AC 450.137-1

.E+OO -,----~-------r----------..------------.

1I.E:-0,1 w ~ 1.E--0~ a;: m 1I.E:- 041 0 a:; n..

11.E-{l5

11.~ 0 ~-----r--------- ►--------- ---------r---------~---------~---------

• I I ~--r-••-•••-•r -••-••-~•r -••-••-••••••-••-••T -•••••-••• -••-••-•••-••-••-••

0.1 0.5 0 .6 ESS.U RIE (PSI) GLASSC- ,!iR

ANSI-REED 1TO

GLASSC-ER

0.7 0.

09/10/2024 AC 450.137-1

7.6.4 T o identify the extent of the region that includes population centers and potentially inhabited structures that could be susceptible to an FFBO hazard, the applicant should compute the distance between the maximum credible explosive yield event location for each phase of flight and the point where the peak incident overpressure would not exceed 200 Pa under focusing conditions with a focus factor equal to 2.0, referred to here as the maximum range of the FFBO hazard. Figure 4 of this AC (replicated from Figure 5.2.5 of the IAASS publication) shows that the 69 Pa (0.01 psi) peak incident overpressure threshold corresponds to a negligible probability of breakage for typical populations surrounding the two major launch sites in the U.S. In addition, ANSI Standard S2.20-19836 reported this threshold peak incident overpressure corresponds “in practice to the threshold level at which claims for window damage begin” based on recordings from nuclear tests.

Figure 4 – Probability of breakage for average windowpanes near Vandenberg, CA and Cape Canaveral, FL7 6 American National Standard ANSI S2.20-1983, Estimating Airblast Characteristics for Single Point Explosions in Air, with a Guide to Evaluation of Atmospheric Propagation and Effects, Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY, 1983.

7 Figure 5.2.5 of Allahdadi, Firooz A., Isabelle Rongier, Tommaso Sgobba, and Paul D. Wilde, Safety Design for Space Operations, Sponsored by The International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS), Elsevier, Watham, MA, dated 2023.

7.6.5 A screening analysis should use the following equation (which is equation 14 in the IAASS publication) to compute the distance from between the maximum credible explosive yield event location for each phase of flight and the point where the peak incident overpressure would not exceed 69 Pa under focusing conditions with a focus factor equal to 2.0.

∆𝑃𝑃 = �𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖�1.864(105)(𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑊𝑊)0.4𝑅𝑅−1.2 ∆𝑃𝑃 = Incident peak blast overpressure in Pascals (Pa) 𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖 = Focus factor 𝑅𝑅 = Nearest distance from explosion to population center in meters 𝑊𝑊 = Net explosive yield (charge weight) in kg TNT 𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = Height of Burst factor, which is 2 for a ground explosion

7.6.6 A screening analysis should use a Height of Burst factor of 2, which conservatively represents a perfect reflection from a hard surface.

7.6.7 For each phase of flight where an explosion is foreseeable, the screening method should identify the population centers within the maximum range of the FFBO hazard of the maximum credible explosive event. In addition, for any single potentially inhabited structure within the distance defined by the “no-damage yield” for a single residence based on Figure 5 of this AC (replicated from Figure 5.2.3 of the IAASS publication), the screening method should identify the number, size, and type of windows that face within 90 degrees of the azimuth from the maximum credible explosive yield location to the single structure location. The screening analysis should identify windows of different types and differentiate between annealed, tempered, dual paned and film covered. Window size categories should be based on typical windows found in the local populated areas and differentiate between pane areas that differ by a factor of two at the most.

.E+07

- Resl ence (4 ~pie)

- 100 people

1.E+06 - 1000 poop!€!

·m .,:.

1.E+0S

- 10.000 people

- 100,000 people ,:, ai 1.E+04 +---..---- , ► '1> DI ns E 1.E+03 ~ 0 z

1.E+02

1.E+OO +--"--~--,-L--+- -+-+-'l'-+-f-r-- -"-~--+-~~~~~----1

1.00 10.00 100.00 Distance km 09/10/2024 AC 450.137-1 Figure 5 ‒ No-damage limits for surface explosions (ANSI standard Figure 26)8 8 Figure 5.2.3 of Allahdadi, Firooz A., Isabelle Rongier, Tommaso Sgobba, and Paul D. Wilde, Safety Design for Space Operations, Sponsored by The International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS), Elsevier, Watham, MA, dated 2023.

