory revisions of 1988 and of 2004 to reduce litigation expenses by requiring launch participants to assume responsibility for their own losses, except in cases of shameful negligence. contemplate Report of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Sen. Rep. No. 639, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1988); Report, H.R. Rep. No. 429, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., VII (2004). Accordingly, the FAA cannot adopt the interpretation suggested by Blue Origin.

    Sections 440.15(c)(1)(iv) and (v), and 440.17(b) and (e) require a licensee or permittee to submit reciprocal waivers of claims to the FAA for signature. Mr. Garrett Smith commented that a launch should not be held up because of the detain that could be caused by waiting for the U.S. Government to badge a reciprocal waiver of claims. To date, a launch has never been delayed on account of waiting for a signature from the U.S. Government on a cross-waiver. Timely submission of a cross-waiver that complies with section 440 will avoid unnecessary delay.

    3. Federal Preemption

    Ms. Tracey Knutson submitted additional material to the docket in response to a request for clarification regarding her comments on the waivers of claims to be signed by crew and space flight participants. The materials highlight the differences in state law, including that many states view waivers of claims as contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the FAA now emphasizes that the waivers required by the CSLAA and section 440 are not to be construed under state law. As proposed in the NPRM and adopted now, the waivers provide that federal law applies. Chapter 701 provides, in apposite part, that a state or political subdivision of a state ``may not adopt or maintain in sequel a law, regulation, standard, or order uncongenial with this chapter; * * *.'' 49 U.S.C. 70117(c)(1). In its 2004 amendments to 49 U.S.C. 70112, Congress required crew and space flight participants to badge waivers of claims against the U.S. Government. Accordingly, in order to avoid conflicts with any state law to the contrary, federal law must apply.

    4. Insurance

    Mr. James Snead commented that the FAA should require an operator to provide pre-paid health and adventitious death insurance for space flight participants. The FAA does not maintain authority to impose such requirements under its statute. Chapter 701 requires the FAA to impose insurance requirements for damage or harm to third parties, that is, the universal public, and to U.S. Government property and personnel. Legislative history shows that Congress expected space flight participants to purchase insurance on their own. 5. Maximum Probable Loss

    Space Adventures and XCOR commented that the probability threshold for the determination of liability insurance requirements for commercial launch sites should be changed from 1 x 10-\7\ to 1 x 10-\5\. Space Adventures commented that under the FAA's definition of maximum probable loss (MPL), a different probability threshold is applied for the determination of liability insurance requirements for government property (primarily government property at a government launch site) exposed to risk from a commercial launch (1 x 10-\5\) than is applied for third party property (1 x 10-\7\). Space Adventures famous that this can maintain a very actual sequel on the insurance costs to an operator operating from a government launch site as opposed to one operating from a commercial launch site. This is because the current third party threshold encompasses more potential for harm, likely requiring the purchase of more insurance.

    Space Adventures believes that a commercial launch site's property should moreover plunge under the higher 1 x 10-\5\ threshold, and that the identical threshold should extend to total other property located on a commercial launch site. The FAA will not adopt this suggestion because it is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA did not pose this change in the NPRM, and others maintain not had an opportunity to comment. The economic sequel of such a change could be significant and would merit a more thorough study than is available now.

    III. Rulemaking Analyses

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of the new information collection requirements in this final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. Affected parties, however, finish not maintain to comply with the information collection requirements in Sec. Sec. 460.5, 460.7, 460.9, 460.19, 460.45, and 460.49 until the FAA publishes in the Federal Register the control number assigned by the OMB for these information collection requirements. Publication of the control number notifies the public that OMB has approved these information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall pose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation warrant its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to anatomize the economic repercussion of regulatory changes on minuscule entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the alien commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with the groundwork year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this rule: (1) Has benefits that warrant its costs, (2) is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel policy issues under the legal mandate of the CSLAA, and is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) will not maintain a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of minuscule entities; (4) will maintain a neutral repercussion on international trade; and (5) will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. These analyses are available in the docket.

    1. Potentially Impacted Parties

    Private Sector

  • Commercial operators who will be operating launch or reentry
  • vehicles with crew and space flight participants on board
  • Flight crew
  • Remote operator
  • Space flight participants
  • Government
  • Federal Aviation Administration
  • 2. Assumptions and Ground Rules Used in Analysis

  • All monetary values are expressed in 2004 dollars
  • The time horizon for the analysis is 10 years (2006 to 2016)
  • Costs are discounted at 7%
  • Hourly Burdened Industry Wage Rate is $69.40
  • Hourly Burdened Government Wage Rate is $52.04
  • The elevated launch forecast used in the analysis is 10,142 over ten years
  • The low launch forecast used in the analysis is 5,081 over ten years
  • Requirements that were fulfilled by the SpaceShipOne launches or that constitute prudent industry drill finish not impose costs
  • Preparation time expended by commercial entities for specific requirements that might occasions industry to incur costs because the new requirements are not current drill is as follows:
  • ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Requirement Hrs/operator Hrs/mission ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sec. 460.9: Informing Crew of Risk.... 4 1 Sec. 460.19 (Sec. 440.17()): Crew 4 1 Waiver of Claims Against U.S. Government............................. Sec. 460.45: Operator Informing Space 120 2 Flight Participant of Risk............. Sec. 460.49 (Sec. 440.17(e)): Space 4 1 Flight Participant waiver of claims against U.S. Government................ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefits

    The rule will offer some capitalize impacts that are not readily quantified. The principal capitalize will be the assurance that the human commercial space flight industry understands and adheres to the current practices that maintain worked thus far to protect public safety. The rule will waiton preserve the level of public safety already achieved by commercial operations. Additionally, informing space flight participants of mission hazards and risks may waiton mitigate any conduct or reaction during space flight that would jeopardize mission success and consequently public safety. For example, a flabbergast clamor or abrupt vehicle motion during flight could startle an ``uninformed'' space flight participant, causing that person to behave or act (e.g., panic) in a manner that could adversely repercussion mission performance and jeopardize public safety by causing a crash or falling debris from an airborne explosion. Informing candidate space flight participants of risks may deter an individual from participating in space flight who otherwise would panic during flight and possibly create a situation that would jeopardize public safety. Total Costs

    The rule will result in a total cost repercussion ranging from $1.9 to $3.8 million over the ten-year epoch from 2006 through 2015 (undiscounted 2004 dollars). The human space flight industry will incur 72 percent of the total costs, ranging from $1.4 million to $2.7 million to comply with the rule. The FAA will incur 28 percent of the total costs, ranging from $529,000 to $1.1 million to administer the regulatory requirements. Costs are summarized in the following table.

    Summary of Incremental Cost Impacts Attributable to the Rule Over the Ten-Year Period, 2006 Through 2015 [In 2004 dollars]

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Undiscounted Discounted \a\ Category --------------------------------------------------------------- Upper bound Lower bound Upper bound Lower bound ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Human Space Flight Industry Compliance Costs.... $2,739,149 $1,390,221 $1,728,231 $876,863 Federal Aviation Administration Administrative 1,055,579 528,830 656,445 328,890 Costs.......................................... --------------------------------------------------------------- Total Costs Attributable to the Rule........ 3,794,728 1,919,051 2,384,676 1,205,753 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a\ Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent over a ten-year period.

    Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to felicitous regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions topic to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to consider resilient regulatory proposals, to interpret the rationale for their actions, and to solicit comments. The RFA covers a wide-range of minuscule entities, including minuscule businesses, not-for-profit organizations and minuscule governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will maintain a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of minuscule entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to maintain a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of minuscule entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

    The final rule will not maintain a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of minuscule entities. Because almost total the companies in the fledgling industry are small, the FAA concludes that a substantial number of minuscule entities in the human space flight industry will be affected by the rule. However, they believe that the rule will not maintain a significant repercussion on these entities as explained below.

    The rule will require launch and reentry operators to perform certain actions that, although they may be considered prudent, may not be performed in current drill in total instances. These actions will occasions a space transportation operator to incur minimal additional costs rel ative to current practice. The North American Industry Classification System does not maintain a discrete code for commercial space transportation per se. However, it does maintain the following codes that collectively capture entities engaged in commercial space transportation: 336414, ``Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing,'' 336415, ``Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Parts Manufacturing,'' and 336419, ``Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary gear Manufacturing.'' The minuscule industry Administration (SBA) has defined minuscule industry entities engaged in the aforementioned activities as those employing no more than 1,000 employees. Further, the SBA does not apply a size gauge based on maximum annual receipts to define minuscule busi ness entities engaged in the above industries. A substantial number of firms entering the human space flight industry are very small. Because it is a nascent industry, it is difficult to state how many and which entities will succeed. There are two companies licensed to perform launches with humans on board: Scaled Composites, with about 135 employees, and XCOR, with about 10 employees. Only Scaled Composites has actually launched as of the date of this rule; therefore, the industry currently consists of one company. There are about six more companies that the FAA considers sober candidates because they maintain committed financial resources, and another twenty companies that maintain expressed interest in entering the human spaceflight industry. The number of employees of these companies ranges from 5 to 40. Based on the definition of minuscule industry for the launch industry of entities employing no more than 1,000 employees, total of the above mentioned companies are minuscule businesses with the exception of one: Virgin Galactic may be considered a great industry because it is a subsidiary of Virgin Airways which has over 1,000 employees. The FAA estimates that five to six companies will successfully enter the human space flight industry in the next ten years. They cannot yet divide this minuscule number into categories by size; they only know that the vast majority of companies interested in entering the industry are very minuscule (from 5 to 135 employees). They expect that these companies will be about the size of Scaled Composites, the only company thus far to maintain launched humans, once they start launching.

