[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9007-9014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4176]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Finding of No Significant Impact.

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

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepared an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the East Kern Airport 
District (EKAD) proposal to operate a commercial launch facility at the 
Mojave Airport in Mojave, California. The EA also evaluated the 
potential environmental impacts of launches of two types of 
horizontally launched suborbital vehicles (Concept A and Concept B) 
proposed to be launched from the Mojave Airport. The EKAD owns and 
operates the Mojave Airport and must comply with the California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to operate a launch facility at the 
Mojave Airport. The EKAD was responsible for complying with the 
responsibilities of CEQA. In addition to the launch site operator 
license application from EKAD, Scaled Composites, LLC, is requesting a 
launch specific license and proposes to conduct up to six licensed 
launches in 2004 of the SpaceShipOne launch vehicle. This launch 
vehicle is similar to the Concept A vehicle described and analyzed in 
the EA. After reviewing and analyzing currently available data and 
information on existing conditions, project impacts, and measures to 
mitigate those impacts, the FAA, Office of the Associate Administrator 
for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) has determined that licensing 
the operation of the proposed launch site and issuing a launch specific 
license for up to six launches of the SpaceShipOne launch vehicle would 
not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within 
the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore 
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not 
required and AST is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 
The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable 
environmental laws.

For a Copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding EKAD 
Launch Operations and Scaled Composites Launch Specific License 
Contact: Ms. Michon Washington, FAA Environmental Specialist, Mojave 
Airport EA, c/o ICF Consulting, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031 or 
refer

[[Page 9008]]

to the following Internet address: http://ast.faa.gov.

DATES: The Draft EA was released for public comment on October 31, 
2003. In addition, the FAA held a public hearing on December 10, 2003 
in Mojave, California to collect comments from the public. All comments 
received before December 12, 2003 were considered in the preparation of 
the Final EA.
    Proposed Actions: Operation of a non-Federal launch site in the 
United States, such as EKAD's proposed operation of a launch site at 
the Mojave Airport, in Mojave, California, and launches of launch 
vehicles, such as Scaled Composites' proposed launches of the 
SpaceShipOne vehicle from the Mojave Airport must be licensed by the 
FAA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 70101-70119, formerly the Commercial 
Space Launch Act. Licensing the operation of a launch site and a launch 
vehicle are Federal actions requiring environmental analyses by the FAA 
in accordance with NEPA, 1969, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq. Upon receipt 
of complete license applications, AST must determine whether to issue a 
license to EKAD to operate a launch site at the Mojave Airport and 
whether to issue a launch specific license to Scaled Composites for up 
to six launches of the SpaceShipOne launch vehicle from the Mojave 
Airport. An environmental determination is required for the evaluation 
of license applications.
    The launch site would be located at the Mojave Airport. No 
construction activities are proposed as part of this action. Existing 
infrastructure including hangars and runways would be used to support 
launch and landing operations at the proposed launch site. Existing 
rocket test stands may also be used for static testing of rocket 
engines.
    The proposed EKAD launch site operator license would be for the 
purpose of operating a facility to launch horizontally launched, 
suborbital rockets. Under the proposed action, the FAA would issue a 
launch site operator license to the EKAD for the Mojave Airport for the 
purpose of operating a facility to launch horizontally launched, 
suborbital rockets. In addition, the EKAD may offer other services for 
commercial launch vehicle manufacturing, and other testing and 
manufacturing activities. These services and other testing and 
manufacturing activities are unrelated to, and are not authorized by 
the Launch Site Operator License. Launch providers would be responsible 
for obtaining launch licenses from the FAA to conduct launches at the 
Mojave Airport. The FAA may use the analyses in the Final EA as the 
basis for environmental determinations of the impacts of these launches 
to support licensing decisions for the launch of specific launch 
vehicles from the Mojave Airport.
    Proposed launch operations currently include launches of two types 
of launch vehicles. The first type referred to in the EA as Concept A 
includes air-drop designs where two vehicles, an airplane and launch 
vehicle are mated together and the airplane carries the launch vehicle 
to a predetermined altitude where the launch vehicle is dropped and its 
rocket engines ignite. The SpaceShipOne vehicle is similar to the 
Concept A vehicle described and analyzed in the EA. The second type of 
launch vehicle, referred to in the EA as Concept B, includes 
horizontally launched vehicles, which use rocket power to take off from 
a standard aviation runway. The EA addresses the overall impacts to the 
environment of the proposed operations anticipated for a five-year 
launch site license term to include the launch and landing of Concept A 
and B launch vehicles at the Mojave Airport and testing rocket engines 
that would be incorporated into Concept A and B launch vehicles.
    The FAA and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) are involved in the proposed 
action. The FAA is the lead Federal agency for the NEPA process and is 
responsible for licensing and regulating EKAD's launch operations under 
49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX-Commercial Space Transportation, ch. 701, 
Commercial Space Launch Activities. The Air Force Flight Test Center 
(AFFTC) is the host organization at Edwards Air Force Base, which is 
located 48 kilometers (30 miles) east of the Mojave Airport. The AFFTC 
manages the special use airspace designated as Restricted Area R-2515 
(contained within the R-2508 Complex), which would be the primary 
operating area for the vehicles launched from the Mojave Airport. 
Commercial and private agencies that operate aircraft in the R-2508 
Complex maintain appropriate Letters of Agreement (LOA) with both the 
R-2508 Complex Control Board and the AFFTC for operation in their 
respective areas. In addition, USAF aircraft may use Mojave Airport for 
some missions. The AFFTC also operates the airfield, which would serve 
as the primary emergency landing site for the launch vehicles. These 
entities also have a responsibility for the environment and assets on 
the ground, which have the potential to be affected by launches. 
Therefore, the FAA requested and the USAF agreed to participate as a 
cooperating agency in the preparation of NEPA analysis for this 
proposed action. The EKAD is the lead agency for CEQA. On December 16, 
2003 the EKAD adopted a Negative Declaration for the proposed action 
pursuant to the CEQA.
    Alternatives Considered: Alternatives analyzed in the EA included 
(1) the proposed action, issuing a launch site operator license to the 
EKAD for the operation of a launch site at Mojave Airport for Concept A 
and Concept B launch vehicles, (2) issuing a launch site operator 
license to the EKAD for the Mojave Airport for Concept A launch 
vehicles only, (3) issuing a launch site operator license to EKAD for 
the Mojave Airport for Concept B launch vehicles only, and (4) the no 
action alternative.
    Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch 
site operator license to EKAD for launches of Concept A and Concept B 
launch vehicles from the Mojave Airport. No launches of Concept A or 
Concept B launch vehicles would take place from the Mojave Airport. The 
Airport would continue to operate as a general aviation airport and 
predicted environmental impacts from the proposed action would not 
occur.