7.6.8 I f the total area of annealed glass panes that face the maximum credible explosive yield location for a given phase of flight exceeds 40 square feet (which is typical for a residence), then the screening method described in this AC cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of § 450.137 for that phase of flight.

7.6.9 Populations located in vehicles that meet U.S. standards need not be accounted for in an FFBO screening analysis (because the glass used in U.S. vehicles are not a credible source of FFBO hazards). The FFBO can also ignore any population centers that would be subject to a peak incident overpressure above 1.0 psi or 6894 Pascal (Pa), given the maximum credible explosive event because § 450.137(b)(3) requires the FFBO analysis to account for the potential for broken windows due to peak incident overpressures below 1.0 psi only. However, any population center exposed to a peak incident overpressure above 1.0 psi given the maximum credible explosive event, including people in vehicles that meet U.S. standards, would generally need to be accounted for in the debris risk analysis in accordance with § 450.135.

7.7 Deterministic Screening Method.

7.7.1 If the maximum credible yield input (developed in accordance with paragraph 7.5 of this AC) to the deterministic no-damage yield analysis (shown in Figure 5 of this AC) indicates that no public population centers are vulnerable to window breakage, then the hazards from FFBO are negligible, and the FFBO analysis complies with §§ 450.137(a)(1) and (b) based on this deterministic screening method.

7.7.2 A simple example of the deterministic screening method results is summarized in Table 2 of this AC. In this case, the maximum credible yield was determined to be 1,000 Kg TNT equivalent at the launch point. The closest population centers are

1. A single residence 3 km away from the launch point,

2. A village of 100 people 8 km away from the launch point,

3. A small town of 10,000 people 40 km away from the launch point, and

4. A city of 1,000,000 people 150 km away.

7.7.3 This is an example where the deterministic method demonstrates negligible FFBO risks because the actual distance from the closest edge of each population center to the location of the maximum credible yield event exceeds the distance corresponding to the “no damage yield” given by Figure 5 of this AC as shown in the Table 2.

Table 2 ‒ Sample Description of Results from the Deterministic Screening Method P opulation Center Name Number of People Distance from population center to explosion (km) No Damage Distance (km) Closest Residence <=4 3 2.2 Village 100 8 7 Small Town 10,000 40 30 City 1,000,000 150 130 19

8 SAT

ISFYING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A far-field overpressure risk analysis submitted for compliance with the safety criteria in § 450.101 must be sufficiently documented by an operator in their application for a launch or reentry license to show that related regulatory requirements have been met.

This analysis should include a description of the far-field overpressure analysis, including all assumptions and justifications for the assumptions, analysis methods, input data, and results. The following sections describe the minimum details that the application should provide and sample calculations for a simplified screening analysis.

8.1 Terrain and Population Data.

8.1.1 In accordance with § 450.137(c)(1), a far-field overpressure risk analysis submitted for compliance with the safety criteria in § 450.101 must include a description of the relevant characteristics of the general region surrounding the explosion used as input to the far-field overpressure analysis, including a description of population centers, terrain, building types, and window characteristics. To fulfill this application requirement using the screening methods identified in the AC, an applicant should provide the following.

1. A list that includes the location (latitude and longitude) and population of each population center that contains at least one potentially inhabited structure within the maximum range of the FFBO hazard for each phase of flight. The population of any population center that consists of a single residential structure should be listed as less than or equal to four in the absence of more accurate information.

2. A list of the number, size, and type of windows that face within 90 degrees of the azimuth from the maximum credible explosive yield location to the single structure location for each potentially inhabited structure within the distance defined by the “no-damage yield” for a single residence and the maximum credible explosive yield based on Figure 5 of this AC (replicated from Figure 5.2.3 of the IAASS publication). The description of window types should differentiate between annealed, tempered, dual paned and film covered. Window size categories should be based on typical windows found in the local populated areas and differentiate between pane areas that differ by a factor of two at the most.

3. A table, such as shown in Table 2 of this AC, that identifies the closest population centers to each maximum credible explosion location that have populations of at least 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 people, as well as the closest single potentially inhabited structure.