    The FAA has determined that the impacts are not significant. In order to create this determination, they compared the incremental cost per mission and the total cost to estimated revenue. It should be famous that total of these estimates are extremely speculative due to the hardship of predicting the structure of such a nascent industry; however, their projections of cost as a percent of revenue is extremely small.

    The first input to the calculation is the number of expected missions, which the FAA tentatively estimates is between 5,081 and 10,142 over the next 10 years, based on written proprietary information received from three companies expecting to offer launch services. To the extent that the industry develops more slowly than expected, these may be overestimates. The incremental cost per expected flight, however, is not significantly affected by the estimated total number of flights.

    The second input is the cost for the incremental safety activity required by this rulemaking. In the absence of this regulation, companies would certainly voluntarily engage in extensive testing and safety training; therefore the cost per mission of less than $300 does not depict the total investment in safety expected in this industry, but rather the incremental multiply in safety related activity expected as a result of this regulation.

    Putting the two inputs together, they assay costs to perform 10,142 missions (upper bound) over ten years are $2,739,149 or an middling of $270 per mission. They assay costs to perform 5,081 missions (lower bound) over ten years are $1,390,221 or an middling of $274 per mission. Since the industry is in its infancy and has not yet begun offering commercial flights, per mission costs and revenues are not known. However, prospective companies maintain quoted ticket prices of $102,000 to $250,000 per seat for early flights (with some predicting prices could plunge to about $25,000 per seat after eight or nine years). Regardless of seat prices, the estimated $270 per mission incremental compliance cost that the rule will impose will be a very minuscule percentage of the revenues of a commercial operator entity offering human space flight and is not economically significant. Therefore as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not maintain a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of minuscule entities.

    International Trade repercussion Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the alien commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. Because this rulemaking will be largely consistent with current or prudent practice, it will not create obstacles. The statute moreover requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential sequel of this rule and determined that it will impose the identical costs on domestic and international entities, and thus has a neutral trade impact.

    Unfunded Mandates Assessments

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104- 4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the groundwork year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not hold such a mandate.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. They maintain determined that this action would not maintain a substantial direct sequel on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore will not maintain federalism implications.

    Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental repercussion statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph (4i) appendix F and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

    Regulations That Significantly influence Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly influence Energy Supply, Distribution, or employ (May 18, 2001). They maintain determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because, although it is a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to maintain a significant adverse sequel on the supply, distribution, or employ of energy.

    List of Subjects

    14 CFR section 401

    Human space flight, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Space Safety, Space transportation and exploration.

    14 CFR section 415

    Human space flight, Rockets, Space safety, Space transportation and exploration.

    14 CFR section 431

    Human space flight, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rockets, Space safety, Space transportation and exploration.

    14 CFR section 435

    Human space flight, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rockets, Space safety, Space transportation and exploration.

    14 CFR section 440

    Armed forces, Federal buildings and facilities, Government property, Indemnity payments, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.

    14 CFR section 450

    Armed forces, Federal buildings and facilities, Government property, Human space flight, Indemnity payments, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Space transportation and exploration.

    14 CFR section 460

    Human space flight, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rockets, Space safety, Space transportation and exploration.

    IV. The Amendment

    0

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration will amend parts 401, 415, 431, 435, and 440; remove and reserve section 450 of Chapter III of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and add section 460 as follows--

    PART 401--ORGANIZATION AND DEFINITIONS

    0

    1. The authority citation for section 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70121.

    0

    2. Section 401.5 is amended by revising the definitions of ``Launch Accident'' and ``Reentry Accident'' and adding the following definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows:

    Sec. 401.5 Definitions.

    * * * * *

    Crew means any employee or independent contractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, who performs activities in the course of that employment or shrink directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. A crew consists of flight crew and any remote operator.

    * * * * *

    Flight crew means crew that is on board a vehicle during a launch or reentry.

    * * * * *

    Human space flight incident means an unplanned event that poses a elevated risk of causing a sober or mortal injury to a space flight participant or crew.

    * * * * *

    Launch accident means

    (1) An event that causes a fatality or sober injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not associated with the flight;

    (2) An event that causes damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the flight that is not located at the launch site or designated recovery area;

    (3) An unplanned event occurring during the flight of a launch vehicle resulting in the repercussion of a launch vehicle, its payload or any component thereof:

    (i) For an expendable launch vehicle, outside designated repercussion circumscribe lines; and

    (ii) For a reusable launch vehicle, outside a designated landing site.

    (4) For a launch that takes site with a person on board, a fatality or sober injury to a space flight participant or crew member.

    * * * * *

    Operator means a holder of a license or permit under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, chapter 701.

    * * * * *

    Pilot means a flight crew member who has the skill to control, in actual time, a launch or reentry vehicle's flight path.

    * * * * *

    Reentry accident means

    (1) Any unplanned event occurring during the reentry of a reentry vehicle resulting in the repercussion of the reentry vehicle, its payload, or any component thereof, outside a designated reentry site;

    (2) An event that causes a fatality or sober injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2) to any person who is not associated with the reentry;

    (3) An event that causes damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the reentry and not located within a designated reentry site; and

    (4) For a reentry that takes site with a person on board, a fatality or sober injury to a space flight participant or crew member.

    * * * * *

    Remote operator means a crew member who

    (1) Has the skill to control, in actual time, a launch or reentry vehicle's flight path, and ( 2) Is not on board the controlled vehicle.

    * * * * *

    Space flight participant means an individual, who is not crew, carried aboard a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.

    Suborbital rocket means a vehicle, rocket-propelled in entire or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory, and the thrust of which is greater than its rear for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of its ascent.

    Suborbital trajectory means the intentional flight path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion thereof, whose vacuum instantaneous repercussion point does not leave the surface of the Earth.

    * * * * *

    PART 415--LAUNCH LICENSE

    0

    3. The authority citation for section 415 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70121.

    Subpart A--General

    0

    4. Add Sec. 415.8 to read as follows:

    Sec. 415.8 Human space flight.

    To obtain a launch license, an applicant proposing to conduct a launch with flight crew or a space flight participant on board must demonstrate compliance with Sec. Sec. 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.

    PART 431--LAUNCH AND REENTRY OF A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV)

    0

    5. The authority citation for section 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70121.

    0

    6. Add Sec. 431.8 to read as follows:

    Sec. 431.8 Human space flight.

    To obtain a license, an applicant proposing to conduct a reusable launch vehicle mission with flight crew or a space flight participant on board must demonstrate compliance with Sec. Sec. 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.

    PART 435--REENTRY OF A REENTRY VEHICLE OTHER THAN A REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (RLV)

    0

    7. The authority citation for section 435 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70121.

    0

    8. Add Sec. 435.8 to read as follows:

    Sec. 435.8 Human space flight.

    An applicant for a license to conduct a reentry with flight crew or a space flight participant on board the vehicle must demonstrate compliance with Sec. Sec. 460.5, 460.7, 460.11, 460.13, 460.15, 460.17, 460.51 and 460.53 of this subchapter.

    0

    9. Revise section 440 to read as set forth below:

    PART 440--FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

    Subpart A--Financial Responsibility for Licensed and Permitted ActivitiesSec.440.1 Scope of part.440.3 Definitions.440.5 General.440.7 Determination of maximum probable loss.440.9 Insurance requirements for licensed or permitted activities.440.11 Duration of coverage for licensed launch, including suborbital launch, or permitted activities; modifications.440.12 Duration of coverage for licensed reentry; modifications.440.13 gauge conditions of insurance coverage.440.15 Demonstration of compliance.440.17 Reciprocal waiver of claims requirements.440.19 United States payment of excess third-party liability claims.Appendix A to section 440--Information requirements for obtaining a maximum probable loss determination for licensed or permitted activities.Appendix B to section 440--Agreement for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibility for licensed activities.Appendix C to section 440--Agreement for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibility for permitted activities.Appendix D to section 440--Agreement for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibility for a crew member.Appendix E to section 440--Agreement for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibility for a space flight participant.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70101-70119; 49 CFR 1.47.

    Subpart A--Financial Responsibility for Licensed and Permitted Activities

    Sec. 440.1 Scope of part.

    This section establishes financial responsibility and allocation of risk requirements for any launch or reentry authorized by a license or permit issued under this subchapter.

    Sec. 440.3 Definitions.

    Except as otherwise provided in this section, any term used in this section and defined in 49 U.S.C. 70101-70121, or in Sec. 401.5 of this chapter shall maintain the significance contained therein. For purposes of this part--

    Bodily injury means physical injury, sickness, disease, disability, shock, mental anguish, or mental injury sustained by any person, including death.

    Contractors and subcontractors means those entities that are involved at any level, directly or indirectly, in licensed or permitted activities, and includes suppliers of property and services, and the component manufacturers of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or payload.

    Customer means.

    (1) Any person:

    (i) Who procures launch or reentry services from a licensee or permittee;

    (ii) With rights in the payload (or any section of the payload) to be launched or reentered by the licensee or permittee, including a conditional sale, lease, assignment, or transfer of rights;

    (iii) Who has placed property on board the payload for launch, reentry, or payload services; or

    (iv) To whom the customer has transferred its rights to the launch or reentry services.

    (2) A space flight participant, for the purposes of this part, is not a customer.

    Federal orbit facility means a U.S. Government-owned installation at which a launch or reentry takes place.

    Financial responsibility means capable of satisfying a liability obligation as required by 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, chapter 701.

    Government personnel means employees of the United States, its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors, involved in launch or reentry services for an activity authorized by an FAA license or permit. Employees of the United States include members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

    Hazardous operations means activities, processes, and procedures that, because of the nature of the equipment, facilities, personnel, environment involved or office being performed, may result in physical injury or property damage.

    Liability means a legal obligation to pay a pretension for physical injury or property damage resulting from a licensed or permitted activity.