Environmental Impacts

Safety and Health

    A hazard analysis is a necessary part of the Mission and Safety 
Review for the FAA licensing determination to assess the possible 
hazards associated with proposed ground, flight, and landing 
operations. Launches of Concept A and B vehicles (including 
SpaceShipOne) from the Mojave Airport would require launch specific 
licenses from the FAA and each launch applicant (including Scaled 
Composites) would be required to conduct risk analyses based on the 
proposed mission profiles. The Mission and Safety Review will consider 
these analyses, and, therefore, they were not discussed in detail in 
this EA. However, analysis of the safety and health implications of 
launch related operations and activities that have the potential for 
environmental impact were considered in this EA.
    Ground operations involved in servicing and preparing launch 
vehicles typically involve industrial activities, which were evaluated 
for potential impact on the environment. There are various hazards 
associated with these activities including
    [sbull] Spill/fire/explosion of propellant/fuel storage, transport, 
handling, and loading;
    [sbull] Traffic accidents due to increased activity on and off 
site; and
    [sbull] Occupational mechanical accidents.
    There would be some vapors of various propellants released from

[[Page 9009]]

propellant storage/transfer operations through evaporative losses. 
However, such vapors would be vented outside and at a height that would 
provide adequate protection for personnel, buildings and the 
environment. Also, the total quantity of emissions would not occur as a 
large acute (short-term) exposure, but would occur as a slow vapor 
release over a long period of time. There is also the concern of spills 
of propellants during handling and loading operations and subsequent 
fire or explosion. However, the Mojave Airport has established 
practices and procedures to handle the spills and releases of 
propellants.
    Increased road traffic that would result from conducting the 
proposed launch operations at the Mojave Airport would only add a few 
cars/trucks above existing traffic loads. However, the increase in the 
number of shipments of hazardous materials should not significantly 
increase the number of traffic accidents on the roadways around the 
Mojave Airport.
    On-site work associated with the conduct of launch operations would 
be similar to that associated with industrial chemical operations. 
Exposure to mechanical accidents should not differ significantly from 
current levels for the Mojave Airport because the number of operations 
associated with the conduct of launch operations would be relatively 
small given the number of operations airport wide.
    In a catastrophic accident, it would be likely that the crew would 
be seriously injured or killed. At the Airport, the on-site fire 
department would respond and secure the site, but would stay clear of 
the immediate area until the danger of explosions diminishes. It is 
expected that any fires resulting from a failure could be fought by the 
fire department. Additional off-site emergency response capability 
could also be used if necessary.