4. A general description of the building types located in each of the population centers listed in the table provided to identify the closest population (in response to #3 of this list). The general description should identify, at a minimum, the following structure types located within each population center: mobile homes and trailers, single family residences, multi-family residences with no more than three-stories, residential structures with more than three-stories, commercial buildings of all kinds with no more than three-stories (including retail, offices, restaurants, gas stations, strip malls) and commercial and industrial buildings of all kinds with more than three -stories (including large retail, offices, warehouses, manufacturing, and malls).

5. A general description of the terrain within the maximum range of the FFBO hazard for each phase of flight. The general description should identify, at a minimum, the following terrain types: flat with land and/or water boundaries, and hilly with maximum elevation change.

8.1.2 In accordance with § 450.137(c), a far-field overpressure risk analysis must include description of the far-field overpressure analysis, including all assumptions and justifications for the assumptions, analysis methods, and input data. To fulfill this application requirement using the screening methods identified in the AC, an applicant should provide the following.

1. A description of the source of the data provided above, such as census data, physical surveys, and satellite imagery.

2. A description of the dates for the source data, and any methods used to update the data to account for changes that could occur prior to the date of the operation.

8.2 Explosive Yield-Probability Pairs.

8.2.1 In accordance with § 450.137(c)(2), a far-field overpressure risk analysis must include a description of the methods used to compute the foreseeable blast yields probability pairs, and the complete set of yield-probability pairs, which are used as input to the far-field overpressure risk computations. Thus, an FFBO should include a description of how the explosive yield was computed for all phases of flight where an FFBO hazard was analyzed.

8.3 Overpressure Computations.

8.3.1 In accordance with § 450.137(c)(3), a far-field overpressure risk analysis must include a description of the methods used to compute peak incident overpressures as a function of distance from the explosion and prevailing meteorological conditions, including sample calculations for a representative set of the foreseeable meteorological conditions, yields, and population center distances from the explosion.

8.3.2 For a screening analysis performed in accordance with this AC, an FFBO analysis should:

1. Identify the equation used to peak incident overpressures as a function of distance

(i.e., equation).

2. A list of the input and output values for the equation used to compute the peak incident overpressure for each of the closest population centers that have populations of at least 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 people, as well as the closest single potentially inhabited structure.

3. List the maximum range of the FFBO hazard analysis for each phase of flight.

4. Note that the prevailing meteorological conditions were conservatively assumed to produce caustic focusing on every population center within the maximum range of the FFBO hazard for each phase of flight.

8.4 Wi ndow Breakage.

In accordance with § 450.137(c)(4), a far-field overpressure risk analysis must include a description of the methods used to compute the probability of window breakage. For a screening analysis performed in accordance with this AC, an FFBO analysis should state that the probability of breakage was based on the glass damage model described in ANSI Standard S2.20-1983.

8.5 Probability of Casualty Computations.

In accordance with § 450.137(c)(5), a far-field overpressure risk analysis must include a description of the methods used to compute the probability of casualty for a representative individual, including tabular data and graphs for the probability of casualty, as a function of location relative to the window and the peak incident overpressure for a representative range of window types, building types, and yields accounted for. For a screening analysis performed in accordance with this AC, an FFBO analysis should state that the method assumes that no casualties can occur from the maximum credible yield for each phase of flight because every population center within the maximum range of the FFBO hazard is located beyond “no-damage yield” range based on Figure 5 of this AC (replicated from Figure 5.2.3 of the IAASS publication).9 9 Allahdadi, Firooz A., Isabelle Rongier, Tommaso Sgobba, and Paul D. Wilde, Safety Design for Space Operations, Sponsored by The International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety, Elsevier, Watham, MA, dated 2013.

8.6 P robability of Casualty Threshold Locations.

In accordance with § 450.137(c)(6), a far-field overpressure risk analysis must include tabular data and graphs showing the location of any individual member of the public that could be exposed to a probability of casualty of 1 × 10-5 or greater for neighboring operations personnel, and 1 × 10-6 or greater for other members of the public, given foreseeable meteorological conditions, yields, and population exposures. For a screening analysis performed in accordance with this AC, an FFBO analysis should state that no individuals will be exposed to a probability of casualty of 1 × 10-5 or greater for neighboring operations personnel, and 1 × 10-6 or greater for other members of the public because every population center within the maximum range of the FFBO hazard is located beyond “no-damage yield” range based on Figure 5 of this AC (replicated from Figure 5.2.3 of the IAASS publication).

