Sales Tel: +63 945 7983492  |  Email Us    
SMDC Residences

Air Residences

Features and Amenities

Reflective Pool
Function Terrace
Seating Alcoves

Air Residences

Green 2 Residences

Features and Amenities:

Wifi ready study area
Swimming Pool
Gym and Function Room

Green 2 Residences

Bloom Residences

Features and Amenities:

Recreational Area
2 Lap Pools
Ground Floor Commercial Areas

Bloom Residences

Leaf Residences

Features and Amenities:

3 Swimming Pools
Gym and Fitness Center
Outdoor Basketball Court

Leaf Residences

Contact Us

Contact us today for a no obligation quotation:


+63 945 7983492
+63 908 8820391

Copyright © 2018 SMDC :: SM Residences, All Rights Reserved.


































































Top 70 1Z0-874 genuine questions that you ought not miss | braindumps | smresidences.com.ph

killexams.com 1Z0-874 consider guide and Exam Simulator are best exam prep gadgets It fuses invigorated veritable test Q&A - Brain Dumps - practice questions and exam Tips - braindumps - smresidences.com.ph

Pass4sure 1Z0-874 dumps | Killexams.com 1Z0-874 actual questions | http://smresidences.com.ph/

1Z0-874 MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional fraction 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 towering Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



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

Test Code : 1Z0-874
Test designation : MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional fraction II
Vendor designation : Oracle
: 138 actual Questions

wherein will I locate prep cloth for 1Z0-874 examination?
You the killexams.com are rock. these days I surpassed 1Z0-874 paper with your questions solutions with one hundredpercentage score. Your supplied questions and testing engine is a ways extra than remarkable! distinctly encouragedyour product. i can virtually used your product for my next examination.


Questions had been precisely same as i purchased!
Have passed 1Z0-874 examination with killexams.Com questions answers. Killexams.Com is a hundred% dependable, most of the questions were much relish what I luxuriate in been given at the examination. I neglected some questions just due to the fact I went blankand didnt recall the solution given inside the set, but due to the fact that I were given the relaxation proper, I surpassed with top scores. So my advice is to dissect the gross lot you net in your training percent. From killexams.Com, that is impeccable you want to bypass 1Z0-874.


can you accept as upright with that every one 1Z0-874 questions I had were requested in actual test.
It was the time when I was scanning for the internet exam simulator, to occupy my 1Z0-874 exam. I solved impeccable questions in just 90 minutes. It was powerful to realize that killexams.com Questions & Answers had impeccable vital material that was needed for the exam. The material of killexams.com was effective to the point that I passed my exam. When I was told about killexams.com Questions & Answers by one of my companions, I was hesitant to utilize it so I chose to download the demos to start with, and check whether I can net proper alleviate for the 1Z0-874 exam.


It is unbelieveable, but 1Z0-874 actual test questions are availabe here.
each subject matter and vicinity, each situation of affairs, killexams.com 1Z0-874 materials luxuriate in been exquisite alleviate for me even asgetting ready for this examination and actually doing it! i used to live anxious, but going again to this 1Z0-874 and questioning that I know the gross lot due to the fact the 1Z0-874 exam was very spotless after the killexams.com stuff, I got an excellent End result. Now, doing the following degree of Oracle certifications.


You just need a weekend for 1Z0-874 examination prep with those dumps.
me passed this 1Z0-874 examination with killexams.com question set. i did now not having tons time to upshot together, i boughtthis 1Z0-874 questions solutions and examination simulator, and this was the high-quality expert conclusion I ever made. I were given via the examination without difficulty, even though its no longer an simple one. but this protected impeccable currentquestions, and i were given lots of them at the 1Z0-874 exam, and became capable of parent out the rest, primarily based on my revel in. I wager it became as near 7c5d89b5be9179482b8568d00a9357b2 as an IT examination can get. So yes, killexams.com is simply as preempt as they recommend its far.


am i able to find state-of-the-art dumps Q & A of 1Z0-874 exam?
Mysteriously I answerered impeccable questions in this exam. An dreadful lot obliged killexams.Com its far a terrific asset for passing assessments. I recommend impeccable of us to in reality employ killexams.Com. I luxuriate in a discover at numerous books however disregarded to net it. Anyways in the wake of using killexams.Com Questions & solutions, i discovered the prerogative away forwardness in making plans query and answers for the 1Z0-874 examination. I saw impeccable of the troubles nicely.


It was Awesome to luxuriate in actual exam questions of 1Z0-874 exam.
I just required telling you that I luxuriate in crowned in 1Z0-874 examination. impeccable the questions about examination table had been from killexams. It is stated to live the actual helper for me at the 1Z0-874 examination bench. impeccable reward of my fulfillment goes to this guide. This is the actual cause behind my fulfillment. It guided me in the suitable pass for trying 1Z0-874 exam questions. With the alleviate of this study stuff I changed into gifted to effort to impeccable the questions in 1Z0-874 examination. This examine stuff guides a person in the prerogative pass and guarantees you a hundred% accomplishment in examination.


Do a quick and smart pass, prepare those 1Z0-874 Questions and answers.
killexams.com is the maximum best manner i luxuriate in ever long past over to net ready and skip IT assessments. I desiremore individuals thought about it. yet then, there might live greater risks a person ought to proximate it down. The ingredient is, it affords for the identical issue what I luxuriate in to understand for an exam. Whats extra I influence diverse IT tests, 1Z0-874 with 88% marks. My confederate utilized killexams.com for many special certificates, impeccable brilliant and huge. absolutely stable, my character pinnacle picks.


it is really notable revel in to luxuriate in 1Z0-874 today's dumps.
I used this dump to pass the 1Z0-874 exam in Romania and got 98%, so this is a very expedient pass to prepare for the exam. impeccable questions I got on the exam were exactly what killexams.com had provided in this brain dump, which is incredible I highly recommend this to everyone if you are going to occupy 1Z0-874 exam.


making ready 1Z0-874 exam with is weigh number brand original some hours now.
hi team, ive finished 1Z0-874 in first strive and thanks a lot to your profitable query bank.


Oracle Oracle MySQL 5 Database

Introducing the Oracle MySQL Operator for Kubernetes | killexams.com actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

Introduction

Oracle recently open sourced a Kubernetes operator for MySQL that makes operating and managing MySQL on Kubernetes less complicated.

The MySQL Operator is a Kubernetes controller that can live installed into any latest Kubernetes cluster. as soon as installed, it'll enable clients to create and manipulate production-in a position MySQL clusters the usage of a simple declarative configuration format. commonplace operational tasks akin to backing up databases and restoring from an present backup are made extraordinarily handy. in short, the MySQL Operator abstracts away the difficult toil of running MySQL inside Kubernetes.

The undertaking started as a fashion to aid interior teams net MySQL working in Kubernetes greater simply, however promptly become clear that many other americans could live facing similar issues.

points

earlier than they dive into the specifics of how the MySQL Operator works, let’s occupy a short examine one of the points it offers:

Cluster configuration

we luxuriate in most effective two alternatives for a pass a cluster is configured.

  • fundamental (in this mode the neighborhood has a single-basic server that is decided to read-write mode. impeccable of the other participants within the group are set to examine-most effective mode)
  • Multi-basic (In multi-primary mode, there isn't any inspiration of a sole basic. There is not any need to luxuriate in interaction an election manner given that there is not any server enjoying any special role.)
  • Cluster management

  • Create and scale MySQL clusters using Innodb and group Replication on Kubernetes
  • When cluster cases die, the MySQL Operator will instantly re-be fraction of them into the cluster
  • Use Kubernetes Persistent quantity Claims to deliver data on autochthonous disk or community attached storage.
  • Backup and restoration

  • Create on-demand backups
  • Create backup schedules to instantly backup databases to kick Storage (S3 and so forth)
  • restoration a database from an present backup
  • Operations

  • Run on any Kubernetes cluster (Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, AWS, GCP, Azure)
  • Prometheus metrics for alerting and monitoring
  • Self curative clusters
  • The Operator pattern

    A Kubernetes Operator is without problems a domain particular controller that may control, configure and automate the lifecycle of stateful functions. Managing stateful purposes, reminiscent of databases, caches and monitoring techniques working on Kubernetes is notoriously difficult. with the aid of leveraging the energy of Kubernetes API they are able to now build self managing, self driving infrastructure via encoding operational skills and most efficient practices directly into code. as an example, if a MySQL case dies, they can employ an Operator to react and occupy the preempt motion to deliver the device again online.

    how it works

    The MySQL Operator makes employ of customized aid Definitions as a pass to lengthen the Kubernetes API. for instance, they create custom resources for MySQLClusters and MySQLBackups. clients of the MySQL Operator luxuriate in interaction by means of these third party useful resource objects. When a consumer creates a backup as an example, a brand original MySQLBackup resource is created inside Kubernetes which carries references and assistance about that backup.

    The MySQL Operator is, at it’s core, a simple Kubernetes controller that watches the API server for client resource Definitions concerning MySQL and acts on them.

    HA / construction ready MySQL Clusters

    The MySQL Operator is opinionated in regards to the fashion in which clusters are configured. They construct upon InnoDB cluster (which makes employ of group Replication) to deliver an entire towering availability confess for MySQL operating on Kubernetes.

    Examples

    the following examples will give you an faith of how the MySQL Operator may furthermore live used to manage your MySQL Clusters.

    Create a MySQL Cluster

    making a MySQL cluster the usage of the Operator is easy. They define an simple YAML file and post this without detain to Kubernetes via kubectl. The MySQL operator watches for MySQLCluster elements and may occupy motion with the aid of taking off a MySQL cluster.

    apiVersion: "mysql.oracle.com/v1"variety: MySQLClustermetadata:identify: mysql-cluster-with-3-replicasspec:replicas: three

    remember to now live in a position to contemplate your cluster operating

    There are a brace of other alternatives attainable when creating a cluster reminiscent of specifying a Persistent volume declare to profile the situation your records is stored. contemplate the examples directory within the assignment for more examples.

    Create an on-demand backup

    we can employ the MySQL operator to create an “on-demand” database backup and upload it to kick storage.

