[Senate Hearing 107-1123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1123
NATIONAL PARK OVERFLIGHTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 3, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-501 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held October 3, 2002..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Ensign...................................... 17
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Witnesses
Bosak, Steven, Associate Director of Visitor Experience Programs,
National Parks Conservation Association........................ 30
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Gilligan, Margaret, Deputy Associate Administrator for
Regulations and Certification, Federal Aviation Administration. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hoffman, Paul, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife
and Parks, Department of the Interior.......................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada....................... 3
Robinson, Tom, Director of Government Affairs, Grand Canyon Trust 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Stephens, Alan R., Vice President, Grand Canyon Airlines, CEO,
Twin Otter International, on behalf of United States Air Tour
Association.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Appendix
Bosak, Steven, Associate Director of Visitor Experience Programs,
National Parks Conservation Association, letter dated October
13, 2002, to Hon. John McCain.................................. 43
McClelland, Riley, Wildlife Biologist, National Park Service
(Retired), prepared statement.................................. 45
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John McCain to:
Steven Bosak................................................. 50
Margaret Gilligan............................................ 46
Alan R. Stephens............................................. 49
Schneebeck, Carl A., Program Associate, Jackson Hole Conservation
Alliance, prepared statement................................... 44
Sieck, Hope, Associate Program Director, Greater Yellowstone
Coalition, letter dated October 2, 2002, to Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV................................................. 44
NATIONAL PARK OVERFLIGHTS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Good morning. 15 years ago, Congress passed
the National Parks Overflight Act of 1987. This act, among
other things, took steps to protect one of the crown jewels in
our national park system, the Grand Canyon. The bill was
cosponsored in the House by my friend Mo Udall, a strong
protector of the pristine beauty of the Grand Canyon and our
other national parks.
In that law, Congress prescribed that within 30 days of
enactment the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
recommendations regarding actions necessary for the protection
of resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts
associated with aircraft overflights.
The recommendations were to provide for substantial
restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park,
and protection of public health and safety from adverse effects
associated with aircraft overflights. 90 days after reporting,
the FAA Administrator was to prepare and issue a final plan for
the management of air traffic in the air space above the Grand
Canyon to implement the recommendations. Congress prescribed a
120-day period to get this done. Within 2 years, the Park
Service was to have submitted a report to Congress discussing
whether the plan succeeded.
Some might have argued that this time table was too short,
but I do not believe that anyone--anyone--believed that the
goal of the law would not be met 15 years later. Instead of
fulfilling the mandated 120-day time frame, it took 1 year for
the plan to be developed. The plan was not implemented until
September 1988, and then the report that was to have been
submitted by the National Park Service by 1990 was not
submitted until 1994, 4 years after its due date. The FAA then
responded to the report with a final rule in 1996. The rule
committed to meeting the substantial restoration of natural
quiet by 2008, 21 years after the passage of the law.
It seems to me, given the past history on this issue, that
that date also may be in jeopardy. Subsequent rules issued by
the FAA in 2000 were challenged by the air tour operators and
environmental groups, and a court decision was recently issued
requiring the FAA to revise its rules further.
Congress passed the National Parks and Air Tour Management
Act 2\1/2\ years ago to help regulate air tours over the rest
of the National Park System. In it, we required the FAA to
designate reasonably achievable requirements for the use of
quiet aircraft technology within the Grand Canyon within 1 year
of passage. If the FAA could not meet that deadline, it was to
notify us of the fact within 1 year. The FAA did not meet the
deadline. It told us last October that the rule would be out at
the beginning of 2002. We are now late in the year, and there
is still no sight of a quiet technology rule, yet quiet
technology could go a long way toward reaching a solution to
this issue. It at least deserves strong consideration.
It seems that everyone can take the credit or blame for the
delay in this issue. Everyone has pointed fingers at everyone
else. Inaction, court challenges and lack of attention have all
led us to where we are now. I am not particularly concerned
about who is responsible. What I do care about is that we have
not reached our goal 15 years after we established this as law.
Deadlines have been set and consistently not been met. What I
want to know is when and how we will reach the final
resolution.
The sponsors of the National Parks Overflight Act and the
National Parks Air Tour Management Act believe that we could
have a strong air tour industry and also protect the natural
resources of our national parks. We believe that a fulfilling
and enjoyable experience at the Grand Canyon and our other
national parks is possible for all park visitors, whether they
visit by foot or by air.
Our witnesses today represent the major stakeholders in
this issue. I believe that everyone involved wants to put this
issue to rest. The air tour operators are looking for
consistency and some guidance about quiet technology, the
environmental groups would like some finality about protection
of the parks, and I am sure the FAA and the National Park
Service would like to devote their resources to other areas.
All of the stakeholders must work together to reach the goals
set out in the law. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses to learn how and when this seemingly never-ending
process might come to an end.
This is also the last hearing that our dear employee, Mike
Reynolds, will be with us. Mike, we wish you every success as
you move over to work in the administration, and hopefully when
you are over there you can goad them into some action on this
issue as well as others, and we thank you for your years of
service to this Committee.
We now have my friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator
Harry Reid, who is with us today, and before I recognize
Senator Reid I just want to comment again, in 1987 I never
believed 15 years later that we would be sitting here still
without this issue having been resolved, and again, I do not
want to point fingers at people because I am not sure that is
productive, but if we do not at least review to some degree why
we have not acted, then I am not sure we would have a way of
curing the problem that exists. And again I want to say to all
my friends who are involved in this issue, quiet technology is
one of the factors that should be considered, not the only
factor, but quiet technology is something that seems to me to
have been somewhat ignored, particularly when it was explicitly
written in the law.
Senator Reid, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We in Nevada
consider Grand Canyon part ours. We really consider this gem of
nature something very special, and one of the most thoughtful,
enjoyable times of my life was to float that with my sons. It
is a time I will never forget, and Mr. Chairman, you should
understand that no one--and I should not say that. I certainly
do not question the reasons for your moving forward on this.
I think what you did was far-sighted and, as you have
indicated, who in the world would expect that now, 15 years or
more later, nothing has been resolved, so I am here today to
testify because I am concerned that the Federal Aviation
Administration has failed to develop the incentives for quiet
technology aircraft. The statutory deadline, as you indicated,
is long since passed.
Senator Ensign and I are very concerned. We have introduced
legislation and, Mr. Chairman, the legislation is only a
message to everyone, we all know that, and that is why I so
much appreciate this oversight hearing to see what we can do to
get some finality to this. We need to designate reasonably
achievable requirements for fixed wing and helicopter aircraft
for such aircraft to be considered quiet aircraft technology
and, second, to establish corridors for commercial air tour
operations by fixed wing and helicopter aircraft that employ
quiet aircraft technology or explain to Congress why this
cannot happen. The agency has failed to comply with these
provisions, and I have to say, Mr. Chairman, it is equal
opportunity failure. You cannot blame it on a Republican
administration or a Democratic administration. They have all
failed, and it should not be that difficult.
The act also provides operators employing quiet technology
shall be exempted from operational flight caps. This is
essential to the very survival of many of these air tour
operators. By not complying with these congressional mandates,
the FAA places viability of the Grand Canyon air tour industry
in jeopardy and, Mr. Chairman, that industry is very important
to Nevada and to Arizona. It is part of the commercial
enterprises that both States enjoy.
Senator Ensign and I have sought to work out with the
Federal agencies something that, we would try to do it in a
cooperative manner, but frankly our repeated overtures have
been summarily ignored by the FAA and, I am sorry to say, the
National Park Service. We have met with them, we have cajoled,
we have begged, and it has not done any good, I am sorry to
say. It has to come from this Committee. This is the Committee
of jurisdiction. We need the FAA and the National Park Service
to work together to identify reasonably achievable quiet
technology standards and provide relief for air tour operators
who have spent many years and millions and millions of dollars
to voluntarily transition to quieter aircraft to help restore
quiet to the Grand Canyon.
The National Park Air Tour Management Act is what we have
introduced. It calls for implementation of reasonably
achievable quiet technology incentives, but Mr. Chairman, that
comes through this Committee and, in my view, I would hope that
we would not have to worry about getting that out of this
Committee. I would hope that they would arrive at something
without new legislation. The original intent, as you have
indicated, was to help restore natural quiet to Grand Canyon,
and as the 1916 Organic Act directs, to provide enjoyment of
our national parks, quote, ``in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.''
There is broad support for ensuring the survival of Grand
Canyon air tour industry, recognizing air touring is consistent
with the Park Service mission. Based on current air tour
restrictions, more than 1.7 million, almost 2 million tourists
will be denied access to Grand Canyon during the next decade,
at a cost to Arizona and Nevada operators of $\1/4\ billion,
and since the September 11 attacks, air tour operators are
still experiencing substantial economic losses. The first
quarter following September 11 the air tour industry
experienced up to a 70 percent decline in passengers. The
unavoidable ground stops while waiting for passengers alone
cost these companies about $1\1/2\ million in lost revenue. The
documented losses through this first quarter of 2002 exceeded
$20 million.
