20240 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices

1998. This notice also announces the

availability of this program for public

review and comment.

Under section 103 of Title I of the

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement

Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as

‘‘the Act’’), an airport operator may

submit to the FAA noise exposure maps

which meet applicable regulations and

which depict noncompatible land uses

as of the date of submission of such

maps, a description of projected aircraft

operations, and the ways in which such

operations will affect such maps. The

Act requires such maps to be developed

in consultation with interested and

affected parties in the local community,

government agencies, and persons using

the airport.

An airport operator who has

submitted noise exposure maps that are

found by FAA to be in compliance with

the requirements of Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) Part 150,

promulgated pursuant to Title I of the

Act, may submit a noise compatibility

program for FAA approval which sets

forth the measures the operator has

taken or proposes for the reduction of

existing noncompatible uses and for the

prevention of the introduction of

additional noncompatible uses.

Indianapolis Airport Authority

submitted to the FAA on February 18,

1998, noise exposure maps, descriptions

and other documentation, which were

produced during Indianapolis

International Airport’s FAR Part 150

Noise Compatibility Study, February

1998. It was requested that the FAA

review this material as the noise

exposure maps, as described in section

103(a)(1) of the Act, and that the noise

mitigation measures, to be implemented

jointly by the airport and surrounding

communities, be approved as a noise

compatibility program under section

104(b) of the Act.

The FAA has completed its review of

the noise exposure maps and related

descriptions submitted by Indianapolis

Airport Authority. The specific maps

under consideration are the Existing

Noise Exposure Map and 2002 Official

NEM/NCP Noise Contours in the

submission. The FAA has determined

that these maps for Indianapolis

International Airport are in compliance

with applicable requirements. This

determination is effective on April 15,

1998. FAA’s determination on an airport

operator’s noise exposure maps is

limited to a finding that the maps were

developed in accordance with the

procedures contained in appendix A of

FAR Part 150. Such determination does

not constitute approval of the

applicant’s data, information or plans,

or a commitment to approve a noise

compatibility program or to fund the

implementation of that program.

If questions arise concerning the

precise relationship of specific

properties to noise exposure contours

depicted on a noise exposure map

submitted under section 103 of the Act,

it should be noted that the FAA is not

involved in any way in determining the

relative locations of specific properties

with regard to the depicted noise

contours, or in interpreting the noise

exposure maps to resolve questions

concerning, for example, which

properties should be covered by the

provisions of Section 107 of the Act.

These functions are inseparable from

the ultimate land use control and

planning responsibilities of local

government. These local responsibilities

are not changed in any way under Part

150 or through FAA’s review of noise

exposure maps.

Therefore, the responsibility for the

detail overlaying of noise exposure

contours onto the map depicting

properties on the surface rests

exclusively with the airport operator

which submitted those maps, or with

those public agencies and planning

agencies with which consultation is

required under section 103 of the Act.

The FAA has relied on the certification

by the airport operator, under section

150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the

statutorily required consultation has

been accomplished.

The FAA has formally received the

noise compatibility program for

Indianapolis International Airport, also

effective on April 15, 1998. Preliminary

review of the submitted material

indicates that it conforms to the

requirements for the submittal of noise

compatibility programs, but that further

review will be necessary prior to

approval or disapproval of the program.

The formal review period, limited by

law to a maximum of 180 days, will be

completed on or before October 12,

1998.

The FAA’s detailed evaluation will be

conducted under the provisions of 14

CFR Part 150, section 150.33. The

primary considerations in the

evaluation process are whether the

proposed measures may reduce the level

of aviation safety, create an undue

burden on interstate or foreign

commerce, or be reasonably consistent

with obtaining the goal of reducing

existing noncompatible land uses and

preventing the introduction of

additional noncompatible land uses.

Interested persons are invited to

comment on the proposed program with

specific reference to these factors. All

comments, other than those properly

addressed to local land use authorities,

will be considered by the FAA to the

extent practicable. Copies of the noise

exposure maps, the FAA’s evaluation of

the maps, and the proposed noise

compatibility program are available for

examination at the following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Chicago Airports District Office,

Room 201, 2300 East Devon Avenue,

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018

Indianapolis Airport Authority, Post

Office Box 100, 2500 S. High School

Road, Indianapolis International

Airport, Indianapolis, Indiana 46241–

4941.

