[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26593-26598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6872]


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

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), in cooperation with 
the United States Air Force (USAF), prepared an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) to evaluate the Oklahoma Space Industry Development 
Authority (OSIDA) proposal to operate a commercial launch facility at 
the Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark (CSIA) located adjacent to the 
town of Burns Flat, Oklahoma. The EA evaluated the potential 
environmental impacts of launches of three types of horizontally 
launched suborbital vehicles (Concept X, Concept Y, and Concept Z) 
proposed to be launched from the CSIA. The EA also evaluated the 
transfer of ownership of the CSIA from the City of Clinton to OSIDA. 
After reviewing and analyzing currently available data and information 
on existing conditions, project impacts, and measures to mitigate those 
impacts, the FAA, Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) has 
determined that issuing a launch site operator license to OSDIA for the 
CSIA would not significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). The FAA also determined that the transfer of ownership of the 
CSIA from Clinton, Oklahoma to OSIDA would not significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment within the meaning of 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 Environmental Assessment: Visit one of the 
following Internet addresses: http://www.okspaceporteis.com or http://ast.faa.gov, or contact Mr. Doug Graham, FAA Environmental Specialist, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591. You may 
also send e-mail requests to [email protected] or via telephone (202) 
267-8568.

DATES: The Draft EA was released for public comment on February 3, 
2006. The FAA held a public hearing on the Draft EA on March 9, 2006 in 
Burns Flat, Oklahoma to collect comments from the public. All comments 
received before March 13, 2006 were considered in the preparation of 
the Final EA.
    Proposed Action: Operation of a non-Federal launch site in the 
United States, such as OSIDA's proposed operation of a launch site at 
the CSIA, near Burns Flat, Oklahoma must be licensed by the FAA 
pursuant to 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 70101-70119, formerly the 
Commercial Space Launch Act. Licensing the operation of a launch site 
is a Federal action requiring environmental analysis by the FAA in 
accordance with NEPA, 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Upon receipt of a 
complete license application, AST must determine whether to issue a 
license to OSIDA to operate a launch site at the CSIA. An environmental 
determination is required for the evaluation of license applications. 
Individual launch operators proposing to conduct launches at the CSIA 
will also need to obtain a license or permit, as appropriate, from the 
FAA.
    The FAA is the lead Federal Agency for the NEPA process and the 
USAF is a cooperating agency on the proposed action. The CSIA is an 
auxiliary training location for Altus Air Force Base (AFB) and Vance 
AFB. The USAF is the primary user of the CSIA for aircrew training 
including landing and departures. In addition, the USAF's current and 
future activities could be impacted by the use of the CSIA as a launch 
site. Therefore, the FAA requested and the USAF agreed to participate 
as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
    The launch site would be located at the CSIA. No construction 
activities are proposed as part of this action. Existing infrastructure 
including hangars and runways would be used to support horizontal 
launch and landing operations at the proposed launch site.
    The OSIDA launch site operator license would be for the purpose of 
operating a facility to launch horizontally launched, suborbital 
reusable launch vehicles. Under the proposed action, the FAA would 
issue a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the CSIA for the 
purpose of operating a facility to launch horizontally launched, 
suborbital vehicles. Launch providers would be responsible for 
obtaining launch licenses from the FAA to conduct launches at the CSIA. 
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 CSIA.
    Proposed launch operations currently include launches of three 
types of launch vehicles that would take off from a standard aviation 
runway. The first type of launch vehicle, referred to in the EA as 
Concept X, would take off using turbojet engines, ignite rocket engines 
at a specified altitude, and make a powered landing using the turbojet 
engines. The second type of launch

[[Page 26594]]

