014605.indd

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Offi ce of Commercial Space Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Final Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Horizontal 

Launch and Reentry of

Reentry Vehicles

December 2005
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 i

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Horizontal Launch and Reentry 

of Reentry Vehicles 

LEAD AGENCY: The Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation was the lead agency for developing this Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION: Licensing the Launch of Horizontal Launch and Reentry 

of Reentry Vehicles. 

RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) OFFICIAL: Ms. 

Stacey Zee, FAA Environmental Specialist FAA PEIS, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Suite 331, 

Washington, DC, 20591; e-mail Stacey.Zee@faa.gov; phone (202) 267-9305; fax 

(202) 267-5463. 

DESIGNATION OF STATEMENT: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: 

Under the proposed action, the FAA would license the launch of horizontally launched vehicles 

and the reentry of reentry vehicles (RVs). The FAA has evaluated three horizontal launch vehicle 

(LV) design concepts and reentry with both powered and unpowered landing. This PEIS 

assesses the potential programmatic environmental effects of licensing horizontal launches and 

reentries of RVs, as well as the licensing of launch facilities that would support horizontal 

launches and reentries. The information in the PEIS is not intended to address all site-specific 

launch issues. This PEIS will be used to tier subsequent environmental analyses for site-specific 

launches, reentries, or the operation of a launch or reentry site. To facilitate these site-specific 

environmental analyses the FAA has provided guidance throughout the PEIS in various sections 

and technical appendices. This PEIS is intended to update and replace the 1992 Final PEIS for 

Commercial Reentry Vehicles and to complement the 2001 PEIS for Licensing Launches. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 iii

Table of Contents 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................AC-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................ES-1 

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Background................................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.2 FAA Licensing Program............................................................................................ 1-3 

1.2.1 FAA License Application Process.................................................................... 1-3 

1.2.2 FAA Licenses.................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.3 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 Scope of this PEIS ..................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.4.1 Tiering from this PEIS...................................................................................... 1-7 

1.4.2 Related Documentation..................................................................................... 1-8 

1.5 Summary of the Public Involvement Process .......................................................... 1-11 

1.6 Outline of the PEIS .................................................................................................. 1-12 

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ........................... 2-1 

2.1 Proposed Action......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Horizontal Launch ............................................................................................ 2-2 

2.1.2 Reentry.............................................................................................................. 2-6 

2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 2-8 

2.2.1 License Orbital LVs Using Unpowered Landings Only (Alternative 1) .......... 2-8 

2.2.2 License Orbital LVs Using Powered Landings Only (Alternative 2)............... 2-9 

2.2.3 License Horizontal Launches of LVs Where Full Rocket Engine Ignition Occurs 

at or above 914 meters (3,000 feet) (Alternative 3).......................................... 2-9 

2.3 No Action Alternative................................................................................................ 2-9 

2.4 Alternatives Removed from Further Analysis ......................................................... 2-10 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Environmental Resource Areas.................................................................................. 3-1 

3.1.1 Atmosphere....................................................................................................... 3-2 

3.1.2 Airspace .......................................................................................................... 3-14 

3.1.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 3-17 

3.1.4 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... 3-19 

3.1.5 Geology and Soils........................................................................................... 3-21 

3.1.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste...................................................................... 3-23 

3.1.7 Health and Safety............................................................................................ 3-24 

3.1.8 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 3-25 

3.1.9 Noise ............................................................................................................... 3-27 

3.1.10 Orbital Debris.................................................................................................. 3-30 

3.1.11 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................. 3-32 

3.1.12 Visual and Aesthetic Resources...................................................................... 3-34 

3.1.13 Water Resources ............................................................................................. 3-35 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Atmosphere................................................................................................................ 4-2 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 iv

4.1.1 Troposphere ...................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.1.2 Stratosphere..................................................................................................... 4-11 

4.1.3 Mesosphere ..................................................................................................... 4-16 

4.1.4 Ionosphere....................................................................................................... 4-17 

4.2 Airspace ................................................................................................................... 4-19 

4.2.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-19 

4.2.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-19 

4.2.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-19 

4.2.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-20 

4.2.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-20 

4.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 4-20 

4.3.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-20 

4.3.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.3.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.3.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.3.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-21 

4.4 Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.4.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-22 

4.4.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-22 

4.4.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-22 

4.4.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-22 

4.4.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-23 

4.5 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................... 4-23 

4.5.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-23 

4.5.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-24 

4.5.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-24 

4.5.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-24 

4.5.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-24 

4.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste............................................................................... 4-25 

4.6.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-25 

4.6.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-26 

4.6.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-26 

4.6.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-26 

4.6.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-26 

4.7 Health and Safety..................................................................................................... 4-27 

4.7.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-27 

4.7.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-28 

4.7.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-28 

4.7.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-28 

4.7.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-28 

4.8 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 4-29 

4.8.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-29 

4.8.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-29 

4.8.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-29 

4.8.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-30 

4.8.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-30 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 v

4.9 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 4-30 

4.9.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-30 

4.9.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-32 

4.9.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-32 

4.9.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-32 

4.9.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-32 

4.10 Orbital Debris........................................................................................................... 4-32 

4.10.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-33 

4.10.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-35 

4.10.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-36 

4.10.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-36 

4.10.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-36 

4.11 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................... 4-36 

4.11.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-36 

4.11.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-37 

4.11.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-37 

4.11.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-38 

4.11.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-38 

4.12 Visual and Aesthetic Resources............................................................................... 4-39 

4.12.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-39 

4.12.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-39 

4.12.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-39 

4.12.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-39 

4.12.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-39 

4.13 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-39 

4.13.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 4-40 

4.13.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 4-41 

4.13.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 4-41 

4.13.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 4-41 

4.13.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 4-41 

5 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Atmosphere................................................................................................................ 5-4 

5.1.1 Troposphere ...................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.1.2 Stratosphere....................................................................................................... 5-8 

5.1.3 Mesosphere ..................................................................................................... 5-11 

5.1.4 Ionosphere....................................................................................................... 5-12 

5.2 Health and Safety..................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 5-13 

5.2.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 5-13 

5.3 Orbital Debris........................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.3.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 5-13 

5.3.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 5-14 

5.3.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 5-14 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 vi

5.3.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 5-14 

5.3.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 5-14 

5.4 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................... 5-14 

5.4.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................. 5-14 

5.4.2 Alternative 1.................................................................................................... 5-15 

5.4.3 Alternative 2.................................................................................................... 5-15 

5.4.4 Alternative 3.................................................................................................... 5-15 

5.4.5 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 5-15 

6 MITIGATION.................................................................................................................. 6-1 

7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ........ 7-1 

8 LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................... 8-1 

9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 9-1

10 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 10-1 

INDEX ..................................................................................................Index-1 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 vii

Table of Exhibits 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Impacts by Alternative ................................................................. ES-4 

Exhibit 1-1. Comparison of Scope of the PEIS LL, the PEIS CRV, and this PEIS ...................1-9 

Exhibit 2-1. Typical Concept 1 LV.............................................................................................2-3 

Exhibit 2-2. Typical Concept 2 LV.............................................................................................2-4 

Exhibit 2-3. Typical Concept 3 LVs...........................................................................................2-5 

Exhibit 2-4. Propellant Systems Proposed for Use in Horizontal LV Concepts ........................2-6 

Exhibit 2-5. Estimated Horizontal U.S. Licensed Launches for 2005-2015 .............................. 2-6 

Exhibit 2-6. Characterization of RVs Landings.......................................................................... 2-7 

Exhibit 2-7. Estimated Number of U.S. Licensed Reentries of RVs per Year...........................2-8 

Exhibit 2-8. Estimated Horizontal U.S. Licensed Launches for 2005-2015 Under Alternative 3 ..

.................................................................................................................................2-9 

Exhibit 2-9. Typical Horizontal LV Using Aerial Fueling.......................................................2-10 

Exhibit 3-1. Altitude Range for Atmospheric Layers.................................................................3-2 

Exhibit 3-2. Federal and State Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards...........3-5 

Exhibit 3-3. Location of Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, January 2004 ............... 3-8 

Exhibit 3-4. General Conformity De Minimis Levels...............................................................3-13 

Exhibit 3-5. Definitions of Airspace Categories.......................................................................3-14 

Exhibit 3-6. Geographic Distribution for Earthquakes in the Continental U.S. .......................3-22 

Exhibit 3-7. Comparison of Noise Levels from Common Noise Sources.................................3-27 

Exhibit 3-8. Wetlands Systems.................................................................................................3-38 

Exhibit 4-1. Main Exhaust Products from Propulsion Systems..................................................4-3 

Exhibit 4-2. Overview of Launch and Reentry Vehicle Types.................................................... 4-3 

Exhibit 4-3. Estimated Annual Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) for Proposed Action 

(All Vehicle Types Combined), Kilograms (Pounds).............................................4-5 

Exhibit 4-4. Estimated Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) by LV Launch or RV Reentry 

Based on Vehicle Type ...........................................................................................4-7 

Exhibit 4-5. Estimated Emissions in Stratosphere by LV Launch or RV Reentry Based on 

Vehicle Type......................................................................................................... 4-12 

Exhibit 4-6. Estimated Annual Emissions to the Stratosphere (All Vehicle Types Combined), 

Kilograms (Pounds) ..............................................................................................4-13 

Exhibit 4-7. Estimated Range of Emissions of Electron-depleting Substances Released into the 

Ionosphere.............................................................................................................4-18 

Exhibit 5-1. Payload Weight Class .............................................................................................5-1 

Exhibit 5-2. Horizontal and Vertical Launch Totals by Maximum Payload Capacity...............5-2 

Exhibit 5-3. Total Orbital Reentries............................................................................................5-3 

Exhibit 5-4. Summary of Emission Loads from LVs and RVs to the Troposphere from 2005 to 

2015 in Metric Tons (Tons) ....................................................................................5-5 

Exhibit 5-5. Summary of Emission Loads from LVs and RVs to the Stratosphere from 2005 to 

2015 in Metric Tons (Tons) ....................................................................................5-8 

Exhibit B-1. Notice of Intent (68 FR 50210)............................................................................. B-2 

Exhibit B-3. List of Comments Received.................................................................................. B-6 

Exhibit B-4. EPA Comments on Draft PEIS ............................................................................. B-8 

Exhibit C-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................................. C-5 

Exhibit C-2. De Minimis Thresholds in Non-Attainment Areas................................................ C-7 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 viii

Exhibit D-1. Outline of Appendix D.......................................................................................... D-1 

Exhibit E-1. Estimated Emissions from an Accident during Launch Based on Concept Type..E-6 

Exhibit E-2. Maximum Emission Rates for All Layers of the Atmosphere, in Kilograms of Air 

Pollutant per kilometer Traveled per Vehicle (kilograms/kilometer).....................E-8 

Exhibit F-1. Altitude Range for Various Atmospheric Layers...................................................F-1 

Exhibit F-2. Overview of Launch and Reentry Vehicle Types ..................................................F-3 

Exhibit F-3. Jet Engine Emissions per Take Off/Landing Cycle Below 914 meters (3,000 feet)

.................................................................................................................................F-4 

Exhibit F-4. Estimated Propellant Consumption by Atmospheric Layer ...................................F-5 

Exhibit F-5. Emission Weight Fractions for LOX and Kerosene Rocket Propellant Emissions.....

.................................................................................................................................F-5 

Exhibit F-6. Emission Weight Fractions for N2O and HTPB Rocket Propellant Emissions......F-5 

Exhibit F-7. Emission Weight Fractions for Solid Rocket Propellant Emissions ......................F-6 

Exhibit F-8. Emission Weight Fractions for LOX and LH2 Rocket Propellant Emissions ........F-6 

Exhibit F-9. Total Emission Load for Launch or Reentry for Proposed Action and Alternatives 

by Vehicle ...............................................................................................................F-7 

Exhibit F-10. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet)..........F-10 

Exhibit F-11. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet).............F-10 

Exhibit F-12. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet)...........F-11 

Exhibit F-13. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet).........F-11 

Exhibit F-14. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet)..........F-12 

Exhibit F-15. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) ...........F-12 

Exhibit F-16. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet)..........F-13 

Exhibit F-17. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet)..........F-13 

Exhibit F-18. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) ........F-14 

Exhibit F-19. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Ionosphere ................................F-15 

Exhibit F-20. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Ionosphere ...................................F-15 

Exhibit F-21. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Ionosphere .................................F-16 

Exhibit F-22. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads to the Ionosphere ...............................F-16 

Exhibit F-23. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads to the Ionosphere................................F-17 

Exhibit F-24. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Ionosphere .................................F-17 

Exhibit F-25. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Ionosphere ................................F-18 

Exhibit F-26. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Ionosphere................................F-18 

Exhibit F-27. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Ionosphere ..............................F-19 

Exhibit F-28. Launch Vehicle Categories.................................................................................F-20 

Exhibit F-29. Estimated Propellant Consumption for Orbital Launches by Atmospheric Layer....

...............................................................................................................................F-21 

Exhibit F-30. Emission Weight Fractions for LOX and RP-1 Propellant Emissions...............F-22 

Exhibit F-31. Emission Weight Fractions for Solid/Liquid Hydrocarbon (Solid/LOX-RP-1) 

Propellant Emissions..........................................................................................F-22 

Exhibit F-32. Emission Weight Fractions for Liquid Hypergolic (N2O4-Aerozine 50) Propellant 

Emissions ...........................................................................................................F-22 

Exhibit F-33. Emission Weight Fractions for Solid/Liquid Hypergolic Propellant Emissions.......

............................................................................................................................F-22 

Exhibit F-34. Emission Weight Fractions for Solid/LOX-LH2 Propellant Emissions .............F-22 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 ix

Exhibit F-35. Estimated Propellant Consumption for Suborbital Launches by Atmospheric Layer

............................................................................................................................F-23 

Exhibit F-36. Estimated Emission Loads to the Troposphere per Other Launch or Reentry ...F-24 

Exhibit F-37. Estimated Emission Loads to the Stratosphere per Other Launch or Reentry ...F-26 

Exhibit F-38. Estimated Emission Loads to the Mesosphere per Other Launch or Reentry....F-28 

Exhibit F-39. Vehicle Launches and Reentries Associated with the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives, 2005-2015.....................................................................................F-31 

Exhibit F-40. Other Vehicle Launches and Reentries, 2005-2015 ...........................................F-32 

Exhibit F-41. Other Estimated U.S. Commercial Suborbital Launches (Vertical) By Vehicle, 

2005-2015 ..........................................................................................................F-33 

F-42. Percentage of Other Launch Vehicles Using Each Propellant within Each Atmospheric 

Layer ..................................................................................................................F-34 

Exhibit F-43. Other Reentry Vehicles, 2005-2015 ...................................................................F-35 

Exhibit F-44. Estimated HCl Emission Loads to the Troposphere...........................................F-36 

Exhibit F-45. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Troposphere.................................F-39 

Exhibit F-46. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Troposphere...............................F-42 

Exhibit F-47. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads to the Troposphere.............................F-45 

Exhibit F-48. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads to the Troposphere .............................F-48 

Exhibit F-49. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Troposphere...............................F-51 

Exhibit F-50. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Troposphere..............................F-54 

Exhibit F-51. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Troposphere .............................F-57 

Exhibit F-52. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Troposphere ............................F-60 

Exhibit F-53. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Stratosphere ..............................F-63 

Exhibit F-54. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Stratosphere.................................F-66 

Exhibit F-55. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Stratosphere...............................F-69 

Exhibit F-56. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads to the Stratosphere .............................F-72 

Exhibit F-57. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads to the Stratosphere..............................F-75 

Exhibit F-58. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Stratosphere ...............................F-78 

Exhibit F-59. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Stratosphere..............................F-81 

Exhibit F-60. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Stratosphere..............................F-84 

Exhibit F-61. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Stratosphere ............................F-87 

Exhibit F-62. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Mesosphere...............................F-90 

Exhibit F-63. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Mesosphere..................................F-93 

Exhibit F-64. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Mesosphere................................F-96 

Exhibit F-65. Estimated Annual NOX Emission Loads to the Mesosphere..............................F-99 

Exhibit F-66. Estimated Annual SOX Emission Loads to the Mesosphere ............................F-102 

Exhibit F-67. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Mesosphere..............................F-105 

Exhibit F-68. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Mesosphere.............................F-108 

Exhibit F-69. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Mesosphere ............................F-111 

Exhibit F-70. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Mesosphere...........................F-114 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 AC-1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

Al2O3 Aluminum Oxide (alumina or particulate matter) 

Ar Argon 

ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center 

AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

ATNS Air Traffic Noise Screening 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOA Broad Ocean Area 

o

C Degrees Celsius 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CAC Clean Air Corridor 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 Methane 

Cl Atomic Chlorine 

CNS/ATM Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CRV Commercial Reentry Vehicle 

dB Decibel 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOI Department of Interior 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

o

F Degrees Fahrenheit 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FL Flight Level 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FR Federal Register 

FRP Fiber Reinforced Plastics 

GEO Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 

GTO Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 AC-2

H Atomic Hydrogen 

H2 Molecular Hydrogen 

H2O Water 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

He Helium 

HNM Heliport Noise Model 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

IFR Instrument Flight Rules 

INM Integrated Noise Model 

o

K Degrees Kelvin 

LEO Low Earth Orbit 

LH2 Liquefied Hydrogen 

LOX Liquid Oxygen 

LV Launch Vehicle 

MEO Medium Earth Orbit 

MMH Monomethylhydrazine 

MOA Military Operations Area 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

MTR Military Training Route 

N Atomic Nitrogren 

N2 Molecular Nitrogen 

N2O4 Nitrogen Tetroxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program 

NH3 Ammonia 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIRS Noise Integrated Routing System 

NO Nitric Oxide 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOTAM Notice to Airmen 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

O+

 Atomic Oxygen ion 

O2 Molecular Oxygen 

O3 Ozone 

ODS Ozone-Depleting Substance 

OPA Oil Pollution Act 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 AC-3

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OTR Ozone Transport Region 

Pb Lead 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PEIS LL Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing Launches1 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM10 Particulate Matter with diameter 10 microns or less 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter with diameter 2.5 microns or less 

ppm parts per million 

psf pounds per square foot 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RISO Rocket Impact on Stratospheric Ozone 

RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle 

RP1 Rocket Propellant 1 or kerosene 

RV Reentry Vehicle 

SCS Soil Conservation Service 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOx Sulfur Oxides 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control 

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter 

U.S. United States 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USAF United States Air Force 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UST Underground Storage Tank 

UV Ultraviolet 

UVB Ultraviolet Radiation Band “B” 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership 

WSR Wild and Scenic Rivers 

 

1

 Federal Aviation Administration, 2001. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing Launches. 

May 24. Accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm on May 26, 2005. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

(AST) is responsible for licensing launches of launch vehicles (LVs), reentries of reentry 

vehicles (RVs), and the operation of facilities that support these activities.2

 Issuing a license for 

one of these activities is considered a Federal action and is subject to review as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 4321 et seq. This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) evaluates the 

potential environmental consequences of licensing horizontal launches, reentries, and the 

operation of facilities associated with those activities. This PEIS is intended to be used to tier 

subsequent environmental analyses for site-specific launches, reentries, or the operation of a 

launch or reentry site. Licensing these activities would allow the space launch industry to meet 

demand for existing services and expand into new markets. Over the past few years, the 

commercial space industry has developed vehicles that launch and land horizontally from and on 

conventional runways. These vehicles could carry human passengers (i.e., spaceflight 

participants), cargo, or satellites. 

This PEIS covers licensed launches from both existing government launch and reentry facilities 

and nonfederal launch and reentry sites in the United States (U.S.) and abroad. This PEIS 

assesses the potential programmatic environmental effects of licensing horizontal launches of 

LVs, reentries of RVs, as well as licensing the operation of facilities that support these activities. 

The operation, maintenance, repair, and decommissioning of payloads are outside the scope of 

this PEIS. The scope of the analyses contained in this PEIS is limited to the assessment of 

environmental consequences associated with the proposed action and alternatives at a 

programmatic level. The information in this PEIS is not intended to address all site-specific 

impacts. Any required site-specific environmental documentation would be developed as needed 

and tiered from this and other programmatic analyses as appropriate. Localized effects and the 

cumulative impact of these localized effects at an individual launch site can only be 

appropriately analyzed during the environmental review phase of the FAA’s license application 

review process. Licensees are expected to comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local 

laws and regulations and international treaties. To facilitate the site-specific environmental 

analyses that would be required, the FAA has provided guidance throughout this PEIS in various 

sections and in technical appendices. 

ES.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives Including the No Action Alternative 

This PEIS analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed action, three alternatives, and the 

no action alternative, as presented below. 

 Proposed Action – The FAA would review applications and issue commercial licenses for: 

launches of horizontal LVs (1,279 horizontally launched LVs between 2005 and 2015 with a 

maximum of 154 launches per year), reentries of RVs with both powered and unpowered 

 

2 Launch vehicles (LVs) in this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement are comprised of both expendable 

launch vehicles (ELVs) that have stages or components that are not intended for recovery or reuse, and reusable 

launch vehicles (RLVs) that have stages or components that can return to Earth and be recovered and reused. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 ES-2

landings (51 reentries between 2005 and 2015 with a maximum of 15 reentries per year), and 

the operation of facilities that support these activities. 

 Alternative 1 – Same as proposed action except that all reentries of RVs would have 

unpowered landings. 

 Alternative 2 – Same as proposed action except that all reentries of RVs would have 

powered landings. 

 Alternative 3 – Same as proposed action except that FAA would only license horizontal 

launches of LVs that ignite their rocket motors at or above 914 meters (3,000 feet).3

 No Action Alterative – The FAA would not issue commercial licenses for horizontal 

launches of LVs, reentry of RVs, or the operation of facilities that support these activities. 

The proposed action and alternatives considered in this PEIS include three horizontal launch 

vehicle (LV) concepts, which include existing and conceptual designs. These LVs would 

typically range from 9 to 21 meters (30 to 70 feet) in length and weigh 1,300 to 4,500 kilograms 

(2,866 to 9,921 pounds) unfueled. The LV concepts, which are categorized by launch method, 

would use the following design configurations to meet operational goals. 

 Concept 1 vehicles – These vehicles use jet powered take off with subsequent rocket engine 

ignition and powered horizontal landing.

 Concept 2 vehicles – These vehicles use rocket powered take off and flight and non-powered 

horizontal landing. 

 Concept 3 vehicles – These vehicles are carried aloft by assist aircraft with subsequent 

rocket engine ignition and non-powered horizontal landing. 

LVs may be launched on orbital or suborbital trajectories. Vehicles launched on suborbital 

trajectories would not reach orbit. Launches of LVs on suborbital trajectories would not require 

a reentry license. Vehicles launched on orbital trajectories would reach Earth orbit and would 

reenter the Earth’s atmosphere. Launches of LVs on orbital trajectories that reenter would 

require a reentry license. 

This PEIS analyzes environmental impacts by examining the following activities associated with 

the horizontal launch of an LV. 

 Launch facility preparation 

 Preparation of the LV 

 Pre-flight ground operations 

 Horizontal take off, flight, and/or launch 

 Deployment of payload (if applicable) and/or attainment of intended altitude 

This PEIS also assesses the impacts associated with the reentry of an RV, including 

 Establishment of a reentry trajectory from Earth orbit or outer space, 

 Reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere, 

 

3

 The altitude of 914 meters (3,000 feet) is generally accepted as the altitude of the mixing height. The mixing 

height is the level below which contributions of emissions can impact ambient air quality. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 ES-3

 Powered or unpowered landing, and 

 Recovery of the RV from the surface of the Earth. 

ES.2 Potential Impacts 

Various environmental criteria were used to determine the overall environmental impact of the 

proposed action. Although the significance of most environmental consequences will need to be 

determined in a site-specific NEPA analysis that tiers from this PEIS, three resource areas may 

be affected on a programmatic level, these include: atmosphere, orbital debris, and 

socioeconomic impacts. This PEIS analyzes impacts on the atmosphere including: ambient air 

quality, acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming. Impacts related to orbital debris include 

de-orbiting material as well as collisions in space with other man-made objects. Impacts 

associated with socioeconomics include the effects on the commercial launch industry and the 

national economy with respect to the global market; however, local socioeconomic impacts 

associated with developing a launch or reentry facility would be addressed in a site-specific 

NEPA analysis. The analysis contained in this PEIS is not site-specific; any required sitespecific environmental documentation would be developed as needed and tiered from this and 

other NEPA analyses as appropriate. 

Exhibit ES-1, Summary of Impacts by Alternative, lists the impacts by resource associated with 

the proposed action, alternative 1, alternative 2, alternative 3, and the no action alternative. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Impacts by Alternative 

Resource Area Proposed Action Impacts Alternative 1 Impacts Alternative 2 Impacts Alternative 3 Impacts No Action Impacts Specific 

C

Atmosphere 

Troposphere 









∆

Stratosphere 









∆

Mesosphere 









∆

Ionosphere 





 - ∆

State envirEnvironme

Airspace5 







∆ FAA safety 

process 

Biological Resources 

Vegetation6 







∆ N/A 

Wildlife5 







∆ N/A 

Threatened and Endangered Species5









∆ U.S. Fish a

National M

Cultural Resources7 







∆

State HistoOfficer; TrPreservatioRegister of 

Geology and Soils6 







∆

Hazardous Materials and Waste5









∆ N/A 

∆ No change - No Impact 

 Negligible Impact M Moderate Impact S Signif

4 See Appendix D for a detailed summary of the requirements for regulatory processes including information on agency consultation. 5 The FAA license application process would minimize the potential impacts of the affected resource area, e.g., the Safety Review and 

address airspace. 6 Potential impacts associated with the resource would be evaluated in a site-specific NEPA analysis. 7 Launch or reentry activities would not result in a significant impact on the resource. The development of a new or modification of an 

facility would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA analysis. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Impacts by Alternative 

Resource Area Proposed Action Impacts Alternative 1 Impacts Alternative 2 Impacts Alternative 3 Impacts No Action Impacts Specific 

C

Health and Safety4 







∆

FAA LicenDivision MReview 

Land Use 

Land Use6 







∆

U.S. DeparNatural ReService 

Section 4(f) Resources 









∆

Secretaries Housing anand Agricu

Socioeconomics Socioeconomics5 Μ

Μ

Μ

Μ M 

Environmental 

Justice5 







∆ 

Visual Resources and Aesthetics6









∆ Appropriat

local agenc

Water Resources 

Freshwater and Marine Systems6









∆

Local watePollutant DSystem perPollution Pnecessary) 

Wetlands6 







∆ Army Corp

Floodplains6 







∆ Federal Em

Agency, E

Ground Water6 







∆ N/A 

∆ No change - No Impact 

 Negligible Impact M Moderate Impact S Signif
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 ES-6

As shown in Exhibit ES-1, implementation of the proposed action or any of the alternatives other 

than the no action alternative would result in (1) impacts that would be negligible, (2) impacts 

that would be addressed through the completion of the FAA licensing process, (3) impacts that 

would require the completion of a site-specific NEPA analysis, and/or (4) impacts that would be 

negligible for horizontal launch or reentry activities, but would require the completion of sitespecific NEPA analysis for the development or modification of a launch or reentry facility. The 

analysis contained in this PEIS concluded that the implementation of the proposed action or any 

of the alternatives other than the no action alternative would result in negligible impacts on all 

aspects of the atmosphere and on orbital debris. By adhering to the FAA licensing and review 

process, impacts on airspace and public health and safety would not be significant. Because this 

is a programmatic review, site-specific NEPA analysis would be required to evaluate the impacts 

on or associated with noise, vegetation, wildlife, threatened or endangered species, local 

socioeconomics, environmental justice, and hazardous waste. For licensing horizontal launch or 

reentry activities, the analysis contained in this PEIS found that the impacts on geology and soils, 

fresh water or marine systems, wetlands, floodplains, ground water, aesthetics and visual 

resources, section 4(f) resources, land use, or cultural resources would not be significant; 

however, these determinations depend on site-specific characteristics as well. The licensing of a 

launch or reentry site involving new construction or modification of existing infrastructure would 

require evaluation in a site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Except for alternative 2, implementation of the proposed action would result in slightly greater 

environmental impacts than the overall impacts associated with the alternatives and no action 

alternative. Under alternative 2 it was assumed that all reentries would have powered landings; 

therefore, the environmental impacts of implementing alternative 2 would be slightly greater 

than those from the proposed action. However all impacts associated with the proposed action 

and the alternatives were found to be negligible. In terms of socioeconomics, the proposed 

action would result in the greatest beneficial impact as it would not restrict the innovation and 

development of the U.S. commercial space industry through restrictive licensing. Implementing 

the proposed action would not limit or restrict the growth of the U.S. space industry, while 

implementation of one of the alternatives could limit U.S. commercial launch and reentry vehicle 

development and growth, and implementation of the no action alternative could severely limit 

and restrict the growth of the U.S. commercial space launch industry. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended (42 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-

1508), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1 E, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures, and Presidential Executive Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects 

Abroad of Major Federal Actions (whose implementation is guided by NEPA and CEQ 

implementing regulations), direct FAA lead agency officials to consider the environmental 

consequences when planning for, authorizing, and approving Federal actions. When the FAA 

Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) issues a license, it is considered a Federal 

action and is subject to review as required by NEPA. The seven types of licenses issued by AST 

are detailed in Section 1.2.2. Accordingly, the FAA prepared this Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of activities associated 

with licensing launches of horizontal launch vehicles (LVs), reentry of reentry vehicles (RVs), 

and operation of facilities supporting these activities8

. The analysis in this document can be used 

to tier subsequent environmental analyses for specific launches or reentries or for the operation 

of a launch or reentry site. 

1.1 Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, Chapter 701, Commercial Space Launch Activities (formerly the 

Commercial Space Launch Act), the Department of Transportation (DOT) designated an office 

within the office of the Secretary of Transportation, as the lead agency to carry out 

responsibilities for United States (U.S.) commercial launch activities. This office had 

responsibilities to 

 License and regulate all U.S. commercial launch activities to ensure that they are conducted 

safely and responsibly, and 

 Promote, encourage, and facilitate the growth of the U.S. commercial space transportation 

industry. 

In November 1995, this office was transferred to the FAA and was redesignated as the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation with the office designation AST. Congress enlarged the 

FAA’s role in October 1998 to include the licensing of reentries and reentry sites. 

The FAA is given the responsibility to 

 Regulate the commercial space transportation industry, only to the extent necessary, to 

ensure compliance with U.S. international obligations and to protect the public health and 

safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interest of the U.S.; 

 

8

 For purposes of this document, LV means both expendable and reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) that can be 

launched into orbital or suborbital trajectories. Reentry vehicle means a vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit 

or outer space to Earth, or an RLV designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, substantially intact. 

49 U.S.C. § 70101 These vehicles reenter Earth’s atmosphere from Earth orbit or outer space. In this document 

reentry vehicles consist of RVs launched both vertically and horizontally. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-2 

 Encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries by the private 

sector; 

 Recommend appropriate changes in Federal statutes, treaties, regulations, policies, plans, and 

procedures; and 

 Facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the U.S. space transportation infrastructure. 

In fulfilling its responsibilities since 1989, the FAA has licensed more than 100 launches and has 

issued licenses for the operation of several launch sites including: California Spaceport at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California; Spaceport Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, 

Florida; Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island, Virginia; Kodiak Launch Complex 

on Kodiak Island, Alaska; and Mojave Airport in Mojave, California. 

In the past few years, the commercial space industry has expressed heightened interest in 

commercial development of space, including LVs that launch horizontally and RVs. Twenty-six 

private organizations formally entered a competition for the Ansari X Prize9. Of the 26 private 

organizations that competed for the X Prize, nine were developing vehicles that launch and land 

horizontally on conventional runways. The LVs that competed for the Ansari X Prize were 

suborbital vehicles10; however, many of the companies developing X Prize vehicles are 

proposing to continue to build on the LV platform to develop vehicles that would use orbital 

trajectories and would require a reentry license from the FAA. These vehicles would include 

manned and unmanned flights and could carry passengers (i.e., spaceflight participants) or other 

payloads11 into orbit. On October 4, 2004, SpaceShipOne, built by Scaled Composites, became 

the first private manned spacecraft to exceed an altitude of 100 kilometers twice in as many 

weeks, claiming the $10,000,000 Ansari X-Prize. 

The Federal government, primarily the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

and U.S. Air Force (USAF), has previously conducted horizontal LV and RV projects. As 

identified in Commercial Space Launch Activities (49 U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Chapter 701), the 

development of such vehicles and associated services by the commercial space transportation 

industry is in the national and economic interest of the U.S. To ensure that launch services 

provided by private U.S. enterprises are consistent with the national security and foreign policy 

interests of the U.S. and do not jeopardize public safety and the safety of property, the FAA is 

authorized to regulate and license the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. 

This authority extends to the proposed action considered in this PEIS, licensing horizontal 

vehicle launches and reentry of RVs, which is considered a Federal action subject to the 

requirements of NEPA. As such, NEPA requires that Federal agencies consider the impacts of 

their activities on the human environment. FAA Order 1050.1 E describes the FAA’s procedures 

 

9

 The Ansari X Prize, a St. Louis based non-profit foundation, offered a $10 million prize to the first team to launch 

a vehicle capable of carrying three people (or one person and ballast weight for two others) on a suborbital 

trajectory to a 100-kilometer (62-mile) altitude and repeats the flight within two weeks in the same vehicle. 10 Suborbital vehicle is defined as “a vehicle, rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital 

trajectory, and the thrust of which is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of its 

ascent.” Suborbital trajectory is defined as “the intentional flight path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any 

portion thereof whose vacuum instantaneous impact point does not leave the surface of the Earth.” 11 For purposes of this document, the payload is the item that an aircraft or rocket carries over and above what is 

necessary for the operation of the vehicle in flight and could include spaceflight participants, cargo, or satellites. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-3 

for implementing NEPA and includes thresholds for determining the level (significance) of an 

impact. Specifically, this Order requires that FAA decision-makers facilitate public involvement 

by including consideration of the effects of the proposed action and alternatives; avoidance or 

minimization of adverse effects attributable to the proposed action; restoration and enhancement 

of resources; and environmental quality of the nation. This PEIS evaluates the potential 

programmatic environmental consequences of licensing horizontal launches and reentries of 

RVs, as well as the operation of facilities where these activities would occur. This PEIS 

identifies the environmental considerations that a subsequent site-specific analysis would 

consider in accordance with NEPA. 

1.2 FAA Licensing Program 

The following provides a general description of the license application process for a launch or 

reentry and a description of the types of licenses issued by the FAA. A more detailed description 

of FAA’s licensing program can be found in Appendix A. 

FAA License Application Process 

Three steps comprise the FAA launch or reentry licensing process; detailed descriptions of each 

of the following key components are presented in Appendix A, FAA Licensing Program. 

1. Pre-Application Consultation 

2. Application Evaluation, including 

 Policy Review and Approval 

 Safety Review and Approval 

 Payload Review and Determination 

 Financial Responsibility Determination 

 Environmental Review 

3. Compliance Monitoring 

During the Pre-Application Consultation and Application Evaluation periods, the FAA works 

with the applicant to ensure that sufficient information is supplied from the applicant to the FAA 

to support a review of the proposed action. The Policy Review and Approval process determines 

whether the information in the license application presents any issues affecting U.S. national 

security or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the U.S. The Safety Review 

and Approval process determines whether a license applicant or payload owner or operator has 

obtained all required licenses, authorizations, and permits. During the Payload Review and 

Determination process, the FAA reviews a payload proposed for launch to determine whether a 

license applicant or payload owner or operator has obtained all required licenses, authorization, 

and permits, unless the payload is exempt from review. The Financial Responsibility 

Determination process ensures that all commercial licensees demonstrate financial responsibility 

to compensate for the maximum probable loss resulting from claims by a third party for death, 

bodily injury, or property damage or loss resulting from an activity carried out under the license; 

and the U.S. Government against a person for damage or loss to government property resulting 

from an activity carried out under the license. The Environmental Review component of the 

licensing process ensures that potentially significant environmental impacts of licensed launch 

activities on the natural and human environment are fully considered in decision making. An 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-4 

applicant must provide information sufficient to enable the FAA to comply with all the 

requirements of such standards. Compliance Monitoring ensures that a licensee complies with 

the terms and conditions set forth in the license issued by the FAA. Compliance Monitoring also 

involves oversight conducted by the FAA during licensed launch activities. All of these 

processes, except for Compliance Monitoring, are completed prior to the FAA issuing a license 

to an applicant. All FAA safety analyses and requirements are included in the terms and 

conditions of the license. 

1.2.2 FAA Licenses 

The FAA issues seven types of licenses for activities associated with launch, reentry, or 

operation of a facility where such activities would occur. 

Launch Site Operator License – “A license to operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to 

operate a launch site in accordance with the representations contained in the licensee’s 

application, with terms and conditions contained in any license order accompanying the license, 

and subject to the licensee’s compliance with 49 U.S.C subtitle IX, ch.701 and this chapter. 14 

CFR 420.41(a) A license to operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a 

launch operator for each launch point for the type and any weight class of LV identified in the 

license application and upon which the licensing determination is based. 14 CFR 420.41(b) 

Issuance of a license to operate a launch site does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to 

comply with any other laws or regulations; nor does it confer any proprietary, property, or 

exclusive right in the use of airspace or outer space. 14 CFR 420.41(c) A license to operate a 

launch site remains in effect for five years from the date of issuance unless surrendered, 

suspended, or revoked before the expiration of the term and is renewable upon application by the 

licensee.” 14 CFR 420.43 

Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Mission-Specific License – “A mission-specific license 

authorizing an RLV mission authorizes a licensee to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, one 

model or type of RLV from a launch site approved for the mission to a reentry site or other 

location approved for the mission. A mission–specific license authorizing an RLV mission may 

authorize more than one RLV mission and identifies each flight of an RLV authorized under the 

license. A licensee’s authorization to conduct RLV missions terminates upon completion of all 

activities authorized by the license or the expiration date stated in the reentry license whichever 

comes first.” 14 CFR 431.3(a) 

RLV Mission Operator License – “An operator license for RLV missions authorizes a licensee 

to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, any of a designated family of RLVs within authorized 

parameters, including launch sites and trajectories, transporting specified classes of payloads to 

any reentry site or other location designated in the license. An operator license for RLV 

missions is valid for a two-year renewable term.” 14 CFR 431.3(b) 

Reentry-Specific License – “A reentry-specific license authorizes a licensee to reenter one model 

or type of RV, other than an RLV, to a reentry site or other location approved for the reentry. A 

reentry-specific license may authorize more than one reentry and identifies each reentry 

authorized under the license. A licensee’s authorization to reenter terminates upon completion of 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-5 

all activities authorized by the license or the expiration date stated in the reentry license, 

whichever occurs first.” 14 CFR 435.3(a) 

Reentry Operator License – “A reentry operator license authorizes a licensee to reenter any of a 

designated family of RVs, other than an RLV, within authorized parameters, including 

trajectories, transporting specified classes of payloads to any reentry site designated in the 

license. A reentry operator license is valid for a two-year renewable term.” 14 CFR 435.3(b) 

Launch-Specific License – “A launch-specific license authorizes a licensee to conduct one or 

more launches, having the same launch parameters, of one type of LV from one launch site. The 

license identifies, by name or mission, each launch authorized under the license. A licensee’s 

authorization to launch terminates upon completion of all launches authorized by the license or 

the expiration date stated in the license, whichever occurs first.” 14 CFR 415.3(a) 

Launch Operator License – “A launch operator license authorizes a licensee to conduct 

launches from one launch site, within a range of launch parameters, of LVs from the same family 

of vehicles transporting specified classes of payloads. A launch operator license remains in 

effect for five years from the date of issuance.” 14 CFR 415.3(b) 

1.3 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed action is to facilitate the issuance of licenses for horizontal vehicle 

launches, reentry of RVs, and the operation of facilities where such actions would occur. By 

facilitating the issuance of licenses, the FAA would assist the space launch industry in meeting 

the demand for services (e.g., demand for delivering satellites to orbit) and expanding into new 

markets (e.g., space tourism). The FAA, in fulfilling its mission, has developed a licensing 

program designed to regulate and promote the growth of the U.S. commercial space industry. To 

further enhance this, the FAA wants to facilitate the issuance of licenses for the launch of new 

and emerging vehicles to meet the increased demand for space-based missions and the expansion 

into new commercial space markets. 

The need for the action proposed by the FAA is to promote the growth of the U.S. commercial 

space transportation industry while protecting public health and safety, the safety of property, 

and ensuring that the launch services provided by private U.S. enterprises are consistent with 

national security and foreign policy interests of the U.S. 

1.4 Scope of this PEIS 

This PEIS considers the programmatic environmental impacts of the proposed action (i.e., 

licensing horizontal vehicle launches, reentry of RVs, and the operation of facilities where such 

actions would occur) and its alternatives, including the no action alternative. For the purposes of 

this PEIS, the FAA reviewed the programmatic impacts of licensing all types of horizontally 

launched LVs, RVs, and the operation of facilities where such actions would occur versus 

licensing only certain subsets of these activities. The activities considered in this PEIS could 

occur at any location that falls under the licensing authority of the FAA or other appropriate 

Federal launch and reentry facilities. These launch and reentry facilities may be located in the 

U.S. or abroad. The operation of launch facilities located outside of the U.S. would not be 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-6 

licensed by AST. As the designated authority for regulating the U.S. commercial space 

transportation industry and issuing licenses for launches, reentries, and the operation of launch 

sites, the FAA is the lead agency preparing this PEIS. No other agency has been designated or 

requested to act as a cooperating or co-lead agency for the development of this PEIS. 

The FAA has estimated that there would be 1,279 U.S. commercial horizontal vehicle launches 

between 2005 and 2015. Of these, 97 percent (1,242) U.S. commercial horizontal launches are 

expected to use suborbital trajectories. The remaining 3 percent (37) U.S. commercial horizontal 

launches are expected to reach orbit and subsequently reenter the Earth’s atmosphere during their 

descent. Note that the horizontal launches considered in this analysis include launches of both 

reusable and expendable vehicles; however, very few expendable launches were included in the 

analysis. In addition, 14 U.S. commercial vertical launches of RVs are expected to reach orbit 

and reenter Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, there would be a total of 51 U.S. commercial 

reentries of RVs from 2005 through 2015. These estimates, along with the pre- and post-flight 

activities associated with launch and reentry, provide the basis for the description of the 

proposed action and the analysis of environmental impacts. The horizontal launch of an LV 

includes 

 Launch site preparation, 

 Preparation of the LV, 

 Pre-flight ground operations, 

 Horizontal take off, flight, and/or launch, and 

 Deployment of payload (if applicable) and/or attainment of intended altitude. 

The downrange deposition of any components (e.g., stages, inter-stage material or expended 

debris such as bolts) associated with the LV was also evaluated. The reentry of an RV includes 

 Establishment of a reentry trajectory from Earth orbit or outer space, 

 Reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere, 

 Powered or unpowered landing, and 

 Recovery of the RV from the surface of the Earth. 

The scope of this PEIS addresses the delivery of a payload to Earth orbit but does not address the 

operation, maintenance, repair, or decommissioning of such payload, which are outside of the 

FAA’s regulatory purview. However, because orbital and reentering debris that could be 

associated with the activities addressed in the proposed action have the potential to impact the 

human environment, this PEIS considers the impact of such debris. The scope of this PEIS does 

not include any construction activities at a launch or a reentry site. Construction activities (e.g., 

repair or modification of existing infrastructure or development of new infrastructure) would be 

addressed in separate site-specific environmental documentation tiered from this PEIS and other 

NEPA analyses as appropriate. Because the FAA does not license “amateur rocket activities”12

conducted at private sites, such activities are not considered in this PEIS. 

 

12 “Amateur rocket activities” are defined in 14 CFR 401.5 as “launch activities conducted at private sites involving 

rockets powered by a motor or motors having a total impulse of 200,000 pound-seconds or less and a total burning 

or operating time of less than 15 seconds, and a rocket having a ballistic coefficient, i.e., gross weight in pounds 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-7 

Based on the activities associated with licensing horizontal vehicle launches, reentry of RVs, and 

the operation of facilities where such actions would occur, the FAA determined which resource 

areas could be affected by the proposed action and alternatives (see Section 3, Affected 

Environment). This programmatic review allows the FAA to present a description of the unique 

environmental resources that would be affected by an alternative regardless of the specific 

geographic area. Furthermore, this allows the FAA to describe the affected environment in 

sufficient detail to understand the effects of each alternative on a particular resource area, as 

presented in Section 4, Environmental Consequences. For example, each layer of the 

atmosphere is described in sufficient detail to define the impacts of up to 154 horizontal vehicle 

launches per year and a maximum of 15 reentries of RVs per year on each layer, while regional 

air quality standards (National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]) are described in 

sufficient detail to allow for a bounding analysis that would specify the number of launches or 

reentries that would exceed regulated NAAQS standards. Specific localized effects and the 

cumulative impacts of localized effects of a launch or a reentry at a specific launch or reentry site 

would be analyzed in a separate NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. 

1.4.1 Tiering from this PEIS 

Programmatic documents, within the context of NEPA, involve an analysis of an agency’s 

programs (e.g., licensing programs), activities, or policies that occur on a broad or national level. 

Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the lead agency focus on the issues that are 

ready for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready for 

analysis. Programmatic analyses can be tiered from to create subsequent environmental analyses 

(i.e., a supplemental environmental impact statement [EIS], a new EIS, a supplemental 

environmental assessment [EA], or a new EA). These tiered analyses narrow the scope of an 

activity to a site-specific or project-specific action. Tiering is designed to avoid repetition in 

documents and delays in site-specific analyses when program-level statements have already been 

conducted. The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508.28) state 

that when a PEIS has been prepared, a subsequent environmental analysis needs only to 

summarize the issues discussed in a PEIS, incorporate discussions from the PEIS by reference, 

and concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action. A tiered document cannot lead to 

a change in scope or in the environmental findings of the broader document; such a change 

would result in the preparation of a new PEIS, EIS, or EA and subsequent environmental 

analyses. 

A site-specific document tiering from this PEIS would address future activities that would fall 

within the scope of this PEIS would focus on the unique environmental resources that would be 

affected. Once a specific vehicle and site have been selected, the subsequent tiered document 

could follow the format of the affected environment presented in this PEIS. The analysis in the 

tiered document would be more narrowly focused than the PEIS given the site-specific nature of 

the action. Where appropriate, documents that would tier from this PEIS would reference the 

analysis and findings presented in this PEIS. For example, so long as the activities of the tiered 

document are within the scope of this PEIS, the analysis of such impacts would simply cite the 

 divided by frontal area of rocket vehicle--less than 12 pounds per square inch.” [Note: The definition of amateur 

rocket activities is proposed to be revised by FAA.] 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-8 

findings contained in this PEIS and incorporate the conclusions regarding significance of 

impacts. 

1.4.2 Related Documentation 

This PEIS updates and replaces the 1992 PEIS for Commercial Reentry Vehicles (PEIS CRV)13

by analyzing the impacts associated with the reentry of RVs (with powered and unpowered 

landings) using current reentry estimates and RV technology, and complements the 2001 PEIS 

for Licensing Launches (PEIS LL)14 by analyzing the impacts associated with horizontal vehicle 

launches. The PEIS CRV presented a programmatic review of the impacts associated with 

licensing reentry of RVs including the use of supplemental deceleration systems (e.g., parachutes 

and retro thrusts). The PEIS LL presented a programmatic review of the impacts associated with 

licensing launches of LVs from ground-, air-, and sea-based launch platforms for a variety of 

propulsion systems (i.e., liquid, solid, and hybrid rocket motors). This approach seeks to 

encompass all reasonably foreseeable launch and reentry activities that would fall under the 

licensing authority of the FAA. The PEIS LL is incorporated by reference in this PEIS. Exhibit 

1-1 presents a comparison of the scope of the PEIS CRV, PEIS LL, and this PEIS. 

 

13 Available at: http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/PEISRV5-28-92.pdf 14 Available at: http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit 1-1. Comparison of Scope of the PEIS LL, the PEIS CRV, and this PEIS 

Document PEIS LL PEIS CRV Cu

Date Finalized May 2001 May 1992 Nov

Proposed Action 

To issue licenses for launches of vertical LVs. The PEIS addressed the impacts from ignition, liftoff, ascent through the atmosphere to orbit and payload separation, and cited the 1992 PEIS CRV in assessing the impacts associated with RVs 

To issue licenses for reentries of RVs, which included both powered and unpowered landing of unmanned RVs. Manned RVs were not included in the proposed action. The PEIS CRV only addressed reentry specific licenses and reentry operator licenses 

To issue licenhorizontal LVreentries with unpowered laand unmanneaddresses horLVs and replfor all types o

Alternatives to Proposed Action 

Considered More EnvironmentallyFriendly Propellant Combinations Alternative and No Action Alternative 

Considered No Action Alternative 

Considers LicReentries witLandings OnRVs ReentrieLandings OnHorizontal LaWhere Rockeor Above 914 and No Actio

Launch Operations 

Considered vertically launched vehicles 

Assumed that RVs would have been launched on vertically launched expendable LVs but did not analyze these impacts 

Addresses hovehicles 

Reentry Operations 

Did not consider reentry/landing operations 

Considered reentries with powered and unpowered landings of unmanned RVs 

Considers reeand unpowervertical and h
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit 1-1. Comparison of Scope of the PEIS LL, the PEIS CRV, and this PEIS 

Document PEIS LL PEIS CRV Cu

Basis for Analysis 

The PEIS LL used the following LVs as representative vehicles: Taurus, Athena, Titan II, Delta II, Delta III, Delta IV, Zenit-3SL, Titan IV, and Atlas V 

The PEIS CRV evaluated the effects of unmanned RVs that would be launched from expendable LVs and indicated that the size of such vehicles ranges from 170 to 6,970 kilograms (between 0.2 and 8.2 percent of the weight of the Space Shuttle [85,000 kilograms]) 

This PEIS usdefine represPrize Entranttechnologies U.S. CommeTransportatioConcepts: Veand Spacepor

U.S. Licensed Launch Manifest Estimates 

Assumed 72 small, 22 medium, 75 intermediate, and 92 high capacity launches between 2000 and 2010 

None 

Assumed 485 Concept 2, anlaunches betw

U.S. Licensed Reentry Manifest Estimates 

None 

Assumed up to 7 reentries per year from 1993-1999 and 20 to 30 reentries per year from 2000-2005 

Assumed 37 vertical reentand 2015 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-11 

1.5 Summary of the Public Involvement Process 

In accordance with the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations for public involvement (40 CFR 

1506.6) and FAA Order 1050.1 E, the FAA has provided opportunities and means for public 

involvement during the preparation of this PEIS. Public participation in the NEPA process not 

only provides for and encourages open communication between the FAA and the public, but also 

promotes better decision-making. Throughout the preparation of the PEIS, including the scoping 

process and public comment period on the Draft PEIS, the FAA sought substantive input from a 

variety of sources concerning the issues that should be addressed. The FAA continues to 

encourage the public to submit comments throughout the entire PEIS development process. 

Scoping for the development of this PEIS began with the publication of the Notice of Intent 

(NOI) in the Federal Register (68 FR 50210) on August 20, 2003. See Appendix B, Public 

Involvement Material, for a copy of the NOI. During scoping, the FAA invited the participation 

of Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, environmental groups, 

organizations, citizens, and other interested parties to assist in determining the scope and 

significant issues to be evaluated in this PEIS. The FAA provided the public, organizations, and 

agencies with an opportunity to request a public scoping meeting; however, no interest or request 

for a public scoping meeting was received by FAA and no such meeting was sponsored by the 

FAA. On October 16, 2003, the FAA published a notice of extension in the Federal Register (68 

FR 59676), which extended the scoping period from September 26, 2003 to October 31, 2003. 

The extension was provided to allow the public sufficient opportunity to explore alternatives and 

raise issues pertinent to the scope of the PEIS. The FAA developed a website to provide 

information on the PEIS and solicit public comments during scoping. The FAA also established 

phone and fax lines, an e-mail address, and a U.S. Postal Service address for submittal of public 

comments and questions. Appendix B, Public Involvement Material, provides copies of the 

public notices, announcements, and a summary of the comments received during the public 

scoping period. 

The public comment period for the Draft PEIS began with the publication of the Notice of 

Availability (NOA), published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) on July 29, 2005. The NOA announced the availability of the Draft PEIS, initiated the 45 

day public comment period for the NEPA process, and requested comments on the Draft PEIS. 

The FAA also published a NOA in the Federal Register on July 29, 2005, which provided 

information on the proposed action and alternatives and provided contact information for 

submitting comments to the FAA. See Appendix B for a copy of the NOA. A downloadable 

version of the Draft PEIS was available on the FAA PEIS website and hardcopies of the 

document were sent to persons on the distribution list. The only comments on the Draft PEIS 

received during the comment period were from XCOR Aerospace and the EPA. The EPA’s 

letter indicated a lack of objection to the proposed action. The responses to XCOR Aerospace’s 

comments and a copy of the EPA comment letter are provided in Appendix B. The public 

involvement process will conclude when the FAA issues a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner 

than 30 days after the release of the Final PEIS. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 1-12 

1.6 Outline of the PEIS 

 Section 2 provides a description of the proposed action encompassing the various vehicle 

concepts that are analyzed in this document, the no action alternative, and alternatives 

considered but removed from detailed analysis. 

 Section 3 describes the potentially affected environment in terms of resource areas including 

atmosphere, air quality, airspace, orbital debris, noise, geology and soils, surface water, 

wetlands, floodplains, terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals, threatened and endangered 

species, socioeconomics, environmental justice, public health and safety, transportation and 

infrastructure, and cultural resources. 

 Section 4 describes the potential direct and indirect environmental consequences associated 

with the proposed action and the alternatives on the resources presented in Section 3.0. 

 Section 5 describes the potential cumulative environmental consequences associated with the 

proposed action and other Federal and non-Federal activities. 

 Section 6 discusses the mitigation measures associated with the potential environmental 

consequences. 

 Sections 7 and 8 discuss the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources 

(including short-term use versus long-term productivity) and present the preparers of the 

PEIS, respectively. 

 Section 9 presents the references. 

 Section 10 is a glossary of terms used in this document. 

 Several appendices provide technical support and detailed information related to this 

document, and include 

• Appendix A – FAA Licensing Program 

• Appendix B – Public Involvement Materials 

• Appendix C – Applicable Legal Requirements, including those for each individual 

resource area 

• Appendix D – Regulatory Process Description, which provides more detail and guidance 

for applicants who are completing site-specific environmental analyses 

• Appendix E – Potential Accident Scenarios 

• Appendix F – Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action and Alternatives and Other 

Space Launch Activities 

• Appendix G – Distribution List, which includes all parties that are included in mail-outs 

related to the PEIS and its development 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-1 

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

The commercial space launch industry strives to develop safe and affordable access to space and 

promote new commercial development of space (e.g., space tourism). In the past few years, the 

commercial space launch industry has expressed heightened interest in conducting launches of 

horizontal vehicles and reentries of RVs. The new horizontal LV technologies (i.e., new 

propulsion systems and propellants) are being developed to provide affordable access to space. 

In addition to the new horizontal LV technologies, the commercial space launch industry is 

continuing to develop new RV technologies with reentries using both powered and unpowered 

landings. 

In accordance with its responsibilities under Title 49, U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Sections 70101-70121 

(formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act), the FAA regulates the commercial space launch 

industry by licensing launches and reentries occurring in the U.S. and those conducted by U.S. 

citizens outside of the U.S., and issuing launch site operator licenses. The FAA developed the 

alternatives considered in this PEIS based on the activities that it has the regulatory authority to 

license and the types of horizontal LVs and RVs that currently exist or are under development. 

The FAA defined the proposed action in terms of the activities associated with horizontal vehicle 

launches, followed by a detailed discussion of the concepts and propellants used by LVs, and the 

estimated launch manifest by year. The reentry of an RV is described using the same 

information (i.e., activities, concepts, and estimated reentry manifest), while the description of 

the alternatives considered in detail focuses on the differences between each alternative and the 

proposed action. 

The following is a list of potential alternatives including (1) the proposed action, (2) the no 

action alternative, (3) alternatives carried forward for analysis, and (4) alternatives not analyzed 

further in the PEIS. These alternatives allow the FAA to present the environmental impacts of 

the proposed action and alternatives in comparative form, defining the issues and providing a 

basis for options considered by decision makers. 

2.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, the FAA would license horizontal vehicle launches, reentries of RVs 

using powered and unpowered landings, and the operation of facilities that would support such 

actions. The activities associated with horizontal vehicle launches and reentry of RVs are 

presented separately, and the impact analysis in Section 4 discusses the potential impacts 

considering the activities both as individual events and as part of a single mission. Some 

horizontal LVs would be launched into suborbital trajectories and would not reach orbit. Rather 

the vehicles would reach apogee (i.e., the highest point in the vehicle’s flight) and would return 

to land at a designated location. Some horizontal LVs would be launched into orbital trajectories 

and would reach Earth orbit or outer space. These vehicles would reenter Earth’s atmosphere to 

return to Earth. After reentry, these vehicles would land at designated locations. In addition, 

some RVs would be transported into orbit by vertical LVs, as considered in the PEIS LL, and 

would reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and land at designated locations. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-2 

The proposed action for a single mission considered in this PEIS could include launch only, 

reentry only, or launch and reentry. The activities associated with a horizontal LV landing, after 

it had returned from a suborbital trajectory, would be the same as landing a horizontal LV that 

had reentered and landed from an orbital trajectory; therefore, these activities are described only 

once as part of the discussion on reentry. 

2.1.1 Horizontal Launch 

Current horizontal launch technology can be used to launch payloads, including spaceflight 

participants or cargo, into suborbital trajectories; however, future horizontal LVs would be used 

to transport spaceflight participants into orbit and carry larger payloads into both Low Earth 

Orbit (LEO)15 and Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO)16. The use of horizontal LVs to transport 

payloads into LEO and GEO is reasonably foreseeable within the timeframe of this PEIS and is 

considered in this document. 

2.1.1.1 Activities Associated with Horizontal Launch 

For purposes of this analysis, the FAA identified the following as activities typically associated 

with horizontal launch. 

 Launch facility preparation 

 Preparation of the LV 

 Pre-flight ground operations 

 Horizontal take off, flight, and/or launch 

 Deployment of payload (if applicable) and/or attainment of the intended altitude 

Preparing the facility for a horizontal launch would include ensuring that the necessary safety 

advisories have been issued and that procedures and plans are in place to safely conduct the 

proposed activities. The preparation of the LV would typically begin with the arrival of the LV 

and its associated payload at a launch site. The preparation of the LV would include vehicle and 

payload assembly. The pre-flight ground operations would include fueling and final preparations 

for horizontal launch. The LV would initiate its formal launch sequence (ignition of its 

propulsion system) when all preparation and pre-flight operations are completed. After ignition 

of the rocket engines, the LV would continue along its flight path until it reaches its desired 

altitude or orbit. The activities associated with reentry (for those vehicles that reach orbit) are 

described in Section 2.1.2.1 of this document. The activities associated with landing a horizontal 

LV from a suborbital trajectory are the same as the latter stages of landing a horizontal LV from 

an orbital trajectory and are therefore also described in Section 2.1.2.1 of this document. 

 

15 Objects in LEO follow a path between the Earth’s atmosphere and the bottom of the Van Allen belts, from an 

altitude of 161 to 1,609 kilometers (100 to 1,000 miles). The Van Allen belts are zones of intense radiation 

trapped in the Earth’s magnetosphere (a region dominated by the Earth’s magnetic field that traps charged 

particles). 16 GEO is an orbit at 35,888 kilometers (22,300 miles) altitude that is synchronized with the Earth’s rotation. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-3 

2.1.1.2 LV Concepts for Horizontal Launch 

This PEIS considered three horizontal LV concepts, which include existing and conceptual LV 

designs. These LVs would typically range from 9 to 21 meters (30 to 70 feet) in length and 

weigh 1,300 to 4,500 kilograms (2,866 to 9,921 pounds) unfueled. The LV concepts, which are 

categorized by launch method, would use the following design configurations to meet 

operational goals. 

 Concept 1 vehicles – These vehicles use jet-powered take off with subsequent rocket engine 

ignition and powered horizontal landing. 

 Concept 2 vehicles – These vehicles use rocket-powered take off and flight and nonpowered horizontal landing. 

 Concept 3 vehicles – These vehicles are carried aloft by assist aircraft with subsequent 

rocket engine ignition and non-powered horizontal landing. 

Concept 1 

Concept 1 LVs would take off under jet power from conventional runways and would ignite 

rocket engines at a specified altitude. At a designated launch altitude, jet engines would be shut 

down and rocket engines would be ignited. If a suborbital trajectory is planned, the LV would 

climb until propellants are consumed or rocket engines are shut down. The vehicle would then 

glide unpowered along a parabolic trajectory until reaching apogee. If an orbital trajectory were 

planned, the LV would climb until reaching the designated orbit. When appropriate, the rocket 

motors would be fired to move the LV from Earth orbit or outer space to a trajectory that would 

allow the vehicle to reenter Earth’s atmosphere. The LV would then descend. During descent, 

jet engines would be restarted at a specified altitude and the vehicle would fly to a powered, 

horizontal landing at a designated location. Exhibit 2-1 depicts a typical Concept 1 LV. 

Exhibit 2-1. Typical Concept 1 LV 

Concept 2 

Concept 2 vehicles would involve horizontal LVs taking off under rocket power from 

conventional runways. The rocket motors would use rocket propellants including liquid oxygen 

(LOX) and either kerosene or alcohol. After take off, the LV would follow a steep ascent 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-4 

trajectory. If a suborbital trajectory is planned, the LV would climb until propellants are 

consumed or rocket engines are shut down. The vehicle would then glide unpowered along a 

parabolic trajectory until reaching apogee. If an orbital trajectory is planned, the LV would 

climb until reaching the designated orbit. When appropriate, the motors would be fired to move 

the LV from Earth orbit or outer space to a trajectory that would allow the vehicle to reenter 

Earth’s atmosphere. The vehicle would glide to a horizontal landing at a designated location. 

Exhibit 2-2 depicts a typical Concept 2 LV. 

Exhibit 2-2. Typical Concept 2 LV 

Concept 3 

Vehicles included in Concept 3 are comprised of an assist aircraft and an LV. The assist aircraft 

could be a carrier or a tow aircraft and could range in size from a modified commercial Boeing 

747 jumbo jet to a fixed wing aircraft with a 25-meter (82-foot) wingspan. The sizes of Concept 

3 LVs could vary from 9 to 46 meters (30 to 150 feet) in length. If a carrier aircraft were used, 

the LV would be attached to the top of the carrier aircraft, or mated to the underside of the carrier 

aircraft. If a tow aircraft were used, the LV would be tethered to the back of the tow aircraft. 

The assist aircraft would have jet engines. The assist aircraft and the LV would take off 

horizontally from a conventional runway. The assist aircraft would carry or tow the LV to the 

designated launch release altitude. The LV would be released from the assist aircraft. Rocket 

engines on the LV would be fired as the assist aircraft pulls away. The assist aircraft would 

make a powered horizontal landing on the designated runway after releasing the LV. If a 

suborbital trajectory were planned, the LV would climb until propellants are consumed or rocket 

engines are shut down. The vehicle would then glide unpowered along a parabolic trajectory 

until reaching apogee. If an orbital trajectory were planned, the LV would climb until reaching 

the designated orbit. When appropriate, the motors would be fired to move the LV from Earth 

orbit or outer space to a trajectory that would allow the vehicle to reenter Earth’s atmosphere. 

The LV would glide to a horizontal landing at a designated location. Exhibit 2-3 depicts typical 

Concept 3 LVs. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-5 

Exhibit 2-3. Typical Concept 3 LVs 

At this time a vehicle concept similar to that described in Concept 3, but which would perform a 

powered decent through the Earth’s atmosphere, is not reasonably foreseeable. However, should 

a vehicle matching this description or a vehicle not yet appropriately described be developed, the 

FAA would prepare a supplement to this PEIS, as appropriate. 

2.1.1.3 Propellants for Horizontal Launch 

Representative propellants proposed for horizontally launched LVs include 

 Jet fuel used in conventional and modified jet engines, 

 Hydrocarbon fuel (e.g., Rocket Propellant-1 [RP-1] or kerosene) plus an oxidizer such as 

LOX, 

 Cryogenic propellants (e.g., LOX/liquefied hydrogen [LH2], where the fuel and oxidizer are 

maintained at very low temperatures), 

 Solid propellant (e.g., polybutadiene matrix with acrylonitrile, ammonium perchlorate17

oxidizer, and powdered aluminum), 

 Concentrated hydrogen peroxide, which can be used as a monopropellant or as an oxidizer in 

combination with kerosene or alcohol-based fuels18, or 

 Hybrid propulsion systems, consisting of a combination of liquid and solid propellants. 

Impacts from specific LV propellant combinations would be considered in future tiered analyses. 

Exhibit 2-4 shows the types of propellants that may be used by each of the horizontal LV 

concepts discussed in this PEIS. 

 

17 The FAA is aware of the recent scientific debate concerning the health issues associated with perchlorate 

exposure. It should be noted that although the EPA has not established a Federal drinking water standard for 

perchlorate, it has established an official reference dose of 0.0007 milligram per kilogram per day based on the 

2005 report Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion, which was prepared by the National Research Council 

of the National Academy of Science. 18 None of the LV concepts being considered in this PEIS included the use of hydrogen peroxide propellants. If 

horizontally launched LVs using hydrogen peroxide are proposed in the future they would need to be analyzed in 

additional analyses. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-6 

Exhibit 2-4. Propellant Systems Proposed for Use in Horizontal LV Concepts 

Propellant Horizontal LV Concept Hydrocarbon Cryogenic Solid Hybrid 

Concept 1 X X 

Concept 2 X X 

Concept 3 X X 

2.1.1.4 Launch Manifest for Horizontal Launch 

The FAA estimates that the total number of U.S. licensed launches (vertically and horizontally 

launched LVs) between 2005 and 2015 would be 2,760. Horizontal launches would comprise a 

portion of all FAA licensed launches. It is anticipated that between 2005 and 2015 a total of 

1,279 FAA licensed horizontal launches would be conducted. Exhibit 2-5 shows the number of 

launches of each horizontal LV concept that are estimated to occur in each year. 

Exhibit 2-5. Estimated Horizontal U.S. Licensed Launches for 2005-2015 

Horizontal Estimated Number of Horizontal U.S. Launches 

LV 

Concept 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total 

Concept 1 0 10 50 50 50 75 50 50 50 50 50 485 

Concept 2 5 30 34 55 52 55 60 65 65 70 75 566 

Concept 3 7 8 11 16 24 22 28 27 29 27 29 228 

Total 12 48 95 121 126 152 138 142 144 147 154 1,279 

2.1.2 Reentry 

The commercial space launch industry is developing new vehicles and technologies, which 

would launch into orbit, reenter Earth’s atmosphere, and land on the surface of the Earth. RVs 

would include both powered and unpowered landings of vehicles that are manned and 

unmanned. Reentry vehicle concepts with powered landing rely on the use of a propulsion 

system to control the rate and direction of descent and may use equipment, including a flexible 

aero-shield or a steerable parachute, to reduce the descent rate. Reentry vehicles with unpowered 

landings use air resistance coupled with parachute or parafoil systems to control the rate and 

direction of descent. 

2.1.2.1 Activities Associated with Reentry 

For purposes of this analysis, the FAA identified the following as activities typically associated 

with reentry 

 Activities performed while in Earth orbit or in outer space to establish a reentry trajectory; 

 Reentry of the RV and the use of various equipment and systems to control descent of RVs 

with unpowered landings on the Earth’s surface, or the use of propulsion systems to control 

descent of RVs with powered landings on the Earth’s surface; and 

 Recovery of the RV from the Earth’s surface. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-7 

Reentry begins when the propulsion system of an RV in Earth orbit or outer space is fired and 

the RV moves into a trajectory that allows the vehicle to reenter Earth’s atmosphere. Upon 

reentry, the RV would be oriented to slow the rate of descent and dissipate the heat generated 

during reentry. Reentry vehicles could have powered or unpowered landings. The recovery of 

the RV from the Earth’s surface may include the use of recovery equipment including ships, 

fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and overland vehicles, or no recovery may be required if the RV 

lands on a runway. 

