[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52171-52178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Record of Decision

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Record of decision: Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
for Licensing Launches.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Licensing Launches (PEIS), to evaluate the potential 
environmental consequences of licensing launches. After reviewing and 
analyzing currently available data and information on existing 
conditions, potential environmental impacts, and alternative measures 
to mitigate those impacts, the FAA Associate Administrator for 
Commercial Space Transportation (AST) finds that the proposed action of 
licensing launches, as described in the PEIS, is not a major Federal 
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) of 1969. The information in this PEIS is not intended to address 
all site-specific launch issues including localized effects. This PEIS 
is intended to serve as a tiering document to assist commercial launch 
operators in preparing site-specific documentation. Any additionally 
required site-specific environmental documentation will be developed as 
needed prior to FAA approval of proposed licensing activities. 
Localized effects and any cumulative impacts at individual launch sites 
are appropriately analyzed in the environmental review of a launch site 
operator.
    This PEIS assesses the potential environmental effects of licensing 
launches from ignition, liftoff, and ascent through the atmosphere to 
orbit, the disposition of launch vehicle (LV) components down range, 
and controlled reentry of reusable launch vehicles. Additional launch 
activities (including vehicle assembly, payload preparation prior to 
liftoff, payload functioning during useful life, and payload reentry 
whether controlled or uncontrolled) were determined to be outside the 
scope of the PEIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michon Washington, Office of the 
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Space 
System Development Division, Suite 331/AST-100, 800 Independence Ave., 
SW., Washington, DC 20591; phone (202) 267-9305, or refer to the 
following Internet address: http://ast.faa.gov 

Introduction

    This Record of Decision (ROD) provides final FAA approval for a 
program to issue launch licenses to United States (U.S.) citizens or 
for licensed launches within the United States. 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

    The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (the Act) (49 U.S.C. 70101-
70121), authorizes the Department of Transportation, and through 
delegations, the FAA, to oversee, license, and regulate launch and 
reentry activities and the operation of launch and reentry sites as 
carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States. 49 U.S.C. 
70104, 70105. The Act directs the FAA to exercise the responsibility 
consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the 
national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. 49 
U.S.C. 70105. The FAA is also responsible for encouraging, 
facilitating, and promoting launches by the private sector. 49 U.S.C. 
70103. The FAA first licensed a launch in 1989.
    In the past three decades, space has become increasingly important 
in a broad range of areas including scientific research, 
communications, and navigation. Human advancements in technologies such 
as telecommunications and microgravity crystal growth are leading to 
increased demand for access to space because of its unique environment 
and are being developed for direct commercial application. These new 
technologies and industry's desire to market them, have created the 
need for increased access to space. Based on the FAA's proprietary 
model used to project launch manifests, the demand for access to space 
cannot be met by the current or foreseeable U.S. government procured 
launch vehicles (LVs) (see Section 2.1 of the PEIS). Therefore, the 
commercial launch program is critical to ensure that the U.S. remains 
in the forefront of commercial space development. Current U.S. space 
policy requires that the U.S. government encourage private sector and 
state and local government investment and participation in the 
development and improvement of U.S. launch systems and infrastructure.
    Along with the technological advancements which increase the demand 
for space access, the private sector has expressed heightened interest 
in conducting launches. These types of launches have previously been 
conducted only by the Federal government. However, now the commercial 
launch industry is attempting to promote convenient, affordable access 
to space, while

[[Page 52172]]

satisfying the payload lift requirements of the space industry, and 
promoting the commercial development of space.
    Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701, the FAA 
determines whether to issue a launch license. Issuing a launch license 
is considered a major federal action and is therefore subject to NEPA 
review. In order to meet the need for commercial access to space and 
comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701, the FAA 
regulation 14 CFR 415.101, Environmental Review, and NEPA, the FAA 
prepared a PEIS for Licensing Launches. This type of document is 
permitted by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the 
Implementation of Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Preamble to Final 
Regulations) 43 FR 55978 (November 29, 1978.) (See also CEQ regulations 
at 40 CFR 1500.4, 1502.4, 1502.20, and 1508.28 and FAA Order 1050.1D, 
paragraph 88.) ``Material common to many actions may be covered in a 
broad EIS, and then through tiering may be summarized and incorporated 
in each subsequent EIS.''
    In February 1986, the FAA published a Programmatic Environmental 
Assessment for Commercial Expendable Launch Vehicle Programs. The 
document provided information on the impacts of expendable launch 
vehicles based on the known effects in existing documentation for U.S. 
government expendable launch vehicle programs. This document did not 
address site-specific aspects of launches.
    The PEIS will update and replace the 1986 programmatic 
environmental assessment. A Notice of Intent was published in the 
Federal Register on November 27, 1995 announcing the preparation of a 
PEIS addressing the potential effects of licensing expendable launches. 
The notice stated that FAA would conduct a public scoping meeting if 
sufficient interest was expressed. Although no one expressed an 
interest in FAA conducting public scoping meetings, written comments 
were received. These comments have been summarized in the PEIS. In 
addition to the announcement of the written comment period on the Draft 
EIS, the FAA requested comments directly from Federal agencies, 
industry, and individuals who expressed an interest in being included 
on the distribution list. The second volume of the Final PEIS 
summarizes the comments received and set forth the FAA's responses.
    The Final PEIS considers, at the programmatic level, the 
environmental impacts of licensing launches. The Final PEIS also 
analyzes in detail the potential environmental impacts of the estimated 
261 U.S. licensed launches that will result from the proposed licensing 
program between 2000 and 2010. Included in the analysis are potential 
environmental impacts resulting from ignition and lift-off to payload 
separation, the deposition of LV components downrange and controlled 
reentry of reusable launch vehicles. Site-specific, localized 
environmental effects will be subject to project specific environmental 
reviews as part of the licensing process.

