[Federal Register: February 26, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9007-9014]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26fe04-124]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Finding of No Significant Impact.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the East Kern Airport
District (EKAD) proposal to operate a commercial launch facility at the
Mojave Airport in Mojave, California. The EA also evaluated the
potential environmental impacts of launches of two types of
horizontally launched suborbital vehicles (Concept A and Concept B)
proposed to be launched from the Mojave Airport. The EKAD owns and
operates the Mojave Airport and must comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to operate a launch facility at the
Mojave Airport. The EKAD was responsible for complying with the
responsibilities of CEQA. In addition to the launch site operator
license application from EKAD, Scaled Composites, LLC, is requesting a
launch specific license and proposes to conduct up to six licensed
launches in 2004 of the SpaceShipOne launch vehicle. This launch
vehicle is similar to the Concept A vehicle described and analyzed in
the EA. After reviewing and analyzing currently available data and
information on existing conditions, project impacts, and measures to
mitigate those impacts, the FAA, Office of the Associate Administrator
for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) has determined that licensing
the operation of the proposed launch site and issuing a launch specific
license for up to six launches of the SpaceShipOne launch vehicle would
not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within
the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not
required and AST is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable
environmental laws.
For a Copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding EKAD
Launch Operations and Scaled Composites Launch Specific License
Contact: Ms. Michon Washington, FAA Environmental Specialist, Mojave
Airport EA, c/o ICF Consulting, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031 or
refer
[[Page 9008]]
to the following Internet address: http://ast.faa.gov.
DATES: The Draft EA was released for public comment on October 31,
2003. In addition, the FAA held a public hearing on December 10, 2003
in Mojave, California to collect comments from the public. All comments
received before December 12, 2003 were considered in the preparation of
the Final EA.
Proposed Actions: Operation of a non-Federal launch site in the
United States, such as EKAD's proposed operation of a launch site at
the Mojave Airport, in Mojave, California, and launches of launch
vehicles, such as Scaled Composites' proposed launches of the
SpaceShipOne vehicle from the Mojave Airport must be licensed by the
FAA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 70101-70119, formerly the Commercial
Space Launch Act. Licensing the operation of a launch site and a launch
vehicle are Federal actions requiring environmental analyses by the FAA
in accordance with NEPA, 1969, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq. Upon receipt
of complete license applications, AST must determine whether to issue a
license to EKAD to operate a launch site at the Mojave Airport and
whether to issue a launch specific license to Scaled Composites for up
to six launches of the SpaceShipOne launch vehicle from the Mojave
Airport. An environmental determination is required for the evaluation
of license applications.
The launch site would be located at the Mojave Airport. No
construction activities are proposed as part of this action. Existing
infrastructure including hangars and runways would be used to support
launch and landing operations at the proposed launch site. Existing
rocket test stands may also be used for static testing of rocket
engines.
The proposed EKAD launch site operator license would be for the
purpose of operating a facility to launch horizontally launched,
suborbital rockets. Under the proposed action, the FAA would issue a
launch site operator license to the EKAD for the Mojave Airport for the
purpose of operating a facility to launch horizontally launched,
suborbital rockets. In addition, the EKAD may offer other services for
commercial launch vehicle manufacturing, and other testing and
manufacturing activities. These services and other testing and
manufacturing activities are unrelated to, and are not authorized by
the Launch Site Operator License. Launch providers would be responsible
for obtaining launch licenses from the FAA to conduct launches at the
Mojave Airport. The FAA may use the analyses in the Final EA as the
basis for environmental determinations of the impacts of these launches
to support licensing decisions for the launch of specific launch
vehicles from the Mojave Airport.
Proposed launch operations currently include launches of two types
of launch vehicles. The first type referred to in the EA as Concept A
includes air-drop designs where two vehicles, an airplane and launch
vehicle are mated together and the airplane carries the launch vehicle
to a predetermined altitude where the launch vehicle is dropped and its
rocket engines ignite. The SpaceShipOne vehicle is similar to the
Concept A vehicle described and analyzed in the EA. The second type of
launch vehicle, referred to in the EA as Concept B, includes
horizontally launched vehicles, which use rocket power to take off from
a standard aviation runway. The EA addresses the overall impacts to the
environment of the proposed operations anticipated for a five-year
launch site license term to include the launch and landing of Concept A
and B launch vehicles at the Mojave Airport and testing rocket engines
that would be incorporated into Concept A and B launch vehicles.
The FAA and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) are involved in the proposed
action. The FAA is the lead Federal agency for the NEPA process and is
responsible for licensing and regulating EKAD's launch operations under
49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX-Commercial Space Transportation, ch. 701,
Commercial Space Launch Activities. The Air Force Flight Test Center
(AFFTC) is the host organization at Edwards Air Force Base, which is
located 48 kilometers (30 miles) east of the Mojave Airport. The AFFTC
manages the special use airspace designated as Restricted Area R-2515
(contained within the R-2508 Complex), which would be the primary
operating area for the vehicles launched from the Mojave Airport.