vehicle, referred to in the EA as Concept Y, would use rocket power to 
take off, and then the vehicle would make an unpowered landing. The 
third type of vehicle, referred to in the EA as Concept Z, would 
involve an air-drop design where two vehicles, an airplane and launch 
vehicle, are mated together. The airplane would carry the launch 
vehicle to a predetermined altitude where the launch vehicle is dropped 
and its rocket engines ignite. The airplane would make a powered 
landing at the CSIA after separating from the launch vehicle, and the 
launch vehicle would make an unpowered landing after traveling along 
its trajectory. 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 X, Y, and Z 
launch vehicles at the CSIA.
    The FAA and 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 OSIDA's launch operations under 49 U.S.C. 
Subtitle IX-Commercial Space Transportation, ch. 701, Commercial Space 
Launch Activities.
    The FAA is also responsible for approving the transfer of ownership 
of the CSIA.
    The USAF uses the CSIA primarily as an aircrew training facility 
for practicing airport landing approaches and departures, including 
tactical arrivals and departures. The CSIA is an auxiliary training 
location for Altus AFB and Vance AFB, both of which are located in 
Oklahoma. Altus AFB operates KC-135, C-5, and C-17 aircraft at the CSIA 
and Vance AFB operates T-37, T-6, T-38, and T-1 aircraft at the CSIA. 
The proposed action for the EA has the potential to impact current and 
future USAF operations at the CSIA. Therefore, the FAA requested and 
the USAF agreed to participate as a cooperating agency in the 
preparation of the EA.
    The USAF prepared an Environmental Assessment (``Altus EA'') for 
the C-17 Program Changes at Altus AFB and the 97th Airlift Wing 
Commander signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (``Altus FONSI'') 
on August 19, 2004. The Altus EA considered several possible actions, 
including the possible construction of an Assault Landing Zone at the 
CSIA. The Altus FONSI indicated that the USAF would pursue the proposed 
action (which was to accommodate the expanded C-17 training program 
without building a new Assault Landing Zone). Due to the lack of 
funding and authority to buy or lease land and build the Assault 
Landing Zone and the urgent need to produce more trained aircrews, the 
Commander opted for the proposed action. While the USAF has stated that 
the need still exists for a new Assault Landing Zone and the USAF 
continues to consider potential sites, including the CSIA, there is no 
reasonably foreseeable plan to locate such a facility at the CSIA. 
Accordingly, the cumulative impact from the construction and use of an 
Assault Landing Zone is not considered in the EA for the OSIDA 
commercial launch facility at the CSIA.
    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the FAA action in connection with 
OSIDA's request for licensure is to ensure compliance with 
international obligations of the United States (U.S.) and to protect 
the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security 
and foreign policy interest of the U.S. during commercial launch or 
reentry activities; to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial 
space launches and reentries by the private sector; and to facilitate 
the strengthening and expansion of the U.S. space transportation 
infrastructure, in accordance with the requirements of the CSLAA, the 
Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness Act, Executive Order 
12465, 14 CFR parts 400-450, the National Space Transportation Policy, 
and the National Space Policy. The purpose of the FAA action in 
connection with the proposed transfer of property from the City of 
Clinton to OSIDA is to ensure that the transfer of the CSIA property is 
conducted in accordance with Federal laws and regulations, including, 
without limitation, applicable provisions of 49 U.S.C. Ch. 471 
(Sec. Sec.  47101-47153) and 14 CFR parts 152 and 155.
    Alternatives Considered: Alternatives analyzed in the EA included 
(1) the proposed action, issuing a launch site operator license to 
OSIDA for the operation of a launch site at the CSIA for Concept X, Y, 
and Z launch vehicles, (2) issuing a launch site operator license to 
OSIDA for the CSIA for Concept X and Y launch vehicles only, (3) 
issuing a launch site operator license to OSIDA for the CSIA for 
Concept X and Z 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 OSIDA for launches of Concept X, Y, or 
Z launch vehicles from the CSIA. No launches of Concept X, Y, or Z 
launch vehicles would take place from the CSIA. The CSIA would continue 
to operate as a general aviation airport and potential 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 X, Y, and Z vehicles from the CSIA 
would require launch specific licenses from the FAA, and each launch 
applicant 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 
the 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 the 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:
    Spill/fire/explosion of propellant/fuel storage, transport, 
handling, and loading; Traffic accidents due to increased activity on- 
and off-site; and Occupational mechanical accidents.
    There would be some vapors of various propellants released from 
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 
fires or explosions. However, the CSIA 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 CSIA would add a few cars/trucks 
above existing traffic loads. The increase in the number of shipments 
of hazardous materials should not significantly increase the number of 
traffic accidents on the roadways around the CSIA.
    On-site work associated with the conduct of launch operations would 
be similar to that associated with industrial chemical operations, and 
the servicing