Proposed Agency Action

    The preferred alternative for the PEIS is the Launch Licensing 
Alternative. The PEIS analyzes impacts by examining the following 
characteristics of LVs and LV launch profiles:
     Payload capacity (the mass an LV can lift into a 
particular orbit),
     Types of propulsion systems (the mechanisms that change 
the mass and velocity of the vehicle), and
     Launch platforms--ground, air, or sea-based.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

    Launch licenses are needed to provide a mechanism for ensuring 
protection of public health and safety. U.S. laws and policy and 
international treaties recognize the technological and economic 
importance of developing space transportation. The FAA's launch review 
and licensing procedures are necessary to ensure that launch applicants 
meet conditions designed to protect the public health and safety, 
safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests. 
These conditions include:
     Adhering to launch safety regulations and procedures,
     Complying with requirements concerning pre-launch record 
keeping and notifications, including those pertaining to federal 
airspace restrictions and military tracking operations,
     Complying with federal inspection, verification, and 
enforcement requirements, and
     Securing the minimum amount of third-party liability 
insurance specified by the DOT.
    Five alternatives were considered in the PEIS in addition to the 
preferred alternative. Three of these alternatives were considered but 
not retained for detailed study in the PEIS because they were 
determined not to be feasible. These alternatives include the Non-Solid 
Propellant Alternative, More Environmentally-Friendly Vehicles 
Alternative, and Composite Vehicle Construction Alternative. The Non-
Solid Propellant Alternative would require the FAA to preferentially 
license only those vehicles that use liquid or hybrid fuels. 
Implementing this alternative would eliminate the majority of licensed 
launches by existing launch service providers. The More 
Environmentally-Friendly Vehicles Alternative would require the FAA to 
stop licensing launches until such time that a new launch vehicle is 
designed that causes no adverse impacts to the environment. At this 
time, the development of such technology is not reasonably foreseeable 
or sufficiently practicable. Also, this alternative would put 
additional pressure on foreign markets to keep up with the increased 
demand while prohibiting the FAA from fulfilling its mandated 
responsibility for encouraging, facilitating, and promoting launches by 
the private sector. Finally, the Composite Vehicle Construction 
Alternative would require the FAA to preferentially license those 
launches using vehicles that are constructed entirely of composite 
materials which would make the vehicle lighter and therefore, not 
require as much fuel to reach orbit. However, again these vehicles do 
not currently exist and there are no realistic plans to develop them.
    Based on a systematic evaluation of the full range of potential 
alternatives, three alternatives were carried forward for detailed 
assessment of environmental impacts. They include, the Preferred 
Alternative, the More Environmentally-Friendly Propellant Combinations 
Alternative, and the No Action Alternative.
    Preferred Alternative; Under this alternative, the FAA would 
license launches. The licensing process would follow specifications as 
set forth in the Act and its implementing regulations. This alternative 
would allow U.S. licensed launch providers to meet the needs of U.S. 
companies that want to launch satellites; thus, decreasing the need for 
U.S. companies to look to foreign launch providers to launch U.S. 
satellites.
    More Environmentally-Friendly Propellant Combination Alternative; 
Under this alternative, the FAA would preferentially license those 
launches that produce less harmful tropospheric and stratospheric air 
emissions of hydrogen chloride (HCl) and aluminum oxide 
(Al2O3) which are associated with solid rocket 
motor (SRM) propellants. Therefore, the FAA would preferentially 
license launches of LVs with no SRMs or with combinations of SRMs and 
liquids. Preferentially licensing those launches with LVs that are not 
solely propelled by SRMs would reduce the

[[Page 52173]]

total number of licensed launches projected through 2010. The number of 
launches using liquid, liquid/solid, or hybrid propellant systems was 
assumed to remain unchanged under this alternative. Thus, the total 
number of FAA-licensed launches in the U.S. or by U.S. citizens (i.e., 
programmatic launches) would decrease substantially under this 
alternative. It is assumed that the decrease in U.S. licensed launches 
using only solid propellants would be compensated for by the increase 
in these launches elsewhere in the world, because the same number of 
payloads would still be produced and need to be launched (see Section 
2.4.1 of the PEIS) and it is likely that a similar size and type of 
launch vehicle would be employed.
    No Action Alternative; Under this alternative, the FAA would not 
issue licenses for launches. Because 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701 
requires launches within the United States or conducted by U.S. 
citizens to be licensed, the U.S. launch industry would be unable to 
provide licensed launches, regardless of launch location. In addition, 
it is possible that worldwide demand for licensed launches would 
decline if the U.S. were no longer in the commercial space launch 
market. However, it is more likely that companies in need of launch 
services would procure these services from another country. This 
alternative would prohibit the FAA from overseeing, licensing, and 
regulating launch and reentry sites as carried out by U.S. citizens or 
within the United States. In addition, the FAA could not fulfill its 
mandated responsibility for encouraging facilitating and promoting 
launches by the private sector.
    There are three major categories of environmental impacts examined 
for the preferred alternative, more environmentally-friendly 
propellants alternative, and no action alternative; they include: 
Atmospheric, noise, and other environmental impacts. The atmospheric 
category analyzes impacts to air quality, and includes an analysis of 
acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming. The noise category 
includes an analysis of launch, in-flight, and reentry noise on various 
human and animal receptors. The final category, other environmental 
effects includes analyses of impacts to water, land, and biota, as well 
as analyses of socioeconomic, historical, cultural and archaeological 
impacts. Cumulative impacts are discussed in a separate section of this 
document. The environmental impacts of each alternative are summarized 
in detail below.