Copies of the FAR Part 150 Noise

Compatibility Program documents are

also available for public review during

normal business hours at the following

locations:

Decatur Township Branch Library, 5301

Kentucky Avenue, Indianapolis,

Indiana 46241

Marion County Public Library, 40 East

St. Clair, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Mooresville Public Library, 220 W.

Harrison Street, Mooresville, Indiana

46158

Plainfield Public Library, 1120 Stafford

Road, Plainfield, Indiana 46208

Wayne Township Branch Library, 198

South Girls School Road,

Indianapolis, Indiana 46214.

Aeronautics Section, Intermodal

Division, Indiana Department of

Transportation, Indiana Government

Center North, Room N901, 100 North

Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana

46204–2219.

Questions may be directed to the

individual named above under the

heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on April 15,

1998.

Pene ́ A. Beversdorf,

Acting Manager, Chicago Airports District

Office, FAA Great Lakes Region.

[FR Doc. 98–10806 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. 29208]

Proposed Finding of No Significant

Impact

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed finding of no

significant impact; Notice.

SUMMARY: The FAA prepared an

Environmental Assessment (EA),

evaluating a Sea Launch Limited
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices 20241

Partnership (SLLP) proposal to

construct and operate a mobile, floating

launch platform in international waters

in the east-central equatorial Pacific

Ocean. After reviewing and analyzing

currently available data and information

on existing conditions, project impacts,

and measures to mitigate those impacts,

the Federal Aviation Administration’s

(FAA), Associate Administrator for

Commercial Space Transportation (AST)

proposes to determine that licensing the

operation of the proposed launch

activities is not a major Federal action

that would significantly affect the

quality of the human environment

within the meaning of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969. Therefore, the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

would not be required and AST is

proposing to issue a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI).

FOR A COPY OF THE SEA LAUNCH

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONTACT:

Mr. Nikos Himaras, FAA, Associate

Administrator for Commercial Space

Transportation, Suite 331/AST–100, 800

Independence Ave., S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20591; phone (202) 267–7926, or

refer to the following Internet address:

http://ast.faa.gov

DATES: There will be a thirty (30) day

comment period before the FAA makes

its final determination on the proposed

FONSI. Interested individuals,

Government agencies, and private

organizations are invited to send

comments on the proposed FONSI to

the address set forth below by May 26,

1998 by mail.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to, Docket Clerk, Docket No.

29208, Federal Aviation Administration,

800 Independence Ave., S.W., Room

915, Washington, D.C. 20591.

Proposed Action

If a foreign entity controlled by a U.S.

citizen conducts a launch outside the

United States and outside the territory

of a foreign country, its launch must be

licensed. 49 U.S.C. 70104(a)(3). The

FAA determined that SLLP is a foreign

entity controlled by a U. S. Citizen,

Boeing Commercial Space Company. 49

U.S.C. 70102(1)(C); 14 CFR 401.5.

Because it proposes to launch in

international waters, outside the

territory of the United States or a foreign

country, SLLP must obtain an FAA

license to launch. Licensing a launch is

a Federal action requiring

environmental analysis by the FAA in

accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Upon receipt of a

completed application, the Associate

Administrator for Commercial Space

Transportation must determine whether

or not to issue a license to SLLP to

launch. Environmental findings are

required for a license evaluation. In this

instance, the proposed action is the

licensing by the FAA of all possible

launches by the SLLP at the specified

launch location.

SLLP proposes to conduct commercial

space launch operations from a mobile,

floating platform in international waters

in the east-central equatorial Pacific

Ocean. The SLLP is an international

commercial venture formed to launch

commercial satellites. It is organized

under the laws of the Cayman Islands,

BWI, and the partnership members are

Boeing Commercial Space Company of

the United States, RSC Energia of

Russia, KB Yuzhnoye of the Ukraine,

and Kvaerner Maritime a.s. of Norway.

The SLLP would use a launch

platform (LP) and an assembly and

command ship (ACS). A floating oil

drilling platform is being refurbished in

Norway to serve as the self-propelled

LP. The ACS is being built in Scotland

specifically for Sea Launch operations.

A Zenith–3 SL expendable launch

vehicle fueled by Kerosene and liquid

oxygen would be the only launch

vehicle used at the Sea Launch

facilities. In the first year of operation,

SLLP intends to conduct two launches.