Air Quality

    Air emissions may be generated during launch/landing operations, 
pre- and post-launch ground operations, and accidents. The proposed 
action does not include any changes to the physical structure of the 
airport (e.g., runway) or any construction activities; therefore there 
are no construction vehicles or associated emissions and no 
construction-related dust or airborne particles. The air quality at the 
Mojave Airport in Eastern Kern County is in Federal non-attainment 
(serious) and State non-attainment (moderate) for ozone, and non-
attainment for PM10 (California standards only). A Federal 
agency cannot support an action (e.g., fund, license) unless the 
activity will conform to the Environmental Protection Agency-approved 
State Implementation Plan for the region. This is called a conformity 
determination or analysis. A conformity analysis may involve performing 
air quality modeling and implementing measures to mitigate the air 
quality impacts. The Federal government is exempt from the requirement 
to perform a conformity analysis if two conditions are met.
    [sbull] The ongoing activities do not produce emissions above the 
de minimis levels specified in the rule.
    [sbull] The Federal action must not be considered a regionally 
significant action. A Federal action is considered regionally 
significant when the total emissions from the action equal or exceed 10 
percent of the air quality control area's emissions inventory for any 
criteria pollutant.
    Air analyses indicated that nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are 0.01 metric tons (0.01 
tons) per year and 2.2 metric tons (2.4 tons) per year, respectively. 
These would not be above the de minimis level of 45.4 metric tons (50 
tons) per year. In addition, the total emissions from the proposed 
action represent 0.0001 percent of the area's emissions inventory for 
NOX and 0.05 percent of the area's emissions inventory for 
VOC, and therefore, are not regionally significant. Based on these 
data, there is no need for a Federal conformity analysis and no 
significant impacts to air quality are anticipated.
    The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 
NOX and VOC for areas in severe non-attainment is 25 tons 
per year. Therefore, for emissions resulting from the proposed action, 
there would be no exceedances of the NAAQS from the proposed action and 
an NAAQS assessment would not be required to evaluate the potential for 
significant air quality impacts under NEPA.
    For Concept A vehicles (including SpaceShipOne), the EA addressed 
the impacts to air quality from both the carrier aircraft and the mated 
suborbital launch vehicle. The aircraft would have turbojet engines 
using Jet A-1 fuel. The Concept A launch vehicle would use a hybrid 
rocket engine with nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydroxyl-
terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) as propellants. There would be 
emissions from both the carrier aircraft and the launch vehicle 
components. To make emissions calculations for the carrier aircraft, it 
is assumed the aircraft would most closely resemble the T-38 Tiger 
aircraft which uses two J85-GE-5F engines. To estimate aircraft 
emissions, emission factors (e.g., pounds released per takeoff/landing 
cycle) found in the EPA document Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 
Factors for the T-38 aircraft were used. The takeoff/landing cycle 
includes idle, takeoff, climb out to 914 meters (3,000 feet), descent 
starting at 914 meters (3,000 feet), approach, and landing.
    The analysis considered emissions in two categories, above 914 
meters (3,000 feet) and below 914 meters (3,000 feet). The 914 meter 
(3,000 feet) altitude is an appropriate cutoff because the Federal 
government uses 914 meters (3,000 feet) and below for contributions of 
emissions to the ambient air quality and for de minimis calculations. 
Annual emissions from the carrier aircraft for a maximum of six flights 
would be 225.1 kilograms (496.3 pounds) of CO, 3.3 kilograms (7.3 
pounds) of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 28.3 kilograms (62.5 
pounds) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 1.7 kilograms (3.7 
pounds) of sulfur dioxide (SOX). Because NOX and 
VOC emissions from the carrier aircraft are not above the de minimis 
level of 45.4 metric tons (50 tons) per year, there is no need for a 
Federal conformity analysis.
    Emissions from the launch vehicle would occur from the combustion 
of N2O and HTPB. For each flight, there would be an 
estimated 1,295 kilograms (2,855 pounds) of N2O and 228 
kilograms (503 pounds) of HTPB. The emissions would begin at an 
altitude of between 16 to 20 kilometers (10 to 12 miles) (troposphere 
and beginning of stratosphere). The emissions are based on propellant 
emission factors similar to those used in the Navy FA-18E/F EA. These 
emission factors are refined because the launch vehicle proposes to use 
N2O and HTPB rather than perchlorate and HTPB as in the Navy 
EA. Thus, it was assumed that
    [sbull] N2O fully decomposes to oxygen and nitrogen,
    [sbull] The oxygen fully reacts with the hydrogen in the HTPB to 
form water,
    [sbull] The oxygen reacts with the carbon in HTPB to produce 
roughly ten times as much carbon monoxide (CO) as carbon dioxide 
(CO2) (similar to FA-18E/F EA), and
    [sbull] The nitrogen is released as nitrogen gas (N2).
    To estimate the total emissions, the emissions fractions were 
multiplied by the total amount of propellant used (1,523 kilograms 
[3,358 pounds]) and the number of flights expected per year. In a year 
with a maximum of six flights the emissions would be 274 kilograms (604 
pounds) of CO2, 1,828 kilograms (4,030 pounds) of CO, 2,011 
kilograms

[[Page 9010]]