Preferred Alternative

    The launch licensing alternative is the preferred alternative under 
which the FAA would license launches. Licenses would be issued in 
accordance with the specifications set out in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, 
ch. 701 and supporting regulations. Under this alternative, some site-
specific NEPA and other environmental review would still be required, 
prior to issuing launch licenses.

Atmospheric Impacts

    The atmospheric impacts of the preferred alternative are addressed 
for all levels of the atmosphere. The primary impacts to the 
troposphere may result from the ground cloud, the cluster of emissions 
formed from the ignition of rocket motors and the resulting launch of 
the LV. Other potential impacts to the troposphere could result from 
accidents on the launch pad or during initial LV flight. In the 
stratosphere, LV emissions could potentially affect global warming (the 
greenhouse gas effect) and the depletion of the stratospheric ozone 
layer. The potential LV emissions that may affect global warming 
include water vapor and CO2. The estimated water vapor and 
CO2 emissions from LVs constitute a very small fraction of 
emissions of these substances from other sources. Consequently, as 
discussed in Section 5.1.2 of the PEIS, the impacts of LV emissions on 
global warming are expected to be insignificant. In this analysis, no 
impacts are predicted to the mesosphere during normal launches because 
air emissions are not an issue in this region of the atmosphere. Some 
exhaust products from LVs generated during launch and vehicle flight 
have been found to have a temporary effect on electron concentrations 
in the F layer of the ionosphere. However, as discussed in Section 
5.1.5, these effects have been found to dissipate quickly (within 
minutes) and are therefore found to be insignificant.

Noise Impacts

    The noise impacts of the preferred alternative were also 
considered, particularly the impact of sonic booms. A sonic boom is the 
noise created by a shock wave when an aircraft or LV is traveling 
overhead faster than the speed of sound. As discussed in Section 5.2.1 
of the PEIS, there was no indication of possible health impacts from 
the preferred alternative. While annoyance data have not been 
validated, people may be more sensitive to sonic booms than previously 
thought. The type of interference and the activities that people were 
engaged in prior to the interference affect annoyance levels, and a 
wide range exists in estimating the percent of people annoyed. However, 
preliminary data indicate that people perceive sonic booms as more 
intrusive than aircraft noise at comparable levels. Structural damage 
to facilities may occur as a result of overpressure. Overpressure is a 
transient pressure, that occurs as a result of an explosion, that 
exerts a force that exceeds the standard atmospheric pressure. 
Approximately one in 10,000 panes of glass may be broken at an 
overpressure of four pounds per square foot. LVs can possibly produce 
an overpressure in the two to three pounds per square foot range and 
would only affect structures under the flight path. Flight paths could 
be altered to avoid overflight of sensitive structures and therefore 
launches of LVs would have insignificant impacts from noise.

Land and Water

    Impacts to soil may include temporary increases in available metals 
and temporary decreases in pH. Impacts to surface water may include 
temporary increases in available metals and temporary decreases in pH. 
For each of the six environment types evaluated in the PEIS, the 
buffering capacity of the soil and water were found to be sufficient to 
prevent significant impacts from launches (see Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 
of the PEIS).

Biological Resources

    Chronic impacts could result from subtle changes in habitat and the 
potential for bioaccumulation (a progressive increase of the bodily 
content of a toxic compound) of pollutants that may be released into 
the environment from launch-related activities. Impacts to biological 
resources from repeated LV emissions close to the source can include 
fish kills and/or mortality of terrestrial fauna. Flora in the vicinity 
of the launch site may be affected by the launch exhaust products or 
from combustion products associated with catastrophic events. However, 
a study of the impact of ten years of Space Shuttle launches on the 
local biota, soil, and water has not found significant impacts on these 
resources.
    Launches also present a potential for acute impacts to fish and 
wildlife in the vicinity of the launch pad resulting from noise, blast 
debris, heat, and toxic chemicals. The possibility of acute noise 
impacts depends on the size and type of LVs being launched or 
reentering. In general, the potential for impacts to biological 
resources from LV heat

[[Page 52174]]

exhaust is mitigated by the use of berms or shields. In addition, 
environmental monitoring following launch failures has not indicated 
discernable impacts on sensitive receptors.
    There is a remote possibility that jettisoned motors, stages, or 
fairings from an expendable launch vehicle could strike a marine animal 
when impacting the ocean during normal flight operations. According to 
the marine animal strike probability analysis conducted for the PEIS, 
fewer than 0.5 animal strikes are expected annually, even when all 
launch activity is summed and a summation is done across all species 
over both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (see Appendix B of the PEIS). 
For the purpose of this PEIS, a ``strike'' refers to harassment, 
injury, or death of a marine animal. The strike probability estimate 
does not indicate potential for a significant impact from launches.