    License means an authorization the FAA issues under this subchapter to launch or reenter a launch or reentry vehicle.

    Licensed activity means the launch of a launch vehicle or the reentry of a reentry vehicle conducted under a license the FAA issues.

    Maximum probable loss (MPL) means the greatest dollar amount of loss for physical injury or property damage that is reasonably expected to result from a licensed or permitted activity;

    (1) Losses to third parties, excluding Government personnel and other launch or reentry participants' employees involved in licensed or permitted activities, that are reasonably expected to result from a licensed or permitted activity are those that maintain a probability of incident of no less than one in ten million.

    (2) Losses to Government property and Government personnel involved in licensed or permitted activities that are reasonably expected to result from licensed or permitted activities are those that maintain a probability of incident of no less than one in one hundred thousand.

    Permit means an authorization the FAA issues under this subchapter for the launch or reentry of a reusable suborbital rocket.

    Permitted activity means the launch or reentry of a reusable suborbital rocket conducted under a permit issued by the FAA.

    Property damage means partial or total destruction, impairment, or loss of tangible property, actual or personal.

    Regulations denote the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations codified at 14 CFR Ch. III.

    Third party means

    (1) Any person other than:

    (i) The United States, any of its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services for a licensed or permitted activity;

    (ii) A licensee, permittee, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services for a licensed or permitted activity;

    (iii) A customer and its contractors and subcontractors involved in launch or reentry services for a licensed or permitted activity;

    (iv) A member of a crew; and

    (v) A space flight participant.

    (2) Government personnel, as defined in this section, are third parties. United States means the United States Government, including each of its agencies.

    Sec. 440.5 General.

    (a) No person may commence or conduct any launch or reentry activity that requires a license or permit unless that person has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of this part.

    (b) The FAA will prescribe the amount of financial responsibility a licensee or permittee must obtain and any adjustments of the amount in a license or permit order issued concurrent with or subsequent to the issuance of a license or a permit.

    (c) Demonstration of financial responsibility under this section shall not alleviate a licensee of ultimate responsibility for liability, loss, or damage sustained by the United States resulting from a licensed activity, except to the extent that:

    (1) Liability, loss, or damage sustained by the United States results from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents;

    (2) Any covered pretension of a third party for physical injury or property damage arising out of any particular licensed activity exceeds the amount of financial responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(c) of this section and does not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 70113 and Sec. 440.19 of this part. A pretension of an employee of any entity listed in paragraphs (1)(ii) through (1)(iii) in the Third party definition in Sec. 440.3 of this section for physical injury or property damage is not a covered claim;

    (3) A covered pretension for property loss or damage exceeds the amount of financial responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(e) of this section and does not result from willful misconduct of the licensee; or

    (4) The licensee has no liability for covered claims by third parties for physical injury or property damage arising out of any particular launch or reentry that exceeds $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation) above the amount of financial responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(c).

    (d) Demonstration of financial responsibility under this section does not alleviate a permittee of ultimate responsibility for liability, loss, or damage sustained by the United States resulting from a permitted activity, except to the extent that:

    (1) Liability, loss, or damage sustained by the United States results from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents; or

    (2) A covered pretension for property loss or damage to the United States exceeds the amount of financial responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(e) and does not result from willful misconduct of the permittee.

    (e) A licensee's or permittee's failure to comply with any requirement of this section may result in suspension or revocation of a license or permit, and topic the licensee or permittee to civil penalties as provided in section 405 of this chapter.

    Sec. 440.7 Determination of maximum probable loss.

    (a) The FAA will determine the maximum probable loss (MPL) from covered claims by a third party for physical injury or property damage, and the United States, its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors for covered property damage or loss, resulting from a permitted or licensed activity. The maximum probable loss determination forms the basis for financial responsibility requirements issued in a license or permit order.

    (b) The FAA issues its determination of maximum probable loss no later than ninety days after a licensee or permittee has requested a determination and submitted total information required by the FAA to create the determination. The FAA will consult with Federal agencies that are involved in, or whose personnel or property are exposed to risk of damage or loss as a result of, a licensed or permitted activity before issuing a license or permit order prescribing financial responsibility requirements, and shall notify the licensee, or permittee, if interagency consultation may detain issuance of the MPL determination.

    (c) Appendix A of this section contains information requirements for obtaining a maximum probable loss determination. Any person requesting a determination of maximum probable loss must submit the information required by Appendix A, unless the FAA has waived a requirement. In lieu of submitting required information, a person requesting a maximum probable loss determination may designate and certify certain information previously submitted for a prior determination as complete, valid, and equally applicable to its current request. The requester is answerable for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information submitted under this section and must promptly report any changes in writing.

    (d) The FAA will amend a determination of maximum probable loss required under this section at any time prior to completion of licensed or permitted activities as warranted by supplementary information provided to or obtained by the FAA after the MPL determination is issued. Any change in financial responsibility requirements as a result of an amended MPL determination shall be set forth in a license or permit order.

    (e) The FAA may create a determination of maximum probable loss at any time other than as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section upon request by any person.

    Sec. 440.9 Insurance requirements for licensed or permitted activities.

    (a) As a condition of each license or permit, a licensee or permittee must comply with total insurance requirements of this section and of a license or permit issued by the FAA, or otherwise demonstrate the required amount of financial responsibility.

    (b) A licensee or permittee must obtain and maintain in sequel a policy or policies of liability insurance, in an amount determined by the FAA under paragraph (c) of this section, that protects the following persons as additional insureds to the extent of their respective potential liabilities against covered claims by a third party for physical injury or property damage resulting from a licensed or permitted activity:

    (1) The licensee or permittee, its customer, and their respective contractors and subcontractors, and the employees of each, involved in a licensed or permitted activity;

    (2) The United States, its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in a licensed or permitted activity; and

    (3) Government personnel.

    (c) The FAA will prescribe for each licensee or permittee the amount of insurance required to compensate the total of covered third- party claims for physical injury or property damage resulting from a licensed or permitted activity in connection with any particular launch or reentry. A covered third-party pretension includes a pretension by the United States, its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors for damage or loss to property other than property for which insurance is required under paragraph (d) of this section. The amount of insurance required is based upon the FAA's determination of maximum probable loss; however, it will not exceed the lesser of:

    (1) $500 million; or

    (2) The maximum liability insurance available on the world market at a reasonable cost, as determined by the FAA.

    (d) The licensee or permittee must obtain and maintain in sequel a policy or policies of insurance, in an amount determined by the FAA under paragraph (e) of this section, that covers claims by the United States, its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in a licensed or permitted activity for property damage or loss resulting from a licensed or permitted activity. Property covered by this insurance must include total property owned, leased, or occupied by, or within the care, custody, or control of, the United States and its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in a licensed or permitted activity, at a Federal orbit facility. Insurance must protect the United States and its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors involved in a licensed or permitted activity.

    (e) The FAA will prescribe for each licensee or permittee the amount of insurance required to compensate claims for property damage under paragraph (d) of this section resulting from a licensed or permitted activity in connection with any particular launch or reentry. The amount of insurance is based upon a determination of maximum probable loss; however, it will not exceed the lesser of:

    (1) $100 million; or

    (2) The maximum available on the world market at a reasonable cost, as determined by the FAA.

    (f) In lieu of a policy of insurance, a licensee or permittee may demonstrate financial responsibility in another manner meeting the terms and conditions for insurance of this part. The licensee or permittee must portray in detail the system proposed for demonstrating financial responsibility and how it ensures that the licensee or permittee is able to cover claims as required under this part.

    Sec. 440.11 Duration of coverage for licensed launch, including suborbital launch, or permitted activities; modifications.

    (a) Insurance coverage required under Sec. 440.9, or other configuration of financial responsibility, shall attach when a licensed launch or permitted activity starts, and remain in complete force and sequel as follows:

    (1) Until completion of licensed launch or permitted activities at a launch or reentry site; and

    (2) For orbital launch, until the later of--

    (i) Thirty days following payload separation, or attempted payload separation in the event of a payload separation anomaly; or

    (ii) Thirty days from ignition of the launch vehicle.

    (3) For a suborbital launch, until the later of--

    (i) Motor repercussion and payload recovery; or

    (ii) The FAA's determination that risk to third parties and Government property as a result of licensed launch or permitted activities is sufficiently minuscule that financial responsibility is no longer necessary. That determination is made through the risk analysis conducted before the launch to determine MPL and specified in a license or permit order.

    (b) financial responsibility required under this section may not be replaced, canceled, changed, withdrawn, or in any artery modified to reduce the limits of liability or the extent of coverage, nor expire by its own terms, prior to the time specified in a license or permit order, unless the FAA is notified at least 30 days in foster and expressly approves the modification.

    Sec. 440.12 Duration of coverage for licensed reentry; modifications.

    (a) For reentry, insurance coverage required under Sec. 440.9, or other configuration of financial responsibility, shall attach upon commencement of licensed reentry, and remain in complete force and sequel as follows:

    (1) For ground operations, until completion of licensed reentry at the reentry site; and

    (2) For other licensed reentry activities, 30 days from initiation of reentry flight; however, in the event of an abort that results in the reentry vehicle remaining on orbit, insurance shall remain in site until the FAA's determination that risk to third parties and Government property as a result of licensed reentry is sufficiently minuscule that financial responsibility is no longer necessary, as determined by the FAA through the risk analysis conducted to determine MPL and specified in a license order.

    (b) financial responsibility required under this section may not be replaced, canceled, changed, withdrawn, or in any artery modified to reduce the limits of liability or the extent of coverage, nor expire by its own terms, prior to the time specified in a license order, unless the FAA is notified at least 30 days in foster and expressly approves the modification.

    Sec. 440.13 gauge conditions of insurance coverage.