(4,433 pounds) of water, and 4,935 kilograms (10,880 pounds) of 
N2. The propellant is fully expended above 914 meters (3,000 
feet); therefore, there are no propellant combustion emissions for the 
proposed vehicle during landing.
    There are also emissions from the carrier aircraft above 914 
meters. Although these emissions were considered, it was generally 
assumed that aircraft emissions from the six proposed flights per year 
would be relatively small compared to a total of 18,301 aircraft 
flights occurring annually from the Mojave Airport.
    Emissions can also occur from support equipment used during ground 
operations. This could include various trucks and equipment, although 
there would be relatively few used and therefore few emissions would be 
expected to result from their use. There would also be air emissions 
from fueling the carrier aircraft and storage of additional fuels. Each 
flight of the carrier aircraft would consume 2,903 kilograms (6,400 
pounds) of Jet-A fuel. This would equal 21,804 liters (5,760 gallons) 
per year based on 1.25 liters per kilogram (0.15 gallons per pound) and 
six flights per year. Fuel use at the Mojave Airport during the 12-
month period from July 2002 to June 2003 was 7,933,837 liters 
(2,095,898 gallons). An additional 21,804 liters (5,760 gallons) of 
fuel per year represents a small increase in annual Jet-A usage at the 
airport and, therefore, the emissions from storage and dispensing as a 
result of activities related to proposed launch operations would not be 
significant.
    Because the emissions from the launch vehicle would originate far 
above the applicable altitude (914 meters [3,000 feet]) for the Federal 
or California ambient air quality standards, these emissions are not 
evaluated using these air ambient quality standards. Under Federal law, 
it would be necessary to conduct a conformity analysis for criteria 
pollutants that do not meet Federal attainment standards. Eastern Kern 
County is in serious non-attainment for ozone under Federal attainment 
standards. Therefore, if annual emissions of ozone precursors (VOC or 
NOX) were above certain de minimis levels, it would be 
necessary to conduct a conformity analysis. Emissions analysis showed 
that NOX and VOC emissions would not exceed de minimis 
levels of 45.4 metric tons (50 tons) per year. Based on emissions 
originating below 914 meters (3,000 feet) there is no need for a 
Federal conformity analysis. None of the emissions are expected to 
expose the nearby population or sensitive receptors to substantial 
pollutant concentrations. Also, the emission products should not expose 
the population to objectionable odors of types that do not already 
exist from airport operations (e.g., fuel and exhaust odors).

Airspace

    No significant impacts to Mojave Airport airspace would occur as a 
result of the proposed action. Conducting a maximum of six launches of 
the SpaceShipOne vehicle over a 12-month period would have no 
significant impacts on airspace. Conducting six launches per year would 
result in a 0.03 percent increase in activity at the Mojave Airport. 
Increased operations including all Concept A and B launches (up to 56 
flights per year by 2008) for the proposed activity would represent an 
increase of 0.3 percent over the current annual flight rate at the 
Airport. This increase would not exceed the capabilities of the Mojave 
Airport facilities and control tower and would not result in a 
significantly higher probability of in-flight mishaps. No significant 
impacts to off-site airspace would occur as a result of the proposed 
action. The proposed action would occur almost exclusively in the R-
2508 Complex. The Mojave Airport and several of its tenants have LOAs 
with the R-2508 Complex Control Board and the managers of individual 
restricted areas within the R-2508 Complex to operate within the 
various individual restricted areas (including R-2515). Any flights 
into the R-2508 Complex that are part of the proposed action that would 
create a significant impact to military activities would be prohibited 
by the scheduling and controlling agencies. Thus, the proposed action 
would not result in long-term changes to military operations or 
training within restricted airspace.

Biological Resources

Vegetation
    The proposed action would use a designated runway at Mojave Airport 
for launches and landings of Concept A and B launch vehicles. The 
runways are routinely used for take-offs and landings by other 
aircraft, and no construction activities would be required to support 
launch operations. Because no development activities are planned, 
adverse effects to vegetation, including Joshua trees and creosote 
scrub, would not be anticipated.
    In the unlikely event of an emergency landing, the pilot would 
attempt to reach the primary abort site at the main runway at Edwards 
Air Force Base. However, any airport within gliding range with a runway 
of at least 1,219 meters (4,000 feet) would be a candidate for an 
emergency landing location. Although the designated abort sites include 
areas where sensitive habitat and species may be present, it is 
unlikely that an emergency landing would occur at these sites, and 
therefore significant impacts to vegetation found at these sites would 
not be anticipated.
Wildlife
    The proposed action would use a designated runway at Mojave Airport 
for launches and landings of Concept A and B launch vehicles. The 
runways are routinely used for take-offs and landings of other 
aircraft, and no construction activities would be required to support 
launch operations. As a result, no loss of habitat would be 
anticipated.
    Because no construction activities are planned, no significant 
adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on 
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status 
species would be anticipated. The desert tortoise which is a U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service federally-listed, threatened wildlife species, has 
historically occurred throughout the region of influence and has 
limited potential to occur almost anywhere within the Mojave Specific 
Plan area. Critical habitat for the desert tortoise has been designated 
in the region of influence and the FAA initiated informal consultation 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act. After review of potential impacts, the FAA 
determined and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife concurred, that the proposed 
action, including the launch of Concept A vehicles (such as 
SpaceShipOne) or Concept B vehicles is not likely to adversely affect 
federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. 
As a protective measure for desert tortoise that may be within the 
Mojave Airport fence, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that 
the FAA survey the runway prior to take-off and landing of suborbital 
vehicles. If a desert tortoise were discovered at the airport, 
personnel would follow appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
California Department of Fish and Game protocols.
    The breakup of the launch vehicles during a crash and subsequent 
recovery activities could directly impact biological resources in the 
Region of Influence through ground disturbance. Also, if falling debris 
hit specific species on the ground, those resources would likely be 
destroyed. However, because it is unlikely that a crash would occur, 
impacts to biological resources as a

[[Page 9011]]

result of vehicle crash would not be anticipated.
    Noise impacts generated by launch vehicles at the Mojave Airport, 
including sonic booms, could elicit a short-term startle response in 
wildlife but no long-term adverse impacts would be expected. In 
general, noise levels would be significantly less than those produced 
by existing aircraft vehicles in the region, and launches would occur 
infrequently over the course of a year. Therefore, these short-term 
noise impacts would be less than significant.