Commercial and private agencies that operate aircraft in the R-2508
Complex maintain appropriate Letters of Agreement (LOA) with both the
R-2508 Complex Control Board and the AFFTC for operation in their
respective areas. In addition, USAF aircraft may use Mojave Airport for
some missions. The AFFTC also operates the airfield, which would serve
as the primary emergency landing site for the launch vehicles. These
entities also have a responsibility for the environment and assets on
the ground, which have the potential to be affected by launches.
Therefore, the FAA requested and the USAF agreed to participate as a
cooperating agency in the preparation of NEPA analysis for this
proposed action. The EKAD is the lead agency for CEQA. On December 16,
2003 the EKAD adopted a Negative Declaration for the proposed action
pursuant to the CEQA.
Alternatives Considered: Alternatives analyzed in the EA included
(1) the proposed action, issuing a launch site operator license to the
EKAD for the operation of a launch site at Mojave Airport for Concept A
and Concept B launch vehicles, (2) issuing a launch site operator
license to the EKAD for the Mojave Airport for Concept A launch
vehicles only, (3) issuing a launch site operator license to EKAD for
the Mojave Airport for Concept B launch vehicles only, and (4) the no
action alternative.
Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch
site operator license to EKAD for launches of Concept A and Concept B
launch vehicles from the Mojave Airport. No launches of Concept A or
Concept B launch vehicles would take place from the Mojave Airport. The
Airport would continue to operate as a general aviation airport and
predicted environmental impacts from the proposed action would not
occur.
Environmental Impacts
Safety and Health
A hazard analysis is a necessary part of the Mission and Safety
Review for the FAA licensing determination to assess the possible
hazards associated with proposed ground, flight, and landing
operations. Launches of Concept A and B vehicles (including
SpaceShipOne) from the Mojave Airport would require launch specific
licenses from the FAA and each launch applicant (including Scaled
Composites) would be required to conduct risk analyses based on the
proposed mission profiles. The Mission and Safety Review will consider
these analyses, and, therefore, they were not discussed in detail in
this EA. However, analysis of the safety and health implications of
launch related operations and activities that have the potential for
environmental impact were considered in this EA.
Ground operations involved in servicing and preparing launch
vehicles typically involve industrial activities, which were evaluated
for potential impact on the environment. There are various hazards
associated with these activities including
[sbull] Spill/fire/explosion of propellant/fuel storage, transport,
handling, and loading;
[sbull] Traffic accidents due to increased activity on and off
site; and
[sbull] Occupational mechanical accidents.
There would be some vapors of various propellants released from
[[Page 9009]]
propellant storage/transfer operations through evaporative losses.
However, such vapors would be vented outside and at a height that would
provide adequate protection for personnel, buildings and the
environment. Also, the total quantity of emissions would not occur as a
large acute (short-term) exposure, but would occur as a slow vapor
release over a long period of time. There is also the concern of spills
of propellants during handling and loading operations and subsequent
fire or explosion. However, the Mojave Airport has established
practices and procedures to handle the spills and releases of
propellants.
Increased road traffic that would result from conducting the
proposed launch operations at the Mojave Airport would only add a few
cars/trucks above existing traffic loads. However, the increase in the
number of shipments of hazardous materials should not significantly
increase the number of traffic accidents on the roadways around the
Mojave Airport.
On-site work associated with the conduct of launch operations would
be similar to that associated with industrial chemical operations.
Exposure to mechanical accidents should not differ significantly from
current levels for the Mojave Airport because the number of operations
associated with the conduct of launch operations would be relatively
small given the number of operations airport wide.
In a catastrophic accident, it would be likely that the crew would
be seriously injured or killed. At the Airport, the on-site fire
department would respond and secure the site, but would stay clear of
the immediate area until the danger of explosions diminishes. It is
expected that any fires resulting from a failure could be fought by the
fire department. Additional off-site emergency response capability
could also be used if necessary.
Air Quality
Air emissions may be generated during launch/landing operations,
pre- and post-launch ground operations, and accidents. The proposed
action does not include any changes to the physical structure of the
airport (e.g., runway) or any construction activities; therefore there
are no construction vehicles or associated emissions and no
construction-related dust or airborne particles. The air quality at the
Mojave Airport in Eastern Kern County is in Federal non-attainment
(serious) and State non-attainment (moderate) for ozone, and non-
attainment for PM10 (California standards only). A Federal
agency cannot support an action (e.g., fund, license) unless the
activity will conform to the Environmental Protection Agency-approved
State Implementation Plan for the region. This is called a conformity
determination or analysis. A conformity analysis may involve performing
air quality modeling and implementing measures to mitigate the air
quality impacts. The Federal government is exempt from the requirement
to perform a conformity analysis if two conditions are met.