[[Page 26595]]

and routine maintenance of aircraft. Exposure to mechanical accidents 
should not differ significantly from current levels for the CSIA 
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 CSIA, 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 
CSIA (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 CSIA in 
Washita County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants, as 
designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
Furthermore, the calculated emissions that would result from the 
proposed action are less than both the Federal de minimis levels and 
the level of emission considered significant for Oklahoma stationary 
sources per the Oklahoma air pollution control rule (Title 252). Based 
on these data, there is no need for a Federal conformity analysis and 
no significant impacts to air quality are anticipated.
    The regional haze rule requires states to develop State 
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to address visibility at designated 
mandatory Class I areas. The only Class I area in Oklahoma is 
approximately 80 to 97 kilometers (50 to 60 miles) southeast of the 
CSIA. The Oklahoma regional haze SIP is not available yet, but the 
minimal emissions of the haze-related pollutants associated with the 
proposed action are expected to have a negligible impact on the 
visibility at the designated Class I area.
    The EA assessed the impacts of launch emissions for each 
atmospheric level. The composition of exhaust emissions varies 
depending in the type of propellant and propulsion system used (i.e., 
jet engine and/or rocket motors). The emissions of concern include: 
Particulate Matter (PM), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Sulfur 
Oxides (SOX), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide 
(CO2), Water (H20), and Volatile Organic 
Compounds (VOCs).
    The USAF estimated current aircraft emissions at the CSIA based on 
fiscal year 2002 planned aircraft operations. At the maximum launch 
rate under the proposed action, an additional 54 missions per year 
would occur from the CSIA. This is a 0.1 percent increase in 
operations. Total emissions associated with the proposed action and 
alternatives were estimated by completing the following steps:
     Estimate the emissions per launch into each layer of the 
atmosphere for each type of vehicle,
     Estimate the total annual launches for each type of 
vehicle, and
     Multiply the number of launches by the appropriate 
emissions per launch.
    The jet engine emissions and rocket launch emissions were 
calculated for each launch for each vehicle concept. The analysis 
calculated the total emission loads per launch or reentry for 2006-2010 
by vehicle concept type and each criteria pollutant. Emission loads 
were calculated for the mesosphere (Concept X only), stratosphere, the 
troposphere, and below 914 meters (3,000 feet), which is the EPA's 
threshold altitude for considering ground-level air quality effects.

Airspace

    The CSIA has the capacity to accommodate the additional operations 
without substantially impacting airspace. During the years with the 
highest number of launches there would be a maximum of 54 launches. 
Currently there are approximately 47,200 aircraft operations per year 
at the CSIA. An additional 54 launches would be an increase of 0.1 
percent in operations at the CSIA. Class A, Class E, and Special use 
Airspace would not be substantially impacted due to the infrequency of 
launch operations and the availability of alternate routes to reroute 
commercial traffic activities. Because of the relative infrequency of 
launch operations, and the availability of alternate routes for 
commercial traffic activities, proposed launches would not be expected 
to result in the degradation of the FAA's ability to control air 
traffic and provide necessary safety for flight operations in airspace. 
As part of the licensing process, the FAA and OSIDA would prepare an 
agreement, known as a Letter of Agreement (LOA), related to airspace 
use. The LOA would address the responsibilities of all involved 
entities and would serve the purpose of mitigating potential impacts to 
airspace use.

Biological Resources

    The noise associated with launches and landing would be less than 
that associated with military aircraft. The emissions associated with 
launches and landing would not impact biological resources. Threatened 
and endangered species would not be impacted by the proposed action 
because no federally protected species occur in the region of the CSIA. 
However, previous studies indicate that the endangered whooping crane 
may be found in or near the wetlands at the CSIA during its spring and 
fall migration. Should the whooping crane be identified in or near the 
wetlands at the CSIA, OSIDA would consult with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and implement mitigation measures. Examples include 
monitoring the whooping crane during launches and landings to document 
effects or scheduling launches and landings when the whooping crane is 
not present.
    The sonic booms generated by Concept X and Z vehicles would have 
relatively small overpressures that would have minimal impacts on 
wildlife and domestic animals. Studies have found that most domestic 
animals and wildlife tend to become accustomed to sonic booms fairly 
quickly. Because of the small number of annual launches, the relatively 
small overpressure, and the fact that wildlife and domestic animals 
tend to become accustomed to sonic booms, the impacts on wildlife and 
domestic animals would be small.