The tour industry is vital, as I have indicated. I would
hope, Mr. Chairman, that I--first of all, I want to repeat--I
should not say first of all, but again I want to repeat my
appreciation for your holding this hearing, and I hope that the
two important objectives are completed, No. 1 to preserve the
natural quiet of the Grand Canyon, and No. 2, ensure the
viability of those air tour operators who have invested, as I
have indicated, millions and millions of dollars of their own
money to transition their fleet to quieter aircraft.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Senator Reid, and I
want to thank you and Senator Ensign both for your involvement
in this issue, and I believe that if we continue focusing our
attention on this issue we can perhaps get some kind of
resolution to it, but I believe that hearings like this are
necessary and I do know that a lot of people who come and visit
your State take advantage of the opportunities to come and
visit the Grand Canyon, both from the air and on the ground,
and I know that it does have an impact not only on the economy
of your State but also on the ability to provide this unique
Grand Canyon experience to many hundreds of thousands of
Americans and foreign visitors. And I thank you for your
commitment and involvement on this issue.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, let me just say one thing.
Senator Ensign was expected to be here. He is testifying in
another hearing, and if he does not come it is not because he
is not interested.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Senator Reid. We
appreciate your taking the time.
Our first witnesses will be Mr. Paul Hoffman, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, and Ms.
Margaret Gilligan of the Federal Aviation Administration.
We will have two panels. We will have first Mr. Hoffman and
Ms. Gilligan, and then we will have Mr. Stephens, Mr. Robinson,
and Mr. Bosak.
Welcome. It is the practice of this Committee to have
administration witnesses first and then others in separate
panels, and so we will continue that practice.
Welcome, Mr. Hoffman or Ms. Gilligan. Whoever wants to
speak first, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HOFFMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to testify on behalf of the
Department of the Interior regarding the implementation of the
provisions of several laws regarding park overflights at the
Grand Canyon National Park. I have submitted written testimony,
which I would like to have entered for the record.
Senator McCain. Without objection.
Mr. Hoffman. I will spare you my rather brief summary of
the legislative history, which you know all too well, sir, and
go right to some of the challenges we face, and you have
articulated some of them already. The goal here is to
substantially restore quiet to the Grand Canyon while retaining
the opportunity for a significant population of park visitors
to enjoy the park via air tours. That goal contains many
substantial challenges, including the definition of substantial
quiet, as well as the definition of what a viable air tour
industry is and how much opportunity we expect to end up with.
Congress recognized the appropriate yet different roles
that the NPS and the Federal Aviation Administration have in
regulating park overflights. Nonetheless, this is probably one
of the rare times where these two agencies have had to work
together. We have rather distinct missions. We certainly have
different corporate cultures, if you will, and there are
overarching effects of restoring quiet that bring to bear
impacts on civilian operations of airports and/or military
preparedness and training exercises that we need to be
considerate of as we go forward.
Probably one of the most significant challenges has been
the evolution of this new science of what exactly is natural
quiet. There have been several definitions that the Park
Service has put together over the years, and as they continue
to expand their science and analysis of this issue, those
definitions have changed.
There have been unsettled standards for measuring
substantially quiet. We started out with the noticeability
standard, which is when an aircraft sound could be noticed,
ambient plus 3 decibels, it was called. Then the Park Service
determined to actually divide the park into zones, with zone 1
applying the noticeability standard, and zone 2, the back
country area, applying a more strict aircraft detectable
standard, which is known by some as the ambient minus 8
decibels standard.
There have been at least three different models tested for
measuring aircraft noise in the Grand Canyon area. Those models
have been ground tested, which requires substantial time. It
requires putting people out in the park, logging data and
logging sounds over time, so that we can best know which model
appropriately measures those sounds.
There has been debate over whether we should measure the
sound over average day or peak day. There has been debate over
what the length of the day is over which we wanted to define
substantial quiet. There has been debate over commercial
aircraft noise and their impact on substantial quiet in the
park, and there is debate over which noise level assumptions
you plug into those models. Currently, they use noise levels
that are defined as, under takeoff with a full load, which is
probably more noise than occurs when the planes are cruising
over the park during a tour.
Certainly there remain unsettled legal issues that present
challenges to us all. These are a complex set of challenges
that can lead otherwise reasonable people to disagree, and we
have had a lot of disagreement in the park. The good news is
that under the Bush Administration the Department of the
Interior and Department of Transportation are committed to
working together to resolve this nagging and complex issue.
I am kind of a new kid on the block. I just started 6
months ago. I have got this fresh naivete and this reckless
optimism, and I am committing my time and resources to help try
and resolve this issue personally. For better or for worse,
depending upon which side you are on, of course, the courts
have clarified some of the issues that I have raised here
today, and with those guidances in place, that should help us
get over some of the impending hurdles.
Lastly, I would like to interject a possibility for
everybody to consider. I have visited with many of the players
in the Grand Canyon overflight issue, you being the exception,
sir, and discussed the idea of the possibility of exploring
using an alternative dispute resolution process to help us all
get to yes on this. And the purpose behind this would be not to
delay the process at all, but to hopefully get us all together
sitting around a table, work through these things, and try and
stay out of the courtrooms, which seem to bring huge delays in
terms of time.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, sir, and I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
I wish to thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear today
to discuss the implementation of public laws regarding overflights of
national parks. Since 1975 Congress has addressed the issue of aircraft
overflights of national parks three times, with particular emphasis on
Grand Canyon National Park. I would like to summarize for the Committee
the Department's progress on implementing these laws both at Grand
Canyon National Park and across the entire National Park System.
Passed in January, 1975, Public Law 93-620, ``The Grand Canyon
National Park Enlargement Act'', requires the Secretary to determine
whether aircraft overflights are likely to pose a threat to visitor
safety and whether there is a ``significant adverse effect to natural
quiet and experience of the park.'' If such threats are found, the
Secretary has a responsibility to make recommendations to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) for any rules, regulations, or any other
appropriate actions to mitigate these impacts. In accordance with
Public Law 93-620, acoustic and sociological studies were completed and
a public planning process was progressing. However, the studies and
process were truncated by a mid-air collision between two air tour
aircraft in 1986 and Pub.L. 100-91, the National Parks Overflights Act
of 1987, was passed the following year.
Section 3 of Public Law 100-91 specifically addressed the
restoration of natural quiet at Grand Canyon National Park. Under this
law, the Secretary is directed to submit recommendations to the
Administrator of the FAA regarding ``actions necessary for the
protection of resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts
associated with aircraft overflights.'' The Act requires the FAA to
implement the recommendations of the Secretary without change unless
the Administrator determines that implementing the regulation adversely
affects aviation safety. The Department forwarded recommendations to
the FAA in December, 1987, which became part of Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 50-2 (SFAR 50-2). The regulation, which became
effective in September, 1988, established fixed routes, altitudes for
air tours, and flight-free zones.
Public Law 100-91 also required the National Park Service (NPS) to
submit a report to Congress on whether the FAA's SFAR 50-2 ``has
succeeded in substantially restoring the natural quiet in the park,''
and to suggest revisions to the regulation. The National Park Service
conducted extensive acoustical and sociological research between 1989
and 1993 to meet this requirement. The NPS submitted a Report on
Effects on Aircraft Overflights on the National Park Service to
Congress on September 12, 1994. The report to Congress recommended many
revisions to SFAR 50-2 to substantially restore natural quiet at Grand
Canyon National Park.
FAA Final Rules (1996) established reporting requirements, changed
airspace restrictions and routes for air tours, capped the number of
aircraft authorized for air tours at Grand Canyon, and set curfews for
air tours in the eastern Canyon. Some of the airspace and route changes
were implemented, while others were deferred in order to permit further
discussions with DOI on proposed new routes and further consultation
with Indian tribes bordering the Park. The 1996 Final Rule has been the
subject of several legal challenges that were unsuccessful.
Title VIII of Pub.L. 106-181, the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act, addresses the management of aircraft overflights for
the entire National Park System. Specific provisions for Grand Canyon
National Park affirm the requirement to achieve substantial restoration
of natural quiet. In addition, it requires a definition of ``quiet
aircraft technology'' and the creation of quiet aircraft technology
incentive routes, provided these routes would not negatively impact
substantial restoration of natural quiet, Native American lands, or
safety.
Litigation on the two FAA Final Rules issued in 2000 was filed by
the U.S. Air Tour Association (USATA) and an environmental coalition
led by the Grand Canyon Trust. The USATA sought to have the flight caps
rule set aside largely for procedural reasons. The environmental
coalition asked the court to order the FAA to follow the wording of
Pub.L. 100-91, and use the annual peak day, rather than average annual
day, in modeling the achievement of substantial restoration of quiet.
