Record of Decision, 27772-27776 [06-4475]
Download as PDF
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
27772
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 2006 / Notices
Bay Site—Runway 16–34, 8,400 Feet
(Sponsor’s Proposed Project). The FEIS
additionally analyses one alternative
that was identified during the comment
period on the DEIS. This alternative is
identified in the FEIS as the Existing
Site—Extend Runway 14–32, 6,800 Feet
Southeast EMAS Scenario 2.
The proposes airport relocation site
(West Bay Site) encompasses a total of
approximately 4,037 acres and would
accommodate both short- and long-term
aviation needs as described in the FEIS.
The Airport Sponsor proposes to
construct a primary runway of 8,400
feet, a crosswind runway of 5,000 feet,
and associated aviation support
facilities as part of an initial
development plan encompassing
approximately 1,378 acres. Under this
proposal, the existing airport facilities
would be decommissioned, and
facilities and operations at the existing
site would be relocated to the West Bay
site. The Airport Sponsor is also seeking
the other necessary FAA approvals to
implement the Proposed Action and
associated capital improvements and
procedures.
FAA will not make a decision on the
Proposed Act for a minimum 45 days
following publication of this Notice of
Availability of the FEIS in the Federal
Register. FAA will record the
appropriate decision or decisions in a
Record of Decision.
Copies of the FEIS are available for
public review at the following locations:
• Panama City-Bay County
International Airport Administration
Office, 3173 Airport Road, Panama City,
Florida 32405. (850) 763–6751.
• Bay County Public Library, 26 West
Government Street, Panama City,
Florida 32401. (850) 872–7500.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Panama City Regulatory Office, 1002
West 23rd Street, Suite 350, Panama
City, Florida 32405. (850) 763–0717.
• Federal Aviation Administration,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950
Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400,
Orlando, Florida 32822. (407) 812–6331.
The Panama City-Bay County
International Airport Administration
Office has a limited number of CDs of
the FEIS available for public
distribution. Please contact that office
for a copy. The FEIS may also be viewed
at the following Web site https://
www.pcairport.bechtel.com.
The FAA is seeking comments on
updated and/or refined information in
the following sections of the FEIS and
the associated appendices:
Volume I—Technical Documentation
Chapter 1—Section 1.7.2
Chapter 2—Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.6.3
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:54 May 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
Chapter 3—Sections 3.2.8, 3.6.4, 3.9.10,
3.10.5, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13
Chapter 4—Sections 4.6, 4.7.4, 4.10.7, 4.12.3,
and 4.21
Chapter 5—Sections 5.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.2, 5.4.1,
5.6, 5.7.2, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13,
5.14, 5.15, 5.18, 5.20, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, and
5.26
Chapter 6—Sections 6.3, .4, and 6.5
Chapters 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11
Volume II—Appendix
Appendices D, G, J, K, L, M, P, Q, R, S, T,
U, V, W, X
Volume III—Responses to Comments—
Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Volume IV—Responses to Comments—Public
Individuals
Volume V—Responses to Comments—Public
Organizations
The FEIS will be available for public
review for 45 days. Written comments
on the sections of the document
identified above should be submitted to
the address listed in For Further
Information or to Submit Comments
Contact. The comment period begins as
of the date of this Notice of Availability
and all comments must be received no
later than 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time
on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.
For Further Information or to Submit
Comments Contact: Virginia Lane,
Environmental Specialist, Federal
Aviation Administration, Orlando
Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando,
Florida 32822. Telephone (407) 812–
6331 Extension 129. Comments can only
be accepted with the full name and
address of the individual commenting.
Issued in Orlando, Florida on May 10,
2006.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 06–4411 Filed 5–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Record of Decision
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of
Commercial Space Transportation.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Record of Decision was
prepared based on the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) for Horizontal Launch
and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles. The
FAA prepared this Record of Decision
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended
(42 United States Code 4321, et seq.),
the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for Implementing the
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code
of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–
1508), and FAA Order 1050.1 E,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures. This Record of Decision
contains the statement of decision,
identifies the alternatives considered,
and discusses the factors on which the
decision was based.
The PEIS considered the potential
programmatic environmental effects of
licensing horizontal launches of launch
vehicles, reentries of reentry vehicles,1
as well as licensing the operation of
facilities that support these activities.
The PEIS considered three horizontal
launch vehicle concepts and reentry
vehicles with both powered and
unpowered landings.
As the designated authority for
regulating the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry and issuing
licenses for launches, reentries, and the
operation of launch sites, the FAA was
the lead agency preparing the PEIS. No
other agency was designated or
requested to act as a cooperating agency
for the development of the PEIS. After
considering the environmental impacts,
public comments, and programmatic
factors, the FAA has decided to
implement the preferred alternative.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on the PEIS or this
Record of Decision, please contact Ms.
Stacey Zee, FAA Environmental
Specialist at (202) 267–9305 or e-mail
Stacey.Zee@faa.gov. Downloadable
electronic versions of the Final PEIS and
Record of Decision are available on the
FAA PEIS Web site https://ast.faa.gov/
lrra/comp_coop.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
This Record of Decision provides final
FAA approval for a program to license
three horizontal launch vehicle
concepts, reentries of reentry vehicles
with both powered and unpowered
landings, and the operation of facilities
that support these activities. The FAA is
considering the impacts of licensing all
launch and reentry vehicle concepts
analyzed under the proposed action to
maintain the greatest flexibility for the
development and growth of the U.S.
commercial space industry. Licenses for
the operation of individual launch and
reentry vehicles or individual launch
sites would be considered on a case-bycase basis. Any additional site-specific
environmental documentation would be
1 Reentry vehicle means a vehicle designed to
return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth. In
the PEIS, reentry vehicles consisted of vehicles
launched into orbit via vertical and horizontal
launch vehicles.
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 2006 / Notices
developed as needed prior to FAA
approval of specific licensing activities.
The FAA has concluded that there are
no significant short-term or long-term
effects to the human environment
resulting from this licensing program.