Socioeconomic Impacts

    Development and growth of a commercial launch industry would have a 
beneficial economic impact. Jobs associated with the commercial launch 
industry tend to be technology-based and require highly skilled workers 
with specialized training and education.

Environmental Justice Impacts

    The PEIS considered environmental justice impacts in a general, 
non-site specific manner. Thus, environmental justice effects within 
the scope of this analysis are related to socioeconomic effects. The 
PEIS did not identify any significant environmental impacts from the 
preferred alternative. Therefore, no disproportionately high and 
adverse environmental impacts on any low-income or minority populations 
are expected as a result of the preferred alternative. Impacts to 
individuals and communities would be considered in site-specific 
environmental documentation. This analysis assumes that the preferred 
alternative would result in positive socioeconomic effects, including 
maintaining or increasing current employment levels in the U.S. launch 
industry, it is assumed that these positive effects would at a minimum 
not produce disproportionate negative impacts on minority or low-income 
populations (see Section 5.5 of the PEIS).

More Environmentally-Friendly Propellant Combination Alternative

Atmospheric Impacts

    Potential impacts to the atmosphere from the more environmentally-
friendly propellant combination alternative were examined for each 
atmospheric layer. The impacts from this alternative to the mesosphere 
and ionosphere are expected to be the same as the impacts from the 
preferred alternative, because this alternative does not affect 
emissions in those regions of the atmosphere. Potential impacts to the 
troposphere and stratosphere from this alternative are discussed below. 
It is important to note that conclusive data and analyses regarding the 
specific impacts of emissions from multiple combination propellant 
propulsion systems (e.g., liquid and solid combinations) currently do 
not exist. Because the environmental impacts from multi-propellant or 
hybrid propulsion systems have not been adequately characterized at 
this time, this analysis relies on existing, available data on 
emissions from conventional propellant systems. Ongoing U.S. Air Force 
and industry research in this area may alter the future understanding 
of the cumulative atmospheric impacts of multi-propellant propulsion 
systems and the relative atmospheric impacts of these different 
systems.
    The expected emission load of HCl in the stratosphere for all 
projected U.S. licensed launches from 2000 through 2010 (a period of 11 
years) is approximately 1,787 tons, and additional free Chlorine (Cl) 
load is 24 tons. This averages to approximately 165 tons of HCl and Cl 
load to the stratosphere from U.S. licensed launches per year. In 
comparison, under the preferred alternative, the emission load of HCl 
in the stratosphere for all projected U.S. licensed launches from 2000 
through 2010 is approximately 2,292 tons, and additional free Cl load 
is 31 tons. This averages to approximately 211 tons of HCl and Cl load 
to the stratosphere from U.S. licensed launches per year. In general, 
emissions of concern resulting from potential accidents on the launch 
pad and from activation of flight termination systems would also be 
reduced under this more environmentally-friendly propellant 
combinations alternative, because LVs using only solid propellant 
systems would no longer be licensed by the FAA (see Section 6.1 of the 
PEIS).

Noise Impacts

    As discussed in Section 6.2 of the PEIS, due to the expected 
decrease in the number of U.S. licensed launches, this alternative is 
anticipated to have fewer noise impacts than those associated with the 
preferred alternative.

Land and Water

    The more environmentally-friendly propellant combinations 
alternative would reduce the impacts of licensed launches on soils in 
the vicinity of launch pads (see Section 6.3 of the PEIS). Space 
Shuttle and other government launches using solids would still have an 
impact on soil pH, but the cumulative effects from these launches, as a 
result of fewer licensed launches involving only solid propellants, 
would not be as great. The additional impact to local water resources 
near a launch site from FAA licensed launches would also be reduced 
(see Section 6.4 of the PEIS). Additionally, coastal waters that could 
be affected in the event of an accident would experience reduced 
impacts due to the lack of use of solely SRM propelled vehicles.

Biological Resources

    Vegetation changes due to acid deposition from the ground cloud at 
launch, as well as wildlife impacts from launch activities, would be 
reduced. However, the demand for launches could lead to construction of 
launch sites outside the U.S. As discussed in Section 6.5 of the PEIS, 
these launch sites could potentially have a significant impact on 
biodiversity if they are sited on or near endangered or biologically 
fragile ecosystems (i.e., rain forests or habitats of endangered 
species). The probability of jettisoned expendable LV sections (e.g., 
payload fairings or stages) striking a marine animal would remain 
remote under this alternative.

Socioeconomic Impacts

    Development and growth of the commercial launch industry would have 
a beneficial economic impact; limiting this development and growth by 
preferentially licensing a subset of launches of LVs would reduce the 
magnitude of this beneficial impact relative to the preferred 
alternative (see Section 6.6 of the PEIS).