Use of annual peak day levels sets a higher standard, which means that
summer visitors, and visitors on any day, will experience substantial
restoration of natural quiet.
In August, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a decision
regarding the suit filed by the USATA which had two significant
outcomes. The court held that the use of an annual average day for
measuring ``substantial restoration of the natural quiet'' appears
inconsistent and remanded the issue to the agencies for further
consideration and clarification. Second, the court concluded that
exclusion of non-tour aircraft from the noise-model was arbitrary and
capricious and must also be reconsidered by the agencies.
The courts ruled in favor of the NPS as the appropriate agency to
set the goal for substantial restoration of quiet. The NPS has
determined that having 50 percent of the park quiet for 75 percent of
the time would meet the goal of having substantial restoration of quiet
in the Grand Canyon National Park. Various factors impact the
attainment of this goal, including the choice of acoustic model,
whether average day or peak day measurements are used, and which sound
data are used for modeling aircraft noise. The NPS is currently
reviewing the impacts of these factors.
The FAA and NPS are jointly funding a computer model validation
study at Grand Canyon National Park. The study compares modeling
results with field acoustic observations to determine the degrees of
accuracy and precision that existing computer models provide. The study
compares models developed by the FAA, NPS, and the U.S. Air Force and
National Aeronautical and Space Administration. A Technical Review
Committee (TRC), a panel of internationally recognized experts in
acoustics and experimental research design, has provided their
technical expertise to validate the research methodology and review
study results. It is expected that the revised report will be available
to the public in the fall of 2002.
Regarding the nationwide implementation of the National Parks Air
Tour Management Act of 2000 (Pub.L. 106-181), we continue to work
closely with the Federal Aviation Administration in many ways to
implement the Air Tour Management Plan provisions that would establish
a requirement of an air tour management plan for all commercial air
tour operations over national parks to mitigate or prevent any
significant adverse effects on natural and cultural resources, park
visitors or affected tribal lands.
The FAA has been working through the process of developing
regulations to implement provisions of the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act with some delay resulting from the change in
Administration. Consistent with the Administration's objective in
encouraging interagency collaboration in these matters, the Department
of the Interior is working with the Department of Transportation to
establish cooperative procedures for the preparation of the Air Tour
Management Plans. With respect to Grand Canyon National Park, use of an
Alternative Dispute Resolution process is currently under consideration
as a vehicle for reaching collaborative agreement on the best way to
restore natural quiet and to retain the opportunity for the public to
enjoy the park via air tours.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify and we
would be most happy to answer any questions the Committee may have for
us.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Ms. Gilligan.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET GILLIGAN, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR REGULATIONS AND CERTIFICATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain. I am
Margaret Gilligan, Deputy Associate Administrator for
Regulation and Certification at FAA, and I am pleased to be
here today to discuss with you our efforts at the Grand Canyon.
We have submitted written testimony for the record as well.
Sir, I wish that I were here to report to you success, to
say that we have restored natural quiet to the Grand Canyon. I
know the Department of the Interior wishes that. I know the
panelists who will be on your next panel wish the same, but as
you know, we are not yet in a position to claim success.
Accomplishing the goal that was set by this legislation has
been more difficult, more complicated, and involved more people
than we had ever expected.
Having said that, I do think we need to point out we have
had some real accomplishments. The park is quieter now than
when we started. There are no tours at night. There are no
tours in expanded flight-free zones over the park. There has
not been an increase in the number of tours since 1997. There
are no longer any tour routes over the middle of the park.
There are none over the Havasupai Reservation, and there are
none over a portions of the Hualapai Reservation.
There are new, limited, restricted routes in the west end,
and we have been able to accomplish all of this while
protecting the Native American traditional cultural properties,
and while fulfilling our trust responsibilities by continuing
the aviation support needed by both the Havasupai and Hualapai
Tribes.
Before we had this legislation, FAA had already focused on
the canyon because of a series of accidents that reflected its
challenging aviation environment. In response to those
accidents, FAA began limiting routes and setting altitudes. We
required additional communications among operators, additional
training for pilots, and other safety initiatives. These
initiatives have been very successful in enhancing the margin
of safety over the canyon.
After this legislation, as we moved forward to implement
the mandate to substantially restore natural quiet, it was
FAA's role to also ensure that any changes we made in the
aviation operations either maintained or improved the level of
safety over the park, and I can tell you we have met that
responsibility as well. None of the changes that we have made
have reduced the margin of safety in any way, and FAA and Park
Service agree that any changes that will be made must support
or enhance the level of safety of air tour operators while
accomplishing our goal related to noise.
Over the last several years, we and the Park Service have
learned much about measuring and reducing noise in the park.
Over time, the Park Service has refined its measurement of
substantial restoring of natural quiet and in response to those
changes we have proposed and implemented new routes and new
altitude limits. We have limited areas where tours may operate,
and we have limited the times when they could fly.
Before this most recent court decision, FAA and the Park
Service together believed that the actions we have taken have
restored natural quiet to 43 percent of the park. That was
short of the full goal, but it was well on the way. The new
court decision is yet another stumbling block in accomplishing
our goals. The court has remanded some of our rules and
directed that we reevaluate some of the work we have done.
FAA and Park Service have not yet completely decided how we
will respond to that court decision, but we do know that the
Park Service will determine how to measure the substantial
restoration of quiet, and we know that FAA will develop
procedures and limitations to meet that standard while ensuring
continued safe operation of the remaining tours. We are going
to continue to work together as Mr. Hoffman has indicated to
take whatever the next steps are that need to be taken.
Sir, that concludes my testimony, and we are ready to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gilligan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Margaret Gilligan, Deputy Associate Administrator
for Regulations and Certification, Federal Aviation Administration
Chairman Hollings, Senator McCain, Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here to discuss the status of the implementation
of the National Park Overflights Act that was passed in 1987. My name
is Margaret Gilligan and I am the Deputy Associate Administrator for
Regulations and Certification. My office, along with several others at
FAA, is currently responsible for working with our colleagues from the
National Park Service (NPS) to achieve the goals set forth in the
legislation, namely the substantial restoration of natural quiet to the
Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). At the outset, I would like to say
that FAA has worked and will continue to work diligently and
cooperatively with NPS on this very important goal.
National parks in this country are truly a national treasure. They
provide people from all over the country and all over the world the
opportunity to experience the magnificence and splendor of this great
country, from the vistas of the Grand Canyon, to the beauty of mighty
redwoods, to the monuments that grace this city. In 1987, Congress
enacted the National Park Overflights Act (Act), recognizing the
importance of preserving a pristine experience for visitors to the
GCNP. The Act recognized that it was essential for visitors to
experience the beauty of the park without the distraction of aircraft
noise and directed that NPS and FAA work together to achieve a
substantial restoration of natural quiet in the park. Toward that end,
the legislation directed NPS to define the term substantial restoration
of natural quiet and to submit recommendations to the FAA that would
achieve that goal. FAA is responsible under the Act for implementing
the NPS recommendations and ensuring that they are consistent with
safety. Never before had FAA been directed to accomplish such a goal--
restoring natural quiet to a sizable land area where aviation tour
operations were frequent and extensive. This task has proven more
controversial and challenging than anyone thought it would be at the
time it was passed. It is true that we have not yet fully achieved what
Congress directed us to do in 1987. Critics have charged that we have
been lax in our implementation of the Act. However, I assure you that
we have been investing substantial time and resources on this issue for
some time--even before enactment of the Act. I hope that my testimony
today will show the complexity of the issues we face and that our
efforts have brought us closer to achieving the worthy goals of the
Act. To give you a graphical overview of the level of activity the FAA
has been devoting to this issue, we have attached a matrix listing the
work that has been completed with regard to GCNP.
The FAA had been working to enhance the level of safety in the
airspace over the park since before the legislation was passed. The
operating environment over the canyon can be very challenging. After
several air tour accidents over the Park during the mid-1980's, the
need for further FAA regulation was evident. At that time, general
aviation aircraft were operating below the canyon's rim where pilot
options--should something go wrong--were extremely limited.
Consequently, when Congress passed its legislation in 1987, FAA had
already issued operating restrictions that prohibited aircraft
operations below the canyon's rim and established fixed routes for
aircraft to follow in order to reduce mid-air collisions and improve
overall safety.
Following passage of the Act, the FAA issued a Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50-2 in May 1988 in response to NPS
recommendations. This SFAR restricted where and at what altitudes
pilots could fly. At that time, we believed that this response to the
NPS recommendations met the stated goal of the legislation.