Six launches are proposed for each

subsequent year. The launches are

proposed to occur at the equator in the

vicinity of 154 degrees west to

maximize inertial and other launch

efficiencies. The distances from South

America (over 7,000 km) and from the

nearest inhabited island (340 km) are

intended to ensure that stage one and

stage two would drop well away from

land and coastal populated areas.

The FAA evaluated open sea areas,

the Kiribati Islands, the Galapagos

Islands and the Home Port in Long

Beach, California for environmental

impacts from the proposed launch

activities. The environmental study

focused on Sea Launch activities

conducted at the launch location,

activities that may impact the launch

range during nominal launches, and

failed missions. Sea Launch payloads

(i.e., commercial satellites) are not

included in this evaluation because they

will be fueled and sealed at the Home

Port and will only become operational

at an altitude of 35,000 km. The

environmental study incorporates by

reference an environmental assessment

conducted by the Navy on the Home

Port Facility which resulted in 1996 in

a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Potential environmental impacts of

payloads are not discussed here except

with regard to failed mission scenarios.

Environmental Impacts

Air Quality

Pre-launch activities that may impact

air quality include LP and ACS

positioning, final equipment and

process checks, coupling of fuel lines to

the integrated launch vehicle (ILV) prior

to fueling, the transfer of kerosene and

liquid oxygen (LOX) fuels, and

decoupling of the fueling apparatus.

Normal operations would result only in

an incidental loss of kerosene and LOX.

This loss of vapors would dissipate

immediately and form smog. An

unsuccessful ignition attempt would

result in automatic defueling of the ILV.

Defueling would release LOX vapor and

approximately 70 kg of kerosene when

the fuel line is flushed. The LOX would

dissipate and the vapor and kerosene

would evaporate, dissipate rapidly and

degrade, thereby having little effect on

the surrounding environment.

Potential environmental impacts from

launch activities would include spent

stages, residual fuels and combustion

emissions released into the atmosphere

and ocean from spent stages,

combustion emissions, thermal energy

and noise. During nominal launches,

any impacts would be distributed across

the east-central equatorial pacific region

in a predictable manner. Kerosene

released during descent of a failed

launch attempt would evaporate within

minutes. Any residual liquid oxygen

would instantly evaporate without

consequence.

The proposed launch location is

relatively free of combustion source

emissions. That fact coupled with the

size of the Pacific Ocean and air space

allows most launch emissions to

dissipate rapidly. Launch effects on the

boundary layer up to two thousand

meters would be short term and cause

minimal impacts. Emissions occurring

in the boundary layer would be

dispersed away from inhabited islands

by prevailing easterly trade winds and

local turbulence caused by solar

heating. Because dispersion occurs

within hours, the planned six missions

per year would preclude any chance of

cumulative effects.

All emissions to the troposphere

would come from first stage combustion

of LOX and kerosene. Photochemical

reactions involving Sea Launch Zenit

rocket emissions would form carbon

dioxide (CO2) and oxygenated organic

compounds. Nitrogen oxide in the

exhaust trail would form nitric and

nitrous acids. Cloud droplets and

atmospheric aerosols efficiently absorb
20242 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices

water-soluble compounds such as acids,

oxygenated chemical compounds, and

oxidants, thereby reducing impacts to

insignificant levels.

Approximately 36,100 kg of carbon

monoxide (CO) would be released into

the troposphere during the first 55

seconds of flight resulting in an

estimated CO concentration at

Christmas Island of 9.94 mg/m3. This

release is well below the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration

Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 55

mg/m3, the Environmental Protection

Agency level of concern of 175 mg/m3

and the industry Emergency Response

Planning Guideline-2 of 400 mg/m3.

Nitrogen compounds in the exhaust trail

of liquid propellant rockets would cause

a temporary reduction of ozone, with

return to near background levels within

a few hours. Models and measurement

of other space systems comparable to

Sea Launch indicate that these impacts

would be temporary, and the

atmosphere is capable of replacing by

migration or regeneration the destroyed

ozone within a few hours. The highspeed movement of the Zenit-3L rocket

and the re-entry of the stages after their

use may impact stratospheric ozone.