[sbull] The ongoing activities do not produce emissions above the
de minimis levels specified in the rule.
[sbull] The Federal action must not be considered a regionally
significant action. A Federal action is considered regionally
significant when the total emissions from the action equal or exceed 10
percent of the air quality control area's emissions inventory for any
criteria pollutant.
Air analyses indicated that nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are 0.01 metric tons (0.01
tons) per year and 2.2 metric tons (2.4 tons) per year, respectively.
These would not be above the de minimis level of 45.4 metric tons (50
tons) per year. In addition, the total emissions from the proposed
action represent 0.0001 percent of the area's emissions inventory for
NOX and 0.05 percent of the area's emissions inventory for
VOC, and therefore, are not regionally significant. Based on these
data, there is no need for a Federal conformity analysis and no
significant impacts to air quality are anticipated.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
NOX and VOC for areas in severe non-attainment is 25 tons
per year. Therefore, for emissions resulting from the proposed action,
there would be no exceedances of the NAAQS from the proposed action and
an NAAQS assessment would not be required to evaluate the potential for
significant air quality impacts under NEPA.
For Concept A vehicles (including SpaceShipOne), the EA addressed
the impacts to air quality from both the carrier aircraft and the mated
suborbital launch vehicle. The aircraft would have turbojet engines
using Jet A-1 fuel. The Concept A launch vehicle would use a hybrid
rocket engine with nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydroxyl-
terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) as propellants. There would be
emissions from both the carrier aircraft and the launch vehicle
components. To make emissions calculations for the carrier aircraft, it
is assumed the aircraft would most closely resemble the T-38 Tiger
aircraft which uses two J85-GE-5F engines. To estimate aircraft
emissions, emission factors (e.g., pounds released per takeoff/landing
cycle) found in the EPA document Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors for the T-38 aircraft were used. The takeoff/landing cycle
includes idle, takeoff, climb out to 914 meters (3,000 feet), descent
starting at 914 meters (3,000 feet), approach, and landing.
The analysis considered emissions in two categories, above 914
meters (3,000 feet) and below 914 meters (3,000 feet). The 914 meter
(3,000 feet) altitude is an appropriate cutoff because the Federal
government uses 914 meters (3,000 feet) and below for contributions of
emissions to the ambient air quality and for de minimis calculations.
Annual emissions from the carrier aircraft for a maximum of six flights
would be 225.1 kilograms (496.3 pounds) of CO, 3.3 kilograms (7.3
pounds) of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 28.3 kilograms (62.5
pounds) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 1.7 kilograms (3.7
pounds) of sulfur dioxide (SOX). Because NOX and
VOC emissions from the carrier aircraft are not above the de minimis
level of 45.4 metric tons (50 tons) per year, there is no need for a
Federal conformity analysis.
Emissions from the launch vehicle would occur from the combustion
of N2O and HTPB. For each flight, there would be an
estimated 1,295 kilograms (2,855 pounds) of N2O and 228
kilograms (503 pounds) of HTPB. The emissions would begin at an
altitude of between 16 to 20 kilometers (10 to 12 miles) (troposphere
and beginning of stratosphere). The emissions are based on propellant
emission factors similar to those used in the Navy FA-18E/F EA. These
emission factors are refined because the launch vehicle proposes to use
N2O and HTPB rather than perchlorate and HTPB as in the Navy
EA. Thus, it was assumed that
[sbull] N2O fully decomposes to oxygen and nitrogen,
[sbull] The oxygen fully reacts with the hydrogen in the HTPB to
form water,
[sbull] The oxygen reacts with the carbon in HTPB to produce
roughly ten times as much carbon monoxide (CO) as carbon dioxide
(CO2) (similar to FA-18E/F EA), and
[sbull] The nitrogen is released as nitrogen gas (N2).
To estimate the total emissions, the emissions fractions were
multiplied by the total amount of propellant used (1,523 kilograms
[3,358 pounds]) and the number of flights expected per year. In a year
with a maximum of six flights the emissions would be 274 kilograms (604
pounds) of CO2, 1,828 kilograms (4,030 pounds) of CO, 2,011
kilograms
[[Page 9010]]
(4,433 pounds) of water, and 4,935 kilograms (10,880 pounds) of
N2. The propellant is fully expended above 914 meters (3,000
feet); therefore, there are no propellant combustion emissions for the
proposed vehicle during landing.
There are also emissions from the carrier aircraft above 914
meters. Although these emissions were considered, it was generally
assumed that aircraft emissions from the six proposed flights per year
would be relatively small compared to a total of 18,301 aircraft
flights occurring annually from the Mojave Airport.