Cultural Resources

    Launches and landings would not impact cultural resources. No new 
infrastructure would be constructed and the nearest historic site 
listed on the National Register of Historic Places is located 
approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of the CSIA. Launches 
and landings would not impact any known cultural resources or 
traditions of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe, the Chickasaw Nation, the 
Comanche Tribe, the Kiowa Tribe, or the Wichita Tribe.

Geology and Soils

    Launching and landing vehicles from the CSIA would not affect the 
subsurface geology or expose people or structures to seismic activity. 
However, surface soils could be impacted from the deposition of exhaust 
emissions from vehicle launches, residual propellant during a vehicle 
crash, leaks in storage tanks or tanker trucks, or from propellant or 
jet fuel spills during fueling. Concept X, Y, and Z vehicle launches 
would all use fuels and propellants that would not have any substantial 
impacts on geology and

[[Page 26596]]

soils. Concept X and Z vehicles would use jet engines for takeoff and 
would not produce any emissions that would adversely impact surface 
soils. Concept Z vehicles would use liquid propellant rocket engines 
for launch, which would create a ground cloud with few impacts to 
soils. Potential soil chemistry-altering emissions from launches would 
be disturbed over a large area and would not pose substantial impacts. 
The landing of Concept Y and Z launch vehicles would have no impact on 
soils because they would land unpowered and thus would not emit any 
materials that would alter the surface soils. Concept X launch vehicles 
and the Concept Z carrier vehicle would land under the power of jet 
engines and thus some pollutants could be deposited onto surface soils. 
However, the impacts would be limited due to the low total number of 
vehicle launches and the limited potential impacts of emissions 
released from jet engines onto surface soils.
    Impacts to soils from crash debris would not be substantial due to 
the low probability of a crash and the legal requirement to clean up 
any residual hazardous materials. The breakup of any of the concept 
vehicles during a crash and subsequent recovery activities could 
directly impact soils. The force associated with falling debris could 
create impact craters, which might impact soils depending on the force 
of the impact. Any residual propellant in the damaged launch vehicle 
could be absorbed by soils at the impact site. Because the probability 
of a crash is low, and cleanup is required under CERCLA, debris or 
residual propellant would not be expected to result in substantial 
contamination, erosion, or loss of topsoil.
    Spills or leaks could occur during storage, transportation, or 
fueling, but all activities at the CSIA would comply with applicable 
Federal and State regulations, which would reduce the likelihood of 
soil contamination occurring. The limited number of launches and the 
procedures in place to prevent spills would limit the likelihood of 
soil contamination, erosion, or soil loss.

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management

    No substantial impacts regarding hazardous materials and hazardous 
waste management are anticipated because all propellants and other 
hazardous materials would be handled, stored, and used in compliance 
with all applicable regulations. Procedures are in place to minimize 
potential impacts from spills of propellants.
    The proposed action involves the use of a location with historic 
soil and ground water contamination. Major remediation actions have 
already been completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Due to the 
remediation activities that have occurred at the site, there would be 
no substantial hazardous materials and waste impacts to the environment 
resulting from historic contamination.
    The primary hazardous materials used in support of launch 
activities at the CSIA would be propellants. Concept X and Y rocket 
fuels include kerosene and/or alcohol, which have hazardous 
characteristics similar to the jet fuels currently used and stored 
without adverse impact at the CSIA. The main oxidizer used for Concept 
X and Y vehicles is liquid oxygen (LOX), a non-toxic cryogenic liquid. 
The fuel and oxidizer for Concept Z launch vehicles are solid hydroxyl-
terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) and liquid nitrous oxide 
(N2O), respectively, which are relatively inert. Concept X 
vehicles would make powered landings at the CSIA using turbojet 
engines, which is a routine occurrence at the CSIA. The unpowered 
landings of the Concept Y and Z vehicles would not require use of 
propellants or other hazardous materials and would not result in 
substantial impacts.
    The CSIA has standard operating procedures in place to minimize the 
hazard associated with transporting and storing jet fuel and 
propellants. All propellant shipments would be escorted from the point 
of entry into the CSIA to the designated staging or storage area. 
Emergency response personnel would be on standby during these 
shipments. All liquid fuel and propellants would be shipped to the CSIA 
in bulk tanker trucks, which would also serve as temporary storage 
containers. The HTPB solid propellant would be manufactured and loaded 
into Concept Z rocket motors off-site and shipped to the CSIA. The 
solid propellant is stable and non-reactive until combined with its 
oxidizer and ignited. No propellants would be stored for extended 
periods of time; propellant shipments would be brought in to support 
launches as needed.
    Fueling operations would occur at existing on-site fuel staging 
areas. Temporary dikes would be provided for containment should a spill 
occur, which would minimize impacts to the environment. The launch 
operator would be responsible for any necessary cleanup and remediation 
actions following a spill. In addition to propellants, it is 
anticipated that minor amounts of other hazardous materials, such as 
paint, oils, lubricants, and solvents, would be used. No adverse 
impacts would be anticipated from these additional hazardous materials.

