32886 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices

because AST’s review indicates that

there is no substantially superior

alternative site from an environmental

standpoint.

In designing the KLC, efforts were

made to avoid wetlands when possible.

The payload processing area and the

access road to the launch area were resited to avoid wetland disturbance, and

the launch control center was

redesigned to minimize wetland

impacts. The launch control center,

however, must be located a minimum

distance from the launch area and must

have a direct view of the launch area.

The only alternative for siting the

launch control center to completely

avoid wetlands would have required

access road construction that would

have affected more wetlands. The only

alternative that would have avoided

wetlands destruction in upgrading

Pasagshak Point Road would have

involved extensive road relocation,

substantial destruction of non-wetland

habitat, and prohibitive expense.

Because of these factors, no practicable

alternatives to wetlands destruction

were available (See Section 4.5.1.1 of

the EA). The Alaska District of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers issued a

public notice regarding project

construction and wetlands involvement

on September 7, 1995, providing the

public and appropriate state and Federal

agencies an opportunity for early review

of wetlands impacts.

MONITORING AND MITIGATION:

Construction and operation of the KLC

will include development of a Natural

Resources Management Plan that will

address monitoring and mitigation

activities for special status species, as

discussed in Section 5.13 of the EA. If

monitoring detects adverse impacts

greater than those identified in the EA,

AADC would take action, if possible, to

avoid or eliminate further similar

impacts.

DETERMINATION: 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 June 18,

1996.

Frank C. Weaver,

Associate Administrator for Commercial

Space Transportation.

[FR Doc. 96–16108 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Commercial Space Transportation

Advisory Committee; Open Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space

Transportation Advisory Committee

open meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice

is hereby given of a meeting of the

Commercial Space Transportation

Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The

meeting will take place on Thursday,

July 25, 1996, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00

p.m. in Room 2230 of the Department of

Transportation’s Headquarters building

at 400 Seventh Street, SW, in

Washington, D.C. This will be the

twenty-third meeting of the COMSTAC.

The agenda for the meeting will

include reports from the respective

COMSTAC Working Groups; a

legislative update on Congressional

activities involving commercial space

transportation; an activities report from

FAA’s Associate Administrator for

Commercial Space Transportation

(formerly the Office of Commercial

Space Transportation [60 FR 62762,

December 7, 1995]); and other related

topics.

The meeting is open to the public;

however, space may be limited.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Parker, (AST–100), Associate

Administrator for Commercial Space

Transportation, 400 7th Street SW,

Room 5415, Washington, DC 20590,

telephone (202) 366–2932.

Dated: June 19, 1996.

Frank C. Weaver,

Associate Administrator for Commercial

Space Transportation.

[FR Doc. 96–16107 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

to Impose a Passenger Facility Charge

(PFC) at Arcata/Eureka Airport (ACV),

Eureka, CA and Use the Revenue at

(ACV) and Rohnerville Airports

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 a PFC at Arcata/

Eureka Airport and use the revenue

from a PFC at ACV and Rohnerville

Airports under the provisions of the

Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion

Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990)

(Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Federal Aviation

Administration, Airports Division,

15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA

90261, or San Francisco Airports

District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room

210, Burlingame, CA 94010–1303. In

addition, one copy of any comments

submitted to the FAA must be mailed or

delivered to Mr. John Murray, Public

Works Director, County of Humboldt, at

the following address: 1106 Second

Street, Arcata, California 95521. Air

carriers and foreign air carriers may

submit copies of written comments

previously provided to the County of

Humboldt under section 158.23 of Part

158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Joseph R. Rodriguez, Supervisor,

Planning and Programming Section,

Airports District Office, 831 Mitten

Road, Room 210, Burlingame, CA

94010–1303, Telephone: (415) 876–

2805. The application may be reviewed

in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

purposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

a PFC at Arcata/Eureka Airport (ACV),

Eureka, CA and use the revenue at ACV

and Rohnerville Airports under the

provisions of the Aviation Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title

IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–

508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On April 29, 1996, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use a PFC submitted by the

County of Humboldt was not

substantially complete within the

requirements of section 158.25 of Part

158. The application did not include

alternative uses for the impose only

project. On May 9, 1996, the County of

Humboldt supplemented their

application with the required

information.