Environmental Justice Impacts

    This PEIS considered environmental justice impacts in a general non 
site-specific manner. Thus, environmental justice effects within the 
scope of this analysis are related to the socioeconomic effects. 
Because this analysis has shown no significant environmental effects 
from this alternative and further assumes that this alternative would 
result in positive socioeconomic effects (although less positive 
relative to the preferred alternative), including maintaining or 
increasing current employment levels in the U.S. launch industry, it is 
assumed that these positive effects would, at a minimum, not produce 
disproportionate negative impacts on minority racial,

[[Page 52175]]

ethnic, or economically-disadvantaged populations (see Section 6.7 of 
the PEIS).

No Action Alternative

    Because 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701--Commercial Space Launch 
Activities, formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) requires 
launches by U.S. entities to be licensed, the U.S. launch industry 
would be unable to continue LV launch operations regardless of their 
location, under the no action alternative. Chapter 701 requires FAA to 
license a launch if the applicant complies and will continue to comply 
with chapter 701 and implementing regulations. 49 U.S.C. 70105. One of 
the purposes of chapter 701 is to provide that the Secretary of 
Transportation, and therefore the FAA, pursuant to delegations, 
oversees and coordinates the conduct of launch and reentry, and issues 
and transfers licenses authorizing those activities. 49 U.S.C. 70104 
(b)(3). The agency has the authority to prevent a launch if it decides 
that the launch would jeopardize public health and safety, safety of 
property, or national security or a foreign policy interest of the 
United States. 49 U.S.C. 70104 (c). Not licensing any U.S. launches 
would not be consistent with chapter 701 in this context. Additionally, 
the no action alternative could negatively impact the national security 
and foreign policy interests of the United States. Some U.S. government 
payloads have been launched by the U.S. commercial launch industry. 
Therefore, if launches were not licensed, the overall reduction in 
available payload capacity could, in a worst case scenario, impact the 
U.S. government's ability to launch needed payloads and negatively 
affect programs that rely on access to space. Additionally, parties 
that had planned to launch from U.S. launch sites would be forced to 
find alternatives potentially exposing sensitive technologies to 
countries with competing economic and security interests.
    Under the no action alternative it was assumed that the same number 
of worldwide commercial launches would take place. However, because the 
FAA would cease issuing licenses for launches by U.S. companies, the 
launches would take place using foreign launch providers and locations. 
In the absence of access to licensed launches in the United States, it 
is likely that other countries with existing launch programs (e.g., 
France, Russia, China, and Canada) would significantly expand their 
programs to accommodate the demand. In addition, it is possible that 
countries without existing launch programs would initiate commercial 
launches to meet this worldwide demand.

Atmospheric Impacts

    It is possible that if no licensed launches could take place from 
the U.S., then fewer LVs would be launched overall worldwide unless 
existing foreign launch programs could expand rapidly to accommodate 
increased launch requirements. As discussed in Section 7.1 of the PEIS, 
this would result in an overall decrease globally in launch emissions 
that potentially affect the atmosphere. However, based on the 
comparison of capacity and propulsion systems, the transfer of launches 
from U.S. LVs to foreign LVs (e.g., Zenit (Russia), Proton (Russia), 
Ariane IV and V (France), Long March (China), H2 (Japan), GSLV (India), 
PSLV (India), and M-V (Japan)) could cause an increase in atmospheric 
emissions overall. Any specific effects that might be associated with 
launches such as the potential for acid rain, and highly transient and 
localized stratospheric ozone depletion, would occur outside the U.S. 
However, the potential for global warming and stratospheric ozone 
depletion would remain essentially the same based on the assumption 
that an equal number of launches would occur in either case.

Noise Impacts

    The prospect of noise and sonic booms near U.S. launch sites from 
licensed launches would be eliminated (see Section 7.2 of the PEIS).

Land and Water

    If no licensed launches occurred, there would be no impact on the 
soils in the vicinity of launch pads at U.S. launch sites. Space 
Shuttle and other government launches would still have an impact on 
soil pH, but the cumulative effects from these launches, absent 
licensed launches, would not be as great (see Section 7.3 of the PEIS). 
Similarly, the prospect of local water impacts near U.S. licensed 
launch sites would be eliminated, and coastal waters that could be 
affected in the event of an accident would no longer be impacted (see 
Section 7.4 of the PEIS).

Biological Resources

    Vegetation changes from the launch ground cloud would be 
eliminated, as well as impacts to wildlife from launch activities. 
However, the increased demand for launches could lead to construction 
of launch sites outside the U.S. As discussed in Section 7.5 of the 
PEIS, these launch sites could potentially have a significant impact on 
worldwide biodiversity if they were sited on or near endangered or 
biologically fragile ecosystems (i.e., rainforest or habitats of 
endangered species). The probability of jettisoned expendable launch 
vehicle sections (e.g., spent SRMs, payload fairings, or stages) 
striking a marine animal would remain remote.

Socioeconomic Impacts

    The no action alternative could have negative socioeconomic impacts 
by forcing all payloads currently planned for licensed launches in the 
U.S. to use foreign launch vehicles (see Section 7.6 of the PEIS). As a 
result, U.S. jobs would be lost to foreign entities to support their 
launch activities and programs. It is also possible that U.S. 
telecommunication companies and other U.S. space users would be given 
lower priority for launching satellites, creating a potential for 
scheduling problems and loss of competitiveness in the global 
technology market.