2.1.2.2 RV Concepts 

RVs range from 9 to 46 meters (30 to 150 feet) in length and weigh 1,300 to 10,000 kilograms 

(2,866 to 22,046 pounds) unfueled. In this PEIS, RVs with both unpowered and powered 

landings are considered. For an RV with unpowered landing, once the RV enters Earth’s 

atmosphere, the RV would glide, deploy a parachute or parafoil, and descend to the Earth’s 

surface. For an RV with powered landing, once the RV enters the Earth’s atmosphere, a 

propulsion system would be used to control descent and direct the RV to the appropriate landing 

site. 

RVs using powered or unpowered landing methods could be oriented vertically or horizontally 

during reentry and subsequent landing. The design and size of the RV dictates whether landing 

would be powered or unpowered. Exhibit 2-6 shows the types of landing methods associated 

with vertically or horizontally oriented RVs. 

Exhibit 2-6. Characterization of RVs Landings 

Unpowered Landing Powered Landing RV 

Orientation Parachute Glide Parafoil Jet Engine Rocket 

Motor 

Horizontal X X X X 

Vertical X X 

Disk or aircraft shaped RVs tend to be oriented horizontally and would land using either 

powered or unpowered methods. The smaller RVs using aircraft designs tend to land using 

unpowered methods and would glide to the Earth’s surface, while larger RVs with aircraft 

designs would tend to land using powered methods. Missile shaped RVs tend to be oriented 

vertically and would land using either powered or unpowered methods. 

Some RVs would land using a combination of unpowered and powered methods; a rocket engine 

would be fired to slow initial descent, then a parachute would be deployed, and finally when the 

RV is close to the Earth’s surface, rocket engines would be fired for final touch down. For 

purposes of this analysis, the propellants used by an RV during powered landing were assumed 

to be the same as those used during launch. 

2.1.2.3 Propellants for RVs 

A variety of propellants may be used to move the RV into a reentry trajectory; however, these 

propellants would be used while the RV is in orbit or in outer space and their use would not 

affect the natural or human environment. Therefore, the use of these propellants while in orbit or 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-8 

in outer space is not discussed further in this PEIS. Ground level impacts associated with fueling 

the RV with these propellants are considered as appropriate in this PEIS. 

RVs that have unpowered landing (horizontal or vertical) would not use propellants during 

landing operations. RVs that have powered landing (horizontal or vertical) could use several 

types of propellants. These propellants could include 

 Jet fuel used in conventional and modified jet engines; 

 Hydrocarbon fuel (e.g., RP-1 or kerosene plus an oxidizer such as LOX); 

 Cryogenic propellants (e.g., LOX/LH2, where the fuel and oxidizer are maintained at very 

low temperatures); 

 Solid propellants (e.g., polybutadiene matrix with acrylonitrile, ammonium perchlorate 

oxidizer, and powdered aluminum); 

 Concentrated hydrogen peroxide, which can be used as a monopropellant or as an oxidizer in 

combination with kerosene or alcohol based fuels; or 

 Hybrid propulsion systems, consisting of a combination of liquid and solid propellants. 

2.1.2.4 Reentry Manifest 

It is estimated that between 2005 and 2015 a total of 51 FAA licensed reentries would be 

conducted. Exhibit 2-7 shows the number of reentries for each RV type that are estimated to 

occur in each year. 

Exhibit 2-7. Estimated Number of U.S. Licensed Reentries of RVs per Year 

Number of FAA Licensed Reentries 

RV Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total 

Horizontal 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 7 9 12 37 

Vertical 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 3 14 

Total 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 7 10 12 15 51 

2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

The following alternatives to the proposed action present three options and approaches 

considered by the FAA for the licensing of LVs launched on orbital trajectories based upon their 

powered or unpowered landing and the altitude of rocket ignition. Evaluating these alternatives 

fosters better decision making because it gives the FAA the ability to define the environmental 

issues associated with launch licensing activities and to evaluate potential impacts in a 

comparative form. These alternatives have been retained for further analysis and are evaluated 

in detail in this PEIS. 

2.2.1 License Orbital LVs Using Unpowered Landings Only (Alternative 1) 

Alternative 1 would consider licensing only launches of orbital LVs for which unpowered 

landing is planned. For the purpose of this alternative, the FAA assumed that all licensed 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-9 

reentries would have unpowered landings (51 reentries from 2005 to 2015). The remaining 

activities as presented in the proposed action would remain the same. 

2.2.2 License Orbital LVs Using Powered Landings Only (Alternative 2) 

Alternative 2 would consider licensing only launches of orbital LVs for which powered landing 

is planned. For the purpose of this alternative, the FAA assumed that all licensed reentries would 

have powered landings (51 reentries from 2005 to 2015). The remaining activities as presented 

in the proposed action would remain the same. 

2.2.3 License Horizontal Launches of LVs Where Full Rocket Engine Ignition 

Occurs at or above 914 meters (3,000 feet) (Alternative 3) 

Alternative 3 would license horizontally launched LVs including LVs that do not produce rocket 

emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet), for a total of 713 launches from 2005 to 2015 (See 

Exhibit 2-8).19 For the purpose of this alternative, 25 landings would be jet powered and 26 

would be rocket powered. Under this alternative, all Concept 2 vehicles presented in the 

proposed action would not be licensed, and the remaining activities would be the same as those 

described in the proposed action. 

Exhibit 2-8. Estimated Horizontal U.S. Licensed Launches for 2005-2015 Under 

Alternative 3 

Horizontal Estimated Number of Horizontal U.S. Launches 

LV Concept 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Concept 1 0 10 50 50 50 75 50 50 50 50 50 

Concept 3 7 8 11 16 24 22 28 27 29 27 29 

Total 7 18 61 66 74 97 78 77 79 77 79 

2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of launch facilities for such activities; 

therefore, all U.S. licensed launches would be vertical launches as described in the PEIS LL. 

Not licensing the activities described in the proposed action would result in adverse minor 

impacts on the socioeconomic setting of local communities where one of the major employers or 

economic growth opportunities is the commercial horizontal launch industry. Under this 

alternative, horizontal LVs and RVs could be designed and constructed in the U.S., but there 

would be no licenses issued for launches of these vehicles. This could slow the expansion and 

reduce the competitiveness of the U.S. horizontal launch and reentry industry, as it would have to 

rely on foreign markets as outlets for further developing and commercializing the technology. 

 

19 The altitude of 914 meters (3,000 feet) is generally accepted as the altitude of the mixing height. The mixing 

height is the level below which contributions of emissions can impact ambient air quality. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 2-10 

2.4 Alternatives Removed from Further Analysis 

The FAA considered the following alternative to the proposed action, but for the reasons cited 

below, did not analyze the alternative in detail. 

Licensing Horizontal LVs Using Aerial Fueling 

Horizontal LVs using aerial fueling would take off under jet engine power from a conventional 

runway. At a designated altitude (typically between 6,100 and 15,240 meters [20,000 and 

50,000 feet] above mean sea level [MSL]), a tanker airplane would transfer liquid propellants to 

the LV. The tanker airplane would disengage after the propellants are transferred and the LV 

would ignite its rocket engines once the tanker airplane cleared the area. If a suborbital 

trajectory were planned, the LV would climb until propellants are consumed or rocket engines 

are shut down. The vehicle would then glide unpowered along a parabolic trajectory until 

reaching apogee. If an orbital trajectory is planned, the LV would climb until reaching the 

designated orbit. When appropriate, the rocket motors would be fired to move the LV from 

Earth orbit or outer space to a trajectory that would allow the vehicle to reenter the Earth’s 

atmosphere. The LV would then descend. During descent, jet engines would be restarted at a 

specified altitude and the vehicle would fly to a powered, horizontal landing at a designated 

location. Exhibit 2-9 shows a graphic of a typical flight profile for horizontal LVs using aerial 

fueling. 

Exhibit 2-9. Typical Horizontal LV Using Aerial Fueling 

Although LVs based on this concept have been proposed, they are in a less mature stage of 

development than the three vehicle concepts described in Section 2.1.1.2. Their production and 

launch are not reasonably foreseeable within the timeframe of this PEIS, and therefore they are 

not analyzed in this document. If in the future these designs become ready for analysis, it may 

be possible to tier from this PEIS for subsequent analyses. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-1 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Introduction 

In accordance with NEPA (40 CFR 1502.15), the FAA defined the geographic area that may be 

affected by one or more of the alternatives under consideration (see Section 2) as the launch and 

reentry locations, both in the U.S. and abroad, that would fall under the licensing authority of the 

FAA. The geographic area of the affected environment includes the atmosphere and the broad 

ocean area (BOA) that are environmental resources outside of the jurisdiction of any nation. 

Within the geographic area of the affected environment, the FAA reviewed the environmental 

resources, both natural and man-made, that would be affected by one or more of the alternatives 

under consideration. For each environmental resource that may be affected, this PEIS presents 

 A definition and a description of the baseline conditions of the environmental resource, and 

 The regulatory setting and standards protecting the environmental resource. 

By presenting the definition and description of the baseline condition of each environmental 

resource, as well as the regulatory setting and standards, this section provides the basis for the 

evaluation and comparison of impacts on each environmental resource by alternative, which is 

presented in Section 4, Environmental Consequences. Additionally, the environmental resources 

presented and analyzed in this PEIS serve as a roadmap for future actions that fall within the 

scope of and would tier from this PEIS by presenting a comprehensive description of the 

environmental resources that may be affected (Section 3) and providing a methodology for the 

impact assessment and significance determinations (see Section 4). 

The affected environment consists of both natural and manmade environmental resources that 

collectively comprise the human environment. Naturally occurring environmental resources 

include each layer of the atmosphere, biological resources, geology and soils, and water 

resources. Manmade environmental resources include airspace, hazardous materials and waste, 

land use, Section 4(f) Resources, noise, orbital debris, public health and safety, socioeconomics 

(including utilities), and environmental justice. Visual and aesthetic resources as well as cultural 

resources consist of both natural and manmade elements. The following subsections present the 

definition, the regulatory setting, and the baseline conditions for each environmental resource. 

To further define the existing conditions related to an environmental resource, a summary of the 

applicable laws and regulations that protect the resource and agency consultation procedures are 

presented in Appendix C, which provides relevant information for future documents that would 

tier from this PEIS. As with the framework of the PEIS, the applicable regulations are presented 

within the context of resource areas. 

3.2 Environmental Resource Areas 

The following sections discuss the resource areas commonly considered in NEPA analyses. 

Orbital debris has been included in the discussion because FAA’s licensing activities address 

launches and reentries, both of which could contribute to orbital debris under nominal and 

accident conditions of the launch or reentry. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-2 

3.2.1 Atmosphere 

3.2.1.1 Definition and Description 

The Earth’s atmosphere consists of four main layers (i.e., troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, 

and ionosphere) that are separated by narrow transition zones. Each layer is characterized by 

altitude, temperature, structure, density, composition, and degree of ionization (i.e., the positive 

or negative electric charge associated with each layer). Exhibit 3-1 shows the altitude ranges 

associated with the atmospheric layers. 

Exhibit 3-1. Altitude Range for Atmospheric Layers 

Source: ICF Kaiser for Beal Aerospace, 1998

More than 99 percent of the total atmospheric mass is concentrated within 40 kilometers (25 

miles) of the Earth’s surface. The upper boundary at which gases disperse into space lies at an 

altitude of approximately 1,000 kilometers (621 miles) above sea level. (NASA, 2003) The 

higher layers of the atmosphere, which consist of the mesosphere and ionosphere, differ 

significantly in composition from the lower regions and also contain a significant proportion of 

ionized (electrically charged) gas atoms and molecules. (Space Science Division, Naval 

Research Laboratory, 2003) The following subsections describe each layer of the atmosphere in 

terms of approximate altitude, temperature, air density, and air composition. 

Troposphere 

The troposphere is the lowest level of the atmosphere extending from the Earth’s surface to 

approximately 8 to 16 kilometers (5 to 10 miles) in height. The thickness of the troposphere 

varies based on its location over the Earth, roughly 8 kilometers (5 miles) thick at the poles, and 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-3 

approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) thick at the equator. The temperature in the troposphere 

generally drops as altitude increases at an average of 6 degrees Celsius (°C) per kilometer, or 43 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F). (NASA, 2003) The upper boundary of the troposphere is the 

tropopause, which is represented by an area of stable temperatures. (Manchester Metropolitan 

University, 2000) While not the largest area of the atmosphere, the troposphere is the densest 

layer and contains up to 75 percent of the atmosphere’s mass. The gas composition of the 

troposphere is made up mainly of molecular nitrogen (N2), which constitutes 78 percent, and 

molecular oxygen (O2), which constitutes 21 percent. Other trace gases such as argon (Ar), 

carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), water (H2O), and ozone (O3) are 

present in the troposphere. (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2000) Due to the Earth’s 

rotation and the available moisture in the troposphere, this is the layer of the atmosphere where 

weather phenomena occur and climate patterns are experienced. 

For the purposes of this PEIS, the discussion of air quality within the troposphere presents the 

conditions that occur at or below 914 meters (3,000 feet) above ground surface. The altitude of 

914 meters (3,000 feet) above ground surface is appropriate for evaluating air quality impacts in 

the troposphere because the Federal government (EPA) uses that altitude to assess contributions 

of emissions to the ambient air quality and for the de minimis calculations under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). (EPA, 1992) The following subsections present a discussion of the pollutants 

regulated under the CAA (ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants, air toxics 

[hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)], and regional haze). 

 Criteria Pollutants

The primary Federal legislation that addresses air quality is the CAA of 1970 (as amended in 

1977 and 1990). The purpose of the CAA is to preserve air quality and to protect public health 

and welfare. Under the authority of the CAA and amendments, EPA established a set of 

NAAQS for “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), NO2, O3, particulate matter with 

diameter 10 microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 

lead (Pb). The NAAQS established “Primary” standards to protect public health and 

“Secondary” standards at levels designed to protect the public welfare by accounting for the 

effects of air pollution on vegetation, soil, materials, visibility, and other aspects of the general 

welfare. The CAA granted California the authority to set its own Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(CAAQS) if they are more stringent than the prevailing national standards. The California Clean 

Air Act of 1988 provides the state with a comprehensive framework for air quality planning 

regulation. As of 1990, other states became eligible to adopt the California program as their 

own, but are otherwise prohibited from setting their own emission standards. Federal agencies 

are required to meet the CAAQS for actions that occur in California or in other states that have 

adopted the CAAQS, in the same way they are required to meet the NAAQS. 

The concentrations of criteria air pollutants are used to determine ambient air quality in the U.S., 

which are compared against the maximum allowable airborne concentrations specific in the 

NAAQS for the criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants are described below. 

 O3 is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. O3 is not emitted directly 

into the air, but formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-4 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight. 

Heavy-duty diesel vehicles (large trucks and buses) are a major source of NOX emissions. 

Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to 

significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy 

people during exercise. 

 CO is a colorless, odorless, and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in 

fuels. Motor vehicles (primarily automobiles) are the largest source of CO emissions 

nationally. When CO enters the bloodstream, it reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body’s 

organs and tissues. Health threats are most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular 

disease, particularly those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. 

 NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas, caused largely by oxidation of the primary air 

pollutant nitric oxide (NO). NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and 

lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides (NO2 and NO) are an important 

precursor both to O3 and acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 

 SO2 results largely from stationary sources. High concentrations of SO2 affect breathing and 

may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease. SO2 also is a primary 

contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams 

and can damage trees, crops, and historic buildings and statues. 

 Particulate Matter (PM) includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets directly 

emitted into the air, as well as particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the 

transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and VOCs. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles (large 

trucks and buses) are a major source of PM emissions. Exposure to high concentrations of 

PM can affect breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravate existing respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, alter the body’s defense systems against foreign materials, damage 

lung tissue, and cause carcinogenesis and premature death. 

 Pb exposure can occur through multiple pathways, including inhalation of air and ingestion 

of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. Excessive lead exposure can cause seizures, mental 

retardation, and/or behavioral disorders, and even low doses of lead can lead to central 

nervous system damage. Because of the prohibition of lead as an additive in liquid fuels, 

transportation sources are no longer a major source of lead pollution. 

Exhibit 3-2 provides the Federal and California Primary and Secondary ambient air quality 

standards. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-5 

Exhibit 3-2. Federal and State Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Parameter Standard National Ambient Air

Quality Standard 

California 

Ambient Air 

Quality 

Standards 

Average 

Period 

Ozonea

Primary and 

Secondary 

Primary 

0.12 ppm (235 μg/m3

) 

0.08 ppm (150 μg/m3) 

0.09 ppm (180 

μg/m3) 

0.070 ppm (137 

μg/m3

)

d

1-hour average 

8-hour average

Particulate 

matter (PM10) 

Primary and 

Secondary 

Primary and 

Secondary 

150 μg/m3

50a μg/m3

50 μg/m3

20b μg/m3

24-hour 

average 

Annual average

Fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5)

b

Primary 

Primary 

65 μg/m3

15 μg/m3

— 

12 μg/m3

24-hour 

average 

Annual average

Nitrogen 

dioxide 

Primary and 

Secondary 

— 

0.053a ppm (100 μg/m3)

0.25 ppm (470 

μg/m3) 

— 

1-hour average 

Annual average

— — 0.25 ppm (655 

μg/m3

) 

1-hour average 

Secondary 0.50 ppm (1,300 μg/m3) — 3-hour average

Primary 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 

μg/m3

) 

24-hour 

average 

Sulfur dioxide 

Primary 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3

) — Annual average

Primary and 

Secondary 

35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 20 ppm (23 

mg/m3) 

1-hour average 

Carbon 

monoxide 

Primary and 

Secondary 

9 ppm (10 mg/m3

) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 8-hour average

Lead 

Primary and 

Secondary 

1.5 μg/m3 

— 

— 

1.5 μg/m3

3-month 

average 

30-day average

Sulfates — — 25 μg/m3

 24-hour 

average 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-6 

Exhibit 3-2. Federal and State Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Parameter Standard National Ambient Air

Quality Standard 

California 

Ambient Air 

Quality 

Standards 

Average 

Period 

Hydrogen 

sulfide 

— — 0.03 ppm (42 

μg/m3) 

1-hour average

Vinyl Chloride — — 0.01 ppm (26 

μg/m3) 

24-hour 

average 

Visibility 

Reducing 

Particles 

— — 0.23 per 

kilometerc

8-hour average

ppm = Parts per million 

μg/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter 

— = No standard has been established, or the standard is measured in different units. a The revised ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) for an 8-hour averaging period and the standard for 

PM2.5 became effective in September 1997. However, legal challenges have delayed EPA’s designation of the 

attainment or nonattainment areas. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the counties or partial counties that are in 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The national 1-hour standard will be revoked one year after the initial 

designations. Designations for the PM2.5 standards became effective April 5, 2005 (U.S. EPA, 2005). 

b The national standard is an annual arithmetic mean, and the California standard is an annual geometric mean. c

 This is the extinction coefficient due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. 

d This concentration was approved by the California Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and is expected to 

become effective in early 2006. (CARB, 2005) – California Air Resources Board (CARB), Ambient Air Quality 

Standards Chart (Federal and California), May 6, 2005. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf 

Sources of air pollutants include stationary sources (e.g., industrial facilities, refineries, power 

plants, launch pads), area sources (which are a collective representation of sources not 

specifically identified), mobile sources (e.g., motor vehicles, ships, aircraft, off-road engines, 

mobile platforms), and biogenic (natural) sources (e.g., forest fires, volcanoes). 

The size and topography of the air basin, as well as the prevailing meteorological conditions, 

determine how air pollutants are dispersed. Air currents carry secondary pollution from one 

region to another, often increasing the background levels of air pollutants for the recipient 

regions. Such conditions are addressed in the CAA Section 184, which defines an Ozone 

Transport Region (OTR) that includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 

Washington D.C. The emission standards are more protective in OTRs. An example of 

secondary pollution would be the long distance transport of NOX and VOCs, which react in the 

presence of sunlight to form ozone, from one region to another where it would degrade the air 

quality. 

The CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401) requires the adoption of NAAQS to protect the public health, safety, 

and welfare from known or anticipated effects of criteria air pollutants. According to EPA 

guidelines, an area with air quality better than the NAAQS is designated as being in attainment, 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-7 

while areas that currently have or have had worse air quality are classified as nonattainment or 

maintenance areas, respectively. Pollutants in an area may be designated as unclassified when 

data is lacking for EPA to form a basis of attainment status. Air quality monitors are used to 

determine compliance with the NAAQS and to evaluate the impact of pollution control 

strategies. EPA uses the monitoring results to designate areas into the following categories. 

 Nonattainment Areas – Locations where measured concentrations exceed the NAAQS. 

Areas designated as nonattainment for ozone are classified as marginal, moderate, serious, 

severe, extreme, or Section 185A (previously called transitional). Areas designated as 

nonattainment for PM or CO are classified as moderate or serious. 

 Maintenance Areas – Previously designated nonattainment areas that have been 

redesignated because they have demonstrated compliance with the NAAQS for a period of 

time. 

 Attainment Areas – The areas of the country in which ambient pollutant concentrations 

have always been in compliance with the NAAQS, or have been redesignated after a number 

of years as a maintenance area. 

 Unclassifiable – Areas where no ambient monitoring record exists. Most of the areas are 

rural, remote areas and are assumed to be in attainment. 

The present locations of non-attainment areas in the U.S. are indicated in Exhibit 3-3. 

The official list of nonattainment areas and a description of their boundaries can be found in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 81) and pertinent Federal Register notices. EPA 

maintains an unofficial list on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/. As of 

February 2004, there were 68 nonattainment and 69 maintenance areas for ozone, 59 

nonattainment and 24 maintenance areas for PM10, 39 nonattainment and zero maintenance areas 

for PM2.5, 11 nonattainment and 65 maintenance areas for CO, 22 nonattainment and 30 

maintenance areas for SO2, eight maintenance areas for Pb, zero nonattainment areas for NO2, 

and one maintenance area for NO2. 

For areas that are designated nonattainment, the CAA establishes levels and timetables for each 

region to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. States must prepare a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), which documents how the region will reach its attainment levels by the required date. The 

SIP includes inventories of emissions within the area and establishes emissions budgets that are 

designed to bring the area into compliance with the NAAQS. In maintenance areas, the SIP 

documents how the state intends to maintain compliance with NAAQS. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-8 

Exhibit 3-3. Location of Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, January 2004 

Note: Map is shaded by county to indicate the number of criteria pollutants for which the county is in nonattainment. However, the purpose of this exhibit is to generally illustrate the location of nonattainment 

areas in the U.S. Source: EPA, 2003b 

Air Toxics

In addition to the NAAQS, the CAA also authorizes EPA to regulate emissions of HAPs, also 

known as toxic air pollutants or air toxics. HAPs are pollutants that cause or may cause cancer 

or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse 

environmental and ecological effects. EPA is required to control 188 HAPs; a complete list of 

these HAPs can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html. Two HAPs, hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) and atomic chlorine (Cl), are sometimes components of rocket engine emissions, 

depending on the propellant type. 

Regional Haze

Under the regional haze rule (64 FR 35714, dated July 1, 1999), states are required to develop 

SIPs to address visibility at designated mandatory Class I areas, including 156 designated 

national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges. General features of the regional haze rule 

are that all states are required to prepare an emissions inventory of all haze related pollutants 

(i.e., VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and ammonia [NH3]) from all sources in all constituent 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-9 

counties. Most states will develop their regional haze SIP in conjunction with their PM2.5 SIP 

over the next several years. Five states in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 

however, have elected to submit regional haze SIPs under the provisions of Section 309 of the 

regional haze rule, which includes a clean air corridor (CAC) that extends from Nevada and Utah 

to Oregon and Idaho. Those preliminary regional haze SIPs were submitted in December 2003. 

The areas that have opted to implement the Section 309 regional haze SIP option are the states of 

Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon. 

Stratosphere 

The stratosphere is the second major layer of the atmosphere and occupies the region from 10 to 

50 kilometers (6 to 31 miles) above the Earth’s surface. The stratosphere also contains the area 

known as the ozone layer, which is located between 20 to 30 kilometers (12 to 19 miles) above 

the planet’s surface. Ozone plays the major role in regulating the thermal regime of the 

stratosphere, as H2O content within the layer is very low. Temperature increases with ozone 

concentration, as solar energy is converted to kinetic energy when ozone molecules absorb 

ultraviolet (UV) radiation, resulting in heating of the stratosphere. (NASA, 2003) Air 

temperature in the stratosphere remains relatively constant up to an altitude of 25 kilometers (16 

miles), where it then gradually increases to a temperature of 220 degrees Kelvin (°K) (-53°C) at 

the lower boundary of the stratopause. (NASA, 2003) The rise in temperature is a result of the 

layer’s absorption of UV radiation that is emitted by the sun. 

The stratosphere contains 90 percent of the atmospheric O3 and acts as a UV radiation shield for 

the plants and animals on the surface of the Earth. Ozone is made up of three oxygen molecules 

and is generated by the action of sunlight causing an oxygen molecule (O2) to combine with an 

atom of oxygen. The total amount of O3 in the stratosphere remains relatively constant, but 

varies in concentration by time and place depending on sunspot activity, season, and latitude. 

However, O3 concentrations in the stratosphere have been on a long-term, global downward 

trend. This downward trend is due to ozone-depleting substances (ODS) such as 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons, which were formerly used as refrigerants, solvents, and 

fire extinguishing agents. (EPA, 2004) When these substances reach the stratosphere, UV 

radiation breaks up the molecules, releasing chlorine and bromine atoms that destroy O3. One 

chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. Decreasing O3 levels reduce the 

effectiveness of the UV shield, and allow more Ultraviolet Radiation Band B (UVB) radiation to 

reach the Earth’s surface. Because UVB radiation is known to be particularly damaging to 

cellular nucleic acids, this raises the risk of human health problems and biological damage. 

(NASA, 2003) Aluminum oxide particulates (Al2O3) and soot aerosols related to volcanism and 

wildfires may also provide reaction surfaces for the destruction of O3. NO2 also functions as a 

catalyst for the destruction of O3 in the stratosphere. 

The release of ODS has resulted in an annual ozone hole over Antarctica since the 1980s. In the 

worst years, the O3 concentration can be decreased by 60 percent, allowing twice the amount of 

normal UVB radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. (U.S. EPA, 2004) O3 depletion has become a 

global issue and has been observed over North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, 

and Australia. (U.S. EPA, 2004) In response to the decreasing O3 levels, the U.S. placed a ban 

on CFC use in aerosol sprays in the 1970s, and in 1994, the U.S. and other developed countries 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-10 

halted all production of halons. Additionally, the U.S. and other developed countries ended the 

production of CFCs in 1996. In addition the U.S., under the CAA, regulates CO, NOX, VOCs, 

and SO2 because of their role in influencing the formation and destruction of both tropospheric 

(ground-level) and stratospheric (upper atmosphere) ozone in addition to other ground level air 

quality issues (see Section 3.1.2). 

Global Warming

Global warming refers to long-term fluctuations in temperature, precipitation, wind, and other 

elements of the Earth’s climate system. Atmospheric gases affect the Earth’s surface 

temperature by absorbing solar radiation that is reflected by the Earth’s surface back into space. 

The concentration of these gases, known as “greenhouse gases,” is increasing as a result of 

human activities. (U.S. EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, 2001) CO2 is the most significant 

greenhouse gas resulting from human activity, which represented approximately 84 percent of 

total greenhouse gas emissions in 2001. 

The largest source of CO2, and of overall greenhouse gas emissions, is fossil fuel combustion, 

both from stationary (power plants, industry and manufacturing processes) and mobile sources 

(automobiles, trucks, construction equipment, lawn mowers). Electric power generation – 

utilities and non-utilities combined – accounted for the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions in 2001, closely followed by transportation sources and industrial processes. On an 

annual basis, the overall consumption of fossil fuels in the U.S., and therefore emissions from the 

combustion of those fuels, generally fluctuates in response to changes in general economic 

conditions, energy prices, weather (temperature extremes during winters and summers), and the 

availability/acceptance of non-fossil fuel alternatives. (U.S. EPA Office of Atmospheric 

Programs, 2001) 

 Ozone Depletion

Ozone present in the atmosphere shields the Earth from harmful levels of UV radiation by 

absorbing part of the UV rays emitted by the sun. Excess levels of UV radiation can result in 

adverse human health effects ranging from sunburn to skin cancer and immune deficiencies. 

Most of the UV-shielding ozone layer over the Earth’s surface is contained within the 

stratosphere. (Note that this protective ozone is different from ground-level or tropospheric 

ozone, which can result in harmful effects to humans and the environment via direct exposure.) 

Stratospheric ozone can be destroyed through chemical and photochemical reactions. As a 

result, the presence of pollutants that are key components of these reactions (especially chlorine) 

can result in ozone depletion. PM may affect stratospheric ozone; however, the exact impact of 

PM on ozone depletion is unclear. 

Mesosphere 

The mesosphere is located between 50 and 80 kilometers (31 to 50 miles) above the Earth’s 

surface. The mesosphere is the coldest layer of the atmosphere with the temperature decreasing 

as the altitude increases. The coldest temperatures at the mesopause (the upper boundary of the 

mesosphere) can reach -100°C (170°K). (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2000) In the 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-11 

mesosphere objects entering the Earth’s atmosphere begin to heat up due to friction with air 

molecules. (Chabrillat, 2004) O3 and H2O are found in negligible concentrations in this layer. 

The air composition in this layer is made up of lighter gases that are stratified according to their 

molecular weight due to gravitational separation. (NASA, 2003) Because air thickness is 

negligible, objects tend to move at high speeds and molecular friction typically causes meteors or 

space debris to burn up prior to impacting the Earth’s surface. 

Ionosphere 

The ionosphere (also known as the thermosphere) is located above the mesosphere and begins 

between 85 and 105 kilometers (53 and 65 miles) above the Earth’s surface and is considered to 

extend upwards to 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), although it has no well-defined upper 

boundary. (Lutgens, 1995) The ionosphere accounts for only a fraction of the atmosphere’s mass 

as gas molecules are extremely sparse in this layer. This portion of the atmosphere is known as 

the ionosphere because radiation causes the scattered gas molecules in this layer to become 

electrically charged (i.e., they become ions). This layer of the atmosphere is also known as the 

thermosphere because solar activity, which releases very short-wavelength solar energy, can 

raise the temperature of the gas molecules to more than 2,000°C (3,632°F). (Lutgens, 1995) 

While temperatures would seem extreme on a measured scale, heat sensation in the thermosphere 

is actually relative to the collision of sparse gas molecules with a foreign body. Therefore, a 

satellite orbiting the Earth in the thermosphere would achieve a temperature based on the amount 

of solar radiation it absorbs, and not the temperature of the surrounding air. (Lutgens, 1995) 

The ionosphere is of practical importance because it is what enables long-distance radio 

communications on Earth, as the radio waves reflect off the ionosphere. Shorter wavelength 

radio waves can penetrate the ionosphere, and are used in satellite communications. The upper 

regions of the ionosphere are also of practical importance because, although the atmospheric 

density is very low compared to that in the lower atmosphere, it still acts to slow down artificial 

satellites and limit the length of time a satellite can stay in low-altitude orbits around Earth. 

(Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, 2003) 

The ionosphere is noted for its concentration of ions and free electrons. Gases such as helium 

(He), Ar, O, O2, CO2, atomic nitrogen (N), NO, and N2 absorb solar radiation passing through 

the ionosphere and are split into ions and free electrons. (University of Leicester, 2004) The 

level of ionization depends on sunspot activity, season, geographic location, and the gas being 

ionized. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2004a) As a general rule, 

ionization increases in the sunlit atmosphere while decreasing in the shadowed atmosphere. The 

ionosphere is a dynamic system and is influenced by parameters such as acoustic motions of the 

atmosphere, electromagnetic emissions, and variations in geomagnetic field. (NOAA, 2004) 

Beyond the ionosphere, the exosphere starts and continues until it merges with interplanetary 

gases, or space. The exosphere is considered to be beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. In this 

region, atomic hydrogen (H) and He are the prime components and are only present at extremely 

low densities. (NASA, 1995) 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-12 

3.2.1.2 Regulatory Setting 

The FAA has the authority to regulate the commercial space activities performed by U.S. citizens 

and corporations as defined at 49 U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Chapter 701, Commercial Space Launch 

Activities. The FAA regulates commercial space activities by issuing licenses when it 

determines that an applicant’s launch or reentry proposal or proposal to operate a launch site will 

not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of property, U.S. national security or foreign 

policy interests, or international obligations of the U.S. FAA does not license launches 

performed by and for U.S. government agencies. 

FAA reviews a payload proposed for launch to determine whether a license applicant or payload 

owner or operator has obtained all required licenses, authorization, and permits, unless the 

payload is exempt from review. The FAA does not review payloads that are subject to 

regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the Department of Commerce, 

NOAA; or owned or operated by the U.S. Government. In addition, three international treaties 

and conventions related to operations and activities in the various layers of the atmosphere and 

exosphere exist. 

 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer 

Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967 

 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972 

 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1976 

The regulatory setting for the portion of the troposphere regulated under the CAA is presented 

below. 

 Criteria Pollutants

A Federal agency cannot support an action (e.g., fund, license) unless the activity will conform 

to the most recent EPA-approved SIP for the region. The SIP accounts for all the emissions 

within the federally approved air quality management area that affect ground level air quality. 

Emissions (e.g., from commercial aircraft or LVs) that occur 914 meters (3,000 feet) above 

ground level or higher have been found not to affect ground level air quality and are not included 

in the EPA-approved SIP for the any federally approved air quality management area. Federal 

agencies whose actions cause emissions of criteria pollutants are required to review those 

emissions against 

 Established de minimis levels specified in the regulations. Exhibit 3-4 shows the de minimis

threshold levels of various nonattainment areas. 

 Ten percent of the air quality control area’s emissions inventory for any criteria pollutant, as 

specified in the EPA-approved SIP. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-13 

Exhibit 3-4. General Conformity De Minimis Levels 

Area Designationa Pollutant De Minimis Level in tons per 

year (metric tons per year)

Extreme Nonattainment NOX or VOC 10 (9) 

Severe Nonattainment NOX or VOC 25 (22) 

Serious Nonattainment NOX or VOC 50 (45) 

Other Nonattainment, within OTR NOX 100 (90) 

Other Nonattainment, within OTR VOC 50 (45) 

Other Nonattainment, outside OTR NOX or VOC 100 (90) 

Maintenance NOX 100 (90) 

Maintenance, within OTR VOC 50 (45) 

Ozone 

Maintenance, outside OTR VOC 100 (90) 

Serious Nonattainment PM10 70 (63) 

PM10 Moderate Nonattainment PM10 100 (90) 

Maintenance PM10 100 (90) 

CO Nonattainment or Maintenance CO 100 (90) 

SO2 Nonattainment or Maintenance SO2 100 (90) 

NO2 Nonattainment or Maintenance NO2 100 (90) 

Pb Nonattainment or Maintenance Pb 25 (22) a No de minimis level has been established for PM2.5 yet. 

Source: EPA regulations 40 CFR 93.153(b) 

Should the Federal action exceed a de minimis threshold or be greater than 10 percent of air 

quality control area’s emissions inventory for any criteria pollutant, a general conformity 

determination is completed in accordance with the CAA. A conformity analysis may involve 

performing air quality modeling and implementing measures to mitigate air quality impacts. 

Air Toxics

Under Title V of the CAA, operators of launch or reentry facilities that emit any of the regulated 

188 air toxics from regulated sources would be required to obtain any necessary permits from 

EPA. Emissions sources covered by the CAA would include pre- and post-launch activities, 

such as support vehicle and fueling operations. The emissions of a LV or RV during flight do 

not fall under the regulatory authority of EPA. Under Title V of the CAA, facilities must obtain 

permits to release regulated air pollutants, including criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants. 

 Regional Haze

Under the regional haze rule (64 FR 35714, dated July 1, 1999), states are required to prepare an 

emissions inventory of all haze related pollutants (i.e., VOC, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and NH3) 

from all sources in all constituent counties. Should the emission of haze related pollutants 

exceed the levels of a SIP, then measures would be implemented to reduce the emission of the 

haze related pollutant. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-14 

 Climate Change

No specific regulatory standards for climate change exist. Various international treaties and 

agreements have been developed but the U.S. is not party to such agreements. 

3.2.2 Airspace 

3.2.2.1 Definition and Description 

Airspace refers to the space that lies above a nation and comes under its jurisdiction. Airspace is 

a finite resource that can be defined vertically and horizontally, as well as temporally. Time is 

an important factor in airspace management and air traffic control. The FAA has established 

various airspace designations to protect aircraft while operating near and between airports and 

while operating in airspace identified for defense-related purposes. Flight rules and air traffic 

control procedures govern safe operations in each type of designated airspace. Military 

operations follow specific procedures to maximize flight safety for both military and civil 

aircraft. 

The types of airspace are defined by the complexity or density of aircraft movements, the nature 

of operations conducted within the airspace, the level of safety required, and the national and 

public interest in the airspace. The classes of airspace are controlled, uncontrolled, special use, 

and other airspace, as defined in Exhibit 3-5. 

Exhibit 3-5. Definitions of Airspace Categories 

Category Definition Examples 

Controlled 

Airspace 

Airspace used by aircraft operating 

under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) 

that require different levels of air 

traffic service 

Altitudes above Flight Level (FL) 180 

(5,500 meters [18,000 feet] above 

MSL) 

Airport Traffic Areas, Airport 

Terminal Control Areas, Jet Routes, 

Victor Routes 

Uncontrolled 

Airspace 

Airspace primarily used by general 

aviation aircraft operating under 

Visual Flight Rules (VFR) 

As high as 4,420 meters (14,500 feet) 

above MSL 

Special Use 

Airspace 

Airspace within which specific 

activities must be confined or access 

limitations are placed on nonparticipating aircraft 

Restricted Areas 

Military Operations Areas (MOA) 

Other 

Airspace 

Airspace not included under 

controlled, uncontrolled, or special 

use categories 

Military Training Routes (MTR) 

Controlled Airspace. Controlled Airspace covers airspace used by aircraft operating under IFR 

that require different levels of air traffic service. As shown in Exhibit 3-5, examples of 

controlled airspace include the altitudes above FL180 (approximately 5,500 meters [18,000 feet]) 

above MSL, some Airport Traffic Areas, and Airport Terminal Control Areas. General 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-15 

controlled airspace includes the established Federal airways system, which consists of the high 

altitude (Jet Routes) system flown above FL180, and the low altitude structure (Victor Routes) 

flown below FL180. 

Controlled airspace has numerous designations from Class A to Class G depending upon the 

degree of airspace control required to maintain flight safety. Airspace in North America contains 

“North American Coastal Routes,” which are numerically coded routes preplanned over existing 

airways and route systems to and from specific coastal fixes. North American Routes consist of 

 Common Route/Portion. That segment of a North American Route between the inland 

navigation facility and the coastal fix. 

 Noncommon Route/Portion. That segment of a North American Route between the inland 

navigation facility and a designated North American terminal. 

 Inland Navigation Facility. A navigation aid on a North American Route at which the 

common route and/or the noncommon route begin or end. 

 Coastal Fix. A navigation aid or intersection where an aircraft transitions between the 

domestic route structure and the oceanic route structure. 

During peak air travel times in the U.S., about 5,000 airplanes are in the sky every hour. This 

translates to approximately 50,000 aircraft operating in U.S. skies each day. The U.S. airspace is 

divided into 21 zones (centers), and each zone is divided into sectors. Also within each zone are 

portions of airspace, about 81 kilometers (50 miles) in diameter, called Terminal Radar 

Approach Control (TRACON) airspaces. Multiple airports exist within each TRACON airspace 

and each airport has its own airspace with an 8-kilometer (5-mile) radius. 

Uncontrolled Airspace. Uncontrolled Airspace is primarily used by general aviation aircraft 

operating under VFR and generally refers to airspace not otherwise designated and operations 

below 366 meters (1,200 feet) above ground level. Uncontrolled airspace is not subject to the 

strict conditions of flight required by those aircraft using controlled airspace and can extend as 

high as 4,420 meters (14,500 feet) above MSL. 

Special Use Airspace. Special Use Airspace is airspace within which specific activities must be 

confined or for other reasons, access limitations are imposed upon non-participating aircraft. 

The types of Special Use Airspace are 

 Alert Areas. Alert areas are airspace in which a high volume of pilot training activities or 

unusual aerial activity takes place. The activities within alert areas are not considered 

hazardous to aircraft and are conducted in accordance with FAA regulations. Both 

participating and transiting aircraft are responsible for collision avoidance. (FAA, 2004) 

 Restricted Areas. Restricted areas contain airspace identified by an area on the surface of 

the Earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to 

restriction. Activities within these areas are confined to permitted activities and limitations 

are imposed upon all other aircraft operations. Restricted areas generally are used to contain 

hazardous military activities. The term “hazardous” implies, but is not limited to, weapons 

deployment (these areas also are referred to as controlled firing areas and may be either live 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-16 

or inert), aircraft testing, and other activities that would be inconsistent or dangerous with the 

presence of non-participating aircraft. 

 MOAs. MOAs include airspace designated for non-hazardous military activities and are 

established outside of controlled airspace below FL180. Typical activities that occur in 

MOAs include military pilot training, aerobatics, and combat tactics training. When MOAs 

are in use, non-participating aircraft flying under IFR clearances are directed by air traffic 

control to avoid the MOA. However, even when a MOA is in use, entry into the area by 

VFR aircraft is not prohibited, and flight by non-participating aircraft can occur on a see-andavoid basis. 

 Prohibited Areas. Prohibited areas include airspace where no aircraft may be operated 

without the permission of the using agency. This airspace is established for security and 

other national welfare reasons. (FAA, 2004) 

 Warning Areas. Warning areas include airspace that may contain hazards to nonparticipating aircraft in international airspace. Warning areas are established beyond the 22-

kilometer (12-nautical-mile) limit. Although the activities conducted within warning areas 

may be as hazardous as those in restricted areas, warning areas cannot be legally designated 

as restricted areas because they are over international waters. By Presidential Proclamation 

No. 5928, December 27, 1988 (issued in 1989), the U.S. territorial limit was extended from 

5.6 to 22 kilometers (3 to 12 nautical miles). Special Federal Aviation Regulation 53 

establishes certain regulatory warning areas within the new (5.6- to 22-kilometer [3- to 12-

nautical-mile]) territorial airspace to allow continuation of military activities while further 

regulatory requirements are determined. 

Other Airspace. Other Airspace includes MTRs. They are low altitude, high-speed routes 

established by the FAA as airspace for special use by the military services. Routes may be 

established as IFR Routes or VFR Routes. MTRs are depicted on aeronautical charts and 

detailed descriptions are provided in the Department of Defense (DoD) Flight Information 

Publication AP/1B. 

En route airways and jet routes are air corridors used by commercial and private aircraft. These 

corridors are generated based on the prevailing jet stream and their positions vary. The airways 

are identified by a “V” and a number designation and apply to altitudes up to 5.5 kilometers 

(18,000 feet). Jet routes are identified by a “J” and a number designation and apply to altitudes 

over 5.5 kilometers (18,000 feet). 

Airspace over the BOA is governed by the procedures of the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO), outlined in ICAO Document 444, Rules of the Air and Air Traffic 

Services. The FAA acts as the U.S. agent for aeronautical information to the ICAO. Document 

444 is the equivalent of the domestic manual for air traffic control, FAA Handbook 7110.65, Air 

Traffic Control. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-17 

3.2.2.2 Regulatory Setting 

All alterations and temporary closures of existing airspace are processed through the FAA. The 

FAA reviews and approves all such modifications. Use of restricted airspace and warning areas 

requires the issuance of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), which provides notice to all aircraft of 

the restricted or warning area via air traffic control. The FAA is the designated agency that 

coordinates the airspace activities with the ICAO. 

International airspace is regulated by the ICAO, outlined in ICAO Document 444, Rules of the 

Air and Air Traffic Services, which includes airspace beyond the 22-kilometer (12-nautical mile) 

limit. The FAA defines the ICAO as a “specialized agency of the United Nations whose 

objective is to develop the principles and techniques of international air navigation and to foster 

planning and development of international civil air transport.” (FAA, 2004b) To accomplish 

these objectives, the ICAO’s main activities include standardization of international standards, 

recommended practices, and procedures; development of communication, navigation, 

surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) systems; regional planning of air navigation 

facilities and services; facilitating international standards on customs and immigration; and 

technical assistance. (ICAO, 2004) Currently, 188 countries are members of the ICAO. Regions 

that make up international airspace include the African-Indian Ocean Region, Caribbean Region, 

Europe Region, Middle East/Asia Region, North American Region, North Atlantic Region, 

Pacific Region, and South American Region. (FAA, 2004a) 

3.2.3 Biological Resources 

3.2.3.1 Definition and Description 

Biological resources include terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals and the various 

ecosystems that they inhabit. Plants range from single-celled algae and plankton to more 

complex multicellular angiosperms (flowering plants) and gymnosperms (non-flowering seed 

plants). Animals include single-cell protozoa up through multicellular aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms. 

Terrestrial Plants and Animals 

Terrestrial plants are located throughout most of the world. Plants tend to be limited by 

temperature and will not grow at high latitudes or altitudes due to the cold climates. Terrestrial 

plants tend to have growing cycles in temperate climates, resting dormant in the winter and then 

flowering in the spring. Deciduous plants lose their foliage in the fall. Conifers (evergreens) do 

not lose their foliage during the winter season, though they do not grow or flower in the winter. 

In tropical climates plants may grow all year round, though they tend to flower at specific times 

of the year. Currently, a total of 746 species of plants are listed as threatened or endangered by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are afforded protection under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). (USFWS, 2004) 

Terrestrial wildlife inhabits all the contents on Earth. Characteristics that are common to the 

more advanced animals (e.g., reptiles, mammals, birds) include migratory patterns, specific 

breeding areas and times, foraging areas and specific ranges of distribution. Such animals tend 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-18 

to establish home ranges and distribution patterns based on quality of the available habitat and its 

ability to support a particular population size. Scarce resources and/or low quality or degraded 

habitat tend to preclude wildlife habitation or cause existing wildlife to abandon such areas. 

However, a host of wildlife species typically referred to as “pests” are able to thrive in low 

quality or degraded habitats. Currently, a total of 519 species of plants are listed as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS and are afforded protection under the ESA. (USFWS, 2004) 

Aquatic Plants and Animals 

Aquatic plants tend to be located close to shorelines and are limited in depth by light penetration 

(photic zone) and in range by water temperature. Located in the region between uplands and the 

open water are a host of terrestrial plants that have become tolerant to living in seasonally or 

permanently wet conditions. Cordgrasses and mangroves are examples of terrestrial plants that 

have adapted to have their bases and roots submerged in saltwater, while their leaves are always 

in the open air. These plants expel excess salt through special pores, which allow them to live in 

the salt water. The plants’ root systems help to hold mud together, which would otherwise be 

washed away with the tides. The mud creates a habitat specific to wetland areas and is required 

for a number of species to live in during varying parts of their life cycle. Algae belong to the 

kingdom Protista and are eukaryotes, which carry out photosynthesis and may be unicellular or 

multicellular. Algae are found throughout the ocean within the water depth to which light 

penetrates (photic zone).

Aquatic wildlife includes fish, crustaceans (shrimp, lobsters, crabs), bivalves (clams) as well as 

various birds (gulls, pelicans, penguins, puffins), and marine mammals (whales, walruses, seals). 

Aquatic birds are differentiated from the terrestrial ones in that they tend to spend the majority of 

their time living and feeding in aquatic environments, though they still lay their eggs on the land. 

Aquatic birds are found all over the world. Aquatic mammals include animals that spend part of 

their time on land and sea like seals, sea lions, walruses, and sea otters, and those that spend their 

entire life in the ocean like dolphins, whales, and manatees. Marine mammals are found all over 

the world’s oceans. Marine reptiles are similar to their terrestrial counterparts except that they 

live primarily, and in some cases entirely, at sea. Examples would include sea turtles, sea 

snakes, and marine iguana. Marine reptiles are again limited in their range due to the inability to 

regulate their own body temperature. Fish are located throughout all aquatic ecosystems. Fish 

spend their entire lives at sea, and breathe oxygen through the use of gills that remove oxygen 

from water as it passes over the gills. As with the terrestrial animals, seasonal habits, migration 

patterns, and breeding times are species-specific. 

3.2.3.2 Regulatory Setting 

The ESA is the primary law that addresses biological resources, (see Appendix C, Applicable 

Legal Requirements, for additional information). The USFWS administers the ESA, which 

states that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened 

species. Included with the protection of the animals themselves is a concern for their critical 

habitat. Critical habitat is defined as specific area within the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed and includes areas that are essential to conservation of the species. 

State-listed threatened and endangered species are afforded protection in accordance with statespecific regulations. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-19 

Other Federal regulations designed to protect the nation’s biological resources include 

 The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) promotes the 

conservation of non-game fish and wildlife and their habitats to all Federal departments and 

agencies. 

 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712), protects migratory 

birds by prohibiting actions such as hunting, capturing, or killing the listed species or their 

nests and eggs. 

 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) specifically protects the 

two species from unauthorized capture, purchase, transportation, etc. of the birds, their nests, 

or their eggs. Any action that might disturb the eagles would require notification of the 

USFWS for appropriate mitigation measures. 

 The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 was most recently reauthorized in 1994. The 

purpose of the Act is to protect marine mammals from human activities. The Act established 

a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking of marine mammals in U.S. waters and 

by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and on the importing of marine mammals and marine 

mammal products into the U.S. 

 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 governs the 

conservation and management of ocean fishing. The Act establishes exclusive U.S. 

management authority over all fishing within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), all 

anadromous fish throughout their migratory range (except when in a foreign nation’s waters), 

and all fish on the Continental Shelf. Each individual site may be subject to further state and 

local regulations. 

3.2.4 Cultural Resources 

3.2.4.1 Definition and Description 

Cultural resources includes prehistoric and historic structures, artifacts, or archaeological sites. 

Cultural resources also include underwater sites, burial sites, and Native American/Hawaiian 

religious sites. Historic properties are defined as artifacts, archaeological sites, standing 

structures, or other historic resources listed, or potentially eligible for listing, on the National 

Register of Historic Places (National Register). Paleontological resources are fossil remains of 

prehistoric plant and animal species and may include shells, bones, leaves, and pollens. 

3.2.4.2 Regulatory Setting 

Section 101(b)(4) of NEPA established a Federal policy for the conservation of historic and 

cultural, as well as the natural, aspects of the nation’s heritage. Regulations implementing 

NEPA stipulate that Federal agencies must consider the consequences of their undertakings on 

cultural resources that are included or eligible for inclusion on the National Register. (40 CFR 

Part 1502.16[g]) The terminology... “eligible for inclusion in the National Register” includes all 

properties that meet the specifications set forth in Department of Interior (DOI) regulations at 36 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-20 

CFR 60.4. These guidelines are promulgated under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) in 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. Requirements of Section 106 include 

 The identification of significant historic properties or sites of cultural significance that may 

be adversely impacted by a proposed action or undertaking, 

 Consultation with the applicable State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and as 

necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

 The development of mitigation measures. 

In addition to 36 CFR 60.4, numerous other parts under 36 CFR should be addressed: 

 Part 60 – National Register 

 Part 61 – State and local preservation programs 

 Part 62.1 – National natural landmarks 

 Part 63 – National Register 

 Part 65 and 65.1 – National Historic Landmarks 

 Part 68 – Standards 

 Part 73 – World Heritage Program 

 Part 78 – Waiver of Federal agency section 110 responsibilities 

 Part 79 – Curation 

 Part 800 – Consultation (as revised; 65 FR 77697) 

In addition to compliance with Section 106, a site-specific analysis should also consider 

EO 13287, Preserving America. EO 13287 provides government directives for the goals of the 

protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of federally owned historic properties by 

promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of such 

resources. EO 13287 states... “Agencies shall maximize efforts to integrate the policies, 

procedures, and practices of the NHPA and this order into their program activities in order to 

efficiently and effectively advance historic preservation objectives in the pursuit of their 

missions.” 

A Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) is defined by the National Park Service (NPS) as a 

property or place that is eligible for inclusion on the National Register because of its association 

with cultural practices and beliefs that are (1) rooted in the history of a community, and (2) 

important to maintaining the continuity of that community’s traditional beliefs and practices. 

EO 13007 defines an Indian Sacred Site as “any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location 

on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe or Indian individual determined to be an 

appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its 

established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the 

tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency 

of the existence of such a site.” (61 FR 26771) Under EO 13007, Federal agencies, to the extent 

practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, must: 

(1) accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian Sacred Sites by Indian religious 

practitioners, and (2) avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-21 

Additional statutes, regulations, and other requirements should be considered per FAA Order 

1050E. 

 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

(36 FR 8921) 

 Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) – codified at 43 CFR part 3 as the Preservation 

of American Antiquities 

 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469-469c) 

 Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation: Standards and Guidelines 

(48 FR 44716) 

 Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties under the National Park Service 

(36 CFR part 68) 

 Protection of Archeological Resources (43 CFR part 7), including part 7.7, Notification to 

Indian tribes of possible harm to, or destruction of, sites on public lands having religious or 

cultural importance 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001) – 

codified at 43 CFR part 10 

 Protection and Custody of Archaeological Resources, under Indians, Heritage Preservation 

(25 CFR part 262 and 25 CFR part 262.8); also Notice to Indian tribes of possible harm to 

cultural or religious sites under part 262.7 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996) 

 Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303) 

 Public Building Cooperative Use Act of 1976 (40 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and codifications at 

41 CFR parts 101-17 through 101-19 

 Executive Order 13006, Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nation’s 

Central Cities (61 FR 26071) 

 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

(65 FR 67249) 

 Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with 

Native American Tribal Governments 

 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

(36 FR 8921) 

3.2.5 Geology and Soils 

3.2.5.1 Definition and Description 

Geology 

Geology and soils are those Earth resources that may be described in terms of landforms, 

geology, and soil conditions. The makeup of geology and soils within a given physiographic 

region influences the occurrence of vegetation types, the presence of mineral or energy 

resources, the presence of ground water resources, and the potential for seismicity and associated 

risks such as earthquakes and landslides. Exhibit 3-6 shows the geographic distribution for 

earthquakes in the continental U.S. 

 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-22 

Exhibit 3-6. Geographic Distribution for Earthquakes in the Continental U.S. 

 Source: USGS, 2002 

Geology is the study of the composition and configuration of the Earth’s surface and subsurface 

features. The general shape and arrangement of a land surface, including its height and the 

position of its natural and man-made features, is referred to as topography. The topography of 

the land surface affects the general direction of surface water and ground water flow. Ground 

water is stored and transmitted underground in aquifers that supply lakes and rivers and is often 

used for human purposes, such as drinking water and irrigation for crops.

Soils 

Soil is defined as the surface layer of the Earth, composed of minerals and fine rock material 

disintegrated by geological processes and humus, the organic remains of decomposed vegetation. 

Soils and sediments are typically described in terms of their composition, slope, and physical 

characteristics. Differences among soil types in terms of their structure, organic and chemical 

properties, elasticity, strength, shrink-swell potential, and erosion potentially affect their ability 

to support or sustain agricultural, structural, filtration, and natural detoxification purposes. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has classified over 

20,000 types of soils in the U.S., including areas classified as prime and unique farmlands. 

Information pertaining to a given area’s soil types is typically available from county soil surveys. 

The three principal types of soil are clay, sand, and loam. Factors determining the nature of soil 

are vegetation type, climate, parent rock material, elevation, and the geological age of the 

developing soil. Soil and sediment characteristics vary significantly depending upon their 

physical location and can be compounded by environmental factors. For example, some soils in 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-23 

the U.S. are naturally more acidic than others in the country. However, soils such as those in 

New England have been impacted from transboundary air emissions of NOX, SO2, and other 

pollutants that emanate from the Midwest and Ohio Valley and are deposited into the regional 

soils. (Driscoll, 2001) 

3.2.5.2 Regulatory Setting 

Geology 

No specific regulatory standards pertain to geology other than best management practices 

(BMPs) and building codes that must be adhered to within seismic zones. However, no activities 

associated with the proposed action would involve ground altering, subsurface disturbances, or 

the implementation of any structures. 

Soils 

While the USDA has designated specific soils as prime and unique farmlands, no additional 

regulations govern soils. State-implemented BMPs are in place to control erosion and prevent 

runoff and stream sedimentation. Activities associated with the proposed action that could affect 

soils are consistent with pre- and post-launch emissions (e.g., HCl, SO2, and NOX) and impacts 

to air quality. 

3.2.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste 

3.2.6.1 Definition and Description 

Hazardous materials and hazardous waste are defined by a number of U.S. regulatory agencies. 

In general, hazardous materials and hazardous waste include substances that, because of their 

quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present 

substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or the environment when released. EPA 

regulates hazardous chemicals, substances, and wastes under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Underground storage 

tanks (USTs) containing regulated substances, including petroleum products and those hazardous 

substances included in CERCLA are subject to the requirements of RCRA Subtitle I. Tanks used 

to store hazardous wastes are regulated under RCRA’s hazardous waste regulations. Currently, 

28 states have approved UST programs, meaning owners and operators are subject to Federal 

and state requirements. No single comprehensive regulation governs aboveground storage tanks. 

Federal laws that regulate aboveground storage tanks include the CWA, the Oil Pollution Act 

(OPA), the CAA, and RCRA. The specific regulatory requirements depend on the substances 

contained in the tanks. Also, many states have stringent requirements for aboveground storage 

tanks. 

In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has definitions and 

workplace safety-related requirements and thresholds for listed “hazardous and toxic 

substances,” (OSHA, 2004), and DOT has definitions and requirements for the safe transport of 

“hazardous materials.” (U.S. DOT, 1997) 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-24 

Hazardous Materials Management. Hazardous materials management is the responsibility of 

the cognizant authority that is operating facilities and installations. Maintenance and flight 

support operations at various locations may require the use of products containing hazardous 

materials, including paints, solvents, oils, lubricants, acids, batteries, fuels, surface coatings, and 

cleaning compounds. These products would be used and stored at appropriate locations 

throughout each site, but would be primarily associated with industrial and maintenance 

activities. Site-specific plans would outline the strategies and procedures for storing, handling, 

and transporting hazardous materials in addition to responding to on-site or off-site spills. 

Hazardous Waste Management. Federal and state regulations require that hazardous waste be 

handled, stored, transported, disposed of, or recycled in compliance with applicable regulations. 

Aircraft and vehicle maintenance, fuel storage and dispensing, and facility and grounds 

maintenance activities are activities that could generate hazardous wastes. The sources of 

hazardous waste include waste fuel, waste oils, spent solvents, paint waste, and used batteries. 

Site-specific procedures and plans would outline the steps for appropriate management of 

hazardous wastes, such as satellite accumulation points and properly labeled DOT-approved 

containers. Wastes may be disposed of using designated hazardous waste accumulation facilities 

or private hazardous waste contractors, as needed. 

3.2.6.2 Regulatory Setting 

EPA enforces RCRA and CFR Title 40 §§ 260 through 272, which provide requirements for the 

generation, storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste. EPA and various 

states have regulations regarding the operation and maintenance of USTs and aboveground 

storage tanks. 

3.2.7 Health and Safety 

3.2.7.1 Definition and Description 

Health and safety includes consideration of any activities, occurrences, or operations that have 

the potential to affect the well being, safety, or health of workers or members of the general 

public. Overall public health and safety is controlled by a host of legislation that regulates 

transportation of hazardous cargo, provides for the protection of workers in the work place, 

protects the public from exposure to hazardous materials, and provides for emergency 

preparedness. 

The primary objective of the FAA’s commercial space transportation licensing program is to 

ensure public health and safety through the licensing of commercial space launches and reentries, 

and the operation of launch facilities. Protection of public health and safety and the safety of 

property is the objective of FAA’s licensing and compliance monitoring/safety inspection 

processes. As detailed in Section 1.2.1, the components of the FAA licensing process include a 

pre-licensing consultation period and an application evaluation period that consists of a policy 

review, payload review, safety evaluation, financial responsibility determination, and an 

environmental review. The FAA issues a license when it determines that an applicant’s launch 

or reentry activities or proposal to operate a launch facility will not jeopardize public health and 

safety, safety of property, U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, or international 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-25 

obligations of the U.S. The FAA does not license launches performed by, or with substantive 

involvement of, U.S. government agencies. 

3.2.7.2 Regulatory Setting 

OSHA regulations and NASA Safety Program requirements are applicable as well as the FAA 

regulations at 14 CFR Parts 400-450. DoD Range Safety Standards (Range Commanders 

Council Standard 321-02) apply to such activities occurring at DoD facilities. 

3.2.8 Land Use 

3.2.8.1 Definition and Description 

Land Use 

EPA defines land use as... “the way land is developed and used in terms of the kinds of 

anthropogenic activities that occur (e.g., agriculture, residential areas, industrial areas).” (EPA, 

2003) Humans develop land for a variety of purposes that can include economic production, 

natural resource protection, or institutional uses. Land use in the U.S. is typically regulated in 

some manner by land use plans, policies, or ordinances that stipulate the permissible uses within 

an area. Such land classification types can include agricultural, forestry, urban, inland water 

bodies, and other categories. Land use classifications are then often sub-classified for more 

specific purposes such as low-density residential or light industrial uses. 

Regulations regarding land use can occur on a local, state, or Federal level to manage military 

installations, or to protect sensitive areas such as historic properties, prime or unique farmlands, 

national parks, wildlife refuges, or other areas that are afforded special status. However, land 

use planning and regulations that designate acreages or parcels for residential, commercial, or 

industrial uses generally occur at the local and municipal level. Additionally, lands categorized 

as “public use” may also carry special use designations, for which management guidance is 

provided. The Federal land management agencies (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM], USFWS, and NPS) have a variety of land management plans (e.g., the Forest Service 

develops Forest Management Plans). “Public use” land use designations can include 

 Controlled use or wilderness areas, 

 Limited use areas that are designed to protect sensitive natural, physical, biological, or 

cultural resource values, 

 Low intensity areas, which are designed to control multiple uses of resources so that no 

sensitive values are diminished, 

 Moderate use areas that provide a controlled balance between higher intensity land uses and 

resource protection, and 

 Intensive use areas, which are designed to accommodate the concentrated use of land and 

resources to meet human needs. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-26 

Section 4(f) Resources 

The Federal statute that governs impacts on any publicly owned land is commonly known as the 

DOT Act, section 4(f) provisions, although it was recodified and renumbered as section 303(c) of 

49 U.S.C. This order continues to refer to section 4(f) because it would create needless 

confusion to do otherwise; the policies section 4(f) engendered are widely referred to as “section 

4(f)” matters. Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures, summarizes the following about Section 4(f) of the DOT Act: 

The Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that 

requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or 

wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance or land from 

an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by the 

officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless no feasible and prudent alternative 

exists to the use of such land and such program, and the project includes all 

possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. 

3.2.8.2 Regulatory Setting 

Land Use 

Land use management practices are subject to mandates of the controlling agency, while nonFederal lands are often subject to the collective guidance and regulations of local, county, and 

state entities. Land use management and planning approaches are intricate processes that seek to 

provide protection of resource values that may be present on-site as well as off-site in the 

surrounding community. 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S.C. 4201-4209) requires the cooperation of 

Federal agencies to minimize their contribution to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of 

farmland to non-agricultural uses and to be compatible with state and local government, and 

private programs and policies to protect farmland. The USDA National Conservation Resource 

Service (NRCS) classifies farmland as prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide 

or local importance. (USDA, 2004) Farmland subject to the FPPA requirements does not have to 

be currently used for farming. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not 

water or developed urban land. NRCS uses a land evaluation and site assessment system to 

establish a farmland conversion impact rating score on proposed sites of federally funded and 

assisted projects. (USDA, 2004) Based on this score, if the potential adverse impacts on the 

farmland exceed the recommended allowable level, then the project sponsor must consider 

alternative sites or implement measures to minimize impacts. (USDA, 2004) 

Section 4(f) Resources 

The FAA shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any section 4(f) 

resource, including publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or 

waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance as determined by the Federal, state, or 

local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, state, or 

local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) no feasible and prudent 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-27 

alternative exists to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to such park, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic sites 

resulting from such use. In carrying out the national policy, the FAA shall cooperate and consult 

with the Secretaries of the Interiors, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with 

the states regarding potential impacts on such resources. 

3.2.9 Noise 

3.1.9.1 Definition and Description 

The FAA defines noise as sound that is unwanted and that disturbs routine activities and peace 

and quiet and can cause annoyance. Three characteristics are used to measure noise: amplitude, 

frequency, and duration. Amplitude is the intensity of the noise and is described in units called 

decibels (dB). Frequency measures the number of wavelengths that are received over a period of 

time. High frequency noises have a high number of wavelengths per time period, and low 

frequency noises have fewer wavelengths per time period. Examples of high frequency noises 

are those from jet engines or train whistles. Low frequency noises can be sonic booms and blast 

noises. Duration is simply the length of time over which the noise continues. Common metrics 

for quantifying noise include A-weighted decibel levels (dBA), which are specific to the 

sensitivity of the human ear, as well as community and day-night noise levels, which are 

averaged noise levels over a particular period of time. Exhibit 3-7 presents some common noise 

sources and their decibel levels (in dBA) along with typical noise sources and their associated 

noise levels associated with launch and reentry activities. 

Exhibit 3-7. Comparison of Noise Levels from Common Noise Sources 

dBA Overall Level Outdoor Noise Level Indoor Noise Level 

120 Uncomfortably 

Loud 

Military jet aircraft take off from 

aircraft carrier at 15 meters (50 feet) Oxygen torch 

110 Turbo fan aircraft at take off at 61 

meters (200 feet) Rock band 

100 

Very Loud 

Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one 

nautical mile, 

Jet flyover at 305 meters (1,000 

feet), 

Bell J-2A helicopter at 30 meters 

(100 feet) 

- 

90 Moderately 

Loud 

Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at 2 

kilometers (one nautical mile), 

power lawnmower, 

Motorcycle at 8 meters (25 feet) 

Newspaper press 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-28 

Exhibit 3-7. Comparison of Noise Levels from Common Noise Sources 

dBA Overall Level Outdoor Noise Level Indoor Noise Level 

80 

Propeller plane flyover at 305 

meters (1,000 feet), 

Diesel truck at 64 kilometers per 

hour (40 miles per hour) at 15 

meters (50 feet) 

Blender, 

Garbage disposal 

70 

High urban ambient sound, 

Passenger car 105 kilometers per 

hour (65 miles per hour) at 8 meters 

(25 feet) 

Radio, TV, vacuum 

cleaner 

60 Air conditioning unit at 30 meters 

(100 feet) 

Dishwasher at 3 

meters (10 feet), 

Conversation 

50 

Quiet 

Large transformers at 30 meters 

(100 feet) 

Dishwasher in next 

room 

40 Lowest levels of urban ambient 

sound 

Small theater 

Large conference 

room 

10 

Just audible 

- Broadcast and 

recording studio 

0 Threshold of 

Hearing - - 

 Source: Modified from FAA, 2001 

Engine Noise 

Noise associated with rocket engines is produced when the propellant is consumed and 

exhausted into the atmosphere. During take off, the noise from rocket engines on vertically 

launched LVs has been measured at 80 to 120 dBA at a distance of 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) from 

the launch pad. Noise associated with LVs and RVs in motion is governed by the combustion 

process, dynamics of the exiting gases, and flight parameters. As the vehicle ascends, two 

principles combine to reduce the ground noise levels: (1) separation distance increases; and (2) 

the air becomes thinner and therefore less capable of transmitting noise. As an RV descends, the 

reverse occurs, the separation distance decreases and the air becomes denser and therefore more 

capable of transmitting noise. However, the speed of the RV begins to decrease as it approaches 

the surface of the Earth, dropping below supersonic speeds. 

Sonic Boom 

Sonic booms occur when an LV, RV, or jet aircraft exceeds the speed of sound (Mach 1). At sea 

level in the standard atmosphere, the speed of sound is 340,294 meters per second (1,116 feet per 

second). (NASA, 2003) Normally, as the vehicle travels through the air, the air is displaced to 

make room for the vehicle, and the air returns as the vehicle passes. When traveling below the 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-29 

speed of sound, a pressure wave precedes the vehicle and initiates displacement; however, when 

the vehicle exceeds the speed of sound, the pressure wave cannot keep up and, as a result, the 

parting of air from the vehicle is abrupt. This creates a shock wave at the front of the vehicle 

when the air is displaced and also at the rear of the vehicle as the air returns to the unoccupied 

space. The shockwave resulting from supersonic flight creates a sonic boom. Sonic booms are 

produced without warning. (UGA/Media, 2004) 

Sonic booms create pressure waves or shock waves that are measured in overpressures (Newtons 

per square meter [pounds per square foot]). Overpressures are highest in intensity directly over 

the flight path of the vehicle, and the intensity of the sonic boom decreases with increasing 

lateral distance from the flight path. The lateral distance at which the sonic boom no longer 

reaches the ground is called the lateral cutoff distance. The intensity and the duration of the 

sonic boom depend on the size of the vehicle and how the vehicle is operated. The larger the 

vehicle, the higher the intensity and the longer the duration of the sonic boom. Larger vehicles 

displace more air molecules, thus creating a more intense sonic boom. 