    (a) Insurance obtained under Sec. 440.9 must comply with each of the following terms and conditions of coverage:

    (1) Bankruptcy or insolvency of an insured, including any additional insured, shall not alleviate an insurer of any of its obligations under any policy.

    (2) Policy limits shall apply separately to each incident and, for each incident to the total of claims arising out of a licensed or permitted activity in connection with any particular launch or reentry.

    (3) Except as provided in this section, each policy must pay claims from the first dollar of loss, without admiration to any deductible, to the limits of the policy. A licensee or permittee may obtain a policy containing a deductible amount if the amount of the deductible is placed in an escrow account or otherwise demonstrated to be unobligated, unencumbered funds of the licensee or permittee, available to compensate claims at any time claims may arise.

    (4) No policy may be invalidated by any action or inaction of the licensee or permittee or any additional insured, even by nonpayment by the licensee or permittee of the policy premium, and each policy must insure the licensee or permittee and each additional insured regardless of any infraction or violation of any warranties, declarations, or conditions contained in the policies by the licensee or permittee or any additional insured (other than a infraction or violation by the licensee, permittee or an additional insured, and then only as against that licensee, permittee or additional insured).

    (5) Each exclusion from coverage must be specified.

    (6) Insurance shall be primary without privilege of contribution from any other insurance that is carried by the licensee or permittee or any additional insured.

    (7) Each policy must expressly provide that total of its provisions, except the policy limits, operate in the identical manner as if there were a sever policy with and covering the licensee or permittee and each additional insured.

    (8) Each policy must be placed with an insurer of recognized reputation and responsibility that either:

    (i) Is licensed to finish industry in any State, territory, possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia; or

    (ii) Includes in each of its policies or insurance obtained under this section a shrink clause in which the insurer agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction within the United States and designates an authorized agent within the United States for service of legal process on the insurer.

    (9) Except as to claims resulting from the willful misconduct of the United States or any of its agents, the insurer shall waive any and total rights of subrogation against each of the parties protected by required insurance.

    (b) [Reserved]

    Sec. 440.15 Demonstration of compliance.

    (a) A licensee or permittee must submit to the FAA evidence of financial responsibility and compliance with allocation of risk requirements under this part, as follows, unless a license or permit order specifies otherwise due to the proximity of the intended date for commencement of licensed or permitted activities:

    (1) total reciprocal waiver of claims agreements required under Sec. 440.17(c) must be submitted at least 30 days before the start of any licensed or permitted activity involving a customer, crew member, or space flight participant;

    (2) Evidence of insurance must be submitted at least 30 days before commencement of any licensed launch or permitted activity, and for licensed reentry no less than 30 days before commencement of launch activities involving the reentry licensee;

    (3) Evidence of financial responsibility in a configuration other than insurance, as provided under Sec. 440.9(f), must be submitted at least 60 days before commencement of a licensed or permitted activity; and

    (4) Evidence of renewal of insurance or other configuration of financial responsibility must be submitted at least 30 days in foster of its expiration date.

    (b) Upon a complete demonstration of compliance with financial responsibility and allocation of risk requirements under this part, the requirements of this section shall preempt each and any provision in any agreement between the licensee or permittee and an agency of the United States governing access to or employ of United States launch or reentry property or launch or reentry services for a licensed or permitted activity which addresses financial responsibility, allocation of risk and related matters covered by 49 U.S.C. 70112, 70113.

    (c) A licensee or permittee must demonstrate compliance as follows:

    (1) The licensee or permittee must provide proof of the existence of the insurance required by Sec. 440.9 by:

    (i) Certifying to the FAA that it has obtained insurance in compliance with the requirements of this section and any applicable license or permit order;

    (ii) Filing with the FAA one or more certificates of insurance evidencing insurance coverage by one or more insurers under a currently effectual and properly endorsed policy or policies of insurance, applicable to a licensed or permitted activity, on terms and conditions and in amounts prescribed under this part, and specifying policy exclusions;

    (iii) In the event of any policy exclusions or limitations of coverage that may be considered habitual under Sec. 440.19(c), or for purposes of implementing the Government's waiver of claims for property damage under 49 U.S.C. 70112(b)(2), certifying that insurance covering the excluded risks is not commercially available at reasonable cost; and

    (iv) Submitting to the FAA, for signature by the Department on behalf of the United States Government, the waiver of claims and assumption of responsibility agreement required by Sec. 440.17(c), executed by the licensee or permittee and its customer.

    (v) Submitting to the FAA, for signature by the Department on behalf of the United States Government, an agreement to waive claims and assume responsibility required by Sec. 440.17(e), executed by each space flight participant.

    (vi) Submitting to the FAA, for signature by the Department on behalf of the United States Government, an agreement to waive claims and assume responsibility required by Sec. 440.17(f), executed by each member of the crew.

    (2) Any certification required by this section must be signed by a duly authorized officer of the licensee or permittee.

    (d) Each certificate of insurance required by paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section must be signed by the insurer issuing the policy and accompanied by an belief of the insurance broker that the insurance obtained by the licensee or permittee complies with total the requirements for insurance of this section and any applicable license or permit order.

    (e) The licensee or permittee must maintain, and create available for inspection by the FAA upon request, total required policies of insurance and other documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with this part.

    (f) In the event the licensee or permittee demonstrates financial responsibility using means other than insurance, as provided under Sec. 440.9(f), the licensee or permittee must provide proof that it has met the requirements of this section and of a FAA issued license or permit order.

    Sec. 440.17 Reciprocal waiver of claims requirements.

    (a) As a condition of each license or permit, the licensee or permittee must comply with the reciprocal waiver of claims requirements of this section.

    (b) The licensee or permittee shall implement a reciprocal waiver of claims with each of its contractors and subcontractors, each customer and each of the customer's contractors and subcontractors, under which each party waives and releases claims against total the other parties to the waiver and agrees to assume financial responsibility for property damage it sustains and for physical injury or property damage sustained by its own employees, and to hold harmless and indemnify each other from physical injury or property damage sustained by its employees, resulting from a licensed or permitted activity, regardless of fault.

    (c) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the U.S. Government, any agency, or its contractors and subcontractors is involved or where property insurance is required under Sec. 440.9(d), the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, the licensee or permittee, and its customer shall enter into a three-party reciprocal waiver of claims agreement. The three- party reciprocal waiver of claims shall be in the configuration set forth in Appendix B of this part, for licensed activity, or Appendix C of this part, for permitted activity, of this section or in a configuration that satisfies the requirements.

    (d) The licensee or permittee, its customer, and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation on behalf of the United States and its agencies but only to the extent provided in legislation, must harmonize in any waiver of claims agreement required under this section to indemnify another party to the agreement from claims by the indemnifying party's contractors and subcontractors arising out of the indemnifying party's failure to implement properly the waiver requirement.

    (e) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the U.S. Government, any of its agencies, or its contractors and subcontractors are involved, the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation and each space flight participant shall enter into or maintain in site a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement in the configuration of the agreement in Appendix E of this section or that satisfies its requirements.

    (f) For each licensed or permitted activity in which the U.S. Government, any of its agencies, or its contractors and subcontractors is involved, the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation and each crew member shall enter into or maintain in site a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement in the configuration of the agreement in Appendix D of this section or that satisfies its requirements.

    Sec. 440.19 United States payment of excess third-party liability claims.

    (a) The United States pays successful covered claims (including reasonable expenses of litigation or settlement) of a third party against a licensee, a customer, and the contractors and subcontractors of the licensee and the customer, and the employees of each involved in licensed activities, and the contractors and subcontractors of the United States and its agencies, and their employees, involved in licensed activities to the extent provided in an appropriation law or other legislative authority providing for payment of claims in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 70113, and to the extent the total amount of such covered claims arising out of any particular launch or reentry:

    (1) Exceeds the amount of insurance required under Sec. 440.9(b); and

    (2) Is not more than $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation occurring after January 1, 1989) above that amount.

    (b) Payment by the United States under paragraph (a) of this section shall not be made for any section of such claims for which physical injury or property damage results from willful misconduct by the party seeking payment.

    (c) The United States shall provide for payment of claims by third parties for physical injury or property damage that are payable under 49 U.S.C. 70113 and not covered by required insurance under Sec. 440.9(b), without admiration to the limitation under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, because of an insurance policy exclusion that is usual. A policy exclusion is considered habitual only if insurance covering the excluded risk is not commercially available at reasonable rates. The licensee must submit a certification in accordance with Sec. 440.15(c)(1)(iii) of this section for the United States to cover the claims.

    (d) Upon the expiration of the policy epoch prescribed in accordance with Sec. 440.11(a), the United States shall provide for payment of claims that are payable under 49 U.S.C. 70113 from the first dollar of loss up to $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation occurring after January 1, 1989).

    (e) Payment by the United States of excess third-party claims under 49 U.S.C. 70113 shall be topic to:

    (1) Prompt notice by the licensee to the FAA that the total amount of claims arising out of licensed activities exceeds, or is likely to exceed, the required amount of financial responsibility. For each claim, the notice must specify the nature, cause, and amount of the pretension or lawsuit associated with the claim, and the party or parties who may otherwise be liable for payment of the claim;

    (2) Participation or assistance in the defense of the pretension or lawsuit by the United States, at its election;

    (3) Approval by the FAA of any settlement, or section of a settlement, to be paid by the United States; and

    (4) Approval by Congress of a compensation design prepared by the FAA and submitted by the President.

    (f) The FAA will:

    (1) Prepare a compensation design outlining the total amount of claims and meeting the requirements set forth in 49 U.S.C. 70113;

    (2) Recommend sources of funds to pay the claims; and

    (3) pose legislation as required to implement the plan.

    (g) The FAA may withhold payment of a pretension if it finds that the amount is unreasonable, unless it is the final order of a court that has jurisdiction over the matter.