8.7 Maximum Expected Casualties.

In accordance with § 450.137(c)(7), a far-field overpressure risk analysis must include the maximum expected casualties that could result from far-field overpressure hazards, given foreseeable meteorological conditions, yields, and population exposures. For a screening analysis performed in accordance with this AC, an FFBO analysis should state that the maximum expected casualties that could result from far-field overpressure hazards in any phase of flight is no more than 1E-6 because every population center within the maximum range of the FFBO hazard is located beyond “no-damage yield” range based on Figure 5 of this AC (replicated from Figure 5.2.3 of the IAASS publication).

8.8 Meteorological Measurements.

In accordance with § 450.137(c)(8), a far-field overpressure risk analysis must include a description of the meteorological measurements used. For a screening analysis performed in accordance with this AC, an FFBO analysis should state no meteorological measurements will be used because every population center within the maximum range of the FFBO hazard is located beyond “no-damage yield” range based on Figure 5 of this AC (replicated from Figure 5.2.3 of the IAASS publication).

A ppendix A Yield Factor Equation Coefficients for HD 1.3 Solid Propellants Table 3 – TNT Yield Equations for Solid Propellant Geometries with Constant Web Thickness to Length Ratios, Side-on Impact in Sand10 Coefficients Limits (ft/sec) Element Type Curve a b c d e Min Max 41-inch Se gment Im

p. -9.67E-14 1.

74E-10 -1.02E-07 5.

71E-05 3.32E-02 23 800 OP 3.77E-14 -7.84E-11 6.

51E-08 2.23E-05 3.47E-02 23 800 60-inch Se gment Im p 4.97E-13 -7.54E-10 3.

98E-07 -3.89E-05 5.

49E-02 68 800 OP 6.36E-13 -9.37E-10 4.

81E-07 -4.09E-05 5.

73E-02 68 800 92-inch Se gment Im p -2.03E-13 5.

22E-10 -2.20E-07 8.

05E-05 7.34E-02 82 800 OP -3.79E-13 8.

87E-10 -3.91E-07 1.

23E-04 8.02E-02 82 800 124-inch Se gment Im p -4.19E-12 6.

66E-09 -3.05E-06 5.

50E-04 7.50E-02 83 800 OP -5.58E-12 8.

85E-09 -4.05E-06 7.

35E-04 8.16E-02 83 800 146-inch Se gment Im p -5.43E-12 7.

24E-09 -2.41E-06 3.

46E-04 1.08E-01 74 800 OP -6.86E-12 9.

08E-09 -2.97E-06 4.

36E-04 1.25E-01 74 800 41-inch CAS Im p -4.31E-13 9.

54E-10 -6.82E-07 1.

98E-04 9.52E-03 156 1000 OP -4.79E-13 1.

05E-09 -7.29E-07 2.

05E-04 4.61E-03 156 1000 60-inch CAS Im p 1.87E-14 7.06E-11 -6.74E-08 2.

71E-05 3.29E-02 37 800 OP 4.61E-14 5.87E-11 -6.71E-08 2.

95E-05 3.04E-02 37 800 92-i nc h CAS Im p -1.51E-13 4. 06E-10 -3.08E-07 1. 17E-04 3.98E-02 99 800 OP -6.96E-13 1.

41E-09 -9.08E-07 2.

62E-04 3.17E-02 99 800 124-inch CAS Im p -1.24E-12 2.

06E-09 -1.01E-06 2.

16E-04 4.99E-02 104 800 OP -1.54E-12 2.

45E-09 -1.11E-06 2.

15E-04 5.79E-02 104 800 146-inch CAS Im p -2.06E-12 3.

26E-09 -1.48E-06 2.

67E-04 6.04E-02 94 800 OP -2.70E-12 4.

22E-09 -1.86E-06 3.

18E-04 6.82E-02 94 800 18-inch Cube Im p 5.84E-16 -8.73E-12 4.