The duration of a sonic boom is brief. A fighter plane-sized vehicle can create a sonic boom 

lasting 100 milliseconds while a space shuttle sized-vehicle can create a sonic boom lasting 500 

milliseconds. (UGA/Media, 2004) In general, the lower the altitude at which the vehicle is 

operated, the more intense the sonic boom is at ground level. Intensity also increases during 

flight maneuvers such as diving, accelerating, and turning. Intensity levels can decrease with an 

increase in altitude. However, the increase in altitude increases the area exposed to the sonic 

boom. For every 305 meters (1,000 feet) of altitude, the ground width of the boom increases 1.6 

kilometers (one mile). For example, a sonic boom generated at 9,146 meters (30,000 feet) would 

create a boom exposure width of 48 kilometers (30 miles). Conversely, the boom intensity can 

decrease from the use of some flight maneuvers, such as climbing and decelerating. 

(UGA/Media, 2004) 

Depending on the vehicle altitude, a sonic boom will typically reach the ground in 2 to 60 

seconds after the vehicle flies overhead. However, in some instances, the sonic boom does not 

reach the ground even though the vehicle is flying at supersonic speeds. The speed of sound is a 

function of temperature. (UGA/Media, 2004) An increase or decrease in temperature 

corresponds to an increase or decrease in sonic speed. At ground level if the temperature is 14°C 

(58°F), the speed of sound is 1,210 kilometers (750 miles) per hour. At an altitude of 9,146 

meters (30,000 feet) the temperature is approximately 45°C (113°F) with a corresponding speed 

of sound at 1,081 kilometers (670 miles) per hour. (UGA/Media, 2004) The temperature 

gradient between the altitudes tends to refract shock waves upward. Therefore, for a sonic boom 

to reach the ground, the speed of a vehicle at altitude must be equal to or greater than the speed 

of sound on the ground or, in this example, equal to or greater than 1,210 kilometers (750 miles) 

per hour. (UGA/Media, 2004) 

3.1.9.2 Regulatory Setting 

Noise is primarily regulated through local noise ordinances, which are designed to protect noise 

sensitive areas (e.g., residential population centers and schools). Federally regulated noise 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-30 

standards are designed to protect worker safety, and various commercial standards address 

commercial aircraft noise. 

The OSHA regulation 1910.95 establishes a maximum noise level of 90 dBA for a continuous 

eight-hour exposure during a working day and higher levels for shorter exposure time in the 

workplace. The EPA has recommended an average equivalent noise level of 70 dBA for 

continuous 24-hour exposure to noise to protect hearing. (FAA, 1985) Noise also may be 

impulsive in nature. Under OSHA regulation 1910.95, exposure to impulse noise should not 

exceed 140 dBA. The 140 dBA threshold should be considered advisory rather than mandatory. 

The FAA regulates the noise associated with commercial aircraft at 14 CFR Part 36. 

3.1.10 Orbital Debris 

3.1.10.1 Definition and Description 

Orbital debris can be described as man-made material in the Earth’s orbit that is no longer 

serving any function, such as outdated satellites or expended portions of spacecraft. Some 

objects do not remain in orbit, but gradually descend back into the Earth’s atmosphere. This is 

because orbiting objects lose energy through friction with the upper reaches of the atmosphere, 

which is progressively thinner at higher altitudes. Over time, the object falls into progressively 

lower orbits and eventually falls toward the Earth. Orbital debris in LEO can take several years 

to return to Earth, while objects at higher altitudes can stay in orbit for hundreds or possibly 

thousands of years. (The Aerospace Corporation, 2005) As an object’s orbital trajectory draws 

closer to Earth, it speeds up and outpaces objects in higher orbits. Once the object enters the 

measurable atmosphere, drag associated with the density of the lower atmosphere will slow it 

down rapidly, causing it to burn up or deorbit and fall to the surface of the Earth. 

NASA has determined that a significant amount of debris does not survive the severe heating 

that occurs during reentry. (NASA, 2003) Components that do survive are most likely to fall 

into the oceans, other water bodies, or onto sparsely populated regions, because these types of 

areas cover the majority of the surface of the Earth. While scientists can predict to some extent 

the approximate time an object may reenter the Earth’s atmosphere, determining the footprint of 

the area likely to be impacted by the debris is extremely difficult. During the past 40 years, an 

average of one catalogued piece of debris fell back to Earth each day. To date, no serious injury 

or significant property damage caused by reentering debris has been confirmed. (The Aerospace 

Corporation, 2005) 

Orbital debris that remains in orbit could create hazards to orbiting spacecraft, to astronauts or 

cosmonauts engaged in extra-vehicular space activities. NASA has defined three types of orbital 

debris 

 Objects larger than 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) in diameter, commonly referred to as large 

objects, which are routinely detected, tracked, and catalogued; 

 Objects between one and 10 centimeters (0.4 and 3.9 inches) in diameter, commonly referred 

to as risk objects, which cannot be tracked and catalogued; and 

 Objects smaller than one centimeter (0.4 inch) in diameter commonly referred to as small 

debris or in some sizes, microdebris. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-31 

The interaction among these three classes of debris combined with their long residual times in 

orbit creates concern that there may be collisions producing additional debris fragments. If more 

pieces of debris are created, the total debris population would grow, thereby increasing the 

potential for debris reentry into Earth’s atmosphere. Debris in each of the three classes can be 

divided into four types depending on their source. 

 Solid rocket motor ejecta is typically less than 0.01 centimeter (0.004 inch) in diameter and 

results from the ejection of thousands of kilograms of Al2O3 dust from solid rocket motors 

into the orbital environment. (FAA, 2001) Solid rocket motors may release larger chunks of 

unburned solid propellant or slag. However, solid rocket motor particles typically decay very 

rapidly, or are dispersed by solar radiation pressure. (FAA, 2001) 

 Operational debris is composed of inactive payloads and objects released during satellite 

delivery or satellite operations, including lens caps, separation and packing devices, spin-up 

mechanisms, empty propellant tanks, spent and intact vehicle bodies, payload shrouds, and a 

few objects thrown away or dropped during manned activities. 

 Fragmentation debris results from collisions or explosions of objects in space. 

 Deterioration debris consists of very small debris particles created by the gradual 

disintegration of the spacecraft surface as a result of exposure to the space environment and 

includes paint flaking and plastic and metal erosion. 

According to the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, approximately 11,000 objects larger 

than 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) are known to exist, more than 100,000 particles between one 

and 10 centimeters (0.4 to 3.9 inches) in diameter exist, and tens of millions of particles smaller 

than one centimeter (0.4 inch) exist. Debris of sizes between 0.01 and one centimeter (0.004 and 

0.4 inch) can produce serious damage depending upon system vulnerability and defensive design 

provision. (FAA, 2001) On average, debris of one millimeter (0.04 inch) is capable of 

perforating current U.S. space suits. Objects larger than one centimeter (0.4 inch) can produce 

catastrophic damage. While it is currently practical to shield against debris particles up to one 

centimeter (0.4 inch) in diameter (a mass of one gram [0.05 ounce]), for larger debris, current 

shielding concepts become impractical. (NASA, 2003) 

Orbital debris generated by LVs and RVs also contributes to the larger problem of objects in 

space, which includes radio-frequency interference and interference with scientific observations 

in all parts of the spectrum. For example, emissions at radio frequencies often interfere with 

radio astronomy observations. (NASA, 2003) 

3.1.10.2 Regulatory Setting 

As identified in Section 3.1.1, Atmosphere, one international treaty addresses orbital debris and 

the liability associated with it, the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by 

Space Objects, dated 1972. In addition to the international treaty, NASA and the USAF Space 

Command monitor orbiting space objects. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-32 

3.1.11 Socioeconomics 

3.1.11.1 Definition and Description 

Socioeconomics 

Socioeconomics include the social and economic indicators that are specific to the human 

environment. Social indicators include statistical data related to population distributions, 

ethnicity, home ownership, education levels, and the availability of medical care, fire and rescue 

services, educational facilities, and other public amenities such as libraries or recreational 

opportunities. Economic indicators are used to assess the economic health of the nation or a 

community, as well as to make forecasts concerning future economic conditions. Key economic 

indicators include employment trends and unemployment rates, income levels, retail sales, 

industry, factory, and agricultural activities, and home purchases or sales. 

Collectively, social and economic indicators are often referred to as socioeconomics. Much of 

the information that assists in evaluating the socioeconomic status of a given population is 

available from the U.S. Census Bureau on a national, state, or regional level. Site-specific 

socioeconomic data are available from the U.S. Census Bureau on a county, census block, and 

census tract level as well. More detailed information regarding a community’s educational 

institutions, fire and rescue or medical services, and local employment information is typically 

available from state or county governmental offices such as local Chambers of Commerce. 

The population of the U.S. is approximately 290 million, with the majority of the population 

centers concentrated on the eastern and western coasts and in major metropolitan areas. Public 

services, including medical, police, and fire services, are more densely located in metropolitan 

areas as compared to rural areas. In addition, metropolitan areas tend to have more established 

infrastructure to provide utility services (i.e., water, electricity, natural gas, and phone) and waste 

collection services (i.e., solid waste and waste water disposal) than are available in rural areas. 

To compare and track the various economic generators, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico have 

developed the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which has replaced the 

U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. The NAICS helps track the changing 

economy and provides new comparability in statistics about business activity across North 

America. NAICS code 3364 (Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing), and sub-code 33641 

(Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing) represent the aerospace industry, which falls under 

NAICS code 336 (Transportation Equipment Manufacturing). The Aerospace Product and Parts 

Manufacturing industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in one or more of the 

following: (1) manufacturing complete aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles; (2) manufacturing 

aerospace engines, propulsion units, auxiliary equipment or parts; (3) developing and making 

prototypes of aerospace products; (4) aircraft conversion (i.e., major modifications to systems); 

and (5) complete aircraft or propulsion systems overhaul and rebuilding (i.e., periodic restoration 

of aircraft to original design specifications). (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-33 

In 2002, the annual payroll20 for all reported NAICS codes was approximately $3.5 trillion. The 

annual payroll for manufacturing, which includes transportation equipment manufacturing, was 

approximately $568 billion, and the annual payroll for NAICS code 336 Transportation 

Equipment Manufacturing was approximately $80 billion, or two percent of the total annual 

payroll, and 14 percent of transportation equipment manufacturing, respectively. Note, some 

industries’ annual payroll information was incomplete and others were not reported at all, so the 

values presented are conservative values that inflate the actual percentages of the aerospace 

industry on the overall annual payroll. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice (EO 12898) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair 

treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, 

should bear a disproportionate share of an adverse impact resulting from a major Federal action. 

Meaningful involvement means that potentially affected community residents have an 

appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that would affect 

their environment or health; the public’s contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s 

decision; the concerns of all participants involved would be considered in the decision-making 

process; and the decision-makers would seek out and facilitate the involvement of those 

potentially affected. 

Environmental justice concerns include consideration of the race, ethnicity, and poverty status of 

populations near the site of a proposed action. The CEQ defined “minority” to consist of the 

following groups: Black/African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 

American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hispanic populations (regardless of race). The 

Interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice guidance states that a “minority 

population” may be present in an area if the minority population percentage in the area of interest 

is “meaningfully greater” than the minority population in the general population. The CEQ 

defined “low-income populations” as those identified with the annual statistical poverty 

thresholds from the U.S. Census Bureau. The accepted rationale in determining what constitutes 

a low-income population is similar to minority populations, in that when the low-income 

population percentage within the area of interest is “meaningfully greater” than the low-income 

population in the general population, the community in question is considered to be low-income. 

3.1.11.2 Regulatory Setting 

Socioeconomics 

Socioeconomic conditions are regulated through a host of Federal programs that provide for 

equal opportunity, anti-discrimination, and accessibility, as well as state and local ordinances. 

 

20 Payroll includes all forms of compensation, such as salaries, wages, commissions, dismissal pay, bonuses, 

vacation allowances, sick- leave pay, and employee contributions to qualified pension plans paid during the year 

to all employees. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-34 

Environmental Justice 

Through EO 12898, all Federal actions or actions funded with Federal monies that may result in 

significant adverse effect must be evaluated for the potential of such significant impacts on 

disproportionately affected minority or low-income populations. In keeping with EO 12898, the 

FAA encourages public participation regarding proposed actions that have the potential to 

adversely affect minority or low-income populations to foster better decision-making practices. 

3.1.12 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 

3.1.12.1 Definition and Description 

Visual and aesthetic resources refer to natural or developed landscapes that provide information 

for an individual to develop their perceptions of the area. Landforms, surface water, vegetation, 

viewpoints or viewsheds, open space, transportation structures, and man-made features are 

fundamental characteristics of an area that define the visual environment and form the overall 

impression that an observer receives of an area. The value of a given area’s visual resources is 

typically dependent on how harmoniously the area is mixed with surrounding visual elements. 

The visual character of an area can be defined by the presence of visual resource elements and 

the relationship between those elements. The size, type, gradient, scale, and continuity of 

landforms, structures, land use patterns, and vegetation are all contributing factors to an area’s 

visual character and how it is perceived. 

The existing visual resources within an area as well as changes to visual elements are often 

influenced by social considerations, including the public value placed on the area, public 

awareness of the area, and community concern for the visual resources within the area. 

However, one individual’s perception of the quality or value of visual resources within an area 

can vary significantly from another’s observation. This is due to viewer sensitivity, which is 

based on factors that include a person’s background (e.g., urban versus rural upbringing), what 

they expect to find visibly pleasurable, and what types of activities they may participate in. 

Additionally, different types of settings can be more or less susceptible to perceived changes 

depending upon the visual elements that are present. Areas with significant open spaces (e.g., 

coastlines, prairies, etc.) are usually more sensitive to perceived changes than areas such as an 

industrial complex or cityscape, because the changes are often more readily apparent in 

undeveloped or natural settings. 

3.1.12.2 Regulatory Setting 

Though dependent on physical location, many environments within the U.S. include regions of 

rich aesthetic and visual resources as well as designated and undesignated areas of great natural 

beauty and scenic diversity. Visual and aesthetic resources commonly fall under several 

different formal designations including national forest; national monument; national, state, or 

county parks; national wildlife refuges; wilderness areas; wild and scenic rivers; national trails; 

privately-owned land; and historic places and districts. Various roads also may be designated as 

scenic byways due to their scenic, historic, and cultural qualities. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-35 

Visual resources in areas surrounding certain selected rivers are protected under The Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act [P.L. 90-542, as amended] [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287]. Agencies are 

required, as part of their standard environmental review processes, to consult with the NPS and 

other Federal and state agencies having jurisdiction, prior to taking any actions which could 

effectively foreclose or downgrade wild, scenic, or recreational river status of rivers in the WSR 

System, study rivers, river segments in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), or rivers or river 

segments otherwise eligible under section 5(d) for inclusion in the WSR System but not on the 

NRI or under study (FAA Order 1050.1 E Appendix A). (National WSR System, 2004) 

The BLM’s Visual Resource Management (VRM) system ensures that the scenic values of 

public lands are considered before allowing uses that may have negative visual impacts. This 

two-part system (1) inventories the scenic values of an area and assigns certain management 

objectives, and (2) evaluates proposed activities to determine if they conform to the area’s 

management objectives, or if the proposed action requires adjustment. (BLM, 2004) 

3.1.13 Water Resources 

Water resources include both freshwater and marine systems, wetlands, floodplains, and ground 

water. The marine systems include the BOA (essentially open ocean) that is not under the direct 

jurisdiction of any single nation. 

3.1.13.1 Definition and Description 

Freshwater Systems 

Freshwater environments, also known as interior water systems, consist of rivers and streams 

(lotic systems) and lakes and ponds (lentic systems). Rivers and streams include natural and 

man-made bodies of moving water. Streams originate from lakes or from ground water seeps 

and join with other streams, or tributaries to form a main channel or river. Rivers empty into 

large water bodies such as oceans and lakes and are fed by tributaries. Depending upon their 

regularity of flow, streams are described as (1) ephemeral, which only exist for a short time 

during rain events, (2) intermittent, which flow seasonally depending on rainfall patterns and 

snowmelt, and (3) perennial, which maintain a constant flow. 

The physical characteristics of a lotic system often determine the biological characteristics of the 

system. Slow moving systems often have higher biological productivity. Because of the slow 

water movement, more organic material is able to settle out of the water column to be used by 

primary and secondary consumers. In fast moving systems, the organic material is washed 

downstream before it can be utilized. Slow moving systems often have more productive 

vegetative communities. Suspended solids in the water column settle out in low energy systems 

and allow for greater light penetration to promote higher photosynthesis rates. Fast moving, 

turbulent systems stir up sediment and suspended solids and restrict light penetration. In 

addition, slow moving systems allow vegetation to root along the shorelines. This vegetation can 

be a food source and a habitat for other organisms. 

Lakes are large, deep freshwater bodies that can be large enough to have surface waves and tides. 

Lakes are often closely associated with rivers. Rivers often flow into and/or out of lakes. Lakes 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-36 

have a stratified temperature regime from surface to bottom. The temperature differences 

between the layers cause water column stability. This stability restricts oxygen movement to 

bottom layers and nutrient and food movement to upper layers. In the spring and fall, water 

column stability deteriorates and results in uniform mixing. This is often referred to as lake 

turnover. (EPA, 2004) Ponds are smaller versions of lakes and can support rooted plants in all 

areas of the pond. The water temperatures are relatively uniform from top to bottom and are 

based on the ambient air temperature. In cold climates, an entire pond can freeze solid. 

Marine Systems 

Including coasts along the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, Arctic 

Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. has more than 153,226 kilometers (95,000 miles) of 

coastline. Just as other countries with coastlines, the U.S. has an established EEZ that defines its 

coastal environments from an economic, political, and regulatory perspective. While the host 

country does not have complete sovereignty over their EEZ regarding maritime or air traffic, the 

host country does maintain sovereign rights over resources within the zone (e.g., fishing, mineral 

resources, and marine protection). 

Created in 1983 by presidential proclamation, the U.S. EEZ extends out from the coast to a 

distance of 370 kilometers (200 nautical miles). Within the EEZ are two smaller zones, the 

territorial and the contiguous zone. The territorial zone extends 22 kilometers (12 nautical miles) 

from the coastline and is included in the sovereign territory of the host country. The contiguous 

zone extends an additional 22 kilometers (12 nautical miles) out from the territorial zone border. 

Within this zone, the host country has rights to control immigration, customs, sanitary, and 

pollution regulations. (Environmental Health Center, 1998) The areas within the U.S. EEZ are 

rich in natural resources such as seafood, oil and mineral deposits, and wilderness and 

recreational areas. 

More than 10,521,830 hectares (26,000,000 acres) of wetlands are located along the coasts of the 

Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. This includes salt marshes and coastal 

freshwater wetlands. Estuaries dominate the coastal wetlands. Estuaries are defined as tidally 

influenced, brackish water wetlands. Estuaries provide protection to inland areas from the 

physical forces of coastal waves and wind, nursery and nesting areas for a variety of fish and 

waterfowl, and filtration of water for sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants. Over 75 percent 

of U.S. commercial fish and shellfish and 80 to 90 percent of U.S. recreational fish are dependent 

on estuaries during mating, birthing, or maturation. (Environmental Health Center, 1998) 

According to EPA, the coastal wetlands along the Gulf of Mexico alone provide habitat for 75 

percent of the migrating waterfowl in the U.S. 

The BOA is defined as the open water areas of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans outside of the 

EEZ, located 322 kilometers (200 miles) offshore. The BOA is outside of the jurisdiction of any 

individual nation. The marine environment supports a wealth of diverse organisms and it is 

estimated that 80 percent of all life on the planet is located within its oceans. (Natural History, 

2003) Additionally, ocean waters have the capacity to produce carbon and absorb large amounts 

of CO2 that result from fossil fuel burning activities. Ocean movement is primarily influenced 

by wind, though tides that are a result of the gravitational pull of the sun and moon and seismic 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-37 

activity are also factors. The majority of the Earth’s geologic activity occurs within the ocean, 

particularly the Pacific Ocean. (Marine Biology, 2004) Volcanic eruptions and lava flows 

continually add to the ocean crust, and large chains of undersea trenches and mountain ranges 

such as the Monterey Bay Submarine Canyon and the Mid-Ocean Ridge are present. 

Oceans are constantly in motion as a result of both horizontal and vertical currents. Horizontal 

ocean currents are a result of wind-based currents that occur due to solar energy and uneven 

heating of the Earth’s surface. Wind-based currents primarily affect surface waters; however, 

their impact can be measured down to 200 meters (656 feet) in depth. Frictional forces between 

the water molecules drag deeper waters along but at reduced energy levels. In addition, the 

Earth’s rotation tends to deflect the water movements with increasing depth. Some surficial 

currents are seasonal in nature, while others move in patterns that are almost unchanged 

throughout the year. Because of the wind-influenced surficial ocean currents, ocean circulation 

and the general circulation patterns of the atmosphere are related. Currents that have the 

potential to affect the U.S. include the Gulf Stream, the California, and Labrador currents. (Naval 

Meteorology and Oceanography Command, 2004) 

Wetlands 

Generally, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the 

nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and 

on its surface. (Cowardin, 1979) Wetlands vary widely because of regional and local differences 

in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors, 

including human disturbance. Wetlands are found from the tundra to the tropics and on every 

continent except Antarctica. For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term 

wetlands means “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.” (40 CFR 230.3(t)) 

The Cowardin classification system has five wetland systems, eight subsystems, and 11 classes 

of wetlands. The term “system” refers here to a complex of wetlands and deepwater habitats that 

share the influence of similar hydrologic, geomorphologic, chemical, or biological factors. 

Exhibit 3-8 presents a description of the wetland systems. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-38 

Exhibit 3-8. Wetlands Systems 

System Description 

Marine 

The Marine System consists of the open ocean overlying the continental shelf 

and its associated high-energy coastline. Marine habitats are exposed to the 

waves and currents of the open ocean and the water regimes are determined 

primarily by the ebb and flow of oceanic tides. Salinities exceed 30 percent, 

with little or no dilution except outside the mouths of estuaries. Shallow 

coastal indentations or bays without appreciable freshwater inflow, and coasts 

with exposed rocky islands that provide the mainland with little or no shelter 

from wind and waves are also considered part of the Marine System because 

they generally support typical marine biota. 

Estuarine 

The Estuarine System consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal 

wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly 

obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at 

least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may 

be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along 

some low-energy coastlines an appreciable dilution of sea water exists. 

Offshore areas with typical estuarine plants and animals, such as red 

mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica), 

are also included in the Estuarine System. 

Riverine 

The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained 

within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, 

persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water 

containing ocean-derived salts in excess of 0.5 percent. A channel is “an open 

conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or 

continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between 

two bodies of standing water.” 

Lacustrine 

The Lacustrine System includes wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the 

following characteristics: (1) situated in a topographic depression or a dammed 

river channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses 

or lichens with greater than 30 percent areal coverage; and (3) total area 

exceeds 8 hectares (20 acres). Similar wetland and deepwater habitats totaling 

less than 8 hectares (20 acres) are also included in the Lacustrine System if an 

active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature makes up all or part of the 

boundary, or if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 2 

meters (6.6 feet) at low water. Lacustrine waters may be tidal or nontidal, but 

ocean-derived salinity is always less than 0.5 percent. 

Palustrine 

The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, 

shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands 

that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 

percent. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the 

following four characteristics: (1) area less than 8 hectares (20 acres); (2) 

active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in 

the deepest part of basin less than 2 meters (6.6 feet) at low water; and (4) 

salinity due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5 percent. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-39 

Wetlands are capable of a wide variety of ecological functions that provide significant biological, 

economic, and societal values. The functionality of a wetland depends upon its physical location 

(e.g., freshwater or coastal environments), the hydrological regime, surrounding topography, 

precipitation, climate, soils, and available nutrients. Some of the most important wetland 

functions include 

 Critical habitats that provide food, shelter, nesting, and breeding/spawning grounds, 

 Decomposition of organic material that incorporates nutrients back into the food web, 

 Natural flood storage capabilities, and 

 The improvement of water quality. 

By providing a mix of terrestrial and aquatic environments, wetlands maintain a unique habitat 

on which numerous species including invertebrates and microorganisms are dependent. 

According to data from the NRCS, wetlands in the U.S. support about 5,000 plant species, 190 

species of amphibians, and a third of all native bird species. Coastal wetlands are an integral part 

of the life cycle for many marine organisms; they are the nursery and spawning grounds for 60 to 

90 percent of U.S. commercial fish catches. (USDA, 2004) 

Floodplains 

Floodplains consist of the low-lying areas adjacent to rivers and streams that are subject to 

natural inundations typically associated with precipitation. The most common regulatory 

definition concerning such an area is the 100-year floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area 

(SFHA), which has been established for most U.S. rivers and streams by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). By FEMA standards, a 100-year flood is a flood that has a one 

percent chance of being reached or exceeded in any given year. In some cases FEMA has also 

designated floodways. Floodways are areas likely to experience the deepest and fastest flowing 

floodwaters. The risk and severity of a flood depends on several factors that include the size of 

the watershed, surrounding topography, stream bank elevation, annual rainfall or snowfall, and 

the presence of upstream water bodies, dams, or other hydraulic modifications. 

Floodplains serve a critical role in floodwater attenuation, water quality, and ground water 

recharge. Floodplains naturally slow storm water velocities and accommodate peak flows, 

allowing for organic waste and sediment removal. Natural vegetation present within the 

floodplain serves as a buffer for excessive nutrient loads, assists in stabilizing water 

temperatures, and filters other contaminants, thus improving water quality. Floodplains also 

provide habitat for a wide diversity of plant and animal life whose presence is directly related to 

the health of a given ecosystem. Many fish, bird, and other wildlife species are dependent upon 

floodplains as spawning or nesting areas. Streams and their associated floodplains also provide 

sources of potable water derived from either surface water or ground water recharge. 

Additionally, floodplains characteristically maintain nutrient rich soils that support agricultural 

uses which in turn provide economic benefits. Lastly, floodplains provide a wealth of aesthetic 

and recreational opportunities that not only provide economic, but social value as well. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-40 

Ground Water 

Ground water is defined as water, both fresh and saline, that is stored below the Earth’s surface 

in pores, cracks, and crevices below the water table. Typical forms of ground water include 

aquifers and aquifer sources, such as springs and wells. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

defines an aquifer as “a formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains 

sufficient saturated, permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and 

springs.” (USGS, 2004) Surface water from precipitation or that resides in wetlands, ponds, 

lakes, or rivers may enter an aquifer through percolation through soils. Areas that provide source 

water to the aquifers are known as recharge zones. Water that moves into the ground first enters 

a belt of soil moisture that is known as the zone of aeration or the unsaturated zone. Once soils 

and plants have removed what water they need, surplus water can then move through an 

intermediate belt and into the ground water’s zone of saturation. (Allan, 1995) 

The occurrence of ground water is dependent upon a given area’s geology, soils, topography, and 

climatic regimes. Thus, the amount of ground water present throughout the U.S. is not evenly 

distributed and the depth to ground water can be close to the surface or lie several hundred feet 

below. (USGS, 1999) 

Ground water is critical because aquifers serve as a major source of drinking water in the U.S., as 

well as sources of irrigation for agriculture, industrial, and mining activities. Accessed via 

drilled wells, artesian wells, and springs, ground water typically tends to be acceptable for 

human consumption. This is because ground water is less susceptible to contamination by 

pollutants associated with human activity than surface water. The soils and rocks associated 

with aquifers act as a filtration system for most biological contaminants, though high bacterial 

concentrations can exist in some cases, especially where the ground water table is shallow. 

(USGS, 1999) Additionally, minerals and organic constituents are present in ground water. 

These are harmless in most cases, but in rare cases can be harmful or even toxic. (USGS, 1999) 

According to the USGS, factors such as population growth, technology that allows for more 

rapid ground water removal rate, and added industrial and agricultural demands have had an 

impact on ground water supplies. Human activity contributes to ground water degradation 

through the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, which can percolate through soils and 

into aquifers. Additional human stressors include leaking sewage and septic systems, petroleum 

product or chemical spills, and landfill leachates. (USGS, 1999) Because most ground water 

recharge occurs at a very slow rate, growing water demands and contamination can pose 

significant issues. Recharge rates may not be able to keep up with increasing water demands, 

and diminishing ground water resources in some areas (e.g., the Midwest). The overuse of 

shallow coastal aquifers can result in saltwater intrusion that renders the ground water unusable. 

Another issue is that ground water contamination is extremely difficult to detect, and recognition 

of contamination may not occur until an aquifer’s water quality has been compromised. 

3.1.13.2 Regulatory Setting 

The following subsections present a description of the regulatory setting associated with 

freshwater and marine systems, wetlands, floodplains, and ground water (see Appendix C, 

Applicable Legal Requirements, for additional information). 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-41 

Freshwater Systems 

The CWA establishes water pollution control standards and programs with the objective of 

restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of U.S. water 

resources. The Act provides for the elimination of the discharge of pollutants into navigable 

waters and for water quality goals to protect fish and wildlife. The Act specifies (1) that actions 

must comply with Federal and state water quality criteria; (2) regulations for issuing permits 

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for storm water discharge 

be established by EPA; and (3) that states assess non-point source water pollution problems and 

develop pollution management plans. 

Water quality and the consumption and diversion of water are regulated by a number of Federal 

and state agencies in the U.S. The EPA has the primary authority for implementing and 

enforcing the CWA. (33 U.S.C. 1251) The EPA, along with state agencies to which EPA has 

delegated some of its authority, issues permits under the CWA to maintain and restore the quality 

of our nation’s water resources. The Act requires permits for activities that result in the 

discharge of pollutants to water resources or the placement of fill material in waters of the U.S. 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are typically prepared and permitted under 

the NPDES program to ensure construction activities do not lead to unacceptable levels of 

erosion and water pollution. Other regulations relevant to the protection of freshwater systems 

include the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and EO 11988 (Floodplain Management). 

Marine Systems 

Under the Oceans Act of 2000, the U.S. established a commission to make recommendations for 

a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. Within the contiguous zone, which 

extends 44 kilometers (24 nautical miles) from the coastline, the U.S has rights to control 

immigration, customs, sanitary, and pollution regulations. Also, the BOA is subject to EO 

12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, which requires consideration of 

proposed Federal actions or programs for their potential to affect the environment. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands are regulated under the CWA and the River and Harbors Act, and individual states, 

EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) implement the various regulations. The 

regulations primarily regulate discharges into “waters of the United States,” of which wetlands 

are considered to be waters of the U.S. The USACE issues permits for discharges into wetlands, 

with oversight by EPA; however, a few states have assumed permitting authority (Michigan and 

New Jersey). Also, individual states may regulate activities that involve wetlands under Section 

401 of the CWA. 

Floodplains 

To reduce risks to human life and lessen property damages, FEMA established the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and creates maps that identify flood hazard areas. The most 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 3-42 

commonly used flood hazard-mapping tool is the Flood Insurance Rate Map, which identifies the 

boundaries of the 100-year floodplain or SFHA. Development, including federally funded or 

federally assisted projects that occur within the floodplain must comply with local floodplain 

management ordinances, which are based on NFIP requirements. Areas that are designated as 

floodways should remain free from all development or activities that could serve as an 

obstruction to floodwaters. Additionally, mandatory flood insurance requirements apply to 

structures located within the floodplain that are eligible for insurance through a community’s 

participation in the NFIP. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, mandates that Federal agencies avoid construction or 

management practices that would adversely affect floodplains unless that agency finds that (1) 

no practical alternative exists, and (2) the proposed action has been designed or modified to 

minimize harm to or within the floodplain. EO 11988 further tasks all Federal agencies to 

reduce the risk of flood loss; minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare; 

and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out 

the agency’s responsibilities. Federal agency activities subject to compliance with this Order 

include: (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing 

federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting 

Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related 

land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. 

Ground Water 

Ground water that is used as drinking water is regulated by EPA under the SDWA. The SWDA 

allows EPA to set maximum contaminant levels standards for the drinking water, allows 

individual states to establish wellhead protection areas, and allows EPA to regulate and permit 

underground injection wells. In addition to the SDWA, EPA also regulates USTs (40 CFR Part 

280), which allows individual states to develop UST programs. Such programs are used to 

monitor USTs, prevent or detect leaks early, and prevent aquifer degradation. 

 

 

 

 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-1 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 

This section of the PEIS describes the potential environmental consequences associated with 

each alternative. 

 Proposed Action – The FAA would review applications and issue commercial licenses for: 

launches of horizontal LVs (1,279 horizontally launched LVs between 2005 and 2015 with a 

maximum of 154 launches per year), reentries of RVs with both powered and unpowered 

landings (51 reentries between 2005 and 2015 with a maximum of 15 reentries per year), and 

the operation of facilities that support these activities. 

 Alternative 1 – Same as proposed action except that all reentries of RVs would have 

unpowered landings. 

 Alternative 2 – Same as proposed action except that all reentries of RVs would have 

powered landings. 

 Alternative 3 – Same as proposed action except that FAA would only license horizontal 

launches of LVs that ignite their rocket motors at or above 914 meters (3,000 feet). 

 No Action Alterative – The FAA would not issue commercial licenses for horizontal 

launches of LVs, reentry of RVs, or the operation of facilities that support these activities. 

The analysis of the conditions of the proposed action and the alternatives assumes that the 

issuance of licenses for horizontally launched LVs, reentry of RVs, and facilities where such 

actions would occur would not influence the number of commercial licenses issued or the 

number of vertically launched LVs. The analysis of the conditions of the no action alternative 

assumes that not issuing licenses for the horizontal launch of LVs, the reentry of RVs, or the 

facilities where such actions would occur would not influence the number of commercial 

licenses issued or the number of vertically launched LVs. 

The FAA recognizes that at some point in the future, more than 10 years, the issuance of licenses 

for horizontally launched LVs or for reentry of RVs may influence the number of licenses issued 

as well as the number of commercial vertically launched LVs. Because the horizontal launch 

technology is currently under development, a shift from one launch platform to another (e.g., 

vertical to horizontal) will take place over a period of time and is not ready for analysis at this 

time. 

The environmental consequences were reviewed in accordance with all relevant legal 

requirements, as described in Appendix C, including 40 CFR Part 1502.16 and the FAA 

Regulations (FAA Order 1050.1E) for implementing NEPA, which specify what types of 

impacts would be considered a significant impact on a particular resource. The scope of the 

analysis presented in this section encompasses the programmatic environmental impacts from 

licensing horizontal vehicle launches, reentry of RVs, and the operation of facilities that support 

these activities. The analyses contained in this PEIS address the routine activities of horizontal 

launches of LVs, reentries of RVs, and development, modification, and operation of launch or 

reentry facilities; a discussion of potential accident scenarios and their impacts associated with 

the routine activities is presented in Appendix E, Potential Accident Scenarios. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-2 

This section focuses on the programmatic issues that are ready for decision and provides a 

roadmap for subsequent site-specific environmental analyses that would tier from this document. 

The analysis in this section addresses the direct and indirect impacts, while the analysis in 

Section 5 covers the cumulative impacts associated, as defined at 40 CFR Parts 1508.7 and 

1508.8 and in FAA Order 1050.1E. The direct and indirect impacts are derived from the 

proposed number of horizontal vehicle launches and reentries that would fall under the licensing 

authority of the FAA per year, while the cumulative impact analysis includes an analysis of all 

the launches licensed by the FAA (horizontal and vertical vehicle launches) as well as all other 

U.S. Government and foreign (commercial and government) launches and reentries per year. 

The forecasted number of launches and reentries extends through year 2015, and reflects a 

conservative estimate of the number of launches by vehicle based on the current technology and 

future demand for access to space. 

The indirect or induced impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives that would 

occur at a particular site or location would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document that 

would tier from this PEIS. Where appropriate, this PEIS evaluates the indirect effects associated 

with the proposed action or an alternative. Subsequent site-specific environmental analyses that 

would tier from this PEIS include supplemental EISs, EISs, and EAs. The tiered documents 

would be narrower in scope than the information presented in this PEIS, would analyze sitespecific actions and impacts, and would not repeat the analysis presented in this PEIS. Appendix 

D provides insight into the required consultation and permit processes that could be required in 

subsequent site-specific analyses. 

The following sections present the environmental consequences (direct and indirect) on each of 

the environmental resource areas presented in Section 3, Affected Environment. 

4.1 Atmosphere 

In this section, atmospheric impacts are assessed beginning at ground level with consideration of 

tropospheric effects (i.e., total atmospheric load from the ground cloud near the launch site and 

its contribution to the formation of acid rain). Stratospheric effects, including global warming, 

ozone depletion, and acid rain, are detailed in Section 4.1.2. The potential for changes in 

ionosphere electron concentrations is assessed in Section 4.1.4. Consideration of deposition 

from a ground cloud near a launch site is found in Section 4.6.1, Geology and Soils. 

The composition of exhaust emissions from horizontal LVs varies depending on the type of 

propellant and the type of propulsion systems used (i.e., jet engine and/or rocket motors). 

Exhibit 4-1 shows the major exhaust products from propulsion systems that are currently used by 

horizontal LVs or are in development. The types of exhaust products from jet engines are fairly 

consistent across jet fuel types. The exhaust products from rocket motors, however, vary based 

on the propellant type (fuel and oxidizer) and are presented separately. The type of propellant 

that each LV Concept uses is detailed in Exhibit 2-4.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-3 

Exhibit 4-1. Main Exhaust Products from Propulsion Systems 

Rocket Motor by Propellant System Type 

Jet Engines Solid Liquid 

Hydrocarbon Cryogenic Hybrid Propellant 

CO, NOX, 

Sulfur 

Oxides 

(SOX), PM, 

VOC 

HCl, PM,

CO, N2, 

CO2, NOX, 

Cl-, H2O 

CO2, CO, 

Molecular 

Hydrogen 

(H2), H2O, 

OH-

, NOX

H2, H2O CO2, CO, 

H2, H2O, 

OH-, NOX, 

PM 

(Department of the Air Force, 1990, 1991, and 1994 as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS) 

(Versar, Inc., 1991 as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS) (Naval Surface Warfare Center, 1996 as 

referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS) (USAF, 1986) (FAA, 2004d) (U.S. EPA, 1980 as referenced in 

the Final EA for the East Kern Airport District Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport, February 

2004) (Alamo Area Council of Governments, 1999) 

Of the chemical species that are generated by emissions from horizontal LVs, the emissions of 

concern include HCl, Cl, PM, NOX, SOX, CO, CO2, H2O, and VOCs. As indicated in 

Exhibit 4-1, not all of these substances are produced by all of the various propulsion systems. 

The potential impacts of emissions of these pollutants in the different atmospheric layers are 

discussed in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4. Emissions of the other main exhaust products are 

either insignificant or would not have an adverse impact on any layer of the atmosphere. 

Appendix E presents potential accident scenarios and their contribution to the atmosphere and 

other resource areas. Appendix F describes how the emissions calculations for each vehicle and 

atmospheric layer were performed. 

For the analyses presented for the proposed action and alternatives, eight launch vehicle types 

were considered, and two types of reentry vehicles were considered. Exhibit 4-2, presents of 

summary of the vehicle types. Additional information is presented in Appendix F. Reentry 

vehicles with unpowered landings were not included in this analysis because they would not 

contribute to emissions.

Exhibit 4-2. Overview of Launch and Reentry Vehicle Types 

Vehicle Typea Rocket Fuel Type Notes 

Concept 1 

Vehicle Type A LOX/Kerosene 

Jet engine ignited for lift off; rocket engine ignited at 

approximately 6,000 meters (m) (20,000 feet [ft]); jet 

engines stop at 24,000 m (80,000 ft) and rocket engines 

stop at 45,000 m (150,000 ft); landing powered by 

reigniting jet engines 

Concept 2 

Vehicle Type B LOX/Kerosene 

Rocket engine ignited for lift off; no jet engine; rocket 

engines stop at 60,000 m (200,000 ft); unpowered 

landing 

Vehicle Type C LOX/Kerosene Similar to Vehicle Type B, but twice as large; landing 

powered by reigniting rocket engines 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-4 

Exhibit 4-2. Overview of Launch and Reentry Vehicle Types 

Vehicle Typea Rocket Fuel Type Notes 

TBD Vehicle LOX/Kerosene 

Emissions assumed to be equivalent to the average of 

the Concept 2 vehicle emissions (weighted based on 

the number of launches of each type of Concept 2 

vehicle between 2005-2015) 

Concept 3 

Vehicle Type D N2O/HTPB 

Jet-powered carrier vehicle; rocket engine ignited at 

15,000 m (50,000 ft) and burns for approximately one 

minute; unpowered landing 

Vehicle Type E Solid 

Jet-powered carrier vehicle; two-stage rocket engine; 

stage 1 ignited at 12,000 m (40,000 ft) and burns out at 

51,000 m (170,000 ft); stage 2 ignited at 51,000 m 

(170,000 ft) and burns out at 140,000 m (450,000 ft); 

unpowered landing 

Vehicle Type F N2O/HTPB, Solid 

Jet-powered carrier vehicle; two-stage rocket engine; 

stage 1 (powered by N2O/HTPB) ignited at 60,000 m 

(200,000 ft) and burns out at 140,000 m (450,000 ft); 

stage 2 (powered by solid fuel) ignited at 140,000 m 

(450,000 ft) and burns out at 160,000 m (530,000 ft); 

unpowered landing 

TBD Vehicle N2O/HTPB, Solid 

Emissions assumed to be equivalent to the average of 

the Concept 3 vehicle emissions (weighted based on 

the number of launches of each type of Concept 3 

vehicle between 2005-2015) 

Reentry Vehicle 

Reentry Vehicle 

Landing Using 

Rocket Engines 

LOX/LH2

Assumed vehicle would use parachutes to slow its 

descent, engines would be ignited approximately 3,000 

m (10,000 ft) from the ground, and one-fourth of the 

vehicle’s fuel capacity would be consumed at a 

constant rate until it reached the ground 

Reentry Vehicle 

Landing Using 

Jet Engines 

n/a Emissions assumed to be equivalent to one-half of the 

jet engine emissions of Vehicle Type A 

a Vehicles with unpowered landings were not included in this analysis because they would not be expected to 

contribute any emissions. 

4.1.1 Troposphere 

The following subsections present the impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives on the 

troposphere. 

4.1.1.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, the impacts on the troposphere would result from LV jet engine 

emissions (Concept 1 vehicles), carrier aircraft jet engine emissions (Concept 3 vehicles), and/or 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-5 

emissions generated by the ignition of rocket motors in the troposphere (Concept 2 vehicles or 

RVs). Other potential impacts on the troposphere could result from accidents on the launch pad 

or during flight. Exhibit 4-3 presents the projected annual emissions for LVs and RVs below 

914 meters (3,000 feet) of the specific chemical species of concern from 2005 through 2015. 

The 914-meter (3,000-feet) altitude is appropriate for evaluating impacts in the troposphere 

because the Federal government uses 914 meters (3,000 feet) and below to assess contributions 

of emissions to the ambient air quality and for the de minimis calculations under the CAA. (U.S. 

EPA, 1992) The emissions in Exhibit 4-3 were calculated by estimating the emissions per 

launch or reentry for each vehicle type, multiplying these per launch or reentry emissions by the 

estimated annual launches or reentries for each vehicle type, and then summing across all vehicle 

types. 

Exhibit 4-3. Estimated Annual Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) for Proposed 

Action (All Vehicle Types Combined), Kilograms (Pounds) 

HCl Cl PM NOX SOX CO CO2 H2O VOC 

77 34 4 321 2,392 893 99 2005 - - 

(170) (75) (9) (708) (5,273) (1,969) (219) 

198 10 4 681 14,352 5,358 82 2006 - - (437) (22) (9) (1,501) (31,641) (11,813) (181) 

671 34 13 2,305 17,851 6,663 261 2007 - - (1,478) (75) (29) (5,081) (39,355) (14,689) (575) 

724 74 17 2,559 32,673 12,194 363 2008 - - (1,595) (161) (37) (5,638) (72,032) (26,884) (800) 

797 76 19 2,814 38,225 14,439 371 2009 - - (1,758) (168) (44) (6,204) (84,274) (31,833) (818) 

1,063 80 23 3,705 48,531 18,459 464 2010 - - (2,341) (174) (51) (8,165) (106,993) (40,682) (1,023) 

843 117 23 3,045 53,319 20,599 472 2011 - - (1,859) (256) (53) (6,713) (117,548) (45,413) (1,041) 

847 79 20 2,986 57,279 22,608 406 2012 - - (1,868) (174) (44) (6,582) (126,279) (49,842) (895) 

862 118 23 3,111 57,279 23,140 477 2013 - - (1,901) (260) (53) (6,858) (126,279) (51,015) (1,052) 

854 80 20 3,009 61,240 24,972 406 2014 - - (1,883) (176) (44) (6,634) (135,011) (55,054) (895) 

869 118 23 3,135 65,200 26,981 477 2015 - - (1,917) (260) (53) (6,910) (143,741) (59,483) (1,052) 

Note: No emissions of HCl and Cl would occur in the troposphere because under the proposed action no 

solid rocket motor engines would be fired in the troposphere.

Exhibit 4-4 presents the emissions per launch or reentry for each of the 10 vehicle types 

considered (i.e., one Concept 1, three Concept 2, four Concept 3, and two reentry vehicles). 

Appendix F provides detailed descriptions of the different vehicles types and how the emissions 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-6 

per launch or reentry for each vehicle type were calculated. Exhibit F-39 provides the estimated 

number of annual launches of each vehicle type.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit 4-4. Estimated Emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) by LV Launch or RV Reentry Based 

Vehicle Type Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry, Kilograms (Pounds) 

by Concept HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 H

Concept 1 Vehicles 

Vehicle Type A - - 11 (24) 0.5 (1.1) 0.2 (0.4) 38 (83) - 

Concept 2 Vehicles 

Vehicle Type B - - - - - - 478 (1,055) 1

(3

Vehicle Type C - - - - - - 958 (2,111) 3

(7

TBD Concept 2 Vehiclea - - - - - - 792 (1,746) 2

(6

Concept 3 Vehicles 

Vehicle Type Db - - 11 (24) 0.6 (1.3) 0.3 (0.7) 38 (84) - Vehicle Type E - - 11 (24) 30 (65) 2.3 (5.1) 93 (204) - Vehicle Type Fb - - 0.2 (0.4) 8.3 (18) 1.4 (3.1) 18 (41) - TBD Concept 3 Vehicleb,c - - 11 (23) 2.5 (5.5) 0.4 (0.9) 40 (88) - 

Reentry Vehicles 

Reentry Vehicle – Rocket - - - - - - - 7

(1,

Reentry Vehicle – Jet - - 5.5 (12) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.2) 19 (41) - a Because these vehicles have yet to be identified, it was assumed that the per launch emissions were equal to the average of the Concep

(weighted based on the number of launches of each type of Concept 2 vehicle between 2005-2015). b The available emissions factors do not include PM emissions from the (N2O/HTPB) rocket engines assumed to be used by these vehic

are expected to generate particulate matter emissions (Wright, et al, 2005; Chouinard, et al, 2002); however, analyses of other vehicle 

emissions than would be expected with these vehicle types indicate these emissions have no significant impact; thus, any PM emissiowould be expected to have negligible impacts. c Because these vehicles have yet to be identified, it was assumed that the per launch emissions were equal to the average of the Concep

(weighted based on the number of launches of each type of Concept 3 vehicle between 2005-2015).
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-8 

Criteria Pollutants 

EPA has set national air quality standards for six common pollutants, referred to as “criteria” 

pollutants. These criteria pollutants include ozone, PM, CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. Depending on 

the vehicle and propellant type, LV and RV emissions can contain any of these pollutants with 

the exception of Pb. A conformity analysis would be required if a horizontal LV launch or RV 

reentry occurred in a region that was in non-attainment for a particular criteria pollutant. The 

Federal government is exempt from the requirements to perform a conformity analysis if (1) the 

ongoing activities do not produce emissions above the de minimis levels specified in the rule; 

and (2) the Federal action is not 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. This PEIS 

compares annual emissions to the de minimis levels. Determination of regional significance 

would be determined through site-specific analysis. 

If a horizontal LV launch or RV reentry occurred in a region that was in non-attainment for 

Federal attainment standards for ozone, a conformity analysis would be required if the emissions 

of ozone precursors (VOC or NOX) exceed the applicable de minimis levels on an annual basis. 

Exhibit 4-3 indicates that in the years with the highest ozone emissions (2013 and 2015), the 

total annual NOX and VOC emissions for the proposed action from all horizontal launches and 

reentries would be 118 kilograms (260 pounds) and 477 kilograms (1,052 pounds), respectively. 

Even if all horizontal launches and reentries were assumed to occur in the same region (which is 

highly unlikely), both the total annual NOX or VOC emissions would be substantially below the 

de minimis level of 9,072 kilograms (10 tons) per year for an area in severe non-attainment (the 

worst type of non-attainment status for ozone). In addition, the maximum annual emissions from 

all horizontal launches and reentries in the U.S. only represent 5 x 10-7 percent and 3 x 10-6

percent of the total emissions of NOX and VOC, respectively, in the year 2002. (U.S. EPA 

OAQPS, 2004) Thus, NOX or VOC emissions associated with the proposed action would not 

result in a significant impact on ambient air quality. 

The estimated horizontal launch and reentry emissions of PM below 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

under the proposed action during the period 2005 to 2015 range from about 77 kilograms 

(0.1 ton) to 1,063 kilograms (1 ton) annually, summed across all horizontal launches and 

reentries. By comparison, the total annual PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from all U.S. sources for 

2002 were approximately 2.2 billion kilograms and 1.6 billion kilograms (2.4 and 1.8 million 

tons), respectively. (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004) If it were conservatively assumed that 100 

percent of the emissions from the proposed action are PM10, these emissions from the year with 

the highest emissions (2010) would only comprise approximately 5 x 10-5 percent of the total 

annual PM10 emissions nationwide, based on 2002 emission estimates. (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 

2004) Likewise, if it were assumed that 100 percent of PM emissions from the proposed action 

are PM2.5, these emissions would only comprise approximately 6 x 10-5 percent of total PM2.5

emissions for the year 2002. (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004) Even if all horizontal launches and 

reentries were assumed to occur in the same region (which is highly unlikely), the total annual 

PM10 emissions would be substantially below the de minimis level of 63,640 kilograms (70 tons) 

per year for an area in serious non-attainment (the worst type of non-attainment status for PM10). 

Given the magnitude of PM emissions from horizontal launches and reentries relative to total 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-9 

annual PM emissions nationwide, and the fact that the emissions are far below the de minimis

level, PM emissions associated with the proposed action would not result in a significant impact 

on ambient air quality. 

If a horizontal launch or reentry occurred in a region that was in non-attainment for Federal 

attainment standards for CO, a conformity analysis would be required if the emissions of CO 

were above certain de minimis levels per year. The total estimated horizontal launch and reentry 

emissions of CO below 914 meters (3,000 feet) for the proposed action for the period 2005 to 

2015 range from about 320 kilograms (0.4 ton) to 3,704 kilograms (4 tons) annually, summed 

across all horizontal launches and reentries. By comparison, the total annual CO emissions from 

all U.S. sources for 2002 were over 96 million tons. (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004) The incremental 

contribution of horizontal launch and reentry emissions from the proposed action would be an 

extremely small fraction (less than 4 x 10-6 percent) of this amount, even for the year in which 

CO emissions are highest (i.e., 2010). Even if all horizontal launches and reentries were 

assumed to occur in the same region (which is highly unlikely), the total annual CO emissions 

would be substantially below the de minimis level of 90,718 kilograms (100 tons) per year for an 

area in non-attainment. Given the small amount of CO emissions from horizontal launches and 

reentries relative to the total annual emissions, and the fact that the emissions would be far below 

the de minimis level, CO emissions associated with the proposed action would not result in a 

significant impact on ambient air quality. 

In addition to contributing to the formation of ozone, NO2 can cause respiratory problems in 

humans, contribute to the formation of acid rain and nutrient overload that deteriorates water 

quality, and reduce visibility. A conformity analysis would be required if the following 

conditions apply: (1) a horizontal launch or reentry occurred in a region that was in nonattainment for Federal NO2 attainment standards, and (2) the emissions of NO2 exceeded the 

applicable de minimis levels per year. Even if all horizontal launches and reentries were 

assumed to occur in the same region (which is highly unlikely), the total annual NOX emissions 

(part of which is NO2) of 116 kilograms (0.1 ton) for the years with the highest NOX emissions 

(2013 and 2015) would be substantially below the de minimis level of 90,910 kilograms (100 

tons) per year for an area in non-attainment. Thus, NO2 emissions associated with the proposed 

action would not result in a significant impact on ambient air quality. 

SO2 and NOX together are the major precursors to acidic deposition (i.e., acid rain), which is 

associated with the acidification of soils, lakes, and streams and accelerated corrosion of 

buildings and monuments. SO2 also is a major precursor to PM2.5, which is a health concern and 

a main contributor to poor visibility. If a horizontal launch or reentry occurred in a region that 

was in non-attainment for SOX for Federal attainment standards, a conformity analysis would be 

required if the emissions of SOX exceeded the applicable de minimis levels per year. 

The estimated horizontal LV and RV emissions of SOX below 914 meters (3,000 feet) for the 

proposed action during the period 2005 to 2015 would range from about 4 kilograms (0.004 ton) 

to 23 kilograms (0.03 ton) annually, summed across all horizontal launches and reentries. By 

comparison, the total annual SO2 emissions from all U.S. sources for 2002 were over 13 metric 

tons (15 million tons). (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004) The incremental contribution of horizontal 

launch and reentry emissions would be an extremely small fraction (less than 2 x 10-7 percent) of 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-10 

this amount, even for the years in which CO emissions would be the highest (i.e., 2011, 2013, 

and 2015). In addition, even if all horizontal launches and reentries were assumed to occur in the 

same region (which is highly unlikely), the total annual SOX emissions would be substantially 

below the de minimis level of 90,910 kilograms (100 tons) per year for an area in non-attainment. 

Thus, SOX emissions associated with the proposed action would not result in a significant impact 

on ambient air quality. Given the small NOX and SOX emissions associated with the proposed 

action relative to the total annual emissions and the fact that the emissions would be far below 

the de minimis level, NOX and SOX emissions would not result in a significant impact on ambient 

air quality, the formation of acid rain, or visibility. 

For the purposes of this PEIS, the operational emissions associated with a launch site for 

horizontal launches would include the emissions from the launch vehicle and its support aircraft. 

As provided above, even if FAA assumed that all the horizontal launches and reentries would 

occur in the same region (which is highly unlikely), none of the de minimis thresholds for 

NAAQS would be exceeded; therefore, the emissions associated with the proposed action would 

conform to the SIP. Emissions associated with other launch site operations including generators, 

fueling activities, boilers, or other activities that would result in emissions, were not included in 

this analysis. Such impacts and whether or not they would be considered to be a significant 

impact would be addressed in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. 

Air Toxics 

Two HAPs (HCl and Cl) also called air toxics, are sometimes components of rocket engine 

emissions, depending on the propellant type. None of the programmatic horizontal LVs that use 

solid rocket motors ignite these motors in the troposphere; thus no HCl or Cl is emitted to the 

troposphere from horizontal LVs. In addition, none of the programmatic RVs with powered 

landings use propellants that result in HCl or Cl emissions. 

Regional Haze 

The FAA reviewed the regional haze rule (64 FR 35714, dated July 1, 1999), which requires 

states to develop SIPs to address visibility at designated mandatory Class I areas, including 156 

designated national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges. General features of the 

regional haze rule are that all states are required to prepare an emissions inventory of all hazerelated pollutants (i.e., VOC, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and NH3) from all sources in all 

constituent counties. Most states will develop their regional haze SIP in conjunction with their 

PM2.5 SIP over the next several years. 

The five member states of WRAP are Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon. 

WRAP has elected to submit regional haze SIPs under the provisions of Section 309 of the 

regional haze rule, which includes a CAC that extends from Nevada and Utah to Oregon and 

Idaho. Those preliminary regional haze SIPs were submitted to EPA in December 2003. The 

WRAP policy on CACs, completed on November 13, 2002, concluded that a 25 percent increase 

in weighted emissions would have only a minimal impact on visibility at Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau. (WRAP, 2002) The minimal emissions of the haze-related pollutants 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-11 

associated with the proposed action would have a negligible impact on the visibility at the 

designated Class I areas. 

4.1.1.2 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, there would be no emissions from RVs. This would result in a reduction in 

emissions in the troposphere (between zero and five percent, on average) relative to the proposed 

action. Thus, the overall impacts on air quality in the troposphere from alternative 1 would be 

the same or slightly less than those posed from the proposed action. 

4.1.1.3 Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, the emissions from RVs would be twice as much as in the proposed action. 

However, this would only result in an increase in emissions in the troposphere (between zero and 

five percent, on average) from the proposed action. A five percent increase of emissions in the 

troposphere over the proposed action would not exceed any established de minimis thresholds for 

ambient air quality. Thus, the overall impacts on air quality in the troposphere from alternative 2 

would be the same or slightly more than those posed from the proposed action. 

4.1.1.4 Alternative 3 

Under alternative 3, the overall emissions to the troposphere from the proposed action would be 

reduced for most pollutants of interest. This reduction would be approximately 40 percent for 

PM, 20 percent for CO, 70 percent for NOX, 50 percent for VOCs, and 60 percent for SOX. 

There were no estimated changes in emissions from the proposed action for the other pollutants 

of interest. Thus, the overall impacts on air quality in the troposphere from alternative 3 would 

be less than those posed from the proposed action. 

4.1.1.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, 

there would be no addition or removal of emissions to the troposphere. Air quality in the 

troposphere would not be impacted by implementation of the no action alternative. 

4.1.2 Stratosphere 

The following subsections present the impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives on the 

stratosphere. 

4.1.2.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, the potential impacts to the stratosphere that may result from 

horizontal LV and RV emissions include global warming from contributions of greenhouse gases 

and depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. The potential for these impacts is discussed in 

this section. Emissions to the stratosphere were calculated by estimating the emissions per 

launch or reentry for each vehicle type, multiplying these per launch or reentry estimates by the 

estimated annual launches for each vehicle type, and then summing across all vehicle types. The 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-12 

emissions per launch or reentry by vehicle are provided in Exhibit 4-5 and described in detail in 

Appendix F. There were 10 different vehicle types in this analysis (one type for Concept 1, three 

for Concept 2, four for Concept 3, and two reentry vehicles), and thus there are multiple vehicle 

types listed for Concepts 2 and 3 and reentry vehicles. There are no estimated emissions for one 

Concept 3 vehicle type (Vehicle Type F) or either reentry vehicle type because these vehicles are 

not expected to consume any propellant while in the stratosphere. The estimated annual number 

of launches for each vehicle type is also provided in Exhibits F-41 to F-43 in Appendix F. 

Estimated annual emissions to the stratosphere (across all vehicle types) are presented in 

Exhibit 4-6. 

Exhibit 4-5. Estimated Emissions in Stratosphere by LV Launch or RV Reentry Based on 

Vehicle Type 

Vehicle Type Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry, Kilograms (Pounds) 

by Concept HCl Cl PM NOX CO CO2 H2O 

Concept 1 Vehicles 

Vehicle Type A - - - - 648 

(1,428) 

1,589 

(3,502) 

973 

(2,144) 

Concept 2 Vehicles 

Vehicle Type B - - - - 516 

(1,138) 

1,264 

(2,787) 

774 

(1,706) 

Vehicle Type C - - - - 1,032 

(2,275) 

2,528 

(5,573) 

1,548 

(3,413) 

TBD Concept 2 

Vehiclea - - - - 854 

(1,883) 

2,092 

(4,612) 

1,281 

(2,824) 

Concept 3 Vehicles 

Vehicle Type D - - - - 305 

(672) 

46 

(101) 

335 

(739) 

Vehicle Type E 3,153 

(6,951) 

23 

(51) 

5,705 

(12,577) 

50 

(110) - 6,906 (15,225) 

4,054 

(8,938) 

Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - 

TBD Concept 3 

Vehicleb

171 

(377) 

1.2 

(2.6) 

310 

(683) 

2.7 

(6.0) 

275 

(606) 

417 

(919) 

523 

(1,153) 

Reentry Vehicles 

Reentry 

Vehicle – 

Rocket 

- - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Vehicle – Jet - - - - - - - 

a

 Because these vehicles have yet to be identified, it was assumed that the per launch emissions were equal to the 

average of the Concept 2 vehicle emissions (weighted based on the number of launches of each type of Concept 2 

vehicle between 2005-2015). 

b

 Because these vehicles have yet to be identified, it was assumed that the per launch emissions were equal to the 

average of the Concept 3 vehicle emissions (weighted based on the number of launches of each type of Concept 3 

vehicle between 2005-2015).
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-13 

Exhibit 4-6. Estimated Annual Emissions to the Stratosphere (All Vehicle Types 

Combined), Kilograms (Pounds) 

HCl Cl PM CO CO2 NOX H2O 

3,153 23 5,705 4,408 13,502 50 9,934 2005 

(6,951) (51) (12,577) (9,718) (29,766) (110) (21,901) 

24,401 54,177 35,627 2006 - - - (53,795) (119,439) - (78,544) 

171 1 310 54,992 127,465 3 81,381 2007 (377) (2) (683) (121,238) (281,012) (7) (179,414)

4,010 29 7,256 72,069 175,182 63 111,491 2008 (8,841) (64) (15,997) (158,885) (386,211) (139) (245,796)

2,571 18 4,652 80,184 186,993 41 120,958 2009 (5,668) (40) (10,255) (176,776) (412,249) (89) (266,667)

2,571 18 4,652 107,189 253,853 41 161,587 2010 (5,668) (40) (10,255) (236,312) (559,650) (89) (356,239)

6,581 47 11,907 97,209 235,727 104 151,344 2011 (14,509) (104) (26,250) (214,308) (519,688) (228) (333,656)

3,428 24 6,202 101,782 239,325 54 154,029 2012 (7,557) (53) (13,673) (224,391) (527,621) (119) (339,575)

6,581 47 11,907 101,782 246,231 104 158,083 2013 (14,509) (104) (26,250) (224,391) (542,847) (228) (348,512)

3,428 24 6,202 106,051 249,784 54 160,432 2014 (7,557) (53) (13,673) (233,803) (550,679) (119) (353,693)

6,581 47 11,907 110,320 267,149 104 170,890 2015 (14,509) (104) (26,250) (243,214) (588,963) (228) (376,747)

Global Warming 

Under the proposed action, the potential horizontal LV emissions that may affect global warming 

directly as greenhouse gases include CO2 and H2O. An approximation of the potential for these 

LV emissions to affect global warming was obtained by comparing the estimated annual 

horizontal LV emissions of each pollutant to stratosphere (see Exhibit 4-6) to the annual 

emissions from all U.S. sources for these pollutants. The estimated horizontal LV emissions of 

CO2 to the stratosphere for the period 2005 to 2015 would range from about 13 metric tons 

(15 tons) to 263 metric tons (294 tons) annually. By comparison, the total annual CO2 emissions 

from all U.S. sources for 1999 were over 5.5 billion metric tons (6.1 billion tons). (U.S. EPA, 

2001) The incremental contribution of horizontal LV emissions would be an extremely small 

fraction (less than 5 x 10-5 percent) of this amount, even for the year in which CO2 emissions are 

highest (i.e., 2015), which would result in a negligible impact on global warming. Horizontal 

LV emissions of H2O would also have an insignificant effect on global warming due to the 

preponderance of other natural and anthropogenic sources of H2O. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-14 

CO and NOX, two photochemically important pollutants that can influence the creation and 

destruction of greenhouse gases, also would be present in horizontal LV emissions. 

Contributions from horizontal LV emissions of these pollutants to the atmospheric burden, 

however, would be extremely small relative to U.S. annual emissions (over 100 billion kilograms 

[111 million tons] and 22 billion kilograms [25 million tons] of CO and NOX, respectively) for 

2000. (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004) As a result, the presence of these chemicals in horizontal LV 

emissions would have a negligible impact on global warming. 

Ozone Depletion 

Under the proposed action, only Concept 3 LVs would emit primary chemicals of concern (HCl 

and Cl). To assess the potential impact of emissions to the stratosphere associated with the 

proposed action, several relatively recent studies on the contribution of LV emissions on ozone 

depletion were reviewed. The field study on Rocket Impact on Stratospheric Ozone (RISO) 

confirmed that ozone depletion related to launch emissions is a temporary and limited 

phenomenon. In general, findings from this study indicate that the potential for ozone depletion 

associated with LV exhaust to cause an increase in solar UV intensity near launch sites is 

extremely limited. (Ross et al., 2000) 

A study carried out by the World Meteorological Organization considered the effects of Cl 

releases from launches of the Space Shuttle, Titan IV, and Ariane 5, which were estimated to 

release a total of 150,000 kilograms (1,570 tons) of Cl per year to the stratosphere. This release 

amount was reported to be an extremely small fraction (less than 0.07 percent) of the 1994 total 

stratospheric burden of chlorine from industrial sources. (World Meteorological Organization, 

1995) This amount is, in turn, substantially larger than the total HCl and Cl that would be 

released by LV emissions under the proposed action, indicating that the impacts on ozone 

depletion would be insignificant. 

An additional study conducted for the EA of the Atlas IIAS concluded that the ozone depletion 

potential from that launch, which was reported to emit about 7,200 kilograms (7.9 tons) of HCl, 

was relatively low. (Versar, Inc., 1991) By comparison, horizontal LV emissions from a 

Concept 3 launch (the only one of the three launch concepts that would result in stratospheric 

HCl emissions) are less than 180 kilograms (0.2 ton) per launch. Furthermore, an additional 

study entitled “Atmospheric Environmental Implications of Propulsion Systems” concluded that 

even vastly increased launch activities (e.g., 50 Space Shuttle or Energia launches per year) 

would not significantly impact stratospheric ozone depletion. This study found that although 

LVs do release chlorine into the atmosphere as HCl, the global effects would be far below and 

indistinguishable from the effects caused by other natural and man-made causes. (McDonald et 

al., 1994 as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS) 

PM also would be emitted to the stratosphere by some of the LVs associated with the proposed 

action. PM may affect stratospheric ozone, possibly by acting as a catalytic site for ozone 

destruction; however, the exact impact of PM on ozone depletion is unclear. A 1999 study 

prepared for the USAF on the stratospheric impact of solid rocket motor launch emissions 

concluded that the global impacts of PM from such emissions on ozone depletion are very small. 

(Ko et al., 1999) The estimated total emissions of Al2O3 (i.e., PM) to the stratosphere used in 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-15 

calculations for that study were approximately 1,015 metric tons per year (1,120 tons per year). 

This amount is larger than the 10-year total emissions of PM estimated for all launch types in the 

current assessment; therefore, the impacts of PM emissions associated with the proposed action 

on stratospheric ozone depletion would be negligible. 

Releases of NOX can also result from LV emissions, and NOX is a chemical of concern for ozone 

depletion. However, emissions of NOX from horizontal LVs and RVs would be extremely small 

relative to total U.S. emissions of NOX. About 19 million metric tons (21 million tons) were 

released in the U.S. in 2002 alone (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004), and it is anticipated that total 

global emissions over the 10-year period between 2005 and 2015 would be substantially larger. 

4.1.2.2 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, there would be no emissions from RVs. Because all reentry emissions were 

estimated to occur in the troposphere, the emissions to the stratosphere under alternative 1 would 

be the same as under the proposed action. Thus the overall air quality impacts in the stratosphere 

from alternative 1 would be the same as the impacts associated with the proposed action. 

4.1.2.3 Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, the emissions from RVs would be twice as much as in the proposed action. 

Because all reentry emissions would occur in the troposphere, the emissions to the stratosphere 

under alternative 2 would be the same as under the proposed action. Thus the overall air quality 

impacts in the stratosphere from alternative 2 would be the same as the impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

4.1.2.4 Alternative 3 

Under alternative 3, the overall emissions to the stratosphere from the proposed action would be 

reduced or eliminated for most pollutants of interest. Emissions would be reduced by 10 percent 

for CO and CO2, and 20 percent for H2O. There would be no changes in emissions from the 

proposed action for the other pollutants of interest. Thus, the overall impacts on air quality in the 

stratosphere from alternative 3 would be less than those associated with the proposed action. 