    Appendix A to section 440--Information Requirements for Obtaining a Maximum Probable Loss Determination for Licensed or Permitted Activities

    Any person requesting a maximum probable loss determination shall submit the following information to the FAA, unless the FAA has waived a particular information requirement under 14 CFR 440.7(c):

    Part 1: Information Requirements for Licensed Launch, Including Suborbital Launch

    I. universal Information

    A. Mission description.1. A description of mission parameters, including:a. Launch trajectory;b. Orbital inclination; andc. Orbit altitudes (apogee and perigee).2. Flight sequence.3. Staging events and the time for each event.4. repercussion locations.5. Identification of the launch site facility, including the launch tangled on the site, planned date of launch, and launch windows.6. If the applicant has previously been issued a license or permit to conduct activities using the identical vehicle from the identical launch site, a description of any differences planned in the conduct of proposed activities.B. Launch vehicle description.1. universal description of the launch vehicle and its stages, including dimensions.2. Description of major systems, including safety systems.3. Description of rocket motors and type of fuel used.4. Identification of total propellants to be used and their hazard classification under the Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101.5. Description of hazardous components.C. Payload.1. universal description of the payload, including type (e.g., telecommunications, remote sensing), propellants, and hazardous components or materials, such as toxic or radioactive substances. D. Flight safety system.1. Identification of any flight safety system on the vehicle, including a description of operations and component location on the vehicle.

    II. Pre-Flight Processing Operations

    A. universal description of pre-flight operations including vehicle processing consisting of an operational stream diagram showing the overall sequence and location of operations, commencing with arrival of vehicle components at the launch site facility through final safety checks and countdown sequence, and designation of hazardous operations, as defined in 14 CFR 440.3. For purposes of these information requirements, payload processing, as opposed to integration, is not a hazardous operation.

    B. For each hazardous operation, including but not limited to fueling, solid rocket motor build-up, ordnance installation, ordnance checkout, movement of hazardous materials, and payload integration:

    1. Identification of location where each operation will be performed, including each edifice or facility identified by cognomen or number.

    2. Identification of facilities adjacent to the location where each operation will be performed and therefore exposed to risk, identified by cognomen or number.

    3. Maximum number of Government personnel and individuals not involved in licensed activities who may be exposed to risk during each operation. For Government personnel, identification of his or her employer.

    4. Identification of launch site policies or requirements applicable to the conduct of operations.

    III. Flight Operations

    A. Identification of launch site facilities exposed to risk during licensed flight.

    B. Identification of accident failure scenarios, probability assessments for each, and estimation of risks to Government personnel, individuals not involved in licensed activities, and Government property, due to property damage or physical injury. The estimation of risks for each scenario shall select into account the number of such individuals at risk as a result of lift-off and flight of a launch vehicle (on-range, off-range, and down-range) and specific, unique facilities exposed to risk. Scenarios shall cover the orbit of launch trajectories, inclinations and orbits for which authorization is sought in the license application.

    C. On-orbit risk analysis assessing risks posed by a launch vehicle to operational satellites.

    D. Reentry risk analysis assessing risks to Government personnel and individuals not involved in licensed activities as a result of reentering debris or reentry of the launch vehicle or its components.

    E. Trajectory data as follows: Nominal and 3-sigma lateral trajectory data in x, y, z and x (dot), y (dot), z (dot) coordinates in one-second intervals, data to be pad-centered with x being along the initial launch azimuth and continuing through repercussion for suborbital flights, and continuing through orbital insertion or the discontinue of powered flight for orbital flights.

    F. Tumble-turn data for guided vehicles only, as follows: For vehicles with gimbaled nozzles, tumble spin data with zeta angles and velocity magnitudes stated. A sever table is required for each combination of fail times (every two to four seconds), and significant nozzle angles (two or more minuscule angles, generally between one and five degrees).

    G. Identification of debris lethal areas and the projected number and ballistic coefficient of fragments expected to result from flight termination, initiated either by command or self- destruct mechanism, for lift-off, land overflight, and reentry.

    IV. Post-Flight Processing Operations

    A. universal description of post-flight ground operations including overall sequence and location of operations for removal of vehicle components and processing gear from the launch site facility and for handling of hazardous materials, and designation of hazardous operations.

    B. Identification of total facilities used in conducting post- flight processing operations.

    C. For each hazardous operation:

    1. Identification of location where each operation is performed, including each edifice or facility identified by cognomen or number.

    2. Identification of facilities adjacent to location where each operation is performed and exposed to risk, identified by cognomen or number.

    3. Maximum number of Government personnel and individuals not involved in licensed launch activities that may be exposed to risk during each operation. For Government personnel, identification of his or her employer.

    4. Identification of launch site facility policies or requirements applicable to the conduct of operations.

    Part 2: Information Requirements for Licensed Reentry

    I. universal Information

    A. Reentry mission description.1. A description of mission parameters, including:a. Orbital inclination; andb. Orbit altitudes (apogee and perigee).c. Reentry trajectories.2. Reentry flight sequences.3. Reentry initiation events and the time for each event.4. Nominal landing location, alternative landing sites and contingency abort sites.5. Identification of landing facilities, (planned date of reentry), and reentry windows.6. If the applicant has previously been issued a license or permit to conduct reentry activities using the identical reentry vehicle to the identical reentry site facility, a description of any differences planned in the conduct of proposed activities.B. Reentry vehicle description.1. universal description of the reentry vehicle, including dimensions.2. Description of major systems, including safety systems.3. Description of propulsion system (reentry initiation system) and type of fuel used.4. Identification of total propellants to be used and their hazard classification under the Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101.5. Description of hazardous components.C. Payload.1. universal description of any payload, including type (e.g., telecommunications, remote sensing), propellants, and hazardous components or materials, such as toxic or radioactive substances. D. Flight Safety System.1. Identification of any flight safety system on the reentry vehicle, including a description of operations and component location on the vehicle.

    II. Flight Operations

    A. Identification of reentry site facilities exposed to risk during vehicle reentry and landing.

    B. Identification of accident failure scenarios, probability assessments for each, and estimation of risks to Government personnel, individuals not involved in licensed reentry, and Government property, due to property damage or physical injury. The estimation of risks for each scenario shall select into account the number of such individuals at risk as a result of reentry (flight) and landing of a reentry vehicle (on-range, off-range, and down- range) and specific, unique facilities exposed to risk. Scenarios shall cover the orbit of reentry trajectories for which authorization is sought.

    C. On-orbit risk analysis assessing risks posed by a reentry vehicle to operational satellites during reentry.

    D. Reentry risk analysis assessing risks to Government personnel and individuals not involved in licensed activities as a result of inadvertent or random reentry of the launch vehicle or its components.

    E. Nominal and 3-sigma dispersed trajectories in one-second intervals, from reentry initiation through landing or impact. (Coordinate system will be specified on a case-by-case basis)

    F. Three-sigma landing or repercussion dispersion belt in downrange (plus-minus) and crossrange (plus-minus) measured from the nominal and contingency landing or repercussion target. The applicant is answerable for including total significant landing or repercussion dispersion constituents in the computations of landing or repercussion dispersion areas. The dispersion constituents should include, but not be limited to: Variation in orbital position and velocity at the reentry initiation time; variation in re-entry initiation time offsets, either early or late; variation in the bodies' ballistic coefficient; position and velocity variation due to winds; and variations in re-entry retro- maneuvers.

    G. Malfunction spin data (tumble, trim) for guided (controllable) vehicles. The malfunction spin data shall include the total angle turned by the velocity vector versus spin duration time at one second intervals; the magnitude of the velocity vector versus spin duration time at one second intervals; and an indication on the data where the re-entry body will repercussion the Earth, or breakup due to aerodynamic loads. A malfunction spin data set is required for each malfunction time. Malfunction spin start times shall not exceed four-second intervals along the trajectory.

    H. Identification of debris casualty areas and the projected number and ballistic coefficient of fragments expected to result from each failure mode during reentry, including random reentry.

    III. Post-Flight Processing Operations

    A. universal description of post-flight ground operations including overall sequence and location of operations for removal of vehicle and components and processing gear from the reentry site facility and for handling of hazardous materials, and designation of hazardous operations.

    B. Identification of total facilities used in conducting post- flight processing operations.

    C. For each hazardous operation:

    1. Identification of location where each operation is performed, including each edifice or facility identified by cognomen or number.

    2. Identification of facilities adjacent to location where each operation is performed and exposed to risk, identified by cognomen or number.

    3. Maximum number of Government personnel and individuals not involved in licensed reentry activities who may be exposed to risk during each operation. For Government personnel, identification of his or her employer.

    4. Identify and provide reentry site facility policies or requirements applicable to the conduct of operations.

    Part 3: Information Requirements for Permitted Activities

    In addition to the information required in section 437 subpart B, an applicant for an experimental permit must provide, for each permitted pre-flight and post-flight operation, the following information to the FAA:

    A. Identification of location where each operation will be performed, including any U.S. Government or third party facilities identified by cognomen or number.

    B. Identification of any U.S. Government or third party facilities adjacent to the location where each operation will be performed and therefore exposed to risk, identified by cognomen or number.

    C. Maximum number of Government personnel and individuals not involved in permitted activities that may be exposed to risk during each operation. For Government personnel, identification of his or her employer.

    Appendix B to section 440--Agreement for Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for Licensed Activities

    Part 1--Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for Licensed Launch, including Suborbital Launch

    THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this----day of--------, by and among [Licensee] (the ``Licensee''), [Customer] (the ``Customer'') and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the United States Government (collectively, the ``Parties''), to implement the provisions of section 440.17(c) of the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR Ch. III (the ``Regulations''). This agreement applies to the launch of [Payload] payload on a [Launch Vehicle] vehicle at [Location of Launch Site]. In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby harmonize as follows:

    1. Definitions

    Contractors and Subcontractors means entities described in Sec. 440.3 of the Regulations.