    Create a backup definition and post it by pass of kubectl.

    apiVersion: "mysql.oracle.com/v1"variety: MySQLBackupmetadata:name: mysql-backupspec:executor:provider: mysqldumpdatabases:- teststorage:company: s3 secretRef:name: s3-credentialsconfig: endpoint: x.compat.objectstorage.y.oraclecloud.comregion: ociregionbucket: mybucketclusterRef:name: mysql-cluster

    that you may now record or fetch individual backups by the employ of kubectl

    kubectl net mysqlbackups

    Or fetch a person backup

    kubectl net mysqlbackup api-production-image-151220170858 -o yaml

    Create a Backup agenda

    users can attach schedule backup guidelines to a cluster so that backups net created on a given cron time table. A user may well live create distinctive backup schedules connected to a sole cluster if required.

    This instance will create a backup of a cluster examine database each hour and upload it to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure kick Storage.

    apiVersion: "mysql.oracle.com/v1"form: MySQLBackupSchedulemetadata:name: mysql-backup-schedulespec:agenda: '30 * * * *'backupTemplate:executor:provider: mysqldumpdatabases:- teststorage:provider: s3 secretRef:name: s3-credentialsconfig:endpoint: x.compat.objectstorage.y.oraclecloud.comregion: ociregionbucket: mybucketclusterRef:identify: mysql-cluster Roadmap

    one of the vital facets on their roadmap consist of

  • guide for MySQL commercial enterprise version
  • support for MySQL commercial enterprise Backup
  • Conclusion

    The MySQL Operator showcases the energy of Kubernetes as a platform. It makes running MySQL inner Kubernetes effortless by abstracting complexity and cutting back operational burden. although it remains in very early development, the MySQL Operator already offers a very expedient deal of positive functionality out of the box.

    consult with https://github.com/oracle/mysql-operator to study greater. They welcome contributions, concepts and feedback from the group.

    in case you want to install MySQL inside Kubernetes, they recommend the usage of the MySQL Operator to accomplish the cumbersome lifting for you.

    hyperlinks

    Oracle MySQL 5.5 Database Goes GA | killexams.com actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

    First identify: remaining name: e-mail tackle: Password: ascertain Password: Username:

    Title: C-level/President supervisor VP workforce (associate/Analyst/and so forth.) Director

    function:

    position in IT choice-making method: Align company & IT desires Create IT approach investigate IT needs manage dealer Relationships evaluate/Specify brands or providers other role accredit Purchases not concerned

    Work cell: enterprise: business size: trade: road address metropolis: Zip/postal code State/Province: country:

    sometimes, they ship subscribers special offers from opt for partners. Would you relish to net hold of these special companion presents by the employ of email? certain No

    Your registration with Eweek will consist of prerogative here free e-mail publication(s): intelligence & Views

    through submitting your instant quantity, you compromise that eWEEK, its linked homes, and dealer companions proposing content material you view may contact you using contact core expertise. Your consent isn't required to view content or employ web site points.

    through clicking on the "Register" button under, I conform that I actually luxuriate in cautiously examine the terms of carrier and the privacy policy and i comply with live legally certain by impeccable such terms.

    Register

    continue devoid of consent      

    Now an Oracle product, what occurs to MySQL? | killexams.com actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

    Attendees at the open source database's annual builders' convention in Santa Clara this morning are waking as much as the spectacular information that their own product, whose expense to solar Microsystems was to had been lauded by means of not anything other than solar co-founder Andreas von Bechtolsheim in a keynote address scheduled for Thursday, is now owned by means of Oracle programs.

    The introductory cost of MySQL to Oracle -- up except this morning, its biggest competitor -- changed into glaring by means of its absence from this morning's joint press convention featuring solar and Oracle executives. sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz outlined MySQL together with OpenOffice as a fraction of what he now calls the world's biggest organisation for open source application. unless Oracle's SEC filings are made public, they might not live alert of no matter if MySQL even factored into its valuation of solar.

    LinuxQuestions.org editor Jeremy had, smartly, Linux questions this morning after the information turned into introduced: "With a expedient deal of sun's earnings coming from hardware, will [Oracle] spin that division off or employ it to focal point greater on an entire Oracle stack, that comprises every wee thing from hardware to database?" Jeremy wrote. "relocating to the particular person components of that stack, will Oracle continue with the SPARC CPU line or live drawn to the greater commodity x86 lines? on the OS stage, will Oracle continue to focal point on Linux and their Unbreakable implementation or will they try to preserve Solaris alive? Oracle has been contributing to Linux in a significant manner these days, and it might live a tremendous loss for that to travel away."

    unbiased analyst and Betanews contributor Carmi Levy believes the deal might permit some inquisitive alternatives for Oracle, which during the past has had greater hardship breaking into the reduce End of the database market. There, MySQL guidelines among open supply clients, and Microsoft SQL Server has had a stronghold among the many industry set.

    "This considering extends into the reduce conclusion of the market as smartly, given how the solar acquisition offers Oracle entry to MySQL," Levy advised Betanews. "while no one might ever rightfully pretension that MySQL threatens Oracle's greater-conclusion database choices, its addition to the portfolio gives Oracle additional leverage in a market with gigantic growth expertise. The MySQL installed foundation of approximately eleven million gives Oracle earnings groups fruitful opening to luxuriate in conversations they luxuriate in not previously had."

    but MySQL's aid foundation is comprised in significant half by using unbiased builders, and that's with the aid of design. Already, these impartial developers are waking up to a brand original world, including utility engineer Ryan Thiessen. An eleven-year MySQL veteran, Thiessen is scheduled to talk at the MySQL conference this week; and in a blog upshot up this morning entitled conveniently, "bowled over," he displays his bewilderment:

    "last time this yr i was cautiously confident about solar's buy of MySQL. however now not this 12 months -- or not it's worry and disappointment over what this potential for MySQL," Thiessen wrote. "after I examine this as a rumor a number of weeks in the past i believed it turned into a shaggy dog account of an idea. Why would a towering margin utility industry need to buy a declining hardware company, however that hardware is terrific? As for his or her utility, I can't imagine that Oracle is interested in Java, MySQL, and so on as earnings generating products, it will just live a tiny blip for them."extraordinarily, Java and Solaris had been outlined by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison because the key motivating elements, now not the SPARC company -- truly, it changed into SPARC that failed to generate a blip. MySQL received as a minimum that a powerful deal -- this for a enterprise that turned into expense at least one thousand million to solar just 15 months in the past.

    MySQL's founders luxuriate in remained on the listing as fiercely in opposition t the employ of application patents, as unsafe to the spirit and ethics of open source. Oracle isn't diametrically adverse to that line of considering, having made statements in principle prerogative through this decade opposing the creation of patent portfolios for predatory applications.

    Oracle's 2000 observation on the concern, which is very nearly unchanged, reads, "Patent law gives to inventors an exclusive prerogative to original expertise in return for ebook of the technology. this is now not applicable for industries such as application construction in which improvements occur unexpectedly, will furthermore live made devoid of a substantial capital investment, and minister to live inventive combos of prior to now-established strategies."

    however Oracle does steer the employ of patents for protective functions, primarily when an organization is attacked by an organization with a large portfolio.That reality lonely doesn't hint Oracle can not, or hasn't, used its utility property very aggressively. In October 2005, the enterprise acquired its first generic open source database part: Innobase, whose InnoDB contained commercial enterprise-category points that were truly rolled into MySQL 5.0. with the aid of buying InnoDB, Oracle ended up possessing a fraction of MySQL anyway, in a circulation that InfoWorld's Neil McAlister astutely reasoned may live to preserve the decrease-type database snugly in the lessen type, while siphoning valued clientele into Oracle's upper category.

    "this is why when Oracle snapped up Innobase in early October it was convenient to interpret the stream as a major revolting on Oracle's half," McAlister wrote then. "with the aid of taking manage of one of MySQL's a must luxuriate in internal organs, Oracle features the vigour to smash the upstart at a whim, comfortably by using closing its grip round Innobase. however, critically, why would Oracle accomplish that?"

    four years later, they luxuriate in a more in-depth glimpse of a solution to McAlister's question: by pass of taking ply of the geography of commercial enterprise databases over a larger enviornment, Oracle maintains MySQL safely within its personal continent, both locked away or funneling original consumers throughout the channel. maybe no one may ever rightly declare that MySQL become a genuine risk, however nowadays, Oracle's circulation ensures that it under no circumstances can be. and that's the understanding the brand original world that builders in Santa Clara are waking up to.


    1Z0-874 MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional fraction 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 towering Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



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

    Test Code : 1Z0-874
    Test designation : MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional fraction II
    Vendor designation : Oracle
    : 138 actual Questions

    wherein will I locate prep cloth for 1Z0-874 examination?
    You the killexams.com are rock. these days I surpassed 1Z0-874 paper with your questions solutions with one hundredpercentage score. Your supplied questions and testing engine is a ways extra than remarkable! distinctly encouragedyour product. i can virtually used your product for my next examination.


    Questions had been precisely same as i purchased!
    Have passed 1Z0-874 examination with killexams.Com questions answers. Killexams.Com is a hundred% dependable, most of the questions were much relish what I luxuriate in been given at the examination. I neglected some questions just due to the fact I went blankand didnt recall the solution given inside the set, but due to the fact that I were given the relaxation proper, I surpassed with top scores. So my advice is to dissect the gross lot you net in your training percent. From killexams.Com, that is impeccable you want to bypass 1Z0-874.


    can you accept as upright with that every one 1Z0-874 questions I had were requested in actual test.
    It was the time when I was scanning for the internet exam simulator, to occupy my 1Z0-874 exam. I solved impeccable questions in just 90 minutes. It was powerful to realize that killexams.com Questions & Answers had impeccable vital material that was needed for the exam. The material of killexams.com was effective to the point that I passed my exam. When I was told about killexams.com Questions & Answers by one of my companions, I was hesitant to utilize it so I chose to download the demos to start with, and check whether I can net proper alleviate for the 1Z0-874 exam.


    It is unbelieveable, but 1Z0-874 actual test questions are availabe here.
    each subject matter and vicinity, each situation of affairs, killexams.com 1Z0-874 materials luxuriate in been exquisite alleviate for me even asgetting ready for this examination and actually doing it! i used to live anxious, but going again to this 1Z0-874 and questioning that I know the gross lot due to the fact the 1Z0-874 exam was very spotless after the killexams.com stuff, I got an excellent End result. Now, doing the following degree of Oracle certifications.