The proposed Federal action is
consistent with the purpose of national
environmental policies and objectives as
set forth in NEPA and will not
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Chapter
701, Commercial Space Launch
Activities (formerly the Commercial
Space Launch Act), the Department of
Transportation, and through
delegations, the FAA, has the authority
to license and regulate all United States
(U.S.) commercial launch activities to
protect public health and safety, safety
of property, and the national security
and foreign policy interests of the U.S.
The FAA also has the responsibility to
promote, encourage, and facilitate the
growth of the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry and
infrastructure. In fulfilling its
responsibilities since 1989, the FAA has
licensed more than 100 launches and
has issued licenses for the operation of
several launch sites.
In the past few years, the commercial
space industry has expressed
heightened interest in commercial
development of space, including launch
vehicles that are launched horizontally
and the reentry of reentry vehicles. As
identified in Commercial Space Launch
Activities (49 U.S.C., Subtitle IX,
Chapter 701), the development of such
vehicles and associated services by the
commercial space transportation
industry is in the national and economic
interest of the U.S. The purpose of the
proposed action as described in the
PEIS is to facilitate the issuance of
licenses for horizontal vehicle launches,
reentry of reentry vehicles, and the
operation of facilities where such
actions would occur. By facilitating the
issuance of licenses, the FAA would
assist the space launch industry in
meeting the demand for services (e.g.,
demand for delivering satellites to orbit)
and expanding into new markets (e.g.,
space tourism). The need for the action
proposed by the FAA is to promote the
growth of the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry while protecting
public health and safety, the safety of
property, and ensuring that the launch
services provided by private U.S.
enterprises are consistent with national
security and foreign policy interests of
the U.S.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:54 May 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
The FAA prepared the PEIS to
evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of licensing horizontal
launches, reentries, and the operation of
facilities associated with those
activities. A PEIS is appropriate for
projects that are broad in scope and are
widely dispersed geographically. It
creates a framework that supports
subsequent analysis of specific activities
at specific locations, which can be
tiered from the PEIS. The PEIS for
Horizontal Launch and Reentry of
Reentry Vehicles is intended to serve as
a tiering document for subsequent sitespecific NEPA analyses. It includes a
guide that identifies how a specific
resource area should be analyzed and
includes thresholds for considering the
significance of environmental impacts
to specific resource areas.
The PEIS considers the programmatic
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and its alternatives, including the
no action alternative. The activities
considered in the PEIS could occur at
any location that falls under the
licensing authority of the FAA or
Federal launch and reentry facilities.
The PEIS is intended to update and
replace the 1992 Final PEIS for
Commercial Reentry Vehicles and to
complement the 2001 PEIS for Licensing
Launches.
The information in the PEIS is not
intended to address all site-specific
launch and reentry issues, such as
localized effects. Any additional sitespecific environmental documentation
will be developed as needed prior to
FAA approval of proposed licensing
activities.
Public Involvement
The Notice of Intent to prepare the
PEIS for Horizontal Launch and the
Reentry of Reentry Vehicles was
published in the Federal Register (68
FR 50210) on August 20, 2003. On
October 16, 2003, the FAA published a
notice of extension in the Federal
Register (68 FR 59676), which extended
the scoping period from September 26,
2003 to October 31, 2003. The Notice of
Availability for the Draft PEIS was
published by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal
Register (70 FR 43867) on July 29, 2005.
All public comments received during
the 45-day public comment period were
considered in developing the Final
PEIS. EPA published the Notice of
Availability for the Final PEIS in the
Federal Register (70 FR 76282) on
December 23, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27773
Proposed Agency Action and
Alternatives Considered
The preferred alternative for the PEIS
is the proposed action. Under the
proposed action, the FAA would license
horizontal vehicle launches, reentries of
reentry vehicles, and the operation of
facilities that would support these
operations. The activities associated
with horizontal vehicle launches and
reentry of reentry vehicles with
powered and unpowered landings, are
presented separately in the PEIS, and
the impact analysis in the PEIS
discusses the potential impacts
considering the activities both as
individual events and as part of a single
mission. Some horizontal launch
vehicles would be launched into
suborbital trajectories and would not
reach orbit. Rather the vehicles would
reach apogee (i.e., the highest point in
the vehicle’s flight) and would return to
land at a designated location. The return
and subsequent landing of these
vehicles would not require reentry
licenses.
In contrast, some horizontal launch
vehicles would be launched into orbital
trajectories and would reach Earth orbit.
After reentry, these vehicles would land
at designated locations. Others would be
transported into orbit via vertical launch
vehicles, as considered previously in
the FAA’s 2001 PEIS for Licensing
Launches. Reentry of these vehicles
would require reentry licenses.
The FAA estimated that there would
be 1,279 U.S. commercial horizontal
vehicle launches between 2005 and
2015. Of these, 97 percent (1,242) are
expected to use suborbital trajectories.
The remaining three percent (37) of U.S.
commercial horizontal launches are
expected to reach orbit. Note that the
horizontal launches considered in the
analysis include launches of both
reusable and expendable vehicles;
however, very few expendable launches
were included in the analysis. In
addition, 14 U.S. commercial vertical
launches of reentry vehicles are
expected to reach orbit; therefore, there
would be a total of 51 U.S. commercial
reentries of reentry vehicles from 2005
through 2015. These estimates, along
with the pre- and post-flight activities
associated with launch and reentry,
provide the basis for the description of
the proposed action and the analysis of
environmental impacts.
The PEIS considered three horizontal
launch vehicle concepts, including
existing and conceptual designs. These
launch vehicles would typically range
from 9 to 21 meters (30 to 70 feet) in
length and weigh 1,300 to 4,500
kilograms (2,866 to 9,921 pounds)
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
27774
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 2006 / Notices
unfueled. The launch vehicle concepts
would use the following design
configurations to meet operational goals.
• Concept 1 vehicles—These vehicles
use jet-powered takeoff with subsequent
rocket engine ignition when the vehicles
reach a pre-determined altitude and
powered horizontal landings.
• Concept 2 vehicles—These vehicles
use rocket powered takeoff and flight
and non-powered horizontal landings.