42E-08 -1.20E-05 1.

99E-02 89 1600 OP 5.42E-16 -8.91E-12 5.

03E-08 -1.36E-05 1.

05E-02 89 1600 24-inch Cube Im p 9.84E-16 -1.34E-11 5.

79E-08 -8.19E-06 2.

21E-02 79 1600 OP 1.34E-15 -1.83E-11 8.

01E-08 -1.83E-05 1.

60E-02 79 1600 30-inch Cube Im p -1.39E-17 -8.

98E-12 5.

79E-08 -4.41E-06 2.

66E-02 72 1600 OP 6.96E-17 -1.30E-11 8.

11E-08 -1.24E-05 2.

16E-02 72 1600 10 Devoid, W. and C. Wass, “Final PIRAT Yield Model for Impacting Solid Propellant, Revision 2”, Report No.

CSR3-00300-R2, A-P-T Research, Inc. Cocoa Beach, FL, 16 September 2011.

T able 4 – TNT Yield Equations for Solid Propellant Geometries with Variable Web Thickness, Side-on Impact in Sand11 Element Type, Web Thickness Curve a Coefficients b c d e Limits (ft/sec) Min Max 41-in Seg, 21 in I mp 0.00E+00 8.55E-11 -9.43E-08 6. 48E-05 3.19E-02 78 800 OP 0.00E+00 1.38E-10 -1.47E-07 8.80E-05 2.90E-02 78 800 41-in Seg, 14 in Imp 0.00E+00 8.04E-11 -8.67E-08 6.11E-05 3.06E-02 76 800 OP 0.00E+00 1.00E-10 -1.02E-07 7. 34E-05 2.71E-02 76 800 41-in Seg, 7 in Imp 0.00E+00 7.98E-11 -8.23E-08 5.69E-05 2.78E-02 74 800 OP 0.00E+00 1.03E-10 -9.82E-08 6.72E-05 2.29E-02 74 800 60-in Seg,

30.

6 in I mp 0.00E+00 6.76E-11 -3.87E-08 5. 16E-05 4.81E-02 79 800 OP 0.00E+00 7.23E-11 -2.41E-08 5.71E-05 4.99E-02 79 800 60-in Seg,

20.

4 in Imp 0.00E+00 6.07E-11 -2.84E-08 4.71E-05 4.64E-02 79 800 OP 0.00E+00 8.25E-11 -3.28E-08 5. 78E-05 4.71E-02 79 800 60-in Seg,

10.

2 in Imp 0.00E+00 6.53E-11 -3.05E-08 4.53E-05 4.26E-02 79 800 OP 0.00E+00 8.96E-11 -4.14E-08 6.13E-05 4.09E-02 79 800 92-in Seg, 47 in I mp 0.00E+00 1.96E-10 -9.99E-08 6. 74E-05 7.27E-02 67 800 OP 0.00E+00 3.15E-10 -2.00E-07 1.12E-04 7.79E-02 67 800 92-in Seg,

31.

3 in Imp 0.00E+00 1.96E-10 -1.00E-07 6.74E-05 6.99E-02 67 800 OP 0.00E+00 1.93E-10 -4.52E-08 6. 21E-05 7.84E-02 67 800 92-in Seg,

15.

6 in Imp 0.00E+00 2.18E-10 -1.23E-07 7.30E-05 6.41E-02 67 800 OP 0.00E+00 2.76E-10 -1.42E-07 8. 94E-05 6.87E-02 67 800 124-in Seg,

63.

2 in Imp 0.00E+00 5.19E-10 -3.28E-07 1.30E-04 9.11E-02 83 800 OP 0.00E+00 5.79E-10 -2.84E-07 1.19E-04 1.10E-01 83 800 124-in Seg,

42.

2 in I mp 0.00E+00 5.45E-10 -3.46E-07 1. 30E-04 8.92E-02 83 800 OP 0.00E+00 6.90E-10 -3.98E-07 1.50E-04 1.04E-01 83 800 124-in Seg, 21 in Imp 0.00E+00 5.29E-10 -3.11E-07 1.14E-04 8.50E-02 83 800 OP 0.00E+00 6.66E-10 -3.71E-07 1. 40E-04 9.54E-02 83 800 146-in Seg,

74.