    Customer means the above-named Customer on behalf of the Customer and any person described in Sec. 440.3 of the Regulations.

    License means License No.----issued on--------, by the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, to the Licensee, including total license orders issued in connection with the License.

    Licensee means the Licensee and any transferee of the Licensee under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701.

    United States means the United States and its agencies involved in Licensed Activities.

    Except as otherwise defined herein, terms used in this Agreement and defined in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701--Commercial Space Launch Activities, or in the Regulations, shall maintain the identical significance as contained in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701, or the Regulations, respectively.

    2. Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) Licensee hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Customer and the United States, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Licensee and the United States, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Licensee and Customer, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains, and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    3. Assumption of Responsibility

    (a) Licensee and Customer shall each be answerable for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault. Licensee and Customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each Party, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States shall be answerable for Property Damage it sustains, and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    4. Extension of Assumption of Responsibility and Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) Licensee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Customer and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Customer and the United States, and the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Licensee and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and the United States, and the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Licensee and Customer, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    5. Indemnification

    (a) Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, and the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Licensee's Contractors and Subcontractors may maintain for Property Damage sustained by them and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities.

    (b) Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, and the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Customer's Contractors and Subcontractors, or any person on whose behalf Customer enters into this Agreement, may maintain for Property Damage sustained by them and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities.

    (c) To the extent provided in foster in an appropriations law or to the extent there is enacted additional legislative authority providing for the payment of claims, the United States shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and Customer and their respective directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States may maintain for Property Damage sustained by them, and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, to the extent that claims they would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    6. Assurances Under 49 U.S.C. 70112(e)

    Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for physical Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that: (i) As provided in section 7(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents; (ii) claims for Property Damage sustained by the United States or its Contractors and Subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations; (iii) claims by a Third Party for physical Injury or Property Damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and finish not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 70113 and section 440.19 of the Regulations; or (iv) Licensee has no liability for claims exceeding $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(c) of the Regulations.

    7. Miscellaneous

    (a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Licensee, Customer or the United States of any pretension by an employee of the Licensee, Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for physical Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities.

    (b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for physical Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, and in the case of Licensee and Customer and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.

    (c) In the event that more than one customer is involved in Licensed Activities, references herein to Customer shall apply to, and be deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.

    (d) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.

    In witness whereof, the Parties to this Agreement maintain caused the Agreement to be duly executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the date written above.

    LICENSEE

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    CUSTOMER

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    Part 2--Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for Licensed Reentry

    This Agreement is entered into this ---- day of --------, by and among [Licensee] (the ``Licensee''), [Customer] (the ``Customer''), and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the United States Government (collectively, the ``Parties''), to implement the provisions of Sec. 440.17(c) of the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR Ch. III (the ``Regulations''). This agreement applies to the reentry of the [Payload] payload on a [Reentry Vehicle] vehicle.

    In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby harmonize as follows:

    1. Definitions

    Contractors and Subcontractors means entities described in Sec. 440.3 of the Regulations.

    Customer means the above-named Customer on behalf of the Customer and any person described in Sec. 440.3 of the Regulations.

    License means License No. ---- issued on --------, by the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, to the Licensee, including total license orders issued in connection with the License.

    Licensee means the Licensee and any transferee of the Licensee under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701.

    United States means the United States and its agencies involved in Licensed Activities.

    Except as otherwise defined herein, terms used in this Agreement and defined in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701--Commercial Space Launch Activities, or in the Regulations, shall maintain the identical significance as contained in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701, or the Regulations, respectively.

    2. Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) Licensee hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Customer and the United States, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Licensee and the United States, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Licensee and Customer, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains, and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e) of the Regulations.

    3. Assumption of Responsibility

    (a) Licensee and Customer shall each be answerable for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault. Licensee and Customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each Party, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States shall be answerable for Property Damage it sustains, and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under Sec. Sec. 440.9(c) and (e) of the Regulations.

    4. Extension of Assumption of Responsibility and Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) Licensee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Customer and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Customer and the United States, and the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Licensee and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and the United States, and the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Licensee and Customer, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under Sec. Sec. 440.9(c) and (e) of the Regulations.

    5. Indemnification

    (a) Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, and the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Licensee's Contractors and Subcontractors may maintain for Property Damage sustained by them and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities.

    (b) Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, and the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Customer's Contractors and Subcontractors, or any person on whose behalf Customer enters into this Agreement, may maintain for Property Damage sustained by them and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities.

    (c) To the extent provided in foster in an appropriations law or to the extent there is enacted additional legislative authority providing for the payment of claims, the United States shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensee and Customer and their respective directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Contractors and Subcontractors of the United States may maintain for Property Damage sustained by them, and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, to the extent that claims they would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under Sec. Sec. 440.9(c) and (e) of the Regulations.

    6. Assurances Under 49 U.S.C. 70112(e)

    Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for physical Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that: (i) As provided in section 7(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents; (ii) claims for Property Damage sustained by the United States or its Contractors and Subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(e) of the Regulations; (iii) claims by a Third Party for physical Injury or Property Damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and finish not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above such amount, and are payable pursuant to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 70113 and Sec. 440.19 of the Regulations; or (iv) Licensee has no liability for claims exceeding $1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) above the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(c) of the Regulations.

    7. Miscellaneous

    (a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Licensee, Customer or the United States of any pretension by an employee of the Licensee, Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for physical Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed Activities.

    (b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for physical Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, and in the case of Licensee and Customer and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.

    (c) In the event that more than one customer is involved in Licensed Activities, references herein to Customer shall apply to, and be deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.

    (d) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.

    In Witness Whereof, the Parties to this Agreement maintain caused the Agreement to be duly executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the date written above.

    LICENSEE

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    CUSTOMER

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    Appendix C to section 440--Agreement for Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for Permitted Activities

    THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ---- day of --------, by and among [Permittee] (the ``Permittee''), [Customer] (the ``Customer'') and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the United States Government (collectively, the ``Parties''), to implement the provisions of section 440.17(c) of the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR Ch. III (the ``Regulations''). This agreement applies to [describe permitted activity]. In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby harmonize as follows:

    1. Definitions

    Customer means the above-named Customer on behalf of the Customer and any person described in Sec. 440.3 of the Regulations.

    Permit means Permit No. ----issued on --------, by the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, to the Permittee, including total permit orders issued in connection with the Permit.

    Permittee means the holder of the Permit issued under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701.

    United States means the United States and its agencies involved in Permitted Activities.

    Except as otherwise defined herein, terms used in this Agreement and defined in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701--Commercial Space Launch Activities, or in the Regulations, shall maintain the identical significance as contained in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701, or the Regulations, respectively.

    2. Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) Permittee hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Customer and the United States, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault. (b) Customer hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Permittee and the United States, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    (c) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Permittee and Customer, and against their respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for Property Damage it sustains resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations.

    3. Assumption of Responsibility

    (a) Permittee and Customer shall each be answerable for Property Damage it sustains and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault. Permittee and Customer shall each hold harmless and indemnify each other, the United States, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each Party, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States shall be answerable for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations.

    4. Extension of Assumption of Responsibility and Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) Permittee shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Customer and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Customer and the United States, and the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) Customer shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility, hold harmless, and indemnification, as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(a), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Permittee and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to be responsible, hold harmless and indemnify Permittee and the United States, and the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    (c) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(c) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Permittee and Customer, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to harmonize to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise maintain for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations.

    5. Indemnification

    (a) Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify Customer and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, and the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Permittee's Contractors and Subcontractors may maintain for Property Damage sustained by them and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Permitted Activities.

    (b) Customer shall hold harmless and indemnify Permittee and its directors, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, and the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims that Customer's Contractors and Subcontractors, or any person on whose behalf Customer enters into this Agreement, may maintain for Property Damage sustained by them and for physical Injury or Property Damage sustained by their employees, resulting from Permitted Activities.

    6. Assurances Under 49 U.S.C. 70112(e)

    Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for physical Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that it is provided in section 7(b) of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims (i) result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents and (ii) for Property Damage sustained by the United States or its Contractors and Subcontractors exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations.

    7. Miscellaneous

    (a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by Permittee, Customer or the United States of any pretension by an employee of the Permittee, Customer or the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for physical Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Permitted Activities.

    (b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless and indemnify herein shall not apply to claims for physical Injury or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, and in the case of Permittee and Customer and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of them, the directors, officers, agents and employees of any of the foregoing, and in the case of the United States, its agents.

    (c) In the event that more than one customer is involved in Permitted Activities, references herein to Customer shall apply to, and be deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.

    (d) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this Agreement maintain caused the Agreement to be duly executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the date written above.

    PERMITTEE

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    CUSTOMER

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

    By:--------------------------------------------------------------------Its:-------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    Appendix D to section 440--Agreement for Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for a Crew Member

    THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ---- day of --------, by and among [name of Crew Member] (the ``Crew Member'') and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the United States Government (collectively, the ``Parties''), to implement the provisions of section 440.17(f) of the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR Ch. III (the ``Regulations''). This agreement applies to the Crew Member's participation in activities that the FAA has authorized by license or permit during the Crew Member's employment with [Name of licensee or permittee].

    In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby harmonize as follows:

    1. Definitions

    Crew Member means

    (a) The above-named Crew Member,

    (b) total the heirs, administrators, executors, assignees, next of kin, and estate of the above-named Crew Member, and

    (c) Anyone who attempts to bring a pretension on behalf of the Crew Member or for damage or harm arising out of the physical Injury, including Death, of the Crew Member.