• Concept 3 vehicles—These vehicles
are carried aloft via assist aircraft with
subsequent rocket engine ignition and
non-powered horizontal landings.
The PEIS also considered reentry
vehicles with both unpowered and
powered landings. These vehicles
would range from 9 to 46 meters (30 to
150 feet) in length and weigh 1,300 to
10,000 kilometers (2,866 to 22,046
pounds) unfueled.
The following four alternatives were
considered in the PEIS in addition to
the preferred alternative:
Alternative 1: Alternative 1
considered licensing only launches of
orbital launch vehicles for which
reentry with unpowered landing is
planned. For the purpose of this
alternative, the FAA assumed that all
licensed reentries would have
unpowered landings (51 reentries from
2005 to 2015). The remaining activities
would be the same as presented in the
proposed action.
Alternative 2: Alternative 2
considered licensing only launches of
orbital launch vehicles for which
reentry with powered landing is
planned. For the purpose of this
alternative, the FAA assumed that all
licensed reentries would have powered
landings (51 reentries from 2005 to
2015). The remaining activities would
be the same as presented in the
proposed action.
Alternative 3: Under alternative 3, the
FAA would license horizontal launches
which do not produce rocket emissions
below 914 meters (3,000 feet), for a total
of 713 launches from 2005 to 2015. For
this alternative, FAA considered 25 jetpowered landings and 26 rocketpowered landings. Under this
alternative, all Concept 2 vehicles
presented in the proposed action would
not be licensed, and the remaining
activities would be the same as
presented in the proposed action.
No Action Alternative: Under the no
action alternative, the FAA would not
issue licenses for the horizontal launch
of launch vehicles, reentry of reentry
vehicles, or the operation of launch
facilities for such activities; therefore,
all U.S. licensed launches would be
vertical launches as described in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:54 May 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
FAA’s 2001 PEIS for Licensing
Launches.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action and Alternatives
The activities associated with
horizontal vehicle launches and
reentries of reentry vehicles were
presented separately in the PEIS. The
environmental impacts analysis was
based on the following activities
associated with the horizontal launch of
an launch vehicle:
• Launch facility preparation,
• Preparation of the launch vehicle,
• Pre-flight ground operations,
• Horizontal takeoff, flight, and/or
launch, and
• Deployment of payload (if
applicable) and/or attainment of
intended altitude.
The PEIS also assessed the impacts of
the following activities associated with
the reentry of a reentry vehicle:
• Establishment of a reentry trajectory
from Earth orbit or outer space,
• Reentry into the Earth’s
atmosphere,
• Powered or unpowered landing,
and
• Recovery of the reentry vehicle
from the surface of the Earth.
The baseline conditions of each of the
13 environmental resource areas, as well
as the regulatory setting and standards,
were defined and described to provide
the basis for the evaluation and
comparison of impacts. The FAA used
various environmental criteria to
determine the overall environmental
impact of the proposed action and
alternatives. Although the significance
of most environmental consequences
will need to be determined in sitespecific NEPA analyses that tier from
the PEIS, three resource areas may be
affected on a programmatic level, these
include: Atmosphere, orbital debris, and
socioeconomics. The PEIS analyzes
impacts on the atmosphere including
ambient air quality, acid rain, ozone
depletion, and global warming. Impacts
related to orbital debris include deorbiting material as well as collisions in
space with other man-made objects.
Impacts associated with socioeconomics
include the effects on the commercial
launch industry and the national
economy with respect to the global
market; however, local socioeconomic
impacts associated with developing a
launch or reentry facility would be
addressed in a site-specific NEPA
analysis.
The FAA also considered applicable
Executive Orders, regulations, and laws
in its determination of the overall
environmental impact of the proposed
action and alternatives. Executive Order
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12898 requires Federal agencies to
identify and address disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of Federal
programs, policies, and activities on
minority and low-income populations.
Activities under the proposed action or
alternatives that would result in adverse
environmental effects would be
reviewed for their effects on minority
communities and low-income
populations in a site-specific NEPA
document that would tier from the PEIS.
Consultations and permits are required
from the appropriate regulatory agencies
under the Endangered Species Act,
section 7; National Historic Preservation
Act, section 106; Farmland Protection
Policy Act; Department of
Transportation (DOT) Act, section 4(f);
Clean Water Act; and various sections
under 14 CFR. Environmental impacts
identified as a result of the consultation
and permitting processes would be
evaluated in a site-specific NEPA
analysis that tiers from the PEIS.
According to the impacts analysis
contained in Chapter 4 of the PEIS,
negligible impacts are expected for all
resource areas except socioeconomics.
By adhering to the FAA licensing and
review process, impacts on airspace and
public health and safety would not be
significant. Because this is a
programmatic review, site-specific
NEPA analysis would be required to
evaluate the impacts on or associated
with noise, vegetation, wildlife,
threatened or endangered species, local
socioeconomics, environmental justice,
and hazardous waste. The FAA found
that the impacts on the atmosphere,
orbital debris, geology and soils, fresh
water or marine systems, wetlands,
floodplains, ground water, aesthetics
and visual resources, section 4(f)
resources, land use, or cultural
resources would not be significant;
however, these determinations may
depend on site-specific characteristics
as well. The licensing of a launch or
reentry site involving new construction
or modification of existing
infrastructure would require evaluation
in a site-specific NEPA analysis. The
socioeconomic impacts under each
alternative are summarized in the
following sections:
Proposed Action/Preferred
Alternative: Moderate impacts to
socioeconomics are anticipated from the
proposed action. Licensing activities
associated with the proposed action
may result in an increase in the
employment of skilled and professional
workers, and therefore, would have an
economically beneficial impact. Jobs
associated with the commercial launch
industry are generally technology-based
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 2006 / Notices
and require employees with specialized
skills and higher levels of education.
The creation of jobs in the commercial
launch industry would have secondary
economic effects on local communities
due to the increased personal income
and the associated tax base.
Furthermore, the new or additional
workers may increase the size of the
surrounding community and may create
a need for more local services, which in
turn creates additional jobs within that
community.