5 in Imp 0.00E+00 2.17E-11 9.72E-08 2.05E-04 8.29E-02 75 800 OP 0.00E+00 7.37E-11 9.84E-08 2.64E-04 9.94E-02 75 800 146-in Seg,

49.

6 in I mp 0.00E+00 -7.13E-10 1. 10E-06 -1.73E-04 1. 19E-01 74 800 OP 0.00E+00 -8.61E-10 1.37E-06 -2.12E-04 1.44E-01 74 800 146-in Seg,

24.

8 in Imp 0.00E+00 -6.99E-10 1.10E-06 -1.79E-04 1.16E-01 74 800 OP 0.00E+00 -1.06E-09 1. 62E-06 -2.91E-04 1. 40E-01 74 800 25

T able 5 – TNT Yield Equations for Solid Propellant Geometries with Variable Lengths, Side-on Impact in Sand12 Element Type, Length Curve a Coefficients b c d e Limits (ft/sec) Min Max 41-in Seg, 66 in I mp 0.00E+00 1.80E-10 -2.31E-07 1.

12E-04 1.84E-02 60 800 OP 0.00E+00 1.26E-10 -1.51E-07 8.

91E-05 1.66E-02 60 800 41-in Seg, 197 in I mp 0.00E+00 9.64E-11 -1.18E-07 7.

32E-05 3.69E-02 67 800 OP 0.00E+00 1.38E-10 -1.64E-07 9.

66E-05 3.51E-02 67 800 41-in Seg, 262 in I mp 0.00E+00 5.83E-11 -7.41E-08 6.

12E-05 4.15E-02 51 800 OP 0.00E+00 5.31E-11 -6.19E-08 6.

57E-05 4.22E-02 51 800 41-in Seg, 327 in I mp 0.00E+00 1.02E-10 -1.32E-07 8.

19E-05 4.19E-02 66 800 OP 0.00E+00 1.20E-10 -1.53E-07 1.

01E-04 4.18E-02 66 800 60-in Seg, 114 in I mp 0.00E+00 2.47E-11 -1.57E-08 4.

77E-05 4.04E-02 67 800 OP 0.00E+00 5.77E-11 -5.30E-08 7.

22E-05 3.87E-02 67 800 60-in Seg, 270 in I mp 0.00E+00 3.05E-11 -1.25E-08 4.

91E-05 5.48E-02 20 800 OP 0.00E+00 3.20E-11 -2.25E-09 5.

92E-05 5.79E-02 20 800 60-in Seg, 347 in I mp 0.00E+00 -1.76E-11 4.

94E-08 3.07E-05 6.04E-02 90 800 OP 0.00E+00 -3.11E-11 8.

10E-08 3.26E-05 6.57E-02 90 800 60-in Seg, 425 in I mp 0.00E+00 5.68E-11 -3.84E-08 5.

54E-05 6.17E-02 17 800 OP 0.00E+00 2.60E-11 1.49E-08 5.12E-05 6.75E-02 17 800 92-in Seg, 98 in I mp 0.00E+00 4.78E-10 -4.82E-07 1.

57E-04 4.40E-02 77 800 OP 0.00E+00 6.46E-10 -6.58E-07 2.

15E-04 4.24E-02 77 800 92-in Seg, 147 in I mp 0.00E+00 1.16E-10 -4.83E-08 6.

06E-05 5.82E-02 80 800 OP 0.00E+00 1.49E-10 -5.93E-08 6.

10E-05 6.50E-02 75 800 92-in Seg, 196 in I mp 0.00E+00 2.03E-10 -7.54E-08 7.

49E-05 7.14E-02 75 800 11 Devoid, W. and C. Wass, “Final PIRAT Yield Model for Impacting Solid Propellant, Revision 2”, Report No.

CSR3-00300-R2, A-P-T Research, Inc. Cocoa Beach, FL, 16 September 2011.

12 Devoid, W. and C. Wass, “Final PIRAT Yield Model for Impacting Solid Propellant, Revision 2”, Report No.

CSR3-00300-R2, A-P-T Research, Inc. Cocoa Beach, FL, 16 September 2011.