Land Use

    No substantial impacts are anticipated because major land use 
changes would not occur under the proposed action, and OSIDA does not 
currently have plans to alter the existing land use for the Spaceport 
Territory. Land use, including individual isolated, residential 
structures, like those surrounding the CSIA, may be considered 
compatible within the Day/Night Level 65 decibel noise contour where 
the primary use of land is agricultural and adequate noise attenuation 
is provided.
    Although OSIDA has been granted municipal authority over the 
Territory, an Advisory Council also would be involved in future 
decision-making regarding land use. The Advisory Council, consisting of 
elected officials of towns within the Spaceport Territory, would make 
recommendations to OSIDA regarding land use and development, municipal 
annexation, zoning, construction, safety regulations, and other matters 
that may be relevant to land use and development. This input from 
elected officials would ensure that future land use would be amenable 
to those living within the ROI.
    The proposed action does not require any physical or constructive 
use that would impair any Section 4(f) properties. The nearest known 
potential Section 4(f) property is the Washita National Wildlife 
Refuge, located on Foss Lake 19 kilometers (12 miles) to the north of 
the CSIA. Any impacts to the refuge would be minor and should not 
substantially impair the resource.

Noise

    No substantial noise impacts would be expected from jet engine 
powered operations associated with Concept X and Z vehicles. Rocket 
engine powered operating noise associated with Concept X and Z vehicles 
may range from 60 to 70 A-weighted decibels at ground level; this is 
roughly equivalent to the C-141A aircraft, and would not result in a 
change in noise exposure in excess of the applicable threshold of 
significance. Rocket engine launch noise from Concept Y vehicles would 
range from 76 to 86 A-weighted decibels; this noise level is similar to 
existing jet engine noise at the CSIA and would not be expected to 
result in a change in noise exposure in excess of applicable thresholds 
of significance.
    Concept X vehicles would produce sonic booms that range from 1.1 to 
1.9

[[Page 26597]]

pounds per square foot. Concept Y vehicles would not reach supersonic 
speeds and therefore would not produce sonic booms. Concept Z vehicles 
would produce sonic booms that range from 0.5 to 0.7 pounds per square 
foot. Assuming up to 52 launches per year of these vehicles, the C-
weighted day/night average noise level would be less than the 61 C-
weighted day/night average noise level standard.
    Concept X vehicles could land under jet power. Concept Y and Z 
vehicles would glide in for landing. Landing noise would therefore 
consist of Concept X jet noise, Concept Z carrier jet noise, and sonic 
booms (discussed in the previous section) during vehicle descent. Noise 
impacts due to vehicles landing would be lower than those associated 
with takeoff. Sonic booms during vehicle descent would occur at higher 
altitudes than booms occurring during ascent, and jet engine noise is 
much lower during landing than during takeoff, because the engines are 
throttled back.

Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice

    No substantial impacts are anticipated because the proposed action 
does not result in any of the following: extensive relocation of 
residents where sufficient housing is not available; relocation of 
community businesses that would create severe economic hardship for the 
affected communities; disruption of local traffic patterns that 
substantially reduce the levels of service of the roads serving the 
airport and its surrounding communities; or a substantial loss in the 
community tax base.
    OSIDA has projected that approximately 50 on-site personnel would 
be required to staff launch and landing operations. These 50 personnel 
would be in addition to the 10 current employees required for normal 
CSIA flight operations. Any impacts related to the new employees would 
likely be beneficial, with an increased tax base and a small boost in 
sales and other services offered by local area businesses.
    Any temporary increase in population due to spectators would impact 
the surrounding businesses and community. Because the level of impact 
depends upon the exact number of spectators, it is impossible to know 
the level of impacts to the surrounding businesses and communities. 
However, it is unlikely that the impact would be negative. Although the 
area has low population density, which usually means fewer services and 
less ability to accommodate a large influx of visitors, the region is 
located along a major east-west U.S. thoroughfare, and has sufficient 
infrastructure and services to accommodate periodic increases in 
transient populations. Therefore, the region could accommodate a fairly 
large increase in population for a short time.
    Minority populations, low-income communities, and children's health 
would not experience disproportionate adverse impacts from the proposed 
action. Based on Census data, there is no evidence of an environmental 
justice population of concern living within the region of influence. 
Furthermore, health and environmental impacts from the proposed action 
and alternatives are not expected to exceed applicable thresholds of 
significance for any impact category. Although Burns Flat has a 
slightly higher percentage of children under the age of 18 as compared 
to the U.S., Oklahoma, and the SWODA region, the types of effects from 
the proposed action should not be disproportionate to the health and 
safety of children as compared to adults.