Environmental Justice Impacts

    The no action alternative would create no significant environmental 
effects and thus would not disproportionately affect minority or 
disadvantaged populations. However, because the no action alternative 
would have negative socioeconomic impacts that may result in a loss of 
U.S. jobs to foreign entities, it is possible that minority or low-
income populations could suffer some disproportionate effects of these 
job losses (see Section 7.7 of the PEIS).

Potential Cumulative Impacts of Launches

    This section considers the potential cumulative impacts of launch 
events. Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts to the environment 
which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 
such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Only the cumulative atmospheric 
impacts of licensed launches combined with all other launches worldwide 
were analyzed. Other cumulative impacts, including most cumulative 
noise and local environmental impacts, would be site-specific and are 
beyond the scope of this PEIS. Other cumulative impacts would be 
considered in site-specific documentation.

Cumulative Atmospheric Impacts

    The cumulative impact of all tropospheric emissions loadings from 
launches is relatively insignificant

[[Page 52176]]

compared with industrial and natural emissions loadings to the 
troposphere (see Section 8.1.1 of the PEIS).
    As discussed in Section 8.1.2 of the PEIS, the cumulative impacts 
of launches on global warming and depletion of the stratospheric ozone 
layer are insignificant compared to other global industrial sources. 
The cumulative impact on stratospheric ozone depletion from launches is 
far below and indistinguishable from the effects from other natural and 
man-made sources.
    The PEIS does not predict any cumulative impacts to the mesosphere 
or ionosphere (see Sections 8.1.3 and 8.1.4 of the PEIS). The greater 
the number of vehicles that are launched, the greater the potential for 
creating ``holes'' in the ionosphere; however, based on available data 
indicating that this effect is temporary, the cumulative impacts to the 
ionosphere are assumed to be extremely small.
    When an accident occurs near the launch pad or a launch anomaly 
forces the use of in-flight termination capabilities (if equipped), 
there is a cumulative effect on air quality, potential global warming, 
and stratospheric ozone depletion (see Section 8.1.5 of the PEIS). For 
accidents that occur in the stratosphere, HCl and nitrogen oxides 
emissions could potentially contribute to stratospheric ozone 
depletion, while carbon dioxide emissions could potentially contribute 
to global warming. Although on a cumulative basis the likelihood of 
accidents occurring increases as the number of launches increases, 
accidents involving launch vehicles are relatively uncommon events 
primarily because launches of these vehicles are infrequent events 
especially as compared to other traditional modes of transportation.

Cumulative Noise Impacts

    In general, the potential cumulative impacts of noise from LV 
launches are expected to be local effects that are expected to impact 
the area around the launch pad (see Section 8.2 of the PEIS). However, 
an important possible cumulative noise impact might include changes in 
the migrating route and habitat selection of certain marine animals 
exposed to repeated occurrences of sonic booms caused by the flight and 
reentry of LVs.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

    The launch of LVs requires the commitment of natural resources, 
including the consumption of mineral resources. No additional cultural 
resources, whether human or land resources, are expected to be 
committed to the launching of LVs beyond those that have been or will 
be addressed in site-specific environmental documentation. Basic 
commitments of natural and cultural resources for licensed launches are 
not different from those necessary for many other research and 
development programs; they are similar to the activities that have been 
carried out in previous space program activities (see Section 11 of the 
PEIS).