The licensing of a particular
horizontal launch vehicle or reentry
vehicle mission could result in a
temporary increase in the local work
force at a particular launch or reentry
facility, and would be considered a
negligible impact on the local economy.
The development of a new or
modification of an existing launch or
reentry site would result in temporary
local employment during construction,
and new permanent employment during
operation. The relative impact on the
local socioeconomic setting depends on
the conditions (e.g., size of the local
economy and capacity of the local
services). Such impacts, and whether or
not they would be considered a
significant impact, would be analyzed
in site-specific NEPA documents that
would tier from the PEIS.
Implementation of the proposed
action would have a negligible impact
on the national economy; however, it
would have a beneficially significant
impact on the commercial launch
industry. The proposed action would
allow US-based companies to remain
competitive in the global aerospace
industry and its expanding commercial
space applications.
Alternative 1: Moderate impacts to
socioeconomics are anticipated for
alternative 1 because this alternative
would limit the development of
commercial reentry vehicles to only
those with unpowered landing.
Licensing only a subset of the reentry
vehicle activities outlined in the
proposed action could reduce the
magnitude of this impact and could
limit the development and growth of the
commercial launch industry.
Alternative 2: Moderate impacts to
socioeconomics are anticipated for
alternative 2 because alternative 2
would limit the development of
commercial reentry vehicles to those
that use unpowered landing. Licensing
only a subset of the reentry vehicle
activities outlined in the proposed
action could reduce the magnitude of
this impact and could limit the
development and growth of the
commercial launch industry.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:54 May 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
Alternative 3: Moderate impacts to
socioeconomics are anticipated for
alternative 3 because alternative 3
would limit the development of
commercial launch vehicles to Concepts
1 and 3. Licensing only a subset of the
launch vehicle concepts outlined in the
proposed action could reduce the
magnitude of this impact and could
limit the development and growth of the
commercial launch industry.
No Action Alternative: Moderate
impacts to socioeconomics are
anticipated for the no action alternative.
Under the no action alternative, the
FAA would not issue licenses for the
horizontal launch of launch vehicles
and reentry of reentry vehicles, or for
the operation of facilities for such
activities; therefore, all U.S. licensed
launches would be vertical launches as
described in the FAA’s 2001 PEIS for
Licensing Launches.
Not licensing the activities described
under the proposed action may result in
an impact on the socioeconomics of a
local community where one of the major
employers is the commercial horizontal
launch industry. If the FAA did not
issue licenses for horizontally launched
launch vehicles, reentry of reentry
vehicles, or for facilities that would
support such activities, industries
seeking to provide such services would
not be able to function in the U.S.
market and would be forced to find
other products, services or avenues to
maintain economic viability. Such
impacts on a local community may
result in substantial decreases in the
local tax base, which could adversely
affect the socioeconomic setting. These
issues would need to be addressed in
site-specific analyses that would tier
from the PEIS. In addition, the U.S.
horizontal commercial launch industry
would not be able to expand and remain
competitive in the global horizontal
launch and reentry markets. Foreign
markets would continue to grow their
market share and develop technology,
while the U.S. would lag behind in this
market sector, both economically and
technologically.
No significant environmental impacts
or cumulative impacts on resource areas
addressed for any activity considered
were found in the programmatic impact
analysis. There could be impacts
associated with the specific licensing
activities at specific locations; however,
as stated in the PEIS they would be
addressed in a subsequent review that
would tier from the PEIS. As
appropriate, mitigation measures would
be developed to address any sitespecific significant impacts.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27775
Mitigation Measures
In developing mitigation measures for
the activities considered in the PEIS, the
FAA reviewed its licensing procedures
to identify operational controls or
methods that could be implemented as
mitigation measures. The FAA would
continue to develop and implement
environmental monitoring programs on
a case-by-case basis, as appropriate.
Specifically, the FAA would consider
developing monitoring programs to
ensure that licensees meet requirements
of various regulations including the
Endangered Species Act, Marine
Mammal Protection Act, and National
Historic Preservation Act. These
monitoring requirements may be listed
as part of the terms and conditions of
future licenses.
In addition to the development of
monitoring programs, the FAA would
continue to prepare a variety of reports
that would serve to maintain
accountability of both commercial and
noncommercial launch activities, track
successful and failed launches, maintain
current safety standards, and remain
abreast of future launch activities and
concepts. The FAA would also continue
to make this information available for
the public via its Internet site (https://
ast.faa.gov/rep_study/). As the
commercial space industry grows and
expands into new areas or surpasses the
level of activity or technologies
analyzed in current NEPA documents
prepared by the FAA, this process
would allow the FAA to proactively
identify new concepts or increased
levels of activities that would require
review in accordance with NEPA.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The environmentally preferred
alternative is the no action alternative.
However, except for alternative 2,
implementation of the proposed action
would result in only slightly greater
environmental impacts than the overall
impacts associated with the alternatives
and no action alternative. Under
alternative 2, it was assumed that all
reentries would have powered landings;
therefore, the environmental impacts of
implementing alternative 2 would be
slightly greater than those associated
with the proposed action. However, all
impacts associated with the proposed
action and alternatives were found to be
negligible. In terms of socioeconomics,
the proposed action would result in the
greatest beneficial impact, as it would
not restrict the innovation and
development of the U.S. commercial
space industry through restrictive
licensing. Implementing the proposed
action would not limit or restrict the
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
27776
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 2006 / Notices
growth of the U.S. space industry, while
implementing one of the alternatives
could limit U.S. commercial launch and
reentry vehicle development and
growth, and implementing the no action
alternative could severely limit and
restrict the growth of the U.S.
commercial space launch industry.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Decision and Order
16:54 May 11, 2006
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
I have considered potential
environmental impacts as defined in the
PEIS, applicable regulatory
requirements, public comments, and
FAA’s responsibilities under 49 U.S.C.,
Subtitle IX, Chapter 701, Commercial
Space Launch Activities to promote,
encourage, and facilitate the growth of
the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry in arriving at my
decision.