    You just need a weekend for 1Z0-874 examination prep with those dumps.
    me passed this 1Z0-874 examination with killexams.com question set. i did now not having tons time to upshot together, i boughtthis 1Z0-874 questions solutions and examination simulator, and this was the high-quality expert conclusion I ever made. I were given via the examination without difficulty, even though its no longer an simple one. but this protected impeccable currentquestions, and i were given lots of them at the 1Z0-874 exam, and became capable of parent out the rest, primarily based on my revel in. I wager it became as near 7c5d89b5be9179482b8568d00a9357b2 as an IT examination can get. So yes, killexams.com is simply as preempt as they recommend its far.


    am i able to find state-of-the-art dumps Q & A of 1Z0-874 exam?
    Mysteriously I answerered impeccable questions in this exam. An dreadful lot obliged killexams.Com its far a terrific asset for passing assessments. I recommend impeccable of us to in reality employ killexams.Com. I luxuriate in a discover at numerous books however disregarded to net it. Anyways in the wake of using killexams.Com Questions & solutions, i discovered the prerogative away forwardness in making plans query and answers for the 1Z0-874 examination. I saw impeccable of the troubles nicely.


    It was Awesome to luxuriate in actual exam questions of 1Z0-874 exam.
    I just required telling you that I luxuriate in crowned in 1Z0-874 examination. impeccable the questions about examination table had been from killexams. It is stated to live the actual helper for me at the 1Z0-874 examination bench. impeccable reward of my fulfillment goes to this guide. This is the actual cause behind my fulfillment. It guided me in the suitable pass for trying 1Z0-874 exam questions. With the alleviate of this study stuff I changed into gifted to effort to impeccable the questions in 1Z0-874 examination. This examine stuff guides a person in the prerogative pass and guarantees you a hundred% accomplishment in examination.


    Do a quick and smart pass, prepare those 1Z0-874 Questions and answers.
    killexams.com is the maximum best manner i luxuriate in ever long past over to net ready and skip IT assessments. I desiremore individuals thought about it. yet then, there might live greater risks a person ought to proximate it down. The ingredient is, it affords for the identical issue what I luxuriate in to understand for an exam. Whats extra I influence diverse IT tests, 1Z0-874 with 88% marks. My confederate utilized killexams.com for many special certificates, impeccable brilliant and huge. absolutely stable, my character pinnacle picks.


    it is really notable revel in to luxuriate in 1Z0-874 today's dumps.
    I used this dump to pass the 1Z0-874 exam in Romania and got 98%, so this is a very expedient pass to prepare for the exam. impeccable questions I got on the exam were exactly what killexams.com had provided in this brain dump, which is incredible I highly recommend this to everyone if you are going to occupy 1Z0-874 exam.


    making ready 1Z0-874 exam with is weigh number brand original some hours now.
    hi team, ive finished 1Z0-874 in first strive and thanks a lot to your profitable query bank.


    Unquestionably it is hard assignment to pick dependable certification questions/answers assets regarding review, reputation and validity since individuals net sham because of picking incorrectly benefit. Killexams.com ensure to serve its customers best to its assets concerning exam dumps update and validity. The vast majority of other's sham report dissension customers reach to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams joyfully and effortlessly. They never trade off on their review, reputation and quality on the grounds that killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer certitude is imperative to us. Uniquely they deal with killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com sham report objection, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. On the off chance that you contemplate any fallacious report posted by their rivals with the designation killexams sham report grievance web, killexams.com sham report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com protest or something relish this, simply recollect there are constantly dreadful individuals harming reputation of expedient administrations because of their advantages. There are a huge number of fulfilled clients that pass their exams utilizing killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams hone questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, their specimen questions and test brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will realize that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.


    Vk Profile
    Vk Details
    Tumbler
    linkedin
    Killexams Reddit
    digg
    Slashdot
    Facebook
    Twitter
    dzone
    Instagram
    Google Album
    Google About me
    Youtube



    9A0-502 actual questions | 000-543 bootcamp | 000-052 exercise exam | 000-590 braindumps | TB0-107 test prep | 000-030 study guide | ENOV612-PRG cheat sheets | HP2-H33 exercise test | 1Z0-982 mock exam | HP0-P20 actual questions | C2010-505 exercise questions | 000-467 test prep | 190-522 free pdf download | 650-331 exercise Test | HP0-M35 free pdf | C2090-011 pdf download | HP0-A20 test prep | HP0-Y32 free pdf | P2090-011 questions and answers | 9A0-410 dump |


    1Z0-874 exam questions | 1Z0-874 free pdf | 1Z0-874 pdf download | 1Z0-874 test questions | 1Z0-874 real questions | 1Z0-874 practice questions

    Dont Miss these Oracle 1Z0-874 Dumps
    We are specifically conscious that an vital problem within the IT industry is that there is unavailability of tremendous well worth braindumps. Their exam braindumps offers impeccable of you that you need to occupy an certification exam. Their Oracle 1Z0-874 Exam will provide you with exam question with confirmed answers that replicate the actual exam. They at killexams.com are made plans to empower you to pass your 1Z0-874 exam with excessive ratings.

    Oracle 1Z0-874 Exam has given a original path to the IT enterprise. It is now required to certify beAs the platform which results in a brighter future. But you want to situation fierce attempt in Oracle MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional fraction II exam, beAs there may live no rupture out of analyzing. But killexams.com luxuriate in made your paintings easier, now your exam practise for 1Z0-874 MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional fraction II isnt difficult anymore. Click http://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/1Z0-874 killexams.com is a amenable and honest platform who provide 1Z0-874 exam questions with a hundred% pass guarantee. You need to exercise questions for one day as a minimum to attain well inside the exam. Your actual journey to achievement in 1Z0-874 exam, without a doubt starts with killexams.com exam exercise questions this is the first rate and demonstrated source of your targeted role. killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as underneath;
    WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for impeccable assessments on website
    PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
    DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders more than $ninety nine
    OCTSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for impeccable Orders

    Quality and Value for the 1Z0-874 Exam : killexams.com exercise Exams for Oracle 1Z0-874 are composed to the most elevated norms of specialized precision, utilizing just confirmed topic specialists and distributed creators for improvement.

    100% Guarantee to Pass Your 1Z0-874 Exam : If you dont pass the Oracle 1Z0-874 exam utilizing their killexams.com testing software and PDF, they will give you a replete REFUND of your buying charge.

    Downloadable, Interactive 1Z0-874 Testing Software : Their Oracle 1Z0-874 Preparation Material gives you impeccable that you should occupy Oracle 1Z0-874 exam. Subtle elements are looked into and created by Oracle Certification Experts who are continually utilizing industry suffer to deliver exact, and legitimate.

    - Comprehensive questions and answers about 1Z0-874 exam - 1Z0-874 exam questions joined by displays - Verified Answers by Experts and very nearly 100% right - 1Z0-874 exam questions updated on generic premise - 1Z0-874 exam planning is in various conclusion questions (MCQs). - Tested by different circumstances previously distributing - Try free 1Z0-874 exam demo before you pick to net it in killexams.com

    killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
    WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for impeccable exams on website
    PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
    DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
    OCTSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for impeccable Orders


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


    Killexams S10-100 actual questions | Killexams 000-M236 free pdf | Killexams 650-663 test prep | Killexams C9010-022 free pdf | Killexams LOT-913 examcollection | Killexams ANCC-MSN sample test | Killexams 1Z0-542 braindumps | Killexams M8060-653 cheat sheets | Killexams MB6-896 test questions | Killexams LOT-957 free pdf | Killexams 000-294 braindumps | Killexams 000-016 exercise Test | Killexams 1Z0-477 dumps | Killexams 1T6-511 exercise test | Killexams 642-467 pdf download | Killexams P2090-086 dumps questions | Killexams HP0-Y47 exercise test | Killexams 000-340 exam questions | Killexams 650-379 free pdf download | Killexams HP2-Z08 questions and answers |


    killexams.com huge List of Exam Braindumps

    View Complete list of Killexams.com Brain dumps


    Killexams 000-433 study guide | Killexams 920-132 dump | Killexams P2060-017 test prep | Killexams JN0-634 free pdf download | Killexams 000-220 questions and answers | Killexams 700-702 actual questions | Killexams HP5-H08D pdf download | Killexams 000-274 braindumps | Killexams 000-467 exercise test | Killexams 000-M236 free pdf | Killexams 9L0-505 bootcamp | Killexams F50-506 exam prep | Killexams HP0-Y35 test prep | Killexams 650-032 test prep | Killexams HP0-850 cram | Killexams 650-293 brain dumps | Killexams HP0-781 dumps | Killexams 4H0-110 braindumps | Killexams 920-338 examcollection | Killexams A00-280 exercise test |


    MySQL 5 Database Administrator Certified(R) Professional fraction II

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

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

    Continuing with fraction 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 ultimate year or two, whether or not it is prerogative to contend so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the reputed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to live dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than they can school them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew a expedient deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they luxuriate in lately done. If a lock—let it luxuriate in 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 deceitful are tolerably certain to live the first to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to give impartial play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot live too earnestly urged, that an acquaintance with actual facts will, in the end, live better for impeccable 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 pick from. The same choice is available in the UNIX arena. There are two basic flavors, BSD-derived and AT&T System V-derived. BSD-derived UNIX systems comprehend OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, BSDi, MacOS X, and SunOS 4. System V-derived UNIX systems comprehend 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 influence to you? Unlike Windows NT, including Windows 2000, it is a far more tangled process to portray how to acclimate a UNIX/Linux server. This next section provides some common procedures that can live applied across UNIX versions and GNU/Linux distributions. Following that are some pointers to animated documents on the Internet, which track available data and releases, and travel into a more minute account of how to acclimate 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 workable 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 separate 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 excessive generation of logging data or fill your file system with large files through FTP or mail spool. The best pass to protect against this is to segment the filesystem hierarchy into separate physical partitions.