4.1.2.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, 

there would be no addition or removal of emissions to the stratosphere. Air quality in the 

stratosphere would not be impacted by implementation of the no action alternative. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-16 

4.1.3 Mesosphere 

The following subsections present the impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives on the 

mesosphere. 

4.1.3.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, negligible impacts on the mesosphere would occur during normal 

launches. The mesosphere is a relatively narrow band of the atmosphere where rockets tend to 

pass through fairly quickly. For launches and reentries under the proposed action, the amount of 

rocket emissions in this layer would be extremely small. Furthermore, impacts in the 

mesosphere associated with the compounds emitted by LVs are not known to exist. 

4.1.3.2 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, there would be no emissions from RVs. Because all reentry emissions 

would occur in the troposphere, the emissions to the mesosphere under alternative 1 would be the 

same as under the proposed action. Thus the overall air quality impacts in the mesosphere from 

alternative 1 would be the same as the impacts associated with the proposed action. Because 

there are negligible impacts to the mesosphere associated with the proposed action, there would 

be negligible impacts to the mesosphere associated with alternative 1.

4.1.3.3 Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, the emissions from RVs would be twice as much as in the proposed action. 

Because all reentry emissions would occur in the troposphere, the emissions to the mesosphere 

under alternative 2 would be the same as under the proposed action. Thus the overall air quality 

impacts in the mesosphere from alternative 2 would be the same as the impacts associated with 

the proposed action. Because there are negligible impacts to the mesosphere associated with the 

proposed action, there would be no impacts to the mesosphere associated with alternative 2. 

4.1.3.4 Alternative 3 

Under alternative 3, the overall emissions to the mesosphere from the proposed action would be 

reduced or eliminated for most pollutants of interest. Thus the overall air quality impacts in the 

mesosphere from alternative 3 would be the less than the negligible impacts associated with the 

proposed action.

4.1.3.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, 

there would be no addition or removal of emissions to the mesosphere. Air quality in the 

mesosphere would not be impacted by implementation of the no action alternative.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-17 

4.1.4 Ionosphere 

The following subsections present the impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives on the 

ionosphere. 

4.1.4.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, some exhaust products from horizontal LVs21 during launch from 

Earth to space have been found to have a temporary effect on electron concentrations in the F 

layer of the ionosphere.22 Such a temporary effect would result in a negligible impact on the 

ionosphere. The specific exhaust products include CO2, H2O, and H. These compounds can 

react with ambient electrons and ions in the F layer of the ionosphere to effectively form a “hole” 

in this region by reducing the concentration of electrons and ions within the path of the vehicle. 

This effect in the F layer is believed to be caused by a rapid charge-exchange reaction between 

the LV exhaust products and the ambient atomic oxygen ions (O+) in the F layer. Ambient O+s 

are the dominant ion in the F layer. At lower altitudes of the ionosphere (i.e., below 140 

kilometers [87 miles]), this reaction is not effective because the dominant positive ions are NO+

and O2

+

, not O+. For example, the reaction between H2O and O+ is 

H2O + O+ → H2O+ + O 

followed by the rapid recombination 

H2O+ + e- → OH- + HSimilar reactions also occur with CO2 and H. These reactions result in a net decrease in electron 

concentration in the F layer, potentially affecting radio communication, such as short-wave 

broadcasts, which interact with the ionosphere. (U.S. DOT, 1992) 

An experimental test firing of the propulsion unit used by the Space Shuttle for maneuvering 

within the ionosphere was conducted in 1985. This test firing provides some data on the rapidity 

with which a “hole” in the F layer may disappear. The propellants used in this test firing were 

monomethylhydrazine (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), similar to the propellants used for 

routine launches of other LVs.23 The test involved consuming 290 kilograms (640 pounds) total 

mass of MMH and N2O4. Exhaust products from this experimental test firing consisted of 

approximately 117.7 kilograms (260 pounds) (40.6 percent) N, 92.5 kilograms (203 pounds) 

(31.9 percent) CO2, 75.7 kilograms (166 pounds) (26.1 percent) H2O, and 4.1 kilograms (9 

pounds) (1.4 percent) H. The percentages represent percent by mass, and complete combustion 

was assumed. Thus, about 172 kilograms (344 pounds) of potential electron-depleting 

substances (CO2, H2O, and H) were emitted. The associated “ion/electron hole” disappeared into 

the lower F layer within five minutes. 

 

21 Reentry vehicles are not expected to have impacts on the ionosphere because they do not use engines at these 

altitudes. 22 The F layer is the highest region of the ionosphere. 

23 Neither of these specific propellants is proposed to be used by horizontally launched LVs; however, the 

persistence of the ion/electron hole produced by these vehicles may be similar to that observed in this study. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-18 

The amount of electron-depleting substances released per horizontal LV launch is presented in 

Exhibit 4-7. The largest amount per launch that would occur under the proposed action would be 

approximately 1,385 kilograms (3,053 pounds). This is about eight times the amount of exhaust 

products released during Space Shuttle testing. Data are unavailable to estimate the differences 

in the size of the “ion/electron hole” that might be created with larger vehicles and the amount of 

time it would take for these holes to dissipate. However, other studies of the Saturn V launch of 

Skylab that measured the size of the ionospheric hole created by that launch suggest that in the 

worst case, the ionospheric hole appears to dissipate in a matter of minutes. (Mendillo et al., 

1975 as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS) In addition, for the vehicles 

considered in the current assessment, no parking orbit exists, resulting in a rather short-term 

effect on the ionosphere. Therefore, it does not appear that the effects of this phenomenon could 

accumulate to any degree, unless there were launches through the same region of the atmosphere 

every few minutes (which is highly unlikely). 

Exhibit 4-7. Estimated Range of Emissions of Electron-depleting Substances Released into 

the Ionosphere 

Range in kilograms (pounds) Pollutant 

Minimum Maximum 

H - - 

H2O 835 (1,841) 1,240 (2,734) 

CO2 93 (205) 145 (320) 

Total electron-depleting 

substances 1,040 (2,293) 1,385 (3,053) 

4.1.4.2 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, there would be no emissions from RVs. Because all reentry emissions 

would occur in the troposphere, the emissions to the ionosphere under alternative 1 would be the 

same as under the proposed action. Thus the overall air quality impacts in the ionosphere from 

alternative 1 would be the same as the impacts associated with the proposed action. 

4.1.4.3 Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, the emissions from RVs would be twice as much as in the proposed action. 

Because all reentry emissions would occur in the troposphere, the emissions to the ionosphere 

under alternative 2 would be the same as under the proposed action. Thus the overall air quality 

impacts in the ionosphere from alternative 2 would be the same as the impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

4.1.4.4 Alternative 3 

Under alternative 3, the overall emissions to the ionosphere from the proposed action would be 

eliminated for most pollutants of interest. The Concept 1 and Concept 3 vehicles analyzed do 

not use their engines in the ionosphere, whereas some of the Concept 2 vehicles do. By not 

licensing Concept 2 vehicles, all emissions to the ionosphere would be eliminated. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-19 

4.1.4.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of LVs 

and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, there 

would be no addition or removal of emissions to the ionosphere. Air quality in the ionosphere 

would not be impacted by implementation of the no action alternative. 

4.2 Airspace 

The following subsections discuss the impacts associated with each alternative on airspace and 

the use of designated airspace. 

4.2.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, the FAA would issue licenses for the horizontal launch of LVs and 

reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities. Because the launch 

profiles and flight paths for each of the proposed 1,279 horizontal launches, as well as the reentry 

profiles and flight paths of the 51 reentries, must under undergo FAA’s safety review and 

approval process, such launch and reentry activities would not result in a significant impact on 

designated airspace or its use. 

The FAA safety review and approval process determines whether a license applicant, payload 

owner, or operator has obtained all required licenses, authorizations, and permits. (See 

Appendix A, FAA Licensing Program, for additional information.) Under this process, the 

applicant may be required to obtain airspace use authorizations to use military airspace or may 

be required to coordinate with the FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) to provide 

for adequate airspace safety during launch or reentry activities. (See Appendix D, Regulatory 

Process Description for more information.) The same safety review and approval process would 

be followed for the development of a new launch or reentry site that would accommodate 

horizontally launched LVs or reentry or RVs. The establishment of any new designated airspace 

with such a facility would be addressed in a subsequent site-specific analysis. 

4.2.2 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, FAA’s safety review and approval process would be followed for the 

licenses issued under this alternative, as described under the proposed action; therefore, 

designated airspace or its use would not be significantly impacted by implementation of 

alternative 1. 

4.2.3 Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, FAA’s safety review and approval process would be followed for the 

licenses issued under this alternative, as described under the proposed action; therefore, 

designated airspace or its use would not be significantly impacted by implementation of 

alternative 2. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-20 

4.2.4 Alternative 3 

Under alternative 3, FAA’s safety review and approval process would be followed for the 

licenses issued under this alternative, as described under the proposed action; therefore, 

designated airspace or its use would not be significantly impacted by implementation of 

alternative 3. 

4.2.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, 

there would be no addition or removal of aircraft within designated airspace. Designated 

airspace or its use would not be impacted by implementation of the no action alternative. 

4.3 Biological Resources 

The following subsections present the impacts associated with the proposed action and the 

alternatives on biological resources. 

4.3.1 Proposed Action 

4.3.1.1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Vegetation 

The proposed action may result in local adverse impacts on vegetation. Such impacts would 

result from the deposition of rocket engine emissions (e.g., HCl, various metals, and other 

substances based on the propellant type and characteristics), which would decrease the fitness of 

an affected local plant population, but would not likely result in the permanent removal or loss of 

a particular vegetative community. (See Section 4.1, Atmosphere for additional information on 

rocket engine emissions.) Additionally, the development of new launch or reentry facilities, or 

the modification of existing facilities, may result in the removal or alteration of existing 

vegetative communities, causing an adverse impact. Finally, the deposition of LV stages 

(booster rockets) or the landing of an RV in vegetative areas would result in an adverse impact 

on the localized vegetative community. Such impacts, and whether or not they would be 

considered a significant impact, would be addressed in a site-specific NEPA document that 

would tier from this PEIS. (See Section 8, Fish, Wildlife, and Plants of Appendix A, FAA Order 

1050.1E for additional information.)

4.3.1.2 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife 

The proposed action may result in local adverse impacts on wildlife. Such impacts would result 

from the deposition of rocket engine emissions (e.g., HCl, various metals, and other substances 

based on the propellant type and characteristics), which may be absorbed, inhaled, or ingested by 

local wildlife. (See Section 4.1, Atmosphere for additional information on rocket engine 

emissions.) Additionally, the removal of a vegetative community, or the decrease in the fitness 

of it, would reduce the size of the wildlife population that such an area would be able to support, 

increase the competition amongst the wildlife species for the reduced resources, and decrease the 

fitness of the local wildlife populations, resulting in an adverse impact on wildlife. The noise 

associated with the launch of an LV or the reentry and landing of an RV may startle wildlife and 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-21 

temporarily disrupt their activities (feeding/foraging, breeding, or resting), resulting in an 

adverse impact (see Section 4.4, Noise). Additional adverse impacts on wildlife would result 

from the development of a new launch or reentry facility, or modification of an existing facility. 

Adverse impacts would occur because the removal of vegetative habitat would reduce the 

amount of wildlife habitat and would preclude species that are intolerant of human disturbances 

and activities from utilizing such areas. Such impacts and whether or not they would be 

considered to be a significant impact would be addressed in a site-specific NEPA document that 

would tier from this PEIS. (See Section 8, Fish, Wildlife, and Plants of Appendix A, FAA Order 

1050.1E for additional information.)

4.3.1.3 State- and Federally-Listed Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species 

The proposed action may result in location- and species-specific adverse impacts on state- or 

federally-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species. Activities could affect habitat, 

reproductive fitness, population size, distribution, or other species-specific activities (e.g., 

feeding/foraging, breeding, migration, or resting). Such impacts and whether or not they would 

be considered a significant impact, would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document that 

would tier from this PEIS. (See Section 8, Fish, Wildlife, and Plants of Appendix A, FAA Order 

1050.1E for additional information.) Appendix D describes the required consultations regarding 

these impacts. 

4.3.2 Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, the impacts and process to consider site-specific impacts on biological 

resources would be the same as those described for the proposed action. 

4.3.3 Alternative 2 

Under alternative 2, the impacts and process to consider site-specific impacts on biological 

resources would be the same as those described for the proposed action. 

4.3.4 Alternative 3 

Under alternative 3, the impacts and process to consider site-specific impacts on biological 

resources would be the same as those described for the proposed action. 

4.3.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, the 

existing conditions would not change and no biological resources would be impacted. No 

additional site-specific NEPA documents would be prepared for horizontal launches of LVs or 

reentry of RVs because such activities would not occur under the no action alternative. 

4.4 Cultural Resources 

The following subsections discuss the impacts associated with the proposed action and the 

alternatives on cultural resources. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-22 

4.4.1 Proposed Action 

The licensing of horizontal launches and reentries under the proposed action is not likely to have 

a significant impact on cultural resources. Such activities would not result in ground disturbing 

activities or alterations that would affect the character or setting of a cultural resource that is 

eligible or listed on the National Register. Should a horizontal launch or reentry require new 

ground disturbing activities, such impacts and whether or not they would be considered a 

significant impact, would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from 

this PEIS. (See Section 11, Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources of 

Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information.) 

The development of a new or modification of an existing launch or reentry facility under the 

proposed action may adversely impact a cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing on 

the National Register. Such impacts would result from ground disturbing activities that would 

physically impact a cultural resource, or the development of a structure or a flight path that 

would adversely affect the setting of a cultural resource. Such impacts and whether or not they 

would be considered a significant impact, would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document 

that would tier from this PEIS. (See Section 11, Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and 

Cultural Resources of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information.) 

In addition to completing the environmental review under NEPA, such activities would conform 

to the regulations and requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, EO 13287, and EO 13007. 

(See Appendix D for a description of the procedures required by these regulations.) Should the 

location of the proposed development of a new, or modification of an existing, launch or reentry 

site impinge upon an Indian Sacred Site, as defined in EO 13007, regardless of whether it is the 

subject of Section 106 consultation or eligible for the National Register, the FAA must consult 

with the Tribe under the AIRFA, EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, and the Executive 

Memorandum dated April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations With Native 

American Tribal Governments.” 

4.4.2 Alternative 1 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.4.3 Alternative 2 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.4.4 Alternative 3 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-23 

4.4.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, 

there would be impact on cultural resources. 

4.5 Geology and Soils 

The following subsections discuss the impacts associated with each alternative on the geology 

and soils in the launch environment. Impacts on geology and soils would be considered 

significant if the proposed action and alternatives resulted in exposure of individuals or 

structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death from 

strong seismic activity. If soils experienced substantial erosion or loss of topsoil, then an impact 

might be considered significant.

4.5.1 Proposed Action 

4.5.1.1 Geology 

Under the proposed action, the horizontal launch of an LV or the reentry of an RV would not 

impact geology. The development or modification of a launch or reentry facility associated with 

such activities may result in geological impacts. Such impacts include geologic mineral right 

claims (mining/drilling activities) and issues with the stability and seismic activity of the 

geologic formations where activities would occur. Such impacts, and whether or not they would 

be considered a significant impact, would be assessed in a site-specific NEPA document that 

would tier from this PEIS. 

4.5.1.2 Soils 

Under the proposed action, the takeoff and subsequent launch of Concept 1 and 3 vehicles would 

not impact soils. Such vehicles would take off from the ground using conventional jet power, 

and would subsequently ignite the rocket engines at altitudes in excess of 6,096 meters (20,000 

feet) MSL. The emissions and deposition (see Section 4.1, Atmosphere) from such activities 

would not result in a significant impact on the structure, composition, or chemical properties of 

the soil. The takeoff and subsequent launch of Concept 2 vehicles would result in ground level 

rocket emissions and deposition (see Section 4.1, Atmosphere). The deposition of rocket engine 

emissions may impact the composition and chemical properties of the soil by increasing the 

concentration of trace metals and increasing the pH. The takeoff of all LVs under the proposed 

action would occur under specific climatic conditions so that the dispersion of any rocket engine 

emissions and associated deposition would occur in areas in the vicinity of the runway. Such 

areas are typically managed areas (mowed and graded areas) adjacent to the runway, which 

would be included in the storm water management plan of a specific facility. In addition to 

addressing water quality issues and runoff, site-specific storm water management plans would 

address surface soil and sediment transport. Because of those factors, such impacts are not 

considered to be significant impacts on soil. 

The unpowered landing of RVs under the proposed action would have no emissions or impacts 

on soil. The powered landing of RVs under the proposed action would have rocket engine 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-24 

emissions and associated deposition. The emissions that would occur near ground surface would 

result in local deposition at and around the reentry facility. The deposition would have similar 

impacts on soil as those described for the launch of Concept 2 vehicles. Such impacts would 

affect managed areas adjacent to reentry landing pads or runways, and as indicated for LVs, such 

impacts would not be considered significant impacts on soil. 

The development of a new or modification of an existing launch or reentry facility to support the 

launch of LVs or reentry of RVs under the proposed action may impact soil. Such impacts 

would occur during construction and would include soil compaction and mixing of soil horizons, 

erosion, and covering with impervious surfaces. Such impacts, and whether or not they would be 

considered a significant impact, would be addressed in a site-specific NEPA document that 

would tier from this PEIS. 

4.5.2 Alternative 1 

Impacts on geology from alternative 1 would be the same as those associated with the proposed 

action. 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in slightly fewer impacts on soils than those 

presented under the proposed action because all RVs would have unpowered landings and would 

not result in emissions and associated deposition. 

4.5.3 Alternative 2 

Impacts on geology from alternative 2 would be the same as those associated with the proposed 

action. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in slightly more impacts on soils than those 

presented under the proposed action because all RVs would have powered landings and would 

result in slightly higher emissions and associated deposition. Section 4.1, Atmosphere, presents 

the amount of increased emissions and deposition. Such impacts would not be considered a 

significant impact on soils. 

4.5.4 Alternative 3 

Impacts on geology from alternative 3 would be the same as those associated with the proposed 

action. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in slightly fewer impacts on soils than those 

presented under the proposed action because rocket powered LVs would not takeoff from the 

ground surface, thereby reducing rocket emissions and associated deposition. 

4.5.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, the 

existing conditions would not change and there would be no impacts on geology or soils. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-25 

4.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste 

The following subsections address the use, release, and disposal of hazardous material and waste 

associated with the proposed action and alternatives.

4.6.1 Proposed Action 

For RVs and LVs associated with the proposed action, the primary hazardous materials used 

would be propellants. All propellants would be stored and used in compliance with Federal 

regulations 14 CFR §420.65 and 14 CFR §420.67 for solid and liquid propellants, respectively. 

In addition to the propellants, the LVs and RVs associated with the proposed action may 

incorporate the use of hazardous materials (various composites, synthetics, and metals) into their 

design. 

All propellants would be burned in the event of an explosion; however, propellants may be 

released into the environment through a variety of sources. Leaks could occur from a leaking 

storage or fuel tank, faulty fuel injection lines, or after an LV or RV sustains damage such as in a 

failed launch or landing, or in a collision with another object. All activities associated with 

USTs, aboveground storage tanks, and fueling activities would comply with all relevant and 

applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. All uncontrolled releases would be reported to 

the appropriate local, state, and Federal authorities and would be cleaned up as necessary. 

Some of the LVs and RVs as well as the payloads carried into space that would be associated 

with the proposed action may incorporate hazardous materials into their design. Reusable and 

expendable stages that contain hazardous material that would be dropped mid-air back to Earth 

or that would not burn up in the atmosphere during reentry and fall to Earth, would be tracked, 

located, and retrieved. The impacts associated with such activities would not result in a 

significant impact from the use of hazardous materials. (See Section 10, Hazardous Materials, 

Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional 

information.) Should LVs or RVs incorporate hazardous materials into an expendable 

component that is permanently discarded, such activities and their impact would be addressed in 

a site-specific NEPA analysis that would tier from this PEIS. 

The development of a new or modification of an existing launch or reentry site under the 

proposed action may include operational activities that use or generate hazardous materials or 

hazardous waste. For example, radar activation activities may produce hazardous materials and 

hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes generated during radar activation activities may consist of 

materials such as waste oils, hydraulic fluids, fire suppressants, antifreeze, cleaning fluids, and 

cutting fluids. In addition, radar components and antenna units may require periodic application 

of petroleum-based lubricating oils. Used petroleum, oil, and lubricants would be generated in 

small amounts that are not normally considered hazardous waste (designation varies by state). 

The minimal quantities of hazardous waste that could potentially be generated would be disposed 

of in accordance with appropriate waste disposal regulations. Accidental releases of hazardous 

materials would be reported to the appropriate local, state, and Federal authorities and would be 

cleaned up as necessary.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-26 

Minor amounts of hazardous materials such as paint, lubricants, cooling fluids, generator fuels, 

and solvents may be used at some launch facilities. These hazardous materials would be stored 

and used in compliance with the regulations applicable to their storage and use already in place 

at designated launch sites. Temporary storage tanks and other facilities for the storage of 

hazardous materials would be located in protected and controlled areas designed to comply with 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rules as outlined in 40 CFR §112. 

All accidental releases of hazardous materials under the proposed action would be subject to 

reporting requirements. Under 40 CFR Part 302, which governs the CERCLA, a release of 

hazardous materials must be reported to the National Response Center if the quantity exceeds its 

reportable quantity as noted in CERCLA §103(a). Reportable quantities for hazardous 

substances are listed in 40 CFR §302.4 and 40 CFR §355. Commercial space transportation 

licensees would also comply with Section 304(a) of the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right to Know Act (EPCRA), promulgated by 40 CFR §355.40, to report accidental releases of 

hazardous materials to the appropriate State Emergency Response Commission and Local 

Emergency Planning Committees of releases greater than the reportable quantity. 

Because the activities associated with the proposed action (horizontal launches of LVs and 

reentry of RVs, the development or modification of a launch or reentry site) would comply with 

all the relevant and applicable Federal, state, and local regulations related to hazardous materials 

and hazardous waste, no significant impacts would result from the implementation of the 

proposed action. (See Section 10, Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste 

of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information.) However, if a launch or reentry 

event results in the release of an expendable component that contains hazardous materials and if 

the component was not collected, such activities and their impacts would be addressed in a sitespecific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. 

4.6.2 Alternative 1 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.6.3 Alternative 2 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.6.4 Alternative 3 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.6.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, 

there would be no impact on hazardous materials and waste. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-27 

4.7 Health and Safety 

The following subsections discuss the impacts associated with each alternative on public health 

and safety. 

4.7.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, the FAA Licensing and Safety Division would be responsible for 

regulating and licensing launch and reentry activities for safety by completing a Mission and 

Safety Review see Appendix A, FAA Licensing Program, for additional information. The 

FAA’s responsibilities include reviewing license applications for adequate safety and developing 

public safety requirements and standards. The Safety Review is a critical part of the licensing 

process and ensures that license applicants comply with established FAA requirements and 

procedures. In addition to the Safety Review, the FAA would complete a hazard analysis to 

support the FAA licensing determination. The hazard analysis assesses the possible hazards 

associated with proposed ground, flight, and landing operations. Launches of LVs and reentries 

of RVs require specific launch and reentry licenses from the FAA, and each applicant would be 

required to conduct a risk analysis. FAA regulations governing the licensing of commercial LVs 

and RVs require licensees to calculate the debris dispersion radius from within the flight corridor 

given particular accident scenarios. 

Licensees under the proposed action and pursuant to the FAA regulations must meet a risk 

tolerance threshold for mission risk to an individual, and for general public health and safety, for 

falling debris generated from a worst-case accident. Potential launch operators would estimate 

the casualty expectation associated with their proposed flight corridors or impact dispersion areas 

for standard and secondary flights routes and operations. All licensed launches and reentries 

under the proposed action would not exceed the 30 x 10-6 risk threshold developed by the FAA. 

The Mission and Safety review process would ensure the selection of a flight corridor, which 

minimizes the risk to public health, safety, and property. As such, the horizontal launch of LVs 

associated with the proposed action would not result in significant impacts on public health and 

safety. 

The selection of flight corridors associated with LVs and RVs would also ensure that the risk 

threshold developed by the FAA is not exceeded. The trajectory of jettisoned expendable or 

reusable launch or reentry assist equipment (booster rockets) typically would be directed to land 

in the open ocean away from populated areas and active shipping lanes. In some cases jettisoned 

expendable or reusable components would be directed to land at designated terrestrial areas, 

which would be cleared of personnel prior to use. As such, the path that the equipment would 

follow, and its subsequent impact on the surface of the Earth, would not result in a significant 

impact on public health and safety. 

The development or modification of a launch or reentry facility that would support the activities 

under the proposed action would incorporate appropriate health and safety standard operating 

procedures to protect both onsite and offsite personnel. Launch and reentry facilities and 

associated launch and reentry trajectories from such facilities would be selected to ensure that 

launch and reentry missions would be able to achieve the FAA established risk threshold. 

Personnel at facilities would be sheltered at a safe distance, as determined by FAA regulations 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-28 

and facility safety personnel, and therefore, would be protected from harmful air emissions, 

debris, and explosions. All FAA safety procedures would be followed, safety zones would be 

established, and participating personnel would be trained and certified to reduce the potential for 

impacts on health and safety. As such, the impacts on health and safety would not be significant. 

Under the proposed action, manned horizontal launches of LVs would expose the flight crew and 

any spaceflight participants to cosmic radiation. Similar to commercial airline pilots, the flight 

crew and spaceflight participants would be exposed to small amounts of cosmic radiation during 

flight. Cosmic radiation stems from high-energy proton radiation from outer space and lower 

energy protons originating from the sun. The lower energy particles emitted from the sun do not 

contribute significantly to levels of cosmic radiation except at times of increased activity from 

the sun and solar flares. In flight exposure, the effect on the body will depend on the route, 

altitude, length of time in the air, and aircraft type. (British Airways, 2004) 

The physical risks of cosmic radiation are very low. For an accumulated dose of 5 millisieverts 

per year over a career span of 20 years, (more than the anticipated annual exposure for crew 

members aboard a long-haul commercial airline), the likelihood of developing cancer due to the 

radiation is 0.4 percent. (British Airways, 2004) In LEO, the geomagnetic field (magnetosphere) 

surrounding the Earth provides substantial shielding against cosmic radiation and solar radiation; 

however, at a certain location over the South Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Brazil, the 

shielding effect is much less effective. This oddity, called the South Atlantic Anomaly, 

drastically increases exposure to cosmic radiation to those flying over the area. (NASA, 2004b) 

Because the duration in space of the manned LVs and RVs associated with the proposed action 

would be short in duration, the exposure to cosmic radiation would be minimal and the 

associated risk would not pose a significant impact on the health and safety of the crew or 

spaceflight participants. 

4.7.2 Alternative 1 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action.

4.7.3 Alternative 2 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.7.4 Alternative 3 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action.

4.7.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, 

there would be no impact on health and safety. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-29 

4.8 Land Use 

The following subsections discuss the impacts associated with each alternative on land use and 

Section 4(f) Resources.

4.8.1 Proposed Action 

4.8.1.1 Land Use 

The licensing of horizontal launches, reentries, and the operation of facilities that conduct these 

activities under the proposed action that conform to local, state, and Federal land use 

management practices would not have a significant impact on land use. The activities under the 

proposed action that would conflict with or preclude such land management practices would 

adversely impact land use. For the development of a new or modification of an existing launch 

or reentry facility to support the activities under the proposed action, the FAA would consult 

with the USDA NRCS to determine if the FPPA applies to the land potentially impacted by the 

proposed action. See Appendix D for a description of the formal consultation procedures. Such 

impacts, and whether or not they would be considered a significant impact, would be analyzed in 

a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. (See Section 4, Compatible Land 

Use of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information.) 

4.8.1.2 Section 4(f) Resources 

In accordance with FAA procedures, the FAA would cooperate and consult with the Secretaries 

of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the state or local 

officials with jurisdiction to identify potential impacts on section 4(f) resources and an analysis 

of such impacts would be considered in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this 

PEIS. (See Appendix D for a discussion of the consultation procedures.) 

The activities associated with the proposed action would conform to the regulations of section 

4(f) of the DOT act. Under section 4(f), the FAA would not approve any proposed action that 

uses publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of 

national, state, or local significance or land from an historic site of national, state, or local 

significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless (1) no feasible and 

prudent alternative exists to the use of such land and such program, and (2) the proposed action 

includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. (See Section 6, DOT 

Act: Sec. 4(f) of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information.) 

4.8.2 Alternative 1 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action for both Land Use and Section 4(f) Resources. 

4.8.3 Alternative 2 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action for both Land Use and Section 4(f) Resources. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-30 

4.8.4 Alternative 3 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action for both Land Use and Section 4(f) Resources. 

4.8.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, 

there would be no change to current land uses and no use of lands qualifying as Section 4(f) 

Resources. Land use would not be impacted by implementation of the no action alternative. 

Section 4(f) Resources would not be impacted by implementation of the no action alternative. 

4.9 Noise 

A significant noise impact would occur if the implementation of an action would cause noisesensitive areas to experience an increase in noise of DNL 1.5 dB or more at or above DNL 65 

dB, when compared to the no action alternative for the same time frame. To calculate the 

impacts associated with noise, a site-specific NEPA analysis would use the most current version 

of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), Heliport Noise Model (HNM), Noise Integrated 

Routing System (NIRS), or equivalent methodology and computer model. The following 

subsections present a review of the noise-related impacts associated with the proposed action and 

each alternative.

4.9.1 Proposed Action 

Activities associated with the proposed action that may impact ambient noise levels include 

sounds generated from a rocket engine or from a jet engine, during launch and landing and sonic 

booms associated with launch and reentry, and the development of a new or modification of an 

existing launch or reentry facility. These noise impacts may affect a particular noise sensitive 

receptor (humans, wildlife, or a structure). The activities that would be performed under the 

proposed action (horizontal launches of an LV and reentry of an RV) would occur at licensed 

launch facilities and at designated reentry locations that would have established noise criteria and 

standards. Should the launch or reentry of such LVs or RVs exceed the level of significance, as 

presented in Appendix A of FAA order 1050.1E, additional noise modeling would be conducted. 

The noise associated with the development and operation of a new or modification of an existing 

launch or reentry facility would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier 

from this PEIS. For a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS, a detailed 

noise analyses would be completed using the most current version of the FAA’s INM, HNM, 

NIRS, or equivalent methodology and computer model, as appropriate. The use of an equivalent 

methodology and computer model (e.g., Area Equivalent Method or Air Traffic Noise Screening 

[ATNS]) would be reviewed and approved from the FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy. 

Engine Noise 

Under the proposed action, ground level noise emissions would result from either jet powered 

(Concept 1 and 3) or rocket powered take off (Concept 2). Jet powered engine take off would 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-31 

generate noise ranging from 110 to 120 dBA, between 15 to 61 meters (50 to 200 feet) from the 

vehicle. (FAA, 2001) At 305 meters (1,000 feet) from the launch site, the noise level would be 

approximately 98 dBA. (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, 1992) Concept 2 vehicles 

would generate noise levels that exceed 128 dBA at 10 meters (33 feet) from the source. (XCOR 

Aerospace, 2004) The ignition (Concept 1 and 3) or full ignition (Concept 2) of a rocket engine 

at or above 6,096 meters (20,000 feet) above the ground surface would not impact noise sensitive 

receptors on the surface of the Earth, as the noise generated at such levels would dissipate and 

lose energy as it would travel through the air towards the surface of the Earth. Although engine 

noise associated with landing would result from powered landings, no engine noise would be 

associated with unpowered landings. Powered landings would use either jet engines or retrothrust rocket engines. The use of either method of powered landing would produce the same or 

less noise than the noise generated during launch. As such, should the noise generated during a 

reentry exceed established noise criteria and standards at a reentry site, a detailed noise analysis 

would be completed. 

Sonic Boom Noise 

Concept 1, 2, and 3 vehicles outlined under the proposed action would reach supersonic speeds 

during launch, and would produce sonic booms. Reentry vehicles with powered and unpowered 

landings would produce sonic booms during reentry; however, once the RV is within the lower 

portions of the atmosphere, it would be traveling at subsonic speeds. The magnitude of a sonic 

boom is measured as overpressure in pounds per square foot (psf). The likely overpressure 

generated by the vehicles associated with the proposed action would be less than 2 psf measured 

on the surface of the Earth. The relatively low psf of the vehicles associated with the proposed 

action is based on the small size of the vehicle (the smaller size, the smaller the pressure wave), 

the launch and reentry trajectories (the more perpendicular to surface of the Earth, the less area 

affected by the pressure wave), and the altitudes at which such vehicles would exceed the speed 

of sound (the higher the elevation the less effect at ground level). The PEIS LL reviewed the 

effects of sonic booms on humans, structures, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and found no 

significant impacts. Because of the relatively low overpressure, the findings of the PEIS LL, the 

limited number of annual launch and reentry events that would result in a sonic boom, and the 

fact that all sonic booms associated with the proposed action would be below the National 

Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and 

Biomechanical criteria for impulse noise threshold sound pressure level of 145 dB, or 365 

Newtons per square meter (7.25 psf); the sonic booms associated with the proposed action would 

not result in significant impacts. 

Activities associated with the proposed action that would expose populated areas, structures, or 

other noise-sensitive areas (e.g., wildlife habitat, sanctuaries, parks, monuments) to sonic boom 

pressure waves greater than or equal to 2 psf would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA analysis 

that would tier from this PEIS. The analysis would indicate whether or not such areas would be 

significantly impacted and would develop appropriate mitigation measures. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-32 

4.9.2 Alternative 1 

Noise impacts associated with alternative 1 would be slightly less than those under the proposed 

action because only RVs with unpowered landings would be licensed; therefore, engine noise 

associated with landing of RVs would be eliminated.

4.9.3 Alternative 2 

Noise impacts associated with alternative 2 would be slightly greater than those under the 

proposed action because all RVs would have powered landings. Therefore, a slight increase in 

overall noise associated with the landings of RVs would occur under alternative 2 as compared 

to the proposed action.

4.9.4 Alternative 3 

Noise impacts associated with alternative 3 would be slightly less than those under the proposed 

action. Alternative 3 would preclude the use of rocket-powered launches from ground surface. 

Because rocket powered launches generate more noise than a jet powered takeoff, the 

elimination of rocket-powered launches from ground surface would decrease the overall noise 

impact as compared to the proposed action.

4.9.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, the 

existing conditions would not change and there would be no additional noise-related impacts. 

4.10 Orbital Debris 

For the purpose of this PEIS, the FAA assumed that some horizontal LVs would be used to 

transport objects and people in LEO (approximately 2,000 kilometers [1,292 miles]) and objects 

into GEO, an altitude approximately 35,786 kilometers (22,241 miles) above the surface of the 

Earth. Debris generated in GEO would continue orbiting the Earth for centuries, if not 

perpetually, before the orbit of the debris decays, drawing it closer and closer to Earth. Debris 

orbiting in lower orbits could reenter relatively quickly, on the order of months or years 

depending on the altitude of the orbit. The duration of orbit varies based on the trajectory, 

velocity, and altitude of an object, with lower altitude orbits decaying faster than high altitude 

orbits. As debris eventually reenters the atmosphere of the Earth, it would most likely be 

incinerated rather than falling back to the surface of the Earth. As an object’s orbit draws closer 

to Earth, atmospheric drag beginning in the upper portions of the atmosphere (i.e., the 

ionosphere) would slow the object down rapidly, causing it to deorbit and either incinerate or fall 

to Earth. The process limits the lifetime of orbital debris to a maximum of a few days for debris 

generated below 200 kilometers (124 miles), a few months for debris originating between 200 

and 400 kilometers (124 and 248 miles), a few years between 400 and 600 kilometers (248 and 

370 miles), decades between 600 and 800 kilometers (370 and 490 miles), centuries over 800 

kilometers (490 miles), and potentially forever if over 36,000 kilometers (22,300 miles). (NASA 

Johnson Space Center, 2004) 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-33 

4.10.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, LVs and RVs would contribute to the existing debris orbiting the 

Earth, collectively known as orbital debris. The majority of the LVs and RVs associated with the 

proposed action would operate well below LEO (2,000 kilometers [1,242 miles]), and most 

likely below 200 kilometers (124 miles). (NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, 2004) Debris 

generated at this altitude would rapidly drop into successively lower orbits and either be 

incinerated during reentry or would survive reentry and fall back to the surface of the Earth. The 

risk that an individual would be hit and injured by reentering orbital debris is estimated to be less 

than one in one trillion. (The Aerospace Corporation, 2005) As a reference point, the risk that an 

individual in the U.S. will be struck by lightning is approximately one in 1.4 million. Over the 

last 40 years, more than 1,400 metric tons (1,543 tons) of material is estimated to have survived 

reentry with no reported casualties. (The Aerospace Corporation, 2005) 

For each orbit altitude (i.e., below LEO, LEO, Medium Earth Orbit [MEO], and GEO), as 

presented in Section 3.1.4, Orbital Debris, the following presents a discussion of the impacts 

related to solid rocket motor ejecta, operational debris, fragmentation debris, and deterioration 

debris. 

Solid Rocket Motor Ejecta

Under the proposed action, particulates would be emitted into the space environment when 

rocket motors powered by solid or solid/liquid (hybrid) propellants are fired. Rocket motors are 

activated to move the LV to a desired location in space, such as to a trajectory that would allow 

the placement of a payload (satellite) into orbit or for an RV to reenter the Earth’s atmosphere. 

Rocket motor ejecta consist of Al2O3 particulate dust from the engines or chunks of unburned 

solid propellant or slag produced when unspent fuel is expelled into space. The rocket motor 

ejecta typically would be less than 0.01 centimeter (0.004 inch) in diameter but may nonetheless 

cause surface pitting and erosion to exterior surfaces and chemical contamination on other 

objects in space. (National Science and Technology Council, 2004) Long-term exposure to the 

effects of the ejecta may degrade the operation of optical windows, solar panels, or other 

vulnerable exterior components on a satellite, space station, or spacecraft. In addition to 

equipment degradation, ejecta could sever electrical wires or cause short circuits within electrical 

components. (NASA, 1995) The high velocity of solid rocket motor particles, in combination 

with a low mass and the low orbit at which a particle would most likely be emitted, causes the 

particles to decay rapidly and ultimately incinerate as they fall from orbit and reenter the 

atmosphere. Solar radiation also contributes to the rapid decay process, which usually 

progresses within a few days. (NASA, 1995) The low mass of rocket motor ejecta precludes 

them from causing any structural damage to objects. In addition, the short lifespan of solid 

rocket motor ejecta in space at LEO or lower altitudes precludes spacecraft from sustaining 

damage from the ejecta. Consequently, low orbit altitude emission of solid rocket motor ejecta 

would result in no significant impacts on spacecraft. 

Solid rocket motor ejecta emitted at GEO would, despite their low mass, continue orbiting for 

potentially hundreds of years before eventually losing enough altitude to be burned up in the 

Earth’s atmosphere. At high altitudes, ejecta may pose a threat to orbiting satellites and other 

spacecraft due to the extended length of time these systems would be exposed. The lengthy 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-34 

space-lives of satellites and other spacecraft, coupled with the persistence of ejecta in GEO, 

create ample time for solid rocket motor ejecta to damage exterior components. Because the 

location of debris clouds and the damage potentially caused by such debris are incorporated into 

the design and orbital trajectories of spacecraft and the limited amount of solid rocket motor 

ejecta that would be emitted under the proposed action relative to the volume of space, spacecraft 

would not be significantly impacted. 

Operational Debris 

Under the proposed action, operational debris would be composed of inactive payloads and 

objects typically released during satellite-related missions. This class of debris encompasses 

objects ranging in size from small bolts to spent rocket motor bodies and payload fairings. It 

should be noted that this analysis assumes that operators would conform to current best practices 

to limit the formation of debris in space. However, all objects, especially larger ones, pose a 

potentially serious threat to spacecraft in orbit. The size, mass, and velocity of such objects pose 

the potentially serious threat to other spacecraft that they may encounter along their decaying 

orbit. Because the impact of such debris with a spacecraft would likely disable or destroy the 

spacecraft, such debris (larger than 10 centimeters [3.9 inches]) is tracked at all orbits (i.e., below 

LEO, LEO, MEO, and GEO) by ground-based tracking stations. The ground-based tracking 

stations provide advanced warning of encroaching debris so operators can move the vehicles out 

of the debris trajectory. (National Science and Technology Council, 1995) 

Operational debris associated with the proposed action created below 400 kilometers (249 miles) 

would lose orbit and reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and either incinerate or fall to Earth. This 

would happen within a few days or a few months depending on its original orbital altitude. At 

higher altitudes, operational debris associated with the proposed action would remain orbital for 

longer time periods. Upon reaching the atmosphere, most operational debris would likely be 

incinerated. In addition, LV upper stage propulsion systems may be used to force operational 

debris into storage orbits, where the debris would either remain indefinitely in orbit, or be 

retrieved at a later date. Given the accelerated pace at which operational debris loses orbit and 

reenters the atmosphere below LEO; the minimal risk to public safety from de-orbiting debris 

(current risk of injury from falling debris is one in a trillion); the current level of debris in space 

(estimated to be more than 111,000 pieces larger than one centimeter [0.4 inch]); and the current 

debris mitigation efforts being incorporated into LV and RV designs, operational debris would 

not pose a significant impact on spacecraft and would not substantially increase the risk to public 

safety. (National Science and Technology Council, 1995; NASA, 2004a; The Aerospace 

Corporation, 2005) 

Fragmentation Debris 

Under the proposed action, fragmentation debris would be produced when an LV or RV 

explodes while in orbit. An explosion could occur for a number of reasons, including: 1) the 

catastrophic failure of internal components such as batteries, 2) propellant-related explosions, 3) 

failure of pressurized tanks, and 4) intentional destruction. The primary source of the 

approximately 2,200 pieces of rocket body debris now in orbit was caused by the overpressurization of residual propellants, batteries, or pressure due to solar heating. (U.S. DOT, 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-35 

2002) Fragmentation debris may also be generated by collisions with other orbital objects. 

(National Science and Technology Council, 1995) 

Fragmentation debris generated at or below LEO would not persist for long periods of time in the 

space environment before losing orbit and reentering the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, 

fragmentation debris would remain orbital for much longer time periods before losing orbit and 

reentering the atmosphere. Debris would then either incinerate in the Earth’s atmosphere or fall 

to Earth. Impacts with large fragmentation debris (greater than 10 centimeters [3.9 inches]) at all 

orbits would generate exponentially more fragmentation debris, thereby amplifying the dangers 

to spacecraft. Given that fragmentation debris is caused by accidents and unintended events in 

space, the accelerated pace at which fragmentation debris loses orbit and reenters the atmosphere 

below LEO; the minimal risk to public safety from de-orbiting debris (current risk of injury from 

falling debris is one in a trillion); the current level of debris in space (estimated to be more than 

111,000 pieces larger than one centimeter [0.4 inch]); and the current debris mitigation efforts 

being incorporated into LV and RV designs, fragmentation debris would not pose a significant 

impact on spacecraft and would not substantially increase the risk associated with public safety. 

(National Science and Technology Council, 1995; NASA, 2004a; The Aerospace Corporation, 

2005) 

The probability of a fragmentation event associated with the proposed action would be low; 

every effort to prevent and mitigate fragmentation events would be made. Methods for 

prevention and mitigation include 

 Tracking and avoiding debris using radar and propulsion systems; 

 Improved booster and payload design; and 

 The release of all nonessential propellants, pressurants, and battery energy to prevent solar 

heating resulting in explosion. 

Deterioration Debris 

Under the proposed action, LVs or RVs in space would be subject to surface disintegration 

caused by gases, solar radiation, small meteors, or small particles of orbital debris. As a result, 

paint, plastic, metal, thermal blankets, or insulation on the exteriors of LVs and RVs could 

become corrupted and could begin to flake off and separate from the LV or RV. The flakes 

created typically would be very small and of low mass, and would be similar to solid motor 

ejecta debris and its associated effects. (NASA, 1995) Because the location of debris clouds and 

the damage potentially caused by such debris are incorporated into the design and orbital 

trajectories of spacecraft and the limited amount of deterioration debris that would be emitted 

under the proposed action relative to the volume of space, spacecraft would not be significantly 

impacted. 

4.10.2 Alternative 1 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in the same impacts on spacecraft and the general 

public as those associated with the proposed action.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-36 

4.10.3 Alternative 2 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in the same impacts on spacecraft and the general 

public as those associated with the proposed action. 

4.10.4 Alternative 3 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in slightly less impacts on spacecraft and the 

general public than those presented under the proposed action. Alternative 3 would preclude the 

use of rocket powered launches from ground surface, and would reduce the total number of 

missions and their associated debris that would be released into space. 

4.10.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, the 

existing conditions would not change and there would be no additional orbital debris related 

impacts.

4.11 Socioeconomics 

The following subsections discuss the socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts 

associated with each alternative.

4.11.1 Proposed Action 

4.11.1.1 Socioeconomics 

Under the proposed action, the FAA would issue licenses for the horizontal launch of LVs and 

reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities. Licensing these 

activities may result in an increase in the employment of skilled and professional workers, and 

therefore, would have an economically beneficial impact. Jobs associated with the commercial 

launch industry are generally technology-based and require employees with specialized skills 

and higher levels of education. The creation of jobs in the commercial launch industry would 

have secondary economic effects on local communities due to the increased personal income and 

the associated tax base. Furthermore, the new or additional workers may increase the size of the 

surrounding community and may create a need for more local services, which in turn creates 

additional jobs within that community. 

The licensing of a particular horizontal LV or RV mission could result in a temporary increase in 

the local work force at a particular launch or reentry facility, and would be considered a 

negligible impact on the local economy. The development of a new or modification of an 

existing launch or reentry site would result in temporary local employment during construction, 

and new permanent employment during operation. The relative impact on the local 

socioeconomic settings depends on the conditions (e.g., size of the local economy and capacity 

of the local services). Such impacts, and whether or not they would be considered a significant 

impact, would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-37 

(See Section 16, Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and 

Safety Risks of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information.) 

Implementation of the proposed action would have a negligible impact on the national economy; 

however, it would have a beneficially significant impact on the commercial launch industry. 

Implementation of the proposed action would allow the continued development of horizontally 

launched LVs and RVs for commercial applications. The proposed action would allow U.S.-

based companies to remain competitive in the global aerospace industry and its expanding 

commercial space applications. 

4.11.1.2 Environmental Justice 

Under the proposed action, the FAA would issue licenses for the horizontal launch of LVs and 

reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities. EO 12898 requires 

Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of Federal programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income 

populations. A Presidential Memorandum that was issued concurrently with EO 12898 

specifically states that NEPA is one of the tools for addressing these issues: “Each agency must 

analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects, of its 

actions, including their effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when 

such analysis is required by the NEPA.” As such, activities that would result in adverse 

environmental effects would be reviewed for their effects on minority communities and lowincome populations in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. (See 

Section 16, Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and Safety 

Risks of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information.) 

4.11.2 Alternative 1 

4.11.2.1 Socioeconmics 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in similar impacts as those presented under the 

proposed action; however, alternative 1 would limit the development of commercial RVs to 

those with unpowered landings. Licensing only a subset of the RV activities outlined in the 

proposed action could reduce the magnitude of this impact and could limit the development and 

growth of the commercial launch industry. 

4.11.2.2 Environmental Justice 

Under alternative 1, the FAA would review environmental justice concerns as presented in the 

proposed action. 

4.11.3 Alternative 2 

4.11.3.1 Socioeconomics 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to those presented under the 

proposed action; however, alternative 2 would limit the development of commercial RVs to 

those with unpowered landings. Licensing only a subset of the RV activities outlined in the 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-38 

proposed action could reduce the magnitude of this impact and could limit the development and 

growth of the commercial launch industry. 

4.11.3.2 Environmental Justice 

Under alternative 2, the FAA would review environmental justice concerns as presented in the 

proposed action. 

4.11.4 Alternative 3 

4.11.4.1 Socioeconomics 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in similar impacts as those presented under the 

proposed action; however, alternative 3 would limit the development of commercial LVs to 

Concepts 1 and 3. Licensing only a subset of the LV concepts outlined in the proposed action 

could reduce the magnitude of this impact and could limit the development and growth of the 

commercial launch industry. 

4.11.4.2 Environmental Justice 

Under alternative 3, the FAA would review environmental justice concerns as presented in the 

proposed action. 

4.11.5 No Action Alternative 

4.11.5.1 Socioeconomics 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, all 

U.S. licensed launches would be vertical launches as described in the Launch Licensing PEIS. 

Not licensing the activities described under the proposed action may result in an adverse impact 

on the socioeconomics of a local community where one of the major employers is the 

commercial horizontal launch industry. By not issuing licenses for horizontally launched LVs, 

reentry of RVs, or for facilities that would support such activities, industries would not have a 

market to provide services and would be forced to change industries and markets. Such impacts 

on a local community may result in substantial decreases in the local tax base which could 

adversely affect the socioeconomic setting. These issues would need to be addressed in sitespecific analyses that would tier from this PEIS. In addition, the U.S. horizontal commercial 

launch industry would not be able to expand and remain competitive in the global horizontal 

launch and reentry markets. Foreign markets would continue to grow their market share and 

develop technology, while the U.S. would lag behind in this market sector, both economically 

and technologically. 

4.11.5.2 Environmental Justice 

Because the no action alternative would not change the current status of human health or the 

environment, there would be no impact on minority or low-income populations. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-39 

4.12 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 

The following subsections discuss the impacts associated with each alternative on visual and 

aesthetic resources.

4.12.1 Proposed Action 

The licensing of horizontal launches, reentries, and the operation of facilities that support these 

activities under the proposed action would not have a significant impact on aesthetics and visual 

resources. Launches and reentries under the proposed action would conform to the VRM 

policies and statutes of local, state, and Federal agencies and tribes for both designated and 

undesignated areas of great natural beauty and scenic diversity, such as national forests; national 

monuments; national, state, or county parks; national wildlife refuges; wilderness areas; scenic 

byways; national trails; and historic places and districts. The development of a new or 

modification of an existing launch or reentry facility that would support the activities under the 

proposed action would adhere to the relevant and appropriate Federal, state, and local 

regulations, ordinances, and zoning associated with aesthetic and visual resources. (See Section 

12, Light Emissions and Visual Impacts of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional 

information.) 

4.12.2 Alternative 1 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.12.3 Alternative 2 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.12.4 Alternative 3 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in the same impacts as those presented for the 

proposed action. 

4.12.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, no 

changes would occur to the current visual landscape. Aesthetics and visual resources would not 

be impacted by implementation of the no action alternative. 

4.13 Water Resources 

The following subsections present the impacts associated with the proposed action and 

alternatives on freshwater and marine systems, wetlands, floodplains, and ground water. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-40 

4.13.1 Proposed Action 

4.13.1.1 Freshwater Systems and Marine Systems 

The proposed action may result in local adverse impacts on freshwater or marine systems. Such 

impacts would result from the deposition associated with rocket engine emissions that would be 

deposited on a particular water body or in its associated watershed. Section 4.1, Atmosphere, 

presents a discussion of the rocket emissions that may affect the water quality of a specific water 

body. The impacts on a particular water body would be evaluated based on the designated use of 

the water body (agricultural/industrial use, recreation, or drinking water) and its associated water 

quality criteria as defined under Section 303 of the CWA (see Section 17, Water Quality of 

Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information). For marine systems, the size of 

the system and its ability to tolerate particular concentrations and volumes of rocket motor 

deposition would be reviewed to assess the potential impact. Such impacts and whether or not 

they would be considered a significant impact would be addressed in a site-specific NEPA 

document that would tier from this PEIS. A site-specific NEPA document would address the 

NPDES permits and SWPPPs. In addition, for construction activities greater than five acres, a 

NPDES would be required. The development of a new or modification of an existing launch or 

reentry facility may impact freshwater and/or marine systems. Such impacts would be addressed 

in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. 

4.13.1.2 Wetlands 

The proposed action may result in local adverse impacts on wetlands. The deposition of rocket 

engine emissions into wetlands, the development of new or modification of existing facilities that 

would affect a wetland, the deposition of spent LV equipment (e.g., booster rockets), or landing 

of an RV or its associated equipment into such areas could result in impacts on wetlands. 

Impacts to wetlands could alter the function or value of a wetland. A site-specific NEPA 

document that would tier from this PEIS would evaluate wetland impacts and whether impacts 

would be considered significant. The development of a new or modification of an existing 

launch or reentry facility may impact wetlands. Such impacts would be addressed in a sitespecific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. (See Section 18, Wetlands of 

Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional information.) 

4.13.1.3 Floodplains 

Horizontal launches of LVs or reentries of RVs under the proposed action would not impact 

floodplains. The development of new or the modification of existing facilities that would 

support the horizontal launch of LVs or reentry of RVs within or adjacent to a floodplain may 

impact floodplains. Such impacts on floodplains, and whether or not they would be considered a 

significant impact, would be addressed in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from 

this PEIS. (See Section 9, Floodplains of Appendix A, FAA Order 1050.1E for additional 

information.) 

4.13.1.4 Ground Water 

Horizontal launches of LVs or reentries of RVs under the proposed action would not impact 

ground water. Horizontal launches and reentries would be performed from and to existing or 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 4-41 

future water-permitted facilities that have been or would be designed and operated to protect 

sensitive ground water resources (e.g., well head protection areas). The development of new, or 

the modification of existing facilities that would support the horizontal launch of LVs or reentry 

of RVs may impact ground water. Such impacts would include construction activities that affect 

local hydrology, construction activities within a wellhead protection area, or new or modified 

facilities that alter ground water recharge or discharge. Such impacts on ground water, and 

whether or not they would be considered significant impacts, would be addressed in a sitespecific NEPA analysis that would tier from this PEIS. 

4.13.2 Alternative 1 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in slightly fewer impacts on water resources than 

those presented under the proposed action because all RVs would have unpowered landings and 

would not result in emissions and associated deposition. 

4.13.3 Alternative 2 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in slightly more impacts on water resources than 

those presented under the proposed action because all RVs would have powered landing and 

would result in slightly higher emissions and associated deposition. Section 4.1, Atmosphere 

presents the amount of increased emissions and deposition. Such impacts would not be 

considered a significant impact on water resources. 

4.13.4 Alternative 3 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in slightly fewer impacts on water resources than 

those presented under the proposed action because rocket powered LVs would not take off from 

the ground surface, thereby reducing rocket emissions and associated deposition. 

4.13.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and reentry of RVs, as well as for the operation of facilities for such activities; therefore, the 

existing conditions would not change and there would be no impacts on water resources. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-1 

5 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Introduction 

This section of the PEIS describes the potential cumulative impacts that would result from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions (40 CFR part 1508.7). For the purpose of this analysis, the FAA considered the 

effects of all FAA-licensed launches and all non-FAA-licensed launch and reentry activities 

(U.S. and foreign government and foreign commercial launches and reentries). The FAA 

reviewed the cumulative impacts associated with 1,478 FAA licensed commercial launches, 519 

U.S. Government launches, 411 foreign government launches, 239 foreign commercial launches, 

and 51 FAA-licensed commercial reentries, 33 U.S. Government reentries, 49 foreign 

government reentries, and 11 foreign commercial reentries between 2005 and 2015. These 

figures (and the cumulative impact discussion presented in this section) include the 1,279 

horizontally launched LVs between 2005 and 2015 (maximum of 154 launches per year) and 51 

reentries between 2005 and 2015 (maximum of 15 reentries per year); these impacts were 

discussed in Section 4 of this PEIS. 

The FAA classified the FAA-licensed commercial launches and foreign commercial launches 

based on whether or not the LV was launched on suborbital or orbital trajectories. For orbital 

LVs, the weight of the payload and its destined orbit were used to further classify the LVs. 

Exhibit 5-1 presents the weight class for suborbital and orbital (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit 

[GTO] and LEO) launches. 

Exhibit 5-1. Payload Weight Class 

Weight Class Suborbital or Orbital Mass 

Other* Suborbital – 270 kilograms (594 pounds) 

Small Orbital – < 900 kilograms (2,000 pounds) GTO or 

< 2,250 kilograms (5,000 pounds) LEO 

Medium Orbital – 900-1,719 kilograms (2,000-3,999 pounds) GTO or 

2,250-6,750 kilograms (5,000-15,000 pounds) LEO 

Intermediate Orbital – 1,720-4,081 kilograms (4,000-8,999 pounds) GTO or 

> 6,750 kilograms (15,000 pounds) LEO 

Heavy Orbital – 4,082-4,500+ kilograms (9,000-10,000+ pounds) GTO 

*For purposes of this analysis, all FAA-licensed horizontally launched LVs are included under the “Other” 

weight class.

The number of FAA-licensed horizontal and vertical launches and reentries as well as the 

launches and reentries of U.S. and foreign governments and foreign commercial enterprises from 

2005 to 2015, are presented in Exhibit 5-2, Horizontal and Vertical Launch Totals by Maximum 

Payload Capacity, and Exhibit 5-3, Total Orbital Reentries. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit 5-2. Horizontal and Vertical Launch Totals by Maximum Payload Capacity 

Category Payload Capacity 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20

Other/Suborbital 19 51 103 128 129 161 150 152 15Small 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Medium 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed) 

Heavy 7 6 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 

Other/Suborbital 22 30 25 20 24 24 26 24 2Small 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 Medium 10 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

U.S. Government 

Heavy 14 13 12 13 14 14 13 9 1

Other/Suborbital 8 15 12 8 10 8 15 10 8 Small 3 3 5 2 2 2 3 2 3 Medium 13 18 17 14 15 15 14 15 1Intermediate 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Foreign Government 

Heavy 7 6 9 8 7 7 9 8 7 

Other/Suborbital 2 0 2 0 1 3 4 6 8 Small 2 4 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 Medium 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Intermediate 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Foreign Commercial 

Heavy 11 10 12 13 13 13 15 15 1

TOTAL 129 175 224 233 240 272 275 267 26Notes: Based on vehicle full payload capacity, not estimated payload(s) mass. Most commercial vehicles are no longer in Intermedia

Foreign and U.S. Government suborbital estimates are based on vehicles similar to criteria for an FAA-licensed launch. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit 5-3. Total Orbital Reentries 

Category Reentry 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201

Horizontal 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 7 

U.S. Commercial (Licensed) Vertical 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 U.S. Horizontal 3 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 Government Vertical 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 Foreign Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Vertical 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 Foreign Horizontal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial Vertical 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 

Total 7 10 9 8 9 7 10 16 18 

Notes: Capsule and/or parachute landings were counted as Vertical reentry. Vertical also includes International Space Station cargo r

Reentries were only counted for vehicles that land substantially intact. 

Suborbital launches and subsequent landings are not included. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-4 

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E and the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA, the 

FAA analyzed the potential cumulative impacts on the resources that would be adversely 

affected by the implementation of the proposed action or an alternative. Because the scope of 

this PEIS does not address site-specific, localized effects and their associated cumulative 

impacts, such site-specific resources are not included in the evaluation of cumulative impacts. 

The site-specific resources and the associated cumulative impacts would be addressed in a sitespecific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. Cumulative impacts are assessed for 

the following resource areas. 

 Atmosphere 

 Health and Safety 

 Orbital Debris 

 Socioeconomics 

5.1 Atmosphere 

The following subsections discuss the cumulative impacts on the atmosphere associated with 

each alternative.

5.1.1 Troposphere 

5.1.1.1 Proposed Action 

Potential impacts on the troposphere are discussed in this section for LV and RV emissions, 

particularly impacts from emissions of criteria pollutants, air toxics, precursors of acid rain, and 

regional haze. 

The total estimated emissions (from the proposed action and from other Federal and non-Federal 

launch and reentry activities) from LVs and RVs to the troposphere for the period 2005 to 2015 

are presented in Exhibit 5-4. The portion of these emissions associated with the proposed action 

was estimated as summarized in Section 4 and described in detail in Appendix F. The remaining 

emissions (i.e., FAA-licensed vertical launches, U.S government launches, and foreign 

commercial and government launches) were calculated by estimating the emissions per launch or 

reentry for each vehicle type and then multiplying these per launch and reentry emissions by the 

estimated number of launches and reentries for each vehicle type. A description of how the per 

launch and reentry emissions for each vehicle type were calculated is provided in Appendix F; 

the emissions per launch and reentry for each vehicle type are also provided in Appendix F. The 

estimated number of launches and reentries for each vehicle type are provided in Exhibits F-41 

and F-42, respectively; a description of how these launch and reentry estimates were estimated is 

provided in Appendix F. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-5 

Exhibit 5-4. Summary of Emission Loads from LVs and RVs to the Troposphere from 

2005 to 2015 in Metric Tons (Tons) 

Launch/Reentry Type HCl PM CO2 H2O Cl NOX CO SOX

Proposed Action - 8 (8.8) 999 

(1099) 

428 

(471) - 0.8 (0.9) 

70 

(77)

0.2 

(0.22)

U.S. Licensed 

Vertical 

1,884 

(2,071)

3,410 

(3,750)

11,171 

(12,288)

4,308 

(4,740)

17 

(19)

30 

(33) 

1 

(1.1)

<0.01 

(<0.02)

U.S. 

Government 

3,359 

(3,694) 

6,079 

(6,687)

7,592 

(8,351)

53,006 

(58,306)

24 

(26)

53 

(58.3) 

0.2 

(0.22) - 

Foreign 

Commercial 

873 

(960) 

1,568 

(1,724)

10,584 

(11,642)

7,072 

(7,779)

8 

(8.8)

11,516 

(12,667) 

0.2 

(.22) - 

Foreign 

Government 

2,937 

(3,230) 

5,308 

(5,838)

11,874 

(13,061)

7,296 

(8,025)

22 

(24)

6,506 

(7,156) 

0.1 

(0.1) - 

Federal and Non-Federal 

Activities 

Total 9,053 

(9,958) 

16,365

(18,001)

41,220 

(45,342)

71,696 

(78,865)

72 

(79)

18,105 

(19,915) 

2 

(2.2)

<0.01

(<0.02)

TOTAL ALL 

LAUNCHES 

9,053 

(9,958) 

16,373

(18,010)

42,219 

(46,440)

72,124

(79,336)

72 

(79)

18,106 

(19,915) 

72 

(79)

0.2 

(0.22)

Criteria Pollutants 

The estimated amount of NOX (part of which is NO2) released to the troposphere per year by all 

launches and reentries worldwide (approximately 18,000 metric tons [20,160 tons]) would not 

result in a significant cumulative impact on ambient air quality. As a point of comparison, the 

total emissions of NOX for all U.S. sources for 2002 were estimated to be about 18.9 million 

metric tons (21.2 million tons). (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004) This figure is about three orders of 

magnitude larger than the total NOX released by all LV and RV emissions, worldwide, for the 

10-year period considered in this PEIS. Considering the sum total annual NOX emissions from 

all sources worldwide would further reduce the proportion of NOX emissions released by LVs 

and RVs. Because the cumulative amount of NOX emissions associated with LVs and RVs 

would be such a small portion of the global NOX emissions, and that all the LV and RV 

emissions would be distributed globally, the cumulative emissions would not have a significant 

impact on the formation of ground-level ozone or ambient air quality. 

The estimated total LV and RV emissions of PM worldwide during the period 2005 to 2015 

would be approximately 16,400 metric tons (18,000 tons). This figure is expected to be 

substantially less than the total PM released by all other sources. For example, by comparison, 

the total annual PM10 and PM2.5 emissions for 2002 from U.S. sources only were approximately 

2.2 and 1.6 million metric tons (2.4 million to 1.7 million tons), respectively. (U.S. EPA 

OAQPS, 2004) Worldwide emissions of PM over this 10-year period would be expected to be 

substantially larger, and thus potential emissions from all launches and reentries are expected to 

have a negligible cumulative impact. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-6 

The estimated total LV and RV emissions of CO worldwide during the period 2005 to 2015 

would be approximately 71 metric tons (78 tons). By comparison, the total annual CO emissions 

from all U.S. sources for 2002 alone were over 87 million metric tons (95 million tons). (U.S. 

EPA OAQPS, 2004) The incremental contribution of LV and RV emissions to this total from all 

launch and reentry types is an extremely small fraction. Given the small CO emissions from 

LVs and RVs relative to the total annual emissions, the CO emissions would not result in a 

cumulative impact on ambient air quality. 

The estimated LV and RV emissions of SOX to the troposphere worldwide during the period 

2005 to 2015 would be approximately 0.2 metric tons (200 kilograms). This amount is very 

small compared to total expected SOX emissions from all sources. As a point of comparison, the 

total annual SO2 emissions from all U.S. sources for 2002 alone were over 12.3 million metric 

tons (13.5 million tons). (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004) The incremental annual contribution of 

emissions associated with all launch and reentry types combined would be an extremely small 

fraction of this number alone, and would be an even smaller fraction of worldwide emissions. 

The SOX emissions would not result in a significant cumulative impact on ambient air quality.

Air Toxics 

Two HAPs, HCl and Cl, are components of some rocket engine emissions, depending on the 

propellant type. The estimated LV and RV emissions of HCl and Cl to the troposphere 

worldwide during the period 2005 to 2015 would be approximately 9,000 metric tons (9,900 

tons), and 72 metric tons (79 tons), respectively. The proposed action would not be expected to 

contribute any emissions of HCl and Cl to the troposphere. The worldwide emissions of HCl 

and Cl from all launches and reentries would be insignificant relative to emissions of HCl and Cl 

from all other natural and anthropogenic sources. For example, total annual emissions of HCl 

from the natural dechlorination of sea salt are about 7.6 million metric tons (8.4 million tons). 

(Erickson et al., 1999) This one-year total is substantially larger than total worldwide LV and 

RV emissions of HCl for the 10-year period assessed in this PEIS; annual emissions from LV 

and RV sources would be expected to comprise an even smaller fraction. Likewise, Cl 

emissions, which are substantially less than HCl emissions, are expected to be an insignificant 

contribution to the global inventory of Cl emissions; therefore, no significant cumulative impacts 

are associated with the emission of HCl or Cl in the troposphere. 

Acid Rain 

SO2 and NOX, two criteria pollutants, are the primary causes of acid rain. As described above, 

emissions of SO2 and NOX from all LVs and RVs worldwide are expected to contribute an 

extremely small percentage of the total emissions of these pollutants worldwide. Thus, 

emissions from LVs and RVs would not result in a significant cumulative impact on the 

development of acid rain. 

Regional Haze 

The FAA reviewed the regional haze rule (64 FR 35714, dated July 1, 1999), which requires 

states to develop SIPs to address visibility at designated mandatory Class I areas, including 156 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-7 

designated national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges. General features of the 

regional haze rule are that all states are required to prepare an emissions inventory of all haze 

related pollutants (i.e., VOC, NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and NH3) from all sources in all 

constituent counties. The areas that have opted to implement the Section 309 regional haze SIP 

option are the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon. The WRAP Policy 

on CACs, completed on November 13, 2002, concluded that a 25 percent increase in weighted 

emissions would have only a minimal impact on visibility at Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. (WRAP, 2002) As described above, the minimal emissions of the haze related 

pollutants and the fact that all launches and reentries occur globally would result in a negligible 

cumulative impact on the visibility at the designated Class I areas. 

5.1.1.2 Alternative 1

Under alternative 1, there would be no emissions from RVs from activities under the proposed 

action. This would result in an insignificant reduction in total emissions from the activities 

associated with the proposed action and the other Federal and non-Federal launch and reentry 

activities in the troposphere. Thus the cumulative air quality impacts in the troposphere from 

alternative 1 would not be substantially different from the impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

5.1.1.3 Alternative 2

Under alternative 2, the emissions from RVs would be twice those presented under the proposed 

action. This would result in an insignificant increase in total emissions from the activities 

associated with the proposed action and the other Federal and non-Federal launch and reentry 

activities in the troposphere. Thus the cumulative air quality impacts in the troposphere from 

alternative 2 would not be substantially different from the impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

5.1.1.4 Alternative 3

Under alternative 3, the overall emissions to the troposphere from the proposed action would be 

reduced for most pollutants of interest. Although this reduction would be substantial when 

considering the direct impacts (see Section 4.1.1.4), this would result in an insignificant increase 

in total emissions from the activities associated with the proposed action and the other Federal 

and non-Federal launch and reentry activities in the troposphere. Thus the cumulative air quality 

impacts in the troposphere from alternative 3 would not be substantially different from the 

impacts associated with the proposed action. 