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and the no action
alternative would result in restrictive
licensing that would impede the FAA’s
ability to assist the commercial space
transportation industry in meeting
projected demand for services and
expansion into new markets. The
preferred alternative would allow the
greatest development and growth of the
U.S. commercial space launch industry.
In addition, although implementation of
the preferred alternative would result in
slightly greater environmental impacts
than the overall impacts associated with
the alternatives and no action
alternative, the impacts are still
expected to be less than significant. For
the reasons summarized earlier in this
Record of Decision and supported by
detailed discussion in the PEIS, the
FAA has selected the preferred
alternative.
I have carefully considered the FAA’s
goals and objectives in relation to the
programmatic licensing actions
discussed in the PEIS, including the
purpose and need to be served, the
alternative means of achieving them, the
environmental impacts of these
alternatives at a broad, programmatic
level, and the mitigation measures
available to preserve and enhance the
environment as needed on a sitespecific basis. I have determined that all
practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the
alternatives selected have been adopted.
Based upon the record of this proposed
Federal action, and under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator of
the FAA, I find that the action in this
Record of Decision is reasonably
supported.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Dated: May 8, 2006.
Patricia G. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 06–4475 Filed 5–11–06; 8:45 am]
Jkt 208001
Notice of Intent To Rule on Application
05–05–C–00–MCI To Impose a
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at
Kansas City International Airport (MCI)
for use at MCI and Charles B. Wheeler
Downtown Airport (MKC), Kansas City,
MO
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on
Application.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposed to rule
and invites public comment on the
application to impose a PFC at MCI for
use at MCI and MKC under the
provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and
part 158 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before date which is 30 days after
date of publication in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this
application may be mailed or delivered
in triplicate to the FAA at the following
address: 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106.
In addition, one copy of any
comments submitted to the FAA must
be mailed or delivered to Mr. Mark
VanLoh, Director of Aviation of the
Kansas City Aviation Department at the
following address: 601 Brasilia Avenue,
Kansas City, Missouri 64153.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers
may submit copies of written comments
previously provided to the Kansas City
Aviation Department under § 158.23 of
part 158.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lorna K. Sandridge, PFC Program
Manager, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106, (816) 329–2641. The
application may be reviewed in person
at the same location.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
proposed to rule and invites public
comments on the application to impose
a PFC at Kansas City International
Airport for use at Kansas City
International Airport and Charles B.
Wheeler Downtown Airport under the
provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and
part 158 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On February 5, 2006, the FAA
determined that projects within the
application to impose and use the
revenue from a PFC submitted by the
Kansas City Aviation Department were
not adequately justified.
On March 16, 2006, the Kansas City
Aviation Department submitted
description, justification and significant
contribution information changes to the
majority of the projects to complete this
application. The FAA will approve or
disapprove the application, in whole or
in part, no later than July 15, 2006.
The following is a brief overview of
the application.
Proposed charge effective date:
January 1, 2015.
Proposed charge expiration date:
February 1, 2017.
Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.
Total estimated PFC revenue:
$54,213,842.
Brief description of proposed
project(s): Two new aircraft rescue fire
fighting (ARFF) vehicles, extend
Taxiways B and D, rehabilitate
Taxiways M and L, update airport
master plan and part 150 study, New
ARFF facility, inline baggage screening
system, rehabilitate Taxiway D, airfield
lighting rehabilitation, perimeter
fencing replacement—MKC, terminal
improvements—holdrooms, upgrade
glycol collection system, airfield snow
removal equipment building, new
airfield sand & deicer storage building,
triturator and garbage facility, fuel farm
relocation—MKC.
Class or classes of air carriers which
the public agency has requested not to
be required to collect PFCs:
Nonscheduled/On-Demand Air Carriers
filing FAA Form 1800–31.
Any person may inspect the
application in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT: and at the FAA
regional Airport office located at: 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
In addition, any person may, upon
request, inspect the application, notice
and other documents germane to the
application in person at the Kansas City
Aviation Department.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on May 3,
2006.
George A. Hendon,
Manager, Airports Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 06–4412 Filed 5–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27772-27776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4475]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Record of Decision
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Commercial
Space Transportation.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Record of Decision was prepared based on the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Horizontal
Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles. The FAA prepared this Record of
Decision pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 as amended (42 United States Code 4321, et seq.), the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508),
and FAA Order 1050.1 E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.
This Record of Decision contains the statement of decision, identifies
the alternatives considered, and discusses the factors on which the
decision was based.
The PEIS considered the potential programmatic environmental
effects of licensing horizontal launches of launch vehicles, reentries
of reentry vehicles,\1\ as well as licensing the operation of
facilities that support these activities. The PEIS considered three
horizontal launch vehicle concepts and reentry vehicles with both
powered and unpowered landings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reentry vehicle means a vehicle designed to return from
Earth orbit or outer space to Earth. In the PEIS, reentry vehicles
consisted of vehicles launched into orbit via vertical and
horizontal launch vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the designated authority for regulating the U.S. commercial
space transportation industry and issuing licenses for launches,
reentries, and the operation of launch sites, the FAA was the lead
agency preparing the PEIS. No other agency was designated or requested
to act as a cooperating agency for the development of the PEIS. After
considering the environmental impacts, public comments, and
programmatic factors, the FAA has decided to implement the preferred
alternative.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the PEIS or
this Record of Decision, please contact Ms. Stacey Zee, FAA
Environmental Specialist at (202) 267-9305 or e-mail
Stacey.Zee@faa.gov. Downloadable electronic versions of the Final PEIS
and Record of Decision are available on the FAA PEIS Web site https://
ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
This Record of Decision provides final FAA approval for a program
to license three horizontal launch vehicle concepts, reentries of
reentry vehicles with both powered and unpowered landings, and the
operation of facilities that support these activities. The FAA is
considering the impacts of licensing all launch and reentry vehicle
concepts analyzed under the proposed action to maintain the greatest
flexibility for the development and growth of the U.S. commercial space
industry. Licenses for the operation of individual launch and reentry
vehicles or individual launch sites would be considered on a case-by-
case basis. Any additional site-specific environmental documentation
would be
[[Page 27773]]
developed as needed prior to FAA approval of specific licensing
activities. The FAA has concluded that there are no significant short-
term or long-term effects to the human environment resulting from this
licensing program. The proposed Federal action is consistent with the
purpose of national environmental policies and objectives as set forth
in NEPA and will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Chapter 701, Commercial Space Launch
Activities (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act), the Department
of Transportation, and through delegations, the FAA, has the authority
to license and regulate all United States (U.S.) commercial launch
activities to protect public health and safety, safety of property, and
the national security and foreign policy interests of the U.S. The FAA
also has the responsibility to promote, encourage, and facilitate the
growth of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry and
infrastructure. In fulfilling its responsibilities since 1989, the FAA
has licensed more than 100 launches and has issued licenses for the
operation of several launch sites.