    The root partition / can live wee 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 contain data or configuration files that change; therefore, an added security measure can live 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 accomplish /var/spool/mail, or /var/mail in Solaris, a separate partition, or—even better—a separate disk array. If you only create one separate 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 live 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 institute 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 impeccable of them should live disabled for edifice firewalls and DMZ servers. Besides normally disabling FTP, TFTP, Telnet, and the Berkeley r* commands, disable the following:

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

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

  • daytime—Connections to this service pomp 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 return the time as a 32-bit value representing the number of seconds since midnight 1-Jan-1900. accomplish 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 echo (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 impeccable 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 live asking why it's necessary to configure and install additional products when your firewall will live doing the same thing. And that's a valid question. The confess is to avoid sole points of failure, and to provide security in layers. If one layer is pierced and bypassed, other layers will live standing guard behind the breach.

    tcp_wrappers are lightweight and extremely useful on internal servers; not just on firewalls and DMZ servers. sustain in mind that most information security breaches, intentional or accidental, chance 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 hard drives with highly sensitive nuclear information.

    tcp_wrappers luxuriate in 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 live taken when using the KNOWN or UNKNOWN wildcards. impeccable 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 accomplish not luxuriate in tcp_wrappers installed by default, they can live institute 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 designation Daemon, or BIND, is the reference implementation of the designation service providing DNS for the Internet. The Internet Software Consortium (ISC) is amenable 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 participate of exploits. Only very faded versions of UNIX systems and GNU/Linux distributions came with BIND 4. Still, you'll live surprised how many installations silent luxuriate in the older BIND 4 running. You should upgrade to a newer version of BIND. The unlucky thing is that the file format defining the zones served by the server has changed. There are conversion scripts, but there is certain to live 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 original features, such as IPv6 support, DNSSEC, replete Dynamic DNS, incremental zone transfers, multiple views (internal, external, and so on) from a sole server, and scalability improvements. If any of those features are notable to your configuration, you should investigate using BIND 9; otherwise, it's best left to the adventurous.

    Although almost impeccable UNIX systems and GNU/Linux distributions reach with BIND as the designation server, it is notable you accomplish certain you are at a recommended release. Before deploying a DNS server, internally or on the DMZ, accomplish certain it is at least version 8.2.2-P5. Any version prior to that has solemn exploits. This warning should not live ignored. The Internet Software Consortium themselves luxuriate in 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 live institute 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 live used with a named identifier. Using ACLs provides a self-documenting fashion 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 impeccable 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" { kind 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 impeccable zone transfers on your secondary servers and any secondary zones on your primary servers, employ predefined match list none. This can live accomplished with the following allow-transfer directive in your zone definitions:

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

    Finally, because you will live 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" { kind 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 original features such as STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH encryption. Upgrade to the newest version available, if possible, but delight accomplish 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 amass information about your system:

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

    There are several additional flags you can set to accomplish sendmail luxuriate in a more secure stance:

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

  • needmailhelo—Require that the sending site uses the SMTP HELO command first when connecting to route 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 impeccable 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 live fast, simple to administer, and secure, while at the same 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 live modular, thus Postfix is not a sole executable relish sendmail; rather, Postfix comprises a collection of specialized programs that accomplish specific tasks. impeccable the programs except for the master control process (oddly called master because it runs without root privilege) Run as nonprivileged users, limiting the damage an attacker can inflict on your system. Because of the speed, ease of configuration (and thus less chance of misconfiguration), and security, it is recommended that you investigate replacing sendmail with Postfix. For those of you who accomplish not dream in sendmail.cf syntax, Postfix will accomplish 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 dole Postfix, discouragement 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 live institute 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 original 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 influence specifically that you should employ any one of them because the towering number of distributions allows vendors to tailor their GNU/Linux distributions to specific tasks such as embedded systems, routers, and firewalls. occupy the time to carefully investigate the available distributions, and determine which best fits your needs.

    With that said, two of these generic distributions stand out, but for different reasons. Red Hat, because it has had the most designation recognition, and is usually the first to net any sort of corporate support in the pass of commercial software or commercial technical service. Many vendors, such as Oracle, IBM, and Check Point, luxuriate in released products for Red Hat-specific distributions. This does not influence that those software releases will not Run on other GNU/Linux distributions, but if there is a problem, the vendor might not support 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 quality and pride in their efforts to accomplish Debian the most stable and completely 100% free distribution available. Debian has proven to live extremely stable and simple to manage and upgrade remotely. The upgrade process is by far the easiest of any of the GNU/Linux distributions. Debian installations can live 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 furthermore 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 pick custom installations, and select the individual packages you want on your system. There should live no need to install progress packages, any of the original 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 pick to enable shadow password file support; pick to employ MD5 hashes for the passwords rather than the daily 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 luxuriate in to edit the preempt files under /etc/pam.d to comprehend md5 on the password lines.

    You should furthermore 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 simple 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 pick to install Red Hat Linux, there is a security-related project called Bastille Linux, whose direct is not just to acclimate your Linux installation, but to educate the administrators on how to acclimate 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 series of questions and then allows you to apply those modifications to your system. The questions portray what needs to live done, why it should live done, and why you might not want to accomplish it. It is very educational, especially for those administrators just getting intimate with Linux. Bastille Linux can live institute 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 generic 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 furthermore 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 animated 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 live institute at http://www.fish.com/titan/.

    OpenBSD-Specific Tasks

    This section concentrates on OpenBSD 2.7, which is one of the three more Famous 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 powerful 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 pocket in the default install, only one localhost pocket in two years in the default install." Almost impeccable services are disabled until the administrator has enough suffer 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 same 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 live doing Network Address Translation (NAT), providing transparent proxying, or providing support for FTP, you must enable the ipnat option by setting ipnat=YES. Syntax for IP filters will live covered briefly later in the chapter.


    database management system (DBMS) | killexams.com actual questions and Pass4sure dumps

    A database management system (DBMS) is system software for creating and managing databases. The DBMS provides users and programmers with a systematic pass to create, retrieve, update and manage data.

    A DBMS makes it workable for End users to create, read, update and delete data in a database. The DBMS essentially serves as an interface between the database and End users or application programs, ensuring that data is consistently organized and remains easily accessible.

    The DBMS manages three notable things: the data, the database engine that allows data to live accessed, locked and modified -- and the database schema, which defines the database’s logical structure. These three foundational elements alleviate provide concurrency, security, data integrity and uniform administration procedures. Typical database administration tasks supported by the DBMS comprehend change management, performance monitoring/tuning and backup and recovery. Many database management systems are furthermore amenable for automated rollbacks, restarts and recovery as well as the logging and auditing of activity.

    The DBMS is perhaps most useful for providing a centralized view of data that can live accessed by multiple users, from multiple locations, in a controlled manner. A DBMS can limit what data the End user sees, as well as how that End user can view the data, providing many views of a sole database schema. End users and software programs are free from having to understand where the data is physically located or on what kind of storage media it resides because the DBMS handles impeccable requests.

    The DBMS can offer both logical and physical data independence. That means it can protect users and applications from needing to know where data is stored or having to live concerned about changes to the physical structure of data (storage and hardware). As long as programs employ the application programming interface (API) for the database that is provided by the DBMS, developers won't luxuriate in to modify programs just because changes luxuriate in been made to the database.

    With relational DBMSs (RDBMSs), this API is SQL, a gauge programming language for defining, protecting and accessing data in a RDBMS.

    Popular types of DBMSes

    Popular database models and their management systems include:

    Relational database management system (RDMS)  - adaptable to most employ cases, but RDBMS Tier-1 products can live quite expensive.

    NoSQL DBMS - well-suited for loosely defined data structures that may evolve over time. 

    In-memory database management system (IMDBMS) - provides faster response times and better performance.

    Columnar database management system (CDBMS) - well-suited for data warehouses that luxuriate in a large number of similar data items.

    Cloud-based data management system - the cloud service provider is amenable for providing and maintaining the DBMS.

    Advantages of a DBMS

    Using a DBMS to store and manage data comes with advantages, but furthermore overhead. One of the biggest advantages of using a DBMS is that it lets End users and application programmers access and employ the same data while managing data integrity. Data is better protected and maintained when it can live shared using a DBMS instead of creating original iterations of the same data stored in original files for every original application. The DBMS provides a central store of data that can live accessed by multiple users in a controlled manner.

    Central storage and management of data within the DBMS provides:

  • Data abstraction and independence
  • Data security
  • A locking mechanism for concurrent access
  • An efficient handler to poise the needs of multiple applications using the same data
  • The faculty to swiftly recover from crashes and errors, including restartability and recoverability
  • Robust data integrity capabilities
  • Logging and auditing of activity
  • Simple access using a gauge application programming interface (API)
  • Uniform administration procedures for data
  • Another odds of a DBMS is that it can live used to impose a logical, structured organization on the data. A DBMS delivers economy of scale for processing large amounts of data because it is optimized for such operations.

    A DBMS can furthermore provide many views of a sole database schema. A view defines what data the user sees and how that user sees the data. The DBMS provides a flush of abstraction between the conceptual schema that defines the logical structure of the database and the physical schema that describes the files, indexes and other physical mechanisms used by the database. When a DBMS is used, systems can live modified much more easily when industry requirements change. original categories of data can live added to the database without disrupting the existing system and applications can live insulated from how data is structured and stored.

    Of course, a DBMS must accomplish additional toil to provide these advantages, thereby bringing with it the overhead. A DBMS will employ more recollection and CPU than a simple file storage system. And, of course, different types of DBMSes will require different types and levels of system resources.

    See also: IBM DB2, Oracle Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, Mongo DB


    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 flush of safety to the generic public and ensure individuals on board are alert of the risks associated with a launch or reentry. The rule furthermore applies existing monetary responsibility and waiver of liability requirements to human space flight and experimental permits. Experimental permits are the subject of a separate rulemaking.

    Dates: effective Date:

    These amendments become effective February 13, 2007.

    Compliance Date: Affected parties, however, accomplish not luxuriate in 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 furthermore 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. accomplish certain to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking. Anyone is able to search the electronic figure of impeccable comments received into any of their dockets by the designation of the individual submitting the observation (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 wee industry Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with wee entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a wee entity and you luxuriate in 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 institute 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, impeccable in accordance with FAA regulations. This rulemaking imposes crew qualification and training requirements and implements the statutory requirement that an operator recommend 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 flush 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 accomplish Not luxuriate in a Safety-Critical Roleb. Recommendations for More Stringent Medical Standards6. Crew Training7. Crew Notification8. Environmental Control and Life support 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 support 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 faculty To live Informed3. Physical Examination4. Space Flight Participant Waiver of Claims Against U.S. Government5. Space Flight Participant Training6. Security RequirementsD. monetary 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 furthermore discusses the safety considerations underlying the FAA's proposed requirements and each alternative that the agency considered. In the CSLAA, Congress furthermore 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 original fraction 460 in response to the CSLAA's requirement to issue regulations governing crew and space flight participant, by June 23, 2006. Revisions in fraction 440 codify the monetary 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, fraction 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 fraction 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 fraction furthermore applies to a space flight participant or crew member participating in an activity authorized under 14 CFR Chapter III. fraction 460 defines crew and flight crew and imposes notification, medical, qualification, and training requirements. It furthermore 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 fraction 460 does not apply. Instead, an operator will live 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 comprehend 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 furthermore 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 flush of Safety

    The Federation recommended that the FAA deem allowing means of compliance other than those identified in the regulations. In fraction 460, the FAA will allow an operator to demonstrate that an alternative fashion of compliance for certain requirements provides an equivalent flush of safety and satisfies the rule. The FAA notes that many of the requirements of this fraction are performance standards that already offer operators a powerful 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 furthermore has the faculty to award waivers under 14 CFR 404.3. If an operator wishes to pursue a course that is not consistent with the requirements of fraction 460, the operator must apply for a waiver.