5.1.1.5 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs, reentry of RVs, or the operations of facilities to support these activities; therefore, there 

would be no addition or removal of emissions to the troposphere by this alternative. No 

cumulative impacts on air quality in the troposphere would be expected by implementation of the 

no action alternative.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-8 

5.1.2 Stratosphere 

5.1.2.1 Proposed Action

Potential impacts on the stratosphere include global warming from contributions of greenhouse 

gases and depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. The total estimated emissions (from the 

proposed action and from other Federal and non-Federal launch and reentry activities) from LVs 

and RVs to the stratosphere for the period 2005 to 2015 are presented in Exhibit 5-5. The 

portion of these emissions associated with the proposed action was estimated as summarized in 

Section 4 and described in detail in Appendix F. The remaining emissions (i.e., FAA-licensed 

vertical launches, U.S government launches, and foreign commercial and government launches) 

were calculated by estimating the emissions per launch or reentry for each vehicle type and then 

multiplying these per launch and reentry emissions by the estimated number of launches and 

reentries for each vehicle type. A description of how the per launch and reentry emissions for 

each vehicle type were calculated is provided in Appendix F; the emissions per launch and 

reentry for each vehicle type are provided in Appendix F. The estimated number of launches and 

reentries for each vehicle type are provided in Exhibits F-41 and F-42, respectively; a description 

of how these launch and reentry estimates were estimated is provided in Appendix F. 

Exhibit 5-5. Summary of Emission Loads from LVs and RVs to the Stratosphere from 

2005 to 2015 in Metric Tons (Tons) 

Launch Type HCl PM CO2 H2O Cl NOX CO SOX

Proposed Action 39 

(43) 

71 

(78) 

2,049 

(2,253) 

1,316 

(1,447)

0.3 

(.33)

0.6 

(0.66) 

860 

(946) 

0.2 

(0.22)

U.S. Licensed 

Vertical 

1,884 

(2,072) 

3,410 

(3,751)

11,385 

(12,523)

4,365 

(4,801)

17 

(19)

30 

(33) 

1 

(1.1) 

0.01 

(0.01)

U.S. 

Government 

3,359 

(3,694) 

6,079 

(6,686)

8,290 

(9,119) 

53,188 

(58,506)

24 

(26)

53 

(58) - - 

Foreign 

Commercial 

873 

(960) 

1,568 

(1,724)

10,712 

(11,783)

7,100 

(7,810)

8 

(9) 

11,516 

(12,667) - - 

Foreign 

Government 

2,937 

(3,231) 

5,308 

(5,307)

12,185 

(13,404)

7,351 

(8,086)

22 

(24)

6,506 

(7,157) - - 

Federal and Non-Federal 

Activities 

Total 9,054 

(9,959)

16,365

(18,002)

42,571 

(46,828)

72,004 

(79,204)

72 

(79)

18,105 

(19,916) 

1 

(1.1) - 

TOTAL ALL 

LAUNCHES 

9,093 

(10,002) 

16,436

(18,080)

44,620 

(49,082)

73,320

(80,652)

72 

(79)

18,106 

(19,916) 

861 

(946) 

0.2 

(0.22)

Global Warming 

The potential LV and RV emissions from all launch and reentry types that may affect global 

warming directly as greenhouse gases include CO2 and H2O. The cumulative impact on global 

warming from all launches and reentries would be insignificant when compared to other sources. 

For example, the total annual CO2 emissions from all U.S. sources for 1999 were over 5,500 

million metric tons (6,050 million tons). (U.S. EPA, 2001) The total contribution of all LV and 

RV emissions for the entire 10-year period assessed is a small fraction of this one-year figure. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-9 

Annual contributions from LVs and RVs would be expected to comprise an even smaller fraction 

of the global total, even if CO2 emissions from other sources decrease over this period. 

Emissions of H2O from LVs and RVs would also have an insignificant effect on global warming 

due to the preponderance of other natural and anthropogenic sources of H2O. 

CO and NOX, two photochemically important pollutants that can influence the creation and 

destruction of greenhouse gases, are also present in launch and reentry emissions. Contributions 

from LV and RV emissions of these pollutants to the atmospheric burden would be extremely 

small relative to U.S. annual emissions, which are 87 million metric tons (95 million tons) and 

18.9 million metric tons (20.1 million tons) of CO and NOX, respectively, for 2002. (U.S. EPA 

OAQPS, 2004) The relative contribution from LV and RV emissions to the global pool of these 

chemicals would be expected to be even smaller. As a result, the presence of these chemicals in 

horizontal LV emissions would have a negligible cumulative impact on global warming. 

Ozone Depletion 

Chemicals of concern with respect to ozone depletion that would be included in launch emissions 

in the stratosphere include HCl and Cl and, to a lesser extent, PM and NOX. Currently, CFCs are 

the main source of stratospheric chlorine. These organic compounds have one or more carbonchlorine bonds. CFCs of concern for ozone depletion typically have long lifetimes (i.e., up to 

hundreds of years). The carbon-chlorine bond can be broken by photolysis or other chemical 

reaction to release “inorganic” chlorine that then enters the catalytic ozone destruction cycle. 

Relatively recent studies indicate that the impacts from worldwide emissions of HCl and Cl from 

all launch types on stratospheric ozone depletion would not be significant. The RISO field study 

indicated that ozone depletion related to launch emissions is a temporary and limited 

phenomenon. In general, findings from this study indicate that the potential for ozone depletion 

associated with LV exhaust to cause an increase in solar UV intensity near launch sites is 

extremely limited. (Ross et al., 2000) In addition, ozone depletion from LV exhaust is likely to 

be limited spatially and temporally and would not be expected to have a globally significant 

cumulative impact on stratospheric chemistry. (Ross et al., 1997 as referenced in the FAA 

Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS) 

Another study prepared for the USAF in 1994 is directly relevant to the analysis of the global 

impact of emissions from all space launches worldwide on stratospheric ozone depletion. (Brady 

et al., 1994) This study noted that the manufacturing of CFCs and other organic chlorine 

compounds by industrial (non-rocket) sources results in the formation of about 272,000 metric 

tons (304,640 tons) of inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere annually. This amount is much 

larger than the total amount of stratospheric inorganic chlorine – about 725 metric tons (812 

tons) – introduced by worldwide space launches in 1994 as estimated by Brady et al. The 

amount is also substantially larger than the 9,200 metric tons (10,304 tons) estimated in this 

PEIS that would be released by all launch types for the 10 years between 2005 and 2015. 

Brady et al. note that the phase-out of most CFCs during the 1990s will reduce the industrial 

inputs of inorganic chlorine to the stratosphere. The long half-life of CFCs will result in 

continuing contributions of inorganic chlorine from the current total stratospheric CFC mass for 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-10 

many years. As a result, the annual contribution of inorganic chlorine from these residual 

compounds is not expected to decrease by half for at least 50 to 100 years. The CFC 

manufacturing phase-out, coupled with expected increases in contributions from LVs (and the 

evolving nature of atmospheric science), suggest that more research may be necessary to fully 

understand the impact of future LV emissions on stratospheric ozone. However, for the current 

PEIS, the cumulative impacts of launch emissions on stratospheric ozone would be relatively 

small. 

Releases of NOX can also result from LV emissions, and NOX is a chemical species of lesser 

concern for ozone depletion (compared to inorganic chlorine). Specifically, NOX is involved in 

the reactions that lead to ozone depletion but is not directly responsible for the destruction of 

ozone. Total emissions of NOX from all launch types would be extremely small relative to total 

global emissions of NOX. As described in Section 5.1.1.1, about 19 million metric tons (21 

million tons) were released in the U.S. in 2002 alone (U.S. EPA OAQPS, 2004); it is anticipated 

that total global emissions over the 10-year period between 2005 and 2015 would be 

significantly larger. 

PM would be emitted to the stratosphere by some launches. PM may affect stratospheric ozone, 

possibly by acting as a catalytic site for ozone destruction; however, the exact impact of PM on 

ozone depletion is unclear. A 1999 study prepared for the USAF on the stratospheric impact of 

solid rocket motor launch emissions concluded that the global impacts of PM from such 

emissions on ozone depletion are very small. (Ko et al., 1999) The estimated total emissions of 

Al2O3 to the stratosphere used in calculations for that study were about 1,015 metric tons 

(1,137 tons) per year. If multiplied by 10 (to approximate the total emissions released over a 

10-year period), the result would be similar to the 10-year total emissions of PM estimated for all 

launch types in the current assessment. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of PM on 

stratospheric ozone depletion would be negligible. 

5.1.2.2 Alternative 1

Under alternative 1, there would be no emissions from RVs from activities under the proposed 

action. This would result in an insignificant reduction in total emissions from the activities 

associated with the proposed action and the other Federal and non-Federal launch and reentry 

activities in the stratosphere. Thus, the cumulative impacts on global warming and ozone 

depletion in the stratosphere from alternative 1 would not be substantially different from the 

impacts associated with the proposed action. 

5.1.2.3 Alternative 2

Under alternative 2, the emissions from RVs would twice that of the proposed action. This 

would result in an insignificant increase in total emissions from the activities associated with the 

proposed action and the other Federal and non-Federal launch and reentry activities in the 

stratosphere. Thus, the cumulative impacts global warming and ozone depletion in the 

stratosphere would not be substantially different from the impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-11 

5.1.2.4 Alternative 3

Under alternative 3, the overall emissions to the stratosphere from the proposed action would be 

reduced for most pollutants of interest. Although this reduction would be substantial when 

considering the direct impacts (see Section 4.1.2.4), this would result in an insignificant increase 

in total emissions from the activities associated with the proposed action and the other Federal 

and non-Federal launch and reentry activities in the troposphere. Thus the cumulative impacts 

global warming and ozone depletion in the stratosphere would not be substantially different from 

the impacts associated with the proposed action. 

5.1.2.5 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs, the reentry of RVs, or the operation of facilities to conduct these activities; therefore, there 

would be no addition or removal of emissions to the stratosphere by this alternative. No 

cumulative impacts on global warming and ozone depletion in the stratosphere would result from 

implementation of the no action alternative.

5.1.3 Mesosphere 

5.1.3.1 Proposed Action

The mesosphere is a relatively narrow band of the atmosphere that rockets tend to pass through 

fairly quickly. Significant cumulative impacts in the mesosphere associated with the compounds 

emitted by LVs and RVs are not known to exist. The emission loads to the mesosphere are 

presented in Appendix F, Exhibits F-66 through F-75. 

5.1.3.2 Alternative 1

The cumulative air quality impacts in the mesosphere from alternative 1 would be the same as 

the impacts associated with the proposed action. 

5.1.3.3 Alternative 2

The cumulative air quality impacts in the mesosphere from alternative 2 would be the same as 

the impacts associated with the proposed action. 

5.1.3.4 Alternative 3

The cumulative air quality impacts in the mesosphere from alternative 3 would be the same as 

the impacts associated with the proposed action. 

5.1.3.5 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs, the reentry of RVs, or the operation of facilities to conduct these operations; therefore, 

there would be no addition or removal of emissions to the mesosphere, and the cumulative 

emissions would be unaffected. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-12 

5.1.4 Ionosphere 

5.1.4.1 Proposed Action

Some exhaust products from horizontal LVs24 during launch from Earth to space have been 

found to have a temporary effect on electron concentrations in the F layer of the ionosphere. 

Specifically, these exhaust products are CO2, H2O, and H. These compounds can react with 

ambient electrons and ions in the F layer of the ionosphere to effectively form a “hole” in this 

region by reducing the concentration of electrons and ions within the path of the vehicle. The 

reactions that take place can result in a net decrease in electron concentration in the F layer, 

potentially affecting radio communication, such as short-wave broadcasts, which interact with 

the ionosphere. (U.S. DOT, 1992) 

However, as described in more detail in Section 4.1.4.1, the ionospheric hole that would be 

created as a result of launch emissions would be temporary and appears to dissipate in a matter 

of minutes. Therefore, it does not appear that the effects of this phenomenon would accumulate 

to any degree, unless there were launches through the same region of the atmosphere every few 

minutes. The cumulative impacts on the ionosphere would be negligible.

5.1.4.2 Alternative 1

The cumulative impacts on the ionosphere from alternative 1 would be the same as the impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

5.1.4.3 Alternative 2

The cumulative impacts on the ionosphere from alternative 2 would be the same as the impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

5.1.3.3 Alternative 3

Under alternative 3, the programmatic emissions to the ionosphere from the proposed action 

would be eliminated for most pollutants of interest. Although this reduction would be substantial 

when considering the direct impacts (see Section 4.1.4.4), this would result in an insignificant 

increase in total emissions from the activities associated with the proposed action and the other 

Federal and non-Federal launch and reentry activities in the ionosphere. Thus the cumulative 

impacts on the ionosphere would not be substantially different from the impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

5.1.4.5 No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs, the reentry of RVs, or the operation of facilities to conduct these operations; therefore, 

there would be no addition or removal of emissions to the ionosphere. The implementation of 

the no action alternative would not result in cumulative impacts on air quality in the ionosphere. 

 

24 Reentry vehicles are not expected to have impacts on the ionosphere because they do not use engines at these 

altitudes. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-13 

5.2 Health and Safety 

The following subsections discuss the cumulative impacts on public health and safety associated 

with each alternative.

5.2.1 Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, public health and safety would be the same as that presented in 

Section 4.13, Public Health and Safety. The FAA Licensing and Safety Division would apply 

the same risk tolerance threshold (30 x 10-6 risk threshold) for all activities that it has the 

authority to license. Other Federal and non-Federal agencies would implement similar public 

health and safety standards for similar launch, reentry, or launch or reentry sites (e.g., NASA 

safety standards and DoD safety standards). As such, the cumulative impacts on public health 

and safety would not be significant. 

5.2.2 Alternative 1 

The cumulative impacts on public health and safety associated with alternative 1 would be the 

same as those associated with the proposed action. 

5.2.3 Alternative 2 

The cumulative impacts on public health and safety associated with alternative 2 would be the 

same as those associated with the proposed action. 

5.2.4 Alternative 3 

The cumulative impacts on public health and safety associated with alternative 3 would be the 

same as those associated with the proposed action. 

5.2.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs and would not issue licenses for the reentry of RVs; therefore, there would be no addition or 

removal of public health and safety concerns. No cumulative impacts on public health and safety 

would be expected by implementation of the no action alternative.

5.3 Orbital Debris 

The following subsections discuss the cumulative impacts of orbital debris associated with each 

alternative.

5.3.1 Proposed Action 

The FAA reviewed the cumulative impacts on orbital debris associated with 1,478 FAA licensed 

commercial launches (horizontal and vertical), 519 U.S. Government launches, 411 foreign 

government launches, 239 foreign commercial launches, and 51 FAA-licensed commercial 

reentries, 33 U.S. Government reentries, 49 foreign government reentries, and 11 foreign 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-14 

commercial reentries between 2005 and 2015. The cumulative effect of the activities presented 

in this PEIS with other Federal and non-Federal launch activities would result in more solid 

rocket motor ejecta, operational debris, fragmentation debris, and deterioration debris within 

each orbit altitude (i.e., below LEO, LEO, MEO, and GEO). The impact analysis presented in 

Section 4.3, Orbital Debris, applies to the discussion of cumulative impacts. The processes 

related to and characteristics of orbital debris presented in Section 4.3 also hold true for the other 

Federal and non-Federal activities considered in this cumulative impact analysis. As such, the 

cumulative impacts associated with orbital debris would be slightly more than those presented in 

Section 4.3; however, would not result in significant impacts.

5.3.2 Alternative 1 

The cumulative impacts from orbital debris associated with alternative 1 would be the same as 

those associated with the proposed action. 

5.3.3 Alternative 2 

The cumulative impacts from orbital debris associated with alternative 2 would be the same as 

those associated with the proposed action. 

5.3.4 Alternative 3 

The cumulative impacts from orbital debris associated with alternative 3 would be the same as 

those associated with the proposed action. 

5.3.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, the FAA would not issue licenses for the horizontal launch of 

LVs, the reentry of RVs, or the operation of facilities to support these activities; therefore, there 

would be no addition or removal of space objects that could contribute to orbital debris. No 

cumulative impacts on orbital debris would be expected by implementation of the no action 

alternative.

5.4 Socioeconomics 

The following subsections discuss the cumulative impacts on socioeconomics associated with 

each alternative.

5.4.1 Proposed Action 

The cumulative socioeconomic impact associated with the proposed action would be a beneficial 

impact resulting from the continued growth of both the U.S. and foreign space industries. Such 

continued growth would occur from the FAA issuing licenses for launches of horizontal LVs, 

reentries of RVs, and the operation of facilities to support these activities. As the market and 

demand would grow in the U.S., it would also grow in the foreign markets. Cumulative 

socioeconomic impacts associated with a specific licensing activity, such as building a new 

launch facility, would be assessed in a site-specific NEPA document that tiers from this PEIS.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 5-15 

5.4.2 Alternative 1 

Licensing the activities described under the proposed action would have a beneficial cumulative 

socioeconomic impact; however, licensing only a subset of the activities outlined in the proposed 

action could reduce the magnitude of this beneficial impact and could limit the development and 

growth of the commercial launch industry. 

5.4.3 Alternative 2 

Licensing the activities described under the proposed action would have a beneficial cumulative 

socioeconomic impact; however, licensing only a subset of the activities outlined in the proposed 

action could reduce the magnitude of this beneficial impact and could limit the development and 

growth of the commercial launch industry. 

5.4.4 Alternative 3 

Licensing the activities described under the proposed action would have a beneficial cumulative 

socioeconomic impact; however, licensing only a subset of the activities outlined in the proposed 

action could reduce the magnitude of this beneficial impact and could limit the development and 

growth of the commercial launch industry. 

5.4.5 No Action Alternative 

Not licensing horizontal launches, reentries, or the operation of launch and reentry facilities, 

coupled with the fact that vertical launches are already being licensed, would likely cause a 

negative effect on the U.S. commercial launch industry in general. If launch companies foresee 

that their technological developments could be hindered by not being able to pursue horizontal 

launch technologies in additional to vertical technologies, then it is possible that they might 

choose to move their operations and alter their organizational structure so that the company 

would not fall under the regulatory authority of the FAA. In addition, by not issuing horizontal 

launch, reentry, or launch site operator licenses, the market and demand for the development of 

such technologies would decrease. Furthermore, the effects of thwarting the development of this 

technology could resonate to other technologically similar markets, and cause companies to stop 

developing new technologies. Overall, this cumulative effect on the national economy could be 

negative, while the effect on foreign markets might be positive. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 6-1 

6 MITIGATION 

This section addresses the broad mitigation measures that may be implemented to prevent or 

reduce the environmental effects of the activities considered in this PEIS. The mitigation 

measures presented are program-wide mitigation measures, as site-specific mitigation measures 

would be developed based on the parameters of the activity that would be licensed by the FAA. 

As such, the site-specific NEPA document that would be prepared for a FAA licensing activity 

that would tier from this PEIS would include site-specific mitigation measures. In addition, the 

FAA does not consider compliance with existing regulatory standards to be a mitigation 

measure, as compliance with such standards would be mandatory with any action. 

In developing mitigation measures for the activities considered in this PEIS, the FAA reviewed 

its licensing procedures to identify operational controls or methods that could be implemented as 

mitigation measures. The FAA would continue to develop and implement environmental 

monitoring programs on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate. Specifically, the FAA would 

consider developing monitoring programs to ensure that licensees meet requirements of various 

regulations including the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and National 

Historic Preservation Act. These monitoring requirements may be listed as part of the terms and 

conditions of future licenses. 

In addition to the development of monitoring programs, the FAA would continue to prepare 

 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, 

 Quarterly Launch Reports, 

 Licensing and Safety Reports, 

 Annual Development and Concept Reports, and 

 Commercial Space Transportation, Year End Reports. 

Such reports would allow the FAA to maintain accountability of both commercial and noncommercial launch activities, track successful and failed launches, maintain current safety 

standards, and remain abreast of future launch activities and concepts. The FAA would also 

continue to make this information available for the public via its internet site 

(http://ast.faa.gov/rep_study/). As the commercial space industry would grow and expand into 

new areas or surpass the level of activity or technologies analyzed in current NEPA documents 

prepared by the FAA, this process would allow the FAA to proactively identify new concepts or 

increased levels of activities that would require review in accordance with NEPA. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 7-1 

7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Natural and man-made resources would be expended under the implementation of the proposed 

action. Human effort would be irretrievably committed for the preparation and processing of 

license applications and their associated reviews (see Section 1.2, FAA Licensing Program). The 

development and launch of horizontal LVs, reentries of RVs, and the development and operation 

of facilities to support these activities would require the use of various natural resources. The 

materials used to manufacture such vehicles include a modest amount of metals, such as 

aluminum, nickel, stainless steel, carbon, copper, titanium, and other materials. These materials 

are readily available in large quantities. Composite materials or fiber reinforced plastics (FRP) 

would also be used on in the construction of such vehicles. Composites may be composed of 

glass, carbon, or aramide fibers imbedded in resin; specific vehicle structural parts or tanks 

would then be fabricated by winding filaments or tape or laying up impregnated cloth or tape as 

required by the application. In general, the amount of metal and composite materials that would 

be required for the horizontal LVs or RVs is negligible compared to the quantities routinely 

produced. 

Solid and liquid propellants and other consumable fluids would be expended during the launch of 

horizontally launched LVs and during the reentry of RVs. Appendix F describes these materials 

and their quantities. Any support aircraft would typically use jet fuel. Solid rocket motors in 

conjunction with liquid LOX/RP-1 systems, or hybrid propellants may also be used during 

particular portions of a vehicle launch or reentry. 

The development of a new or modification of an existing launch or reentry facility would result 

in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of both natural and man-made resources. 

Human effort would be irretrievably committed during the planning, construction, operation, 

maintenance phases of the facility, while natural resources (construction material) would be 

committed to the facility. Such irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and the 

amount would be presented in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 8-1 

8 LIST OF PREPARERS 

This list presents the primary contributors to the technical content of the PEIS. 

Name Area of Specialty Degree Affiliation 

Doug Graham 

NEPA Compliance 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment 

M.B.A. General Management 

B.S. Mechanical/Aerospace 

Engineering 

FAA AST 

Stacey Zee 

NEPA Compliance 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment 

M.S. Environmental Policy 

B.S. Natural Resource 

Management 

FAA AST 

Michon 

Washington 

NEPA Compliance 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment 

M.S. Environmental 

Management and Technology 

B.S. Environmental Science 

FAA AST 

Deborah 

Shaver 

Project Management 

NEPA Compliance 

Safety 

Launch Activities 

M.S. Chemistry 

B.A. Chemistry ICF 

Consulting 

Todd Stribley 

NEPA Compliance 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment 

B.S. Biology ICF 

Consulting 

Hova Woods 

Socioeconomics and 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment 

M.P.A. Environmental 

Management 

B.S. Finance 

ICF 

Consulting 

Pam Schanel 

NEPA Compliance 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment 

B.A. Environmental Public 

Policy Analysis 

ICF 

Consulting 

Kate Johnson Airspace and Noise B.S. Environmental 

Engineering 

ICF 

Consulting 

David 

GoldbloomHelzner Atmosphere 

B.A. Chemistry, 

B.S. Engineering and Policy ICF 

Consulting 

Mark Lee Atmosphere 

M.S. Environmental Science 

and Engineering 

B.S.P.H. Environmental 

Science and Policy 

ICF 

Consulting 

Maggie 

O’Connor Geology and Soils B.A. Earth Sciences ICF Consulting 

Andrew 

Einhorn 

Health and Safety 

Hazardous Waste 

Orbital Debris 

M.S. Environmental 

Management 

B.A. Psychology 

ICF 

Consulting 

Lesley 

Jantarasami Cultural Resources B.A. Environmental Science and Policy 

ICF 

Consulting 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-1 

9 REFERENCES

Alamo Area Council of Governments, 1999. Natural Resources/Transportation 

Department. 1996 Emission Inventory for the Alamo Area Council of Governments 

Region. October: Chapter 3. Accessed at 

http://www.aacog.com/naturalresources/1996%20Emissions%20Inventory/1996EI_TOC.

html on May 25, 2005. 

Allan, J. David. 1995. Stream Ecology, Structure and Function of Running Waters. 

Chapman and Hall. New York, New York. 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Professional Studies Series, 1990. 

Sonic Boom: Prediction and Effects: Conference in Tallahassee, Florida. Washington: 

AIAA, as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Anton-Guirgis, H, B.D. Culver, S. Wang, and T.H. Taylor, 1986. Exploratory Study of 

the Potential Effects of Exposure to Sonic Boom on Human Health. Irvine: University of 

California, Dept. of Community & Environmental Medicine Irvine, June, as referenced in 

the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Appenzeller, Christof, 2004. University of Bern, “Draft Fact-Sheet Thermohaline 

Circulation,” Accessed at http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~christof/div/fact4thc.html in 

April 2004. 

Australian Space Weather Agency, 2004. “A Guide to Space radiation,” Accessed at 

http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/Space%20Weather/Space%20Weather%20

Effects/guide-to-space-radiation.pdf in November 2004. 

Bowles, A.E., 1997. Effects of Recreational Noise on Wildlife: An Update. Paper 

presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting and Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council. 

April, as cited in National Aeronautics and Space Administration. X-33 Technology 

Demonstrator Vehicle Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement. June, p. 4-61, as 

referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Brady, B.B., E.W. Fournier, L.R. Martin, and R.B. Cohen, 1994. Stratospheric Ozone 

Reactive Chemicals Generated by Space Launches Worldwide. Prepared by The 

Aerospace Corporation, Mechanics and Materials Technology Center, Technology 

Operations, for Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command, 2430 

E. El Segundo Boulevard, Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA 90245. Prepared under 

Contract No. F04701-88-C-0089. Aerospace Report No. TR-94-(4231)-6. Accessed at 

http://ax.losangeles.af.mil/axf/studies/docs/brady94.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

British Airways, 2004. “Cosmic Radiation,” Accessed at 

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/healthcosmic/public/en_gb in November 2004. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-2 

Brown & Root Environmental, 1996. Environmental Assessment of the Kodiak Launch 

Complex. Aiken: Brown & Root Environmental, June. Accessed at 

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/facility/faa_ea_klc.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2004. “Visual Resource Management: VRM 

System,” accessed at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html on 

November 18, 2004. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2005. Ambient Air Quality Standards Chart 

(Federal and California), accessed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf on 

June 22, 2005. 

Chabrillat, S, 2003. Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy. “What is the mesosphere?” 

January 2003. Accessed at http://www.oma.be/BIRAIASB/Public/Research/Meso/What.en.html in March 2004. 

Chouinard, A.P., Adams, A.J., Wright, A.M., and M.K. Hudson. Multi-Wavelength 

Laser Opacity Study of a Hybrid Rocket Plume. Journal of Pyrotechnics. Issue 15, 

Summer 2002. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands 

and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Online. Available at 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm (Version 04DEC98). 

Department of Defense (DoD), 2004. Ballistic Missile Defense System, Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. September. Accessed at 

http://www.mda.mil/peis/html/resource.html on May 25, 2005. 

Department of the Air Force, 1990. Environmental Assessment Titan IV/Solid Rocket 

Motor Upgrade Program, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL, Vandenberg Air Force 

Base, CA. February. Accessed at 

http://ax.losangeles.af.mil/axf/eaapgs/docs/eatitan4srmfeb90.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

Department of the Air Force, 1991. Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

Medium Launch Vehicle III Program. June, as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 

2001 PEIS. Accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-

PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Department of the Air Force, 1994. Environmental Assessment Lockheed Launch 

Vehicles, Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. April, as referenced in the FAA Launch 

Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-3 

Driscoll, et al. 2001. “Acidic Deposition in the Northeastern United States: Sources and 

Inputs, Ecosystem Effects, and Management Strategies.” BioScience, March, Vol. 51 No. 

3. Accessed at 

http://www.esf.edu/efb/mitchell/Class%20Readings/BioSci.51.180.198.pdf 

on May 26, 2005. 

Encyclopedia of the Atmospheric Environment, 2000a. Atmosphere, “Mesosphere,” 

Accessed at http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/english.html in March 2004. 

Encyclopedia of the Atmospheric Environment, 2000b. Atmosphere, “Troposphere,” 

Accessed at http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/english.html in March 2004. 

Environmental Health Center. Coastal Challenges: A Guide to Coastal and Marine 

Issues. National Safety Council, Washington, D.C. February, 1998. Accessed at 

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/guidebks/coasttoc.htm on May 26, 2005. 

Erickson III, D.J., C. Seuzaret, W.C. Keene, and S.L. Gong, 1999. A general circulation 

model based calculation of HCl and ClNO2 production from sea salt dechlorination: 

Reactive chlorine emissions inventory. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 8347-8372. Accessed at 

http://www.geiacenter.org/rcei/RCEI_seasalt.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 1985. Aviation Noise Effects. March. Accessed 

at http://www.nonoise.org/library/ane/ane.htm on May 25, 2005. 

FAA, 2001. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing Launches. 

May 24. Accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm on May 26, 2005. 

FAA, 2004. Aviation Safety Data, Aviation Glossary, Accessed at 

http://www.asy.faa.gov/internet/fw_glossary.htm on May 25, 2005. 

FAA, 2004a. Final Environmental Assessment for the East Kern Airport District Launch 

Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport. February 18. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm on May 25, 2005. 

FAA, 2004b. “International Civil Aviation Organization,” Accessed at 

http://www.intl.faa.gov/displaypage.cfm?id=62 on May 25, 2005. 

FAA, 2004c. Pilot/Controller Glossary, Aeronautical Information Manual, Effective 

February 19, 2004. Accessed at http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/index.htm on 

May 25, 2005. 

FAA, 2004d. Emission and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) User’s Manual, 

Version 4.2, prepared for FAA Office of Environment and Energy by CSSI, Inc., 

September. Accessed at 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/models/edms_model/medi

a/EDMS4.2Manual.pdf on June 14, 2005.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-4 

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected 

Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Accessed at 

http://www.wyleacoustics.com/acpdfs/FICON1.pdf on May 25, 2005. 

Goddard Space Flight Center, 1995. “About Ionospheric Models at NSSDC,” Last 

updated December 1, 1995, Accessed at 

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/space/model/ionos/about_ionos.html on May 25, 2005. 

Goddard Space Flight Center, 2003. Distributed Active Archive Center, “Atmospheric 

Chemistry Data & Resources,” Last updated November 26, 2003, accessed at 

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/ATM_CHEM/atmospheric_structure.html

in March 2004. 

Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, 1996. Assessment of Potential Impacts of Launch 

Noise and Sonic Boom from Titan IV/NUS Space Launch Vehicles on Pinnipeds near 

Vandenberg Air force Base and on the Southern California Channel Islands. Technical 

Report 96-262. September, as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. 

Accessed at: http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on 

May 31, 2005. 

International Civil Aviation Organization (IACO), 2004. “ICAO’s Aims.” Accessed at 

http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/aimstext.htm on May 25, 2005. 

Kern County, 1982. Kern County General Plan, as referenced in the Final EA for the 

East Kern Airport District Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport, 

February 2004. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/CompleteFINALMojaveEAv6_February19%202004

_dks.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Kern County, 2003. Environmental Noise Assessment for the Civilian Flight Test Center 

Master Plan, as referenced in the Final EA for the East Kern Airport District Launch Site 

Operator License for the Mojave Airport, February 2004. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/CompleteFINALMojaveEAv6_February19%202004

_dks.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

Ko, M., R-L Shia, D. Weisenstein, J. Rodriguez, N-D Sze, J.R. Edwards, D. Pilson, P.D. 

Lohn, and T.W. Smith, Jr., 1999. Global Stratospheric Impact of Solid Rocket Motor 

Launchers. Submitted by TRW Space & Electronics Group to U.S. Air Force Space and 

Missile Systems Center, Environmental Management Branch, SMC/AXFV, under 

Contract F09603-95-D-0176-0007. Accessed at 

http://ax.losangeles.af.mil/axf/studies/docs/gsisrml.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

Lutgens, Frederick K., and Tarbuck, Edward. The Atmosphere: An Introduction to 

Meteorology. 6th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1995. pp. 17-22. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-5 

Marine Biology, 2004. “Ocean Facts.” MarineBio, Internet Publication, Accessed May 

17, 2004. Available at http://www.marinebio.com/MarineBio/Facts

Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), 2000. Atmosphere, Climate, and 

Environment: Information Programme. Encyclopedia of the Atmospheric Environment. 

Accessed at http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Atmosphere/Older/Troposphere.html in 

March 2004. 

McDonald, Allan J, and Robert R. Bennett, 1994. Atmospheric Environmental 

Implications of Propulsion Systems. Brigham City: Thiokol Space Operations, August, 

as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Mendillo, M. and G.S. Hawkins, 1975. Large-Scale Hole in the Ionosphere Caused by the 

Launch of Skylab. Science. January. V187: 343-346, as referenced in the FAA Launch 

Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Met Office, 2004. “The Stratosphere,” Accessed at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/stratosphere/ in March 2004. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 1989. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Space Shuttle Advanced Solid Rocket Motor Program. March, as 

referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

NASA, 1994. High-Speed Research: 1994 Sonic Boom Workshop, Atmospheric 

Propagation and Acceptability Studies. NASA Conference Publication 3279. 

Washington. June, as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

NASA, 1995. “Exploration.” NASA, Internet Publication. Accessed at 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/atmosphere.html on May 5, 2004. 

NASA, 2003. “Atmospheric and Chemistry Data & Resources.” NASA, Internet 

Publication. Accessed at 

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/ATM_CHEM/atmospheric_structure.html

on May 4, 2004. 

NASA, 2004a. Johnson Space Center, “Orbital Debris Education Package,” Orbital 

Debris Program Office, Accessed at 

http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/EducationPackage.pdf in October 2004. 

NASA, 2004b. “Space Flight Questions and Answers,” Accessed at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/qanda2.html#49 in November 2004. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-6 

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, 2004. “Orbital Debris Frequently Asked 

Questions,” http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faqs.html#1, last updated 

January 2004. 

National Geophysical Data Center, 2004. “Introduction to the Ionosphere,” Accessed at 

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/ionointro.html in March 2004. 

National Safety Council, 1998. Coastal Challenges: A Guide to Coastal and Marine 

Issues, February. http://www.nsc.org/public/ehc/coasts/guide.pdf, accessed April 2004. 

National Science and Technology Council, 1995. “Interagency Report on Orbital 

Debris.” Accessed at 

http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/IAR_95_Document.pdf on May 25, 2005. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2004. Accessed at http://www.nps.gov/rivers/

on May 25, 2005. 

Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, 2004. “The Restless Sea.” Naval 

Meteorology and Oceanography Command, Public Affairs Office, Internet Publication, 

accessed at http://pao.cnmoc.navy.mil/PAO/Educate/OceanTalk2/indexnew.htm on 

May 18, 2004. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2004. National Geophysical 

Data Center (NGDC), “Introduction to the Ionosphere.” NOAA, Internet Publication, 

accessed at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/ionointro.html on May 5, 2004. 

Natural History, 2003. “Irma and Paul Milstein Family Hall of Ocean Life Reopens – At 

the American Museum of Natural History,” accessed at 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_4_112/ai_100736442# on 

June 14, 2005. 

Naval Research Laboratory, 2003. Space Science Division, “Introduction to Upper 

Atmospheric Science.” U.S. Navy, Internet Publication, accessed at 

http://spacescience.nrl.navy.mil/introupatmsci.html on May 5, 2004. 

Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), 1996. Indian Head Division. Combustion 

Products of Solid Rocket Motors. August, as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 

2001 PEIS. Accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-

PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 2004. Accessed at 

http://www.osha.gov/ in August 2004. 

Okanagan University, 1996. “Photochemical Smog,” Last updated October 17, 1996. 

Accessed at http://royal.okanagan.bc.ca/mpidwirn/atmosphereandclimate/smog.html#a in 

March 2004. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-7 

Osborn, Tim, 2000. University of East Anglia, “The thermohaline circulation,” July 

2000. Accessed at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/ in April 2004. 

Oulu Space Physics Textbook, 2002. “Ionosphere,” Last update November 6, 2002. 

Accessed at http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/ionosphere.html in March 2004. 

Public Broadcast Station, 2000. NOVA, “Sonic Boom Basics,” Last updated October 

2000. Accessed at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/barrier/boom/ in April 2004. 

Ross, M.N., J.R. Benbrook, W.R. Sheldon, P.F. Zittel, and D.L. McKenzie, 1997. 

Observation of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion in Rocket Exhaust Plumes.” Nature. Vol. 

390. November 6: pp. 62-64, as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. 

Accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on

May 31, 2005. 

Ross, Martin, and Paul Zittel, 2000. The Aerospace Corporation. “Rockets and the Ozone 

Layer.” Crosslink Magazine. Vol. 1, No. 2. Summer 2000. Accessed at 

http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html on May 26, 2005. 

SRS Technologies, 1998. Acoustic Measurements of the Titan IV A-18 Launch and 

Quantitative Analysis of Harbor Seal Behavioral and Auditory Responses. February, as 

referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

SRS Technologies and Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, 1996. Behavioral 

Responses Of Pinnipeds And Selected Avifauna At Vandenberg Air Force Base And the 

Northern California Channel Islands To Rocket Noise And Sonic Boom During Launch 

of a Titan IV K-22 Rocket from SLC-4E, Vandenberg Air Force Base on May 22, 1996. 

September, as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

The Aerospace Corporation, 2005. “Spacecraft Reentry.” Last updated February 16, 

2005. Accessed at http://www.aero.org/capabilities/cords/reentry-overview.html on 

May 25, 2005. 

The National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University Corporation for 

Atmospheric Research Office of Programs, 2004. Accessed at 

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_7_1.htm in March 2004. 

UGA/Media, 2004. “What is a Sonic Boom?” Accessed at http://www.skyflash.com/boom.htm in April 2004. 

U.S. Air Force (USAF), 1986. Headquarters Space Division, Environmental Assessment 

for Complementary Expendable Launch Vehicle at the Canaveral Air Station, Florida. 

June. Accessed at http://ax.losangeles.af.mil/axf/eaapgs/docs/eacompelv686.pdf on 

May 26, 2005. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-8 

USAF, 1992. Hill Air Force Base, Utah. Sonic Boom/Animal Disturbance Studies on 

Pronghorn Antelope, Rocky Mountain Elk, and Bighorn Sheep. February 1992, as 

referenced in National Aeronautics and Space Administration, X-33 Technology 

Demonstrator Vehicle Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement, June 1997, pp. 4-

61. X-33 EIS available at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/X33_ADV_TECH_DEMO_VEHICLE_PROGRAM-volume1.pdf and 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/X33_ADV_TECH_DEMO_VEHICLE_PROGRAM-volume2.pdf 

USAF, 1994. Environmental Assessment for the California Spaceport; Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, CA 30SW/ET Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA December 1994, as 

referenced in Brown & Root Environmental. Environmental Assessment of the Kodiak 

Launch Complex. Aiken: Brown & Root Environmental, June 1996. Kodiak EA 

available at http://www.fas.org/spp/military/facility/faa_ea_klc.pdf. 

USAF, 1998. Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program, Environmental Impact 

Statement. April. Accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/coop/eelv/EIS1998-

AF.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2004. “USA Statistics in Brief.” U.S. Census Bureau, Internet 

Publication. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/statab/www/brief.html on May 7, 2004. 

U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission, 2004. “Geosynchronous and Geostationary 

Orbit.” Accessed at 

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/GEO_ORBIT/DI146.htm in 

November 2004. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2004. Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, “Farmland Protection Policy Act,” accessed at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fppa/. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1992. Environmental Impact Statement for 

Commercial Reentry Vehicles. Washington. May. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/PEISRV5-28-92.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

U.S. DOT, 1997. Research and Special Programs Administration, Office of Hazardous 

Materials Safety. An Overview of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law. 

December 1. Accessed at http://hazmat.dot.gov/regs/overhml.pdf on May 25, 2005. 

U.S. DOT, 2001. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing 

Launches. May 24. Accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm on May 25, 2005. 

U.S. DOT, 2002. “Commercial Space Transportation Quarterly Launch Report.” 

Accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/Q2QLRMay2k2.pdf on May 25, 2005. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-9 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1978. Office of Noise Abatement & 

Control. Protective Noise Levels-Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document.

Publication EPA 550/9-79-100. Washington. November. Accessed at 

http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels/levels.htm on May 26, 2005. 

U.S. EPA, 1980. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. II. February, as 

referenced in the Final EA for the East Kern Airport District Launch Site Operator 

License for the Mojave Airport, February 2004. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/CompleteFINALMojaveEAv6_February19%202004

_dks.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

U.S. EPA, 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation Volume IV: Mobile 

Sources. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/r92009.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

U.S. EPA, 2004. “Ozone Science: The Facts Behind the Phaseout.” Accessed at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html in March 2004. 

U.S. EPA, 2005. “Fine Particle (PM 2.5) Designations.” Accessed at 

http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/ on June 15, 2005. Last updated April 11, 2005. 

U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), 2004. Air Trends, Six 

Principal Air Pollutants. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html in 

November 2004. 

U.S. EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, 2001. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–1999. EPA 236-R-01-001. April. Accessed at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHG

EmissionsUSEmissionsInventory2001.html on May 26, 2005. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1988. U.S. Department of the 

Interior. “Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Fish and Wildlife: Results of a 

Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species and Ecological Services 

Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcheries, and Research Centers.” June, as referenced in the 

FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

USFWS, 2004. Accessed at http://www.fws.gov/ in August 2004. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1999. Ground Water. USGS, General Interest 

Publication, Denver, Colorado. 1999 revision. Accessed at 

http://capp.water.usgs.gov/gwa/ch_a/index.html on May 31, 2005. 

USGS, 2002. “Teacher’s Guide and Lessons.” Last modified January 2002. Accessed at 

http://interactive2.usgs.gov/learningweb/teachers/volcanoes_guide_glossary.htm, on 

May 25, 2005. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 9-10 

USGS, 2004. “Aquifer Basics.” USGS, Internet Publication. Accessed at 

http://capp.water.usgs.gov/aquiferBasics/index.html on May 8, 2004. 

University of Leicester, “Ionospheric Physics.” Accessed at 

http://ion.le.ac.uk/ionosphere/ionosphere.html in March 2004. 

Versar, Inc., 1991. Final Environmental Assessment Vandenberg Air Force Base Atlas II 

Program. August, as referenced in the FAA Launch Licensing 2001 PEIS. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/progeis/Volume1-PEIS.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), 2002. WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors, 

Internet Publication, 13 November. Accessed at http://www.wrapair.org/309/index.html

on December 9, 2004. 

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, 2004. “Ionosphere.” Accessed at 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere in March 2004. 

World Meteorological Organization, 1995. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 

1994. Report No. 37. February. Accessed at 

http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/Assessment94.html on June 1, 2005. 

Wright, A.B., Elsasser, J.E., Hudson, M.K., and A.M. Wright. Optical Studies of 

Combustion Chamber Flame in a Hybrid Rocket Motor. Journal of Pyrotechnics. Issue 

21, Summer 2005. 

XCOR Aerospace, 2004. EZ-rocket home page, accessed at 

http://www.xcor.com/ez.html on November 11, 2004. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-1 

10 GLOSSARY 

A-Weighted Decibel (dBA): A number representing the sound level that is frequencyweighted according to a prescribed frequency response of the human ear, as established 

by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (See definition for decibel). 

Accident Scenario: A probable, possible, and/or plausible incident or sequence of failure 

events that can lead to the occurrence of an accident. 

Acid rain: Rain with a potential of hydrogen (pH) level of less than 5.6. (See definition 

for potential of hydrogen [pH]). 

Airspace: The portion of the atmosphere that lies above a nation and comes under its 

jurisdiction. Airspace is a finite resource that can be defined vertically, horizontally, and 

temporally. The FAA controls U.S. airspace from ground level to a ceiling of 18,288 

meters (60,000 feet). 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS): Defined limits for airborne concentrations of 

designated criteria pollutants. They are established on a state or Federal level to protect 

public health with an adequate margin of safety (primary standards) and to protect public 

welfare, including plant and animal life, visibility, and materials (secondary standards). 

(See definition for criteria pollutant). 

Apogee: The point during a vehicle’s flight path where the vehicle is furthest from Earth. 

Attainment Area: A region that meets the U.S. EPA National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act. (See definitions for 

criteria pollutant and NAAQS). 

Aquifer: An underground bed or layer of earth, gravel, or porous stone that yields water 

for wells, springs, and other water bodies. 

Best Management Practice (BMP): Structural, nonstructural, and managerial technique 

recognized to be the most effective and practical means to manage a process or address 

and issue (e.g., a method that reduces ground water contamination while still allowing the 

productive use of resources).

Biological Resources: Terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals and the various 

ecosystems that they inhabit. 

Brackish: Descriptive term for water having salinity values ranging from approximately 

0.50 to 17.00 parts per thousand. Brackish water may result from mixing of seawater 

with fresh water, as in estuaries, or it may occur naturally, as in brackish fossil aquifers. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced by incomplete 

fossil fuel combustion. Carbon monoxide is one of the six criteria pollutants for which 

there is a NAAQS. (See definition for criteria pollutant). 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-2 

Criteria Pollutant: A pollutant determined to injure health, harm the environment, and 

cause property damage and regulated under EPA’s NAAQS (carbon monoxide, lead, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone (1-hour and 8-hour), particulate matter (2.5 and 10), and sulfur 

dioxide). The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act require EPA to describe the health 

and welfare impacts of a pollutant as the “criteria” for inclusion in the regulatory regime. 

Cryogenic: A type of propellant for launch vehicle propulsion systems that is gaseous at 

room temperature and maintained as liquid at very low temperatures (e.g., liquid oxygen 

[LOX], liquefied hydrogen [LH2]). 

Cultural Resources: Includes prehistoric and historic structures, artifacts, archaeological 

sites, underwater sites, burial sites, and Native American/Hawaiian religious sites. 

Related to cultural resources are historic properties, which include artifacts, 

archaeological sites, standing structures or other historic resources listed, or potentially 

eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Cumulative Impacts: The combined impacts resulting from all activities occurring 

concurrently at a given location. 

Day-Night Average Noise Level (DNL): A noise metric combining the levels and 

durations of noise events and the number of events over an extended time period. It is a 

cumulative average computed over a set of 24-hour periods to represent total noise 

exposure. DNL also accounts for more intrusive night time noise, adding a 10-decibel 

penalty for sounds after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m. (See definition for decibel). 

Decibel (dB): A unit used to express the intensity of a sound wave, equal to 20 times the 

common logarithm of the ratio of the pressure produced by the sound wave to a reference 

pressure (typically one micropascal at one meter). 

De minimis level: In the context of air quality, the level at which emissions do not have 

an impact. 

Ecosystem: The set of biotic (living) and abiotic (nonliving) components in a given 

environment.

Endangered Species: Animal, bird, fish, plant, or other living organism threatened with 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Requirements for declaring 

a species endangered are contained in the Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

Executive Order 12898 specifies how Federal agencies should address the issue. 

Ejecta: Material that is expelled into space from solid rocket motor engines or chunks of 

unburned solid propellant (e.g., aluminum oxide [Al2O3] particulate dust). 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-3 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by wind, water, ice or other geologic 

agents. It occurs naturally from weather or runoff but is often intensified by human land 

use practices. 

Footprint: The surface area of the Earth likely to be impacted by something, such as 

falling orbital debris or sonic booms.

Floodplain: Low-lying areas adjacent to rivers and streams that are subject to natural 

inundations typically associated with precipitation. 

Fugitive Dust: Any solid particulate matter that becomes airborne, other than that 

emitted from an exhaust stack, either directly or indirectly as a result of the activities of 

man. Fugitive dust may include emissions from dirt roads, wind erosion of exposed soil 

surfaces, and other activities in which soil is either removed or redistributed. (See 

definition for particulate matter). 

Geology and Soils: Geology is the science and study of the Earth, its composition, 

structure, physical properties, history, and the processes that shape it. Soil is the layer of 

minerals and organic matter on the land surface, and includes components of moisture 

and air. 

Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO): An orbit 35,890 kilometers (22,300 miles) in 

altitude that is synchronized with the Earth’s rotation. If a satellite in geosynchronous 

orbit is not at 0 degrees inclination, its ground path forms a figure eight as it travels 

around the Earth. 

Global Warming: The progressive gradual rise of the Earth’s surface temperature 

thought to be caused by the greenhouse effect. Global warming may be responsible for 

changes in global climate patterns. Global warming has occurred in the past as the result 

of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to 

occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. (See definition for 

Greenhouse Gases).

Greenhouse Gases: Gases that raise the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere by 

absorbing part of the long-wave radiation reflected back from the Earth’s surface, also 

known as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, 

methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and 

perfluorinated carbons. 

Ground cloud: The concentrated area of pollutants that form close the Earth’s surface 

when a launch vehicle vertically accelerates off a launch pad. 

Ground water: Water, both fresh and saline, that is stored below the Earth’s surface in 

pores, cracks, and crevices below the water table. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-4 

Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO): An orbit attained when a spacecraft is first 

launched into an elliptical orbit with an apogee altitude (the point of orbit which is 

farthest from the Earth) of approximately 37,000 kilometers (22,991 miles). 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs): A group of 188 chemicals identified in the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments. Exposure to these pollutants can cause or contribute to 

cancer, birth defects, genetic damage, and other adverse health effects.

Hazardous Materials and Waste: Substances that, because of their quantity, 

concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present substantial 

danger to the public health, welfare, or the environment when released.

High payload capacity: The ability of a launch vehicle to lift from 4,082 to 4,536 

kilograms (9,000 to 10,000 pounds) into GTO. (See definition for payload). 

Hybrid propulsion systems/fuels: A propulsion system that uses solid fuel with a liquid 

oxidizer, giving it the ability to throttle, shut-off, and restart in mid-flight. (See definition 

for propulsion system). 

Hydrazine (N2H4): A toxic, flammable, fuming, corrosive, strongly reducing liquid used 

as launch vehicle fuel. (See definitions of propellant and propulsion systems). 

Hydrocarbon fuel: A carbon-based propellant used for launch vehicle propulsion 

systems (e.g., Rocket Propellant-1 [RP-1], kerosene plus an oxidizer like liquid oxygen 

[LOX]). 

Hypergolic: Term applied to describe the self-ignition of a fuel and an oxidizer upon 

mixing with each other without a spark or other external aid. 

Impact Analysis: An assessment of the meaning of changes in all attributes being 

studied for a given resource, an aggregation of all effects, usually measured using a 

qualitative and nominally subjective technique. 

Intermediate payload capacity: The ability of a launch vehicle to carry between 1,814 

and 4,082 kilograms (4,000 and 9,000 pounds) into GTO or more than 2,268 kilograms 

(5,000 pounds) into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). (See definitions for LEO and payload). 

Ion: An atom or molecule that has acquired an electric charge by the loss or gain of one 

or more electrons. 

Ionization: A process by which a neutral atom or molecule loses or gains electrons, 

thereby acquiring a net charge and becoming an ion. 

Ionosphere: The part of the Earth’s upper atmosphere which is sufficiently ionized by 

solar ultraviolet radiation so that the concentration of free electrons affects the 

propagation of radio waves. It begins between 85 and 105 kilometers (53 to 65 miles) 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-5 

above the Earth’s surface and is considered to extend upwards to 2,000 kilometers (1,243 

miles), though it has no well-defined upper boundary. 

Land Use: The way land is developed and used in terms of the kinds of anthropogenic 

activities that occur (e.g., agriculture, residential areas, industrial areas).

Launch vehicle: A rocket launched to deliver a payload from Earth into space. (See 

definition for payload).

Lead: A heavy metal element formerly added to gasoline and paint for improved 

performance characteristics. Ingestion and accumulation in humans results in damage to 

the central nervous system and the mental development of children. Lead is one of the 

six criteria pollutants for which there is a NAAQS.

Low Earth Orbit (LEO): A flight path between the Earth’s atmosphere and the bottom 

of the Van Allen belts, from about 161 to 1,609 kilometers (100 to 1,000 miles) altitude. 

(See definition of Van Allen belts). 

Mach 1: Speed of sound, which measures approximately 1,223 kilometers per hour (760 

miles per hour); traveling faster than this speed breaks the sound barrier. 

Magnetosphere: The region of the Earth in which the geomagnetic field plays a 

dominant part in controlling the physical processes that take place; it is usually 

considered to begin at an altitude of about 100 kilometers (62 miles) and to extend 

outward to a distant boundary that marks the beginning of interplanetary space. 

Medium Earth Orbit (MEO): A flight path between Low Earth Orbit (at approximately 

1,609 kilometers [1,000 miles]) and below Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (at 

approximately 35, 890 kilometers [22,300 miles]). Objects orbiting in MEO are 

generally located between 10,000 kilometers (6,214 miles) and 15,000 kilometers (9,321 

miles). 

Medium payload capacity: The ability of a launch vehicle to place a 907 to 1,814 

kilogram (2,000 to 4,000 pound) payload into GTO. (See definition for payload). 

Mesosphere: The mesosphere is located between 50 and 80 kilometers (31 to 50 miles) 

above the Earth’s surface, characterized by a temperature that decreases as the altitude 

increases. The coldest temperatures at the mesopause (the upper boundary of the 

mesosphere) can reach -100°C (-148°F). 

Mitigation: A method or action to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Public law 91-190, passed by Congress in 

1969. The Act established a national policy designed to encourage consideration of the 

influences of human activities, such as population growth, high-density urbanization, or 

industrial development, on the natural environment. NEPA procedures require that 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-6 

environmental information be made available to the public before decisions are made. 

Information contained in NEPA documents must focus on the relevant issues to facilitate 

the decision-making process. 

National Register of Historic Places: A register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, 

and objects important in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture, 

maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under authority of Section 2 (b) of the Historic 

Site Act of 1935 and Section 101 (1) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): Gas formed primarily from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen 

when fuel combustion takes place at high temperature. NO2 emissions contribute to acid 

rain and formation of atmospheric ozone. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the six criteria 

pollutants for which there is a NAAQS. 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX): A generic term referring to any one of six different oxides of 

nitrogen produced during fuel combustion: nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3), dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), and 

dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5). They are believed to cause health problems, form 

atmospheric ozone, create acid rain, and cause other ecological problems.

Noise: Sound that is unwanted, either because of its effect on humans, its effect on 

fatigue or malfunction of physical equipment, or its interference with the perception or 

detection of other sounds. 

Non-Attainment Areas: An area that has been designated by the EPA or the appropriate 

state air quality agency as exceeding one or more national or state AAQS. 

Non-point Source: Type of pollution originating from a combination of sources. 

Orbital debris: Man-made material in the Earth’s orbit that is no longer serving any 

function (e.g., outdated satellites or expended portions of spacecraft). 

Organic matter: Relating to, or derived from, living organisms. 

Overpressure: The local transient pressure exceeding existing atmospheric pressure, 

usually expressed in pounds per square inch. 

Oxidizer: A substance that yields oxygen readily to support the combustion of organic 

matter, powdered metals, and other flammable material (e.g., chlorate, perchlorate, 

permanganate, peroxide, nitrate, and oxide). 

Ozone (O3): A molecule made up of three atoms of oxygen. It occurs naturally in the 

stratosphere and provides a protective layer shielding the Earth from harmful ultraviolet 

radiation. In the troposphere, it is a chemical oxidant and major component of 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-7 

photochemical smog. Ozone is one of the six criteria pollutants for which there is a 

NAAQS. (See definitions of troposphere and stratosphere). 

Ozone Depleting Substances: Substances that can catalyze reactions that break ozone 

into other compounds, which is an issue of concern in the stratosphere. 

Parking orbit: A temporary Earth orbit for a spacecraft. 

Particulate Matter (PM): Dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted 

into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, engines, construction activity, 

fires and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or 

the transformation of emitted gases are also considered particulate matter. Particulate 

matter is one of the six criteria pollutants for which there is a NAAQS. (See also PM10

and PM2.5 definitions). 

Payload: The item that an aircraft or rocket carries over and above what is necessary for 

the operation of the vehicle in flight (e.g., spaceflight participants, cargo, or satellites). 

Payload capacity: Payload capacity refers to the weight that a launch vehicle can lift into 

a particular orbit, such as LEO or GTO (expressed in pounds or kilograms). 

Photolysis: The use of radiant energy to produce chemical changes. 

PM10: Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter. 

PM2.5: Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. 

Potential of Hydrogen (pH): A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, 

numerically equal to 7 for neutral solutions. A solution of 0 to 7 is acid, where 

decreasing values toward 0 indicates an increase in acidity. A solution of 7 to 14 is 

alkaline, where increasing values toward 14 indicates an increase in alkalinity. 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS): A document prepared in 

accordance with NEPA for the adoption of programs, such as a group of concerted 

actions to implement a specific policy or plan. Systematic and connected agency 

decisions allocating agency resources to implement a specific statutory program or 

executive directive (40 CFR 1508.18). Such documents assist in tiering. (See definition 

for tiering). 

Propellant: A mixture of fuel and oxidizer that reacts (with or without an initiating 

source) to produce a high-energy stream of product gases that can produce thrust at a 

controlled, predetermined rate. 

Propulsion systems: A mechanical system that provides a propelling or driving force to 

push an object forward. A propellant is accelerated by the engine, and a reaction 

produces a force on the engine. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-8 

Public Health and Safety: Health and safety includes consideration of any activities, 

occurrences, or operations that have the potential to affect the well being, safety, or 

health of workers or members of the general public. 

Reentry: To return or attempt to return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle and its payload, if 

any, from Earth orbit or from outer space to Earth. (See definition of reentry vehicle). 

Reentry vehicle: A vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth 

substantially intact. 

Reusable launch vehicle: A launch vehicle that is designed to return to Earth 

substantially intact and may be launched more than one time or that contains vehicle 

stages that may be recovered by a launch operator for future use in the operation of a 

substantially similar launch vehicle. 

Scoping: A process initiated early during the NEPA process to identify the scope of 

issues to be addressed in the environmental document being prepared, including the 

significant issues related to the proposed action. During scoping, input is solicited from 

affected agencies as well as the interested members of the public. (40 CFR 1501.7)

Section 4(f) Resources: Resources protected under section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act (recodified as section 303(c) of 49 U.S.C.), which includes any 

publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge 

of national, state, or local significance or land from an historic site of national, state, or 

local significance. 

Small payload capacity: The ability of a launch vehicle to launch 907 kilograms (2,000 

pounds) or less into GTO or 2,268 kilograms (5,000 pounds) or less into LEO. 

Socioeconomics: The social and economic indicators specific to the human environment. 

Social indicators include statistical data related to population distributions, ethnicity, 

home ownership, education levels, and the availability of medical care, fire and rescue 

services, educational facilities, or other public amenities such as libraries or recreational 

opportunities. Key economic indicators include employment trends and unemployment 

rates, income levels, retail sales, industry, factory, and agricultural activities, and home 

purchases or sales. 

Soil horizons: Layers of soil distinguishable by characteristic physical or chemical 

properties.

Solid propellant: A rocket propellant in solid form, containing a fuel/oxidizer mix that 

continually combusts when ignited (e.g., polybutadiene matrix with acrylonitrile, 

ammonium perchlorate oxidizer, and powdered aluminum). 

Sonic boom: A noise caused by a shock wave that emanates from an aircraft or other 

object traveling at or above the speed of sound (Mach 1). 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-9 

Sound: An alteration of properties of an elastic medium, such as pressure, particle 

displacement, or density that propagates through the medium. Sound waves having 

frequencies above the audible (sonic) range are termed ultrasonic waves. Those with 

frequencies below the sonic ranges are called infrasonic waves. Sound can also be 

described as acoustic waves or sound waves. 

Stratosphere: The atmospheric shell above the troposphere and below the mesosphere. 

It extends from the tropopause to about 55 kilometers (34 miles), where the temperature 

begins again to increase with altitude. (See definitions for troposphere and tropopause). 

Suborbital trajectory: The intentional flight path, or any portion of that flight path, of a 

launch vehicle or reentry vehicle, whose vacuum instantaneous impact point (IIP) does 

not leave the surface of the earth. The IIP of a launch vehicle is the projected impact 

point on Earth where the vehicle would land if its engines stop or where vehicle debris, in 

the event of failure and break-up, would land. The notion of a “vacuum” IIP reflects the 

absence of atmospheric effects in performing the IIP calculation. If the vacuum IIP never 

leaves the Earth's surface, the vehicle would not achieve Earth orbit and would therefore 

be on a suborbital trajectory.. 

Suborbital vehicle: A rocket-propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital 

trajectory and whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion 

of its flight. 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): A corrosive gas that combines with water vapor in the atmosphere 

to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which falls as acid rain. Sulfur dioxide is one of the six 

criteria pollutants for which there is a NAAQS. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements 

with subsequent more focused statements or environmental analyses, incorporating by 

reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the 

statement subsequently prepared.

Threatened Species: Plant and wildlife species that are likely to become endangered in 

the foreseeable future. 

Trajectory: The path followed by an object moving through space under the action of 

given forces such as thrust, wind, and gravity. 

Tropopause: The boundary zone (or transition layer) between the troposphere and the 

stratosphere of the Earth’s atmosphere. Its height varies from 10 to 20 kilometers (6.2 to 

12.4 miles) above the Earth’s surface and is characterized by little or no change in 

temperature as altitude increases. 

Troposphere: The layer of the atmosphere from the Earth’s surface up to the tropopause, 

comprised mostly of nitrogen (76.9 percent) and oxygen (20.7 percent). The troposphere 

is characterized by decreasing temperature with increasing altitude, vertical wind motion, 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 10-10 

appreciable water vapor content, and sensible weather (clouds, rain, etc.). It contains 75 

percent of the total mass of the Earth’s atmosphere. 

Van Allen belts: Radiation belts surrounding the Earth that contain energetic charged 

particles trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field. The inner belt extends over altitudes of 

650 to 6,300 kilometers (404 to 3,915 miles), while the outer belt extends from altitudes 

of about 10,000 to 65,000 kilometers (6,214 to 40,389 miles). 

Visual and Aesthetic Resources: Natural or developed landscapes that provide 

information for an individual to develop their perceptions of the area. The size, type, 

gradient, scale, and continuity of landforms, structures, land use patterns, and vegetation 

are all contributing factors to an area’s visual character and how it is perceived. 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Organic compounds that easily volatize or 

evaporate and can break down through photodestructive mechanisms. They contribute to 

air pollution, especially the generation of tropospheric ozone.

Water Resources: This term includes both freshwater and marine systems, wetlands, 

floodplains, and ground water. 

Wetlands: Land or areas exhibiting the following characteristics: hydric soil conditions; 

saturated or inundated soil during some part of the year and plant species tolerant of such 

conditions; areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, under normal circumstances, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples include 

swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 A-1 

APPENDIX A FAA LICENSING PROGRAM 

This appendix describes the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Office of Commercial 

Space Transportation’s (AST’s) commercial space transportation licensing program. It also 

discusses the different types of licenses and the steps involved in the licensing process. 

A.1 Licensing Program Overview 

The primary objective of the licensing program, which is carried out by the FAA’s Licensing and 

Safety Division, is to ensure public health and safety through the licensing of commercial space 

launches and reentries, as well as licensing the operation of launch sites. The objective of the 

FAA’s licensing and compliance monitoring/safety inspection processes is the protection of 

public health and safety and the safety of property. The components of the AST licensing 

process include pre-application consultation, application evaluation, and compliance monitoring. 

For the operation of a launch site and for the reentry of a reentry vehicle, the FAA evaluates an 

applicant’s proposal on an individual basis. The FAA issues a license when it determines that an 

applicant’s launch or reentry proposal or proposal to operate a launch site will not jeopardize 

public health and safety, safety of property, United States (U.S.) national security or foreign 

policy interests, or international obligations of the U.S. The FAA does not license launches 

performed by and for U.S. government agencies. 

49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 701, Commercial Space Launch Activities, gave the FAA the 

responsibility to: 

“regulate the commercial space transportation industry, only to the extent necessary to 

ensure compliance with international obligations of the United States and to protect the 

public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy 

interest of the United States, ... encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space 

launches by the private sector, recommend appropriate changes in Federal statutes, 

treaties, regulations, policies, plans, and procedures, and facilitate the strengthening and 

expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure.” 

The requirements that a launch operator or launch site operator must satisfy to protect the public 

include: commercial space transportation licensing and safety requirements (including those for 

operation of a launch site, and for reusable launch vehicle and reentry licensing); financial 

responsibility requirements; and civil penalty actions (enforcement). Advisory circulars provide 

guidance and information material of a non-regulatory nature to FAA recipients, industry, the 

space community, and the public. 

A.2 Types of Licenses 

The FAA has the authority to issue a total of seven types of commercial space transportation 

licenses: 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 A-2 

1. Launch Site Operator License – “A license to operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to 

operate a launch site in accordance with the representations contained in the licensee’s 

application, with terms and conditions contained in any license order accompanying the 

license, and subject to the licensee’s compliance with 49 U.S.C subtitle IX, ch.701 and this 

chapter. 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 420.41(a) A license to operate a launch site 

authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a launch operator for each launch point for the 

type and any weight class of [launch vehicle] LV identified in the license application and 

upon which the licensing determination is based. 14 CFR 420.41(b) Issuance of a license to 

operate a launch site does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to comply with any other 

laws or regulations; nor does it confer any proprietary, property, or exclusive right in the use 

of airspace or outer space. 14 CFR 420.41(c) A license to operate a launch site remains in 

effect for five years from the date of issuance unless surrendered, suspended, or revoked 

before the expiration of the term and is renewable upon application by the licensee.” 14 CFR 

420.43 

2. Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Mission-Specific License – “A mission-specific license 

authorizing an RLV mission authorizes a licensee to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, 

one model or type of RLV from a launch site approved for the mission to a reentry site or 

other location approved for the mission. A mission–specific license authorizing an RLV 

mission may authorize more than one RLV mission and identifies each flight of an RLV 

authorized under the license. A licensee’s authorization to conduct RLV missions terminates 

upon completion of all activities authorized by the license or the expiration date stated in the 

reentry license whichever comes first.” 14 CFR 431.3(a) 

3. RLV Mission Operator License – “An operator license for RLV missions authorizes a 

licensee to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, any of a designated family of RLVs within 

authorized parameters, including launch sites and trajectories, transporting specified classes 

of payloads to any reentry site or other location designated in the license. An operator 

license for RLV missions is valid for a two-year renewable term.” 14 CFR 431.3(b) 

4. Reentry-Specific License – “A reentry-specific license authorizes a licensee to reenter one 

model or type of reentry vehicle, other than an RLV, to a reentry site or other location 

approved for the reentry. A reentry-specific license may authorize more than one reentry and 

identifies each reentry authorized under the license. A licensee’s authorization to reenter 

terminates upon completion of all activities authorized by the license or the expiration date 

stated in the reentry license, whichever occurs first.” 14 CFR 435.3(a) 

5. Reentry Operator License – “A reentry operator license authorizes a licensee to reenter any 

of a designated family of reentry vehicles, other than an RLV, within authorized parameters, 

including trajectories, transporting specified classes of payloads to any reentry site 

designated in the license. A reentry operator license is valid for a two-year renewable term.” 

14 CFR 435.3(b) 

6. Launch-Specific License – “A launch-specific license authorizes a licensee to conduct one 

or more launches, having the same launch parameters, of one type of LV from one launch 

site. The license identifies, by name or mission, each launch authorized under the license. A 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 A-3 

licensee’s authorization to launch terminates upon completion of all launches authorized by 

the license or the expiration date stated in the license, whichever occurs first.” 14 CFR 

415.3(a) 

7. Launch Operator License – “A launch operator license authorizes a licensee to conduct 

launches from one launch site, within a range of launch parameters, of LVs from the same 

family of vehicles transporting specified classes of payloads. A launch operator license 

remains in effect for five years from the date of issuance.” 14 CFR 415.3(b) 

A.3 Components of the Launch Licensing Process 

The following are the three major components of the launch licensing process 

1. Pre-Application Consultation 

2. Application Evaluation 

a. Policy Review and Approval 

b. Safety Review and Approval 

c. Payload Review and Determination 

d. Financial Responsibility Determination 

e. Environmental Review 

3. Compliance Monitoring 

Pre-application consultation is accomplished prior to the formal submittal of a license 

application. The launch license application evaluation requires a series of activities, including 

policy review, safety review, payload review, financial responsibility determination, and 

environmental review. Compliance monitoring is performed after the license has been issued. 

An applicant may submit data related to the policy review, safety review, and payload review 

together as a single package or separately. An applicant may also request a maximum 

probability of loss determination separately to determine its financial responsibility requirements 

early in the process of developing its launch program. Environmental information is required for 

evaluation if the proposed activity is not adequately addressed in existing FAA documents. 