In the past few years, the commercial space industry has expressed
heightened interest in commercial development of space, including
launch vehicles that are launched horizontally and the reentry of
reentry vehicles. As identified in Commercial Space Launch Activities
(49 U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Chapter 701), the development of such vehicles
and associated services by the commercial space transportation industry
is in the national and economic interest of the U.S. The purpose of the
proposed action as described in the PEIS is to facilitate the issuance
of licenses for horizontal vehicle launches, reentry of reentry
vehicles, and the operation of facilities where such actions would
occur. By facilitating the issuance of licenses, the FAA would assist
the space launch industry in meeting the demand for services (e.g.,
demand for delivering satellites to orbit) and expanding into new
markets (e.g., space tourism). The need for the action proposed by the
FAA is to promote the growth of the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry while protecting public health and safety, the
safety of property, and ensuring that the launch services provided by
private U.S. enterprises are consistent with national security and
foreign policy interests of the U.S.
The FAA prepared the PEIS to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of licensing horizontal launches, reentries, and the operation
of facilities associated with those activities. A PEIS is appropriate
for projects that are broad in scope and are widely dispersed
geographically. It creates a framework that supports subsequent
analysis of specific activities at specific locations, which can be
tiered from the PEIS. The PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of
Reentry Vehicles is intended to serve as a tiering document for
subsequent site-specific NEPA analyses. It includes a guide that
identifies how a specific resource area should be analyzed and includes
thresholds for considering the significance of environmental impacts to
specific resource areas.
The PEIS considers the programmatic environmental impacts of the
proposed action and its alternatives, including the no action
alternative. The activities considered in the PEIS could occur at any
location that falls under the licensing authority of the FAA or Federal
launch and reentry facilities. The PEIS is intended to update and
replace the 1992 Final PEIS for Commercial Reentry Vehicles and to
complement the 2001 PEIS for Licensing Launches.
The information in the PEIS is not intended to address all site-
specific launch and reentry issues, such as localized effects. Any
additional site-specific environmental documentation will be developed
as needed prior to FAA approval of proposed licensing activities.
Public Involvement
The Notice of Intent to prepare the PEIS for Horizontal Launch and
the Reentry of Reentry Vehicles was published in the Federal Register
(68 FR 50210) on August 20, 2003. On October 16, 2003, the FAA
published a notice of extension in the Federal Register (68 FR 59676),
which extended the scoping period from September 26, 2003 to October
31, 2003. The Notice of Availability for the Draft PEIS was published
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register
(70 FR 43867) on July 29, 2005. All public comments received during the
45-day public comment period were considered in developing the Final
PEIS. EPA published the Notice of Availability for the Final PEIS in
the Federal Register (70 FR 76282) on December 23, 2005.
Proposed Agency Action and Alternatives Considered
The preferred alternative for the PEIS is the proposed action.
Under the proposed action, the FAA would license horizontal vehicle
launches, reentries of reentry vehicles, and the operation of
facilities that would support these operations. The activities
associated with horizontal vehicle launches and reentry of reentry
vehicles with powered and unpowered landings, are presented separately
in the PEIS, and the impact analysis in the PEIS discusses the
potential impacts considering the activities both as individual events
and as part of a single mission. Some horizontal launch vehicles would
be launched into suborbital trajectories and would not reach orbit.
Rather the vehicles would reach apogee (i.e., the highest point in the
vehicle's flight) and would return to land at a designated location.
The return and subsequent landing of these vehicles would not require
reentry licenses.
In contrast, some horizontal launch vehicles would be launched into
orbital trajectories and would reach Earth orbit. After reentry, these
vehicles would land at designated locations. Others would be
transported into orbit via vertical launch vehicles, as considered
previously in the FAA's 2001 PEIS for Licensing Launches. Reentry of
these vehicles would require reentry licenses.
The FAA estimated that there would be 1,279 U.S. commercial
horizontal vehicle launches between 2005 and 2015. Of these, 97 percent
(1,242) are expected to use suborbital trajectories. The remaining
three percent (37) of U.S. commercial horizontal launches are expected
to reach orbit. Note that the horizontal launches considered in the
analysis include launches of both reusable and expendable vehicles;
however, very few expendable launches were included in the analysis. In
addition, 14 U.S. commercial vertical launches of reentry vehicles are
expected to reach orbit; therefore, there would be a total of 51 U.S.
commercial reentries of reentry vehicles from 2005 through 2015. These
estimates, along with the pre- and post-flight activities associated
with launch and reentry, provide the basis for the description of the
proposed action and the analysis of environmental impacts.
The PEIS considered three horizontal launch vehicle concepts,
including existing and conceptual designs. These launch vehicles would
typically range from 9 to 21 meters (30 to 70 feet) in length and weigh
1,300 to 4,500 kilograms (2,866 to 9,921 pounds)
[[Page 27774]]
unfueled. The launch vehicle concepts would use the following design
configurations to meet operational goals.
Concept 1 vehicles--These vehicles use jet-powered takeoff
with subsequent rocket engine ignition when the vehicles reach a pre-
determined altitude and powered horizontal landings.
Concept 2 vehicles--These vehicles use rocket powered
takeoff and flight and non-powered horizontal landings.
Concept 3 vehicles--These vehicles are carried aloft via
assist aircraft with subsequent rocket engine ignition and non-powered
horizontal landings.