    B. Launch and Reentry With Crew

    Subpart A of fraction 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 live independent contractors as well as employees. As it explained in the NPRM, the FAA defines crew to comprehend impeccable personnel on board, namely the flight crew, as fraction of the crew, and thus give a broader acceptation 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 luxuriate in intended some persons on the ground to live included as fraction of the crew. A remote operator of a vehicle satisfies the Congressional direction to comprehend some ground crew as fraction 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 comprehend 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 contrast between them--direct involvement in vehicle operation as opposed to passenger safety and comfort--would live 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 faculty 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 influence 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 fraction of the crew. Blue inception reasoned that launch decisions will often live made by a launch director after receiving input from impeccable 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. lively control encompasses navigation as well as control. A mission flight control officer in freight of terminating the flight of an errant expendable launch vehicle would not live treated as a remote operator because he or she does not luxuriate in the faculty 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 comprehend ``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 live 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 fraction 460 if not on board the launch or reentry vehicle, will live 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 luxuriate in to meet fraction 431, which requires that a licensed operator implement a system safety process and operational restrictions and fullfil risk requirements. As fraction 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 live held to standards preempt to their roles. As fraction 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 live addressed through this analysis. Also, fraction 431 requirements address the readiness of vehicle safety operations personnel to support 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 live included as crew under fraction 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 subject 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 live addressed in 14 CFR fraction 61 because the vehicle is most likely to remain an air-breathing aircraft. This rulemaking does not deal crew on board a carrier aircraft as crew under fraction 460.

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

    \4\ Some licensees luxuriate in 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 kind 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 influence 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, original 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 renowned that it is workable 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 luxuriate in to become an employee or independent contractor of the operator to acquire vehicle and mission-specific training. The operator will live 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 spot for someone who wishes to acquire training in order to become employed, but, while the technology is so new, it is notable for public safety that pilots live 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 generic public. Under the CSLAA, the FAA has the authority to protect the crew because they are fraction of the flight safety system that protects the generic 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 observation 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 suffer for sole piloted suborbital and orbital vehicles. Because having a pilot certificate may not live sufficient, Sec. 460.5(c)(2) requires aeronautical suffer and skills necessary to pilot and control the vehicle.

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

    Focusing on a workable exception to the utility of requiring a pilot certificate, Mr. Nickolaus Leggett recommended against requiring pilots and remote operators of launch vehicles that accomplish not luxuriate in 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 impeccable and relying only on the performance requirement that a pilot possess the necessary skills and suffer for the vehicle. An Air constrain member of the Common Standards Working Group (CSWG) \6\ recommended that the FAA not require that a pilot live certified when a vehicle is unique and lacks any similarity to an airplane.\7\ The commenter suggested that a properly trained engineer may live a better choice as a pilot for the vehicles that accomplish not resemble aircraft. If the key criterion is to protect the public, an individual intimately intimate with the unique vehicle design, capabilities, and properly trained in the operation and recovery of such vehicles could live 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 flush 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 luxuriate in acquired the skills of scanning cockpit displays, correctly interpreting the instruments, and responding with reform control inputs. The FAA expects that regardless of the kindly of vehicle used, there will live times when a pilot will live relying on instrument skills and competency. Having a pilot certificate and aeronautical suffer provides evidence of a basic flush of knowledge of and suffer with the NAS, such as communications, navigation, airspace limitations, and other aircraft traffic avoidance, that will alleviate promote public safety.

    Planehook commented that a pilot or remote operator of a vehicle should luxuriate in a commercial pilot certificate preempt to the kind of vehicle flown. The FAA's guidelines contain such a recommendation. The FAA did not, however, propose in the NPRM to implement this guideline as a requirement. The FAA did not specify the particular kindly of pilot certificate required nor what category, class, kind 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 accomplish 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 suffer 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 ambit of vehicles proposed, the FAA does not require an RLV pilot to hold a pilot certificate for a specific category of aircraft or to luxuriate in 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 flush of safety. In the NPRM, the FAA invited public observation 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 knowledge 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 figure of a trajectory controller or, preferably, a pilot on board. James Snead furthermore recommended that a pilot live 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 furthermore live 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 silent 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 workable vehicles and control schemes renders unnecessary a requirement that remote operators possess a pilot's certificate. According to the Federation, operators can and should live allowed to demonstrate their knowledge of the NAS in other ways, such as by written test. The Federation renowned that John Carmack of Armadillo Aerospace successfully operated a plumb takeoff, plumb 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 live renowned 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 luxuriate in 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 live 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 same flush of knowledge and suffer as a pilot with an instrument rating. The FAA acknowledges that there may live a variety of vehicle types and control schemes, such as back up remote operators that may live used. Accordingly, for a remote operator, the FAA will allow an operator to demonstrate that something other than a pilot certificate provides an equivalent flush of safety. 5. Medical Standards for Crew

    Section 460.5(e) requires that each crew member with a safety- censorious role possess and carry an FAA second-class airman medical certificate issued in accordance with 14 CFR fraction 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 occupy situation 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 procedure on a reentry in a different month than the launch should ensure that their crews' medical certificates are silent timely for the reentry.

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

    \9\ In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require that the medical certificate live issued within 12 months of launch or reentry as opposed to 12 months prior to the month of launch or reentry. The proposed time limit might luxuriate in created confusion because a second- class medical certificate expires at the End of the ultimate day of the twelfth month after the month of the date of examination. 14 CFR 61.23(d)(2). The requirement now provides the same expiration date as fraction 61.

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

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

    a. Objections to Requiring Medical Certification of Crew Who accomplish Not luxuriate in a Safety-Critical Role. Rather than creating a separate class of crew who are not safety censorious 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 live necessary for impeccable 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 live 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 observe 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 upshot is the loss of some data from that flight.

    Blue inception commented that a person should not live required to luxuriate in 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 accomplish their duties on board or on the ground so that the vehicle will not harm the public. They furthermore must complete training to live able to accomplish duties in emergency operations or abort scenarios. Crew members who are not medically stable likely would not live able to meet training or performance requirements.

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

    Jonathan Goff suggested that alternatives to the second-class medical live accepted if they demonstrate an equivalent flush of safety. The FAA has decided against this approach because a demonstration of equivalence would likely require the same flush 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 live applied to orbital missions. It further posited that the examination should live conducted by a physician with aerospace medicine training and comprehend screening tests consistent with prudent aeromedical exercise 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 live required for pilots carrying space flight participants.

    The FAA proposed requiring a second-class medical certificate so that crew members would demonstrate a basic flush of health within 12 months of launch or reentry. Recognizing that second-class medical certification is insufficient for spaceflight, the FAA is furthermore establishing a performance gauge that requires the flight crew to demonstrate an faculty to withstand the stresses of space flight sufficiently so that the vehicle will not harm the public. This requirement may live more stringent than the suggested first-class medical certificate for pilots. The stresses experienced in space flight may comprehend towering acceleration or deceleration, microgravity, and vibration. The performance gauge provides an additional flush of safety beyond basic medical certification because flight crew members will luxuriate in to demonstrate an faculty to accomplish duties in the spaceflight environment in which they procedure to operate. As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA recognizes that different standards may live required for orbital and suborbital flights. The FAA will amass data for the progress of those standards over time and they may live 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 live 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 angle 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 comprehend a significant amount of simulation, the FAA should require simulator training. The capitalize would live that training could occupy situation in a safe environment. Dii commented that simulator training should live mandatory because realism is critical. Dii renowned that a pilot needs to live able to deal with simulator sickness and spatial disorientation.

    The FAA does not require the employ of simulators in impeccable circumstances because simulators may not exist for impeccable 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 live 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 influence that the operator can portray those differences and train crew accordingly. Such training may live workable 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 live interpreted to influence that only the operator could conduct the required training. According to Alteon, an operator should luxuriate in the faculty to order with an approved training provider for the progress of training programs. Alteon further commented that the operator would luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in a contractor provide training, a concept that is already encompassed by Sec. 460.7(a). Ultimately, however, it will live the responsibility of the operator to ensure that crew members are trained properly.

    Section 460.7(d) furthermore requires that an operator ensure that impeccable 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 live 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 occupy situation identifies the purpose of a requirement in order to impose a flexible 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. award 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 fashion of compliance as described in its application. Because a license requires that an operator amend its application when it would no longer live accurate, the fashion an operator describes in its application has the same legal upshot 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 workable and prior to any launch in which that person will serve as crew.

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

    \10\ The Federation requested that the FAA create a figure 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 contract 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 original assignment.