The following bullets provide additional detail of each step in the launch licensing process. 

 Pre-application consultation. An applicant must consult with the FAA before submitting 

an application. Pre-application consultation consists of any and all meetings, 

communications, or draft application submittals that a potential applicant may undertake with 

the FAA prior to submitting a formal application. Pre-application consultation allows a 

prospective applicant to familiarize the FAA with its proposal and the FAA to familiarize the 

prospective applicant with the licensing process. It also provides a potential applicant with 

an opportunity to identify any unique aspects of its proposal and develop a schedule for 

submitting an application. 

 Application evaluation. This portion of the process is comprised of five individual 

components. The following provides descriptions of each of the five steps in this portion of 

the launch licensing process. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 A-4 

• Policy review and approval. The FAA reviews a license application to determine 

whether it presents any issues affecting U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, 

or international obligations of the U.S. A major element of the policy review is the 

interagency review of the launch proposal. An interagency review allows government 

agencies to examine the proposed mission from their unique perspectives. The FAA 

consults with the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of State, and other 

Federal agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

which are authorized to address national security, foreign policy, or international 

obligation issues. 

• Safety review and approval. The purpose of the safety review is to determine whether an 

applicant can safely conduct the proposed activity. Because the licensee is responsible 

for public safety, it is important that the applicant demonstrate an understanding of the 

hazards involved and discuss how the operations will be performed safely. There are a 

number of technical analyses, some quantitative and some qualitative, that the applicant 

may perform in order to demonstrate that their commercial launch operations will pose 

no unacceptable threat to the public. The quantitative analyses focus on the reliability 

and functions of critical safety systems, the hazards associated with the hardware, and the 

risk those hazards pose to: public property and individuals near the launch site and along 

the flight path, satellites, and other on-orbit spacecraft. The qualitative analyses focus on 

the organizational attributes of the applicant, such as launch safety policies and 

procedures, communications, qualifications of key individuals, and critical internal and 

external interfaces. For applicants proposing to launch from a Federal launch range who 

have contracted with the Federal launch range for the provision of safety-related launch 

services and property, the FAA issues a safety approval if the applicant satisfies the 

requirements of the regulations and if those launch services and the proposed use of 

launch property are within the Federal launch range’s experience. AST’s Launch Site 

Safety Assessments document general information and capabilities of a Federal launch 

range, and provide a safety assessment of the Federal launch range to support the FAA’s 

licensing determination. 

• Payload review and determination. The FAA reviews a payload proposed for launch to 

determine whether a license applicant or payload owner or operator has obtained all 

required licenses, authorization, and permits, unless the payload is exempt from review. 

The FAA does not review payloads that are subject to regulation by the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), or owned or operated by the U.S. government. 

If not otherwise exempt, the FAA reviews a payload proposed for launch to determine 

whether its launch would jeopardize public health and safety, safety of property, U.S. 

national security or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the U.S. The 

FAA may review and issue findings regarding a proposed class of payload (e.g., 

communications, remote sensing, or navigation). However, each payload is subject to 

compliance monitoring by the FAA before launch. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 A-5 

• Financial responsibility determination. Section 70112 of the Commercial Space Launch 

Act25 requires that all commercial licensees demonstrate financial responsibility to 

compensate for the maximum probable loss from claims by a third party for death, bodily 

injury, or property damage or loss resulting from an activity carried out under the license; 

and the U.S. government against a person for damage or loss to government property 

resulting from an activity carried out under the license. Section 70112 also requires that 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) set the amounts of financial responsibility 

required of the licensee. The licensee can then elect to meet this requirement by proving 

they have financial reserves equal to or exceeding the amount specified, or placing the 

required amount in escrow, or purchasing liability insurance equal to the amount 

specified. The most common and preferred method is via the purchase of liability 

insurance. 

The maximum probable loss determination is based on an analysis and assessment of the 

maximum monetary losses likely to be incurred by government and third party personnel 

and property in the event of a mishap. It is calculated by assessing the dollar value of 

government and third party properties at risk by launch accidents likely to occur as the 

result of the conduct of launch activities. 

• Environmental review. The environmental evaluation ensures that proposed launch 

activities pose no unacceptable danger to the natural environment. The FAA is required 

to consider the environmental effects of commercial space launches authorized under a 

license because the issuance of a license is considered to be a major Federal action under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). An applicant 

must provide information sufficient to enable the FAA to comply with the requirements 

of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and the FAA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (FAA Order 1050.1E). 

 Compliance monitoring. The purpose of compliance monitoring is to ensure that a licensee 

complies with the Commercial Space Launch Act, the regulations, and the terms and 

conditions set forth in its license. A launch licensee shall allow access by, and cooperate 

with, Federal officers or employees or other individuals authorized by the FAA to observe 

any activities of the licensee, or of the licensee’s contractors or subcontractors, associated 

with the conduct of a licensed launch. Specific information to be included in an application 

for a license is located on the Application Information and Reports and Studies web pages. 

A.4 Exemptions 

Applicants proposing to launch unguided suborbital launch vehicles, such as for amateur rockets, 

require a license unless the launch is exempt. To be exempt under the regulations (14 CFR 

400.2), a launch must take place from a private site and involve a rocket that meets all three of 

the following conditions: 

 

25 The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX--Commercial Space 

Transportation, Ch. 701, Commercial Space Launch Activities, 49 U.S.C. §§ 70101-70119 (1994).
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 A-6 

 Has a motor or combination of motors with a total impulse of 200,000 pound-seconds or less; 

 Whose motor or combination of motors have a total burning time or operating time of less 

than 15 seconds; and 

 The rocket has a ballistic coefficient (i.e., gross weight in pounds divided by frontal area of 

rocket vehicle) less than 12 pounds per square inch. 

A.5 Additional Resources 

Detailed information about statutes, regulations, advisory circulars, and notices pertaining to 

licensing are available online at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/stats_notices.htm. Guidelines and other 

information related to the licensing process are also available online at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/app_info.htm. 

An online list of current licensees including the license number, company name, vehicles 

licensed, location, original effective date, and expiration date of the license is available at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/current_licenses.cfm. 

APPENDIX A REFERENCES 

FAA, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, “Licensing Regulations & 

Regulatory Activity,” accessed at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/ on April 23, 2004. 

FAA, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, “Licensing Regulations & 

Regulatory Activity: About the Licensing Process,” accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/about_lrra.htm on April 23, 2004. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 B-1 

APPENDIX B PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MATERIALS 

In order to provide adequate opportunity for public participation in the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has 

and will continue to conduct public outreach during the preparation of this Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The FAA adheres to the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6) and FAA Order 1050.1E 

when conducting all public involvement activities. Public participation in the NEPA process 

not only provides for and encourages open communication between the FAA and the public, 

but also promotes better decision-making. 

B.1 Scoping 

Scoping for this PEIS began on August 20, 2003, with the publication of the Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare the Draft PEIS in the Federal Register (68 FR 50210). See Exhibit B-1 for 

a copy of the NOI as it appeared in the Federal Register. During the scoping period, the 

FAA invited the participation of Federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, 

environmental groups, organizations, citizens, and other interested parties to assist in 

determining the scope of the proposed action and significant issues to be evaluated in the 

PEIS. The FAA provided the public, organizations, and agencies with an opportunity to 

request a public scoping meeting; however, no interest or request for a public scoping 

meeting was received by the FAA and no such meeting was sponsored by the FAA. 

On October 16, 2003, the FAA published a notice of extension in the Federal Register (68 

FR 59676), which extended the scoping period from September 26, 2003 to October 31, 

2003. See Exhibit B-2 for a copy of this notice. The extension was provided to allow the 

public sufficient opportunity to explore alternatives and raise issues pertinent to the scope of 

the PEIS. 

The FAA also requested information from members of the commercial space launch industry 

in order to ensure consideration of all potential launch vehicle concepts. The FAA requested 

data during the February 2004 AST Annual Forecast Conference and again at the May 2004 

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) meeting. No 

information was received by AST at the Conference or as a result of the COMSTAC 

meeting. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 B-2 

Exhibit B-1. Notice of Intent (68 FR 50210) 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 B-3 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 B-4 

Exhibit B-2. Notice of Extension of the Scoping Period (68 FR 59676) 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 B-5 

B.2 Information Available to the Public 

The FAA developed a web site to provide information on the PEIS and to solicit public 

comments. The web site contains information about FAA licensing, the NEPA process, the 

PEIS, launch and reentry, and public involvement. The web site also provides links to all 

available documents, so that members of the public can easily download each of these 

documents. 

 The NOI (see Exhibit B-1) 

 Notice of Availability of Draft PEIS 

 Draft PEIS 

A PEIS fact sheet and a pdf version of the frequently asked questions were available on the 

web site during public scoping, but are no longer posted on the web site. 

As they become available, additional documents will be posted on the web site, as indicated 

by the placeholders in the Information Resources page of the site. The documents that will 

be posted later in the NEPA process include 

 Notice of Availability of Final PEIS, 

 Final PEIS, and 

 Record of Decision. 

The Information Resources portion of the web site also provides links to relevant web sites 

such as the FAA public web site, the EPA’s NEPA compliance site, and the CEQ’s web site. 

B.3 Scoping Comments Received 

The FAA required that all scoping comments be received no later than October 31, 2003. 

Even though the FAA requested comments from the commercial space industry, no 

comments were received. Comments were solicited at the February 2004 AST Annual 

Forecast Conference, and the May 2004 COMSTAC26 meeting. No comments were received 

as a result of this, but additions were made to the distribution list. See Appendix G for the 

full distribution list for this PEIS. The FAA reviewed and analyzed comments to help 

determine the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the Draft PEIS. 

During scoping, the FAA received a total of 13 comments. See Exhibit B-3 for a summary 

of those comments received. 

 

26 COMSTAC was established in 1984 to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the 

Administrator of the FAA on matters related to the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Members 

include executives from the U.S. commercial space transportation industry, large aerospace companies, and 

the satellite industry; space-related state government officials; academia; and representatives from space 

advocacy organizations. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 B-6 

Exhibit B-3. List of Comments Received 

Commenter 

Name 

Commenter Organization Comment 

Number 

Shari Silbert NASA, Wallops Flight Facility P001 

Darrell Echols Padre Island National Seashore, National Parks 

Service E001 

Lou Gomez New Mexico Office of Space 

Commercialization E002 

John Bossard Private Citizen E003 

Randall Clague XCOR Aerospace E004 

Angeline Chen Lockheed Martin Commercial W001 

Greg Mullen Private Citizen W002 

Hossam Ashour Private Citizen W003 

Kevin Doyle Private Citizen W004 

Mark Belles Private Citizen W005 

Richard D. 

Baldwin Virginia Space Flight Center W006 

Robert F. Jones Sea Launch Range Safety W007 

Yaroslay Pustovyi National Space Agency of Ukraine W008 

The majority of commenters (9) simply requested a copy of the Draft PEIS when it was 

completed. These commenters were added to the distribution list (see Appendix G) and the 

FAA mailed a copy of the Draft PEIS to them when it was released to the public. The other 

four comments were reviewed by the FAA and where appropriate were used in determining 

the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the Draft PEIS. 

B.4 Comments on Draft PEIS 

The FAA received two formal comment documents on the Draft PEIS. One comment 

document consisted of a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicating a 

lack of objection to the proposed action. A copy of this letter is included as Exhibit B-4. 

The second comment document was provided by XCOR Aerospace. The FAA offers the 

following responses to XCOR Aerospace’s comments. 

XCOR Aerospace Comment 1: “First the definition of “reentry” is drawn from existing 

FAA regulation, in that “reentry” is considered a voluntary act following a deorbit maneuver. 

Under this definition, suborbital vehicles, which never reach a stable orbit, are considered not 

to reenter. While this use is consistent with the language in FAA regulations, it is quite 

different from standard technical usage. From the standpoint of physics and environmental 

impact, suborbital vehicles do briefly leave the atmosphere, and hence do reenter. Some 

additional discussion on this matter would clarify the PEIS.” 

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the importance of “standard technical usage” 

when communicating with applicants; however, as the commenter correctly states, the 

wording in the PEIS is consistent with the FAA’s regulations. To further clarify the 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 B-7 

distinction between “reentry,” defined by the FAA regulations to occur when vehicles are 

launched along orbital trajectories, and “landing” as they pertain to potential 

environmental impacts, the FAA has added wording to the PEIS. This wording focuses 

on impacts associated with landing as a part of the reentry process. 

XCOR Aerospace Comment 2: “Second, on page 3-29, in the discussion of sonic boom, 

the PEIS correctly states that sonic boom overpressure is measured in pounds per square foot 

(psf) – and then incorrectly says that they may also be measured in “kilograms per square 

meter”. As overpressure is measured in units of pressure, the proper metric unit is the 

Newton per square meter, or the Pascal, not the kilogram per square meter.” 

FAA Response: The reference on page 3-29 has been changed to “Newtons per square 

meter.” 

XCOR Aerospace Comment 3: “Third, there is an error regarding the emissions from 

hybrid-propellant rockets which appears throughout the discussion of environmental impact, 

beginning with Exhibit 4-1 on page 4-3. Hybrid rockets generate substantial particulate 

matter (PM), in the form of soot. A glance at the plumes generated by ground tests or flights 

of the nitrous oxide/HTPB hybrids used by SpaceShipOne in 2004 shows the presence of 

substantial particulate matter in the exhaust. This error propagates throughout later sections 

such as Table 4-5, Vehicle Type D. However, it has no effect on the overall conclusion 

because vehicles with solid rockets, which generate higher PM, have already been considered 

and found to have negligible impact.” 

FAA Response: The FAA has performed a literature search and was unable to locate 

emission factors for particulate matter for these types of engines. However, several 

articles reviewed noted that particulate matter was produced during the firing of these 

types of engines. Therefore, language similar to the following has been added where 

noted by the commenter and throughout the PEIS, where appropriate “The available 

emissions factors do not include PM emissions from the N2O/HTPB rocket engines 

assumed to be used by these vehicles. N2O/HTPB engines are expected to generate 

particulate matter emissions (Wright, et al, 2005; Chouinard, et al, 2002); however, 

analyses of other vehicle types with higher PM emissions than would be expected from 

vehicles using these engine types indicate these emissions have no significant impact; 

thus, any PM emissions from vehicles using these engines would be expected to have 

negligible impacts.” 

XCOR Aerospace Comment 4: “Fourth the same error applies to the discussion of ejecta 

on page 4-33 et. seq – hybrid motors will generate solid particle ejecta. However, as with 

solids, the resulting impact is negligible, so the conclusion of the PEIS remains valid.” 

FAA Response: The text of the PEIS appears to address the commenter’s concern. The 

existing text states that “Under the proposed action, particulates would be emitted into the 

space environment when rocket motors powered by solid or solid/liquid (hybrid) 

propellants are fired.” 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 B-8 

Exhibit B-4. EPA Comments on Draft PEIS 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-1 

APPENDIX C APPLICABLE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 

This appendix provides an overview of the applicable legal requirements, which includes the 

following: Federal statutes enacted by Congress; corresponding regulations promulgated by the 

Federal agency charged with implementing the statute; Executive Orders (EOs) signed by the 

President of the United States (U.S.) and directed to Federal agencies; internal orders, 

directives,27 and policies implemented by the Federal agencies; and international treaties and 

conventions to which the U.S. is a party. This overview is not exhaustive, as it does not include 

all possibly relevant legal requirements. Therefore, site-specific environmental documentation 

may require a more thorough investigation into the specific Federal and international legal 

requirements. Likewise, local and State laws and regulations are excluded and should be 

addressed in site-specific environmental documentation. With the exception of requirements that 

apply generally to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or to this Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), the legal requirements in this appendix are organized 

by resource area. 

Although only summarized briefly in this appendix, FAA Order 1050.1E should be referenced 

when completing a site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document that tiers 

from this PEIS. FAA Order 1050.1E provides FAA policy and procedures to ensure agency 

compliance with the requirements set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing the provisions of NEPA, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

parts 1500-1508; Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1C, Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts; and other related statutes and directives. 

C.1 Generally Applicable Requirements 

NEPA, as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321), requires Federal agencies, early in 

the agency’s planning process, to assess the potential environmental impacts of implementing 

major Federal actions so that this information can be used in the decision-making process. The 

Act requires analysis of effects from the full range of project alternatives, along with public 

comment and review. NEPA specifies several levels of environmental review, ranging from a 

Categorical Exclusion for actions with no potentially significant impact, to an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for major, unprecedented, or controversial actions having potentially 

significant environmental impacts. NEPA is implemented through CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 

Parts 1500-1508. 

Regulations developed by CEQ (40 CFR Part 1500) define the procedures for completing the 

environmental review and analysis called for in NEPA. The regulations outline the principles to 

be followed in the environmental impact analysis process, including incorporating environmental 

review early in project planning, preparing an action-forcing environmental document to assist in 

project decisions rather than one that documents decisions previously made, and ensuring public 

involvement throughout the process. The regulations also include guidelines for determining 

what level of environmental review is required; the contents of environmental documents; 

procedures for comments by the public and Federal agencies; and schedules. The regulations 

 

27 For example, FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-2 

specify that notices will be published in the Federal Register prior to preparation of an EIS, and 

require all EISs to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of 

Federal Activities upon completion. 

FAA Order 1050.1E provides a description of NEPA as it relates to FAA activities. Each 

chapter describes a different aspect of the NEPA process. Chapter 2 of FAA Order 1050.1E 

provides details about NEPA planning and integration with the FAA and will help an applicant 

determine the following. 

 Whether an action is advisory (not subject to NEPA procedures), categorically excluded, or 

whether it requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an EIS. 

 Whether the FAA is the lead Federal agency for the NEPA process. 

 Which FAA office is responsible for NEPA compliance, including preparing environmental 

analyses and documents, ensuring public involvement, and completing interagency and 

intergovernmental coordination and consultation. 

Chapter 3 of FAA Order 1050.1E describes categorical exclusions, as well as advisory and 

emergency actions. Chapter 4 summarizes and supplements CEQ requirements for EAs and 

Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs). Chapter 5 summarizes and supplements CEQ 

requirements for EISs and Records of Decision (RODs). 

EO 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management (65 

FR 24595, 2000), requires Federal agencies to “develop a plan to phase out the procurement of 

Class I ozone depleting substances for all nonexcepted uses by December 31, 2010.” Plans 

should target the cost-effective reduction of environmental risk by phasing out Class I ozone 

depleting substance applications as the equipment using those substances reaches its expected 

service life. 

International Framework 

Some activities that fall under the licensing authority of the FAA may occur outside the 

continental U.S., its territories, and possessions. Because NEPA and other environmental laws 

do not generally apply to such areas, EOs have been implemented. Because the NEPA does not 

apply to overseas actions, EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions 

(44 FR 1957 [1979]), represents the U.S. exclusive and complete requirement for taking into 

account considerations with respect to actions that do significant harm to the environment of 

places outside the U.S. 

EO 12114 provides for the consideration of potential environmental effects from Federal actions 

on the global commons outside of the jurisdiction of any nation or on natural resources of global 

importance designated for protection by the President or by international agreement. 

The EO’s purpose is to 

“enable responsible officials of Federal Agencies having ultimate responsibility 

for authorizing and approving actions encompassed by this Order to be informed 

of pertinent considerations and to take such considerations into account with other 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-3 

pertinent considerations of national policy, in making decisions regarding such 

actions. While based on independent authority, this Order furthers the purpose of 

the [NEPA] ...and represents the United States Government’s exclusive and 

complete determination of the procedural and other actions to be taken by Federal 

agencies to further the purpose of the [NEPA], with respect to the environment 

outside the United States, its territories and possessions.” 

The categories of actions included in and covered by this EO include: (a) major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the environment of the global commons outside the jurisdiction of any 

nation (e.g., the oceans or Antarctica); (b) major Federal actions significantly affecting the 

environment of a foreign nation not participating with the U.S. and not otherwise involved in the 

action; and (c) major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment of a foreign nation 

which provide to that nation a product or physical project “which is strictly regulated by Federal 

law in the United States.” 

The EO states that NEPA compliance may be required, including the consideration of potential 

environmental impacts, for actions that have the potential to significantly impact foreign 

countries and/or the global commons. In the case where an action occurs on foreign soil and the 

foreign government requires an EA or EIS as part of its own government’s regulations, Federal 

agencies may reserve the right to accept the environmental documentation required by the 

foreign government. 

The foreign government may have entered into internationally binding Treaties or Agreements, 

which must be addressed in the environmental documentation even if the U.S. is not a party to 

the treaty. Additional environmental requirements may be placed upon a U.S. company doing 

business abroad by the World Bank, The United Nations (to potentially include organizations 

sanctioned by the United Nations), and any local or regional regulatory body recognized by the 

foreign government. 

C.2 Atmosphere 

United States. Under 49 U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Chapter 701, Commercial Space Launch Activities, 

the FAA regulates the commercial space activities performed by U.S. citizens and corporations. 

Portions of the troposphere are regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which is described in 

more detail in the “Air Quality” section below. Some air traffic is controlled by the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, which are presented in the “Airspace” section below. 

International. The following three international treaties and conventions are relevant to 

operations and activities in the various layers of the atmosphere and exosphere. 

 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer 

Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967 

 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972 

 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1976 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-4 

C.3 Air Quality 

United States. The CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401) requires the adoption of primary and secondary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the public health, safety, and 

welfare from known or anticipated effects of the identified criteria air pollutants. The primary 

standards were established to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, while the 

secondary standards were intended to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated 

adverse effects of a pollutant (e.g., plant life, cultural monuments, and wildlife). These threshold 

levels were determined based on years of research on the health effects of various concentrations 

of pollutants on biological organisms. Exhibit C-1 summarizes the primary and secondary 

NAAQS. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-5 

Exhibit C-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

National Standardsa

Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Primary

b,c Concentration 

Secondary

b,d

1 hour 0.12 ppme

 (235 μg/m3)

f Same as primary Ozone 

8 hour g 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3

) Same as primary 

8 hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3 Carbon ) --- 

monoxide 1 hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3

) --- 

Nitrogen 

dioxide Annual arithmetic mean 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3

) Same as primary 

1 hour --- --- 

3 hours --- 0.5 ppm (1,300 

μg/m3

) 

24 hour 0.14 ppm (365μg/m3

) --- 

Sulfur 

dioxide 

Annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3

) --- 

24 hour 150 μ/m3 Particulate Same as primary 

matter as 

PM10

Annual (arithmetic mean) 50 μg/m3 Same as primary 

24 hour 65 μg/m3 Particulate Same as primary 

matter as 

PM2.5

Annual arithmetic 15 μg/m3 Same as primary 

Quarterly average 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary Lead 30-day average --- --- 

Source: EPA, 2003f 

a These standards, other than for ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages, must not be 

exceeded more than once per year. The eight-hour ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight-hour 

concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour 

standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration 

above the standard is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the 

daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 

b Concentration is expressed first in units in which it was adopted and is based on a reference temperature of 

25°Celsius (°C ) (77 °Fahrenheit [°F]) and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters (1,013.2 millibars) of mercury. 

All measurements of air quality must be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C (77 °F) and a reference 

pressure of 760 millimeters (1,013.2 millibars) of mercury. Parts per million (ppm) in this exhibit refers to parts per 

million by volume or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 

c National primary standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the 

public health. 

d National secondary standards are the levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known 

or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant 

e Parts per million (ppm) by volume or micromoles per mole of gas 

f Micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) g The eight-hour ozone standard was issued in 1997 to replace the one-hour standard due to significant evidence that 

longer-term exposure to lower levels of ozone can affect human health. Implementation of the new standard was 

held up by legal disputes; however, on April 15, 2004, EPA established new attainment classifications and 

designated attainment/nonattainment areas based on the eight-hour standard. The new designations and 

classifications take effect on June 15, 2004.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-6 

The CAA gives state and local authorities the responsibility to ensure regional attainment of 

NAAQS. To further define local and regional air quality, the EPA provides designations 

indicating the air quality of a given area. These classifications generally are based on air quality 

monitoring data collected at certain sites in the state. Those areas with air quality better than the 

NAAQS are designated as attainment areas, and those areas with air quality worse than the 

NAAQS are non-attainment areas. The criteria for non-attainment designations vary by 

pollutant. An area is in non-attainment for ozone if it has violated or has contributed to a 

violation of the recently implemented 8-hour ozone standard over a three-year period at a single 

monitoring station. An area is in non-attainment for any other pollutant if its NAAQS has been 

exceeded more than once per year. Some areas are designated as unclassified because 

insufficient data exist to characterize the area. Other areas are deemed maintenance areas if the 

area is in attainment but NAAQS were exceeded in the past.28

The CAA requires the preparation of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that describes how the 

state will meet or attain the NAAQS. The SIP contains emission limitations as well as record 

keeping and reporting requirements for affected sources. As a result of the CAA Amendments, 

the requirements and compliance dates for reaching attainment are based on the severity of the 

air quality standard violation. A Federal agency cannot support an action (e.g., fund, license) 

unless the activity will conform to the EPA-approved SIP for the region. This is called a 

conformity determination or conformity analysis. A conformity determination may involve 

performing air quality modeling and implementing measures to mitigate the air quality impacts. 

The U.S. Federal government is exempt from the requirement to perform a conformity analysis if 

the following two conditions are met. 

1. The ongoing activities do not produce emissions above the de minimis levels specified in the 

rule. Exhibit C-2 shows the de minimis threshold levels of various non-attainment areas. 

2. The Federal action is not 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. 

 

 

28 Additionally, a maintenance area must have a revised State Implementation Plan (SIP) that has provided for 

attainment status for the 10 years after the area is redesignated from non-attainment to maintenance. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-7 

Exhibit C-2. De Minimis Thresholds in Non-Attainment Areas 

Pollutant Degree of Non-Attainment De minimis Level (metric 

tons/year [tons/year]) 

Serious 45 (50) 

Severe 23 (25) 

Extreme 9 (10) 

Marginal/Moderate (outside 

ozone transport region) 45 (50 VOC) 

Ozone (VOCs and 

NOX) 

Marginal/Moderate (inside ozone 

transport region) 91 (100 NOX) 

CO All 91 (100) 

Moderate 91 (100) PM Serious 64 (70) 

SO2 or NO2 All 91 (100) 

Pb All 23 (25) 

 Source: 40 CFR 93.153(b) 

The EPA considers emissions at or below 914 meters (3,000 feet) to evaluate ambient air quality 

and calculate de minimis levels. Air quality modeling is used to determine the effects of air 

emission sources on the ambient air concentrations. The types and amounts of pollutants, the 

topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological parameters that most often affect 

pollutant dispersions are wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, mixing height, and 

temperature. 

The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) implements the CAA conformity 

provision, which mandates that the Federal government not engage, support, or provide financial 

assistance for licensing or permitting; or approve any activity not conforming to an approved 

CAA implementation plan. A conformity analysis may be required if a facility is located in a 

non-attainment area for a particular pollutant and if new emission sources generate the same 

pollutant above a certain number of tons per year. 

International. Since its adoption in 1979, the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air 

Pollution has addressed some of the major environmental problems of the United Nations 

Economic Commission for Europe through a process of international scientific collaboration and 

policy negotiation. The Convention aims to protect human health and the environment against 

air pollution and to limit, gradually reduce, and prevent air pollution, including long-range 

transboundary air pollution. The objectives of the Convention Protocols are to reverse 

freshwater and soil acidification, forest dieback, eutrophication, exposure to excess ozone, 

degradation of cultural monuments and historic buildings, and accumulation of heavy metals and 

persistent organic pollutants in the soil, water, vegetation, and other living organisms. 

The 1985 Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (Vienna Convention) aims to protect 

human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting from modifications of the 

ozone layer, especially from increased ultraviolet solar radiation. It requires that states reduce 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-8 

their reliance on ozone depleting substances and conduct collaborative research to find 

alternatives to harmful substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. 

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was developed under the 

guidance of the United Nations Environmental Program in September 1987 and based on the 

recommendations of the Vienna Convention. The Montreal Protocol identifies the main ozone 

depleting substances and specifies a timetable for phasing out the consumption and production of 

ozone depleting substances. Title VI of the CAA Amendments of 1990 establishes phase out 

requirements for ozone depleting substances consistent with the Montreal Protocol. 

 

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international agreement for 

addressing climate change, was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and 

Development (Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The framework aims to regulate 

levels of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. 

C.4 Airspace 

United States. Airspace management and use in the U.S. are governed by the Federal Aviation 

Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-725) and its implementing regulations set forth by the FAA. FAA 

Order 7490, “Policies and Procedures for Air Traffic Environmental Actions,” includes 

procedures and guidance for special use airspace environmental issues between FAA and DoD. 

FAA Order 7610.4H, “Special Military Operations,” specifies procedures for air traffic control 

planning, coordination, and services during defense activities, and special military operations 

conducted in airspace controlled by or under the jurisdiction of the FAA.

The U.S. airspace is divided into 21 zones (centers), and each zone is divided into sectors. Also 

within each zone are portions of airspace, about 81 kilometers (50 miles) in diameter, called 

TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach CONtrol) airspaces. Several airports exist within each 

TRACON airspace, and each airport has its own airspace with an eight-kilometer (five-mile) 

radius. 

International. For international airspace, the procedures of the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) are followed. These procedures are outlined in ICAO Document 444, 

“Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services.” The ICAO ensures the safe, efficient, and orderly 

evolution of international civil aviation through the establishment of international standards and 

recommended practices. 

C.5 Biological Resources 

United States. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires all Federal departments and 

agencies to seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species (16 U.S.C. 1531). The 

Secretary of the Interior was directed to create lists of endangered and threatened species. 

Endangered species designation is given to any plant or animal species that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The ESA defines a threatened 

species as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-9 

Critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species is defined as specific areas, within the 

geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, which contain the physical or 

biological features essential to conservation of the species and may require special management 

considerations or protection. Critical habitat also includes specific areas, outside the geographic 

area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, which are essential to conservation of the 

species. 

A key provision of the ESA for Federal activities is Section 7, Consultation. Under Section 7 of 

the ESA, every Federal agency must consult with the Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), to ensure that any agency action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of habitat of such species. Under the ESA, if a threatened or endangered 

species may be affected, a biological assessment is required to determine the impact. The 

agency must undertake mitigation measures if the impact is found to be negative, or the project 

must be stopped. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) implements various treaties and 

conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the 

protection of migratory birds and their resources. (USFWS, 2005) Specifically, the Act prohibits 

the pursuit, hunting, taking, capture, possession, or killing of such species or their nests and eggs. 

The USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management develops migratory bird permit policy. 

The regulations governing migratory bird permits can be found in General Permit Procedures (50 

CFR 13) and Migratory Bird Permits (50 CFR 21). Most states require a state permit for 

activities involving migratory birds. (USFWS, 2002) Taking of migratory birds by Federal 

agencies is prohibited, unless authorized under regulations promulgated under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. (USFWS, 2000) EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds, provides further direction to departments and agencies to take certain actions to 

further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361) outlines prohibitions for the 

taking of marine mammals. The Act gives the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries (formerly the 

National Marine Fisheries Service) co-authority to protect the resource. The Marine Mammal 

Commission, which was established under the Act, reviews laws and international conventions, 

studies worldwide populations, and makes recommendations to Federal officials concerning 

marine mammals. 

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401) regulates the disposal of 

all materials into the ocean to prevent adverse effects to human welfare, the marine environment, 

ecological systems, or the economy. It provides the EPA with the authority to issue permits for 

ocean dumping. 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668) establishes penalties for the 

unauthorized taking, possession, selling, purchase, or transportation of bald or golden eagles, 

their nests, or their eggs. If a Federal activity might disturb eagles or a nest is found in areas 

where launches or reentries may occur, consultation with the USFWS for appropriate mitigation 

is required. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-10 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) 

consolidates the categories of lands that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife, including species that are threatened with extinction. 

Provisions of the Act relating to determinations of the compatibility of a use shall not apply to 

overflights above a refuge or activities authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency 

(other than USFWS) that has primary jurisdiction over a refuge or a portion of a refuge, if the 

management of those activities is in accordance with a memorandum of understanding between 

the Secretary/Director and the head of the Federal agency with primary jurisdiction over the 

refuge governing the use of the refuge. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801) requires 

Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on activities that could harm Essential Fish 

Habitat areas. Essential Fish Habitat is defined as “those waters and substrate (sediment, hard 

bottom) necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.” 

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901-2912) provides for financial 

and technical assistance to states to develop conservation plans, subject to approval by the 

Department of Interior, and implement state programs for fish and wildlife resources. The Act 

also encourages all Federal departments and agencies to utilize their statutory and administrative 

authority to conserve and promote conservation of non-game fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961), requires Federal agencies to provide 

leadership and work to minimize the destruction, loss, and degradation of wetlands and to 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands while carrying out the 

agency’s responsibility for acquiring, managing, using, and disposing of Federal lands. The 

Defense Department Fiscal Year 2004 Authorizations bill authorizes the Federal government to 

participate in mitigation banks for wetlands. The mitigation banks allow developers to fill 

wetlands in one area in exchange for a payment to create wetlands in another area. 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. 661) requires Federal agencies to 

consult with the USFWS and state wildlife agencies where any water body or wetlands under 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction is proposed to be modified by a Federal agency. 

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for 

issuing Federal permits. The program regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into 

the waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Activities that are regulated under this program 

include fills for development, water resource projects (e.g., dams or levees), infrastructure 

development (e.g., highways and airports), and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming 

and forestry. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage Rivers (62 FR 

48445), requires Federal agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers designated as American 

Heritage Rivers, including their natural resources and associated historical, cultural, and 

economic resources. 

EO 13089, Coral Reef Protection (63 FR 32701), requires all Federal agencies whose actions 

may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems to “identify their actions that may affect U.S. coral reef 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-11 

ecosystems; utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such 

ecosystems; and to the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or 

carry out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems.” 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (64 FR 6183), directs the prevention of invasive species 

introduction and provides means for their control to minimize economic, ecological, and human 

health impacts they may cause. 

International. The Convention on Wetlands was signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. It is an 

intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international 

cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. The convention 

aims to stem the progressive encroachment on and loss of wetlands, now and in the future. It 

requires its Parties to designate at least one national wetland of international importance; 

establish wetlands nature reserves and cooperate in information exchange for wetlands 

management; assess the impacts of any changes in use on identified wetland sites; and take 

responsibility for conservation, management, and wise use of migratory stocks of waterfowl. 

(Ramsar, 2005) 

The 1986 Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South 

Pacific Region is a comprehensive, umbrella agreement for the protection, management, and 

development of the marine and coastal environment of the South Pacific Region. Sources of 

pollution that require control under the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme 

(SPREP) are ships, dumping, land-based sources, seabed exploration and exploitation, 

atmospheric discharges, storage of toxic and hazardous wastes, testing of nuclear devices, 

mining, and coastal erosion. 

C.6 Cultural Resources 

Numerous laws and regulations require that possible effects on cultural resources be considered 

during the planning and execution of Federal undertakings. These laws and regulations stipulate 

a process of compliance, define the responsibilities of the Federal agency proposing the action, 

and prescribe the relationship among other involved agencies (e.g., State Historic Preservation 

Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 

The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f and 470h-2(a)) establishes a national 

policy to preserve, restore, and maintain cultural resources. The Act establishes the National 

Register of Historic Places as the mechanism to designate public or privately owned properties 

deserving protection. Section 106 (36 CFR 800) of the Act requires Federal agencies to “take 

into account” the effect of a project on any property included in or eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register. Section 106 prescribes the following for consideration of historic properties 

under NEPA: early coordination, inclusion of historic preservation issues, and actions 

categorically excluded under NEPA. 

Under the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to designate areas 

as national natural landmarks for listing on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. In 

conducting an environmental review of a proposed Federal action, an agency shall consider the 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-12 

existence and location of natural landmarks using information provided by the National Park 

Service pursuant to 36 CFR 62.6(d) to avoid undesirable impacts upon such landmarks. 

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001) is 

triggered by the possession of human remains or cultural items by a federally funded repository 

or by the discovery of human remains or cultural items on Federal or tribal lands. It provides for 

the inventory, protection, and return of cultural items to affiliated Native American groups. 

Permits are required for intentional excavation and removal of Native American cultural items 

from Federal or tribal lands. The Act includes provisions that, upon inadvertent discovery of 

remains, the action will cease in the area where the remains were discovered, and the responsible 

official will protect the materials and notify the appropriate land management agency. 

The Archaeological Resources and Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470mm) ensures the 

protection of archaeological sites on Federal land. It requires Federal permits to be obtained 

before cultural resource investigations begin at sites on Federal land and investigators to consult 

with the appropriate Native American groups prior to initiating archaeological studies on sites of 

Native American origin. 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996) states that it is the policy of the 

U.S. to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, 

express, and exercise the traditional religions including but not limited to access to sites, use and 

possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional 

rites. 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431) authorizes declaration of Federal lands as national 

monuments for the purpose of protecting sites and objects of antiquity, including historic 

landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest 

that are situated upon lands owned or controlled by the U.S. The Act prohibits excavation or 

destruction of such antiquities unless a permit is obtained. 

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771), requires each executive branch that manages 

Federal lands, whenever practicable and permitted by law, to accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and to avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. 

EO 13287, Preserving America (68 FR 10635), establishes Federal policy to provide leadership 

in preserving America's heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and 

contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the Federal government, and by promoting 

intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic 

properties. 

C.7 Geology and Soils 

There are no Federal regulations pertaining specifically to geology and soils; however, most 

areas fall under local jurisdiction and their associated sediment and erosion control plans. 

Indirectly, the Clean Water Act sections 402 and 405 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitting program, codified at 40 U.S.C. 1342 and 1345, respectively, 

requires the preparation of an NPDES permit for all construction activities greater than five acres 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-13 

(0.02 square kilometers) where storm water runoff would enter a water body considered to be 

waters of the U.S. 

Avoidance of development in floodplains (EO 11988, Floodplain Management) and DOT Order 

5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, are applicable as discussed below in Section 

C.15, Water Resources. 

C.8 Hazardous Materials and Waste 

United States. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), or Superfund, (42 U.S.C. 9601) creates authority and procedures for conducting 

emergency responses, removal, and remediation actions at sites requiring a cleanup of releases of 

hazardous substances. CERCLA specifies standards of liability and provides procedures for 

determining compensation, reportable quantities of releases of hazardous substances, penalties, 

employee protection, claims procedures, and cleanup standards. 

The Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 revised and extended 

CERCLA in 1986. SARA Title III, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know 

Act (EPCRA), provides for emergency planning and preparedness, community right-to-know 

reporting, and toxic chemical release reporting. EPCRA requires information about hazardous 

materials be provided to state and local authorities, including material safety data sheets, 

emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms, and toxic chemical release reports. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or Solid Waste Disposal Act, (42 U.S.C. 

6901) authorizes the EPA to regulate the generation, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. 

RCRA also applies to underground storage tanks and establishes a “cradle-to-grave” or life cycle 

system of requirements for managing hazardous waste, from generation to eventual disposal. 

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1310) defines pollution prevention as source 

reduction and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants. It requires the 

EPA to develop standards for measuring waste reduction, serve as an information clearinghouse, 

and provide matching grants to State agencies to promote pollution prevention. Facilities with 

more than 10 employees that manufacture, import, process, or otherwise use any chemical listed 

in and meeting threshold requirements of the EPCRA must file a toxic chemical source reduction 

and recycling report. 

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (49 U.S.C. 1801) gives the DOT authority 

to regulate shipments of hazardous substances by air, highway, or rail. These regulations may 

govern any safety aspect of transporting hazardous materials, including packing, repacking, 

handling, labeling, marking, placarding, and routing (other than with respect to pipelines). 

The Ocean Dumping Act (33 U.S.C. 1401) imposes restrictions on what items and substances 

may be dumped into the open ocean. To protect the marine environment, the Act restricts 

dumping to designated locations and strictly prohibits dumping of materials such as biological 

warfare substances. The U.S. Coast Guard conducts surveillance as a regulatory enforcement 

measure. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-14 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701) requires oil storage facilities and vessels to 

submit to the Federal government plans detailing how they will respond to large discharges. The 

Oil Pollution Act requires the Federal government to “ensure effective and immediate removal of 

a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a 

hazardous substance” into the navigable waters of the U.S., adjoining shorelines, and the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The Act requires the development of Area Contingency Plans 

to prepare and plan for oil spill response on a regional scale. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 2601) gives the EPA authority to require 

testing of new and existing chemical substances entering the environment and the authority to 

regulate these substances. Section 6 of the Act specifically addresses, among others, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos. 

EO 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention 

Requirements (58 FR 41981), requires the head of each Federal agency to develop and 

implement a written pollution prevention strategy that aims to minimize release of toxic 

chemicals to the environment and report in a public manner toxic chemicals entering the waste 

stream of the agency. This order relates to compliance with the EPCRA and the Pollution 

Prevention Act. 

International. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes 

and Other Matter, generally known as the London Dumping Convention, was adopted in 1972. 

Its objective is to control pollution of the sea caused by dumping and to encourage regional 

agreements supplementary to the Convention. It prohibits the dumping of certain hazardous 

materials, requires a prior special permit for the dumping of a number of other identified 

materials, and requires a prior general permit for other wastes or matter. “Dumping” has been 

defined as the deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms 

or other man-made structures, as well as the deliberate disposal of these vessels or platforms 

themselves. Discharges of spent stages, from missiles, and residual propellants are part of the 

normal operation of launch vehicles and therefore, are not covered by the London Dumping 

Convention or other related agreements. 

The 1989 Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and 

their Disposal (Basel Convention) aims to establish obligations for State Parties with the 

objective of reducing transboundary movements of wastes subject to the Basel Convention to a 

minimum consistent with the environmentally sound and efficient management of such wastes; 

minimizing the amount and toxicity of hazardous wastes generated and ensuring their 

environmentally sound management (including disposal and recovery operations) as close as 

possible to the source of generation; and assisting developing countries in environmentally sound 

management of the hazardous and other wastes they generate. Hazardous wastes shall be 

exported only if the country of export does not have the technical capacity and facilities to 

dispose of them in environmentally sound management. 

C.9 Health and Safety 

Regulatory requirements related to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 

651 et seq.) have been codified in the General Industry Standards (29 CFR 1910) and 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-15 

Construction Industry Standards (29 CFR 1926). The regulations specify equipment, 

performance, and administrative requirements necessary for compliance with Federal 

occupational safety and health standards, and apply to all occupational (workplace) situations in 

the U.S. The requirements are monitored and enforced by OSHA, which is a part of the U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards regulations (29 CFR 1910) address electrical and 

mechanical safety and work procedures, sanitation requirements, life safety requirements (such 

as fire and evacuation safety and emergency preparedness), design requirements for certain types 

of facility equipment (such as ladders and stair lifting devices), mandated training programs 

(such as employee Hazard Communication training and use of powered industrial equipment), 

and record-keeping and program documentation requirements. For any construction or 

construction-related activities, additional requirements specified in the Safety and Health 

Regulations for Construction (29 CFR 1926) also apply. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act provides the EPA with the authority to set standards for drinking 

water quality and oversee states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. 

Additional information on the Safe Drinking Water Act can be found in Section 3.1.13 of this 

PEIS, Water Resources. 

RCRA gave the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from “cradle-to-grave.” This 

includes generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. 

Additional information on RCRA can be found in Section 3.1.6 of this PEIS, Hazardous 

Materials and Waste. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 

U.S.C. 1251) has special enforcement provisions for oil and hazardous substances. For example, 

the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan covers the release of hazardous 

substances, as identified by EPA, which could reasonably be expected to discharge into the 

waters of the U.S. Additional information on the Clean Water Act can be found in Section 

3.1.13 of this PEIS, Water Resources. 

Requirements pertaining to the safe shipping and transport handling of hazardous materials, 

which can include hazardous chemical materials and explosives, are found in the DOT 

Hazardous Materials Regulations and Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. (49 CFR parts 107, 171-

180 and 390-397) These regulations specify all requirements that must be observed for shipment 

of hazardous materials over highways or by air. Requirements include those for specific 

packaging, material compatibility issues, permissible vehicle/shipment types, vehicle marking, 

driver training and certification, and notification. 

Safety and Health Regulations for Marine Terminals (29 CFR 1917) apply to employment within 

a marine terminal including the loading, unloading, movement or other handling of cargo, ship’s 

stores, or gear within the terminal or into or out of any land carrier, holding or consolidation 

area, and any other activity within and associated with the overall operation and functions of the 

terminal, such as the use and routine maintenance of facilities and equipment. Cargo transfers 

accomplished with the use of shore-based material handling devices also are regulated. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-16 

Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring (29 CFR 1918) applies to longshoring operations 

and related employments aboard marine vessels. 

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 

19885), as amended by EO 13229 (66 FR 52013) and EO 13296 (68 FR 19931), provides for the 

consideration of potential environmental effects from Federal actions on health and safety risks 

that may disproportionately affect children. 

RCC 319-92, Flight Termination System Commonality Standards, specifies performance 

requirements for flight termination systems used on various flying weapons systems. 

C.10 Land Use 

Land Use 

United States. The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451) seeks to preserve, protect, 

and restore coastal areas. Coastal areas include wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, 

barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their habitat. All Federal agencies must 

assess whether their activities will affect a coastal zone and ensure, to the maximum extent 

possible, that the activities are consistent with approved state Coastal Zone Management Plans. 

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 3501) is designed to curtail Federal 

subsidization of development on fragile coastal barriers. The Act prohibits designated Federal 

expenditures and financial assistance, including flood insurance, for development within the 

coastal barrier system. 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201) is designed to require Federal 

agencies to consider alternatives to projects that would convert farmlands to nonagricultural use. 

The Act is limited to procedures to assure that the actions of Federal agencies do not cause U.S. 

farmland to be irreversibly converted to nonagricultural uses in cases in which other national 

interests do not override the importance of the protection of farmland nor otherwise outweigh the 

benefits of maintaining farmland resources. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) provides Congressional protection of several 

named wilderness areas and establishes a National Wilderness Preservation System for inclusion 

of lands within national forests, national parks, and national wilderness refuges. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701) repeated a number of 

public land statutes and instituted a number of new programs including review of all lands 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management for possible designation by Congress as 

“wilderness,” including a stipulation that the Federal agency must manage the public lands so as 

not to impair their wilderness potential. 

The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. 47501) addresses the 

compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport. As outlined in FAA 

Order 1050.1E, these issues are closely tied to the noise analysis. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-17 

International. The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary 

Context of 1991 aims to promote environmentally sound and sustainable economic development 

through the application of environmental impact assessment, especially as a preventive measure 

against transboundary environmental degradation. It stipulates the obligations of parties to 

assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also 

requires countries to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that 

are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries. 

Section 4(f) Resources 

The Department of Transportation Act includes a section of provisions that govern impacts to 

publicly owned land. Although this section was originally designated under 4(f), it has since 

been recodified as section 303(c) of 49 U.S.C. The provisions are referred to as section 4(f) in 

this PEIS because the terminology is still used to refer to the provisions. 

According to section 4(f), the FAA shall not approve any program or project which requires the 

use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl 

refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, state, or local 

officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, state, or local 

significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent 

alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to such park, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic sites 

resulting from such use. In carrying out the national policy, the FAA shall cooperate and consult 

with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with 

the States regarding potential impacts on such resources. 

C.11 Noise 

Federal and state governments have established noise regulations and guidelines for the purpose 

of protecting citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological, 

psychological, and social effects associated with noise. The Federal government preempts the 

state on control of noise emissions from aircraft, helicopters, railroads, and interstate highways. 

The Noise Control Act (42 U.S.C. 4901) directs all Federal agencies, to the fullest extent within 

their authority, to carry out programs in a manner that promotes an environment that is free from 

noise. The Act requires a Federal department or agency engaged in any activity resulting in the 

emission of noise to comply with Federal, state, interstate, and local requirements respecting 

control and abatement of environmental noise. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR 1910.95) establish 

a maximum noise level of 90 dBA for a continuous eight-hour exposure during a workday and 

higher sound levels for a shorter time of exposure in the workplace. When information indicates 

that an employee’s exposure may equal or exceed an eight-hour time-weighted average of 85 dB, 

the employer shall develop and implement a monitoring program. 

Additional, FAA-specific regulations and laws must be followed. Descriptions of how to 

implement the following legal requirements are located in FAA Order 1050.1E. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-18 

 The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. 47501) 

 Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) 

 The Control and Abatement of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom Act of 1968 

 Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports Advisory Circular 150/5020 

 14 CFR part 161 Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions 

C.12 Orbital Debris 

Executive Branch Policy Directive, National Space Policy (1996) directive provides guidance for 

orbital debris: “The U.S. will seek to minimize the creation of space debris. NASA, the 

Intelligence Community and the DoD, in cooperation with the private sector, will develop design 

guidelines for future government procurements of spacecraft, launch vehicles and services. The 

design and operation of space tests, experiments and systems will minimize or reduce 

accumulation of space debris consistent with mission requirements and cost effectiveness.”

C.13 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

Socioeconomics 

The CEQ implementing regulations for NEPA provide no specific thresholds of significance for 

socioeconomic impact assessment. Significance varies depending on the setting of the proposed 

action. 40 CFR 1508.27(a) However, 40 CFR 1508.8 states that indirect effects may include 

those that are growth inducing and others related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density, or growth rate. Specific direction on how to analyze socioeconomic impacts 

can be found in FAA Order 1050.1E. Property and land acquisition requirements are outlined in 

FAA Order 1050.1E per the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601) and FAA Order 5100.37A, Land Acquisition and 

Relocation Assistance for Airport Projects. 

Environmental Justice 

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations (56 FR 7629), requires each Federal agency to achieve environmental justice 

by addressing “disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on 

minority and low-income populations.” The demographics of the affected area should be 

examined to determine whether minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes 

are present in the area impacted by the proposed action. If so, a determination must be made 

whether the implementation of the proposed action may cause disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on the minority populations or low-income 

populations present. DOT Order 5610.2, Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations, generally describes the process that DOT will use to incorporate environmental 

justice principles into existing programs, policies, and activities. (DOT, 1997) 

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, directs 

Federal agencies, as appropriate and consistent with the agency’s mission, to make it a high 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-19 

priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

C.14 Visual Resources 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) protects certain rivers because 

of their scenic or other similar value. The Act states that rivers with “outstandingly remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values” be 

preserved in free-flowing condition. Additionally, the immediate environments of the river are 

also protected. 

There are no Federal aesthetics permits or regulations for visual resources applicable to the 

proposed action and alternatives. Local planning guidelines may be included in city and county 

general plans to preserve and enhance the visual quality and aesthetic resources within the plan’s 

jurisdiction. Protection of visual resources typically results from local zoning and building 

ordnances. Although no special purpose laws or regulations exist, FAA Order 1050.1E provides 

a description of how to evaluate light emissions and visual impacts associated with FAA actions. 

C.15 Water Resources 

United States. The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) establishes water pollution control 

standards and programs with the objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of U.S. water resources. The Act provides for the elimination of the 

discharge of pollutants into navigable waters and for water quality goals to protect fish and 

wildlife. The Act specifies (1) that actions must comply with Federal and state water quality 

criteria; (2) regulations for issuing permits under the NPDES for storm water discharge be 

established by the EPA; and (3) states assess non-point source water pollution problems and 

develop pollution management plans. 

Water quality and the consumption and diversion of water are regulated by a number of Federal 

and state agencies in the U.S. The EPA has the primary authority for implementing and 

enforcing the Clean Water Act. (33 U.S.C. 1251) The EPA, along with state agencies to which 

the EPA has delegated some of its authority, issues permits under the Clean Water Act to 

maintain and restore the quality of U.S. water resources. The Clean Water Act requires permits 

for activities that result in the discharge of pollutants to water resources or the placement of fill 

material in waters of the U.S. 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are typically prepared and permitted under 

the NPDES program to ensure construction activities do not lead to unacceptable levels of 

erosion and water pollution. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 300f) provides the 

EPA with the authority to regulate the quality of U.S. drinking water supplies, including surface 

water and ground water sources. The EPA has delegated some of its authority for enforcement 

to all of the states, with the exception of Wyoming and the District of Columbia (Washington, 

D.C.). The appropriation of water, including diversions, consumption of potable water, and 

other uses, usually is regulated by the same state agencies that regulate water quality. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-20 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951, 1977), requires Federal agencies to provide 

leadership and work to minimize the impacts of floods on property loss and human health and 

safety and to simultaneously preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains, 

while carrying out the agency’s responsibility for acquiring, managing, using, and disposing of 

Federal lands. DOT Order 5650.2, “Floodplain Management and Protection,” prescribes policies 

and procedures for ensuring that proper consideration is given to the avoidance and mitigation of 

adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions, planning programs, and budget requests. (FTA, 

2004) 

International. The European Union has adopted a number of directives related to water quality 

including the following:29 

 Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) – European water policy for river basin 

management, 

 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) – Regulates water pollution coming 

from urban waste water and certain industrial sectors, 

 Discharges of Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC) and the Priority Substances 

under the Water Framework Directive – Regulates dangerous substances and pollution 

control from industry, 

 Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) – Regulates water pollution caused by Nitrates from 

agricultural sources, 

 Bathing Water Quality Directive (Council Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of 

bathing water) and its proposed revision – Regulates bathing water quality of rivers, lakes, 

and coastal waters, and 

 Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) – Regulates drinking water quality. 

In addition to analyzing the European Union requirements for water quality, site-specific 

environmental documentation should carefully analyze the particular water regulations for each 

member of the European Union.

APPENDIX C REFERENCES 

Department of Transportation (DOT), 1997. DOT Order to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Federal Register Volume 62, Number 72, 

April 15, 1997. Accessed at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/dot_ord.htm on 

November 24, 2004. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2004. FAA Order 1050.1E, revised June 8, 2004. 

Available at http://www.aee.faa.gov/aee-200/1050-1E/1050-1E.htm 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2004. “Floodplains.” Accessed at 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/transit_data_info/reports_publications/publications/environment/4805_98

04_ENG_HTML.htm on November 24, 2004 

 

29 Detailed information regarding these directives may be accessed at 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/index.html
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 C-21 

Ramsar, 2005. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Accessed at http://www.ramsar.org/ on 

June 13, 2005. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2005. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Accessed at 

http://alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/ambcc/treaty_act.htm on June 13, 2005. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-1 

APPENDIX D REGULATORY PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

As specified under Federal law, the FAA is required to complete or assure that: (1) consultations 

with regulatory agencies occur and (2) the appropriate permits are obtained. This appendix 

provides a brief summary of the consultations associated with the National Historic Preservation 

Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Farmland Protection Policy Act. This appendix 

also presents a discussion of the FAA airspace review process and wetlands permit process under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The processes presented are those that an applicant should 

address when conducting a site-specific analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) that tiers from this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). This 

appendix is not all-inclusive and is meant only as a guide to assist applicants’ understanding of 

the environmental documentation and review process. For further clarification and detail, 

applicants should refer to FAA Order 1050.1E, available at: http://www.aee.faa.gov/aee200/1050-1E/1050-1E.htm. 

This appendix includes six different consultation processes that applicants will most likely need 

to engage in during their preparation of a site-specific NEPA analysis that tiers from this PEIS. 

Each consultation process is related to an applicable resource area, as described in this PEIS. 

Furthermore, there are regulations and laws that apply, and that specify the one or more agencies 

that the applicant must contact. Exhibit D-1 provides an outline to this appendix. 

Exhibit D-1. Outline of Appendix D 

Applicable 

Resource Area 

Cross-Reference 

to PEIS Law or Regulation Agency(ies) for Consultation 

Airspace Sections 3.1.2 and 

4.2 

Various sections under 

14 CFR 

FAA Office of Commercial 

Space Transportation (AST); 

FAA Regional Air Traffic 

Control office; Department of 

Defense airspace managers 

Biological 

Resources 

Sections 3.1.3 and 

4.3 

Endangered Species 

Act, Section 7 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Fisheries 

Cultural 

Resources 

Sections 3.1.4 and 

4.4 

National Historic 

Preservation Act, 

Section 106 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation; State or Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer 

Land Use and 

Section 4(f) 

Resources 

Sections 3.1.8 and 

4.10 

Farmland Protection 

Policy Act and 

Department of 

Transportation (DOT) 

Act, section 4(f) 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service and Department of the 

Interior, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Agriculture 

Water Resources Sections 3.1.3 and 

4.13 Clean Water Act 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-2 

D.1 Consultation with FAA Regarding Airspace 

To adequately address all airspace issues, an applicant must consult with the appropriate airspace 

management authorities including: AST, FAA Regional Air Traffic Control (ATC) office, and 

Department of Defense (DoD) airspace managers as appropriate. An applicant must also enter 

into official agreements with these agencies, as appropriate, to ensure that all parties agree to the 

airspace management strategies. Airspace agreements are named depending upon their purpose. 

The FAA and DoD enter into Letters of Agreement that specify airspace responsibilities. Other 

agencies may use Memoranda of Understanding or Interagency Agreements to document 

coordination between agencies. Airspace agreements establish protocol for both emergency and 

non-emergency situations.

The next sections describe the steps an applicant must take to ensure that all requirements related 

to airspace are met. 

D.1.1 Pre-application consultation with AST 

As part of the pre-application consultation process, an applicant must contact AST for 

consultation on airspace issues. The applicant can contact AST through their web site at 

http://ast.faa.gov/ or by contacting the designated AST Space Systems Development Division 

point of contact for his proposed project. The applicant will be directed to the appropriate FAA 

Regional ATC office. AST staff will work with the applicant to contact the FAA Regional ATC 

office and identify potential airspace management agencies with interests in the area proposed to 

be used by the applicant. 

D.1.2 Consultation with FAA Regional ATC Office 

Once the applicant has reviewed the existing airspace in the area of interest, the applicant must 

contact the appropriate FAA Regional ATC office. The applicant and the FAA Regional ATC 

office staff will discuss the types of launch vehicle(s) the applicant would use and the types of 

airspace available in the general vicinity of the proposed launch and/or reentry locations. The 

Regional ATC office would take the information provided by the applicant and analyze the air 

traffic flow of the airspace (e.g., commercial airliners and military activity). Then, the Regional 

ATC office would work with the applicant to ensure that other agencies, which are conducting 

activities in the airspace that would be impacted by the proposed activities in the airspace, are 

consulted. The FAA Regional ATC office may assist the applicant in identifying corridors 

where the proposed activities could take place and identifying windows of time for the activities. 

In addition to this consultation, an applicant could be required to enter into a number of official 

agreements relating to the particular site and vehicle. These agreements would be with the 

appropriate agencies including FAA, U.S. Coast Guard, DoD, and the launch range or launch site 

operator as described in more detail in Sections D.4.3 through D.4.6. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-3 

D.1.3 Agreements with FAA 

To comply with launch site airspace requirements, an applicant would be required to complete 

an agreement with the FAA Regional ATC office having jurisdiction over the affected airspace. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 420.31, the agreement would 

 Define procedures for issuing Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) prior to a launch or reentry, 

 Define procedures for closing air routes during the launch or reentry window, and 

 Identify other measures necessary to protect public health and safety. 

To comply with launch vehicle airspace requirements, an applicant would complete an 

agreement with the FAA Regional ATC office having jurisdiction over the airspace. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 431.75, the agreement would 

 Define procedures for issuing NOTAMs prior to a launch or reentry, 

 Establish procedures to close air routes during the launch and reentry windows, and 

 Identify other measures as necessary to protect public health and safety. 

D.1.4 Agreements with U.S. Coast Guard 

To comply with launch site airspace requirements, an applicant would be required to complete 

an agreement with the local U.S. Coast Guard district. In accordance with 14 CFR 420.31, the 

agreement would 

 Define procedures for issuance of NOTAMs prior to launch or reentry, and 

 Define other measures as necessary to protect public health and safety. 

To comply with launch vehicle airspace requirements, an applicant must complete an agreement 

with the local U.S. Coast Guard district. In accordance with 14 CFR 431.75, the agreement 

would 

 Establish procedures for the issuance of NOTAMs to a launch or reentry, and 

 Establish procedures for other measures as necessary to protect public health and safety. 

D.1.5 Agreement with Launch Range or Launch Site Operator 

To comply with launch vehicle airspace requirements, an applicant must complete an agreement 

with the Federal launch range and/or licensed site operator. In accordance with 14 CFR 431.75, 

the agreement would 

 Provide for access to and use of property and services required to support launch or reentry, 

and 

 Provide for public safety related operations and support. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-4 

D.1.6 Other Agreements 

For certain proposed launch sites or for proposed launch or reentry corridors, controlled military 

airspace may be affected. In such situations, the applicant may need to coordinate and sign 

agreements (i.e., letters of agreement) with the DoD airspace management entity. Each military 

service has designated persons within most FAA Regional ATC offices to facilitate coordination 

on airspace issues. The military service representatives are responsible for interfacing with the 

FAA. These military representatives can assist in identifying the appropriate military points of 

contact for dealing with airspace issues. Any agreements that are required would be developed 

on a case by case basis, as needed. 

D.2 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (Biological Resources) 

Section 7 of the ESA sets forth requirements for consultation to determine if the proposed action 

may affect an endangered or threatened species. An applicant should initiate consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]), as 

appropriate, and state natural resource agencies for Federal- and state-listed endangered, 

threatened, and candidate species or designated critical habitat. Initial contact (informal 

consultation) with such agencies would be completed to document the location and extent of 

such protected resources and for concurrence of no effect determinations. The FAA or the 

applicant would then determine whether or not the proposed action or an alternative may affect 

an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat, and present its findings to the 

appropriate agencies (USFWS or NOAA Fisheries, as appropriate and state natural resource 

agencies) for concurrence. Should the action considered in the EA or EIS have the potential to 

affect an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat, then under Section 7(a)2, the 

FAA would consult with the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries, as appropriate, to ensure that any 

action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any federally listed endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. For species that are proposed for listing as endangered 

or threatened, the FAA would confer with the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries, as appropriate, in 

accordance with Section 7(a)4. 

Informal consultation is a process that includes all discussions, correspondence, etc., between the 

USFWS or NOAA Fisheries and the FAA or its designated non-Federal representative. The 

process is designed to assist Federal agencies in determining whether formal consultation or a 

conference is required. The informal consultation process under the Endangered Species Act 

begins with the preparation of a list of threatened or endangered species potentially affected by 

the proposed action. The USFWS requires 30 calendar days to ensure that the list is correct and 

to prepare for the remainder of the informal consultation process. After 30 days, the USFWS 

reviews the list and evaluates if threatened or endangered species or critical habitat are present. 

If no threatened or endangered species or critical habitat will be impacted, the informal 

consultation process is complete and the USFWS provides documentation concurring with the no 

impact determination. During informal consultation, the Service may suggest modifications to 

the proposed action that the FAA could implement to avoid the likelihood of adverse effects to 

listed species or critical habitat. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-5 

Formal consultation with USFWS or NOAA Fisheries under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA is 

triggered when: (1) the FAA determines that the proposed action “may affect” federally listed 

species or designated critical habitat, or (2) the USFWS or NMFS does not concur with the 

agency’s determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect federally listed 

species or designated critical habitat. If the proposed action may impact threatened or 

endangered species or critical habitat, a biological assessment is prepared by the applicant or the 

FAA and submitted to USFWS, which has 30 days to respond. A Biological Assessment is 

defined as information prepared by, or under the direction of, a Federal agency to determine 

whether a proposed action is likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical 

habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of species that are proposed for listing; or 

(3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat. 

After the submission of the biological assessment, the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries either 

supplies written concurrence that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect federally 

listed species or designated critical habitat, otherwise the entire process moves forward through 

formal consultation. The formal consultation process, which takes a minimum of 135 days, is 

used to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed threatened or endangered species or to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The 

lead agency must request initiation of formal consultation with USFWS or NOAA Fisheries, and 

submit additional information to the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries to support a finding that the 

proposed action is or is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed threatened or 

endangered species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If the USFWS or NOAA 

Fisheries finds that the biological assessment is insufficient, the Federal agency has 90 days to 

complete collecting the necessary data. If the biological assessment is complete, the USFWS 

takes 90 days to formulate a Biological Opinion and incidental take statement and an additional 

45 days to review the draft statement and finalize it. Formal consultation is concluded when 

USFWS or NOAA Fisheries issues the Biological Opinion, which will either be a No 

Jeopardy/Adverse Modification Opinion (including an incidental take statement), or a 

Jeopardy/Adverse Modification Opinion. 

If a Biological Opinion states that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of federally listed threatened or endangered species in the affected area or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of federally designated critical habitat in the affected area, it 

is a No Jeopardy/Adverse Modification Opinion. An incidental take statement included in this 

opinion may provide one or more reasonable and prudent measures, with associated terms and 

conditions, to minimize the level of incidental take. If a Biological Opinion determines that the 

proposed action is likely to jeopardize the species or adversely modify critical habitat (a 

Jeopardy/Adverse Modification Opinion), it will include nondiscretionary reasonable and 

prudent alternatives. Formal consultation may be reinitiated when 

 The amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; 

 New information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat 

in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 

 The action is modified in a manner causing effects to listed species or critical habitat not 

previously considered; or 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-6 

 A new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the action. 

(See 50 CFR 402.14 for further guidance on formal consultation.) 

Pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, where there is a potential impact on water 

resources the lead Federal Agency must consult with Federal, State, and local agencies and 

Tribes having administration over fish, wildlife, and plant resources. 

D.3 Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Cultural 

Resources) 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. (36 CFR Part 800) In 

determining if the effects of their undertaking on a site listed or eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Federal agency must define the area of 

potential effect (APE), as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d) below: 

(d) Area of potential effects means the geographic area or areas within which an 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the 

scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects 

caused by the undertaking. 

Typically the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer (THPO) with jurisdiction or knowledge of cultural resources within the APE would be 

contacted to define the location and characteristics of a site listed or eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. If the Federal agency determines that (1) it has no undertaking, or (2) its undertaking is a 

type of activity that has no potential to affect sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, the 

Federal agency provides documentation to the SHPO and/or THPO and, barring any objection in 

30 days, proceeds with the undertaking. Should the SHPO or THPO request additional 

information, upon receipt of that information, they again have 30 days to review and comment or 

concur with the finding of no effect. 

If the undertaking may affect a historic property, the Federal agency must identify the 

appropriate SHPO or THPO with whom to consult during the evaluation process. If all parties 

agree no adverse effects will occur, the agency proceeds with the undertaking and any agreed 

upon conditions. If the Federal agency and the SHPO or THPO find that there would be an 

adverse effect, then the Federal agency begins consultation to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate the adverse effect. If the parties cannot agree, the SHPO or THPO can request an 

evaluation by the ACHP, but this must occur within the 30-day review and comment period. 

Should the SHPO or THPO not respond to the Federal agency within 30 days, the Federal 

agency can then file the finding of no adverse effect with the ACHP, which has a 15-day review 

period; their review of no adverse effect determinations is limited to whether or not the criteria 

have been correctly applied. If the ACHP fails to respond within 15 days, the Federal agency 

may assume their concurrence. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-7 

If the undertaking will affect a historic property, the Federal agency must prepare a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA that the appropriate parties prepare and sign 

verifies that the FAA has complied with Section 106. It describes the undertaking and contains 

instruction and terms that the FAA will ensure are implemented to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects. Detailed information on MOAs is contained in 36 CFR 800.6(b) and (c). 

Appendix A of these regulations provides detailed guidance on addressing archeological sites. 

The ACHP may be invited to join the consultation, but must respond to the request within 15 

days of receipt. If the FAA and the SHPO/THPO cannot agree when the ACHP is not 

participating, the FAA must request that the ACHP join in the consultation. The public must be 

provided an opportunity to comment on the MOA; typically, a 30-day comment period is 

sufficient. Upon completion of the MOA, the ACHP is provided a 45-day comment period. 

Depending on the proposed action, consultation with the SHPO or THPO and the ACHP could 

take anywhere from 30 days to over a year. 

If a Federal agency uses the NEPA process to make their cultural resources impact analysis more 

efficient and effective, close adherence to the requirements of 36 CFR 800.8 is required. 

Cooperation among FAA, SHPO/THPO, consulting parties, the public, and in some instances, 

ACHP, is necessary when combining the NEPA and Section 106 processes. Specific 

requirements for Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

preparation and content are detailed in 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)-(4). 

D.4 Consultation Regarding Land Use and Section 4(f) Resources 

D.4.1 Consultation under the Farmland Protection Policy Act 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act regulates Federal actions with the potential to convert 

farmland to non-agricultural uses. Consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) should occur to determine if the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act applies to the land the proposed action would convert to nonagricultural use, or if an exemption to the Act exists. If it is determined that the farmland is 

protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, formal coordination is required per 7 CFR 

part 658. 