The PEIS also considered reentry vehicles with both unpowered and
powered landings. These vehicles would range from 9 to 46 meters (30 to
150 feet) in length and weigh 1,300 to 10,000 kilometers (2,866 to
22,046 pounds) unfueled.
The following four alternatives were considered in the PEIS in
addition to the preferred alternative:
Alternative 1: Alternative 1 considered licensing only launches of
orbital launch vehicles for which reentry with unpowered landing is
planned. For the purpose of this alternative, the FAA assumed that all
licensed reentries would have unpowered landings (51 reentries from
2005 to 2015). The remaining activities would be the same as presented
in the proposed action.
Alternative 2: Alternative 2 considered licensing only launches of
orbital launch vehicles for which reentry with powered landing is
planned. For the purpose of this alternative, the FAA assumed that all
licensed reentries would have powered landings (51 reentries from 2005
to 2015). The remaining activities would be the same as presented in
the proposed action.
Alternative 3: Under alternative 3, the FAA would license
horizontal launches which do not produce rocket emissions below 914
meters (3,000 feet), for a total of 713 launches from 2005 to 2015. For
this alternative, FAA considered 25 jet-powered landings and 26 rocket-
powered landings. Under this alternative, all Concept 2 vehicles
presented in the proposed action would not be licensed, and the
remaining activities would be the same as presented in the proposed
action.
No Action Alternative: Under the no action alternative, the FAA
would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of launch vehicles,
reentry of reentry vehicles, or the operation of launch facilities for
such activities; therefore, all U.S. licensed launches would be
vertical launches as described in the FAA's 2001 PEIS for Licensing
Launches.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
The activities associated with horizontal vehicle launches and
reentries of reentry vehicles were presented separately in the PEIS.
The environmental impacts analysis was based on the following
activities associated with the horizontal launch of an launch vehicle:
Launch facility preparation,
Preparation of the launch vehicle,
Pre-flight ground operations,
Horizontal takeoff, flight, and/or launch, and
Deployment of payload (if applicable) and/or attainment of
intended altitude.
The PEIS also assessed the impacts of the following activities
associated with the reentry of a reentry vehicle:
Establishment of a reentry trajectory from Earth orbit or
outer space,
Reentry into the Earth's atmosphere,
Powered or unpowered landing, and
Recovery of the reentry vehicle from the surface of the
Earth.
The baseline conditions of each of the 13 environmental resource
areas, as well as the regulatory setting and standards, were defined
and described to provide the basis for the evaluation and comparison of
impacts. The FAA used various environmental criteria to determine the
overall environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives.
Although the significance of most environmental consequences will need
to be determined in site-specific NEPA analyses that tier from the
PEIS, three resource areas may be affected on a programmatic level,
these include: Atmosphere, orbital debris, and socioeconomics. The PEIS
analyzes impacts on the atmosphere including ambient air quality, acid
rain, ozone depletion, and global warming. Impacts related to orbital
debris include de-orbiting material as well as collisions in space with
other man-made objects. Impacts associated with socioeconomics include
the effects on the commercial launch industry and the national economy
with respect to the global market; however, local socioeconomic impacts
associated with developing a launch or reentry facility would be
addressed in a site-specific NEPA analysis.
The FAA also considered applicable Executive Orders, regulations,
and laws in its determination of the overall environmental impact of
the proposed action and alternatives. Executive Order 12898 requires
Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of Federal programs,
policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.
Activities under the proposed action or alternatives that would result
in adverse environmental effects would be reviewed for their effects on
minority communities and low-income populations in a site-specific NEPA
document that would tier from the PEIS. Consultations and permits are
required from the appropriate regulatory agencies under the Endangered
Species Act, section 7; National Historic Preservation Act, section
106; Farmland Protection Policy Act; Department of Transportation (DOT)
Act, section 4(f); Clean Water Act; and various sections under 14 CFR.
Environmental impacts identified as a result of the consultation and
permitting processes would be evaluated in a site-specific NEPA
analysis that tiers from the PEIS.
According to the impacts analysis contained in Chapter 4 of the
PEIS, negligible impacts are expected for all resource areas except
socioeconomics. By adhering to the FAA licensing and review process,
impacts on airspace and public health and safety would not be
significant. Because this is a programmatic review, site-specific NEPA
analysis would be required to evaluate the impacts on or associated
with noise, vegetation, wildlife, threatened or endangered species,
local socioeconomics, environmental justice, and hazardous waste. The
FAA found that the impacts on the atmosphere, orbital debris, geology
and soils, fresh water or marine systems, wetlands, floodplains, ground
water, aesthetics and visual resources, section 4(f) resources, land
use, or cultural resources would not be significant; however, these
determinations may depend on site-specific characteristics as well. The
licensing of a launch or reentry site involving new construction or
modification of existing infrastructure would require evaluation in a
site-specific NEPA analysis. The socioeconomic impacts under each
alternative are summarized in the following sections:
Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative: Moderate impacts to
socioeconomics are anticipated from the proposed action. Licensing
activities associated with the proposed action may result in an
increase in the employment of skilled and professional workers, and
therefore, would have an economically beneficial impact. Jobs
associated with the commercial launch industry are generally
technology-based
[[Page 27775]]
and require employees with specialized skills and higher levels of
education. The creation of jobs in the commercial launch industry would
have secondary economic effects on local communities due to the
increased personal income and the associated tax base. Furthermore, the
new or additional workers may increase the size of the surrounding
community and may create a need for more local services, which in turn
creates additional jobs within that community.
The licensing of a particular horizontal launch vehicle or reentry
vehicle mission could result in a temporary increase in the local work
force at a particular launch or reentry facility, and would be
considered a negligible impact on the local economy. The development of
a new or modification of an existing launch or reentry site would
result in temporary local employment during construction, and new
permanent employment during operation. The relative impact on the local
socioeconomic setting depends on the conditions (e.g., size of the
local economy and capacity of the local services). Such impacts, and
whether or not they would be considered a significant impact, would be
analyzed in site-specific NEPA documents that would tier from the PEIS.