Emissions can also occur from support equipment used during ground
operations. This could include various trucks and equipment, although
there would be relatively few used and therefore few emissions would be
expected to result from their use. There would also be air emissions
from fueling the carrier aircraft and storage of additional fuels. Each
flight of the carrier aircraft would consume 2,903 kilograms (6,400
pounds) of Jet-A fuel. This would equal 21,804 liters (5,760 gallons)
per year based on 1.25 liters per kilogram (0.15 gallons per pound) and
six flights per year. Fuel use at the Mojave Airport during the 12-
month period from July 2002 to June 2003 was 7,933,837 liters
(2,095,898 gallons). An additional 21,804 liters (5,760 gallons) of
fuel per year represents a small increase in annual Jet-A usage at the
airport and, therefore, the emissions from storage and dispensing as a
result of activities related to proposed launch operations would not be
significant.
Because the emissions from the launch vehicle would originate far
above the applicable altitude (914 meters [3,000 feet]) for the Federal
or California ambient air quality standards, these emissions are not
evaluated using these air ambient quality standards. Under Federal law,
it would be necessary to conduct a conformity analysis for criteria
pollutants that do not meet Federal attainment standards. Eastern Kern
County is in serious non-attainment for ozone under Federal attainment
standards. Therefore, if annual emissions of ozone precursors (VOC or
NOX) were above certain de minimis levels, it would be
necessary to conduct a conformity analysis. Emissions analysis showed
that NOX and VOC emissions would not exceed de minimis
levels of 45.4 metric tons (50 tons) per year. Based on emissions
originating below 914 meters (3,000 feet) there is no need for a
Federal conformity analysis. None of the emissions are expected to
expose the nearby population or sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. Also, the emission products should not expose
the population to objectionable odors of types that do not already
exist from airport operations (e.g., fuel and exhaust odors).
Airspace
No significant impacts to Mojave Airport airspace would occur as a
result of the proposed action. Conducting a maximum of six launches of
the SpaceShipOne vehicle over a 12-month period would have no
significant impacts on airspace. Conducting six launches per year would
result in a 0.03 percent increase in activity at the Mojave Airport.
Increased operations including all Concept A and B launches (up to 56
flights per year by 2008) for the proposed activity would represent an
increase of 0.3 percent over the current annual flight rate at the
Airport. This increase would not exceed the capabilities of the Mojave
Airport facilities and control tower and would not result in a
significantly higher probability of in-flight mishaps. No significant
impacts to off-site airspace would occur as a result of the proposed
action. The proposed action would occur almost exclusively in the R-
2508 Complex. The Mojave Airport and several of its tenants have LOAs
with the R-2508 Complex Control Board and the managers of individual
restricted areas within the R-2508 Complex to operate within the
various individual restricted areas (including R-2515). Any flights
into the R-2508 Complex that are part of the proposed action that would
create a significant impact to military activities would be prohibited
by the scheduling and controlling agencies. Thus, the proposed action
would not result in long-term changes to military operations or
training within restricted airspace.
Biological Resources
Vegetation
The proposed action would use a designated runway at Mojave Airport
for launches and landings of Concept A and B launch vehicles. The
runways are routinely used for take-offs and landings by other
aircraft, and no construction activities would be required to support
launch operations. Because no development activities are planned,
adverse effects to vegetation, including Joshua trees and creosote
scrub, would not be anticipated.
In the unlikely event of an emergency landing, the pilot would
attempt to reach the primary abort site at the main runway at Edwards
Air Force Base. However, any airport within gliding range with a runway
of at least 1,219 meters (4,000 feet) would be a candidate for an
emergency landing location. Although the designated abort sites include
areas where sensitive habitat and species may be present, it is
unlikely that an emergency landing would occur at these sites, and
therefore significant impacts to vegetation found at these sites would
not be anticipated.
Wildlife
The proposed action would use a designated runway at Mojave Airport
for launches and landings of Concept A and B launch vehicles. The
runways are routinely used for take-offs and landings of other
aircraft, and no construction activities would be required to support
launch operations. As a result, no loss of habitat would be
anticipated.
Because no construction activities are planned, no significant
adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species would be anticipated. The desert tortoise which is a U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service federally-listed, threatened wildlife species, has
historically occurred throughout the region of influence and has
limited potential to occur almost anywhere within the Mojave Specific
Plan area. Critical habitat for the desert tortoise has been designated
in the region of influence and the FAA initiated informal consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. After review of potential impacts, the FAA
determined and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife concurred, that the proposed
action, including the launch of Concept A vehicles (such as
SpaceShipOne) or Concept B vehicles is not likely to adversely affect
federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat.
As a protective measure for desert tortoise that may be within the
Mojave Airport fence, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that
the FAA survey the runway prior to take-off and landing of suborbital
vehicles. If a desert tortoise were discovered at the airport,
personnel would follow appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Game protocols.