In 1994, NPS set forth its definition of substantial restoration of
natural quiet--that 50 percent of the park achieve natural quiet (no
audible aircraft noise) for 75 percent to 100 percent of the day--and
issued recommendations on how to achieve the goal. As the Act requires,
the FAA must follow the NPS definition of natural quiet and implement
NPS recommendations unless the FAA identifies a safety problem with the
recommendation. In 1994, NPS determined that aircraft noise would be
audible at three decibels above the average natural ambient sound level
(a so-called ``noticeability'' standard). While the FAA initially
believed substantial restoration had been met with the implementation
of SFAR 50-2, an environmental evaluation of commercial air tour
operations in the park in 1996 indicated that SFAR 50-2 had not
achieved that goal. At that time, the noise assessment concluded that
only 31 percent of the park experienced natural quiet for at least 75
percent of the day and that the percentage was likely to decline in the
years to come without additional measures being taken.
Based upon this assessment, in December 1996 the FAA issued a final
rule that adopted the NPS definition and instituted additional
operational restrictions for air tours, such as establishing new flight
free zones, setting curfews that prohibited operation from sunset to
sunrise, and limiting the number of aircraft that could be used to fly
commercial air tours. At that time, we estimated that with these
restrictions, in addition to the development and use of quiet
technology, a substantial restoration of natural quiet would have been
achieved by 2008. Unfortunately, the following year we determined that
we had underestimated the number of air tour aircraft operating in the
park, which resulted in the restrictions being less effective than had
been predicted.
After the publication of the 1996 final rule, the FAA was sued by
both the Grand Canyon Trust and the Air Tour Coalition. The Grand
Canyon Trust alleged that the government had not done enough fast
enough and the Air Tour Coalition alleged that the government had done
too much too soon. The Court found in favor of the government in this
action.
In 1999, NPS announced it was refining its methodology for
assessing the noise impacts related to substantial restoration of
natural quiet. NPS decided, after it had gathered additional data, that
different thresholds of impact should be applied in different parts of
the park: Zone One, approximately one-third of the park, would continue
to apply an aircraft audible, or noticeability, standard--three
decibels above the ambient sound level; and Zone Two, which is mostly
the backcountry areas of the park, would have a ``detectability''
standard applied because visitors in these more remote areas are likely
to be more active listeners who would be disturbed by aircraft noise.
NPS data indicated that an active listener could detect aircraft noise
at eight to eleven decibels below ambient noise levels. Consequently,
NPS decided that the threshold for impact in Zone Two should be eight
decibels below ambient noise levels.
In January of 2000, the NPS issued a technical report on the Change
in Noise Evaluation Methodology. This report suggested that quiet
should be attained on ``any given day''--a change from the standard
used in the Environmental Assessment we had issued. In February 2000,
FAA issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment in which FAA
continued as it had in previous assessments to use the ``average annual
day'' to determine the percentage of the day that would be
substantially restored to natural quiet. The assessment did not
consider noise from aircraft other than air tour operators because such
noise was considered to be minimal.
On April 4, 2000, FAA issued an Airspace Rule, which modified
flight paths over the park, and a Limitations Rule, which imposed a cap
on the total number of commercial air tours that may be operated over
the park. Based on the noise modeling in the environmental assessment,
which reflected the NPS change in noise evaluation methodology, FAA and
NPS concluded that everything we had done would result in approximately
43 percent of the park being restored to natural quiet. NPS was a
cooperating agency, and concurred that the model we were using was
appropriate.
In May of 2000, FAA was sued by both the Air Tour Coalition and the
Grand Canyon Trust. Both challenged the validity of the Limitations
Rule. The Air Tour Coalition stated that the rule was unlawful for
several reasons, including its reliance on what they believed was an
improper change in the definition of natural quiet, and argued that the
acoustic methodology was scientifically flawed. The Court of Appeals
dismissed this challenge. The Grand Canyon Trust charged that the rule
was unlawful because the FAA improperly altered the NPS definition of
natural quiet by using an average day, rather than an any given day
standard in our noise methodology, and because we failed to consider
aircraft noise that came from aircraft other than those used by air
tour operators. The Court of Appeals upheld this challenge and remanded
the case to the FAA in order for the rule to be modified consistent
with the court's ruling. That decision was issued on August 16, 2002,
less than two months ago.
Obviously, the court decision will require NPS and FAA to
reevaluate the issues that were remanded to us. FAA is trying to
determine how to obtain noise data that includes aircraft other than
air tour operators. Throughout our preparation of the Limitations Rule
FAA and NPS agreed on the use of an average day standard. We are trying
to work out whether we should analyze noise on an average day or any
given day or against some other standard. Once NPS clarifies the
``day'' it intended for us to use, we will apply it.
Until FAA and NPS survey the available data and FAA obtains
guidance from NPS, FAA can only say that the percentage of the park
that has achieved a substantial restoration of natural quiet ranges
between 19 percent and 43 percent, depending on the methodology
applied. A strict interpretation of ``day'' will almost certainly mean
that to close the gap between where we are now and where we need to be
will require placing additional operating restrictions on the air tour
industry. As I have emphasized, NPS will determine the noise standard
that is applied. The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on
Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand
Canyon National Park (proposing definitions of quiet technology) is
undergoing executive review. While the implementation of a quiet
technology designation will not by itself achieve substantial
restoration of natural quiet in the park, we believe that the quiet
technology standard is a vital component in the establishment of
incentives and other mechanisms to achieve the goal.
I do not underestimate the frustration this Committee feels about
the fact that a statutory direction that was enacted in 1987 has yet to
be fully implemented. This has been a challenging process in which the
definition of success has evolved over time and the government has
faced repeated legal challenges. The fact that substantial restoration
of quiet has not yet been achieved does not mean that there has not
been a significant reduction in aircraft noise at GCNP. The extent of
our progress truly depends upon how it is measured. Our work will
continue and I am confident that, in the end, visitors to the park will
enjoy the experience envisioned by Congress and this Committee.
Matrix of FAA Actions Regarding Grand Canyon National Park
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Action Date of Action Purpose of Action Status of Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Established GCNP SFRA (altitude March 1987 Create a protected General shape of SFRA is
border and area border) SFAR 50 environment for still there but has been
commercial air tours. enlarged.
Further study of
environmental impact
of noise necessary
Established SFRA ceiling of 9,000 June 1987 Maintain protected Has been raised twice as
feet MSL in late 1980's with SFAR environment for air recommended by NPS.
50-1 tours with other
traffic above
Established minimum terrain June 1987 To ensure safety of air In effect.
clearance req. of 500 feet AGL tours
P.L. 100-91 enacted August 1987 To enable agencies to Ongoing process.
substantially restore
natural quiet to the
Grand Canyon National
Park
DOI submits initial recommendations December 1987 To meet goal of P.L. FAA responds with SFAR 50-
100-91 2.
Raised SFRA ceiling to 14,499 with June 1988 Was raised by final rule
SFAR 50-2 issued December 1996.
Establish flight free zones and June 1988 Protect noise sensitive FFZ's have been modified
corridors areas of the Park as to accommodate new route
determined by NPS system and expanded to
provide more protection
of natural quiet as
recommended by NPS.
Establish certain routes for air June 1988 Routes established that Route structure developed
tours would provide safe air in SFAR 50-2 is currently
tours while avoiding in effect for the east
areas that NPS deemed end of the Grand Canyon
to be noise-sensitive National Park (Dragon
corridor, east, including
Marble Canyon).
Establish communication June 1988 Establish safety In effect.
requirements by requiring pilots related communication
to monitor established frequency requirements
Final Rule published to create March 1989 Amends SFAR 50-2 to
corridor into airport on Hualapai respond to Hualapai
reservation needs with regard to
growing business at
airport on
reservation.
Amend routing of Victor airway in April 1989 Needed to route traffic
vicinity of SFRA around SFRA.
Final Rule extending SFAR 50-2 June 1992 Extension needed
because FAA was
waiting on NPS
submission of final
recommendations.
ANPRM published seeking input on March 1994 FAA seeks public input
how to manage air tour noise in on how to respond to
GCNP P.L. 100-91
NPS Report to Congress on September 1994 FAA states that These recommendations
Recommendations for Restoring extension is necessary first establish the
natural quiet to Grand Canyon so that it can definition of substantial
complete its review of restoration of natural
NPS recommendations quiet and become the
basis for further
rulemaking conducted by
FAA.
SFAR 50-2 extended June 1995 FAA and NPS hold public
meeting to try and
resolve differences
between interested
parties.
Public Meeting on Grand Canyon August 1995
rulemaking
Presidential Executive Order on April 1996 Seeks to push FAA and
controlling air tour noise issued NPS to resolve
differences and
complete goal of
achieving substantial
restoration of natural
quiet by 2008.
NPRM published to raise SFRA July 1996 NPRM is designed to See December 1996 final
ceiling, establish curfews, further the goal of rule.
establish aircraft cap and create substantial
reporting requirements for air restoration of natural
tours quiet
Raised SFRA ceiling to 17,999 MSL December 1996 SFRA raised to minimize This was implemented in
in 1996 Final Rule non-air tour noise in May, 2000, after being
the Grand Canyon delayed for some time due
National Park to difficulties tied to
1996 efforts to develop a
new route system.