    Predesa furthermore commented that the FAA does not require the suffer and background necessary for crew to identify design or operational flaws that would desist them from participating in a mission. Predesa appears to foundation this observation on a faith that the CLSAA asks the crew to accept the risk of space flight with replete 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 luxuriate in the schooling and suffer required to discern operational or design flaws. fraction 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 impeccable potential operational and design hazards. 8. Environmental Control and Life support System (ECLSS)

    Section 460.11 requires that an operator provide atmospheric conditions adequate to sustain life and consciousness for impeccable 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 flush 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 live applied to short suborbital flights, such as those that are ten to twenty minutes. The FAA notes that the vehicle's atmospheric conditions luxuriate in to ultimate from the time the cabin is sealed from the external environment until it is opened. When humans are in a closed environment and conditional upon manmade life support 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 furthermore 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 live 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 point to an alternate means of compliance that demonstrates an equivalent flush of safety.

    a. Requiring Both Monitoring and Control of Atmospheric Conditions or Requiring Only Control. The Federation commented that not every life support system must live both monitored and controlled. For example, it is asserted that a dehumidification system may not require monitoring because a proper verification test, which may live performed on the ground, may point to that the system has ample capacity to sustain humidity below acceptable limits.\11\ Additionally, the Federation renowned some atmospheric conditions need only live monitored without constant, lively controls. Similarly, Blue inception suggested that the FAA clarify that ``control'' can comprehend passive measures rather than lively instrumentation. According to the Federation, if followed literally, the requirement to monitor and control every life support system would drive up the cost and complexity of space vehicles and, as a consequence, possibly drive down reliability with adverse public safety implications. paragon commented that the requirement to monitor and control contaminants that comprehend particulates and any harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapors should live restricted to those that reasonably can live 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 paragon that only control may live needed in some cases. Control of particulate contaminants in the atmosphere of inhabited areas is an case where the FAA would deem control without requiring monitoring. The passive control fashion commonly employed is to provide filters, especially towering efficiency particulate air filters, for the cabin air return 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 large changes during spaceflight operation. Consequently, monitoring of the atmospheric concentration of particulate contaminants may not live 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 point to an alternate means of compliance that will demonstrate an equivalent flush of safety. This alternate means of compliance must live 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 live controlled with an open-loop, rather than closed-loop system.\12\ The FAA agrees that in some cases an atmospheric condition can live 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 lively 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 luxuriate in lively feedback that compares the controlled variable with the desired input.

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

    For example, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere in inhabited areas should live 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 expand 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 live removed by using lithium hydroxide (LiOH) canisters. The LiOH canisters could live 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 effective in avoiding elevated CO2 concentrations. Because any expand in CO2 concentration would occur slowly, and because there is a considerable margin between the expected concentration with controls and the threshold concentration where inveterate physiological changes launch to appear, a closed-loop control would not live required. Should the crew observe increasing CO2 concentrations, there should live 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 live monitored and controlled. Very low oxygen partial pressure constitutes a severe hazard, results in impaired judgment and faculty 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 live closed loop, with the automatic addition of oxygen depending upon the oxygen-measuring device indication.

    c. Other ECLSS-related Comments. ASE renowned that the FAA did not propose to require protecting safety-critical equipment, such as heat- generating avionics. ASE commented that vehicle designers must recognize the need to frigid avionics, which may live 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 live preempt in the context of a performance based rule. Design requirements for spacecraft avionics apparatus are outside the scope of this rule. However, the FAA will evaluate the design, including thermal control, of safety-critical apparatus when it reviews a license application.

    Predesa requested that the ECLSS requirements live specifically applied to impeccable 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 faculty to protect public safety. At this point, the only redundancies the FAA anticipates requiring for impeccable 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 renowned dual seals will not address a hull trespass by orbital debris. Although a low probability during suborbital flight, a hull trespass 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 live 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 live resolved during the license or permit process.

    d. Guidance Plans. The FAA recognizes and anticipates that there will live many ECLSS designs. The ECLSS requirements are performance based rather than design based with prescriptive requirements. The following factors should live 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 censorious consequences of exposure;
  • Potential for rapid changes in conditions;
  • Potential for changes in conditions of large 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 accomplish 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 support areas. 9. Smoke Detection and Fire Suppression

    Section 460.13 requires an operator or crew to luxuriate in the faculty to detect smoke and stifle 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 occupy necessary precautions to account for human factors that can influence a crew's faculty to accomplish 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 comprehend flight testing. Predesa requested clarification of this requirement, observing that the NPRM appeared to allow a space flight participant to live 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 towering 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 sole flight test will live required to verify the integrated performance of a vehicle. Because the FAA did not identify how much flight testing would live required, Starchaser commented that the requirement was open to subjective judgment and potential manipulation. The FAA believes that it would live 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 flush 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 live allowed on an envelope expansion flight, that is, a space flight participant would not live allowed to live 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 fraction 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 ratify 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 role should not live transferred to a private party because of the potential for conflicts of interest. A professional engineer would live paid by the applicant and thus live under subtle pressure to accomplish decisions in favor of the vehicle developer. The FAA notes that applicants may pick to engage professional engineers, but will not require them.

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

    \13\ Although the licensing process differs from certification, the licensing process furthermore 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 luxuriate in at least one solo flight before transporting passengers. Starchaser advocated pressure suits for space flight participants. As the FAA renowned 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 solemn 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 live 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 solemn injury, death, disability, or total or partial loss of physical and mental function. Although the FAA did not propose 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 observation that an operator should inform a space flight participant that there are furthermore unknown hazards. The operator furthermore must disclose that participation in space flight may result in death, solemn 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 separate operator for each vehicle, each operator must provide this statement for the space flight participants on its vehicle.

    Predesa commented that the FAA should furthermore 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 solemn injury or fatality occurs or nearly occurs. The FAA will leave it up to the operator to pick 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 furthermore 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 luxuriate in the training and background to conduct such research and analysis. The FAA expects space flight participants to reach from impeccable walks of life, with varying degrees of technical expertise and understanding. Congress requires that a space flight participant live 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 live 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 fraction 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 solemn injury, death, or disability, the FAA anticipates that a hazard analysis focusing on keeping the space flight participant alive will live conducted by the operator to identify these hazards.

    The FAA furthermore requires, under Sec. 460.45, that an operator provide the safety record of impeccable launch or reentry vehicles that luxuriate in 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 impeccable exotic government vehicles live included in this disclosure. The Federation recommended that ``all government vehicles'' live clarified to specifically comprehend Soviet/Russian and Chinese government vehicles, and suggested that the FAA comprehend non-U.S. Government vehicles in its list of vehicle accidents in order to expand the knowledge base. The FAA did not propose to require disclosure of exotic launch or reentry accidents because the information may not always live publicly available and its accuracy will live difficult to verify. However, if an operator is able to obtain accurate data regarding exotic launch accidents, the operator may employ that data as fraction of the safety record.

    Blue Origin, the Federation, Predesa, and t/Space impeccable suggested that the FAA provide a standardized summary of the historical safety record of impeccable launch or reentry vehicles that luxuriate in carried one or more persons on board for impeccable U.S. Government vehicles for employ by impeccable applicants, and that the FAA maintain a gauge summary of the safety record of impeccable 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 impeccable operators. Blue inception commented that this approach would alleviate 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 workable to accomplish so, the FAA could comprehend exotic data. Although a database, whether developed by the FAA or commercially, may eventually live used by an operator to alleviate 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 furthermore requires an operator to portray the safety record of its own vehicle to each space flight participant. The operator's safety record must comprehend 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 impeccable pertinent information is included in this safety record. For a launch that takes situation with a person on board, launch and reentry ``accidents'' as defined in section 401.5 now comprehend a fatality or solemn injury to a space flight participant or crew. ``Human space flight incident'' means an unplanned event that poses a towering risk of causing a solemn 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 live required to provide an unreasonably large amount of data to space flight participants, and such ``information overload'' could actually lessen the faculty 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 flush playing territory 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 comprehend a fatality or solemn 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 impeccable pertinent 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 luxuriate in to disclose it to a space flight participant. Another case of an instance where pertinent information would live 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 live characterized as an accident. impeccable of these events must now live disclosed under section 460.45.

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

    \14\ Section 401.5 currently defines launch accident to influence a fatality or solemn 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 limit 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 solemn 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 renowned that, in developing a vehicle, most operators procedure on successive versions or models. Thus, safety performance related to an earlier, experimental model is not directly pertinent 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 impeccable subsequent launches and reentry. Earlier models that predate the verification of the vehicle are not fraction of the safety record. The FAA is including accidents occurring on the ground because those are pertinent to the risks a space flight participant faces. Accordingly, if a launch vehicle exploded upon ignition while on the ground, the explosion would luxuriate in to live included as fraction 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 desist companies from being hired by exotic space flight participants because of conflicts with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Federation urged the FAA to deem the ITAR ramifications of any proposed requirement for describing corrective actions to space flight participants. Blue Origin, the Federation and the original Mexico Office for Space Commercialization were impeccable concerned that an operator would luxuriate in to disclose information that is restricted by the ITAR.

    Blue inception suggested a clarification to preclude a potential contest between the FAA's regulations, which require disclosure to a space flight participant who is a exotic national, and the ITAR, which would restrict or prohibit disclosure to the same exotic national. Blue inception suggested that the FAA establish the same gauge for disclosure to a U.S. and a exotic national, and limit that disclosure duty 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 generic 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 live placed at risk. Competitors could quest 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 furthermore portray what corrective actions were taken.

    a. Space Flight Participant's faculty To live Informed. Section 460.45(f) requires each space flight participant to provide written informed consent. The consent must situation 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 deem a person under the age of 18 someone who can provide informed consent.

    Commenters claimed that persons under the age of 21 accomplish not luxuriate in a basis for making an informed consent. James Snead pointed to age limitations on drinking, driving, operating cumbersome construction apparatus and selling liquor. Mr. Snead felt that persons under 21 could live more likely to view space flight as a thrill ride and not value the risks or luxuriate in the mental capacity to act responsibly during the excitement of flight. For the same reasons, a parent or guardian should not live 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 situation restrictions on individuals under the age of 18, including restrictions on their faculty 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 situation is the age of majority less than 18.

    The FAA is alert that most persons under the age of 18 will not live able to afford the expense 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 live adequately informed. Given the risks involved, parental consent may not substitute for the minor's inability to live informed.

    Although not proposed in the NPRM, under Sec. 460.45(g) the FAA requires operators to provide each space flight participant an opening to question 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 opening to question 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 propose to require this recommendation, the FAA continues to deem this expedient exercise and believes such opportunities should live provided. XCOR agreed both with the desirability of this exercise and with the FAA's conclusion not to require it at this time. According to XCOR, it is difficult to phrase a regulation in such a pass that achieves the desired upshot without being burdensome, and therefore it should live left in the guidelines. XCOR further added that amenable operators, with insurance companies, will doubtless pay proximate 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 opening to question questions allows a space flight participant a chance to net clarification on any information that may live confusing or unclear. Therefore, Sec. 460.45(g) now requires that an operator provide each space flight participant an opening before flight to question 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 opening for an oral discussion; the discussion does not luxuriate in 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 conclusion 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 fraction 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 fraction 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 impeccable space flight participants should live 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 comprehend 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 prerogative of the people to sustain and suffer Arms, shall not live infringed.'' This prerogative is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the prerogative 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 impeccable courts luxuriate in furthermore held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective prerogative 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 reach from the TSA. Under Chapter 701, the FAA is amenable for security as well as safety, and thus shares jurisdiction on this issue with TSA.