Cultural Resources

    No airport modifications or construction activities are currently 
planned to support the proposed action. Concept A and B vehicles 
(including SpaceShipOne) would use a designated runway at the Mojave 
Airport for launches and landings. The runways are routinely used for 
takeoffs and landings of other aircraft and no construction activities 
would be required. Potential impacts to cultural resources would be 
associated generally with the noise produced during flights and could 
include physical damage to buildings, structures or rock features 
through accident or vibration, visual or audible impacts to the setting 
of cultural resources, and disturbance of traditional activities, such 
as religious ceremonies or subsistence hunting. Impacts to cultural 
resources from airspace use would most likely be related to alterations 
in setting from visual or aural disturbance, and the extremely remote 
possibility of debris falling. The probability of damage to National 
Historic Register listed or eligible sites is small. No construction 
activities would occur as part of the proposed action, and no adverse 
effects on National Register sites would be anticipated. The FAA 
consulted with the California State Historic Preservation Officer to 
initiate informal consultation under Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act. The FAA determined that the proposed project 
would have no adverse effect on cultural resources. The California 
State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the FAA's 
determination and consultation under Section 106 was concluded.

Geology and Soils

    The breakup of the launch vehicles during a crash and subsequent 
recovery activities could directly impact geology. The force associated 
with falling debris might create craters. The specific impact to 
geology would depend on the force at which the debris impacts the 
ground. However, because the probability of a crash is extremely low, 
it is unlikely that debris or residual propellant would significantly 
impact geology.
    The proposed action would have less than significant or no impact 
on soils. In terms of ground clouds from the combustion of propellants, 
Concept A vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) would have no impacts 
because the only emission source at the ground level would be from the 
carrier aircraft. However, Concept B vehicles use liquid propellants, 
which would create a ground cloud consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon 
dioxide, hydrogen, and water. The ground cloud would disperse as the 
vehicle moves along the runway. Additionally, Concept B launch vehicles 
would use a liquid propellant, which creates a ground cloud with fewer 
impacts to soils than caused by the burning of solid rocket 
propellants.
    The breakup of Concept A or B vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) 
during a crash and subsequent recovery activities could directly impact 
soils. Residual propellant in the damaged or destroyed launch vehicle 
could be absorbed by the soils affecting soil quality in the impact 
area. Because the probability of a crash is extremely low, and cleanup 
of reportable quantities is required under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, it is not 
expected that debris or residual propellant would significantly impact 
soils.

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management

    For both Concept A and B vehicles (including SpaceshipOne), the 
primary hazardous materials used would be propellants. Propellants used 
for Concept A launch vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) are relatively 
inert and they would be stored at the Airport. For Concept B, the 
kerosene and/or alcohol would have similar hazardous characteristics to 
the jet fuel currently used at Mojave Airport. All fuels and other 
hazardous materials would be stored and used in compliance with the 
regulations applicable to their storage and use, and already in place 
at Mojave Airport. No adverse impacts would be anticipated from these 
additional hazardous materials or subsequent hazardous waste disposal.
    The SpaceShipOne vehicle would be fueled by a hybrid rocket motor 
using liquid N2O and solid HTPB. Jet-A fuel would be used to 
fuel the carrier aircraft from takeoff on the ground until reaching 
15,240 meters (50,000 feet) where the rocket motor would be ignited.
    To compress gaseous N2O to liquid form, a combination of 
elevated pressure and reduced temperature is needed. Specially designed 
storage tanks would be used for storing N2O. Scaled 
Composites would use a Mobile Nitrous Oxide Delivery System (MONODS).
    MONODS was designed and built as a portable N2O storage 
unit that could be used to fill the launch vehicle. MONODS includes a 
6,435-liter (1,700-gallon) tank, generator and heating/cooling unit. 
The storage vessel is constructed of materials that meet the American 
Society of Testing and Materials specification SA-240-304 for stainless 
steel. It meets the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code and 
is registered with the National Board of Pressure Vessels.
    HTPB is a solid propellant that is manufactured and placed in a 
Case, Throat and Nozzle (CTN) motor offsite. The CTN would therefore 
arrive at the Mojave Airport fully fueled. The solid propellant is 
stable and non-reactive until ignited. Overall, there would be no 
significant Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management impacts 
anticipated from the launch of SpaceShipOne launch vehicles from the 
Mojave Airport.