Transportation

    The limited number of launches would not result in a substantial 
increase in vehicle volume due to propellant, fuel, or raw material 
shipments. Road and rail systems in and around the CSIA would not 
experience unacceptable increases in the ratio of volume-to-capacity. 
Additional traffic management controls would minimize impacts from 
tourist activity during peak years.
    Within the CSIA, shipments would travel on designated roads to the 
customer's location. Vehicle operations requiring crossing the main 
runway have been eliminated from current planning. Entry to the CSIA 
would be limited to four controlled-access gates designated for 
specific purposes. This traffic flow was suggested to minimize impacts 
to transportation to, from, and within CSIA.
    The proposed action would result in the addition of 50 personnel 
commuting to and from the site on a daily basis. This amount of 
additional traffic should be accommodated by state highway OK-44; 
however, additional traffic controls may be required at the 
intersection of OK-44 and Sooner Drive, where personnel would enter the 
site. If the addition of launch day personnel and tourist activity 
significantly increases the number of people traveling to the CSIA, an 
additional entrance to the CSIA could be opened to employees or 
employees and the general public.
    Depending on the exact number of spectators and how rapidly this 
number declines with each launch, there could be substantial temporary 
traffic congestion on routes to the CSIA for launches occurring early 
in the operating period. However, given the limited number of launches, 
and the existing capacity of the existing roads in the area, no major 
or lasting impacts would be expected.
    Onsite transportation could increase during landings due to 
recovering and transporting the launch vehicle from the runway after 
landing. However, the maximum number of launches (54) per year would 
not be expected to create substantial impacts to transportation on-
site.

Visual Resources

    No substantial impacts to visual resources are anticipated because 
the CSIA is a low visual sensitivity area and the activities under the 
proposed action would not be visually dominant in the viewshed around 
the CSIA.
    The visual impact of most horizontal launches would be ``visually 
co-dominant.'' There were approximately 47,000 aircraft operations at 
the CSIA in 2003, and the general public in the area of the CSIA is 
accustomed to seeing various military aircrafts performing training 
maneuvers at the CSIA. Therefore, the visual presence of horizontal 
launches would not be new to the area. The majority of current aircraft 
operations at CSIA involve jet powered aircraft.
    While Concept X and Z vehicles would be launched by jet powered 
carrier vehicles, Concept Y vehicles would be launched under rocket 
power. Rocket-powered launches would be a new sight in the area of the 
CSIA and might attract and dominate the attention of a viewer in this 
area. In these few cases the launch itself might be ``visually 
dominant;'' however, the limited number of Concept Y launches (a 
maximum of two per year) would mitigate any resulting impacts.
    Horizontal landing activities would result in a ``visually 
subordinate'' classification because of the large number of existing 
touch and go operations performed by various sizes of military aircraft 
on a daily basis. Both powered and unpowered landings should appear 
similar to current landing activities as CSIA.

Water Resources

    Wetlands and floodplains would not be impacted and no new 
discharges would be released into the wetlands. The fueling and 
assembly of launch vehicles may result in inadvertent spills or 
releases of fuel or materials that may impact surface water and ground 
water. OSIDA or the launch operator would clean up any spills and 
excavate and remove any contaminated soil

[[Page 26598]]

associated with an incidental spill or release, resulting in a small 
impact.