For farmland regulated by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, scoring of the relative value of 

the site for preservation is performed by the NRCS and the proponent. The scoring is completed 

on Form AD-1006, “Farmland Conversion Impact Rating”, available at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fppa/pdf_files/AD1006.PDF. If the total score on Form 

AD-1006 is below 160, no further analysis is necessary. Scores between 160 and 200 may have 

potential impacts and require further consideration of alternatives that would avoid this loss. The 

applicant should consider reducing the amount of protected farmland that the project would 

convert or using alternative farmland that has a relative lower value. If NRCS fails to respond 

within 45 days, and if further delay would interfere with construction activities, the action may 

proceed as though the site were not farmland protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act. 

The FAA then documents a “no response” by the NRCS in the environmental document. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-8 

D.4.2 Consultation under the Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 303, provides the 

DOT policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The Act provides that 

the Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires the use of 

any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of 

national, state, or local significance or land from an historic site of national, state, or local 

significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless 

1. There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and 

2. The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, 

recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. 

The lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites that fall under the protection of 

section 4(f) include the following. 

 Lands of the National Park System 

 Lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

 Lands acquired for mitigation purposes pursuant to the authority of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, including general plan lands under Section 3(b) of that act 

 Lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management that are administered for 

recreation, cultural, and wildlife purposes 

 Local and State lands, and interests therein, and certain Federal lands under lease to the 

States, acquired or developed in whole or in part with moneys from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

 State lands and interests therein acquired or developed or improved with Federal grants for 

fish and wildlife conservation, restoration, or management such as the Federal Aid in Sport 

Fish Restoration Act of 1950 (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 

Act of 1937 (Pittman-Robertson Act), and the Anadromous Fish Act of 1965 

 Federal surplus real property that has been deeded to State and local governments for park, 

recreation, wildlife, and historic purposes 

 Properties listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places 

 National Park Service “Affiliated Areas” 

 Lands of the National Fish Hatchery System 

 Lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation that are administered as parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife refuges, or historic sites 

 Indian lands held in trust by Interior as parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, or historic 

sites 

 Recreation areas and facilities developed or improved, in whole or in part, with grants under 

the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (Title 10 of PL 95-625) 

 Areas publicly owned in fee, less than fee, lease, or otherwise, that receive de facto use as 

park, recreation, or refuge lands. De facto use is determined on a case-by-case basis by the 

Interior bureau having statutory or program jurisdiction over or interest in the land in 

question. In the case of Indian trust lands, such determination will be made in consultation 

with the appropriate tribal officials. De facto use may also include publicly owned lands or 

interest therein proposed or under study for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, the National Trails System, or the National Wilderness Preservation System, or as 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-9 

critical habitat for endangered or threatened species. Early coordination with Interior about 

the applicability of section 4(f) is especially important whenever lands administered by the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Land Management, or Indian trust lands 

administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, are affected by DOT project 

 Abandoned railroad rights-of-way acquired by State and local governments for recreational 

or conservation uses under Section 809(b) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 

Reform Act of 1976 

The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the states, in developing 

transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural 

beauty of lands crossed by transportation activities or facilities. 

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, the FAA shall consult with the officials having 

jurisdiction over the section 4(f) property(ies), and other agencies, as necessary. An EIS 

prepared by the FAA would thoroughly analyze and document prudent and feasible alternatives 

that would avoid the use of section 4(f) property and provide detailed measures to minimize 

harm. 

Furthermore, FAA Order 1050.1E specifies that a significant impact would occur pursuant to 

NEPA when a proposed action either involves more than a minimal physical use of a section 4(f) 

property or is deemed a “constructive use” substantially impairing the 4(f) property, and 

mitigation measures do not eliminate or reduce the effects of the use below the threshold of 

significance (e.g., by replacement in kind of a neighborhood park). Substantial impairment 

would occur when impacts to section 4(f) lands are sufficiently serious that the value of the site 

in terms of its prior significance and enjoyment are substantially reduced or lost. If there is a 

physical or constructive use, the FAA is responsible for complying with section 4(f) even if the 

impact is less than significant for NEPA purposes. 

The Department of Interior’s Handbook on Departmental Review of section 4(f) Evaluations

provides detailed information about the consultation process. The handbook is available at 

http://www.doi.gov/oepc/handbook.html. The handbook provides a description of the format 

and content that should be included in consultation letters, including the addressee, project 

identification, and general comments. The handbook describes the way that the agency may 

respond to an applicant’s letter, and what information is required if they do not conclude that 

there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed use of the area. If applicable, the 

second phase of the section 4(f) review is to ensure that all possible planning has been done to 

minimize harm to section 4(f) lands. All applicants should consult the handbook for more 

information. 

D.5 Permits under the Clean Water Act (Water Resources) 

This section describes three different types of permits that could be required under the Clean 

Water Act. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-10 

D.5.1 Section 404 Wetlands 

The purpose of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is to ensure that the nation’s waterways are 

protected from irresponsible and unregulated discharges of dredged or fill material. Generally, if 

any action or proposed action is expected to result in the addition of any fill material to navigable 

waters, or result in the loss to an established threshold of acreage, then the action is subject to 

regulation under Section 404. A jurisdictional determination decides whether the specific body 

of water in question is subject to Section 404. If the water body is subject to Section 404, the 

proposed action then enters into the permitting process. 

Determining whether a specific action is subject to Section 404 requires that the body of water be 

determined jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. If the action is expected to impact wetlands, 

those wetlands must first meet the criteria of (1) being defined as a wetland as established by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see http://www.wetlands.com/regs/tlpge02e.htm) and (2) being 

defined as “navigable waters of the United States” (33 CFR 329) or “waters of the United States” 

(33 CFR 328). “Navigable waters of the United States” are those waters that are subject to the 

ebb and flow of the tide or may be used for interstate or foreign commerce. “Waters of the 

United States” are those waters that may be used for foreign or interstate commerce; are 

interstate (including wetlands); are impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the 

U.S.; or are wetlands adjacent to other waters of the U.S., except other wetlands. If the wetland 

meets any of these criteria, then a jurisdictional determination is made and the action must enter 

the permitting process. 

Once it has been established that a wetland is jurisdictional, the applicant must enter into the 

permitting process. There are two types of permits that are issued for wetlands: (1) nationwide 

permits and (2) individual permits. Under Section 404, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 

the authority to review and issue these permits. 

Applying for a nationwide permit allows a proposed action with minimal impacts to proceed 

more quickly through the approval process. 33 CFR 330.1 If a project site does not exceed onehalf acre and falls into one of the broad categories of projects established by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, it is eligible to enter into the nationwide permitting process (see 

http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/organizations/cespk-co/regulatory/nwp.html). The proposed 

action must meet a number of mitigation and impact standards, such as having no impact to 

endangered species or historical properties, for the proposed action to be approved for a 

nationwide permit (see http://www.wetlands.com/coe/nwp3cond.htm). 

If a project is not eligible for a nationwide permit, it must apply for an individual permit. 

Individual permits are generally issued for those actions that are larger in scope and thought to 

have a more significant impact on the environment. As such, the process usually takes over six 

months and requires a very detailed analysis of the proposed action. After approval of the 

application, the proposed action is subject to a public review period and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers considers all comments before issuing a final decision. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-11 

D.5.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits 

The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of waste water under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Through this program, any person 

responsible for the discharge of any “point source” pollutant into any “waters of the United 

States” must obtain a permit to do so. In this case, point source is defined as “any discernable, 

confined and discrete conveyance...from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” And, 

“waters of the United States” is defined broadly as “all waters which are currently used, were 

used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all 

waters which are subject to ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters...; and all other 

waters...” 

Storm water discharges are also regulated under the NPDES program, but only for specific 

industrial activities. For industrial facilities that fall into one of 11 categories established by the 

EPA, and discharge their storm water into a municipal separate storm water system (MS4) or 

waters of the U.S., a permit is required. For construction activity, a facility is required to apply 

for a NPDES storm water permit if greater than five acres are going to be disturbed and the site 

will discharge storm water into a MS4 or waters of the U.S. 

For more information about permit applications and other information about the NPDES 

program, see EPA’s web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/. See also the Federal Register notice 

about the details of the program at 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr

/pdf/40cfr122.2.pdf. 

D.5.3 Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permits 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone seeking to obtain a Federal permit to 

discharge pollutants in the waters of a state must receive a section 401 permit from that state in 

order to proceed. For example, if a project requires a NPDES permit and will affect state waters, 

then the project must first obtain a section 401 permit from the state where the action will take 

place before it can proceed with any Federal permitting. 

APPENDIX D REFERENCES 

14 CFR 420.31, Criteria and Information Requirements for Obtaining a License, available at 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/14cfr

420.31.htm; accessed on April 6, 2005. 

14 CFR 431.75, Post-Licensing Requirements – Reusable Launch Vehicle Mission License 

Terms and Conditions, available at 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/14cfr

431.75.htm; accessed on April 6, 2005. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2004. FAA Order 1050.1E, revised June 8, 2004. 

Available at http://www.aee.faa.gov/aee-200/1050-1E/1050-1E.htm 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 D-12 

Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide, available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fire/aviation/airspace/web/guide/index.html; accessed on April 11, 2005. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-1 

APPENDIX E POTENTIAL ACCIDENT SCENARIOS 

This appendix presents various accident scenarios and their associated impacts of the activities 

considered in this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). This appendix 

discusses methods and regulations, including safety criteria used by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) in licensing decisions, for preventing and mitigating threats to public 

health, public safety, property, and the environment. The discussion of these topics serves as a 

roadmap for the additional, mission-specific analyses a licensee applicant must carry out before 

receiving a license from the FAA to conduct a launch or reentry. 

E.1 FAA Safety Considerations in Licensing Decisions 

The FAA Licensing and Safety Division is responsible for regulating and licensing the safety 

aspects of launch activities. The FAA’s responsibilities include reviewing license applications 

for safety adequacy and developing public safety requirements and standards. A Safety Review 

is a critical part of the licensing process, as discussed in Appendix A of this PEIS, and ensures 

that license applicants will comply with FAA-established requirements and procedures. 

Commercial launches may occur at either Federal launch facilities, licensed launch facilities, or 

international facilities. Each Federal launch range has safety requirements and procedures. 

U.S.-licensed launch site operators are subject to the FAA’s licensing and safety regulations. 

Licensed launch sites co-located with Federal launch ranges are subject to the FAA’s licensing 

and safety criteria; however, these facilities may adopt existing Federal range requirements as 

long as they are found to meet the FAA regulations outlined in 14 CFR §415-420. 

Although the risk to public safety and property can never be completely eliminated, safety 

systems and procedures are used to ensure the risks to public safety and property are minimized 

to acceptable levels. Safety systems and procedures include 

 Real-time tracking; 

 Flight safety systems; 

 Payload review; 

 Autonomous, on-board, safety systems; and 

 Redundant engineering of key electrical, mechanical, and communication systems. 

In the event of a systems failure, redundant engineering provides the operator with a backup 

system that will ensure control of the launch vehicle (LV). Backup communication systems 

provide operators with the ability to contact FAA flight coordinators and ground control 

personnel at all times. These communication systems, in conjunction with real-time, GPS-based 

monitoring systems, allow the LV to be tracked at any point along its flight path. Ground 

personnel are thus able to accurately predict where the LV would land following a systems 

failure and send appropriate emergency responders and public notice to that area. 

Launch facilities and flight corridors are chosen to prevent debris from impacting on or near 

populated areas. FAA regulation 14 CFR §431.45 requires LV and Reentry Vehicle (RV) 

licensees to prepare a comprehensive emergency response plan, part of which includes a method 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-2 

for notifying local officials as far in advance as possible in the event of an off-site or unplanned 

landing. 

E.2 Accident on the Launch Pad 

Accidents during launch usually occur after the ignition of the LV’s propulsion system. For the 

activities considered in this PEIS, the ignition of the LV’s propulsion system may take place 

from a ground-based or an air-based launch platform (e.g., released from support aircraft). 

Before a launch can take place, a flight hazard area must be established. The FAA has defined 

flight hazard areas as regions of land, sea, and air that are exposed to the potential adverse effects 

of planned and unplanned launch vehicle flight events that must be monitored, controlled, or 

evacuated in order to ensure public safety. Pursuant to this definition and FAA regulation 14 

CFR §417.225, flight hazard areas must be protected by emergency response plans and 

emergency response personnel. In the event of an accident, emergency response plans must 

include a means for communicating information to the public, evacuating the area, and sending 

first responder units to the accident scene. 

An explosion immediately after ignition of the LV propulsion system potentially represents the 

worst type of accident scenario because the LV contains the maximum amount of propellant it 

would carry throughout its mission, culminating in the greatest explosion possible. Debris and 

fragments from the explosion may be blown a significant distance from the ignition area. The 

distance this debris and fragments travel would depend on the amount and type of propellant 

aboard and the atmospheric conditions (e.g., wind speed, humidity levels, temperature, etc.) at 

the location of the explosion. A large smoke plume would rise (or fall depending on altitude of 

the accident) and drift in a downwind direction, along with particulates, potentially affecting 

surrounding areas. Although air quality would be the environmental resource predominantly 

affected, the extent of the impact depends upon atmospheric conditions and the surrounding 

areas. See Section 4.1 of this PEIS for a discussion of impacts on the atmosphere. 

To protect public health and safety, launch site personnel are sheltered at a safe distance, as 

determined by FAA regulation 14 CFR §420.21 and Range Safety personnel, from the launch 

area and are therefore protected from an explosion. FAA regulation 14 CFR §420.21 governs 

the licensing of commercial LVs and requires licensees to calculate the debris dispersion radius 

from within the flight corridor given particular accident scenarios. Licensees, pursuant to 

regulation 14 CFR §415.35, must meet a risk tolerance threshold for mission risk to an 

individual, and to the general public and their health and safety, for falling debris generated from 

a worst-case accident. The process requires a probability and consequence assessment of all 

reasonably foreseeable hazardous events (e.g., inclement weather) and systems failures. These 

probabilities are incorporated into the flight corridor selection process, which helps minimize the 

risk to public health, safety, and property by ensuring flight paths intersect minimally populated 

areas. 

For an air-based launch platform, an accident occurring during the initial 10 seconds after release 

from the carrier aircraft could likely expose the carrier aircraft to fragments, potentially causing 

an emergency landing, crash, or subsequent explosion. An air explosion of one or both the LV 

and carrier aircraft would send emissions into the ambient air similar to a ground-based launch 

accident. However, an explosion would disperse debris and fragments over a far greater area 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-3 

than a ground-based launch platform explosion. As stated, FAA regulations require a licensee to 

define a flight corridor for horizontal launch that minimizes the risk of falling debris to public 

health and/or property. 

E.3 Accident during Vehicle Ascent or Descent 

Vehicle ascent is defined as the period after the initial rocket engine is ignited when an LV is 

under power and rising through the atmosphere. Vehicle descent occurs when the vehicle is 

moving downward through the atmosphere in either a powered or unpowered landing approach. 

Accidents that may occur during vehicle ascent or descent include mechanical, electrical, or 

computer failures; propellant releases; or mid-air explosions, defined as an explosion during 

ascent or descent. FAA regulation 14 CFR §431.45 requires LV and RV licensees to prepare a 

comprehensive emergency response plan, part of which includes a method for notifying local 

officials as far in advance as possible in the event of an off-site or unplanned landing. 

E.3.1 Mechanical, Electrical, or Computer Failure 

Although redundant engineering of key electrical and mechanical systems aid in preventing a 

midair computer or mechanical failure, licensees must present methods of mitigating the impacts 

of a system failure during ascent or descent, per FAA guidance. In the event of a mechanical or 

systems failure, an emergency landing at an alternate or unforeseen landing site may be 

necessary. Alternate landing sites should be chosen before launch during the development of the 

flight corridor. Real-time tracking and monitoring of the LV’s or RV’s location using Global 

Positioning Systems (GPS), along with communication with FAA air traffic controllers, enables 

the determination of an instantaneous impact point (the point at which the LV or pieces of it 

would land in the event of a failure). 

LVs retain the capability of terminating engines and aborting mission objectives in the event that 

a problem arises. In case of engine failure, an LV may be equipped with a variety of safety 

mechanisms that allow an operator to guide the vehicle without engine power to an alternate 

landing site to prevent the LV and its payload from reaching any populated or protected areas. 

Other safety features potentially employed to prevent an uncontrolled landing include the use of 

a precise deorbit burn by using GPS and orbital maneuvering system engines, or by using 

altitude propulsion systems to make trajectory corrections during guided reentry. LVs may also 

be equipped with safety devices such as parachutes that provide a soft landing in the event of an 

emergency. 

Should all safety mechanisms fail to prevent an uncontrolled landing, remaining propellant may 

ignite, resulting in a cascading propellant explosion on the ground. During ascent, spacecrafts 

contain greater amounts of propellant than they hold during descent. Therefore, failures that 

occur during ascent that result in uncontrolled landings will create larger explosions than crashes 

that occur during descent. 

E.3.2 Midair Explosion 

FAA regulation 14 CFR §420.23 requires commercial launch licensees to design a flight corridor 

for the LV that minimizes risk to public health, safety, and property. Risk is minimized by 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-4 

ensuring the flight corridor traverses only sparsely populated areas and, in the event of a midair 

explosion, the debris dispersion radius falls within the flight corridor. Before a flight corridor is 

approved by the FAA, calculated risk estimates for public endangerment from falling debris and 

associated impacts must meet risk tolerance criteria for public endangerment pursuant to FAA 

regulations 14 CFR §417.227 and 14 CFR §420.25. If the risk level exceeds a certain threshold 

value, the launch is not authorized. 

The extent of a midair explosion would depend on the amount of propellant the LV is carrying at 

the time of explosion, a factor relative to the amount of time that had elapsed after initial launch. 

An explosion can potentially release large amounts of emissions, debris, and fragments into the 

air, which would disperse within the flight corridor. 

E.3.3 Accident during Reentry 

FAA regulations require operators and mission control personnel to monitor and verify the status 

of safety-critical systems before enabling reentry flights to assure the vehicle can reenter safely 

to Earth. Should an anomaly cause an explosion during reentry, the ramifications would be 

dependent on the construction methods and materials used in the RV. However, only large 

pieces of debris would likely fall to Earth instead of smaller debris. Falling debris would likely 

remain within the flight corridor, thereby minimizing impacts to public safety, health, property, 

or the environment. Propellants would likely be incinerated during reentry. 

RVs retain the capability of terminating engines and aborting mission objectives in the event that 

a problem arises. In case of engine failure, an RV may be equipped with a variety of safety 

mechanisms that allow an operator to guide the vehicle without engine power to an alternate 

landing site to prevent the RV and its payload from reaching any populated or protected area. 

Other safety features potentially employed to prevent an uncontrolled landing include the use of 

a precise deorbit burn by using GPS and orbital maneuvering system engines, or by using 

attitude propulsion systems to make trajectory corrections during guided reentry. RVs may also 

be equipped with safety devices such as parachutes that provide a soft landing in the event of an 

emergency. 

E.4 Accidental Release of Propellant or Hazardous Substances 

Accidental spills must be reported to the National Response Center within 24 hours if 

propellants, (i.e., fuels and oxidizers), and associated materials or other hazardous materials as 

defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) §101(14) (42 U.S.C. 9601.101(14)) are present on-board the RV and are spilled in 

volumes greater than the Reportable Quantities established by EPA under CERCLA. Spill 

cleanup shall then be performed in accordance with the procedures defined in the National 

Contingency Plan (outlined in regulation 40 CFR §300). 

In the event that the RV releases any extremely hazardous substances (listed in 40 CFR Part 

355), it may also be necessary to notify the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and 

the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) established under the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, 40 CFR §355). 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-5 

The site-specific impacts and specific spill response plans at the landing and recovery site(s) due 

to accidental propellant release are beyond the scope of this PEIS. Although license applicants 

will be required to submit plans that will address responding to accidental spills, impacts related 

to spills would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document that would tier from this PEIS. 

E.5 Reporting Requirements 

Notification must be sent to the FAA’s Washington, DC Operations Center immediately 

following a launch or reentry accident that results in fatality or serious injury. Accidents not 

involving fatalities or serious injury must be reported to the FAA within 24 hours. Reports must 

be submitted following any report of an accident. These requirements allow the FAA to 

continuously upgrade safety regulations in response to problems leading to accidents. 

E.6 Air Quality Impacts 

This section presents impacts associated with catastrophic accidents on the launch pad, during 

ascent, during reentry, and during descent. Catastrophic impacts are analyzed in a separate 

section due to the infrequent nature of such events. 

E.6.1 Catastrophic Accidents during Launch 

Catastrophic accidents during launch (which include mid-air launches) would result in 

substantial emissions of various air pollutants. The impacts would differ from normal flights 

because all or the majority of the propellant would burn at the launch pad, or during the first 10 

seconds after ignition. An accident during launch may impact the air quality in the atmosphere 

at the time of the accident. However, because of the infrequency of these events, the overall 

impact in comparison to other emission sources is not substantial. The impacts of accidents are 

typically described by propellant type. However, some LVs, especially medium- and highcapacity vehicles, may use a combination of propellant systems. Therefore, this section 

classifies emissions according to concept type. 

Given the rapid rate of technological development and innovation occurring, predictions about 

which technologies or current LV models will be used over the course of the next decade are 

impossible. Consequently, the maximum potential emissions for each air pollutant generated 

from an explosion during launch were calculated for each concept type and presented in Exhibit 

E-1 below. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-6 

Exhibit E-1. Estimated Emissions from an Accident during Launch Based on Concept 

Type 

Vehicle Type in Kilograms (Pounds) Pollutant 

Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 

HCl - - 4,124.2 

(9,073.2) 

Cl - - 29.5 

 (64.9) 

PM 11 

(24.2) - 7,473.8 (16,442.4) 

CO 772.5 

(1,699.5) 

1,905.2 

(4,191.4) 

323.0 

(710.6) 

CO2

1,800.3 

(3,960.7) 

4,667.7 

(10,268.9) 

9,033.9 

(19,874.6) 

NOX

0.5 

(1.1) - 94.3 (207.5) 

H2O 15.4 

(33.9) 

2,857.8 

(6,287.2) 

5,302.5 

(11,665.5) 

SOX

.2 

(0.44) - 2.3 (5.1) 

VOC 4.0 

(8.8) - 68.2 (150) 

The HCl may combine with moisture in the air to form hydrochloric acid. This vapor may exist 

in hazardous quantities in the immediate vicinity of the launch pad and downwind. High wind 

conditions (greater than 6.4 kilometers [4 miles] per hour) and strong sunshine could dissipate 

HCl concentrations. HCl may also be extracted from the ambient air by moisture, causing wet 

deposition onto the ground, most likely within close proximity to the launch pad. 

To evaluate the impacts associated with the emissions of HCl, the FAA reviewed the Level 2 

Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (EPRG-2) for concentrations below which nearly all 

people could be exposed for one hour without irreversible or other serious health effects or 

symptoms that would impair their ability to take protective action.30 For HCl, the ERPG-2 is 20 

parts per million (ppm), which assumes at least one hour of exposure at this concentration level 

and a total dose of 1,200 ppm per minute.31 At a wind speed of eight kilometers (five miles) per 

hour, modeling of the HCl emissions (2,018 kilograms [4,450 pounds]) indicated that the 

maximum threat zone (distance from the catastrophic accident where the concentration would be 

at least 20 ppm) would extend up to 3.9 kilometers (2.4 miles) downwind from the area; 

however, individuals at that location would only be exposed to the 20 ppm concentration for less 

than 10 minutes and would not receive a total dose of 1,200 ppm per minute. The model also 

 

30 EPA, Hydrogen Fluoride Study, Final Report to Congress, Section 112(n)(6) Clean Air Act as Amended 

31 Provided by the ALOHA program 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-7 

demonstrated that the maximum distance from the test pad where an individual would be 

exposed to a total dose of 1,200 ppm per minute is 0.97 kilometer (0.6 mile) downwind at eight 

kilometers (five miles) per hour. 

At a wind speed of 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) per hour, modeling of the HCl emissions (2,018 

kilograms [4,450 pounds]) indicated that the maximum threat zone would extend for 3.4 

kilometers (2.1 miles) downwind from the catastrophic accident; however, individuals at that 

location would only be exposed to the 20 ppm concentration for less than 15 minutes and would 

not receive a total dose of 1,200 ppm per minute. The concentration of HCl in the emission 

cloud would be reduced to safe levels (less than 20 ppm) within approximately 30 minutes in 

eight kilometers (five miles) per hour wind and 45 minutes in 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) per hour 

wind. 

The CO2 emissions could affect global warming, but even with the open burning of all the 

propellant, emissions from LV accidents would be negligible compared to the rest of the CO2

emissions sources in the U.S. and worldwide. 

Concept 3 vehicles may emit a substantial amount of particulate matter into the air during 

launch, which might briefly impact air quality levels. However, because Concept 3 vehicles are 

launched in the air, particulate matter emitted from an explosion would be quickly dissipated. 

The rate of dissipation would be dependent upon existing air quality conditions, humidity levels, 

and wind characteristics at the time of the accident. 

E.6.2 Catastrophic Accidents during Ascent 

Catastrophic accidents that occur during ascent produce fewer emissions at the time of the 

explosion than those produced from an explosion on the launch pad. Fewer emissions would 

result because some propellant would already have been consumed to power the LV, leaving less 

propellant available to combust in an explosion. The quantity of emissions generated from a 

mid-air explosion during ascent is thus a function of the amount of propellant consumed to reach 

the altitude where the explosion occurred. 

To determine the quantity of emissions created by a mid-air explosion, the sum of the emissions 

burned during ascent prior to the accident is subtracted from the total amount of emissions that 

can possibly be generated from an explosion (i.e., the amount generated during an explosion on 

the launch pad). Metrics for calculating the amount of emissions created during ascent is 

presented in Exhibit E-2 below in kilograms of air pollutant per kilometer traveled for each 

concept vehicle. Because the amount of pollutants varied across atmospheric layers, the 

maximum pollutant emission rates were used in order to provide conservative estimates. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-8 

Exhibit E-2. Maximum Emission Rates for All Layers of the Atmosphere, in Kilograms of 

Air Pollutant per kilometer Traveled per Vehicle (kilograms/kilometer) 

Emission Rates (kilogram/kilometer) 

Vehicle HCl Cl PM NOX SOX CO CO2 H2O VOC 

Concept 1 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.55 0.22 41.2 41.8 25.6 4.38 

Concept 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 1050.0 391.0 0.0 

Concept 3 78.8 0.56 143.0 32.3 2.5 101.0 173.0 101.0 74.6 

 

The amount of emissions generated prior to the accident can be subtracted from the emission 

rates for an explosion for each concept type found in Exhibit E-2. The impacts of these 

emissions are dependent upon the altitude at which the explosion occurs and the atmospheric 

conditions at the time of the accident. The potential effects of these air emissions are discussed 

briefly in Section E.6.1 above, as well as in Section 4.1 of this PEIS. 

E.6.3 Catastrophic Accidents during Reentry 

All emissions created from an explosion during reentry would burn in the atmosphere. 

Therefore, no air quality impacts are anticipated from this accident scenario. 

E.6.4 Catastrophic Accidents during Descent 

Only Concept 1 RVs would ignite and use engines during descent. Other concept RVs are 

required by regulation 14 CFR §415.39 to expel unused propellants, vent pressurized systems, 

and remove all forms of stored energy prior to reentry. Therefore, only Concept 1 RVs would be 

carrying enough propellant to support a midair explosion in the event that an electrical or 

mechanical problem arises during descent. 

All jet engine propellant would be consumed in a midair explosion and the amount of air 

pollutants emitted would be dependent on the amount of unused propellant remaining prior to the 

accident. The amount of air pollutants generated from an explosion during descent would, 

however, be insignificant when compared to the daily rates of air pollutants emitted by 

commercial airliners across the country. Similarly, particulate matter and debris would quickly 

be dispersed through the air and/or fall to the Earth. The rate at which the particulate matter 

disperses would depend on atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident. No significant 

impacts are anticipated from this scenario. 

APPENDIX E REFERENCES 

Department of Defense, 2004. Ballistic Missile Defense System, Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement. Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency, September. 

Available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/peisvol1.pdf
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 E-9 

Department of Transportation, 1992. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Commercial Reentry Vehicles (PEIS CRV). Department of Transportation, Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation, May. Available at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/PEISRV5-28-92.pdf

Department of Transportation, 2001. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Licensing Launches (PEIS LL). Department of Transportation, Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation, May. Available at http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-1 

APPENDIX F EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES 

This appendix identifies the emissions/afterburning products from various propellants used in 

expendable and reusable launch vehicle (LV) activities. It also discusses a methodology for 

determining the loads of these emissions in the various atmospheric layers and provides exhibits 

of these loads by atmospheric layer. Finally, this appendix describes how the methodology can 

be linked with the categorization of LVs (e.g., payload capacity, launch method) proposed in the 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), and how the loads of the emissions are 

calculated for both the proposed action and alternative activities and other estimated future U.S. 

and foreign launch activities. Exhibits F-39 through F-41 provide estimates of the number of 

launch activities through 2015. 

F.1 Methodology for Determining Per Launch/Reentry Emissions Loads in Various 

Atmospheric Layers 

The four principal layers in the Earth’s atmosphere are the troposphere, stratosphere, 

mesosphere, and ionosphere. They are generally defined by temperature, structure, density, 

composition, and degree of ionization. (DOT, 1992) The approximate altitude of these layers is 

provided in Exhibit F-1. The troposphere is the turbulent region where weather occurs, 

containing 75 percent of the total mass of the Earth’s atmosphere. The troposphere is critical 

because any rocket emission can potentially increase ambient pollution in the air or can deposit 

to Earth. The stratosphere contains a critical ozone layer that protects the Earth’s surface from 

ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Both the stratosphere and the troposphere are of most concern when 

considering greenhouse gases and global warming. This analysis focuses on the portion of the 

troposphere below 914 meters (3,000 feet) because this is the altitude range to which ambient air 

quality standards apply. 

Exhibit F-1. Altitude Range for Various Atmospheric Layers 

Troposphere Stratosphere Mesosphere Ionosphere 

Altitude Range in 

Kilometers (Miles) 

Surface to 10 

(6.2) 

10 to 50 

(6.2 to 31) 

50 to 80 

(31 to 50) 

80 to 1,000 

(50 to 621) 

LVs used to transport payloads or passengers into space would be propelled through several 

layers of the atmosphere including the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, and ionosphere. 

The load of the emissions in each of these atmospheric layers depends on the stage firing, engine 

type, type of propellant, burn rate of propellant, and residence time in the atmospheric layer. In 

developing the following methodology, the FAA initially focused on the tropospheric and the 

stratospheric layers that are generally viewed with greater environmental concern. 

Total emissions associated with the proposed action and alternatives and other space launch 

activities were estimated by completing the following steps: 

 Estimating the emissions per launch or reentry into each layer of the atmosphere for each 

type of vehicle; 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-2 

 Estimating the total annual launches and reentries for each type of vehicle; and 

 Multiplying the number of launches and reentries by the appropriate emissions per launch or 

reentry. 

The following sections describe the methodologies used to complete these steps for both the 

proposed action and alternative activities and other estimated future U.S. and foreign launch 

activities. 

F.2 Emissions Associated with Proposed Action and Alternative Activities 

This PEIS considers three types (or concepts) of horizontal LVs. Concept 1 vehicles would take 

off from a runway under jet power and would ignite rocket engines at a specified altitude. 

Concept 2 vehicles would take off from a runway under rocket power. Concept 3 vehicles would 

take off from a runway while mated to a jet-powered assist aircraft and would ignite rocket 

engines at a specified altitude after being released from the assist aircraft. For Concept 1 and 

Concept 3 vehicles, the emissions generated by jet engines were calculated separately from 

rocket emissions, as described below. 

A range of different types of Concept 2 and 3 vehicles with different propellant types, flight 

characteristics, and emission profiles is anticipated. In light of this, the FAA included several 

different types of Concept 2 and 3 vehicles in this assessment to represent this range of vehicle 

types. The characteristics of these vehicles were developed from launch data provided on the X 

Prize web site (http://www.xprize.com) and from other publicly available data on LV 

characteristics. A brief overview of each of these vehicles is provided in Exhibit F-2. 

F.2.1 Jet Engine Launch Emissions 

To estimate jet engine emissions per launch for each vehicle, the FAA used emission factors 

(e.g., amount of releases per take off/landing cycle) based on the type and number of engines 

being used. Exhibit F-3 provides the total emissions below 914 meters (3,000 feet) per take 

off/landing cycle32 for each representative vehicle type. As noted above, several different types 

of support aircraft can carry the horizontal LVs and Exhibit F-3 provides emissions for the 

representative aircraft included in this analysis. Emissions from jet engines would also occur 

above 914 meters (3,000 feet). However, jet engine emissions above 914 meters (3,000 feet) 

from the fairly limited number of Concept 1 and Concept 3 flights and jet-powered landings 

would be very small relative to the number of annual jet aircraft flights in the U.S., and therefore 

these emissions are not included in the overall emission estimates. Exhibit F-9 provides the total 

emissions per launch, including both jet engine and rocket emissions, to each layer of the 

atmosphere for each vehicle type included in this analysis. 

 

32 The take off/landing cycle includes idle, takeoff, climb out to 914 meters (3,000 feet), descent starting at 914 

meters (3,000 feet), approach, and landing. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-3 

Exhibit F-2. Overview of Launch and Reentry Vehicle Types 

Vehicle Type Rocket 

Propellant Type Notes 

Concept 1 

Vehicle Type A LOX/Kerosene 

Jet engine ignited for lift off; rocket engine ignited at 

approx. 6,000 meters (m) (20,000 feet [ft]); jet engines stop 

at 24,000 m (80,000 ft) and rocket engines stop at 46,000 

m (150,000 ft); landing powered by reigniting jet engines 

Concept 2 

Vehicle Type B LOX/Kerosene Rocket engine ignited for lift off; no jet engine; rocket 

engines stop at 61,000 m (200,000 ft); unpowered landing 

Vehicle Type C LOX/Kerosene Similar to Vehicle Type B, but two times larger; landing 

powered by reigniting rocket engines 

TBD Vehicle LOX/Kerosene 

Emissions assumed to be equivalent to the average of the 

Concept 2 vehicle emissions (weighted based on the 

number of launches of each type of Concept 2 vehicle from 

2005-2015). 

Concept 3 

Vehicle Type D N2O/HTPB 

Jet-powered carrier vehicle; rocket engine ignited at 15,000 

m (50,000 ft) and burns for approximately one minute; 

unpowered landing 

Vehicle Type E Solid 

Jet-powered carrier vehicle; two-stage rocket engine; stage 

1 ignited at 12,000 m (40,000 ft) and burns out at 52,000 m 

(170,000 ft); stage 2 ignited at 52,000 m (170,000 ft) and 

burns out at 140,000 m (450,000 ft); unpowered landing 

Vehicle Type F N2O/HTPB, Solid 

Jet-powered carrier vehicle; two-stage rocket engine; stage 

1 (powered by N2O/HTPB) ignited at 61,000 m (200,000 

ft) and burns out at 140,000 m (450,000 ft); stage 2 

(powered by solid propellant) ignited at 140,000 m 

(450,000 ft) and burns out at 162,000 m (530,000 ft); 

unpowered landing 

TBD Vehicle N2O/HTPB, Solid 

Emissions assumed to be equivalent to the average of the 

Concept 3 vehicle emissions (weighted based on the 

number of launches of each type of Concept 3 vehicle from 

2005-2015) 

Landing 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-4 

Vehicle Type Rocket 

Propellant Type Notes 

Reentry Vehicle 

Landing Using 

Rocket Engines 

LOX/LH2

Assumed vehicle would use parachutes to slow its descent, 

engines would be ignited approximately 3,000 m (10,000 

ft) from the ground, and one-fourth of the vehicle’s 

propellant capacity would be consumed at a constant rate 

until it reached the ground. 

Reentry Vehicle 

Landing Using Jet 

Engines 

n/a Emissions assumed to be equivalent to one-half of the jet 

engine emissions of Vehicle Type A 

Exhibit F-3. Jet Engine Emissions per Take Off/Landing Cycle Below 914 meters 

 (3,000 feet) 

Emissions, kilograms (pounds) Vehicle Type CO NOX VOC SOX PM 

Source

Vehicle Type A (Concept 1) 38 

(83) 

0.48 

(1.1) 

4.0 

(8.8) 

0.17 

(0.37) 

11 

(24) a 

Vehicle Type D (Concept 3) 38 

(83) 

0.55 

(1.2) 

5.2 

(12) 

0.28 

(0.62) 

11 

(24) b 

Vehicle Type E (Concept 3) 92 

(203)

29 

(64) 

68 

(150) 

2.3 

(5.1) 

11 

(24) c 

Vehicle Type F (Concept 3) 18 

(40) 

8.3 

(18) 

2.3 

(5.1) 

1.5 

(3.3) 

0.16 

(0.35) d 

a

 CO, NOX, VOC, SOX for Learjet 25c (EDMS, 2004); no PM emissions were specified for Learjet 25c so it was 

assumed that the particulates were similar to F-14 Tomcat (EPA, 1980). 

b

 CO, NOX, VOC, SOX for T-38 Tiger (EPA, 1980); no PM emissions were specified for T-38 Tiger so it was 

assumed that the particulates were similar to F-14 Tomcat (EPA, 1980). c

 For L-1011 (3 Rolls Royce engines RB-211-22B) (EPA, 1980). 

d

 Information for F-15 obtained at: 

http://www.aacog.dst.tx.us/naturalresources/1996%20Emissions%20Inventory/1996EI_AirMilitary.html#Ran

dolphAir, Last accessed: November 9, 2004 

F.2.2 Rocket Launch Emissions 

To estimate rocket emissions per launch for each vehicle, the FAA estimated the propellant 

consumed in each atmospheric layer and then multiplied these estimates by propellant-specific 

emission weight fractions for each pollutant. The propellant consumed in each atmospheric layer 

for each vehicle type was estimated using available data on the total propellant used by that 

vehicle type and the percentage of time spent in each layer. When vehicle-specific data were not 

available, the FAA used data for a similar vehicle. The propellant type and estimated propellant 

consumption in each atmospheric layer for each representative vehicle type are provided in 

Exhibit F-4. Exhibits F-5 through F-7 present the emission weight fractions for the three rocket 

propellant types used in the LVs being evaluated in this PEIS. The estimated emissions per 

launch (from both rockets and jet engines) for each vehicle are presented in Exhibit F-9. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-5 

Exhibit F-4. Estimated Propellant Consumption by Atmospheric Layer

Rocket Propellant Consumption, kilograms 

(pounds) 

Vehicle Type 

Rocket 

Propellant 

Type 

< 914 

meters 

(3,000 feet)

Troposphere Stratosphere 

Mesosphere 

Ionosphere 

Vehicle Type A 

(Concept 1) 

LOX/ 

Kerosene - 432 (952) 

3,242 

(7,147) - - 

Vehicle Type B 

(Concept 2) 

LOX/ 

Kerosene 

595 

(1,312) 

1,191 

(2,626) 

2,580 

(5,688) 

992 

(2,187) - 

Vehicle Type C 

(Concept 2) 

LOX/ 

Kerosene 

1,191 

(2,626) 

2,382 

(5,251) 

5,160 

(11,376) 

1,985 

(4,376) - 

Vehicle Type D 

(Concept 3) N2O/HTPB - - 1,523 (3,358) - - 

Vehicle Type E 

(Concept 3) Solid - - 15,014 (33,100) 

1,531 

(3,375) 

3,094 

(6,821) 

N2O/HTPB - - - 169 

(373) 

1,354 

Vehicle Type F (2,985) a 

(Concept 3) Solid - - - 436 

(961) 

3,489 

(7,692) a

 Vehicle Type F (Concept 3) uses two types of rocket propellants; the consumption of each propellant is reported 

separately. 

Exhibit F-5. Emission Weight Fractions for LOX and Kerosene Rocket Propellant 

Emissions 

CO2 CO H2O 

0.49 0.20 0.30 

 Source: DOT, 2002 

Exhibit F-6. Emission Weight Fractions for N2O and HTPB Rocket Propellant Emissions 

CO2 CO N2 H2O PM a

0.03 0.20 0.54 0.22 

Source: Information in U.S. Department of Navy, 1996 a

 The available emissions factors for these rocket engines do not include PM emissions. N2O/HTPB engines 

are expected to generate particulate matter emissions (Wright, et al, 2005; Chouinard, et al, 2002); 

however, analyses of other vehicle types with higher PM emissions than would be expected from vehicles 

with these engine types indicate these emissions have no significant impact; thus, any PM emissions from 

vehicles with these engine types are expected to have negligible impact. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-6 

Exhibit F-7. Emission Weight Fractions for Solid Rocket Propellant Emissions 

HCl PMa Cl CO2

b COb NO2 H2O 

0.21 0.38 0.0015 0.46 - 0.0033 0.27 

Source: DOT, 2001 (Appendix A) 

a

 As Al2O3. b In the mesosphere and ionosphere, where the oxidation reaction is less likely to 

occur because of the lack of oxygen, the weight fractions at the exhaust nozzle are 

0.23 for CO and 0.03 for CO2. 

F.2.3 Reentry Emissions 

To estimate emissions from reentry vehicles (RVs), the FAA first assumed that one-half of 

reentries would not have powered landings. For the remaining reentries, the FAA assumed that 

one-half would have jet-powered landings and one-half would have rocket powered landings. 

The jet emissions per flight were estimated by assuming the RV would be similar to the jet 

emissions from the Concept 1 vehicle (i.e., Vehicle Type A). Because the Concept 1 emissions 

presented in Exhibit F-3 represent emissions during the full take off/landing cycle, the FAA 

assumed that the emissions during reentry would be one-half of the total emissions during the 

full take off/landing cycle. The rocket emissions per flight were estimated by assuming the RV 

would be similar to a representative RV with rocket-powered engines used for landing. This 

vehicle is powered by a LOX/LH2-fueled engine and has a propellant capacity of 9,800 

kilograms (21,605 pounds). (Encyclopedia Astronautica, 2004) Based on flight test data for a 

representative RV using rocket-engines to land, and the assumption that the vehicle would use 

parachutes to slow its descent, the FAA assumed that the engines would be ignited 

approximately 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) from the ground33 and would consume one-fourth of the 

vehicle’s propellant capacity (2,450 kilograms [5,401 pounds]) at a constant rate until it reached 

the ground. The emission weight fractions the FAA used for LOX/LH2 are provided in Exhibit 

F-8. The estimated emissions per flight for RVs using jet- and rocket-engines to land are 

provided in Exhibit F-9. 

Exhibit F-8. Emission Weight Fractions for LOX and LH2 Rocket Propellant Emissions 

CO2 CO H2O 

- - 0.95 

Source: DOT, 2001 (Appendix A) 

 

33 The ignition altitude was estimated based on information about reentry characteristics of a representative reusable 

launch vehicle. The vehicle proposed to use a parachute to slow progress during reentry prior to landing 

(although it proposed a fully unpowered reentry). During reentry, it proposed to release a stabilization parachute 

at 24,380 meters (80,000 feet). Following deployment of the stabilization parachute, at 6,100 meters (20,000 feet) 

a drogue parachute would be deployed. Finally, the main parachutes would be deployed at 3,962 meters (13,000 

feet). FAA assumed that parachutes, similar to the ones proposed by the vehicle, are used during upper 

atmosphere reentry and thus it is reasonable to assume that powered descent would begin around 3,000 meters 

(9,843 feet). (DOT, 2002) 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-9. Total Emission Load for Launch or Reentry for Proposed Action and Alternatives b

Vehicle Type Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilograms) 

(Concept) HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 H2

Vehicle Type A (1) - - 11.0 0.5 0.2 37.7 - - Vehicle Type B (2) - - - - - - 478.4 178Vehicle Type C (2) - - - - - - 957.6 357TBD Vehicle (2)a - - - - - - 792.1 295Vehicle Type D (3) - - 11.0 0.6 0.3 38.0 - - Vehicle Type E (3) - - 11.0 29.5 2.3 92.5 - - Vehicle Type F (3) - - 0.2 8.3 1.4 18.4 - - TBD Vehicle (3)b - - 10.5 2.5 0.4 40.1 - - Reentry Vehicle - Rocket - - - - - - - 70Reentry Vehicle - Jet - - 5.5 0.24 0.09 18.8 - - Vehicle Type A (1) - - 11.0 0.5 0.2 124.1 211.8 129Vehicle Type B (2) - - - - - - 957.5 357Vehicle Type C (2) - - - - - - 1,914.7 714TBD Vehicle (2)a - - - - - - 1584.2 591Vehicle Type D (3) - - 11.0 0.6 0.3 38.0 - - Vehicle Type E (3) - - 11.0 29.5 2.3 92.5 - - Vehicle Type F (3) - - 0.2 8.3 1.4 18.4 - - TBD Vehicle (3)b - - 10.5 2.5 0.4 40.1 - - Reentry Vehicle - Rocket - - - - - - - 2,32Reentry Vehicle - Jet - - 5.5 0.24 0.09 18.8 - - Vehicle Type A (1) - - - - - 648.4 1,588.5 972Vehicle Type B (2) - - - - - 516.0 1,264.2 774Vehicle Type C (2) - - - - - 1,032.0 2,528.4 1,54TBD Vehicle (2)a - - - - - 853.8 2,091.8 1,28Vehicle Type D (3) - - - - - 304.6 45.7 335Vehicle Type E (3) 3,152.9 22.5 5,705.3 49.5 - - 6,906.4 4,05Vehicle Type F (3) - - - - - - - - TBD Vehicle (3)b 171.4 1.2 310.1 2.7 - 274.8 416.6 522
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-9. Total Emission Load for Launch or Reentry for Proposed Action and Alternatives b

Vehicle Type Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilograms) 

(Concept) HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 H2

Reentry Vehicle - Rocket - - - - - - - - Reentry Vehicle - Jet - - - - - - - - Vehicle Type A (1) - - - - - - - - Vehicle Type B (2) - - - - - 198.5 486.2 297Vehicle Type C (2) - - - - - 396.9 972.4 595TBD Vehicle (2)a - - - - - 328.4 804.6 492Vehicle Type D (3) - - - - - - - - Vehicle Type E (3) 321.5 2.3 581.7 5.1 - 352.1 45.9 413Vehicle Type F (3) 91.6 0.7 165.7 1.4 - 134 18 155TBD Vehicle (3)b 21.5 0.2 38.8 0.3 - 25.0 3.3 29Reentry Vehicle - Rocket - - - - - - - - Reentry Vehicle - Jet - - - - - - - - Vehicle Type A (1) - - - - - - - - Vehicle Type B (2) - - - - - - - - Vehicle Type C (2) - - - - - - - - TBD Vehicle (2)a - - - - - - - - Vehicle Type D (3) - - - - - - - - Vehicle Type E (3) 649.8 4.6 1,175.8 10.2 - 711.7 92.8 835Vehicle Type F (3) 732.7 5.2 1,325.8 11.5 - 1,073.3 145.3 1,23TBD Vehicle (3)b 67.2 0.5 121.5 1.1 - 85.3 11.4 99Reentry Vehicle - Rocket - - - - - - - - Reentry Vehicle - Jet - - - - - - - - 

a Because these vehicles have yet to be identified, it was assumed that the per launch emissions were equal to the average of the Conc

(weighted based on the number of launches of each type of Concept 2 vehicle between 2005-2015). b Because these vehicles have yet to be identified, it was assumed that the per launch emissions were equal to the average of the Conc

(weighted based on the number of launches of each type of Concept 3 vehicle between 2005-2015). 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-9 

Emissions below 3,000 feet and to the Ionosphere 

The annual launch and reentry emissions to the atmosphere below 914 meters (3,000 feet) and to 

the ionosphere associated with the proposed action and alternatives are presented in Exhibits F10 through F-27. Exhibits F-10 through F-27 present the annual emissions of HCl, Cl, PM, 

NOX, SOX, CO, CO2, H2O, and VOC to the to the atmosphere below 914 meters (3,000 feet) and 

to the ionosphere. As discussed in Section 4 of the PEIS, emissions to the ionosphere are 

considered negligible because the emissions would be both short lived and occur relatively 

infrequently. Emissions to the atmosphere below 914 meters (3,000 feet) are broken out here 

because ground level ambient air quality is only affected by emissions up to 914 meters (3,000 

feet) above ground surface. The emissions to the troposphere, stratosphere and mesosphere 

associated with the proposed action and alternatives are presented as part of the cumulative 

impact analyses in Exhibits F-44 to F-70.
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-10. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual HCl Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Exhibit F-11. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual Cl Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-12. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 110 550 550 550 825 550 550 550 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 66 88 110 110 88 77 66 77 77 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 11 - - 11 - - 11 - 11 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - < 1 - < 1 - < 1 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 11 53 158 158 210 210 210 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - 1 3 6 10 14 

Total Annual PM Emissions 77 198 671 724 797 1,063 843 847 862 

Exhibit F-13. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 NO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 5 25 25 25 38 25 25 25 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 4 5 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 30 - - 30 - - 30 - 30 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 8 - 8 - 8 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 3 13 38 38 50 50 50 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 

Total Annual NO

X Emissions 34 10 34 74 76 80 117 79 118 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-14. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 2 10 10 10 15 10 10 10 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 2 - - 2 - - 2 - 2 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - < 1 2 6 6 8 8 8 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 

Total Annual SO

X Emissions 4 4 13 17 19 23 23 20 23 

Exhibit F-15. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 377 1,885 1,885 1,885 2,828 1,885 1,885 1,885 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 228 304 380 380 304 266 228 266 266 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 93 - - 93 - - 93 - 93 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 18 - 18 - 18 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 40 201 602 602 802 802 802 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - 5 9 19 33 47 

Total Annual CO Emissions 321 681 2,305 2,559 2,814 3,705 3,045 2,986 3,111 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-16. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 2,392 14,352 14,352 19,136 9,568 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 1,915 9,576 19,152 28,728 33,516 33,516 33,516 Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 1,584 3,961 9,505 19,803 19,803 23,763 23,763 Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO2 Emissions 2,392 14,352 17,851 32,673 38,225 48,531 53,319 57,279 57,279 

Exhibit F-17. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 893 5,358 5,358 7,144 3,572 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 714 3,572 7,144 10,716 12,502 12,502 12,502 Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 591 1,478 3,546 7,388 7,388 8,865 8,865 Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - 177 355 709 1,241 1,773 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual H2O Emissions 893 5,358 6,663 12,194 14,439 18,459 20,599 22,608 23,140 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-18. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads Below 914 Meters (3,000 Feet) 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 40 200 200 200 300 200 200 200 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 31 42 52 52 42 36 31 36 36 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 68 - - 68 - - 68 - 68 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 2 - 2 - 2 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 9 43 128 128 170 170 170 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual VOC Emissions 99 82 261 363 372 464 471 406 476 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-19. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 650 - - 650 - - 650 - 650 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 733 - 733 - 733 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 67 336 1,008 1,008 1,344 1,344 1,344 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual HCl Emission 650 0 67 986 1,741 1,008 2,727 1,344 2,727 

Exhibit F-20. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 5 - - 5 - - 5 - 5 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 5 - 5 - 5 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 1 3 8 8 10 10 10 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual Cl Emissions 5 0 1 8 13 8 20 10 20 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-21. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 1,176 - - 1,176 - - 1,176 - 1,176 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 1,326 - 1,326 - 1,326 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 122 608 1,823 1,823 2,430 2,430 2,430 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual PM Emissions 1,176 0 122 1,784 3,149 1,823 4,932 2,430 4,932 

Exhibit F-22. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 NO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 10 - - 10 - - 10 - 10 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 12 - 12 - 12 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 1 6 17 17 22 22 22 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual NO

X Emissions 10 0 1 16 29 17 44 22 44 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-23. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual SO

X Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Exhibit F-24. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 712 - - 712 - - 712 - 712 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 1,073 - 1,073 - 1,073 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 85 427 1,280 1,280 1,706 1,706 1,706 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO Emissions 712 0 85 1,139 2,353 1,280 3,491 1,706 3,491 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-25. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 93 - - 93 - - 93 - 93 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 145 - 145 - 145 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 11 57 171 171 228 228 228 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO2 Emissions 93 0 11 150 316 171 466 228 466 

Exhibit F-26. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 835 - - 835 - - 835 - 835 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 1,240 - 1,240 - 1,240 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 99 497 1,490 1,490 1,986 1,986 1,986 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual H2O Emissions 835 0 99 1,332 2,730 1,490 4,061 1,986 4,061 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-27. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Ionosphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Licensed, Horiz. LVs and RVs) Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual VOC Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-20 

F.2.4 Emissions Associated with Other Launch and Reentry Activities 

To estimate per launch emissions from other past, present and reasonably foreseeable launches 

and reentries performed by other U.S. governmental agencies, foreign countries, foreign 

commercial enterprises, as well as commercially launched vertical LVs, the FAA followed the 

same basic approach used in estimating per launch and reentry emissions for the proposed action 

and alternative activities. However, it was not feasible to estimate the emissions on a vehicle-byvehicle basis due to the number of different types of launch and reentry vehicles that could be 

used in launches and reentries performed by other government agencies or other countries. 

Instead, LVs were grouped into five classifications based on vehicle type and payload capacity 

(presented in Exhibit F-28), and then per launch emissions in each atmospheric layer per 

launch/reentry were estimated for each classification. 

Exhibit F-28. Launch Vehicle Categories 

Vehicle 

Classification Type Payload Massain kilograms (pounds) 

Suborbital Suborbital 270 kilograms (594 pounds) 

Small Orbital <907 kilograms (<2,000 pounds) GTO or 

<2,268 kilograms (< 5,000 pounds) LEO 

Medium Orbital 907-1,814 kilograms (2,000-3,999 pounds) GTO or 

2,268-6,804 kilograms (5,000-15,000 pounds) LEO 

Intermediate Orbital 1,814-4,082 kilograms (4,000-8,999 pounds) GTO or 

+6,804 kilograms (+15,000 pounds) LEO 

Heavy Orbital 4,082-4,536 kilograms+ (9,000-10,000+ pounds) GTO a

 GTO = Geosynchronous transfer orbit; LEO = Low Earth orbit 

Orbital Launch Emissions 

The FAA estimated orbital launch emissions in each atmospheric layer for each vehicle 

classification based on the propellant consumed in the layer and the propellant type. For each 

category/propellant type combination, the FAA estimated the amount of propellant consumed in 

each atmospheric layer. These estimates, which are summarized in Exhibit F-29, are based on 

estimates for these vehicles from the 2001 PEIS for Licensing Launches. (DOT, 2001) These 

estimates assume residence times of 60 seconds in the troposphere, 60 seconds in the 

stratosphere, and 50 seconds in the mesosphere. Propellant consumptions in the ionosphere were 

not calculated. The FAA then estimated emissions per flight in each atmospheric layer for each 

category/propellant type combination by multiplying the propellant consumption by the 

appropriate emission weight fractions. The FAA used the emission weight fractions used in 

estimating horizontal LV and reentry emissions to the extent possible. Emission weight fractions 

for the remaining propellant types are provided in Exhibits F-30 through F-34. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-21 

Exhibit F-29. Estimated Propellant Consumption for Orbital Launches by Atmospheric 

Layer 

Vehicle Propellant Consumption Per Launch (kilograms) 

Classificationa

Propellant Type 

Troposphere Stratosphere Mesosphere 

U.S. Commercial 

Small Solid 37,500 37,500 5,000 

Solid 45,000 45,000 17,500 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - 17,500 

Solid/Hypergol - - 17,500 

Solid 210,000 210,000 55,000 

Solid/ LOX-RP-1 210,000 210,000 55,000 

LOX-RP-1 - - 55,000 

Hybrid 210,000 210,000 55,000 

Heavy 

Hypergol - - 55,000 

U.S. Government 

Small Solid 37,500 37,500 5,000 

Solid 45,000 45,000 17,500 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - 17,500 

Solid/Hypergol - - 17,500 

Solid 242,000 242,000 - 

Heavy LOX-H2 586,000 586,000 70,000 

Hypergol - - 43,000 

Foreign Government and Foreign Commercial 

Small Solid 50,000 50,000 5,000 

Solid 65,000 65,000 10,000 

Medium LOX-RP-1 - - 10,000 

Hypergol - - 10,000 

Solid 80,000 80,000 - 

Intermediate Hybrid 80,000 80,000 12,000 

Hypergol - - 12,000 

Solid/ LOX-LH2 90,000 90,000 - 

Solid/Hypergol 140,000 140,000 - 

LOX-RP-1 130,000 130,000 90,000 

Hybrid 130,000 130,000 90,000 

Heavy 

Hypergol 140,000 140,000 82,000 

Source: DOT, 2001 

a

 There are no anticipated U.S. commercial or U.S. government launches of “Intermediate” vehicles from 2005-

2015; thus there are no data for these vehicles in this exhibit. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-22 

Exhibit F-30. Emission Weight Fractions for LOX and RP-1 Propellant Emissions 

CO2

a COa OH H2O 

0.931 - 0.035 0.25 

 Source: DOT, 2001 (Appendix A) 

a In the mesosphere and ionosphere, where the oxidation reaction 

is less likely to occur because of the lack of oxygen, the weight 

fractions at the exhaust nozzle are 0.44 for CO and 0.24 for CO2. 

Exhibit F-31. Emission Weight Fractions for Solid/Liquid Hydrocarbon (Solid/LOX-RP-1) 

Propellant Emissions 

HCl PMa Cl CO2

b COb NO2 H2O OH 

0.105 0.19 0.0015 0.7 - 0.0017 0.26 0.017 

 Source: DOT, 2001 (Appendix A) 

a

 As Al2O3. b In the mesosphere and ionosphere, where the oxidation reaction is less likely to occur 

because of the lack of oxygen, the weight fractions at the exhaust nozzle are 0.34 for 

CO and 0.13 for CO2. 

Exhibit F-32. Emission Weight Fractions for Liquid Hypergolic (N2O4-Aerozine 50) 

Propellant Emissions 

CO2

b COb NO2 H2O 

0.22 - 1.36 0.35 

 Source: DOT, 2001 (Appendix A) 

a

 As Al2O3. b In the mesosphere and ionosphere, where the oxidation reaction is less 

likely to occur because of the lack of oxygen, the weight fractions at the 

exhaust nozzle are 0.03 for CO and 0.18 for CO2. 

Exhibit F-33. Emission Weight Fractions for Solid/Liquid Hypergolic Propellant 

Emissions 

HCl PMa Cl CO2 COb NO2

b N2 H2O 

0.105 0.185 0.001 0.1 - 0.190 0.21 0.31 

Source: DOT, 2001 (Appendix A) 

a

 As Al2O3. b In the mesosphere and ionosphere, where the oxidation reaction is less likely to occur because of 

the lack of oxygen, the weight fractions at the exhaust nozzle are 0.13 for CO and 0.02 for NO2.

Exhibit F-34. Emission Weight Fractions for Solid/LOX-LH2 Propellant Emissions 

HCl PMa Cl CO2 N2 H2O 

0.106 0.19 0.001 0.231 0.042 0.75 

Source: DOT, 2001 (Appendix A) 

a

 As Al2O3. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-23 

Exhibit F-35. Estimated Propellant Consumption for Suborbital Launches by Atmospheric 

Layer 

Propellant Consumption Per Flight, 

Representative Vehicle Kilograms (Pounds) Propellant 

Type Troposphere Stratosphere Mesosphere

LV-1 LOX-RP-1 951 

(2,097) 

3,803 

(8,384) 

512 

(1,129) 

LV-2 LOX-RP-1 3,204 

(7,064) 

6,546 

(14,430) - 

Suborbital Launch Emissions 

For U.S. Commercial suborbital vertical launches, the FAA used three different representative 

types of vehicles for our assumptions, designated as LV-1, LV-2, and LV-3. The FAA assumed 

all other suborbital launches (U.S. Government, Foreign Commercial, and Foreign Government) 

were similar to the LV-1. For the LV-1 and LV-2, the FAA used launch data from the X Prize 

web site (http://www.xprize.com) and assumed that the vehicle traveled at a constant rate until 

engine cut-off to estimate the propellant consumed in each atmospheric layer. The estimated 

propellant used in each atmospheric layer for these two vehicles is provided in Exhibit F-35. 

Because both vehicles used LOX-RP-1 propellant, the FAA used the emission weight fractions 

in Exhibit F-30 to estimate the emissions per flight in each atmospheric layer. For LV-3, the 

FAA used estimates of emissions per launch in NASA’s Supplemental EIS for Sounding Rocket 

Program. (NASA, 1998) This vehicle is estimated to use all of its propellant by the time it 

reaches 30 kilometers (18.6 miles), so FAA assumed that one-half of these emissions occur in 

the troposphere and one-half occur in the stratosphere. The estimated emissions per flight for all 

three suborbital vehicles are provided in Exhibits F-36 through F-38. 

Reentry Emissions 

To estimate reentry vehicle emissions, the FAA assumed that all reentries with powered landings 

were similar to either the jet-powered or rocket-powered landing used in estimating reentry 

emissions for the launches associated with the proposed action and alternatives. The emissions 

per reentry for these two vehicle types are presented in Exhibits F-36 through F-38. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-36. Estimated Emission Loads to the Troposphere per Other Launch or Reen

Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilogr

Category Vehicle Classification

Propellant Type 

or 

Representative 

Vehicle HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 

Small Solid 7,875 56 14,250 124 - - 17,250 

Solid 9,450 68 17,100 149 - - 20,700 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Solid 44,100 315 79,800 693 - - 96,600 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 22,050 315 39,900 357 - - 147,000 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - 195,510 

Heavy 

Hypergol - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - 885 

Suborbital LV-2 - - - - - - 2,983 

LV-3 94 - 179 - 1 144 7 

Jet-powered 

landing - - 5.5 0.24 0.09 18.8 - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Excluding Horizontal LVs and RVs) Reentry Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 7,875 56 14,250 124 - - 17,250 

Solid 9,450 68 17,100 149 - - 20,700 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Solid 50,820 363 91,960 799 - - 111,320 

Heavy LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - 885 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-36. Estimated Emission Loads to the Troposphere per Other Launch or Reen

Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilogr

Category Vehicle Classification

Propellant Type 

or 

Representative 

Vehicle HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 

Jet-powered 

landing - - 5.5 0.24 0.09 18.8 - 

Reentry Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 10,500 75 19,000 165 - - 23,000 

Solid 13,650 98 24,700 215 - - 29,900 

Medium LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - 

Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Solid 16,800 120 30,400 264 - - 36,800 

Intermediate Hybrid - - - - - - 74,480 

Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Solid/ LOX-LH2 9,500 125 17,125 - - - 20,750 

Solid/Hypergol 14,700 200 25,900 26,600 - - 14,000 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - 121,030 

Hybrid - - - - - - 121,030 

Heavy 

Hypergol - - - 190,400 - - 30,800 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - 885 

Jet-powered 

landing - - 5.5 0.24 0.09 18.8 - 

Foreign Commercial and Foreign Government Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-37. Estimated Emission Loads to the Stratosphere per Other Launch or Reen

Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilog

Category Vehicle Classification Propellant Type or Representative Vehicle HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 

Small Solid 7,875 56 14,250 124 - - 17,250 

Solid 9,450 68 17,100 149 - - 20,700 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Solid 44,100 315 79,800 693 - - 96,600 

Solid/ LOX-RP-1 22,050 315 39,900 357 - - 147,000 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - 195,510 

Heavy 

Hypergol - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - 3,540 

Suborbital LV-2 - - - - - - 6,095 

LV-3 94 - 179 - 1 144 7 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Excluding Horizontal LVs and RVs) Reentry Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 7,875 56 14,250 124 - - 17,250 

Solid 9,450 68 17,100 149 - - 20,700 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Solid 50,820 363 91,960 799 - - 111,320 

Heavy LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - 

Hypergol - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - 3,540 

Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-37. Estimated Emission Loads to the Stratosphere per Other Launch or Reen

Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilog

Category Vehicle Classification Propellant Type or Representative Vehicle HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 10,500 75 19,000 165 - - 23,000 

Solid 13,650 98 24,700 215 - - 29,900 

Medium LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - 

Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Solid 16,800 120 30,400 264 - - 36,800 

Intermediate Hybrid - - - - - - 74,480 

Hypergol - - - - - - - 

Solid/ LOX-LH2 9,500 125 17,125 - - - 20,750 

Solid/Hypergol 14,700 200 25,900 26,600 - - 14,000 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - 121,030 

Hybrid - - - - - - 121,030 

Heavy 

Hypergol - - - 190,400 - - 30,800 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - 3,540 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial and Foreign Government Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-38. Estimated Emission Loads to the Mesosphere per Other Launch or Reent

Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilogr

Category Vehicle Classification Propellant Type or Vehicle HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 

Small Solid 1,050 8 1,900 17 - 1,150 150 

Solid 3,675 26 6,650 58 - 4,025 525 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 1,838 26 3,325 30 - 2,275 2,275 

Solid/Hypergol 1,875 25 3,250 375 - 2,250 1,750 

Solid 11,550 83 20,900 182 - 12,650 1,650 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 5,775 83 10,450 94 - 7,150 7,150 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - 24,200 13,20

Hybrid - - - - - 24,200 13,20

Heavy 

Hypergol - - - 74,800 - 1,650 9,900 

LV-1 - - - - - 225 123 

Suborbital LV-2 - - - - - - - 

LV-3 - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Excluding Horizontal LVs and RVs) Reentry Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 1,050 8 1,900 17 - 1,150 150 

Solid 3,675 26 6,650 58 - 4,025 525 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 1,838 26 3,325 30 - 2,275 2,275 

Solid/Hypergol 1,875 25 3,250 375 - 2,250 1,750 

Solid - - - - - - - 

Heavy LOX-LH2 14,700 105 26,600 231 - 16,100 2,100 

Hypergol - - - 58,480 - 1,290 7,740 

U.S. Government Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - 225 123 

Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-38. Estimated Emission Loads to the Mesosphere per Other Launch or Reent

Emission Loads per Launch/Reentry (kilogr

Category Vehicle Classification Propellant Type or Vehicle HCl Cl PM NO

X SO

X CO CO2 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 1,050 8 1,900 17 - 1,150 150 

Solid 2,100 15 3,800 33 - 2,300 300 

Medium LOX-RP-1 - - - - - 4,400 2,400 

Hypergol - - - 13,600 - 300 1,800 

Solid - - - - - - - 

Intermediate Hybrid - - - - - 5,280 2,880 

Hypergol - - - 16,320 - 360 2,160 

Solid/ LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - 39,600 21,60

Hybrid - - - - - 39,600 21,60

Heavy 

Hypergol - - - 111,520 - 2,460 14,76

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - 225 123 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial and Foreign Government Reentry Rocket-powered landing - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-30 

F.3 Methodology for Calculating Cumulative Emissions Loads in Various Atmospheric 

Layers 

To calculate the cumulative emission loads to each atmospheric layer associated with both the 

proposed action and alternatives and the other launches and reentries (other Federal agencies, other 

countries, foreign commercial, and FAA licensed vertical launches), the FAA performed the 

following activities. 

1. The FAA estimated the number of launch and reentries by vehicle type and classification (see 

Exhibits F-39, F-40, and F-41). 

2. For the other launches and reentries, the FAA allocated the launches and reentries by 

propellant type (see Exhibits F-42 and F-43). 

3. The FAA multiplied the emission estimates per launch or reentry by the launch estimates for 

each type of vehicle or propellant type (see Exhibits F-44 to F-70). 

For other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable suborbital launches (vertical suborbital 

launches), this analysis assumed the U.S. Commercial vertical launches consisted of three different 

types of vehicles, which were based on current vehicle types. The breakdown of the number of 

launches assumed for each of these vehicle types is provided in Exhibit F-41. For U.S. 

Government, Foreign Commercial, and Foreign Government suborbital launches, the FAA 

assumed all launch vehicles would be similar to the LV-1, which is the suborbital launch vehicle 

that generally has the lowest emissions. 

For past, present, and reasonably foreseeable launches performed by other U.S. governmental 

agencies, foreign countries, foreign commercial enterprises, as well as commercially launched 

vertical LVs, the emissions varied within each vehicle classification based on propellant type. To 

determine the number of launches in each vehicle classification using each propellant type, the 

FAA used the same distribution estimates used in the 2001 PEIS for Licensing Launches. (DOT, 

2001) These estimates, presented in Exhibit F-42, are based on flight manifest data and literature 

on the commercial viability of certain types of launch vehicles. 