Land Use

    No significant impacts to land use would occur as a result of the 
proposed action. The Mojave Airport is a highly developed, urbanized, 
non-sensitive area, and habitat and nature conservation plans are not 
applicable to the airport. The proposed action would be to conduct 
horizontal launches and landings on established runways of vehicles 
similar in size, power, and noise level to aircraft already using the 
airport. Therefore, no significant change would occur in airport 
activities. The proposed action does not include any construction, 
additions, or modifications to the airport facilities that would 
physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed 
action would not result in a conflict with an applicable land use, 
habitat conservation, or natural community conservation plan.
    No significant impacts to land use in the off-site Region of 
Influence would occur as a result of the proposed action. The Concept A 
and B launch vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) would use Runway 12-30, 
which serves large airline carrier jet aircraft and high performance 
military and non-military jet aircraft. This runway has a northwest-
southeast orientation that routes aircraft over commercial, industrial, 
and resource management land uses and away from sensitive land uses in 
the Mojave community such as

[[Page 9012]]

residential areas and school areas. Because the proposed vehicles are 
similar in size, power, and noise level to the aircraft currently using 
the airport, any impacts on land uses in the Mojave community due to 
the proposed action would be equal to or less than the impacts of the 
existing activities. Noise impacts on sensitive land uses are discussed 
in the Noise analysis. The proposed action would not include any off-
site construction or modification of existing buildings or facilities, 
and therefore would not physically divide any established communities. 
No conflicts with any applicable land use plans or habitat or nature 
conservation plans for the Mojave community would occur as a result of 
the proposed action.

Noise

    Approximately 1,226 jet aircraft takeoff and land at the Mojave 
Airport annually. The jet engines of the Concept A carrier vehicle are 
similar in size and power to jet aircraft that operate at the Mojave 
Airport. Noise levels at the airport from the Concept A carrier vehicle 
would be less than or equal to noise levels produced by afterburning 
jet aircraft currently using the Mojave Airport. The launch vehicles 
would land unpowered, therefore noise levels for landing would be 
insignificant and were not considered further in the noise analysis. 
Because the Mojave Airport currently experiences high intensity noise 
levels of 90 dB due to military jet flights and stationary rocket 
testing, and because the additional high intensity noise level would be 
insignificant, impacts to noise levels during launches at the Mojave 
Airport would be insignificant.
    The Mojave community currently experiences high noise levels from 
military jet takeoffs and landings and stationary rocket tests. 
Sensitive receptors in the Mojave community such as schools and 
residential areas already experience high intensity noise levels above 
90 dBA. An additional 4.4 minutes per week of high intensity noise 
levels would not cause significant impacts to sensitive receptors and 
would not elevate the average noise level above the acceptable levels 
of 65 CNEL or 65 Ldn. (Kern County, 2003c)
    The predicted overpressure for sonic booms produced by Concept A 
and B vehicles (including SpaceShipOne) flying at approximately 21,341 
to 24,390 meters (70,000 to 80,000 feet) above mean sea level would be 
approximately 5.86 kilograms per square meter (1.2 pounds per square 
foot). Launches from the Mojave Airport would only occur during daytime 
hours. As a previous DoD study has shown, the noise effects of 10 
daytime sonic booms at an overpressure of 4.88 kilograms per square 
meter (1 pound per square foot) everyday for a year would yield an 
outdoor accumulated noise level equal to an Ldn of 65 dBA. 
This result aids in defining the maximum daily allowance for the number 
of daytime sonic boom events (10 events per day) to reach the 
Ldn 65 dBA noise standard limit. This assumes the estimated 
sonic boom overpressure is within the same order of magnitude, 4.88 
kilograms per square meters (1 pound per square foot), as those to be 
generated by the proposed Concept A and B vehicles.
    The Ldn of 65 dBA is the accepted outdoor noise level 
related to transportation that has been adopted by the State of 
California and Kern County. In addition, a Community Noise Equivalent 
Level (CNEL) noise standard of 65 dB, applied for sensitive land uses 
such as residential and school areas, is also a required noise standard 
by the local authorities. Note the Ldn is similar to CNEL. 
Both measures are the average noise level over a 24-hour period, yet 
each applies a separate variation on penalties for nighttime noise 
levels. Ldn adds a 10 dB penalty for noises occurring 
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning. CNEL adds a 5 dB 
penalty to noises occurring between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., and adds a 10 
dB penalty to noises occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following 
morning. (Kern County, 2003d)
    However, the current proposed action would occur only during 
daytime hours. With no nighttime decibel penalties applicable, the 
Ldn and the CNEL would be equivalent measurements. As a 
result, an Ldn of 65 dBA for 10 daytime sonic booms per day 
for a year would be equivalent to a CNEL of 65 dBA for the proposed 
conditions.
    Under the proposed action, it is expected the maximum overpressures 
would be on the order of 4.88 kilograms per square meter (1 pound per 
square foot), yet operations would occur at a lower frequency number of 
events (but only 1.1 sonic booms per week). Therefore, the sonic boom 
noise impact of the proposed action is estimated to be below the 
accepted Ldn and CNEL 65 dBA noise limits given the 
approximate factor of sixty-four times fewer expected number of sonic 
boom events estimated. At present, the Mojave Airport currently 
experiences sonic boom noise exposure from supersonic military jets and 
supersonic Space Shuttle testing at Edwards AFB.
    The additional noise level associated with the launches of Concept 
A and B vehicles would be an insignificant increase to the community. 
The noise levels in the Mojave community associated with sonic booms 
would be less than 65 dBA Ldn and less than 65 dBA CNEL. The 
entire Mojave community including sensitive receptors currently 
experiences sonic boom noise exposure from air- and spacecraft landing 
at Edwards AFB. The proposed action would not constitute a significant 
increase in noise level to the community.
    Annoyance created by sonic booms is a function of boom intensity, 
number of booms per time period, attitude of the population, and the 
activity in which people were engaged in at the time of the boom. There 
is no precise relationship between the parameters. A noise study found 
that 10 percent of subjects exposed to 10 to 15 booms per day were 
annoyed at an overpressure of one pound per square foot and that this 
reached nearly 100 percent at three pounds per square foot. However, 
people may be more sensitive when exposed to numerous booms per day, 
while prior experience with sonic booms (such as people who live on an 
Air Force Base) seems to lower sensitivity. Other studies indicate that 
there is a wide range in estimating percent annoyed ranging from 10 
percent to 70 percent at one pound per square foot and 55 percent to 
approximately 100 percent at three pounds per square foot.

Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice

    Since no new development would be required to support the proposed 
action, and only existing personnel would be used to conduct launch 
activities, the proposed action would not induce substantial population 
growth in the community of Mojave. The proposed action would not be 
expected to displace people or decrease the population in the community 
of Mojave and therefore no impacts to population would be expected from 
the proposed action.
    The proposed action would not require new construction or create 
new employment positions at the Mojave Airport. The proposed action 
would not result in any jobs being eliminated at the Mojave Airport and 
therefore no impacts to employment are expected from the proposed 
action. Any increase in the number of people accessing Mojave as a 
result of the proposed action would be limited to launch participants 
and launch spectators. These visitors would most likely spend only one 
day in Mojave to watch or participate in launches. It was assumed that 
each launch of Concept A and B launch vehicles would add three

[[Page 9013]]

passenger vehicles to the area and each vehicle would contain one to 
two people. The maximum number of flights for Concept A would be six 
launches per year, which would add 18 passenger vehicles to the area 
per year. The maximum number of flights for Concept B would be 50 
flights a year, which would add 150 passenger vehicles to the area per 
year. Existing roads could easily handle this level of passenger 
traffic and therefore additional transportation infrastructure would 
not be required. In addition, because these visitors would only be 
spending a short amount of time in Mojave, they are not expected to 
significantly impact the local service industry. Therefore, there would 
be no significant socioeconomic impact to the community of Mojave from 
the proposed action.
    Since no construction activities would be required to issue a 
launch site operator license to EKAD for the Mojave Airport and only 
existing personnel would be used to conduct launch activities, the 
proposed action would not have an impact on the health or environment 
of minority or low-income populations located at or near the airport. 
Noise levels from the proposed launch vehicles would be significantly 
less than those experienced from existing vehicles in the region, would 
occur infrequently over the course of a year, and already occur as part 
of existing activities in the region. Therefore, no impacts to 
environmental justice communities are expected from the proposed 
action.

Transportation

    Under the proposed action no additional employees would be hired by 
the Mojave Airport or potential launch participants at the airport. Any 
increase in the number of automobiles accessing Mojave Airport would be 
limited to launch participants and launch spectators. Existing access 
roads could easily handle an increase in passenger traffic without a 
change in level of service designation of a significant change in the 
volume to capacity ratio. The proposed action would not result in 
inadequate emergency access or parking capacity at the Mojave Airport 
or within the Mojave community. The proposed action would not conflict 
with adopted plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative 
transportation.
    Under the proposed action, additional propellants would be 
delivered to the Mojave Airport to support the flights of the proposed 
launch vehicles.
    Propellants to be delivered for the SpaceShipOne vehicle would 
include N2O and HTPB for the launch vehicle and Jet-A fuel 
for the carrier vehicle. Approximately 1,295 kilograms (2,855 pounds) 
of N2O are required per launch. Each delivery truck would 
transport 11,340 kilograms (25,000 pounds) of N2O to the 
Mojave Airport. Under the proposed flight schedule, the maximum number 
of launches would be six per year; therefore, one delivery truck per 
year would supply the required N2O. Approximately 2,903 
kilograms (6,400 pounds) of Jet-A fuel are required per launch. Each 
delivery truck would transport 28,122 kilograms (62,000 pounds) of Jet-
A fuel to the Mojave Airport; therefore one truck a year would be 
needed to supply the required Jet-A fuel. One truck per flight would be 
needed to bring the motor containing the solid propellant, HTPB, to the 
Mojave Airport; therefore six trucks per year would be needed to 
deliver the required HTPB. A maximum of eight delivery trucks would be 
required to supply propellants for the SpaceShipOne launch vehicles per 
year. The Mojave Airport estimates that there are currently 264 
propellant truck deliveries annually. The Mojave Airport is located at 
the crossroads of major north-south and east-west roadways. The small 
number of additional passenger vehicles and delivery trucks anticipated 
as part of the proposed action would not increase traffic congestion or 
cause a decline in the level of service.