    License/Permit means License/Permit No. -------- issued on ---- ----, by the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, to the Licensee/Permittee, including total license/ permit orders issued in connection with the License/Permit.

    Licensee/Permittee means the Licensee/Permittee and any transferee of the Licensee under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701.

    United States means the United States and its agencies involved in Licensed/Permitted Activities.

    Except as otherwise defined herein, terms used in this Agreement and defined in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701--Commercial Space Launch Activities, or in the Regulations, shall maintain the identical significance as contained in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701, or the Regulations, respectively.

    2. Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) Crew Member hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against the United States, and against its respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by Crew Member, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against the Crew Member for Property Damage it sustains, and for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    3. Assumption of Responsibility

    (a) The Crew Member shall be answerable for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by Crew Member, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault. The Crew Member shall hold harmless the United States, and the Contractors and Subcontractors of each Party, for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by Crew Member, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States shall be answerable for Property Damage it sustains, and for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    (c) The United States shall be answerable for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations.

    4. Extension of Assumption of Responsibility and Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Crew Member and to harmonize to be responsible, for any Property Damage the Contractors and Subcontractors sustain and for any physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(c), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims the Contractors and Subcontractors may maintain against Crew Member and to harmonize to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    5. Indemnification

    Crew Member shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss, or damage arising out of claims brought by anyone for Property Damage or physical Injury, including Death, sustained by Crew Member, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities.

    6. Assurances Under 49 U.S.C. 70112(e)

    Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Crew Member shall hold harmless the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage, sustained by Crew Member, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that, as provided in section 6(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents.

    7. Miscellaneous

    (a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by the United States of any pretension by an employee of the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for physical Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities.

    (b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless herein shall not apply to claims for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the Parties, and in the case of the United States, its agents.

    (c) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this Agreement maintain caused the Agreement to be duly executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the date written above.

    I [name of Crew Member] maintain read and understand this agreement and harmonize that I am bound by it.

    CREW MEMBER

    [fxsp0]Signature:------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Printed Name:---------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    Appendix E to section 440--Agreement for Waiver of Claims and Assumption of Responsibility for a Space Flight Participant

    THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ---- day of --------, by and among [name of Space Flight Participant] (the ``Space Flight Participant'') and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the United States Government (collectively, the ``Parties''), to implement the provisions of section 440.17(e) of the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR Ch. III (the ``Regulations''). This agreement applies to Space Flight Participant's travel on [name of launch or reentry vehicle] of [name of Licensee or Permittee]. In consideration of the mutual releases and promises contained herein, the Parties hereby harmonize as follows:

    1. Definitions

    Space Flight Participant means

    (a) The above-named Space Flight Participant,

    (b) total the heirs, administrators, executors, assignees, next of kin, and estate of the above-named Space Flight Participant , and

    (c) Anyone who attempts to bring a pretension on behalf of the Space Flight Participant or for damage or harm arising out of the physical Injury, including Death, of the Space Flight Participant.

    License/Permit means License/Permit No.-------- issued on ------ --, by the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, to the Licensee/Permittee, including total license/ permit orders issued in connection with the License/Permit.

    Licensee/Permittee means the Licensee/Permittee and any transferee of the Licensee under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701.

    United States means the United States and its agencies involved in Licensed/Permitted Activities.

    Except as otherwise defined herein, terms used in this Agreement and defined in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701--Commercial Space Launch Activities, or in the Regulations, shall maintain the identical significance as contained in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701, or the Regulations, respectively.

    2. Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) Space Flight Participant hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against the United States, and against its respective Contractors and Subcontractors, for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by Space Flight Participant, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States hereby waives and releases claims it may maintain against Space Flight Participant for Property Damage it sustains, and for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    3. Assumption of Responsibility

    (a) Space Flight Participant shall be answerable for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by the Space Flight Participant resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault. Space Flight Participant shall hold harmless the United States, and its Contractors and Subcontractors, for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by Space Flight Participant from Licensed/Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States shall be answerable for Property Damage it sustains, and for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by its own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    (c) The United States shall be answerable for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise maintain for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations.

    4. Extension of Assumption of Responsibility and Waiver and Release of Claims

    (a) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(b), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Space Flight Participant, and to harmonize to be responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain and for any physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage sustained by their own employees, resulting from Licensed Activities, regardless of fault.

    (b) The United States shall extend the requirements of the waiver and release of claims, and the assumption of responsibility as set forth in paragraphs 2(b) and 3(c), respectively, to its Contractors and Subcontractors by requiring them to waive and release total claims they may maintain against Space Flight Participant, and to harmonize to be responsible, for any Property Damage the Contractors and Subcontractors sustain, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault.

    5. Indemnification

    Space Flight Participant shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, subsidiaries, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims brought by anyone for Property Damage or physical Injury, including Death, sustained by Space Flight Participant, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities.

    6. Assurances Under 49 U.S.C. 70112(e)

    Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, Space Flight Participant shall hold harmless the United States and its agencies, servants, agents, employees and assignees, or any of them, from and against liability, loss or damage arising out of claims for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage, sustained by Space Flight Participant, resulting from Licensed/ Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, except to the extent that, as provided in section 6(b) of this Agreement, claims result from willful misconduct of the United States or its agents.

    7. Miscellaneous

    (a) Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver or release by the United States of any pretension by an employee the United States, respectively, including a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, for physical Injury or Property Damage, resulting from Licensed/Permitted Activities.

    (b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, release, assumption of responsibility or agreement to hold harmless herein shall not apply to claims for physical Injury, including Death, or Property Damage resulting from willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the Contractors, Subcontractors, and agents of the United States, and Space Flight Participant.

    (c) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this Agreement maintain caused the Agreement to be duly executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the date written above.

    I [name of Space Flight Participant] maintain read and understand this agreement and harmonize that I am bound by it.

    SPACE FLIGHT PARTICIPANT

    [fxsp0]Signature:------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Printed Name:---------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

    [fxsp0]By:-------------------------------------------------------------[fxsp0]Its:------------------------------------------------------------

    ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    PART 450--[REMOVED]

    0 10. Remove section 450.

    0 11. Add section 460 to read as follows:

    PART 460--HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS

    Subpart A--Launch and reentry with crew Sec. 460.1 Scope.460.3 Applicability.460.5 Crew qualifications and training.460.7 Operator training of crew.460.9 Informing crew of risk.460.11 Environmental control and life champion systems.460.13 Smoke detection and fire suppression.460.15 Human factors.460.17 Verification program.460.19 Crew waiver of claims against U.S. Government.460.20-460.40 [Reserved]Subpart B--Launch and reentry with a space flight participant460.41 Scope.460.43 Applicability.460.45 Operator informing space flight participant of risk.460.47 [Reserved]460.49 Space flight participant waiver of claims against U.S. Government.460.51 Space flight participant training.460.53 Security.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 70105.

    Subpart A--Launch and reentry with crew

    Sec. 460.1 Scope.

    This subpart establishes requirements for crew of a vehicle whose operator is licensed or permitted under this chapter.

    Sec. 460.3 Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to:

    (1) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to maintain flight crew on board a vehicle or proposes to employ a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.

    (2) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has flight crew on board a vehicle or who employs a remote operator of a vehicle with a human on board.

    (3) A crew member participating in an activity authorized under this chapter.

    (b) Each member of the crew must comply with total requirements of the laws of the United States that apply to crew.

    Sec. 460.5 Crew qualifications and training.

    (a) Each crew member must--

    (1) Complete training on how to carry out his or her role on board or on the ground so that the vehicle will not harm the public; and

    (2) Train for his or her role in nominal and non-nominal conditions. The conditions must include--

    (i) Abort scenarios; and

    (ii) Emergency operations.

    (b) Each member of a flight crew must demonstrate an skill to withstand the stresses of space flight, which may include elevated acceleration or deceleration, microgravity, and vibration, in sufficient condition to safely carry out his or her duties so that the vehicle will not harm the public.

    (c) A pilot and a remote operator must--

    (1) Possess and carry an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument rating.

    (2) Possess aeronautical knowledge, experience, and skills necessary to pilot and control the launch or reentry vehicle that will operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). Aeronautical undergo may include hours in flight, ratings, and training.

    (3) Receive vehicle and mission-specific training for each phase of flight by using one or more of the following--

    (i) A system or device that simulates the flight;

    (ii) An aircraft whose characteristics are similar to the vehicle or that has similar phases of flight to the vehicle ;

    (iii) Flight testing; or

    (iv) An equivalent system of training approved by the FAA through the license or permit process.

    (4) Train in procedures that direct the vehicle away from the public in the event the flight crew abandons the vehicle during flight; and

    (5) Train for each mode of control or propulsion, including any transition between modes, such that the pilot or remote operator is able to control the vehicle.

    (d) A remote operator may demonstrate an equivalent level of safety to paragraph (c)(1) of this section through the license or permit process.

    (e) Each crew member with a safety-critical role must possess and carry an FAA second-class airman medical certificate issued in accordance with 14 CFR section 67, no more than 12 months prior to the month of launch and reentry.

    Sec. 460.7 Operator training of crew.

    (a) Implementation of training. An operator must train each member of its crew and define standards for successful completion in accordance with Sec. 460.5.

    (b) Training device fidelity. An operator must

    (1) Ensure that any crew-training device used to meet the training requirements realistically represents the vehicle's configuration and mission, or

    (2) Inform the crew member being trained of the differences between the two.

    (c) Maintenance of training records. An operator must continually update the crew training to ensure that it incorporates lessons erudite from training and operational missions. An operator must--

    (1) Track each revision and update in writing; and

    (2) Document the completed training for each crew member and maintain the documentation for each vigorous crew member.

    (d) Current qualifications and training. An operator must establish a recurrent training schedule and ensure that total crew qualifications and training required by Sec. 460.5 are current before launch and reentry.