Mitigation Measures

    A variety of mitigation measures are presented in the PEIS and 
selected measures could be implemented for those projects for which 
site-specific environmental analyses show the potential for significant 
impacts. The PEIS specifically presented mitigation measures for noise, 
water quality, air quality, solid and hazardous waste, cultural and 
historical resources, biological resources, and orbital debris (for 
detailed discussion see Sections 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, and 9.7, 
respectively, of the PEIS). Monitoring may be appropriate at individual 
launch sites, such as water sampling and analyses, archeological 
surveys of areas with historic artifacts, and biological species 
surveys by specialists to monitor the health and numbers of biological 
species of concern.
    Examples of mitigation measures are described below.
    Noise. Research and guidelines regarding noise harassment and 
injury to threatened or endangered species are evolving. Launch 
personnel responsible for environmental health and safety should keep 
abreast of advances in this area, and take active measures to avoid 
levels established as inducing behavior modification or injury (e.g., 
certain sea state conditions may be associated with less noise impacts, 
as well as certain slower speeds). Possible actions to mitigate the 
effects of noise at launch sites include:
     Orientating the flame bucket away from sensitive receptor 
areas.
     Using a deflector sheet on the flame bucket.
     Using a deluge system to suppress engine ignition noise.
     Constructing blast fences around the launch site 
perimeter.
     Restricting launches to optimal seasons (e.g., launching 
only during non-nesting or non-migratory seasons, depending on the 
species of concern).
     Restricting launches to optimal times during the day 
(e.g., preferably mid-day).
     Planting tall and fast-growing trees around the perimeter 
of the launch site (e.g., poplar trees).
     Constructing berms along roadways.
     Using lower engine power levels at liftoff, as 
appropriate.
     Coordinating with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) personnel regarding appropriate local 
activities and monitoring of sensitive species.
    Water Quality. Possible actions to mitigate the effects on water 
quality at launch sites include:
     If surface or ground water is to be withdrawn for fire 
protection, personnel deluge purposes, noise mitigation, or for potable 
water, studies may be undertaken to ensure the reservoir has an 
adequate capacity.
     Preparing spill contingency plans that are updated as 
frequently as needed.
     Containment structures can be constructed around storage 
facilities to prevent a leak from impacting surface or ground water.
     Contoured land or catchment basins can be put in place to 
collect excess water from flame suppression or noise suppression 
activities to prevent runoff into bodies of water.
     Recycle or reuse water generated and used on site.
     Marine pollution abatement measures may include: 
Deployment of booms, use of dispersion chemicals, collection of debris, 
and implementation of a monitoring program.
    Air Quality. Possible actions to mitigate the effects on air 
quality at launch sites include:
     Using environmentally-friendly propellants, as feasible.
     Launching in optimal weather and wind conditions to 
maximize the rate of dissipation of the ground cloud while minimizing 
the potential impacts to sensitive receptors.
     Participating in emissions banking/trading programs.
    Research is continuing in several areas vital to mitigating the 
potential air impacts of launches. As additional information becomes 
available regarding currently unresolved research questions, this 
information should be used to implement appropriate air quality 
mitigation measures. Examples of current unresolved research questions 
include: (1) The influence of local stratospheric meteorology in ozone 
depletion related to LV emissions; (2) size distributions and relative 
influence of alumina versus soot emissions; (3) U.S. LOx/
kerosene propellant systems ozone loss mechanism; (4) emissions and 
potential ozone-depleting

[[Page 52177]]

differences between U.S. and Russian LOx/kerosene motors; 
and (5) impacts from emissions from pure (no SRM) LOx/
kerosene LV propellant systems.\i\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \i\ Ross, Martin. The Aerospace Corporation. Rocket Impacts on 
Stratospheric Ozone: Program Review. March 25, 1998 Briefing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Solid and Hazardous Waste. Possible actions to mitigate the effects 
of solid and hazardous wastes at launch sites include:
     Taking advantage of all pollution prevention 
opportunities, and implementing an active pollution prevention plan and 
reward system.
     Implementing a proactive recycling program for solid and 
some hazardous wastes to minimize the amounts generated.
     Purchasing environmentally-friendly products whenever 
possible.
     Maintaining appropriate site-specific clean-up materials 
in accordance with spill prevention and preparedness procedures (e.g., 
pH neutralizers).
     Developing a comprehensive Environmental Management System 
consistent with ISO 14000 guidelines.
    Cultural and Historical Resources. The most important mitigation 
action to protect cultural and historical resources is to restrict 
activities and disturbances at launch sites, as much as is feasible, to 
limited areas in order to maintain near-natural conditions on as much 
of the site as possible. In addition, consultation with appropriate 
state historic preservation offices, tribal historic preservation 
offices, local communities, and impacted populations should be 
conducted to identify and further mitigate possible effects on cultural 
and historical resources. Specific mitigation actions should include 
the following:
     Whenever possible, avoid launching in culturally or 
historically sensitive areas.
     Relocate resources, if possible and approved by 
stakeholders and public authorities.
     Protect resources from launch impacts with blast fences, 
enclosures, and other physical control measures.
     Coordinate with the state historic preservation office, 
tribal historic preservation offices, and other local authorities, as 
appropriate and meet proactively with members of the public.
    Biological Resources. The most important mitigation action to 
protect biological resources is to restrict activities and disturbances 
at launch sites, as much as is feasible, to limited areas in order to 
maintain near-natural conditions on as much of the site as possible. 
Generic mitigation measures should also include proper containment of 
all chemicals and an adequate spill preparedness program, including 
effective emergency and disaster plans to minimize the effects of 
accidents. Specific mitigation measures to protect biological resources 
at launch sites might also include the following:
     Relocating endangered or threatened animals.
     Banking wetlands.
     Using barriers (e.g., fencing) to minimize animal 
intrusion in the area or to keep species in place and away from the 
launch location.
     Building new habitat (habitat substitution) or improving 
existing habitat.
     Implementing an effective lighting policy for management 
of exterior lights, emphasizing the use of low-pressure sodium lights 
as opposed to lights that emit ultraviolet, violet-blue, and blue-green 
wavelengths.
     Active monitoring (and implementing appropriate action 
plans using the results of monitoring) to offset any unanticipated 
effects.
     Optimally directing the launch pad flame duct so as to 
minimize impacts to vegetation from scorching.
     Coordinating early in the proposed project with U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife, NMFS, and/or state wildlife officials regarding any 
concerns including: Local activities and monitoring of sensitive 
species (e.g., conducting operations to avoid sensitive breeding, 
spawning, or weaning seasons).
    Orbital Debris. Although orbital debris is in outer space, it is 
possible that it could reenter Earth's atmosphere. Likely impacts would 
be insignificant but the FAA does require applicants to demonstrate 
certain safety measures in order to receive license approval. While 
these launch plan features are not required for environmental purposes 
and the orbital debris outside the Earth's atmosphere are not an impact 
category, the requirements can have a beneficial mitigating effect. The 
more orbital debris, the greater the likelihood debris could reenter 
Earth's atmosphere; and therefore efforts to minimize the amount of 
debris have an added benefit beyond safety as mitigating detrimental 
impacts. To obtain safety approval, an applicant must demonstrate for 
any proposed launch that for all launch vehicle stages or components 
that reach Earth orbit--(a) There will be no unplanned physical contact 
between the vehicle or its components and the payload after payload 
separation; (b) Debris generation will not result from the conversion 
of energy sources into energy that fragments the vehicle or its 
components. Energy sources include chemical, pressure, and kinetic 
energy; and (c) Stored energy will be removed by depleting residual 
fuel and leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized 
system, leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and 
removing any remaining source of stored energy. Other equivalent 
procedures may be approved in the course of the licensing process. 
Additional mitigation measures may be employed to shield against debris 
particles up to 1 cm in diameter. For debris of larger sizes, current 
shielding concepts may become impractical.\ii\ Advanced shielding 
concepts may make shielding against particles up to 2 cm diameter 
reasonable, but it is possible that the only useful alternative 
strategy for large particles will be avoidance, which is feasible for 
average size spacecraft, but for very large spacecraft collision 
probabilities are sufficiently high that an alternate means of 
protection may be required.\iii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ii\ National Science and Technology Council. Interagency Report 
on Orbital Debris. November 1995.
    \iii\ National Science and Technology Council. Interagency 
Report on Orbital Debris. November 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Launch planning may help to protect launch vehicles and payloads 
from potential damage. Although there are no measures to significantly 
modify the current debris environment, there are options available to 
control, limit, or reduce the growth of orbital debris in the future 
including:
     Obtaining a conjunction on launch assessment from U.S. 
Space Command (See 14 CFR 417.233).
     Booster and payload design to minimize release of debris.
     Preventing spontaneous explosions of launch vehicle bodies 
and spacecraft.
     Use of particle-free propellants.
     Disposal or de-orbiting of spent upper stages or 
spacecraft.
     Careful mission design to actively remove debris.
     Launch vehicles and spacecraft can be designed so that 
they are litter-free (i.e., they dispose of separations devices, 
payload shrouds, and other expendable hardware at a low enough altitude 
and velocity that they do not become orbital).
     Stage-to-stage separation devices and spacecraft 
protective devices such as lens covers and other potential debris can 
be kept captive to the stage or spacecraft with lanyards or other 
provisions to minimize debris.
     When stages and spacecraft do not have the capability to 
de-orbit, they can be made as inert as feasible by expelling all 
propellants and pressurants and