Visual Resources

    The design of the proposed launch vehicles would resemble 
traditional airplanes in flight, and the visual landscape already 
includes aircraft in flight. The proposed action would not create a new 
source of substantial light or glare to adversely affect day or 
nighttime views in the area, so the visual dominance would be ``Not 
Noticeable.'' Both proposed launch vehicle concepts would leave visual 
contrails, but they would be similar in visual impact to contrails from 
existing operations. Because this area is already used for aircraft 
takeoffs and landings, the visual sensitivity is low. The proposed 
action would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or 
quality of the site and its surroundings and would have no adverse 
effect on a scenic vista or scenic resources, as there are none in the 
area.

Water Resources

    Because no construction or expansion to the existing facilities 
would occur, the proposed action would not cause impacts to existing 
drainage patterns that would result in increased erosion, siltation, or 
on-site or off-site flooding. The proposed action would not involve the 
generation of additional storm water or of additional sources of 
pollutants that could be washed away during storm events. The existing 
storm water system and permit would be adequate for the proposed 
action. The proposed action would not make any changes to the amount of 
impermeable surface area and would therefore have no impact on the 
existing off-site storm water system. Therefore, the capacity of the 
current storm water system would be adequate to accommodate the 
proposed action. Because no construction or expansion to the existing 
facilities would occur, the proposed action would not substantially 
deplete ground water supplies either on-or off-site or interfere with 
ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer 
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table. In the event of a 
catastrophic accident unburned propellant could impact ground water. 
However, the small size of the proposed vehicles and the low 
probability of a catastrophic event would make the impacts 
insignificant.
    In the event of a catastrophic accident, debris and wreckage could 
impact drainage patterns or storm water flows. But, the small size of 
the proposed vehicles and the low probability of a catastrophic event 
would make the impacts insignificant. Extensive emergency response and 
clean-up procedures would further reduce the magnitude and duration of 
any impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

    The proposed action would not exceed de minimis levels for criteria 
pollutants and the percent of the air quality control area's emissions 
inventory for any criteria pollutant. Total CO2 emissions 
from all sources in the U.S. were 5,159 million metric tons (5,687 
million tons) in 1994. The proposed action would account for an 
increase of only a fraction (less than 0.000002%) of these 
CO2 emissions. Consequently, the total expected 
CO2 emissions from the proposed action would be 
insignificant. There would be no emissions that directly affect ozone 
depletion. No significant cumulative impacts to air quality are 
expected.
    Because of the volume of air traffic that uses this area already 
and the structured scheduling procedures in place for joint-use of the 
R-2508 Complex, the proposed action would have no significant 
cumulative effects on airspace.
    In the EA for the Orbital Reentry Corridor for Generic Unmanned 
Lifting Entry Vehicle Landing at Edwards AFB, the USAF considered up to 
12 flights per year. Currently an average of two

[[Page 9014]]

military jet aircraft take off and/or land at the Mojave Airport per 
day. These military aircraft can produce sonic booms. Even in the worst 
case scenario, i.e., one launch from the Mojave Airport, one launch of 
the proposed Unmanned Lifting Entry Vehicle from Edwards AFB, and two 
jet aircraft take offs or landings from the Mojave Airport, there would 
not be more than 10 sonic booms generated per day in the Region of 
Influence. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts 
to noise from the proposed action.
    No significant cumulative impacts to biological, cultural, 
geologic, mineral, visual and aesthetic, or water resources would occur 
as a result of the proposed action. No significant cumulative impacts 
would result from hazardous materials or hazardous waste used or 
produced as a result of the proposed action. No significant cumulative 
impacts to land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice, or 
transportation would occur as a result of the proposed action.
    Detailed analyses of safety and related issues would be addressed 
in the FAA's Mission and Safety Review prior to issuing a launch 
license. However, safety and health analyses of operations that have 
the potential for environmental impact were considered in the EA and 
were determined to have no significant cumulative impacts on the 
environment.
    Although the proposed action would support and facilitate limited 
growth, it would not induce growth. Additionally, there would be no 
specific future development activities currently known that would be 
dependent on the proposed action. Therefore no significant cumulative 
secondary impacts are expected to result from the proposed action.

No Action Alternative

    Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch 
site operator license to the EKAD for the operation of a launch site at 
the Mojave Airport or issue a launch license to Scaled Composites for 
up to six launches of SpaceShipOne from the Mojave Airport. Scaled 
Composites could continue to conduct aviation-related activities that 
do not require a launch license.
    The predicted environmental effects of the Proposed Action would 
not occur. The existing on- and off-site conditions at the Mojave 
Airport would remain unchanged.

Determination

    An analysis of the proposed action has concluded that there are no 
significant short-term or long-term effects to the environment or 
surrounding populations. After careful and thorough consideration of 
the facts herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed Federal 
action is consistent with existing national environmental policies and 
objectives set forth in Section 101(a) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and that it will not significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment or otherwise include any condition 
requiring consultation pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA. 
Therefore, an EIS for the proposed action is not required.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 18, 2004.
Patricia Grace Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 04-4176 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P