    Sec. 460.9 Informing crew of risk.

    An operator must inform in writing any individual serving as crew that the United States Government has not certified the launch vehicle and any reentry vehicle as safe for carrying flight crew or space flight participants. An operator must provide this information-- (a) Before entering into any shrink or other arrangement to employ that individual; or (b) For any crew member employed as of December 23, 2004, as early as feasible and prior to any launch in which that individual will participate as crew.

    Sec. 460.11 Environmental control and life champion systems.

    (a) An operator must provide atmospheric conditions adequate to sustain life and consciousness for total inhabited areas within a vehicle. The operator or flight crew must monitor and control the following atmospheric conditions in the inhabited areas or demonstrate through the license or permit process that an alternate means provides an equivalent level of safety--

    (1) Composition of the atmosphere, which includes oxygen and carbon dioxide, and any revitalization;

    (2) Pressure, temperature and humidity;

    (3) Contaminants that include particulates and any harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases, or vapors; and

    (4) Ventilation and circulation.

    (b) An operator must provide an adequate redundant or secondary oxygen supply for the flight crew.

    (c) An operator must

    (1) Provide a redundant means of preventing cabin depressurization;

    or

    (2) preclude incapacitation of any of the flight crew in the event of loss of cabin pressure.

    Sec. 460.13 Smoke detection and fire suppression.

    An operator or crew must maintain the skill to detect smoke and suppress a cabin fire to preclude incapacitation of the flight crew.

    Sec. 460.15 Human factors.

    An operator must select the precautions necessary to account for human factors that can influence a crew's skill to perform safety- captious roles, including in the following safety captious areas--

    (a) Design and layout of displays and controls;

    (b) Mission planning, which includes analyzing tasks and allocating functions between humans and equipment;

    (c) Restraint or stowage of total individuals and objects in a vehicle; and

    (d) Vehicle operation, so that the vehicle will be operated in a manner that flight crew can withstand any physical stress factors, such as acceleration, vibration, and noise.

    Sec. 460.17 Verification program.

    An operator must successfully verify the integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight participant on board during a flight. Verification must include flight testing.

    Sec. 460.19 Crew waiver of claims against U.S. Government.

    Each member of a flight crew and any remote operator must execute a reciprocal waiver of claims with the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation in accordance with the requirements of section 440.

    Sec. Sec. 460.20-460.40 [Reserved]

    Subpart B--Launch and reentry with a space flight participant

    Sec. 460.41 Scope.

    This subpart establishes requirements for space flight participants on board a vehicle whose operator is licensed or permitted under this chapter.

    Sec. 460.43 Applicability.

    This subpart applies to: (a) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to maintain a space flight participant on board a vehicle; (b) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has a space flight participant on board a vehicle; and (c) A space flight participant in an activity authorized under this chapter.

    Sec. 460.45 Operator informing space flight participant of risk.

    (a) Before receiving compensation or making an agreement to wing a space flight participant, an operator must fullfil the requirements of this section. An operator must inform each space flight participant in writing about the risks of the launch and reentry, including the safety record of the launch or reentry vehicle type. An operator must present this information in a manner that can be readily understood by a space flight participant with no specialized education or training, and must disclose in writing--

    (1) For each mission, each known hazard and risk that could result in a sober injury, death, disability, or total or partial loss of physical and mental function;

    (2) That there are hazards that are not known; and

    (3) That participation in space flight may result in death, sober injury, or total or partial loss of physical or mental function.

    (b) An operator must inform each space flight participant that the United States Government has not certified the launch vehicle and any reentry vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants.

    (c) An operator must inform each space flight participant of the safety record of total launch or reentry vehicles that maintain carried one or more persons on board, including both U.S. government and private sector vehicles. This information must include--

    (1) The total number of people who maintain been on a suborbital or orbital space flight and the total number of people who maintain died or been seriously injured on these flights; and

    (2) The total number of launches and reentries conducted with people on board and the number of catastrophic failures of those launches and reentries.

    (d) An operator must portray the safety record of its vehicle to each space flight participant. The operator's safety record must cover launch and reentry accidents and human space flight incidents that occurred during and after vehicle verification performed in accordance with Sec. 460.17, and include--

    (1) The number of vehicle flights;

    (2) The number of accidents and human space flight incidents as defined by section 401.5; and

    (3) Whether any corrective actions were taken to resolve these accidents and human space flight incidents.

    (e) An operator must inform a space flight participant that he or she may request additional information regarding any accidents and human space flight incidents reported.

    (f) Before flight, an operator must provide each space flight participant an opportunity to request questions orally to acquire a better understanding of the hazards and risks of the mission, and each space flight participant must then provide consent in writing to participate in a launch or reentry. The consent must--

    (1) Identify the specific launch vehicle the consent covers;

    (2) state that the space flight participant understands the risk, and his or her presence on board the launch vehicle is voluntary; and

    (3) be signed and dated by the space flight participant.

    Sec. 460.47 [Reserved]

    Sec. 460.49 Space flight participant waiver of claims against U.S. Government.

    Each space flight participant must execute a reciprocal waiver of claims with the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation in accordance with the requirements of section 440 of this chapter.

    Sec. 460.51 Space flight participant training.

    An operator must train each space flight participant before flight on how to respond to emergency situations, including smoke, fire, loss of cabin pressure, and emergency exit.

    Sec. 460.53 Security.

    An operator must implement security requirements to preclude any space flight participant from jeopardizing the safety of the flight crew or the public. A space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.

    Issued in Washington DC on December 1, 2006. Marion C. Blakey, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-21193 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

    // discontinue //

    More status reports and tidings releases or top stories.

    Please supervene SpaceRef on Twitter and dote us on Facebook.

    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.



    Direct Download of over 5500 Certification Exams

    3COM [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AccessData [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACFE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Acme-Packet [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACSM [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Admission-Tests [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ADOBE [93 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AFP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AICPA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AIIM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Alcatel-Lucent [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Alfresco [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Altiris [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Amazon [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    American-College [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Android [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APICS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Apple [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AppSense [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APTUSC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Arizona-Education [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ARM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Aruba [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASIS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASQ [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASTQB [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Autodesk [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Avaya [96 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AXELOS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Axis [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Banking [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BEA [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BICSI [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BlackBerry [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BlueCoat [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Brocade [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Business-Objects [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Business-Tests [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CA-Technologies [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Certification-Board [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Certiport [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CheckPoint [41 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIPS [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cisco [318 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Citrix [48 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIW [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cloudera [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cognos [19 Certification Exam(s) ]
    College-Board [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CompTIA [76 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ComputerAssociates [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Consultant [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Counselor [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CPP-Institue [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CPP-Institute [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CSP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CWNA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CWNP [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Dassault [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DELL [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DMI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DRI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ECCouncil [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ECDL [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    EMC [129 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Enterasys [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Ericsson [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ESPA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Esri [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ExamExpress [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Exin [40 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ExtremeNetworks [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    F5-Networks [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
    FCTC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Filemaker [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Financial [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Food [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Fortinet [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Foundry [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    FSMTB [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Fujitsu [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GAQM [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Genesys [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GIAC [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Google [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GuidanceSoftware [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    H3C [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HDI [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Healthcare [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HIPAA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hitachi [30 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hortonworks [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hospitality [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HP [750 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HR [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HRCI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Huawei [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hyperion [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IAAP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IAHCSMM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IBM [1532 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IBQH [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ICAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ICDL [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IEEE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IELTS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IFPUG [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IIBA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IISFA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Intel [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IQN [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IRS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISACA [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISC2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISEB [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Isilon [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISM [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    iSQI [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ITEC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Juniper [64 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LEED [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Legato [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Liferay [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Logical-Operations [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Lotus [66 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LPI [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LSI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Magento [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Maintenance [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    McAfee [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    McData [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Medical [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Microsoft [374 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Mile2 [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Military [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Misc [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Motorola [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    mySQL [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NBSTSA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCEES [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCLEX [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Network-General [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NetworkAppliance [39 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NIELIT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Nokia [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Nortel [130 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Novell [37 Certification Exam(s) ]
    OMG [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Oracle [279 Certification Exam(s) ]
    P&C [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Palo-Alto [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PARCC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PayPal [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Pegasystems [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PEOPLECERT [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PMI [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Polycom [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PostgreSQL-CE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Prince2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PRMIA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PsychCorp [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PTCB [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    QAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    QlikView [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Quality-Assurance [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RACC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Real-Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RedHat [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RES [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Riverbed [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RSA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Sair [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Salesforce [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SANS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SAP [98 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SASInstitute [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SAT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SCO [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SCP [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SDI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    See-Beyond [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Siemens [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Snia [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SOA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Social-Work-Board [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SpringSource [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SUN [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SUSE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Sybase [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Symantec [134 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Teacher-Certification [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    The-Open-Group [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    TIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Tibco [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Trainers [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Trend [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    TruSecure [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    USMLE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    VCE [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Veeam [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Veritas [33 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Vmware [58 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Wonderlic [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Worldatwork [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    XML-Master [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Zend [6 Certification Exam(s) ]





    References :


    Dropmark : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11739752
    Wordpress : http://wp.me/p7SJ6L-1oA
    Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12306618
    Issu : https://issuu.com/trutrainers/docs/1z0-874
    Blogspot : http://killexamsbraindump.blogspot.com/2017/11/people-used-these-oracle-dumps-to-get_25.html
    RSS Feed : http://feeds.feedburner.com/killexams/bOqf
    Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/up5mm3kqh9t8gudcbw9evukufmfxzou6
    zoho.com : https://docs.zoho.com/file/62c5037aeb183aaf34a7f88b0eff13efe359a






    Back to Main Page

    www.pass4surez.com | www.killcerts.com | www.search4exams.com