The breakup of the launch vehicles during a crash and subsequent
recovery activities could directly impact biological resources in the
Region of Influence through ground disturbance. Also, if falling debris
hit specific species on the ground, those resources would likely be
destroyed. However, because it is unlikely that a crash would occur,
impacts to biological resources as a
[[Page 9011]]
result of vehicle crash would not be anticipated.
Noise impacts generated by launch vehicles at the Mojave Airport,
including sonic booms, could elicit a short-term startle response in
wildlife but no long-term adverse impacts would be expected. In
general, noise levels would be significantly less than those produced
by existing aircraft vehicles in the region, and launches would occur
infrequently over the course of a year. Therefore, these short-term
noise impacts would be less than significant.
Cultural Resources
No airport modifications or construction activities are currently
planned to support the proposed action. Concept A and B vehicles
(including SpaceShipOne) would use a designated runway at the Mojave
Airport for launches and landings. The runways are routinely used for
takeoffs and landings of other aircraft and no construction activities
would be required. Potential impacts to cultural resources would be
associated generally with the noise produced during flights and could
include physical damage to buildings, structures or rock features
through accident or vibration, visual or audible impacts to the setting
of cultural resources, and disturbance of traditional activities, such
as religious ceremonies or subsistence hunting. Impacts to cultural
resources from airspace use would most likely be related to alterations
in setting from visual or aural disturbance, and the extremely remote
possibility of debris falling. The probability of damage to National
Historic Register listed or eligible sites is small. No construction
activities would occur as part of the proposed action, and no adverse
effects on National Register sites would be anticipated. The FAA
consulted with the California State Historic Preservation Officer to
initiate informal consultation under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. The FAA determined that the proposed project
would have no adverse effect on cultural resources. The California
State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the FAA's
determination and consultation under Section 106 was concluded.
Geology and Soils
The breakup of the launch vehicles during a crash and subsequent
recovery activities could directly impact geology. The force associated
with falling debris might create craters. The specific impact to
geology would depend on the force at which the debris impacts the
ground. However, because the probability of a crash is extremely low,
it is unlikely that debris or residual propellant would significantly
impact geology.
The proposed action would have less than significant or no impact
on soils. In terms of ground clouds from the combustion of propellants,
Concept A vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) would have no impacts
because the only emission source at the ground level would be from the
carrier aircraft. However, Concept B vehicles use liquid propellants,
which would create a ground cloud consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen, and water. The ground cloud would disperse as the
vehicle moves along the runway. Additionally, Concept B launch vehicles
would use a liquid propellant, which creates a ground cloud with fewer
impacts to soils than caused by the burning of solid rocket
propellants.
The breakup of Concept A or B vehicles (including SpaceShipOne)
during a crash and subsequent recovery activities could directly impact
soils. Residual propellant in the damaged or destroyed launch vehicle
could be absorbed by the soils affecting soil quality in the impact
area. Because the probability of a crash is extremely low, and cleanup
of reportable quantities is required under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, it is not
expected that debris or residual propellant would significantly impact
soils.
Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management
For both Concept A and B vehicles (including SpaceshipOne), the
primary hazardous materials used would be propellants. Propellants used
for Concept A launch vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) are relatively
inert and they would be stored at the Airport. For Concept B, the
kerosene and/or alcohol would have similar hazardous characteristics to
the jet fuel currently used at Mojave Airport. All fuels and other
hazardous materials would be stored and used in compliance with the
regulations applicable to their storage and use, and already in place
at Mojave Airport. No adverse impacts would be anticipated from these
additional hazardous materials or subsequent hazardous waste disposal.
The SpaceShipOne vehicle would be fueled by a hybrid rocket motor
using liquid N2O and solid HTPB. Jet-A fuel would be used to
fuel the carrier aircraft from takeoff on the ground until reaching
15,240 meters (50,000 feet) where the rocket motor would be ignited.
To compress gaseous N2O to liquid form, a combination of
elevated pressure and reduced temperature is needed. Specially designed
storage tanks would be used for storing N2O. Scaled
Composites would use a Mobile Nitrous Oxide Delivery System (MONODS).
MONODS was designed and built as a portable N2O storage
unit that could be used to fill the launch vehicle. MONODS includes a
6,435-liter (1,700-gallon) tank, generator and heating/cooling unit.
The storage vessel is constructed of materials that meet the American
Society of Testing and Materials specification SA-240-304 for stainless
steel. It meets the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code and
is registered with the National Board of Pressure Vessels.
HTPB is a solid propellant that is manufactured and placed in a
Case, Throat and Nozzle (CTN) motor offsite. The CTN would therefore
arrive at the Mojave Airport fully fueled. The solid propellant is
stable and non-reactive until ignited. Overall, there would be no
significant Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management impacts
anticipated from the launch of SpaceShipOne launch vehicles from the
Mojave Airport.