Establish curfews on east end air December 1996 Curfews established to Curfews still in effect.
tours (Dragon and Zuni Point create protected time-
Corridors) periods that would be
flight-free
Establish cap on number of aircraft December 1996 Cap on aircraft Removed by the April, 2000
operating in SFRA. established as a means final rule because was
of controlling growth not effective tool in
and the amount of controlling growth and
noise in the SFRA noise.
Establish reporting requirements December 1996 Data provision The data for the first
for companies operating air tours established to develop year collected was used
in flight a database of air as the basis for capping
tours the number of commercial
air tours in April, 2000
Final Rule.
NPRM proposing new route structure December 1996 Tries to resolve Ongoing process.
environmental issues
with existing route
system
NPRM published that would establish December 1996 This NPRM is another Opposed by many interest
definition of quiet aircraft step in NPS' plan to groups. FAA has
substantially restore determined that the only
natural quiet way to proceed is to go
out with an SNPRM.
Air Tour Coalition and January 1997 Challenge to legality Case is decided in early
environmental interests petition of 1996 final rule 1998 in FAA's favor. NPS
Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit was not a party to this
for review case.
Clark County Dept. of Aviation January 1997 Asks FAA to reconsider
files petition for reconsideration 1996 Final Rule.
Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition January 1997 States that pilot
files request for stay of routes training cannot be
and airspace safely completed in
given time.
Grand Canyon Trust files opposition February 1997 Asserts that Tour
to stay request operators have not
stated a valid reason
for stay to be
granted.
FAA stays effective date of February 1997 Delay was necessary
Airspace and minimum altitudes of because FAA believed
1996 final rule in light of comments
further evaluation of
proposed routes was
necessary.
FAA publishes NPRM proposing May 1997 Provides incentives for FAA prepares accompanying
incentive corridors for quiet operators to convert Written Re-evaluation and
technology aircraft and new route to quiet technology FONSI and determines
system for all air tour aircraft aircraft. New routes there would be no
for other air tour significant environmental
operations would be impact as a result of the
reduce noise in the FAA actions. NPRM is
Park withdrawn in July of
1998.
FAA resurveys air tour operators May 1997 FAA wanted to verify
aircraft the number of aircraft
capped in the 1996
rule.
Notice of Clarification October 1997 FAA issues notice to FAA determines that
explain that 1996 overall conclusions
undercounted aircraft reached in 1996 rule
used in air tours in remain in effect. FAA and
GCNP NPS delay selection of
routes until 1998 pending
further analysis.
Airspace adopted in 1996 delayed December 1997 Airspace delayed
further pending resolution of
routes.
Public Meeting April 1998 Meeting held of all Meeting ended early
interested groups to because parties were
resolve the routes unwilling to negotiate to
problem in Grand reach a consensus
Canyon solution.
Court issues decision in Grand November 1998 Court upholds FAA's
Canyon I position.
NPS issues Notice proposing a January 1999 Creates the two zone
change in noise evaluation system for measuring
methodology for Grand Canyon noise in GCNP.
FAA publishes NPRM proposing to July 1999 Cap is designed to Final Rule adopts cap in
establish cap on total number of prevent growth in April, 2000.
air tours that can be conducted in number of air tours in
the GCNP SFRA Park
FAA publishes NPRM modifying July 1999 Proposal is designed to Airspace designed adopted
Airspace in SFRA modify airspace to with minor modifications
accommodate new route in April, 2000.
system
FAA publishes Notice seeking July 1999 New route system Routes adopted with minor
comment on new route system for responds to NPS modifications in April,
GCNP SFRA. recommendations to 2000, but east end routes
protect certain areas later stayed. West and
from noise routes implemented May,
2001.
NPS finalizes its change in noise July 1999 Notice states that
methodology for GCNP SFRA. definition of
substantial
restoration of natural
quiet is not changed.
Public meeting August 18-19 Public meeting held to
accept comment on
proposals issued.
Establish limitation on number of April 2000 Limitation on number of Limitation rule was
commercial air tours that can air tours that could challenged in the U.S.
operate in the SFRA in a given operate in any given District Court of Appeals
year year established at for the D.C. Circuit and
90,000 as a means of the environmental
freezing the number of analysis remanded for
tours and controlling further work on average
growth annual day and cumulative
analysis.
Expand reporting requirements to April 2000 Reporting requirements Currently in effect.
cover all flights flown by air implemented as a means
tour operators in the SFRA, of improving quality
including transportation, of existing database
training, rescue, ferry with regard to type of
aircraft noise
Modify route system April 2000 Route system final rule West end of route system
adopted April, 2000 to implemented April, 2001.
further the goals of East end stayed pending
substantial resolution of safety
restoration by moving issues. Airspace Rule
traffic from near the that accompanied this
flight free zones (by also stayed pending
removal of blue 1). completion of routes.
Route system also Airspace Rule also stayed
designed to before U.S. Court of
accommodate tribal Appeals for the D.C.
TCP's Circuit, where it is
being appealed.
Environmental analysis at
issue in the Limitation
Rule also at issue here.
Petition for review filed by U.S. May 2000 Challenge to April 2000 Court denies petition for
Air Tour Association and several final rules review of operators.
air tour operators and by Grand Court grants petition for
Canyon Trust and several review of Trust and
environmental groups in D.C. remands EA back to FAA
Circuit Court of Appeals for analysis on
cumulative impacts and
for FAA and NPS to again
determine whether the use
of average annual day is
the best methodology.
FAA issues Administrative Stay of November 2001 FAA stays entire route
routes system pending
resolution of safety
issues raised in
litigation.
FAA publishes final rule November 2001 Stay of east end routes West end implemented
implementing west end routes and necessary to modify April, 2002. East end
staying east end routes routes in light of new routes currently stayed.
safety issues raised
by operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hoffman, why hasn't the noise modeling used by the Park
Service been validated?
Mr. Hoffman. As I indicated, sir, there has been required a
lot of ground testing to validate that model. I believe they
are about to select a model. There were three models that were
tested, the FAA model, the National Park Service model, and a
third model developed by NASA and the Air Force, and
preliminarily it appears that the NASA/Air Force model probably
best measures natural quiet in the park.
Senator McCain. Air tour operators believe no matter how
quiet an aircraft can be, any air tour that is audible will not
satisfy the Park Service or environmental critics in the
industry. What is your reaction to that?
Mr. Hoffman. I do not believe that is true, sir. The goal
is to restore 50 percent of the park quiet 75 percent of the
time. That leaves 50 percent of the park noisy 75 percent of
the time, or 25 percent of the time.
Senator McCain. If you tried this alternative dispute
resolution course, where would that happen?
Mr. Hoffman. In the canyon area would be my goal.
Senator McCain. Do you have someone who oversees it,
someone who is involved in it, or does everybody just sit
around at the table?
Mr. Hoffman. It would be my intention to involve the U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, based out of
the Udall Foundation, and we have used them successfully in the
past on other issues. The key is to have a good facilitator who
can keep people focused on the issues. The key is to develop
better working relationships so that people can actually sit
down and talk to one another without posturing and
grandstanding. This issue has been going on for some time, as
you well know, sir, and patience on everybody's part has grown
thin. We need to work through that and stay focused on the
goal.
Senator McCain. Ms. Gilligan, you are very aware of the
appeals court decision on the Grand Canyon overflights.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Is the noise from nontour aircraft truly
incidental, or will that part of the court's ruling make it
harder to restore natural quiet without severe restrictions on
air tours?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, we are certainly looking at that piece
of the decision. We did have some limited data collected back
in the early Nineties where we did try to quantify the numbers
and amount of general aviation traffic. Because, of course,
this is not controlled airspace, we do not have the kinds of
records we might have for airspace around major airports. We
believe that we can develop some additional information that
will demonstrate that non tour aircraft amount to a minimal
amount of traffic over the park.
Regarding the other piece the courts asked us to look at,
which is aircraft on our airways over the park, we believe we
have tools that already measure the effect of aircraft at
altitude, and we believe we can demonstrate, that, again there
is a very minimal impact for aircraft passing at altitude over
the park. But we will have to look at how we can collect and
quantify that data, if we do, indeed, have to respond to that
element of the court decision.
Senator McCain. In your testimony, you state the quiet
technology rule is in, quote, ``final review.''
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. What does that mean? Former Administrator
Garvey responded to a letter I wrote and told me the rule was
in final coordination to implement the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000. Six months later, there has been no
action. What does ``final review'' mean, Ms. Gilligan?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, sir, actually we are required to review
our significant rules with the Department of Transportation and
in some cases even the Office of Management and Budget. This
rule has been with the Office of the Secretary.