The exact chemistry and relative

significance of these processes are not

known but are believed to be minimal.

Impacts to air quality would be

minimal. Those impacts that do occur

would be of short duration and would

naturally reverse themselves over a

short period of time.

Waste

Post-launch operations involve

cleaning the launch platform for

subsequent launches. Cleaning would

result in particulate residues being

washed from the LP with fresh water.

Only a few kilograms of debris and

residues would be generated. These

materials would be collected and

handled onboard as solid waste for later

disposal at the Home Port.

Noise

Noise from a launch is calculated at

approximately 150 decibels at 378

meters with the equivalent sound

intensity in the water estimated at less

than 75 decibels. Due to the small

number of launches per year and

scarcity of higher trophic level

organisms, noise impacts are expected

to be negligible.

Biological and Ecological Impacts

Pre-launch preparations include

spraying fresh water from a tank on the

LP into the LP’s flame bucket, which

would dissipate heat and absorb sound

during the initial fuel burn. There

would be minor impacts to the

ecosystem because of the input of

heated freshwater. However, the natural

variation in plankton densities would

ensure rapid and timely recolonization

of plankton in the water surrounding

the LP.

Launch and flight activities may

impact the ocean environment by

depositing spent stages and residual

fuels. During nominal launches, these

impacts would occur and be distributed

across the east-central equatorial pacific

region. It is unlikely that any falling

debris would impact animals, although

a small number of marine organisms

would be impacted. Kerosene reaching

the ocean would form a surface sheen

covering several square kilometers. Over

95% of the kerosene sheen would

evaporate from surface waters within

hours with the remaining 5% dispersing

or degrading in a few days. Plankton

immediately beneath the kerosene slick

would likely be killed. However, overall

plankton mortality would be minimal as

the population densities are greatest

around 30 meters below the surface.

Two worst case scenarios were

evaluated and determined to cause only

minimal damage to the environment.

The first case evaluated ILV failure and

explosion on the LP with the ILV being

fully fueled and ready for launch. This

failure would result in an explosion of

the ILV fuels scattering pieces of the

LLV and LP up to 3 km away.

Particulate matter from the smoke

plume would drift downwind and be

distributed a few kilometers before

dissipating. Plankton and fish in the

immediate area would be killed over the

course of several days. Thermal energy

would be deflected and absorbed by the

ocean and 100% of the fuels would be

consumed or released into the

atmosphere through combustion or

evaporation. Disruption to the

atmosphere and the ocean would be

assimilated and the environment would

return to pre-accident conditions within

several days.

The second scenario evaluated

involved failure of the rocket’s upper

stage. Loss and re-entry of the upper

stage and payload would result in

materials and fuels being heated by

friction and vaporizing. Remaining

objects would fall into the ocean

causing a temporary disruption as the

warm objects cooled and sank. The risk

of debris striking any populated areas or

ecological habitats is very remote.

Socioeconomics

The SLLP launch activities would

occupy the launch location for two to

seven days during each launch cycle.

Due to the brief period of time that the

LP and the ACS will be present at the

launch location, social and economic

impacts to the Kiribati are considered

negligible. The brief duration of launch

activities, and the relative degree of

isolation of the launch location provides

a barrier between Sea Launch and the

cultural and economic character of the

Kiribati society. The baseline plan for

operations does not include any use of

facilities based on any of the Kiribati

Islands. Impacts to the Islands,

associated with employees transiting

Christmas Island on an emergency basis,

would be positive given that the

expenditures would be an addition to

the local economy.

Health and Safety

The FAA’s licensing process will

examine all safety-related aspects of the

proposed launch operations. The SLLP

adopted a common risk value, an upper

limit of one in a million casualty

expectations, as the population

protection criteria. Public Safety

assurance and analysis issues are

discussed in the SLLP document ‘‘Sea

Launch System Safety Plan’’. The

launch location was shifted away from

South America to ensure that stage one,

the fairing, and stage two would drop

well away from land and coastal

commercial activity. The instantaneous

impact point speed would increase over

South America, decreasing the dwell

time and potential risk as the rocket

traverses land. The launch area, in the

vicinity of 154 degrees west, was

selected because it is located outside of

the Kiribati 320 km exclusive economic

zone and is roughly 340 km from the

nearest inhabited island. The licensing

process will evaluate these factors.