Land Use
No significant impacts to land use would occur as a result of the
proposed action. The Mojave Airport is a highly developed, urbanized,
non-sensitive area, and habitat and nature conservation plans are not
applicable to the airport. The proposed action would be to conduct
horizontal launches and landings on established runways of vehicles
similar in size, power, and noise level to aircraft already using the
airport. Therefore, no significant change would occur in airport
activities. The proposed action does not include any construction,
additions, or modifications to the airport facilities that would
physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed
action would not result in a conflict with an applicable land use,
habitat conservation, or natural community conservation plan.
No significant impacts to land use in the off-site Region of
Influence would occur as a result of the proposed action. The Concept A
and B launch vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) would use Runway 12-30,
which serves large airline carrier jet aircraft and high performance
military and non-military jet aircraft. This runway has a northwest-
southeast orientation that routes aircraft over commercial, industrial,
and resource management land uses and away from sensitive land uses in
the Mojave community such as
[[Page 9012]]
residential areas and school areas. Because the proposed vehicles are
similar in size, power, and noise level to the aircraft currently using
the airport, any impacts on land uses in the Mojave community due to
the proposed action would be equal to or less than the impacts of the
existing activities. Noise impacts on sensitive land uses are discussed
in the Noise analysis. The proposed action would not include any off-
site construction or modification of existing buildings or facilities,
and therefore would not physically divide any established communities.
No conflicts with any applicable land use plans or habitat or nature
conservation plans for the Mojave community would occur as a result of
the proposed action.
Noise
Approximately 1,226 jet aircraft takeoff and land at the Mojave
Airport annually. The jet engines of the Concept A carrier vehicle are
similar in size and power to jet aircraft that operate at the Mojave
Airport. Noise levels at the airport from the Concept A carrier vehicle
would be less than or equal to noise levels produced by afterburning
jet aircraft currently using the Mojave Airport. The launch vehicles
would land unpowered, therefore noise levels for landing would be
insignificant and were not considered further in the noise analysis.
Because the Mojave Airport currently experiences high intensity noise
levels of 90 dB due to military jet flights and stationary rocket
testing, and because the additional high intensity noise level would be
insignificant, impacts to noise levels during launches at the Mojave
Airport would be insignificant.
The Mojave community currently experiences high noise levels from
military jet takeoffs and landings and stationary rocket tests.
Sensitive receptors in the Mojave community such as schools and
residential areas already experience high intensity noise levels above
90 dBA. An additional 4.4 minutes per week of high intensity noise
levels would not cause significant impacts to sensitive receptors and
would not elevate the average noise level above the acceptable levels
of 65 CNEL or 65 Ldn. (Kern County, 2003c)
The predicted overpressure for sonic booms produced by Concept A
and B vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) flying at approximately 21,341
to 24,390 meters (70,000 to 80,000 feet) above mean sea level would be
approximately 5.86 kilograms per square meter (1.2 pounds per square
foot). Launches from the Mojave Airport would only occur during daytime
hours. As a previous DoD study has shown, the noise effects of 10
daytime sonic booms at an overpressure of 4.88 kilograms per square
meter (1 pound per square foot) everyday for a year would yield an
outdoor accumulated noise level equal to an Ldn of 65 dBA.
This result aids in defining the maximum daily allowance for the number
of daytime sonic boom events (10 events per day) to reach the
Ldn 65 dBA noise standard limit. This assumes the estimated
sonic boom overpressure is within the same order of magnitude, 4.88
kilograms per square meters (1 pound per square foot), as those to be
generated by the proposed Concept A and B vehicles.
The Ldn of 65 dBA is the accepted outdoor noise level
related to transportation that has been adopted by the State of
California and Kern County. In addition, a Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) noise standard of 65 dB, applied for sensitive land uses
such as residential and school areas, is also a required noise standard
by the local authorities. Note the Ldn is similar to CNEL.
Both measures are the average noise level over a 24-hour period, yet
each applies a separate variation on penalties for nighttime noise
levels. Ldn adds a 10 dB penalty for noises occurring
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning. CNEL adds a 5 dB
penalty to noises occurring between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., and adds a 10
dB penalty to noises occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following
morning. (Kern County, 2003d)
However, the current proposed action would occur only during
daytime hours. With no nighttime decibel penalties applicable, the
Ldn and the CNEL would be equivalent measurements. As a
result, an Ldn of 65 dBA for 10 daytime sonic booms per day
for a year would be equivalent to a CNEL of 65 dBA for the proposed
conditions.
Under the proposed action, it is expected the maximum overpressures
would be on the order of 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1 pound per
square foot), yet operations would occur at a lower frequency number of
events (but only 1.1 sonic booms per week). Therefore, the sonic boom
noise impact of the proposed action is estimated to be below the
accepted Ldn and CNEL 65 dBA noise limits given the
approximate factor of sixty-four times fewer expected number of sonic
boom events estimated. At present, the Mojave Airport currently
experiences sonic boom noise exposure from supersonic military jets and
supersonic Space Shuttle testing at Edwards AFB.