We also now have a new Administrator in place. She has
asked that we brief her in detail on both the statutory
requirement and that final rule, and so we are trying to get on
her schedule to do that. Obviously, this hearing brought that
to her attention. She was very troubled that that rule
continues to be delayed, and we will be working with her to get
this out as quickly as we can now.
Senator McCain. So we do not know what final review means,
because you have to get on her schedule.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes. I have to schedule some time with her,
but I do not think that will be difficult. She is very aware of
your interest, and she is the one who has asked us to get on
her schedule, so I am sure we will do that shortly.
Senator McCain. Are there issues between the FAA and the
Park Service that have complicated and therefore delayed the
promulgation of the final rule?
Ms. Gilligan. Sir, I think, as you started in your earlier
comments, there is plenty of blame to go around. I think it is
certainly accurate to say that at the start of this process
that FAA was probably slow in getting involved as deeply as we
could have or should have. Having said that, we did then begin
to work with the Park Service.
Another complicating factor has been the evolution of the
measurement process around which there has been much discussion
and debate among technical people, and reaching conclusions on
those issues has been slow. But ultimately we and the Park
Service reached agreements, we got through the process, we
proposed to take action, and invariably everything we have done
has been litigated. So, each of the people you will hear from
today, both this panel and the next, has played a part in
causing this to be a very slow and cumbersome process.
Senator McCain. Once a final rule is issued, how soon will
the two agencies be ready to develop an air tour management
plan?
Ms. Gilligan. For the overflight statute we are well
prepared to begin to implement. We have spent the time while we
finalized the rule preparing extensive plans for how to
approach this. We have a program manager, as does the Park
Service. The individual superintendents and their FAA
counterparts have already been in touch, and so we are ready to
get going.
It will be an expensive process because, of course, for
each park there will be an environmental evaluation that will
need to be done, so we have also tried to add to our budget to
support that. We are ready to start those as soon as the rule
becomes final.
Senator McCain. Concerning the general overflights issue,
Ms. Gilligan, I have received reports that new air tour
operations have begun at certain national parks since the act
was passed in 2000. I have heard existing air tour operators
have expanded operations since the law was designed to impose a
moratorium on new or expanded operations, pending the
development of air tour management plans at affected parks. How
will the FAA deal with new or expanded operations once the
final rule has been issued?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, sir, once a rule is issued every tour
that is operating must, of course, apply for their interim
authorities, and we will be monitoring that process very
closely. I have not heard that there were new startup
operations. Certainly we will look into that when I get back to
the FAA, but the process is quite clear, very well set out in
the statute. The rule does require that operators identify
themselves and come in for their interim authorities within, I
believe it is 90 days of the publication date of the rule. From
that we will know what the scope of the potential operations
over a particular park might be as we do, then, the planning.
Senator McCain. Mr. Hoffman, do you believe that the issue
of quiet technology has been given enough priority in this
whole discussion?
Mr. Hoffman. I think it has taken a back seat to the
definition of substantial restoration of quiet. The people I
talked to indicate that quiet technology plays a very key role,
but in and of itself will not get us to substantial restoration
of quiet.
There are two ways to look at quiet technology. One is
quieter aircraft, the other is what they call noise efficiency.
In other words, maybe a larger aircraft carrying more people
making the same amount of noise might be a more cost-effective
and actually more substantive way to achieve quiet than
actually trying to implement whatever mechanical technology may
exist, but I do know that in the industry they are working on
quiet technology. I personally witnessed a demonstration of a
quiet technology helicopter here this spring, and I think they
are taking it very seriously at this time.
Senator McCain. My understanding is that with the proper
incentives there is quiet technology out there that could be
adopted by air tour operators if there were incentives for them
to do so, and that--well, I can assure you that that was the
intention of the authors of the legislation. I know it was for
Mo Udall and myself. I believe that it is an issue that should
be given more consideration as we go about trying to obtain
what all of us are seeking.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I sense the frustration in some of your
questions, and I share some of those same frustrations, as I
think almost everybody who has dealt with this issue shares
those frustrations.
I want to ask a couple of questions, and a lot of it does
have to do with the quiet technology, the rule now being 18
months overdue. Just to get a little more specific on that
rule, can you give us a guess on time line?
Ms. Gilligan. Sir, I found myself faced with this question
oftentimes in this kind of setting, and I can promise you that
it does have the Administrator's interest. She has been on the
job now for 3 weeks, and she has, as a result of this hearing,
come to understand that there is a rule, that we must pay
attention to. We have the mandate from her to get a focus on
this rule and get it moving, and we will do that as quickly as
we can.
Senator Ensign. When I was in business, or now when I run
my office, if I tell my staff, I want you to really get on
that, and I do not give them a time line, I find that things do
not get done.
Ms. Gilligan. I share your concern. There are people
beyond----
Senator Ensign. Do you have a goal for the time line?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes. I have a goal to get it out as soon as I
possibly can.
Senator Ensign. What does that mean? Soon could be 2 years
to some people.
Ms. Gilligan. I understand, and again I share the
frustration. Some of it involves individuals beyond the FAA.
For those, the Administrator is going to have to use her good
offices to influence decision making, and she has, I believe,
every intent to do that, and so it is beyond our control to set
a specific date, but I can assure you it is a project that we
are not going to let fall by the wayside. It is a project that
the Administrator will support pushing through the
administration as quickly as we possibly can, but I do not have
the ability to set the dates for others who are involved in the
process.
Senator Ensign. What are your goals, then, for the dates of
your part of the process?
Ms. Gilligan. Our rule is already out of the FAA. It is
already in the hands of others for their review. We have
accomplished that. Now we are going to see if we can get them
to set some time lines that we might be able to stick to.
Senator Ensign. According to the quiet aircraft technology,
if an air tour operator is not meeting that, there are the
caps. What are you doing about the caps? Do you have rules
proposed for the caps being alleviated for those people who are
able to meet those, or do we have to go through this again with
that rulemaking process?
Ms. Gilligan. No, sir. The statute in fact allows the link
between the use of quiet technology and the release from the
caps, and actually what we are going to set in the rule is a
performance standard. If you meet that standard, then the
aircraft will be determined to be quiet technology and, based
on that, the statute would allow for a change to the
limitations on the caps.
Senator Ensign. Getting to what Mr. Hoffman said, though,
when you just talked about--you know, one of the ways to meet
the quieter technology is to have a larger airplane, but it is
just as noisy. How do you certify that an aircraft is quieter
if it is just bigger?
Ms. Gilligan. Actually, the work that has been done in
support of this rule does, in fact, demonstrate that there is a
fairly natural cutoff among certain types of currently
operating aircraft, and so below the line they are
substantially quieter than aircraft that are above the line,
and that would be the standard that we would propose to set the
rule.
Senator Ensign. Maybe I am just not following in some way.
I understand normally defining--you have got above certain
decibels, it does not meet quiet below certain decibels, but
with what Mr. Hoffman said about, to meet that same amount of
noise during the day, you are looking at, instead of an
individual aircraft, you are looking at the total noise during
the day, and you could have something five times the size for
one aircraft, but it only goes in there a lot less often. Then
you could meet the total number for the day, but how does the
FAA define that as far as according to the caps and things?
In other words, now I am meeting the caps, but I take that
noisier airplane in there more often. I do not understand how
that squares.
Ms. Gilligan. Actually, I think again when the project is
published the data will show that there are some larger
aircraft that are also substantially more quiet, so you are
right--unfortunately, we have a really nice diagram that I am
sorry I did not bring,--there are some aircraft already in
operation that have a fairly high number of seats but are much
quieter than many of the other aircraft operating in the Grand
Canyon or over other parks.
Senator Ensign. Correct, but that is not what Mr. Hoffman
is saying. He is saying the same kind of airplane, noisier. You
would just make the point--and correct me if I am wrong, you
were making the point that total noise during the day, if you
bring in the same kind of noisy aircraft in but it is bigger,
but you bring it in less often--isn't that what you were
saying?
Mr. Hoffman. I am falling into the same trap of giving a
goal without necessarily a solution to getting there. It may be
that what we need to do is work together to look at noise per
air tour visitor kind of a measurement in order to do that. The
caps right now are on the number of aircraft operations, and
you are exactly right, that poses a significant challenge
there, so maybe we ought to look at caps in terms of numbers of
visitor flights so that you would have more visitor flights per
larger aircraft.
Senator Ensign. Whichever way we do it, I think what the
air tour operators are asking for is, they are just asking how
do we meet this? In other words, I am trying to write a
business plan, and I have got--I mean, I understand the concern
of people for quiet technology and all of that, wanting a
wonderful experience at the parks.
I do not like sitting in my backyard and having airplanes
fly over my backyard. I live near the North Las Vegas Airport,
and occasionally they direct the traffic over our backyard and
I do not like that, so I understand people do not like
overflights.