    The FAA will toil with and depend on the expertise of the Transportation Security Administration and the intelligence community at large. Threat assessments will live conducted to determine the sufficiency of an operator's security plans. Although the threats may live the same, different vehicles may require different security plans. The FAA will discover 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 occupy 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 effective and flexible.

    D. monetary Responsibility and Waiver of Liability

    The FAA implements the monetary responsibility requirements and waiver of claims required by Chapter 701 through fraction 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 furthermore received comments regarding insurance requirements.

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

    \15\ This rulemaking makes effective the FAA conclusion to combine parts 440 and 450 in light of the fact that they were almost identical, except that fraction 440 only applied to launch and fraction 450 addressed reentry of reentry vehicles. The FAA requested comments on whether this would cause any concerns for those persons having to abide by these requirements. In supporting the FAA conclusion to combine the parts to reduce the regulatory cross on service providers, t/Space observed that a sole 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 severe than those from a suborbital RLV launch. The FAA agrees with this observation, but notes that this fraction 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 fraction 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 live signed by space flight participants and crew members. The courts luxuriate in stressed the significance of individuals understanding what they are waiving. Thus, to avoid confusion, the FAA will accomplish clear 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 fraction 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 live included in the reciprocal waivers of claims. This change clarifies the subject 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 propose 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 conform 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 separate 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 impeccable 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 comprehend not only themselves, but impeccable 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 luxuriate in 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 daily expectation of customary behavior on the fraction of the operator by virtue of the daily potential for legal liability. As renowned in the NPRM, the CSLAA and the FAA regulations accomplish not require either a space flight participant or a crew member to conform 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 renowned 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 figure of authorizing a launch or reentry would not constitute government ``involvement.'' The FAA agrees. In that context, the FAA would live acting in its regulatory capacity, and would not live involved. Blue inception furthermore suggested, however, that coordination with local FAA air traffic control and issuance of notices to airmen would not constitute the kindly of U.S. Government involvement requiring crew to sign a waiver of claims. Instead, Blue inception suggested, U.S. Government involvement requiring cross-waivers would live 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 fraction 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 impeccable 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 live held up because of the detain that could live caused by waiting for the U.S. Government to sign 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 fraction 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 live signed by crew and space flight participants. The materials highlight the differences in situation law, including that many states view waivers of claims as ornery to public policy. Accordingly, the FAA now emphasizes that the waivers required by the CSLAA and fraction 440 are not to live construed under situation law. As proposed in the NPRM and adopted now, the waivers provide that federal law applies. Chapter 701 provides, in pertinent part, that a situation or political subdivision of a situation ``may not adopt or luxuriate in in upshot a law, regulation, standard, or order incongruous 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 sign waivers of claims against the U.S. Government. Accordingly, in order to avoid conflicts with any situation 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 incidental death insurance for space flight participants. The FAA does not luxuriate in 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 generic 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 live 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 renowned that this can luxuriate in a very actual upshot 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 furthermore tumble under the higher 1 x 10-\5\ threshold, and that the same threshold should extend to impeccable 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 propose this change in the NPRM, and others luxuriate in not had an opening to comment. The economic upshot of such a change could live 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 original information collection requirements in this final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. Affected parties, however, accomplish not luxuriate in 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 propose 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 dissect the economic repercussion of regulatory changes on wee entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the exotic commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to deem international standards and, where appropriate, that they live 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 comprehend 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 foundation 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 luxuriate in a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of wee entities; (4) will luxuriate in 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 live 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 towering 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 exercise accomplish not impose costs
  • Preparation time expended by commercial entities for specific requirements that might cause industry to incur costs because the original requirements are not current exercise 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 live the assurance that the human commercial space flight industry understands and adheres to the current practices that luxuriate in worked thus far to protect public safety. The rule will alleviate preserve the flush of public safety already achieved by commercial operations. Additionally, informing space flight participants of mission hazards and risks may alleviate mitigate any behavior or reaction during space flight that would jeopardize mission success and consequently public safety. For example, a amaze babel 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 lucky regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to deem flexible regulatory proposals, to elaborate the rationale for their actions, and to solicit comments. The RFA covers a wide-range of wee entities, including wee businesses, not-for-profit organizations and wee governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must accomplish a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will luxuriate in a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of wee 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 luxuriate in a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of wee 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 comprehend a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should live clear.

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

    The rule will require launch and reentry operators to accomplish certain actions that, although they may live considered prudent, may not live performed in current exercise in impeccable instances. These actions will cause a space transportation operator to incur minimal additional costs rel ative to current practice. The North American Industry Classification System does not luxuriate in a discrete code for commercial space transportation per se. However, it does luxuriate in 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 apparatus Manufacturing.'' The wee industry Administration (SBA) has defined wee 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 wee 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 situation how many and which entities will succeed. There are two companies licensed to accomplish 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 solemn candidates because they luxuriate in committed monetary resources, and another twenty companies that luxuriate in 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 wee industry for the launch industry of entities employing no more than 1,000 employees, impeccable of the above mentioned companies are wee businesses with the exception of one: Virgin Galactic may live considered a large 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 wee number into categories by size; they only know that the vast majority of companies interested in entering the industry are very wee (from 5 to 135 employees). They await that these companies will live about the size of Scaled Composites, the only company thus far to luxuriate in launched humans, once they start launching.

    The FAA has determined that the impacts are not significant. In order to accomplish this determination, they compared the incremental cost per mission and the total cost to estimated revenue. It should live renowned that impeccable 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 live 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 portray the total investment in safety expected in this industry, but rather the incremental expand in safety related activity expected as a result of this regulation.

    Putting the two inputs together, they appraise costs to accomplish 10,142 missions (upper bound) over ten years are $2,739,149 or an impartial of $270 per mission. They appraise costs to accomplish 5,081 missions (lower bound) over ten years are $1,390,221 or an impartial 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 luxuriate in quoted ticket prices of $102,000 to $250,000 per seat for early flights (with some predicting prices could tumble 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 live a very wee 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 luxuriate in a significant economic repercussion on a substantial number of wee 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 exotic commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. Because this rulemaking will live largely consistent with current or prudent practice, it will not create obstacles. The statute furthermore requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they live the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential upshot of this rule and determined that it will impose the same 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 foundation 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 live 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 contain such a mandate.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. They luxuriate in determined that this action would not luxuriate in a substantial direct upshot 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in a significant adverse upshot on the supply, distribution, or employ of energy.

    List of Subjects

    14 CFR fraction 401

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

    14 CFR fraction 415

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

    14 CFR fraction 431

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

    14 CFR fraction 435

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

    14 CFR fraction 440

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

    14 CFR fraction 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 fraction 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 fraction 450 of Chapter III of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and add fraction 460 as follows--

    PART 401--ORGANIZATION AND DEFINITIONS

    0

    1. The authority citation for fraction 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 contract 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 towering risk of causing a solemn or mortal injury to a space flight participant or crew.

    * * * * *

    Launch accident means

    (1) An event that causes a fatality or solemn 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 limit lines; and

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

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

    * * * * *

    Remote operator means a crew member who

    (1) Has the faculty 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 gross or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory, and the thrust of which is greater than its hoist 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 fraction 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 fraction 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 fraction 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 fraction 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 fraction 440--Information requirements for obtaining a maximum probable loss determination for licensed or permitted activities.Appendix B to fraction 440--Agreement for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibility for licensed activities.Appendix C to fraction 440--Agreement for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibility for permitted activities.Appendix D to fraction 440--Agreement for waiver of claims and assumption of responsibility for a crew member.Appendix E to fraction 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 fraction establishes monetary 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 fraction and defined in 49 U.S.C. 70101-70121, or in Sec. 401.5 of this chapter shall luxuriate in the acceptation 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 fraction of the payload) to live 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 ambit facility means a U.S. Government-owned installation at which a launch or reentry takes place.

    Financial responsibility means capable of satisfying a liability duty 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 comprehend 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 role being performed, may result in physical injury or property damage.

    Liability means a legal duty 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 luxuriate in a probability of circumstance 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 luxuriate in a probability of circumstance 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 influence 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 monetary 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 monetary responsibility under this fraction 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 monetary responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(c) of this fraction 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 fraction for physical injury or property damage is not a covered claim;

    (3) A covered pretension for property loss or damage exceeds the amount of monetary responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(e) of this fraction 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 monetary responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(c).

    (d) Demonstration of monetary responsibility under this fraction 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 monetary 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 fraction may result in suspension or revocation of a license or permit, and subject the licensee or permittee to civil penalties as provided in fraction 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 monetary 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 impeccable information required by the FAA to accomplish 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 monetary responsibility requirements, and shall notify the licensee, or permittee, if interagency consultation may detain issuance of the MPL determination.

    (c) Appendix A of this fraction 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 amenable for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information submitted under this fraction 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 monetary responsibility requirements as a result of an amended MPL determination shall live set forth in a license or permit order.

    (e) The FAA may accomplish 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 impeccable insurance requirements of this section and of a license or permit issued by the FAA, or otherwise demonstrate the required amount of monetary responsibility.

    (b) A licensee or permittee must obtain and maintain in upshot 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 upshot 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 comprehend impeccable 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 ambit 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 monetary responsibility in another manner meeting the terms and conditions for insurance of this part. The licensee or permittee must portray in detail the fashion proposed for demonstrating monetary 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 figure of monetary responsibility, shall attach when a licensed launch or permitted activity starts, and remain in replete constrain and upshot 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 wee that monetary 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) monetary responsibility required under this fraction may not live replaced, canceled, changed, withdrawn, or in any pass 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 promote 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 figure of monetary responsibility, shall attach upon commencement of licensed reentry, and remain in replete constrain and upshot 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 situation until the FAA's determination that risk to third parties and Government property as a result of licensed reentry is sufficiently wee that monetary 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) monetary responsibility required under this fraction may not live replaced, canceled, changed, withdrawn, or in any pass 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 promote 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 circumstance and, for each circumstance 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 regard 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 live unobligated, unencumbered funds of the licensee or permittee, available to compensate claims at any time claims may arise.

    (4) No policy may live 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 trespass or violation of any warranties, declarations, or conditions contained in the policies by the licensee or permittee or any additional insured (other than a trespass 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 live specified.