The additional noise level associated with the launches of Concept
A and B vehicles would be an insignificant increase to the community.
The noise levels in the Mojave community associated with sonic booms
would be less than 65 dBA Ldn and less than 65 dBA CNEL. The
entire Mojave community including sensitive receptors currently
experiences sonic boom noise exposure from air- and spacecraft landing
at Edwards AFB. The proposed action would not constitute a significant
increase in noise level to the community.
Annoyance created by sonic booms is a function of boom intensity,
number of booms per time period, attitude of the population, and the
activity in which people were engaged in at the time of the boom. There
is no precise relationship between the parameters. A noise study found
that 10 percent of subjects exposed to 10 to 15 booms per day were
annoyed at an overpressure of one pound per square foot and that this
reached nearly 100 percent at three pounds per square foot. However,
people may be more sensitive when exposed to numerous booms per day,
while prior experience with sonic booms (such as people who live on an
Air Force Base) seems to lower sensitivity. Other studies indicate that
there is a wide range in estimating percent annoyed ranging from 10
percent to 70 percent at one pound per square foot and 55 percent to
approximately 100 percent at three pounds per square foot.
Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice
Since no new development would be required to support the proposed
action, and only existing personnel would be used to conduct launch
activities, the proposed action would not induce substantial population
growth in the community of Mojave. The proposed action would not be
expected to displace people or decrease the population in the community
of Mojave and therefore no impacts to population would be expected from
the proposed action.
The proposed action would not require new construction or create
new employment positions at the Mojave Airport. The proposed action
would not result in any jobs being eliminated at the Mojave Airport and
therefore no impacts to employment are expected from the proposed
action. Any increase in the number of people accessing Mojave as a
result of the proposed action would be limited to launch participants
and launch spectators. These visitors would most likely spend only one
day in Mojave to watch or participate in launches. It was assumed that
each launch of Concept A and B launch vehicles would add three
[[Page 9013]]
passenger vehicles to the area and each vehicle would contain one to
two people. The maximum number of flights for Concept A would be six
launches per year, which would add 18 passenger vehicles to the area
per year. The maximum number of flights for Concept B would be 50
flights a year, which would add 150 passenger vehicles to the area per
year. Existing roads could easily handle this level of passenger
traffic and therefore additional transportation infrastructure would
not be required. In addition, because these visitors would only be
spending a short amount of time in Mojave, they are not expected to
significantly impact the local service industry. Therefore, there would
be no significant socioeconomic impact to the community of Mojave from
the proposed action.
Since no construction activities would be required to issue a
launch site operator license to EKAD for the Mojave Airport and only
existing personnel would be used to conduct launch activities, the
proposed action would not have an impact on the health or environment
of minority or low-income populations located at or near the airport.
Noise levels from the proposed launch vehicles would be significantly
less than those experienced from existing vehicles in the region, would
occur infrequently over the course of a year, and already occur as part
of existing activities in the region. Therefore, no impacts to
environmental justice communities are expected from the proposed
action.
Transportation
Under the proposed action no additional employees would be hired by
the Mojave Airport or potential launch participants at the airport. Any
increase in the number of automobiles accessing Mojave Airport would be
limited to launch participants and launch spectators. Existing access
roads could easily handle an increase in passenger traffic without a
change in level of service designation of a significant change in the
volume to capacity ratio. The proposed action would not result in
inadequate emergency access or parking capacity at the Mojave Airport
or within the Mojave community. The proposed action would not conflict
with adopted plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
Under the proposed action, additional propellants would be
delivered to the Mojave Airport to support the flights of the proposed
launch vehicles.
Propellants to be delivered for the SpaceShipOne vehicle would
include N2O and HTPB for the launch vehicle and Jet-A fuel
for the carrier vehicle. Approximately 1,295 kilograms (2,855 pounds)
of N2O are required per launch. Each delivery truck would
transport 11,340 kilograms (25,000 pounds) of N2O to the
Mojave Airport. Under the proposed flight schedule, the maximum number
of launches would be six per year; therefore, one delivery truck per
year would supply the required N2O. Approximately 2,903
kilograms (6,400 pounds) of Jet-A fuel are required per launch. Each
delivery truck would transport 28,122 kilograms (62,000 pounds) of Jet-
A fuel to the Mojave Airport; therefore one truck a year would be
needed to supply the required Jet-A fuel. One truck per flight would be
needed to bring the motor containing the solid propellant, HTPB, to the
Mojave Airport; therefore six trucks per year would be needed to
deliver the required HTPB. A maximum of eight delivery trucks would be
required to supply propellants for the SpaceShipOne launch vehicles per
year. The Mojave Airport estimates that there are currently 264
propellant truck deliveries annually. The Mojave Airport is located at
the crossroads of major north-south and east-west roadways. The small
number of additional passenger vehicles and delivery trucks anticipated
as part of the proposed action would not increase traffic congestion or
cause a decline in the level of service.