Threatened and Endangered Species

There are no known threatened and

endangered species that will be

impacted by the proposed launch

activities.

Archeological and Cultural Resources

The launch activities, proposed to

occur in the open ocean, will not impact

archeological or cultural resources.

Cumulative Impacts

There are no other foreseeable

planned developments in the area of the

proposed launch location at this time;

therefore, no cumulative impacts are

expected. The Navy Mole facility is

currently underutilized as compared to

its historical level of operation and

development. The Home Port facility

may be the impetus for other

development in the area.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices 20243

Other Environmental Considerations

Home Port

The design, permitting, construction,

and operation of the Home port would

be managed under the jurisdiction of the

state, regional, county, municipal, and

port authorities of the Port of Long

Beach, California. The Navy, as part of

the California Environmental Quality

Act Process, submitted the Mole EA to

the California Coastal Commission for

review, which determined the proposed

Home Port activities were not

inconsistent with the California Coastal

Zone Management Program. The Port of

Long Beach has approved the

construction and operation of the Home

Port through the Harbor Development

Permit process. One of the standard

conditions in the Harbor Development

Permit is that SLLP will follow all

applicable Federal, state, and local laws

and regulations, including those

pertaining to safety and the

environment.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action alternative the

SLLP would not launch satellites from

the Pacific Ocean and the Port of Long

Beach would remain available for other

commercial or government ventures.

The goals of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch.

701 Commercial Space Launch

Activities, would not be realized.

Predicted environmental impacts of the

proposed launch activities would not

occur and the project area would remain

in its current state.

Determination

An analysis of the proposed action

has concluded that there are no

significant short-term or long-term

effects to the environment or

surrounding populations. After careful

and thorough consideration of the facts

contained herein, the undersigned finds

that the proposed Federal action is

consistent with existing national

environmental policies and objectives as

set forth in section 101(a) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) and that it will not

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment or otherwise

include any condition requiring

consultation pursuant to section

102(2)(C) of NEPA. Therefore, an

Environmental Impact Statement for the

proposed action would not be required.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 17,

1998.

Manuel F. Vega,

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for

Commercial Space Transportation.

[FR Doc. 98–10748 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

98–04–C–00–BTM To Impose and Use

the Revenue From a Passenger Facility

Charge (PFC) at Bert Mooney Airport,

Submitted by the Bert Mooney Airport

Authority, Butte, Montana

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on

Application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to impose and use PFC

revenue at Bert Mooney Airport under

the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and

Part 158 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: David P. Gabbert, Manager;

Helena Airports District Office; Federal

Aviation Administration; 2725 Skyway

Drive, Suite 2; Helena, Montana 59602–

1213.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Rick

Griffith, Airport Manager, at the

following address: Bert Mooney Airport,

101 Airport Road, Butte, Montana

59701.

Air Carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to Bert Mooney

Airport, under section 158.23 of Part

158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David P. Gabbert, Manager; Helena

Airports District Office; Federal

Aviation Administration; 2725 Skyway

Drive, Suite 2; Helena, Montana 59602–

1213; Phone (406) 449–5271. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application 98–04–C–

00–BTM to impose and use PFC revenue

at Bert Mooney Airport under the

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part

158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR Part 158).

On April 16, 1998, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use the revenue from a PFC

submitted by the Bert Mooney Airport

Authority, Bert Mooney Airport, Butte,

Montana, was substantially complete

within the requirements of section

158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than July

24, 1998.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00

Proposed charge effective date:

February 1, 2000

Proposed charge expiration date:

January 31, 2002

Total requested for use approval:

$215,040

Brief description of proposed project:

Land acquisition in fee for Runway

Protection Zone, approach and

transition areas and land acquisition for

security fence improvements.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFC’s: On demand

non-scheduled Air Taxi/Commercial

operators.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

Regional Airports Office located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Northwest Mountain Region, Airports

Division, ANM–600, 1601 Lind Avenue

S.W., Suite 315, Renton, WA 98055–

4056.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Bert

Mooney Airport.

Issued in Renton, Washington on April 16,

1998.

David A. Field,

Manager, Planning, Programming and

Capacity Branch Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 98–10807 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge

(PFC) Approvals and Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC

Approvals and Disapprovals. In March

1998, there were eight applications

approved. This notice also includes