    (6) Insurance shall live primary without prerogative 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 impeccable of its provisions, except the policy limits, operate in the same manner as if there were a separate policy with and covering the licensee or permittee and each additional insured.

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

    (i) Is licensed to accomplish 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 fraction a contract 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 impeccable 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 monetary 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) impeccable reciprocal waiver of claims agreements required under Sec. 440.17(c) must live 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 live 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 monetary responsibility in a figure other than insurance, as provided under Sec. 440.9(f), must live submitted at least 60 days before commencement of a licensed or permitted activity; and

    (4) Evidence of renewal of insurance or other figure of monetary responsibility must live submitted at least 30 days in promote of its expiration date.

    (b) Upon a complete demonstration of compliance with monetary responsibility and allocation of risk requirements under this part, the requirements of this fraction 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 monetary 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 fraction 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 effective 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 live 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 live 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 live signed by the insurer issuing the policy and accompanied by an sentiment of the insurance broker that the insurance obtained by the licensee or permittee complies with impeccable the requirements for insurance of this fraction and any applicable license or permit order.

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

    (f) In the event the licensee or permittee demonstrates monetary 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 fraction 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 impeccable the other parties to the waiver and agrees to assume monetary 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 live in the figure set forth in Appendix B of this part, for licensed activity, or Appendix C of this part, for permitted activity, of this fraction or in a figure 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 conform in any waiver of claims agreement required under this fraction 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 luxuriate in in situation a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement in the figure of the agreement in Appendix E of this fraction 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 luxuriate in in situation a reciprocal waiver of claims agreement in the figure of the agreement in Appendix D of this fraction 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 live made for any fraction 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 regard 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 fraction 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 live subject 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 monetary 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 live 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 fraction of a settlement, to live paid by the United States; and

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

    (f) The FAA will:

    (1) Prepare a compensation procedure 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) propose 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 fraction 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. generic 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 same vehicle from the same launch site, a description of any differences planned in the conduct of proposed activities.B. Launch vehicle description.1. generic description of the launch vehicle and its stages, including dimensions.2. Description of major systems, including safety systems.3. Description of rocket motors and kind of fuel used.4. Identification of impeccable propellants to live used and their hazard classification under the Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101.5. Description of hazardous components.C. Payload.1. generic description of the payload, including kind (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. generic description of pre-flight operations including vehicle processing consisting of an operational current 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 live performed, including each edifice or facility identified by designation or number.

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

    3. Maximum number of Government personnel and individuals not involved in licensed activities who may live 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 occupy 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 ambit 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 live pad-centered with x being along the initial launch azimuth and continuing through repercussion for suborbital flights, and continuing through orbital insertion or the End 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 separate table is required for each combination of fail times (every two to four seconds), and significant nozzle angles (two or more wee 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. generic description of post-flight ground operations including overall sequence and location of operations for removal of vehicle components and processing apparatus from the launch site facility and for handling of hazardous materials, and designation of hazardous operations.

    B. Identification of impeccable 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 designation or number.

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

    3. Maximum number of Government personnel and individuals not involved in licensed launch activities that may live 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. generic 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 same reentry vehicle to the same reentry site facility, a description of any differences planned in the conduct of proposed activities.B. Reentry vehicle description.1. generic description of the reentry vehicle, including dimensions.2. Description of major systems, including safety systems.3. Description of propulsion system (reentry initiation system) and kind of fuel used.4. Identification of impeccable propellants to live used and their hazard classification under the Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101.5. Description of hazardous components.C. Payload.1. generic description of any payload, including kind (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 occupy 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 ambit 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 live 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 amenable for including impeccable significant landing or repercussion dispersion constituents in the computations of landing or repercussion dispersion areas. The dispersion constituents should include, but not live 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 comprehend 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. generic description of post-flight ground operations including overall sequence and location of operations for removal of vehicle and components and processing apparatus from the reentry site facility and for handling of hazardous materials, and designation of hazardous operations.

    B. Identification of impeccable 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 designation or number.

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

    3. Maximum number of Government personnel and individuals not involved in licensed reentry activities who may live 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 fraction 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 live performed, including any U.S. Government or third party facilities identified by designation or number.

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

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

    Appendix B to fraction 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 conform 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 impeccable 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 luxuriate in the same acceptation 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    3. Assumption of Responsibility

    (a) Licensee and Customer shall each live amenable 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 live amenable 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Customer and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to live 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Licensee and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to live 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Licensee and Customer, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 promote 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 monetary 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 monetary responsibility required under section 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and accomplish 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 monetary responsibility required under section 440.9(c) of the Regulations.

    7. Miscellaneous

    (a) Nothing contained herein shall live 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 live deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.

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

    In witness whereof, the Parties to this Agreement luxuriate in caused the Agreement to live 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 conform 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 impeccable 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 luxuriate in the same acceptation 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e) of the Regulations.

    3. Assumption of Responsibility

    (a) Licensee and Customer shall each live amenable 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 live amenable 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Customer and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to live 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Licensee and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to live 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Licensee and Customer, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 promote 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 monetary 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 monetary responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(c) of the Regulations, and accomplish 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 monetary responsibility required under Sec. 440.9(c) of the Regulations.

    7. Miscellaneous

    (a) Nothing contained herein shall live 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 live deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.

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

    In Witness Whereof, the Parties to this Agreement luxuriate in caused the Agreement to live 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 fraction 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 conform 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 impeccable 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 luxuriate in the same acceptation 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations.

    3. Assumption of Responsibility

    (a) Permittee and Customer shall each live amenable 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 live amenable for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise luxuriate in for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Customer and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to live 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Permittee and the United States, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live responsible, for Property Damage they sustain and to live 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Permittee and Customer, and against the respective Contractors and Subcontractors of each, and to conform to live responsible, for any Property Damage they sustain, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims they would otherwise luxuriate in for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 monetary responsibility required under section 440.9(e) of the Regulations.

    7. Miscellaneous

    (a) Nothing contained herein shall live 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 live deemed to include, each such customer severally and not jointly.

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

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this Agreement luxuriate in caused the Agreement to live 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 fraction 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 conform as follows:

    1. Definitions

    Crew Member means

    (a) The above-named Crew Member,

    (b) impeccable 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 impeccable 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 luxuriate in the same acceptation 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 live amenable 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 live amenable 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    (c) The United States shall live amenable for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise luxuriate in for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Crew Member and to conform to live 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 impeccable claims the Contractors and Subcontractors may luxuriate in against Crew Member and to conform to live 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 live 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 live governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.

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

    I [name of Crew Member] luxuriate in read and understand this agreement and conform 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 fraction 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 conform as follows:

    1. Definitions

    Space Flight Participant means

    (a) The above-named Space Flight Participant,

    (b) impeccable 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 impeccable 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 luxuriate in the same acceptation 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 luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in 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 live amenable 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 live amenable 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 luxuriate in for such damage or injury exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary responsibility required under sections 440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the Regulations.

    (c) The United States shall live amenable for Property Damage it sustains, resulting from Permitted Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent that claims it would otherwise luxuriate in for such damage exceed the amount of insurance or demonstration of monetary 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Space Flight Participant, and to conform to live 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 impeccable claims they may luxuriate in against Space Flight Participant, and to conform to live 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 live 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 live governed by and construed in accordance with United States Federal law.

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

    I [name of Space Flight Participant] luxuriate in read and understand this agreement and conform 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 fraction 450.

    0 11. Add fraction 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 support 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 luxuriate in 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 impeccable 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 faculty to withstand the stresses of space flight, which may comprehend towering 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 suffer may comprehend hours in flight, ratings, and training.

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

    (i) A fashion 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 fashion 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 flush 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 fraction 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 scholarly 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 lively crew member.

    (d) Current qualifications and training. An operator must establish a recurrent training schedule and ensure that impeccable 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 contract or other arrangement to employ that individual; or (b) For any crew member employed as of December 23, 2004, as early as workable and prior to any launch in which that individual will participate as crew.

    Sec. 460.11 Environmental control and life support systems.

    (a) An operator must provide atmospheric conditions adequate to sustain life and consciousness for impeccable 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 flush of safety--

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

    (2) Pressure, temperature and humidity;

    (3) Contaminants that comprehend 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 luxuriate in the faculty to detect smoke and stifle a cabin fire to preclude incapacitation of the flight crew.

    Sec. 460.15 Human factors.

    An operator must occupy the precautions necessary to account for human factors that can influence a crew's faculty to accomplish safety- censorious roles, including in the following safety censorious 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 impeccable individuals and objects in a vehicle; and

    (d) Vehicle operation, so that the vehicle will live 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 comprehend 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 fraction 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 luxuriate in 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 live 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 solemn 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, solemn 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 impeccable launch or reentry vehicles that luxuriate in 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 luxuriate in been on a suborbital or orbital space flight and the total number of people who luxuriate in 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 opening to question 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) situation that the space flight participant understands the risk, and his or her presence on board the launch vehicle is voluntary; and

    (3) live 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 fraction 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

    // End //

    More status reports and intelligence releases or top stories.

    Please follow SpaceRef on Twitter and relish 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 [47 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 [12 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 [746 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 [1530 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 [63 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 [368 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Mile2 [2 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 [36 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 [269 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 [11 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





    Killexams exams | Killexams certification | Pass4Sure questions and answers | Pass4sure | pass-guaratee | best test preparation | best training guides | examcollection | killexams | killexams review | killexams legit | kill example | kill example journalism | kill exams reviews | kill exam ripoff report | review | review quizlet | review login | review archives | review sheet | legitimate | legit | legitimacy | legitimation | legit check | legitimate program | legitimize | legitimate business | legitimate definition | legit site | legit online banking | legit website | legitimacy definition | pass 4 sure | pass for sure | p4s | pass4sure certification | pass4sure exam | IT certification | IT Exam | certification material provider | pass4sure login | pass4sure exams | pass4sure reviews | pass4sure aws | pass4sure security | pass4sure cisco | pass4sure coupon | pass4sure dumps | pass4sure cissp | pass4sure braindumps | pass4sure test | pass4sure torrent | pass4sure download | pass4surekey | pass4sure cap | pass4sure free | examsoft | examsoft login | exams | exams free | examsolutions | exams4pilots | examsoft download | exams questions | examslocal | exams practice |

    www.pass4surez.com | www.killcerts.com | www.search4exams.com | http://smresidences.com.ph/