Visual Resources
The design of the proposed launch vehicles would resemble
traditional airplanes in flight, and the visual landscape already
includes aircraft in flight. The proposed action would not create a new
source of substantial light or glare to adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area, so the visual dominance would be ``Not
Noticeable.'' Both proposed launch vehicle concepts would leave visual
contrails, but they would be similar in visual impact to contrails from
existing operations. Because this area is already used for aircraft
takeoffs and landings, the visual sensitivity is low. The proposed
action would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings and would have no adverse
effect on a scenic vista or scenic resources, as there are none in the
area.
Water Resources
Because no construction or expansion to the existing facilities
would occur, the proposed action would not cause impacts to existing
drainage patterns that would result in increased erosion, siltation, or
on-site or off-site flooding. The proposed action would not involve the
generation of additional storm water or of additional sources of
pollutants that could be washed away during storm events. The existing
storm water system and permit would be adequate for the proposed
action. The proposed action would not make any changes to the amount of
impermeable surface area and would therefore have no impact on the
existing off-site storm water system. Therefore, the capacity of the
current storm water system would be adequate to accommodate the
proposed action. Because no construction or expansion to the existing
facilities would occur, the proposed action would not substantially
deplete ground water supplies either on-or off-site or interfere with
ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table. In the event of a
catastrophic accident unburned propellant could impact ground water.
However, the small size of the proposed vehicles and the low
probability of a catastrophic event would make the impacts
insignificant.
In the event of a catastrophic accident, debris and wreckage could
impact drainage patterns or storm water flows. But, the small size of
the proposed vehicles and the low probability of a catastrophic event
would make the impacts insignificant. Extensive emergency response and
clean-up procedures would further reduce the magnitude and duration of
any impacts.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed action would not exceed de minimis levels for criteria
pollutants and the percent of the air quality control area's emissions
inventory for any criteria pollutant. Total CO2 emissions
from all sources in the U.S. were 5,159 million metric tons (5,687
million tons) in 1994. The proposed action would account for an
increase of only a fraction (less than 0.000002%) of these
CO2 emissions. Consequently, the total expected
CO2 emissions from the proposed action would be
insignificant. There would be no emissions that directly affect ozone
depletion. No significant cumulative impacts to air quality are
expected.
Because of the volume of air traffic that uses this area already
and the structured scheduling procedures in place for joint-use of the
R-2508 Complex, the proposed action would have no significant
cumulative effects on airspace.
In the EA for the Orbital Reentry Corridor for Generic Unmanned
Lifting Entry Vehicle Landing at Edwards AFB, the USAF considered up to
12 flights per year. Currently an average of two
[[Page 9014]]
military jet aircraft take off and/or land at the Mojave Airport per
day. These military aircraft can produce sonic booms. Even in the worst
case scenario, i.e., one launch from the Mojave Airport, one launch of
the proposed Unmanned Lifting Entry Vehicle from Edwards AFB, and two
jet aircraft take offs or landings from the Mojave Airport, there would
not be more than 10 sonic booms generated per day in the Region of
Influence. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts
to noise from the proposed action.
No significant cumulative impacts to biological, cultural,
geologic, mineral, visual and aesthetic, or water resources would occur
as a result of the proposed action. No significant cumulative impacts
would result from hazardous materials or hazardous waste used or
produced as a result of the proposed action. No significant cumulative
impacts to land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice, or
transportation would occur as a result of the proposed action.
Detailed analyses of safety and related issues would be addressed
in the FAA's Mission and Safety Review prior to issuing a launch
license. However, safety and health analyses of operations that have
the potential for environmental impact were considered in the EA and
were determined to have no significant cumulative impacts on the
environment.
Although the proposed action would support and facilitate limited
growth, it would not induce growth. Additionally, there would be no
specific future development activities currently known that would be
dependent on the proposed action. Therefore no significant cumulative
secondary impacts are expected to result from the proposed action.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch
site operator license to the EKAD for the operation of a launch site at
the Mojave Airport or issue a launch license to Scaled Composites for
up to six launches of SpaceShipOne from the Mojave Airport. Scaled
Composites could continue to conduct aviation-related activities that
do not require a launch license.
The predicted environmental effects of the Proposed Action would
not occur. The existing on- and off-site conditions at the Mojave
Airport would remain unchanged.
Determination
An analysis of the proposed action has concluded that there are no
significant short-term or long-term effects to the environment or
surrounding populations. After careful and thorough consideration of
the facts herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed Federal
action is consistent with existing national environmental policies and
objectives set forth in Section 101(a) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and that it will not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment or otherwise include any condition
requiring consultation pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA.
Therefore, an EIS for the proposed action is not required.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 18, 2004.
Patricia Grace Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 04-4176 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P