For past, present, and reasonably foreseeable reentries performed by other U.S. governmental 

agencies, foreign countries, foreign commercial enterprises, as well as commercially launched 

vertical LVs, the FAA assumed that one-half of all reentries would not have powered landings. Of 

the reentries with powered landings, the FAA assumed that one-half were jet-powered and onehalf were rocket-powered. These are the same assumptions and vehicles used in estimating reentry 

emissions associated with the proposed action and alternatives. Exhibit F-43 presents the assumed 

number of reentries, by vehicle type. 

The annual estimated emissions loads from 2005 to 2015 for each vehicle type and compound 

(HCl, Cl, PM, NOX, SOX, CO, CO2, H2O, and VOC) are presented in Exhibits F-44 to F-70. 

Specifically, annual emissions by compound to a particular atmospheric region are presented in 

 Exhibits F-44 to F-52 – troposphere 

 Exhibits F-53 to F-61 – stratosphere 

 Exhibits F-62 to F-70 – mesosphere 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-31 

Cumulative impacts on the ionosphere were considered to be negligible because the emissions 

would be short-lived and would occur infrequently. Formal calculations were not prepared for 

emissions in the ionosphere. For evaluating the cumulative impacts on ambient air quality, all of 

the emissions from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable reentries performed by other U.S. 

governmental agencies, foreign countries, foreign commercial enterprises, as well as commercially 

launched vertical LVs in the troposphere, were assumed to affect ground level ambient air quality. 

Exhibit F-39. Vehicle Launches and Reentries Associated with the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives, 2005-2015 

Representative 

Vehicle Type 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 

Vehicle Type A 0 10 50 50 50 75 50 50 50 50 

Vehicle Type B 5 30 30 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 

Vehicle Type C 0 0 2 10 20 30 35 35 35 35 

TBD Vehicle 0 0 2 5 12 25 25 30 35 40 

Vehicle Type D 6 8 10 10 8 7 6 7 7 7 

Vehicle Type E 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Vehicle Type F 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 

TBD Vehicle 0 0 1 5 15 15 20 20 20 20 

Reentry Vehicle – 

Rocket Landing 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.75 3 3.75

Reentry Vehicle – Jet 

Landing 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.75 3 3.75

Reentry Vehicle – 

Unpowered Landing 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 2 3.5 6 7.5 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-32 

Exhibit F-40. Other Vehicle Launches and Reentries, 2005-2015 

Category Vehicle 

Classification 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Suborbital 7 3 8 7 4 9 8 10 10 11 11 

Small 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Medium 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 

Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

U.S. Commercial 

(FAA Licensed, 

Excluding Horiz. 

LVs and RVs) Heavy 7 6 7 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 

Suborbital 22 30 25 20 24 24 26 24 22 24 22 

Small 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 

Medium 10 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Heavy 14 13 12 13 14 14 13 9 10 9 10 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Vehicle 3 5 4 4 4 - 1 2 2 4 4 

Suborbital 8 15 12 8 10 8 15 10 8 8 15 

Small 3 3 5 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 

Medium 13 18 17 14 15 15 14 15 15 14 15 

Intermediate 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Heavy 7 6 9 8 7 7 9 8 7 7 7 

Foreign 

Government 

Reentry 

Vehicle 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 

Suborbital 2 0 2 0 1 3 4 6 8 10 12 

Small 2 4 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 

Medium 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Intermediate 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Heavy 11 10 12 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 14 

Foreign 

Commercial 

Reentry 

Vehicle - - - - - - 1 2 2 3 3 

TOTAL 117 127 129 112 114 120 137 125 124 125 138
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-33 

Exhibit F-41. Other Estimated U.S. Commercial Suborbital Launches (Vertical) By Vehicle, 

2005-2015 

Representative Vehicle 

Type 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

LV-1 3 3 6 6 3 8 8 8 10 10 10 

LV-2 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 

LV-3 3 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 

TOTAL 7 3 8 7 4 9 8 10 10 11 11 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-34 

F-42. Percentage of Other Launch Vehicles Using Each Propellant within 

Each Atmospheric Layer 

Percentage of Flights Using Propellant in Each 

Layer Vehicle 

Classificationa Propellant Type 

Troposphere Stratosphere Mesosphere 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding Horizontal LVs and RVs) 

Small Solid 100% 100% 100% 

Medium Solid 100% 100% 50% 

 Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - 25% 

 Solid/Hypergol - - 25% 

Heavy Solid 33% 33% - 

 Solid/ LOX-RP-1 33% 33% - 

 LOX-RP-1 - - 33% 

 Hybrid 33% 33% 33% 

 Hypergol - - 33% 

U.S. Government 

Small Solid 100% 100% 100% 

Medium Solid 100% 100% 50% 

 Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - 25% 

 Solid/Hypergol - - 25% 

Heavy Solid 33% 33% - 

 LOX-LH2 66% 66% 66% 

 Hypergol - - 33% 

Foreign Government and Foreign Commercial 

Small Solid 100% 100% 100% 

Medium Solid 100% 100% 50% 

 LOX-RP-1 - - 25% 

 Hypergol - - 25% 

Intermediate Solid 60% 60% - 

 Hybrid 40% 40% 45% 

 Hypergol - - 55% 

Heavy Solid/ LOX-LH2 10% 10% - 

 Solid/Hypergol 10% 10% - 

 LOX-RP-1 20% 20% 20% 

 Hybrid 20% 20% 20% 

 Hypergol 40% 40% 60% 

 Source: DOT, 2001 

 a There are no anticipated U.S. commercial or U.S. government launches of “Intermediate” vehicles from 2005-

2015; thus there are no data for these vehicles in this exhibit. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-35 

Exhibit F-43. Other Reentry Vehicles, 2005-2015 

Category Type 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Jet Landing 0.75 1.25 1 1 1 - 0.25 0.5 0.5 1 1 

Rocket 

Landing U.S. 0.75 1.25 1 1 1 - 0.25 0.5 0.5 1 1 

Gov. Unpowered 

Landing 1.5 2.5 2 2 2 - 0.5 1 1 2 2 

Jet Landing 1 1.25 1.25 1 1 1.25 1 1.25 1 1.25 1 

Rocket 

Landing Foreign 1 1.25 1.25 1 1 1.25 1 1.25 1 1.25 1 

Gov. Unpowered 

Landing 2 2.5 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 2 

Jet Landing - - - - - - 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 

Rocket 

Landing Foreign - - - - - - 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 

Comm. Unpowered 

Landing - - - - - - 0.5 1 1 1.5 1.5 

TOTAL 7 10 9 8 8 5 6 9 8 12 11 

 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-44. Estimated HCl Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 15,750 7,875 15,750 15,750 7,875 15,750 15,750 15,750 15,75

Solid 18,900 18,900 18,900 9,450 18,900 9,450 9,450 18,900 9,450 

Medium Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 102,900 88,200 102,900 102,900 88,200 88,200 102,900 88,200 88,20

Solid/LOX-RP-1 51,450 44,100 51,450 51,450 44,100 44,100 51,450 44,100 44,10

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy 

Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

LV-3 282 - 94 94 - 94 - 94 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-44. Estimated HCl Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 15,750 23,625 15,750 31,500 15,750 23,625 15,750 15,750 15,75

Solid 94,500 85,050 75,600 85,050 85,050 85,050 85,050 85,050 85,05

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 237,160 220,220 203,280 220,220 237,160 237,160 220,220 152,460 169,40

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 31,500 31,500 52,500 21,000 21,000 21,000 31,500 21,000 31,50

Solid 177,450 245,700 232,050 191,100 204,750 204,750 191,100 204,750 204,75

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 20,160 10,080 20,160 10,080 20,160 10,080 20,160 10,080 20,16

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 6,650 5,700 8,550 7,600 6,650 6,650 8,550 7,600 6,650 

Solid/Hypergol 10,290 8,820 13,230 11,760 10,290 10,290 13,230 11,760 10,29

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-44. Estimated HCl Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 21,000 42,000 31,500 21,000 10,500 21,000 21,000 31,500 31,50

Solid 27,300 40,950 13,650 13,650 27,300 13,650 13,650 13,650 13,65

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 10,080 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 10,450 9,500 11,400 12,350 12,350 12,350 14,250 14,250 14,25

Solid/Hypergol 16,170 14,700 17,640 19,110 19,110 19,110 22,050 22,050 22,05

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual HCl Emissions 867,742 896,920 884,404 824,064 829,145 822,309 836,060 756,944 782,50
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-45. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 112 56 112 112 56 112 112 112 112 

Solid 136 136 136 68 136 68 68 136 68 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 735 630 735 735 630 630 735 630 630 

Solid/ LOX-RP-1 735 630 735 735 630 630 735 630 630 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-45. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 112 168 112 224 112 168 112 112 112 

Solid 680 612 544 612 612 612 612 612 612 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 1,694 1,573 1,452 1,573 1,694 1,694 1,573 1,089 1,210 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 225 225 375 150 150 150 225 150 225 

Solid 1,274 1,764 1,666 1,372 1,470 1,470 1,372 1,470 1,470 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 144 72 144 72 144 72 144 72 144 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 88 75 113 100 88 88 113 100 88 

Solid/Hypergol 140 120 180 160 140 140 180 160 140 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-45. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 150 300 225 150 75 150 150 225 225 

Solid 196 294 98 98 196 98 98 98 98 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 72 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 138 125 150 163 163 163 188 188 188 

Solid/Hypergol 220 200 240 260 260 260 300 300 300 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual Cl Emissions 6,851 6,980 7,017 6,584 6,556 6,505 6,717 6,084 6,252 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-46. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) 

Vehicle Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 110 550 550 550 825 550 550 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 66 88 110 110 88 77 66 77 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 11 - - 11 - - 11 - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - < 1 - < 1 - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 11 53 158 158 210 210 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

lanidng - - - - 1 3 6 10 

Small Solid 28,500 14,250 28,500 28,500 14,250 28,500 28,500 28,500 28

Solid 34,200 34,200 34,200 17,100 34,200 17,100 17,100 34,200 17

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Solid 186,200 159,600 186,200 186,200 159,600 159,600 186,200 159,600 15

Solid/LOX-RP-1 93,100 79,800 93,100 93,100 79,800 79,800 93,100 79,800 79

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 537 - 179 179 - 179 - 179 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-46. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) 

Vehicle Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

Small Solid 28,500 42,750 28,500 57,000 28,500 42,750 28,500 28,500 28

Solid 171,000 153,900 136,800 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 15

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Solid 429,147 398,493 367,840 398,493 429,147 429,147 398,493 275,880 30

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing 4 7 6 6 6 - 1 3 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 57,000 57,000 95,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 57,000 38,000 57

Solid 321,100 444,600 419,900 345,800 370,500 370,500 345,800 370,500 37

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Solid 36,480 18,240 36,480 18,240 36,480 18,240 36,480 18,240 36

Hybrid - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 11,988 10,275 15,413 13,700 11,988 11,988 15,413 13,700 11

Solid/Hypergol 18,130 15,540 23,310 20,720 18,130 18,130 23,310 20,720 18

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing 6 7 7 6 6 7 6 7 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-46. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) 

Vehicle Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

Small Solid 38,000 76,000 57,000 38,000 19,000 38,000 38,000 57,000 57

Solid 49,400 74,100 24,700 24,700 49,400 24,700 24,700 24,700 24

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Solid 18,240 - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 18,838 17,125 20,550 22,263 22,263 22,263 25,688 25,688 25

Solid/Hypergol 28,490 25,900 31,080 33,670 33,670 33,670 38,850 38,850 38

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - 1 3 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual PM Emissions 1,568,937 1,621,985 1,599,436 1,490,301 1,499,637 1,487,537 1,511,885 1,368,817 1,4
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-47. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 NO

XEmission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 5 25 25 25 38 25 25 25 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 4 5 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 30 - - 30 - - 30 - 30 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 8 - 8 - 8 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 3 13 38 38 50 50 50 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 

Small Solid 248 124 248 248 124 248 248 248 248 

Solid 298 298 298 149 298 149 149 298 149 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 1,617 1,386 1,617 1,617 1,386 1,386 1,617 1,386 1,38

Solid/ LOX-RP-1 833 714 833 833 714 714 833 714 714 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-47. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 NO

XEmission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 248 372 248 496 248 372 248 248 248 

Solid 1,490 1,341 1,192 1,341 1,341 1,341 1,341 1,341 1,34

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 3,729 3,462 3,196 3,462 3,729 3,729 3,462 2,397 2,66

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 495 495 825 330 330 330 495 330 495 

Solid 2,795 3,870 3,655 3,010 3,225 3,225 3,010 3,225 3,22

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 317 158 317 158 317 158 317 158 317 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol 18,620 15,960 23,940 21,280 18,620 18,620 23,940 21,280 18,62

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol 533,120 456,960 685,440 609,280 533,120 533,120 685,440 609,280 533,1

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-47. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 NO

XEmission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 330 660 495 330 165 330 330 495 495 

Solid 430 645 215 215 430 215 215 215 215 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 158 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol 29,260 26,600 31,920 34,580 34,580 34,580 39,900 39,900 39,90

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol 837,760 761,600 913,920 990,080 990,080 990,080 1,142,400 1,142,400 1,142,

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - < 1 < 1 < 1 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual NO

X Emissions 1,431,782 1,274,655 1,668,393 1,667,483 1,588,783 1,588,677 1,904,062 1,823,994 1,745,
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-48. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 2 10 10 10 15 10 10 10 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 2 - - 2 - - 2 - 2 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - < 1 2 6 6 8 8 8 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 3 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-48. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-48. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - < 1 < 1 < 1 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual SO

X Emissions 7 4 14 18 19 24 23 21 23 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-49. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 1,241 6,205 6,205 6,205 9,308 6,205 6,205 6,205 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 228 304 380 380 304 266 228 266 266 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 93 - - 93 - - 93 - 93 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 18 - 18 - 18 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 40 201 602 602 802 802 802 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - 5 9 19 33 47 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 432 - 144 144 - 144 - 144 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-49. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing 14 24 19 19 19 - 5 9 9 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing 19 24 24 19 19 24 19 24 19 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-49. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - 5 9 9 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO Emissions 786 1,593 6,812 7,061 7,172 10,353 7,394 7,492 7,468 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-50. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 2,118 10,590 10,590 10,590 15,885 10,590 10,590 10,59Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 4,788 28,725 28,725 38,300 19,150 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 3,829 19,147 38,294 57,441 67,015 67,015 67,01Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 3,168 7,921 19,010 39,605 39,605 47,526 47,52Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 34,500 17,250 34,500 34,500 17,250 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,50

Solid 41,400 41,400 41,400 20,700 41,400 20,700 20,700 41,400 20,70

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 225,400 193,200 225,400 225,400 193,200 193,200 225,400 193,200 193,20

Solid/LOX-RP-1 343,000 294,000 343,000 343,000 294,000 294,000 343,000 294,000 294,00

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 456,190 391,020 456,190 456,190 391,020 391,020 456,190 391,020 391,02

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 2,655 2,655 5,310 5,310 2,655 7,080 7,080 7,080 8,850 LV-2 2,983 - 2,983 - 2,983 - - 2,983 - 

Suborbital LV-3 21 - 7 7 - 7 - 7 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-50. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 34,500 51,750 34,500 69,000 34,500 51,750 34,500 34,500 34,50

Solid 207,000 186,300 165,600 186,300 186,300 186,300 186,300 186,300 186,30

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 519,493 482,387 445,280 482,387 519,493 519,493 482,387 333,960 371,06

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 19,470 26,550 22,125 17,700 21,240 21,240 23,010 21,240 19,47

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 69,000 69,000 115,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 69,000 46,000 69,00

Solid 388,700 538,200 508,300 418,600 448,500 448,500 418,600 448,500 448,50

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 44,160 22,080 44,160 22,080 44,160 22,080 44,160 22,080 44,16

Hybrid 59,584 29,792 59,584 29,792 59,584 29,792 59,584 29,792 59,58

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 14,525 12,450 18,675 16,600 14,525 14,525 18,675 16,600 14,52

Solid/Hypergol 9,800 8,400 12,600 11,200 9,800 9,800 12,600 11,200 9,800 

LOX-RP-1 169,442 145,236 217,854 193,648 169,442 169,442 217,854 193,648 169,44

Hybrid 169,442 145,236 217,854 193,648 169,442 169,442 217,854 193,648 169,44

Heavy Hypergol 86,240 73,920 110,880 98,560 86,240 86,240 110,880 98,560 86,24

Suborbital LV-1 7,080 13,275 10,620 7,080 8,850 7,080 13,275 8,850 7,080 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-50. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 46,000 92,000 69,000 46,000 23,000 46,000 46,000 69,000 69,00

Solid 59,800 89,700 29,900 29,900 59,800 29,900 29,900 29,900 29,90

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 22,080 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 29,792 - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 22,825 20,750 24,900 26,975 26,975 26,975 31,125 31,125 31,12

Solid/Hypergol 15,400 14,000 16,800 18,200 18,200 18,200 21,000 21,000 21,00

LOX-RP-1 266,266 242,060 290,472 314,678 314,678 314,678 363,090 363,090 363,09

Hybrid 266,266 242,060 290,472 314,678 314,678 314,678 363,090 363,090 363,09

Heavy Hypergol 135,520 123,200 147,840 160,160 160,160 160,160 184,800 184,800 184,80

Suborbital LV-1 1,770 - 1,770 - 885 2,655 3,540 5,310 7,080 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO2 Emissions 3,775,092 3,598,714 4,009,288 3,864,251 3,766,004 3,748,368 4,155,304 3,801,514 3,825,5
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-51. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 1,297 6,485 6,485 6,485 9,728 6,485 6,485 6,4Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 1,786 10,716 10,716 14,288 7,144 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 1,429 7,145 14,290 21,435 25,008 25,008 25,0Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 1,182 2,956 7,093 14,778 14,778 17,733 17,7Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - 582 1,164 2,328 4,074 5,8

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 20,250 10,125 20,250 20,250 10,125 20,250 20,250 20,250 20,2

Solid 24,300 24,300 24,300 12,150 24,300 12,150 12,150 24,300 12,

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 132,300 113,400 132,300 132,300 113,400 113,400 132,300 113,400 113,

Solid/LOX-RP-1 127,400 109,200 127,400 127,400 109,200 109,200 127,400 109,200 109,

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 122,500 105,000 122,500 122,500 105,000 105,000 122,500 105,000 105,

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 714 714 1,428 1,428 714 1,904 1,904 1,904 2,3LV-2 801 - 801 - 801 - - 801 - 

Suborbital LV-3 60 - 20 20 - 20 - 20 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-51. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 20,250 30,375 20,250 40,500 20,250 30,375 20,250 20,250 20,2

Solid 121,500 109,350 97,200 109,350 109,350 109,350 109,350 109,350 109,

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 304,920 283,140 261,360 283,140 304,920 304,920 283,140 196,020 217,

LOX-LH2 5,195,867 4,824,733 4,453,600 4,824,733 5,195,867 5,195,867 4,824,733 3,340,200 3,711

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 5,236 7,140 5,950 4,760 5,712 5,712 6,188 5,712 5,2

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing 1,746 2,910 2,328 2,328 2,328 - 582 1,164 1,1

Small Solid 40,500 40,500 67,500 27,000 27,000 27,000 40,500 27,000 40,5

Solid 228,150 315,900 298,350 245,700 263,250 263,250 245,700 263,250 263,

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 25,920 12,960 25,920 12,960 25,920 12,960 25,920 12,960 25,9

Hybrid 16,000 8,000 16,000 8,000 16,000 8,000 16,000 8,000 16,0

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 47,250 40,500 60,750 54,000 47,250 47,250 60,750 54,000 47,2

Solid/Hypergol 30,380 26,040 39,060 34,720 30,380 30,380 39,060 34,720 30,3

LOX-RP-1 45,500 39,000 58,500 52,000 45,500 45,500 58,500 52,000 45,5

Hybrid 45,500 39,000 58,500 52,000 45,500 45,500 58,500 52,000 45,5

Heavy Hypergol 137,200 117,600 176,400 156,800 137,200 137,200 176,400 156,800 137,

Suborbital LV-1 1,904 3,570 2,856 1,904 2,380 1,904 3,570 2,380 1,9

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing 2,328 2,910 2,910 2,328 2,328 2,910 2,328 2,910 2,3
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-51. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 27,000 54,000 40,500 27,000 13,500 27,000 27,000 40,500 40,5

Solid 35,100 52,650 17,550 17,550 35,100 17,550 17,550 17,550 17,5

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 12,960 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 8,000 - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 74,250 67,500 81,000 87,750 87,750 87,750 101,250 101,250 101,

Solid/Hypergol 47,740 43,400 52,080 56,420 56,420 56,420 65,100 65,100 65,

LOX-RP-1 71,500 65,000 78,000 84,500 84,500 84,500 97,500 97,500 97,5

Hybrid 71,500 65,000 78,000 84,500 84,500 84,500 97,500 97,500 97,5

Heavy Hypergol 215,600 196,000 235,200 254,800 254,800 254,800 294,000 294,000 294,

Suborbital LV-1 476 - 476 - 238 714 952 1,428 1,9

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - 582 1,164 1,1

Total H20 Emissions 7,264,388 6,821,930 6,679,051 6,971,665 7,297,077 7,290,341 7,138,008 5,482,883 5,854
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-52. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 40 200 200 200 300 200 200 200 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 31 42 52 52 42 36 31 36 36 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 68 - - 68 - - 68 - 68 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 2 - 2 - 2 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 9 43 128 128 170 170 170 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-52. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-52. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Troposphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual VOC Emissions 99 82 261 363 372 464 471 406 476 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-53. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 3,153 - - 3,153 - - 3,153 - 3,153 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 171 857 2,571 2,571 3,428 3,428 3,428 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 15,750 7,875 15,750 15,750 7,875 15,750 15,750 15,750 15,75

Solid 18,900 18,900 18,900 9,450 18,900 9,450 9,450 18,900 9,450 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 102,900 88,200 102,900 102,900 88,200 88,200 102,900 88,200 88,20

Solid/LOX-RP-1 51,450 44,100 51,450 51,450 44,100 44,100 51,450 44,100 44,10

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 282 - 94 94 - 94 - 94 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-53. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 15,750 23,625 15,750 31,500 15,750 23,625 15,750 15,750 15,75

Solid 94,500 85,050 75,600 85,050 85,050 85,050 85,050 85,050 85,05

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 237,160 220,220 203,280 220,220 237,160 237,160 220,220 152,460 169,40

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 31,500 31,500 52,500 21,000 21,000 21,000 31,500 21,000 31,50

Solid 177,450 245,700 232,050 191,100 204,750 204,750 191,100 204,750 204,75

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 20,160 10,080 20,160 10,080 20,160 10,080 20,160 10,080 20,16

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 6,650 5,700 8,550 7,600 6,650 6,650 8,550 7,600 6,650 

Solid/Hypergol 10,290 8,820 13,230 11,760 10,290 10,290 13,230 11,760 10,29

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-53. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 21,000 42,000 31,500 21,000 10,500 21,000 21,000 31,500 31,50

Solid 27,300 40,950 13,650 13,650 27,300 13,650 13,650 13,650 13,65

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 10,080 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 10,450 9,500 11,400 12,350 12,350 12,350 14,250 14,250 14,25

Solid/Hypergol 16,170 14,700 17,640 19,110 19,110 19,110 22,050 22,050 22,05

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual HCl Emissions 870,895 896,920 884,575 828,074 831,716 824,880 842,641 760,372 789,08
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-54. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 23 - - 23 - - 23 - 23 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 1 6 18 18 24 24 24 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 112 56 112 112 56 112 112 112 112 

Solid 136 136 136 68 136 68 68 136 68 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 735 630 735 735 630 630 735 630 630 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 735 630 735 735 630 630 735 630 630 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-54. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 112 168 112 224 112 168 112 112 112 

Solid 680 612 544 612 612 612 612 612 612 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 1,694 1,573 1,452 1,573 1,694 1,694 1,573 1,089 1,210 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 225 225 375 150 150 150 225 150 225 

Solid 1,274 1,764 1,666 1,372 1,470 1,470 1,372 1,470 1,470 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 144 72 144 72 144 72 144 72 144 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 88 75 113 100 88 88 113 100 88 

Solid/Hypergol 140 120 180 160 140 140 180 160 140 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-54. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 150 300 225 150 75 150 150 225 225 

Solid 196 294 98 98 196 98 98 98 98 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 72 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 138 125 150 163 163 163 188 188 188 

Solid/Hypergol 220 200 240 260 260 260 300 300 300 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual Cl Emissions 6,874 6,980 7,018 6,613 6,574 6,523 6,764 6,108 6,299 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-55. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 

Vehicle Type 

A - - - - - - - - - 

Concept 2 

Vehicle Type 

B - - - - - - - - - 

Concept 2 

Vehicle Type 

C - - - - - - - - - 

Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 

Vehicle Type 

D - - - - - - - - - 

Concept 3 

Vehicle Type 

E 5,705 - - 5,705 - - 5,705 - 5,705 

Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 310 1,551 4,652 4,652 6,202 6,202 6,202 

Reentry 

Rocketpowered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Horiz. LVs and 

RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 28,500 14,250 28,500 28,500 14,250 28,500 28,500 28,500 28,500 

Solid 34,200 34,200 34,200 17,100 34,200 17,100 17,100 34,200 17,100 

Solid/LOXRP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 186,200 159,600 186,200 186,200 159,600 159,600 186,200 159,600 159,600 

Solid/LOXRP-1 93,100 79,800 93,100 93,100 79,800 79,800 93,100 79,800 79,800 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Excluding Horizontal LVs or RVs) Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-55. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

LV-3 537 - 179 179 - 179 - 179 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocketpowered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 28,500 42,750 28,500 57,000 28,500 42,750 28,500 28,500 28,500 

Solid 171,000 153,900 136,800 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 153,900 

Solid/LOXRP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 429,147 398,493 367,840 398,493 429,147 429,147 398,493 275,880 306,533 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocketpowered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 57,000 57,000 95,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 57,000 38,000 57,000 

Solid 321,100 444,600 419,900 345,800 370,500 370,500 345,800 370,500 370,500 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 36,480 18,240 36,480 18,240 36,480 18,240 36,480 18,240 36,480 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Heavy 

Solid/LOXLH2 11,988 10,275 15,413 13,700 11,988 11,988 15,413 13,700 11,988 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-55. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Solid/Hypergol 18,130 15,540 23,310 20,720 18,130 18,130 23,310 20,720 18,130 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocketpowered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 38,000 76,000 57,000 38,000 19,000 38,000 38,000 57,000 57,000 

Solid 49,400 74,100 24,700 24,700 49,400 24,700 24,700 24,700 24,700 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 18,240 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOXLH2 18,838 17,125 20,550 22,263 22,263 22,263 25,688 25,688 25,688 

Solid/Hypergol 28,490 25,900 31,080 33,670 33,670 33,670 38,850 38,850 38,850 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocketpowered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual PM Emissions 1,574,555 1,621,773 1,599,062 1,496,821 1,503,480 1,491,119 1,522,941 1,374,159 1,426,176 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-56. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 NOX Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 50 - - 50 - - 50 - 50 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 3 14 41 41 54 54 54 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 248 124 248 248 124 248 248 248 248 

Solid 298 298 298 149 298 149 149 298 149 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 1,617 1,386 1,617 1,617 1,386 1,386 1,617 1,386 1,38

Solid/LOX-RP-1 833 714 833 833 714 714 833 714 714 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-56. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 NOX Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 248 372 248 496 248 372 248 248 248 

Solid 1,490 1,341 1,192 1,341 1,341 1,341 1,341 1,341 1,34

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 3,729 3,462 3,196 3,462 3,729 3,729 3,462 2,397 2,66

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 495 495 825 330 330 330 495 330 495 

Solid 2,795 3,870 3,655 3,010 3,225 3,225 3,010 3,225 3,22

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 317 158 317 158 317 158 317 158 317 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol 18,620 15,960 23,940 21,280 18,620 18,620 23,940 21,280 18,62

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol 533,120 456,960 685,440 609,280 533,120 533,120 685,440 609,280 533,1

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-56. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 NOX Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 330 660 495 330 165 330 330 495 495 

Solid 430 645 215 215 430 215 215 215 215 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 158 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol 29,260 26,600 31,920 34,580 34,580 34,580 39,900 39,900 39,90

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol 837,760 761,600 913,920 990,080 990,080 990,080 1,142,400 1,142,400 1,142,

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual NO

X Emissions 1,431,798 1,274,645 1,668,362 1,667,473 1,588,748 1,588,638 1,904,049 1,823,969 1,745,
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-57. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 3 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-57. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-57. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual SO

X Emissions 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-58. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 6,484 32,420 32,420 32,420 48,630 32,420 32,420 32,42Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 2,580 15,480 15,480 20,640 10,320 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 2,064 10,320 20,640 30,960 36,120 36,120 36,12Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 1,708 4,269 10,246 21,345 21,345 25,614 25,61Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 1,828 2,437 3,046 3,046 2,437 2,132 1,828 2,132 2,132 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 275 1,374 4,122 4,122 5,496 5,496 5,496 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 432 - 144 144 - 144 - 144 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-58. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-58. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO Emissions 4,840 24,401 55,137 72,213 80,185 107,333 97,209 101,926 101,78
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-59. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 15,885 79,425 79,425 79,425 119,138 79,425 79,425 79,425 Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 6,321 37,926 37,926 50,568 25,284 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 5,057 25,284 50,568 75,852 88,494 88,494 88,494 Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 4,184 10,459 25,102 52,295 52,295 62,754 62,754 Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 274 366 457 457 366 320 274 320 320 Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 6,906 - - 6,906 - - 6,906 - 6,906 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 417 2,083 6,249 6,249 8,332 8,332 8,332 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 34,500 17,250 34,500 34,500 17,250 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 

Solid 41,400 41,400 41,400 20,700 41,400 20,700 20,700 41,400 20,700 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 225,400 193,200 225,400 225,400 193,200 193,200 225,400 193,200 193,20

Solid/ LOX-RP-1 343,000 294,000 343,000 343,000 294,000 294,000 343,000 294,000 294,00

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 456,190 391,020 456,190 456,190 391,020 391,020 456,190 391,020 391,02

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 10,620 10,620 21,240 21,240 10,620 28,320 28,320 28,320 35,400 LV-2 6,095 - 6,095 - 6,095 - - 6,095 - 

Suborbital LV-3 21 - 7 7 - 7 - 7 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-59. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 34,500 51,750 34,500 69,000 34,500 51,750 34,500 34,500 34,500 

Solid 207,000 186,300 165,600 186,300 186,300 186,300 186,300 186,300 186,30

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 519,493 482,387 445,280 482,387 519,493 519,493 482,387 333,960 371,06

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 77,880 106,200 88,500 70,800 84,960 84,960 92,040 84,960 77,880 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 69,000 69,000 115,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 69,000 46,000 69,000 

Solid 388,700 538,200 508,300 418,600 448,500 448,500 418,600 448,500 448,50

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 44,160 22,080 44,160 22,080 44,160 22,080 44,160 22,080 44,160 

Hybrid 59,584 29,792 59,584 29,792 59,584 29,792 59,584 29,792 59,584 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 14,525 12,450 18,675 16,600 14,525 14,525 18,675 16,600 14,525 

Solid/Hypergol 9,800 8,400 12,600 11,200 9,800 9,800 12,600 11,200 9,800 

LOX-RP-1 169,442 145,236 217,854 193,648 169,442 169,442 217,854 193,648 169,44

Hybrid 169,442 145,236 217,854 193,648 169,442 169,442 217,854 193,648 169,44

Heavy Hypergol 86,240 73,920 110,880 98,560 86,240 86,240 110,880 98,560 86,240 

Suborbital LV-1 28,320 53,100 42,480 28,320 35,400 28,320 53,100 35,400 28,320 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-59. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 46,000 92,000 69,000 46,000 23,000 46,000 46,000 69,000 69,000 

Solid 59,800 89,700 29,900 29,900 59,800 29,900 29,900 29,900 29,900 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 22,080 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 29,792 - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 22,825 20,750 24,900 26,975 26,975 26,975 31,125 31,125 31,125 

Solid/Hypergol 15,400 14,000 16,800 18,200 18,200 18,200 21,000 21,000 21,000 

LOX-RP-1 266,266 242,060 290,472 314,678 314,678 314,678 363,090 363,090 363,09

Hybrid 266,266 242,060 290,472 314,678 314,678 314,678 363,090 363,090 363,09

Heavy Hypergol 135,520 123,200 147,840 160,160 160,160 160,160 184,800 184,800 184,80

Suborbital LV-1 7,080 - 7,080 - 3,540 10,620 14,160 21,240 28,320 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO2 Emissions 3,879,842 3,749,488 4,213,029 4,053,745 3,969,956 4,003,456 4,414,535 4,046,260 4,074,13
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-60. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - 9,726 48,630 48,630 48,630 72,945 48,630 48,630 48,6Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 3,870 23,220 23,220 30,960 15,480 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 3,096 15,480 30,960 46,440 54,180 54,180 54,1Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 2,561 6,404 15,368 32,018 32,018 38,421 38,4Concept 3 Vehicle Type D 2,011 2,681 3,351 3,351 2,681 2,346 2,011 2,346 2,34Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 4,054 - - 4,054 - - 4,054 - 4,05Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 523 2,613 7,839 7,839 10,452 10,452 10,4

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 20,250 10,125 20,250 20,250 10,125 20,250 20,250 20,250 20,2

Solid 24,300 24,300 24,300 12,150 24,300 12,150 12,150 24,300 12,1

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 132,300 113,400 132,300 132,300 113,400 113,400 132,300 113,400 113,4

Solid/LOX-RP-1 127,400 109,200 127,400 127,400 109,200 109,200 127,400 109,200 109,2

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 122,500 105,000 122,500 122,500 105,000 105,000 122,500 105,000 105,0

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 2,853 2,853 5,706 5,706 2,853 7,608 7,608 7,608 9,5LV-2 1,637 - 1,637 - 1,637 - - 1,637 - 

Suborbital LV-3 60 - 20 20 - 20 - 20 - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-60. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 20,250 30,375 20,250 40,500 20,250 30,375 20,250 20,250 20,2

Solid 121,500 109,350 97,200 109,350 109,350 109,350 109,350 109,350 109,3

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 304,920 283,140 261,360 283,140 304,920 304,920 283,140 196,020 217,8

LOX-LH2 5,195,867 4,824,733 4,453,600 4,824,733 5,195,867 5,195,867 4,824,733 3,340,200 3,711

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 20,922 28,530 23,775 19,020 22,824 22,824 24,726 22,824 20,9

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 40,500 40,500 67,500 27,000 27,000 27,000 40,500 27,000 40,5

Solid 228,150 315,900 298,350 245,700 263,250 263,250 245,700 263,250 263,2

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 25,920 12,960 25,920 12,960 25,920 12,960 25,920 12,960 25,9

Hybrid 16,000 8,000 16,000 8,000 16,000 8,000 16,000 8,000 16,0

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 47,250 40,500 60,750 54,000 47,250 47,250 60,750 54,000 47,2

Solid/Hypergol 30,380 26,040 39,060 34,720 30,380 30,380 39,060 34,720 30,3

LOX-RP-1 45,500 39,000 58,500 52,000 45,500 45,500 58,500 52,000 45,5

Hybrid 45,500 39,000 58,500 52,000 45,500 45,500 58,500 52,000 45,5

Heavy Hypergol 137,200 117,600 176,400 156,800 137,200 137,200 176,400 156,800 137,2

Suborbital LV-1 7,608 14,265 11,412 7,608 9,510 7,608 14,265 9,510 7,60

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-60. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 27,000 54,000 40,500 27,000 13,500 27,000 27,000 40,500 40,5

Solid 35,100 52,650 17,550 17,550 35,100 17,550 17,550 17,550 17,5

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid 12,960 - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 8,000 - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid LOX-LH2 74,250 67,500 81,000 87,750 87,750 87,750 101,250 101,250 101,2

Solid/Hypergol 47,740 43,400 52,080 56,420 56,420 56,420 65,100 65,100 65,1

LOX-RP-1 71,500 65,000 78,000 84,500 84,500 84,500 97,500 97,500 97,5

Hybrid 71,500 65,000 78,000 84,500 84,500 84,500 97,500 97,500 97,5

Heavy Hypergol 215,600 196,000 235,200 254,800 254,800 254,800 294,000 294,000 294,0

Suborbital LV-1 1,902 - 1,902 - 951 2,853 3,804 5,706 7,60

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual H20 Emissions 7,294,254 6,873,948 6,768,303 7,071,869 7,405,715 7,432,573 7,275,051 5,613,434 5,987
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-61. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-61. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-61. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Stratosphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual VOC Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-62. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 322 - - 322 - - 322 - 322 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 92 - 92 - 92 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 22 108 323 323 430 430 430 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 2,100 1,050 2,100 2,100 1,050 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 

Solid 3,675 3,675 3,675 1,838 3,675 1,838 1,838 3,675 1,838 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 919 919 919 460 919 460 460 919 460 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 938 938 938 469 938 469 469 938 469 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-62. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 2,100 3,150 2,100 4,200 2,100 3,150 2,100 2,100 2,100 

Solid 18,375 16,538 14,700 16,538 16,538 16,538 16,538 16,538 16,53

Solid/LOX-RP-1 4,595 4,136 3,676 4,136 4,136 4,136 4,136 4,136 4,136 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 4,688 4,219 3,750 4,219 4,219 4,219 4,219 4,219 4,219 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 137,200 127,400 117,600 127,400 137,200 137,200 127,400 88,200 98,00

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 3,150 3,150 5,250 2,100 2,100 2,100 3,150 2,100 3,150 

Solid 13,650 18,900 17,850 14,700 15,750 15,750 14,700 15,750 15,75

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-62. Estimated Annual HCl Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 HCl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 2,100 4,200 3,150 2,100 1,050 2,100 2,100 3,150 3,150 

Solid 2,100 3,150 1,050 1,050 2,100 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual HCl Emissions 195,912 191,425 176,780 181,740 192,190 191,433 181,104 145,305 153,80
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-63. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 2 - - 2 - - 2 - 2 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - < 1 1 3 3 4 4 4 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 16 8 16 16 8 16 16 16 16 

Solid 26 26 26 13 26 13 13 26 13 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 13 13 13 7 13 7 7 13 7 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 13 13 13 6 13 6 6 13 6 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-63. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 16 24 16 32 16 24 16 16 16 

Solid 130 117 104 117 117 117 117 117 117 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 65 59 52 59 59 59 59 59 59 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 63 56 50 56 56 56 56 56 56 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 980 910 840 910 980 980 910 630 700 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 24 24 40 16 16 16 24 16 24 

Solid 98 135 128 105 113 113 105 113 113 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-63. Estimated Annual Cl Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 Cl Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 16 32 24 16 8 16 16 24 24 

Solid 15 23 8 8 15 8 8 8 8 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual Cl Emissions 1,477 1,440 1,330 1,364 1,444 1,434 1,360 1,111 1,166 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-64. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 582 - - 582 - - 582 - 582 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 166 - 166 - 166 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 39 194 582 582 776 776 776 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 3,800 1,900 3,800 3,800 1,900 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 

Solid 6,650 6,650 6,650 3,325 6,650 3,325 3,325 6,650 3,325 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 1,663 1,663 1,663 831 1,663 831 831 1,663 831 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 1,625 1,625 1,625 813 1,625 813 813 1,625 813 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-64. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 3,800 5,700 3,800 7,600 3,800 5,700 3,800 3,800 3,800 

Solid 33,250 29,925 26,600 29,925 29,925 29,925 29,925 29,925 29,92

Solid/LOX-RP-1 8,313 7,481 6,650 7,481 7,481 7,481 7,481 7,481 7,481 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 8,125 7,313 6,500 7,313 7,313 7,313 7,313 7,313 7,313 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 248,267 230,533 212,800 230,533 248,267 248,267 230,533 159,600 177,33

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 5,700 5,700 9,500 3,800 3,800 3,800 5,700 3,800 5,700 

Solid 24,700 34,200 32,300 26,600 28,500 28,500 26,600 28,500 28,50

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-64. Estimated Annual PM Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 PM Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 3,800 7,600 5,700 3,800 1,900 3,800 3,800 5,700 5,700 

Solid 3,800 5,700 1,900 1,900 3,800 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual PM Emissions 354,075 345,990 319,527 328,497 347,372 346,037 327,345 262,533 277,94
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-65. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 NO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 5 - - 5 - - 5 - 5 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - < 1 2 5 5 6 6 6 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 34 17 34 34 17 34 34 34 34 

Solid 58 58 58 29 58 29 29 58 29 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 15 15 15 8 15 8 8 15 8 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 188 188 188 94 188 94 94 188 94 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol 174,533 149,600 174,533 174,533 149,600 149,600 174,533 149,600 149,6

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-65. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 NO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 34 51 34 68 34 51 34 34 34 

Solid 290 261 232 261 261 261 261 261 26

Solid/LOX-RP-1 75 68 60 68 68 68 68 68 68 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 938 844 750 844 844 844 844 844 84

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 2,156 2,002 1,848 2,002 2,156 2,156 2,002 1,386 1,54

Heavy Hypergol 272,907 253,413 233,920 253,413 272,907 272,907 253,413 175,440 194,9

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 51 51 85 34 34 34 51 34 51 

Solid 215 297 281 231 248 248 231 248 24

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol 44,200 61,200 57,800 47,600 51,000 51,000 47,600 51,000 51,0

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol 17,952 8,976 17,952 8,976 17,952 8,976 17,952 8,976 17,9

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol 468,384 401,472 602,208 535,296 468,384 468,384 602,208 535,296 468,3

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-65. Estimated Annual NO

X Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 NO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 34 68 51 34 17 34 34 51 51 

Solid 33 50 17 17 33 17 17 17 17 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol 6,800 10,200 3,400 3,400 6,800 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,40

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol 8,976 - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol 736,032 669,120 802,944 869,856 869,856 869,856 1,003,680 1,003,680 1,003

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total NO

X Emission Loads 1,733,910 1,557,951 1,896,410 1,896,805 1,840,478 1,828,006 2,106,505 1,930,636 1,892
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-66. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

lanidng - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-66. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-66. Estimated Annual SO

X Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 SO

X Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual SO

X Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-67. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 993 5,955 5,955 7,940 3,970 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 794 3,969 7,938 11,907 13,892 13,892 13,89Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 657 1,642 3,941 8,210 8,210 9,852 9,852 Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 352 - - 352 - - 352 - 352 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 134 - 134 - 134 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 25 125 375 375 500 500 500 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 2,300 1,150 2,300 2,300 1,150 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 

Solid 4,025 4,025 4,025 2,013 4,025 2,013 2,013 4,025 2,013 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 1,138 1,138 1,138 569 1,138 569 569 1,138 569 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 1,125 1,125 1,125 563 1,125 563 563 1,125 563 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 56,467 48,400 56,467 56,467 48,400 48,400 56,467 48,400 48,40

Hybrid 56,467 48,400 56,467 56,467 48,400 48,400 56,467 48,400 48,40

Heavy Hypergol 3,850 3,300 3,850 3,850 3,300 3,300 3,850 3,300 3,300 

LV-1 675 675 1,350 1,350 675 1,800 1,800 1,800 2,250 LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-67. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 2,300 3,450 2,300 4,600 2,300 3,450 2,300 2,300 2,300 

Solid 20,125 18,113 16,100 18,113 18,113 18,113 18,113 18,113 18,11

Solid/LOX-RP-1 5,688 5,119 4,550 5,119 5,119 5,119 5,119 5,119 5,119 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 5,625 5,063 4,500 5,063 5,063 5,063 5,063 5,063 5,063 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 150,267 139,533 128,800 139,533 150,267 150,267 139,533 96,600 107,33

Heavy Hypergol 6,020 5,590 5,160 5,590 6,020 6,020 5,590 3,870 4,300 

Suborbital LV-1 4,950 6,750 5,625 4,500 5,400 5,400 5,850 5,400 4,950 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 3,450 3,450 5,750 2,300 2,300 2,300 3,450 2,300 3,450 

Solid 14,950 20,700 19,550 16,100 17,250 17,250 16,100 17,250 17,25

LOX-RP-1 14,300 19,800 18,700 15,400 16,500 16,500 15,400 16,500 16,50

Medium Hypergol 975 1,350 1,275 1,050 1,125 1,125 1,050 1,125 1,125 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 4,752 2,376 4,752 2,376 4,752 2,376 4,752 2,376 4,752 

Intermed. Hypergol 396 198 396 198 396 198 396 198 396 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 55,440 47,520 71,280 63,360 55,440 55,440 71,280 63,360 55,44

Hybrid 55,440 47,520 71,280 63,360 55,440 55,440 71,280 63,360 55,44

Heavy Hypergol 10,332 8,856 13,284 11,808 10,332 10,332 13,284 11,808 10,33

Suborbital LV-1 1,800 3,375 2,700 1,800 2,250 1,800 3,375 2,250 1,800 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-67. Estimated Annual CO Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 CO Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or Vehicle

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 2,300 4,600 3,450 2,300 1,150 2,300 2,300 3,450 3,450 

Solid 2,300 3,450 1,150 1,150 2,300 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 

LOX-RP-1 2,200 3,300 1,100 1,100 2,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 

Medium Hypergol 150 225 75 75 150 75 75 75 75 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 2,376 - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol 198 - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 87,120 79,200 95,040 102,960 102,960 102,960 118,800 118,800 118,80

Hybrid 87,120 79,200 95,040 102,960 102,960 102,960 118,800 118,800 118,80

Heavy Hypergol 16,236 14,760 17,712 19,188 19,188 19,188 22,140 22,140 22,14

Suborbital LV-1 450 - 450 - 225 675 900 1,350 1,800 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO Emissions 684,652 637,666 724,172 727,610 713,771 714,438 794,317 718,589 713,50
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-68. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 2,431 14,586 14,586 19,448 9,724 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 1,945 9,724 19,448 29,172 34,034 34,034 34,03Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 1,609 4,023 9,655 20,115 20,115 24,138 24,13Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 46 - - 46 - - 46 - 46 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 18 - 18 - 18 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 3 17 50 50 66 66 66 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 300 150 300 300 150 300 300 300 300 

Solid 525 525 525 263 525 263 263 525 263 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 1,138 1,138 1,138 569 1,138 569 569 1,138 569 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 875 875 875 438 875 438 438 875 438 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 30,800 26,400 30,800 30,800 26,400 26,400 30,800 26,400 26,40

Hybrid 30,800 26,400 30,800 30,800 26,400 26,400 30,800 26,400 26,40

Heavy Hypergol 23,100 19,800 23,100 23,100 19,800 19,800 23,100 19,800 19,80

LV-1 369 369 738 738 369 984 984 984 1,230 LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-68. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 300 450 300 600 300 450 300 300 300 

Solid 2,625 2,363 2,100 2,363 2,363 2,363 2,363 2,363 2,363 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 5,688 5,119 4,550 5,119 5,119 5,119 5,119 5,119 5,119 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 4,375 3,938 3,500 3,938 3,938 3,938 3,938 3,938 3,938 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 19,600 18,200 16,800 18,200 19,600 19,600 18,200 12,600 14,00

Heavy Hypergol 36,120 33,540 30,960 33,540 36,120 36,120 33,540 23,220 25,80

Suborbital LV-1 2,706 3,690 3,075 2,460 2,952 2,952 3,198 2,952 2,706 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 450 450 750 300 300 300 450 300 450 

Solid 1,950 2,700 2,550 2,100 2,250 2,250 2,100 2,250 2,250 

LOX-RP-1 7,800 10,800 10,200 8,400 9,000 9,000 8,400 9,000 9,000 

Medium Hypergol 5,850 8,100 7,650 6,300 6,750 6,750 6,300 6,750 6,750 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 2,592 1,296 2,592 1,296 2,592 1,296 2,592 1,296 2,592 

Intermed. Hypergol 2,376 1,188 2,376 1,188 2,376 1,188 2,376 1,188 2,376 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 30,240 25,920 38,880 34,560 30,240 30,240 38,880 34,560 30,24

Hybrid 30,240 25,920 38,880 34,560 30,240 30,240 38,880 34,560 30,24

Heavy Hypergol 61,992 53,136 79,704 70,848 61,992 61,992 79,704 70,848 61,99

Suborbital LV-1 984 1,845 1,476 984 1,230 984 1,845 1,230 984 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-68. Estimated Annual CO2 Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 CO2 Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant Type 

or Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 300 600 450 300 150 300 300 450 450 

Solid 300 450 150 150 300 150 150 150 150 

LOX-RP-1 1,200 1,800 600 600 1,200 600 600 600 600 

Medium Hypergol 900 1,350 450 450 900 450 450 450 450 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 1,296 - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol 1,188 - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 47,520 43,200 51,840 56,160 56,160 56,160 64,800 64,800 64,80

Hybrid 47,520 43,200 51,840 56,160 56,160 56,160 64,800 64,800 64,80

Heavy Hypergol 97,416 88,560 106,272 115,128 115,128 115,128 132,840 132,840 132,84

Suborbital LV-1 246 - 246 - 123 369 492 738 984 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual CO2 Emissions 504,158 468,058 564,610 575,970 562,035 568,590 654,150 611,962 599,87
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-69. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B 1,489 8,931 8,931 11,908 5,954 - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - 1,191 5,954 11,908 17,862 20,839 20,839 20,83Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - 985 2,463 5,911 12,315 12,315 14,778 14,77Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E 413 - - 413 - - 413 - 413 Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - 155 - 155 - 155 Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - 29 146 438 438 584 584 584 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 2,700 1,350 2,700 2,700 1,350 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 

Solid 4,725 4,725 4,725 2,363 4,725 2,363 2,363 4,725 2,363 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 2,275 2,275 2,275 1,138 2,275 1,138 1,138 2,275 1,138 

Medium Solid/Hypergol 2,688 2,688 2,688 1,344 2,688 1,344 1,344 2,688 1,344 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 32,083 27,500 32,083 32,083 27,500 27,500 32,083 27,500 27,50

Hybrid 32,083 27,500 32,083 32,083 27,500 27,500 32,083 27,500 27,50

Heavy Hypergol 44,917 38,500 44,917 44,917 38,500 38,500 44,917 38,500 38,50

LV-1 384 384 768 768 384 1,024 1,024 1,024 1,280 LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-69. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 2,700 4,050 2,700 5,400 2,700 4,050 2,700 2,700 2,700 

Solid 23,625 21,263 18,900 21,263 21,263 21,263 21,263 21,263 21,26

Solid/LOX-RP-1 11,375 10,238 9,100 10,238 10,238 10,238 10,238 10,238 10,23

Medium Solid/Hypergol 13,438 12,094 10,750 12,094 12,094 12,094 12,094 12,094 12,09

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 176,400 163,800 151,200 163,800 176,400 176,400 163,800 113,400 126,00

Heavy Hypergol 70,233 65,217 60,200 65,217 70,233 70,233 65,217 45,150 50,16

Suborbital LV-1 2,816 3,840 3,200 2,560 3,072 3,072 3,328 3,072 2,816 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid 4,050 4,050 6,750 2,700 2,700 2,700 4,050 2,700 4,050 

Solid 17,550 24,300 22,950 18,900 20,250 20,250 18,900 20,250 20,25

LOX-RP-1 8,125 11,250 10,625 8,750 9,375 9,375 8,750 9,375 9,375 

Medium Hypergol 11,375 15,750 14,875 12,250 13,125 13,125 12,250 13,125 13,12

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 2,700 1,350 2,700 1,350 2,700 1,350 2,700 1,350 2,700 

Intermed. Hypergol 4,620 2,310 4,620 2,310 4,620 2,310 4,620 2,310 4,620 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 31,500 27,000 40,500 36,000 31,500 31,500 40,500 36,000 31,50

Hybrid 31,500 27,000 40,500 36,000 31,500 31,500 40,500 36,000 31,50

Heavy Hypergol 120,540 103,320 154,980 137,760 120,540 120,540 154,980 137,760 120,54

Suborbital LV-1 1,024 1,920 1,536 1,024 1,280 1,024 1,920 1,280 1,024 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-69. Estimated Annual H2O Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 H2O Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid 2,700 5,400 4,050 2,700 1,350 2,700 2,700 4,050 4,050 

Solid 2,700 4,050 1,350 1,350 2,700 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 

LOX-RP-1 1,250 1,875 625 625 1,250 625 625 625 625 

Medium Hypergol 1,750 2,625 875 875 1,750 875 875 875 875 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid 1,350 - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol 2,310 - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 49,500 45,000 54,000 58,500 58,500 58,500 67,500 67,500 67,50

Hybrid 49,500 45,000 54,000 58,500 58,500 58,500 67,500 67,500 67,50

Heavy Hypergol 189,420 172,200 206,640 223,860 223,860 223,860 258,300 258,300 258,30

Suborbital LV-1 256 - 256 - 128 384 512 768 1,024 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual H2O Emissions 958,064 888,755 1,011,257 1,022,306 1,010,916 1,010,502 1,119,130 1,012,148 1,004,2
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-70. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Concept 1 Vehicle Type A - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type B - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 Vehicle Type C - - - - - - - - - Concept 2 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type D - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type E - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 Vehicle Type F - - - - - - - - - Concept 3 TBD Vehicle - - - - - - - - - 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, 

Horiz. LVs and RVs) 

Reentry 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LV-1 - - - - - - - - - LV-2 - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-3 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Commercial (FAA Licensed, Excluding 

Horizontal LVs or RVs) 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-70. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

U.S. Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Government 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

Exhibit F-70. Estimated Annual VOC Emission Loads to the Mesosphere 

 VOC Emission Loads (kilograms) Vehicle 

Classification 

Propellant 

Type or 

Vehicle 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Small Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Medium Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Intermed. Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/LOX-LH2 - - - - - - - - - 

Solid/Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

LOX-RP-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Hybrid - - - - - - - - - 

Heavy Hypergol - - - - - - - - - 

Suborbital LV-1 - - - - - - - - - 

Jet-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Foreign Commercial 

Reentry 

Rocket-powered 

landing - - - - - - - - - 

Total Annual VOC Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 F-117 

APPENDIX F REFERENCES 

Encyclopedia Astronautica, 2004. “DC-X,” accessed at 

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm on November 23, 2004. 

FAA, 2004. Emission and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) User’s Manual, Version 4.2, 

prepared for FAA Office of Environment and Energy by CSSI, Inc., September. Accessed at 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/models/edms_model/media/E

DMS4.2Manual.pdf on June 14, 2005.

NASA, 1998. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Sounding Rocket 

Program. Wallops Island, Virginia: Wallops Flight Facility. Accessed at 

http://www.wff.nasa.gov/%7Ecode810/pdf/srpfseis.pdf on June 22, 2005. 

U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996. Environmental Assessment FA-18 E/F Hornet Store 

Separation Testing at NAS Patuxent River. June, as referenced in the Final EA for the East 

Kern Airport District Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport, February 2004, 

accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/CompleteFINALMojaveEAv6_February19%202004_dk

s.pdf on May 31, 2005. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1992. Environmental Impact Statement for 

Commercial Reentry Vehicles. Doc 9. May. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/envc/PEISRV5-28-92.pdf on May 26, 2005. 

U.S. DOT, 2001. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing Launches. 

Volume I. Final. Prepared by ICF Consulting. May. Accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm on May 25, 2005. 

U.S. DOT, 2002. Final Environmental Assessment for the Site, Launch, Reentry, and 

Recovery Operations at the Kistler Launch Facility, Nevada Test Site. April. Available at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/comp_coop.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1980. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors. Vol. II, Table II-1-9, Emission Factors per Aircraft per Landing/Take off Cycle – 

Civil Aircraft. February, as referenced in the Final EA for the East Kern Airport District 

Launch Site Operator License for the Mojave Airport, February 2004, accessed at 

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/environmental/CompleteFINALMojaveEAv6_February19%202004_dk

s.pdf on May 31, 2005. 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 G-1 

APPENDIX G DISTRIBUTION LIST 

This appendix provides a list of those persons and organizations that have been placed on 

the distribution list to date. Those on the distribution list receive any mail-out materials 

related to the development and publication of this Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS). This includes notification of the Final PEIS. This appendix is divided 

into the following general categories: Federal and other agencies, industry, and private 

citizens. The street address for private citizens is not provided for privacy reasons. 

Federal and Other Agencies 

Horst Greczmiel, Council on Environmental Quality 

722 Jackson Place, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Willie Taylor, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Department of the Interior 

Main Interior Building, MS 2342 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240-0001 

Pat Carter, NEPA Coordinator 

Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

4401 North Fairfax Drive 

Room ARLSQ-400 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Steve Kokkinakis, NEPA Policy and Compliance 

Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1315 East West Highway (SSMC3, PPI/SP) 

Room 15723 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

John Hansel, NEPA Coordinator 

Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service 

1315 East West Highway 

Room 14420 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 G-2 

Camille Mittleholtz, Environmental Policies Team Leader 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy 

400 7th Street SW 

Room P-130, 10309 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Matthew McMillen, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Department of Transportation 

FAA Office of Environmental and Energy (AEE-200) 

800 Independence Ave, SW 

Room 900 West 

Washington, DC 20591 

Charlene D. Vaughn, Assistant Director for Federal Program Development 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Office of Federal Programs 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Patricia Ferrebee, Director Environmental Security – EQ 

Department of Defense 

Office of Deputy Undersecretary of Defense – 

 Installations and Environment 

3400 Defense, Pentagon 

Room 5C646 

Washington, DC 20314-3400 

Jack Bush, Senior Planner/NEPA Program Manager 

Department of Defense 

U.S. Air Force Basing and Units 

Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Suite 1000 

Arlington, VA 22202 

George Carellas, Assistant for Stewardship and Sustainability 

Department of Defense 

DASA for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health 

110 Army, Pentagon 

Room 3D453 

Washington, DC 20310-0110 

Department of Air Force 

45th Space Wing/CES/CEV 

Environmental Flight 

1224 Jupiter Street 

Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3343 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 G-3 

Department of Air Force 

30th Space Wing 

30 CES/CEV 

Environmental Coordinator 

806 13th Street, Ste 116 

Vandenberg AFB, California 93437-5242

John Furry 

Army Corps of Engineers, Office of Environmental Policy 

441 G Street, NW 

Room CECW-PC 

Washington, DC 20314 

Thomas Huynh 

Space and Missile Systems Center 

SMC/AXFV 

2420 Vela Way, Suite 1467 

El Segundo, CA 90245-4659 

Kenneth Kumor, NEPA Coordinator 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Environmental Management Division 

300 E Street, SW 

Code JE 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

Reneé Ponik 

TA-F 

Kennedy Space Center 

FL, 32899 

Gary Letchworth 

Code 802, Bldg. F-6 

Wallops Flight Facility 

Wallops Island, VA 23337 

Shari Silbert 

NASA Wallops Flight Facility 

Building F-160, Room C165, Code 250W 

Wallops Island, Virginia, 23337 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 G-4 

Darrell Echols 

Chief, Science and Resources Management 

Padre Island National Seashore 

P.O. Box 181300 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78480-1300 

Diane Shea, Director 

National Governors’ Association, Natural Resources Committee 

444 North Capitol Street 

Suite 267 

Washington, DC 20001 

Industry 

Chuck Sammons 

Space Adventures Ltd. 

4350 N. Fairfax Dr. 

Suite 840 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Bermand Rosenstein 

44133 Bristow Circle 

Ashburn, VA 20147 

Robert Zimmerman 

4708 Montgomery Place 

Beltsville, MD 20705 

Jim Baker 

Spacehab, Inc. 

12130 Highway 3, Building 1 

Webster, TX 77598-1504 

Michael Curry 

400 Virginia Ave., SW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20024 

Jim Vedda 

1000 Wilson Blvd. 

Suite 2600 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Blake Hale 

2722 Barrow Dr. 

Merritt Island, FL 32952 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 G-5 

Chuck Lauer 

Rocketplane, Ltd. 

3721 W. Michigan #203 

Lansing, MI 48917 

David Stedman 

EDABC/Gulf Coast Regional Spaceport 

201 E. Myrtle 

Angleton, TX 77566 

Frank Marquez 

Economic Development Department 

Joseph Montoya Building 

1100 St. Francis Drive 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

Angeline Chen 

Lockheed Martin Commercial 

1660 International Drive 

McLean, VA 22102 

Gene Collins 

Boeing Company 

1200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 309 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Richard Baldwin 

Virginia Space Flight Center 

N-134 

NASA/GSFC/WFF 

Wallops Island, VA 23337 

Robert Jones 

Sea Launch Range Safety 

2700 Nimitz Road 

Long Beach, CA 90802 

Gary Lai 

Blue Origin 

13 South Nevada St. 

Seattle, WA 98134 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 G-6 

Stuart Witt, General Manager 

Mojave Airport 

1434 Flight Line 

Mojave, CA 93501 

Armadillo Aerospace 

18601 LBJ FWY, Suite 460 

Mesquite, TX 75150 

XCOR Aerospace 

P.O. Box 1163 

Mojave, CA 93502 

Scaled Composites, LLC 

1624 Flight Line 

Mojave, CA 93501 

Florida Space Authority 

100 Spaceport Way 

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 

Kistler Aerospace 

3760 Carillon Point 

Kirkland, WA 98033 

TGV Rockets 

1928 Goddard Ave. 

Norman, OK 73069 

Space Exploration Technologies 

1310 East Grand Ave. 

El Segundo, CA 90245 

Dr. John Spalding 

Physical Science Laboratory 

P.O. Box 30002 

Las Cruces, NM 88003 

Private Citizens 

Karen Barker 

Arlington, VA 

Victoria W. Gorska-Rabuck 

Takoma Park, MD 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 G-7 

Peter Allan 

Gladstone, NJ 

Greg Mullen 

Portland, OR 

Kevin Doyle 

Santa Fe, NM 

Mark Belles 

Rowlett, TX 
Final PEIS for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles 

 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 Index-1 

Index 

Accident .................. 1-12, 3-1, 4-1, 4-3, 4-27, 10-1, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8 

Acid rain.............................................. ES-4, 3-4, 4-2, 4-9, 4-10, 5-4, 5-6, 10-1, 10-6, 10-9 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ................................ 3-20, C-11, D-1, D-6, D-7 

Air Quality ...ES-4, 1-7, 1-12, 2-9, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-10, 3-12, 3-13, 3-23, 4-5, 4-8, 4-9, 

4-10, 4-11, 4-15, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-11, 5-12, 9-2, 9-9, 10-1, 10-2, 10-6, 

C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, E-2, E-5, E-7, E-8, F-1, F-10, F-32 

Airspace .... ES-4, ES-6, 1-4, 1-12, 3-1, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 4-19, 4-20, 8-1, 10-1, A-2, 

C-3, C-8, D-1, D-2, D-4, D-6, D-14 

Atmosphere.... ES-2, ES-4, ES-6, 1-1, 1-6, 1-7, 1-9, 1-12, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 

2-10, 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-37, 4-2, 4-3, 4-14, 4-16, 

4-18, 4-20, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-40, 4-41, 5-4, 5-11, 5-12, 

8-1, 9-3, 9-5, 10-1, 10-3, 10-4, 10-5, 10-7, 10-9, C-3, C-8, E-2, E-3, E-5, E-8, F-1, F-2, 

F-3, F-10 

Biological Resources .............ES-4, 3-1, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 4-20, 4-21, 10-1, C-8, D-1, D-4 

Council on Environmental Quality ....... 1-1, 1-7, 1-11, 3-33, 5-4, A-5, B-1, B-5, C-1, C-2, 

C-18 

Criteria Pollutant...... 3-3, 3-8, 3-12, 3-13, 4-8, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 10-1, 10-2, 10-5, 10-6, 10-7, 

10-9, C-6 

Critical Habitat.....................................................3-18, 3-39, C-8, C-9, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-9 

Cultural Resource.... ES-4, ES-6, 1-12, 3-1, 3-19, 3-25, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 8-1, 10-2, C-11, 

C-12, D-1, D-6, D-7 

Cumulative Impact ES-1, 1-7, 4-2, 5-1, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 

5-14, 10-2, F-10, F-32 

Environmental Justice......ES-5, ES-6, 1-12, 3-1, 3-33, 3-34, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 10-2, C-18, 

C-19, C-20 

Floodplain .............................................................3-39, 3-41, 3-42, 4-40, 10-3, C-13, C-20 

Geology and Soils.......................... ES-4, ES-6, 1-12, 3-1, 3-21, 4-2, 4-23, 8-1, 10-3, C-12 

Global Warming......ES-4, 3-10, 4-2, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 10-3, E-7, F-1 

Greenhouse Gases.............................................. 3-10, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 5-8, 5-9, 10-3, F-1 

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste ............................................... 3-23, 4-25, 4-26 

Health and Safety.ES-5, ES-6, 1-2, 1-5, 1-12, 3-1, 3-12, 3-24, 4-27, 4-28, 4-37, 5-4, 5-13, 

8-1, 10-8, A-1, A-4, C-15, C-16, C-20, D-3, E-2 

Land Use ..... ES-5, ES-6, 3-1, 3-25, 3-26, 3-34, 3-42, 4-29, 4-30, 10-3, 10-5, 10-10, C-16, 

C-17, C-18, D-1, D-7 

Launch Vehicle .ES-1, ES-2, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-9, 2-10, 

3-13, 3-28, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 

4-20, 4-23, 4-25, 4-30, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-40, 5-1, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-8, 5-9, 

5-10, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-8, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 10-5, 10-7, 10-8, 10-9, A-1, A-2, A-5, B-1, 

C-14, C-18, D-2, D-3, D-11, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-7, F-1, F-2, F-7, F-21, F-24, 

F-25, F-26, F-27, F-28, F-29, F-30, F-31, F-32, F-33, F-35, F-36, F-37, F-41, F-42, 

F-43, F-44, F-45, F-46, F-47, F-48, F-49, F-50, F-51, F-52, F-53, F-54, F-55, F-56, 

F-57, F-58, F-59, F-60, F-61, F-62, F-63, F-64, F-65, F-66, F-67, F-68, F-69, F-70, 

F-71, F-72, F-73, F-74, F-75, F-76, F-78, F-79, F-80, F-81, F-82, F-83, F-84, F-85, 

F-86, F-87, F-88, F-89, F-90, F-91, F-92, F-93, F-94, F-95, F-96, F-97, F-98, F-99, 
 Index-2 

F-100, F-101, F-102, F-103, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-107, F-108, F-109, F-110, F-111, 

F-112, F-113, F-114, F-115, F-116, F-117 

National Register of Historic Places.......................ES-4, 3-19, 10-2, 10-6, C-11, D-6, D-8 

Noise ....ES-6, 1-12, 3-1, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 4-20, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 8-1, 9-1, 9-3, 9-4, 

9-7, 9-9, 10-2, 10-6, 10-8, C-17, C-18 

Orbital Debris.. ES-4, ES-6, 1-12, 3-1, 3-30, 3-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 5-4, 5-13, 5-14, 

8-1, 9-6, 10-3, 10-6, C-18 

Payload.... ES-2, 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-9, 2-2, 3-12, 3-24, 3-31, 4-19, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 5-1, 5-2, 

10-4, 10-5, 10-7, 10-8, A-3, A-4, E-1, E-3, E-4, F-1, F-21 

Reentry Vehicle ..ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, ES-6, 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 2-1, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 3-13, 

3-28, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 4-17, 4-20, 4-23, 4-25, 4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 

4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-40, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-8, 5-9, 5-12, 9-8, 10-8, 10-9, A-1, A-2, 

E-1, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-8, F-4, F-7, F-8, F-9, F-21, F-24, F-32, F-33, F-36, F-118 

Section 4(f)...................ES-5, ES-6, 3-1, 3-26, 4-29, 4-30, 10-8, C-17, D-1, D-7, D-8, D-9 

Socioeconomics ES-4, ES-5, ES-6, 1-12, 3-1, 3-32, 3-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 5-4, 5-14, 8-1, 

10-8, C-18 

Sonic Boom...... 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 4-30, 4-31, 9-1, 9-4, 9-5, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 10-3, 10-8, C-18 

Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................ES-4, 1-12, 3-18 

Visual ...............................ES-3, ES-5, ES-6, 3-1, 3-14, 3-34, 3-35, 4-39, 9-2, 10-10, C-19 

Water Resources ..ES-5, 3-1, 3-21, 3-35, 3-40, 3-41, 4-39, 4-41, 10-10, C-13, C-15, C-19, 

D-1, D-6, D-9 

Wetlands ...... ES-6, 1-12, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 4-39, 4-40, 9-2, 10-10, 

C-10, C-11, C-16, C-21, D-1, D-10