But at the same time I have got to be empathetic to the air
tour operators who are trying to run a business, and they are
just trying to say, hey, what are the rules and how do we meet
those rules and we will try to do our best. Is there
technology, what are the rules going to be? And I think that is
where the frustration of a lot of people is coming in, is that
every time they seem to be trying to meet something, the rules
seem to be maybe changing a little bit, sliding a little bit,
and I think that is where a lot of the frustration you are
hearing out there is coming from.
I asked this question--we had a hearing with Jim Hansen in
Southern Utah a few years ago on this same issue, and I would
ask the question, how many complaints a year does the National
Park Service get on noise complaints? Can you give me the
latest numbers on those?
Mr. Hoffman. I do not have those numbers available. I have
asked the Park Service to conduct a back country survey to
ascertain exactly what the visitor experience is at this point
in time, because that seems to me part and parcel with the
issue of restoration.
Senator Ensign. What about complaints that the Park Service
gets in without actually going out and asking?
Mr. Hoffman. That is a good question. I have not asked that
one. We will ask that and get you the answer.
Senator Ensign. How many visitors a year do they have?
Mr. Hoffman. 800,000 three years ago.
Senator Ensign. That is overflights. I am talking about
visitors to the park on the ground.
Mr. Hoffman. 5 million.
Senator Ensign. The reason I asked and bring up the
question is, I asked how many complaints that they were getting
a year, and they said between 20 and 25, and I said, 20 and
25,000 complaints a year, and they said, no, 20 to 25 out of 5
million, because I had just come out of the hotel industry. I
was thinking, 20, well, I would kind of take those numbers if I
had 5 million visitors a year, because the way that you
figure--I do not care whether it is Disneyland, what resort
industries you are in, when you have got the number of
complaints, they have got formulas to figure out actually how
many people--you multiply, usually, the number of complaints
for every one person that complains you figure about 20 people
would have complained, and so if we multiply that by 20, it is
still a pretty low number, in other words 400 to 500 out of 5
million.
So that was just--what are we doing with--I mean, we want
to restore as much as we can, possibly, there is no question
about that, but we have just got to be reasonable about this
thing and let us get it done so that people know how to run
their businesses.
Mr. Hoffman. There is a lot we can do in the area of
determining what the visitor experience is and how much we have
improved the visitor experience, and that certainly I believe
has a bearing on this.
Senator Ensign. If you could get me the numbers, because
things supposedly are better. We should have fewer complaints
than we had 4 or 5 years ago.
Mr. Hoffman. One would think.
Senator Ensign. If you could get me those numbers, I would
appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCain. I would just add, Senator Ensign, the
reason why Mo Udall and I passed this bill is because being
outside El Tobar Lodge was like being at the end of the runway
at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. I mean, it was disgraceful, and
it was in direct contradiction to Teddy Roosevelt's admonition
about our treatment of the park, so there was a reason for the
legislation being passed, and it was a serious reason, and the
air tour operators recently have been very helpful.
At first, they were entirely negative, and one of the
reasons why the 15 years has passed is because of the absolute
recalcitrance early on of the air tour operators, and I would
be glad to have Mr. Stephens, who I have dealt with for many
years, respond to that when he comes forward, but that has been
my experience as the author of the initial legislation.
I respect Teddy Roosevelt's admonition, and I am sure,
although he did not know that much about airplanes in those
days, he did not want a continuous, and it was continuous,
noise of helicopters and airplanes over the areas that were
most visited over the Grand Canyon. But I do agree with you; we
should be able to establish some balance here, and obviously
over 15 years we have been unable to so far, and I thank you
for your involvement in this issue.
Senator Ensign. And just real briefly, Mr. Chairman, if I
may, I have only been involved in it, obviously, a lot shorter
than you have been involved in it, and I understand that things
happen, because when I asked that question--it was just a few
years ago when we asked that question, and I think because of
your legislation things have improved. Now it is just a
question of finalizing everything.
Senator McCain. I thank you very much, Senator Ensign, and
again I hope, I know as an important member of this Committee
that we will continue to work together and try and get some
resolution of this issue.
I thank both of the witnesses. I understand that you are
giving this a very high priority. Please do not make us come
back with another hearing a year or so from now, and without
any progress being made. We owe our constituents and the
American people better service on this issue than they have
been getting.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Stephens of Grand Canyon Airways, Mr. Tom Robinson of
the Grand Canyon Trust, and Mr. Steve Bosak of the National
Parks Conservation Association are our next witnesses. Welcome
to all three witnesses. Mr. Stephens, if you would like to
proceed, then Mr. Robinson and Mr. Bosak.
STATEMENT OF ALAN R. STEPHENS, VICE PRESIDENT, GRAND CANYON
AIRLINES, CEO, TWIN OTTER INTERNATIONAL, ON BEHALF OF UNITED
STATES AIR TOUR ASSOCIATION
Mr. Stephens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I submit my prepared
statement, that outlines my 20-year history of my personal
involvement in Grand Canyon over flights. I am reminded that,
Ed Norton and I, together testified before the various enabling
Committees back in 1986 leading to the 1987 Overflight Act and,
as I outlined in our testimony, we saw early on that the debate
between the Park Service and Native Americans, the
environmental representatives and the air tour operators was
contentious, it was unrelenting, it was unfocused, and through
it all we had to have two things happen: We had to bring safety
to air touring over Grand Canyon, and we had to bring a
restoration of natural quiet.
Your example of El Tovar is a good example, because that is
exactly where we flew. By the air traffic protocol that we had
to follow then, we finished our air tours of the Grand Canyon
over El Tovar and the South Rim Village. Whether we flew from
Las Vegas or out of Tuyasan, we came right up the middle of the
canyon, right over the top of Phantom Ranch, right over the top
of the South Rim Village. That resulted in 1,000, 1,200 written
aircraft noise complaints a year that the Park Service was
receiving and when we had to bring to an end complaints over
aircraft sound. To my lasting chagrin, we never really defined
what natural quiet was, but we agreed to restore it at Grand
Canyon.
There is nothing in the Congressional Record about natural
quiet. No questions about natural quiet were asked. None of us
that testified at the time talked to the concept of natural
quiet. I think in my own mind it just meant visitor experience,
that we needed to provide for a balance between competing uses,
and that if we established a limited number of routes instead
of random flying over the Grand Canyon, if we selected where we
flew so we did not go over impact areas--we recognized that
there was going to be areas of the canyon that would have some
air tour noise, but it would be minimal to the vast majority of
ground visitors. That was in my mind how to achieve natural
quiet.
We were the first organization to come out for special use
air space so there would be a regulatory scheme at the Grand
Canyon for making sure the air tour operators complied, and of
course we supported the 1987 legislation. I have been also a
strong proponent of the regulatory negotiation process. As you
may recall, Senator, you asked us, the environmental community
and the air tour people, to come together I believe it was in
1996 in Phoenix. You were with us by telephone. You asked us to
see if we could find middle ground. We could not at that time.
It was very frustrating.
Subsequent to that, because of President Clinton's
executive order mandating that there be some regulatory scheme
for national parks Nation-wide, a regulatory advisory Committee
was created that had four representatives of the environmental
community, one of the business community, one of the Native
American community, and four of us on the aviation side. We
were successful in coming together in a regulatory negotiation.
It was contentious. But it was a learning process for all of us
in understanding how the Park Service manages the national
parks.
The environmentalists I think learned a lot about how we,
the air tour industry, operate under a regulatory scheme at the
FAA. I have outlined this in the testimony. We were successful
in coming up with an air tour management plan process which,
through your leadership, was enacted in law. As a result of
that success, the Park Service and FAA invited us, again the
environmental community, the Native Americans, and the air tour
interests, to come together in a regulatory negotiation for
Grand Canyon. I believe it was summer of 1998, and we did, in
Flagstaff.
And my recollection of that meeting is pretty firm. We on
the air tour side were willing to sit down and put everything
on the table, the number of routes, hours of operation, number
of flights but that we needed to bring the Grand Canyon
overflight matter to final resolution. It was evident that we
were going down a road that was leading nowhere. Unfortunately
the other side, the environmental interests, and not
necessarily these gentlemen on the panel with me today, but
representing organizations they represent, those
representatives at the Flagstaff meeting felt that they could
not represent their organizations and commit to a regulatory
negotiating alternate dispute mechanism, or whatever you want
to call it for Grand Canyon.
My view is, we would not be here today in 2002 had we been
able to sit down then and hammer this thing out the same way we
were able to hammer out in about a 15-month period the national
overflight regulations.
I would like to just conclude with one thing that I believe
you understand, and understand as well as anybody, if not
better than most. Grand Canyon Airlines in the 1985 time frame
was operating very noisy single engine Cessna 207s with just
seven passenger seats. We were flying 10,000 flights a year.
The owners of Grand Canyon Airlines, Elling Halvorson and John
Siebold, felt strongly that we had to do something about air
tour sounds outside the regulatory scheme of the FAA and Park
Service. John and Elling developed the Vistaliner, which of
course has become the predominant air tour plane of Grand
Canyon, and it employs quiet aircraft technology.