Implementation of the proposed action would have a negligible
impact on the national economy; however, it would have a beneficially
significant impact on the commercial launch industry. The proposed
action would allow US-based companies to remain competitive in the
global aerospace industry and its expanding commercial space
applications.
Alternative 1: Moderate impacts to socioeconomics are anticipated
for alternative 1 because this alternative would limit the development
of commercial reentry vehicles to only those with unpowered landing.
Licensing only a subset of the reentry vehicle activities outlined in
the proposed action could reduce the magnitude of this impact and could
limit the development and growth of the commercial launch industry.
Alternative 2: Moderate impacts to socioeconomics are anticipated
for alternative 2 because alternative 2 would limit the development of
commercial reentry vehicles to those that use unpowered landing.
Licensing only a subset of the reentry vehicle activities outlined in
the proposed action could reduce the magnitude of this impact and could
limit the development and growth of the commercial launch industry.
Alternative 3: Moderate impacts to socioeconomics are anticipated
for alternative 3 because alternative 3 would limit the development of
commercial launch vehicles to Concepts 1 and 3. Licensing only a subset
of the launch vehicle concepts outlined in the proposed action could
reduce the magnitude of this impact and could limit the development and
growth of the commercial launch industry.
No Action Alternative: Moderate impacts to socioeconomics are
anticipated for the no action alternative. Under the no action
alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch
of launch vehicles and reentry of reentry vehicles, or for the
operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, all U.S.
licensed launches would be vertical launches as described in the FAA's
2001 PEIS for Licensing Launches.
Not licensing the activities described under the proposed action
may result in an impact on the socioeconomics of a local community
where one of the major employers is the commercial horizontal launch
industry. If the FAA did not issue licenses for horizontally launched
launch vehicles, reentry of reentry vehicles, or for facilities that
would support such activities, industries seeking to provide such
services would not be able to function in the U.S. market and would be
forced to find other products, services or avenues to maintain economic
viability. Such impacts on a local community may result in substantial
decreases in the local tax base, which could adversely affect the
socioeconomic setting. These issues would need to be addressed in site-
specific analyses that would tier from the PEIS. In addition, the U.S.
horizontal commercial launch industry would not be able to expand and
remain competitive in the global horizontal launch and reentry markets.
Foreign markets would continue to grow their market share and develop
technology, while the U.S. would lag behind in this market sector, both
economically and technologically.
No significant environmental impacts or cumulative impacts on
resource areas addressed for any activity considered were found in the
programmatic impact analysis. There could be impacts associated with
the specific licensing activities at specific locations; however, as
stated in the PEIS they would be addressed in a subsequent review that
would tier from the PEIS. As appropriate, mitigation measures would be
developed to address any site-specific significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures
In developing mitigation measures for the activities considered in
the PEIS, the FAA reviewed its licensing procedures to identify
operational controls or methods that could be implemented as mitigation
measures. The FAA would continue to develop and implement environmental
monitoring programs on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate.
Specifically, the FAA would consider developing monitoring programs to
ensure that licensees meet requirements of various regulations
including the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and
National Historic Preservation Act. These monitoring requirements may
be listed as part of the terms and conditions of future licenses.
In addition to the development of monitoring programs, the FAA
would continue to prepare a variety of reports that would serve to
maintain accountability of both commercial and noncommercial launch
activities, track successful and failed launches, maintain current
safety standards, and remain abreast of future launch activities and
concepts. The FAA would also continue to make this information
available for the public via its Internet site (https://ast.faa.gov/
rep_study/). As the commercial space industry grows and expands into
new areas or surpasses the level of activity or technologies analyzed
in current NEPA documents prepared by the FAA, this process would allow
the FAA to proactively identify new concepts or increased levels of
activities that would require review in accordance with NEPA.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The environmentally preferred alternative is the no action
alternative. However, except for alternative 2, implementation of the
proposed action would result in only slightly greater environmental
impacts than the overall impacts associated with the alternatives and
no action alternative. Under alternative 2, it was assumed that all
reentries would have powered landings; therefore, the environmental
impacts of implementing alternative 2 would be slightly greater than
those associated with the proposed action. However, all impacts
associated with the proposed action and alternatives were found to be
negligible. In terms of socioeconomics, the proposed action would
result in the greatest beneficial impact, as it would not restrict the
innovation and development of the U.S. commercial space industry
through restrictive licensing. Implementing the proposed action would
not limit or restrict the
[[Page 27776]]
growth of the U.S. space industry, while implementing one of the
alternatives could limit U.S. commercial launch and reentry vehicle
development and growth, and implementing the no action alternative
could severely limit and restrict the growth of the U.S. commercial
space launch industry.
Decision and Order
I have considered potential environmental impacts as defined in the
PEIS, applicable regulatory requirements, public comments, and FAA's
responsibilities under 49 U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Chapter 701, Commercial
Space Launch Activities to promote, encourage, and facilitate the
growth of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry in arriving
at my decision.
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and the no action alternative would result in
restrictive licensing that would impede the FAA's ability to assist the
commercial space transportation industry in meeting projected demand
for services and expansion into new markets. The preferred alternative
would allow the greatest development and growth of the U.S. commercial
space launch industry. In addition, although implementation of the
preferred alternative would result in slightly greater environmental
impacts than the overall impacts associated with the alternatives and
no action alternative, the impacts are still expected to be less than
significant. For the reasons summarized earlier in this Record of
Decision and supported by detailed discussion in the PEIS, the FAA has
selected the preferred alternative.
I have carefully considered the FAA's goals and objectives in
relation to the programmatic licensing actions discussed in the PEIS,
including the purpose and need to be served, the alternative means of
achieving them, the environmental impacts of these alternatives at a
broad, programmatic level, and the mitigation measures available to
preserve and enhance the environment as needed on a site-specific
basis. I have determined that all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm from the alternatives selected have been
adopted. Based upon the record of this proposed Federal action, and
under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator of the FAA, I
find that the action in this Record of Decision is reasonably
supported.
Dated: May 8, 2006.
Patricia G. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 06-4475 Filed 5-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P