[[Page 52178]]

assuring that batteries are protected from spontaneous explosion.
     No unplanned physical contact between the vehicle or its 
components and the payload after payload separation.
     When the mission requires delivery of a spacecraft which 
itself has a maneuver capability, two alternatives are possible.
    1. Leave the upper stage attached for delivery of the spacecraft to 
orbit to maximize its maneuver capability.
    2. Separate the spacecraft at suborbital velocity so that the stage 
decays naturally and the spacecraft uses its onboard propulsion to 
establish its orbit.
    All launch sites would comply with any permit conditions imposed by 
regulatory authorities.
    Prepared by Michon Washington. Dated: October 5, 2001.
    Recommended by Herb Bachner. Dated: October 5, 2001.

Decision and Order

    The more environmentally-friendly propellant combinations 
alternative is defined as preferentially licensing those vehicles that 
are not solely propelled by SRMs. The number of launches using liquid, 
liquid/solid, or hybrid propellant systems was assumed to remain 
unchanged under this alternative. Thus, the total number of FAA-
licensed launches in the U.S. would decrease substantially under this 
alternative. It was assumed that the decrease in U.S. licensed launches 
that use only solid propellants would be compensated for by an increase 
in these types of launches elsewhere in the world.
    Because 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701--Commercial Space Launch 
Activities, formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) requires 
launches by U.S. entities to be licensed, the U.S. launch industry 
would be unable to continue LV launch operations regardless of their 
location under the no action alternative. Not licensing any U.S. 
launches would not be consistent with chapter 701 in this context. 
Under the no action alternative it was assumed that the same number of 
worldwide commercial launches would take place. However, because the 
FAA would cease issuing licenses for U.S. launches, the launches would 
take place using foreign launch providers and locations.
    Neither the more environmentally-friendly propellant combinations 
alternative nor the no action alternative would enable the FAA to fully 
meet projected demand for increased access to commercial space 
transportation. The preferred alternative does fulfill the purpose and 
need for commercial access to space. In addition, although some 
environmental effects may be greater under the preferred alternative as 
compared to the no action or more environmentally-friendly propellant 
combinations 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.
    The information in this PEIS is not intended to address all site-
specific launch issues. Appropriate site-specific environmental 
documentation would be developed in conjunction with the licensing 
process. The PEIS is intended to serve as a tiering document to assist 
launch operators in preparing site-specific documentation.
    I have carefully considered the FAA's goals and objectives in 
relation to the programmatic launch 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. 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC on: October 5, 2001.
Patricia G. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 01-25754 Filed 10-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P