Cumulative Impacts

    Cumulative impacts are ``the incremental impact of the actions when 
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action 
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 
such other actions.'' (40 CFR 1508.7) The cumulative impacts analysis 
focused on those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 
actions that have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts. 
These actions include the cumulative effect of the proposed action/
preferred alternative as it would occur over the five-year term of the 
launch site operator license, the continued use of the CSIA as a 
training facility for military and general aviation aircraft, and the 
proposed future use of the CSIA as a location for testing rocket 
engines. The proposed action has been evaluated for cumulative impacts 
on the resource areas summarized below.
    Air Quality--Cumulative air quality impacts associated with the 
proposed action are not anticipated, given that the CSIA is currently 
in attainment for all criteria pollutants; the emissions associated 
with the proposed action were estimated using worst-case assumptions; 
and the increase in emissions associated with the proposed action is 
relatively small. Furthermore, none of the alternatives to the proposed 
action would result in higher emissions than the proposed action and 
thus no cumulative air quality impacts are expected under any of these 
alternatives. Potential short-term impacts of emissions from rocket 
engine testing would be mitigated through proper choice of weather 
conditions and/or burn times.
    Airspace--Cumulative airspace impacts associated with the proposed 
action are not anticipated given that coordination and scheduling 
procedures would be developed with the Air Route Traffic Control Center 
and military users of the CSIA.
    Biological Resources--The cumulative increase in noise and 
emissions would result in an adverse impact on biological resources. 
The cumulative noise and emissions would result from ongoing 
commercial, military, and private aviation activities, future rocket 
engine testing, as well as from the proposed action. The biological 
resources affected would be those that have been able to tolerate the 
existing noise and emissions associated with an active airfield; 
therefore, the cumulative impacts on biological resources are expected 
to be minor.
    Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes--Cumulative impacts from 
hazardous materials and hazardous waste management could occur on the 
portions of the CSIA with historic soil and ground water contamination. 
However, substantial cumulative impacts associated with the proposed 
action are not anticipated due to the extensive remediation activities 
that have been completed at the site.
    Health and Safety--Cumulative health and safety impacts associated 
with the proposed action are not anticipated given that the risk to 
human health and safety from rocket engine testing would be small and 
would be limited by safety precautions in place.
    Noise--Background noise at the CSIA would increase with the 
increased level of activity resulting from the addition of launches and 
landings. Because of the relative infrequency of launches, landings, 
engine tests, and aircraft operations, the cumulative noise impacts 
would be relatively small. Sonic booms from supersonic vehicles at high 
altitudes would create no substantial impacts because of their 
relatively low magnitude, infrequent occurrence, and occurrence over 
unpopulated areas.
    Socioeconomics--Cumulative socioeconomic impacts associated with 
the proposed action are not anticipated given the proposed action's 
small relative size to the workforce in the surrounding counties and 
the minimal impacts from a population and residential living 
standpoint. The beneficial cumulative socioeconomic impact could be 
greater than the direct impact of the proposed action.
    Transportation--Over OSIDA's five-year operating period, cumulative 
transportation impacts could occur because the number of launches (and 
thus, the number of shipments of propellants and other materials) would 
rise from 16 in 2006 to 54 in 2010. Cumulative transportation impacts 
associated with engine testing are not anticipated given the limited 
number of engine tests and infrequent shipments.
    Visual resources--Cumulative visual resource impacts associated 
with the proposed action are not anticipated given the less than one 
percent increase in flight operations out of the CSIA. The rocket-
powered launches of Concept Y vehicles would be limited to a maximum of 
two per year to prevent substantial cumulative impacts on visual 
resources.
    Water Resources--Cumulative impacts on water resources may result 
from incidental spills and releases associated with aircraft 
preparation, rocket engine test preparation, and launch vehicle 
preparation. Such spills or releases may impact surface water and 
ground water. As presented in Section 4.14, Impacts on Water Resources, 
OSIDA or the proponent of the activity would clean up any spills or 
releases and excavate and remove any contaminated soil associated with 
an incidental spill or release resulting in a small cumulative impact.

No Action Alternative

    Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch 
site operator license to OSIDA and there would be no commercial 
launches from the CSIA. In addition, the FAA would not issue launch 
licenses or permits to any operators for launches from the CSIA. The 
CSIA would continue to be available for existing aviation and training 
related activities. The predicted environmental effects of the Proposed 
Action would not occur.

Consistency With Community Planning

    This proposed action is consistent with community planning 
activities for both State and local governments. Both State and local 
governments have incorporated the proposed launch site operations into 
their planning processes.

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 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 April 27, 2006.
Patricia Grace Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. E6-6872 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P