We went from approximately 10,000 flights a year with the
207s to about half that number of flights with the Vistaliner,
and actually hit our peak in passengers flown in the early
1990s with about 6,000 flights annually. We have never flown as
many air tour flights as we were flying at the time that the
National Parks Overflight Act was enacted. And today, because
of the nature of the caps, arbitrarily picked--the cap number
was the actual number of air tour flight flown from April of
1997 to May of 1998, we were locked into 3,165 flights, less
flights that Grand Canyon Airlines has flown for almost 25
years. But the thing that is very frustrating is that we took
the time to go into larger airplanes for less flights and
developed quiet aircraft technology, and we have been a real
proponent for recognizing that. But that voluntary effort has
never been recognized in Grand Canyon air tour flight caps.
All these air tour regulations at Grand Canyon since 1987
have always treated all aircraft flying at Grand Canyon the
same. We are under the same restrictions. We have no
incentives, and I think that is time that something be done. I
appreciated the recommendations that came from the Government
witnesses this morning, but again I want to thank you and give
you a little bit of my feeling on this matter after twenty
years. Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer
any questions you and Senator Ensign may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan R. Stephens, Vice President, Grand Canyon
Airlines, CEO, Twin Otter International, on behalf of United States Air
Tour Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Alan R. Stephens,
vice president of Grand Canyon Airlines, an air tour operator at Grand
Canyon National park. I also serve as chief executive officer of Twin
Otter International, Las Vegas, NV, a leasing company that produces
deHavill and Twin Otter aircraft in ``Vistaliner'' configuration used
widely for aerial sightseeing, particularly at Grand Canyon. The
Vistaliner employs quiet aircraft technology that we developed in
making the Vistaliner among the quietest air tour aircraft flying
today.
This hearing seeks testimony on the current rules and restrictions
governing overflight of national parks and public lands. I would like
to address that by speaking specifically first to the status of the
rules at Grand Canyon and what impact these rules have had on the air
tour business. Then I will address our thoughts on the process that is
in place to manage air tours over national parks nationwide.
Grand Canyon Overflight Regulations
I have spent the better part of the past two decades seeking to
preserve a meaningful air tour experience at Grand Canyon while I have
staunchly advocated air tour regulations that reasonably protect Grand
Canyon ground visitors from aircraft sounds. It is in that context I
speak today in total frustration about how our government has long ago
lost its way in developing fair air tour management rules.
I first became involved in Grand Canyon overflight issues in the
mid-1980's. There was no special use airspace designated then by which
air tour operators were regulated. Therefore individual operators were
free to fly whatever routes at whatever altitudes they desired
regardless of how those routes impacted sensitive visitor rim, trail,
and river activities and the historical and cultural sites within and
around Grand Canyon. The debate between the Park Service, environmental
and native-American interests and the air tour industry on how to deal
with overflights at the time was heated, unfocused and unending. That
controversy was not good for air tour business because we were not
perceived as good neighbors yet many in our industry felt that the
flight restrictions that were being proposed would soon put them out of
business.
Despite that debate, some of us in the air tour business recognized
that something had to be done. The companies with whom I am associated
were the first in the industry to seek creation of a special use
airspace over Grand Canyon. We recognized that it was necessary for air
safety reasons to restrict the number of, and to provide for, separate
routes for fix wing and helicopter operators, and to establish minimum
operating altitudes and aircraft position reporting protocols.
Importantly we felt that all air tours over Grand Canyon had to be
regulated under the commercial aviation rules of Part 135 so operators
would comply with commercial aviation standards for flight crew
qualification and training. Under Part 135 and its power to bring
certificate action, FAA could also enforce strict compliance with the
Grand Canyon overflight regulations.
Our companies recognized that there needed to be finality in the
debate over aircraft sound impact. We actively supported the passage of
legislation that had as its objective substantial restoration of
natural quiet and visitor experience at Grand Canyon. I so testified
before this Senate Committee then and it became law as the National
Parks Overflights Act of 1987.
The resulting air tour regulations at Grand Canyon are known today
as special use airspace, ``SFAR 50-2.'' This rule has resulted in air
tours being conducted for the past decade and a half in a safe and
efficient manner for the confidence of the flying public. The route
restrictions and establishment of flight-free zones have resulted in a
stunning decline in visitor complaints over aircraft sound, from over
1,000 annually to about two dozen per year and that decline in noise
complaints comes even as park visitation has doubled from 2.5 to about
5 million persons annually. Vast stretches of Grand Canyon are free
today from air tour overflight and for the vast majority of Grand
Canyon National Park visitors, air tour aircraft are inaudible.
Unfortunately, that result has not satisfied the critics of air
tours at Grand Canyon and debate over ``substantial restoration'' and
``natural quiet'' has raged on. Over the years there have been numerous
public hearings, congressional inquiries, sound studies, policy
determinations and rulemakings and I have participated actively in
virtually all of them. Unfortunately these actions have resulted in
ever more severe and I believe largely unwarranted air tour flight
restrictions. Let me cite a few examples:
The most popular air tour route, Las Vegas to the Grand
Canyon-South Rim, has been eliminated affecting 400,000 air
tour passengers annually.
Curfews have been imposed on South Rim-originating air
tours that are neither tied to the hours of sunrise and sunset
or dates for observing daylight savings; meanwhile motorized
raft trips are free to operate during periods of the day air
tours cannot.
NPS would have the North Rim of Grand Canyon off-limits to
air tours even though the North Rim is closed to ground
visitors seven months per year because it is impassible due to
snow.
Caps on operations have been imposed unrelated to
historical levels of activity leaving my company, Grand Canyon
Airlines, limited to less than half the number of air tour
flights than it conducted a decade earlier and despite our use
of quiet aircraft.
Quiet aircraft technology to us has always been a key in permitting
quality air tours over Grand Canyon to continue, while reducing air
tour aircraft audibility to an acceptable level for most ground
visitors. Quiet aircraft technology does not render any aircraft
absolutely quiet and some of our critics are fond of saying so in
opposition to quiet aircraft incentives. Yet, the flaw in such thinking
is that the whole air tour regulatory scheme at Grand Canyon since 1987
has been that air tour restrictions have been applied without regard to
how noisy or how quiet any particular air tour aircraft may be.
We were particularly pleased . . . and hopeful . . . when this
Senate Committee initiated legislation in 1999 to require NPS and FAA
to define quiet aircraft and provide meaningful incentives for air tour
operators of conventional aircraft to retrofit them with quiet aircraft
technology. I am sure you are as acutely aware, as we are, that two and
one half years after the President signed that legislation into law,
all we have to show for quiet aircraft technology is a report to
Congress from FAA that it cannot comply with your directive.
This continuing debate over substantial restoration of natural
quiet at Grand Canyon rages because each time the National Park Service
sets out its definition, NPS inevitably changes that definition to ever
lower thresholds of air tour sound detection. Even now, the noise
modeling used by NPS at Grand Canyon has not been validated (by NPS's
own admission in the Federal Register Notice that established minus 8
dB below ambient for measuring natural quiet) nor are the regulations
for air tour restrictions final. Instead the latest round of flight
restrictions we have fought so hard over these past four years would be
only interim measures until a final ``Comprehensive Noise Management
Plan'' for Grand Canyon is developed. I am no expert in the science of
sound. As a layman, I suspect that as long as our aircraft are audible,
no matter how quiet and far removed from the sites ground visitors
frequent at Grand Canyon, we will NEVER satisfy the National Park
Service and our environmental critics until air tours are eliminated
entirely at Grand Canyon.
This is particularly troubling to me because I remember my
discussions with Senate and House Committee chairs, Senator Dale
Bumpers and Representative Bruce Vento regarding passage of the
National Parks Overflight Act. I was assured that the legislation in no
way was intended to put air tour operators at Grand Canyon out of
business but that Congress had serious concerns over air tour flight
safety and air tour aircraft sound it wanted FAA and NPS to address.
Those problems were largely resolved by SFAR 50-2. Thus, its time to
bring this matter to an end by adopting a set of reasonable and final
air regulations based on real-world measurement of air tour aircraft
sound and incentives for air tour operators to employ only quiet
aircraft.
National Parks Overflight Management
President Clinton in 1996 signed an Executive Order directing the
Departments of Interior and Transportation to develop a framework for
regulating air tour activity over national parks nationwide. Wisely,
these agencies recognized that the best chance for enacting such rules
in a timely manner was to bring NPS and FAA together with aviation,
environmental and native-American interests in developing such national
air tour regulations. Thus the National Parks Overflight Working Group
(NPOWG) was commissioned and I am proud that I was asked to serve as a
member of that federal advisory Committee.
NPOWG worked because we all had a stake in the outcome of that
process. Aviation members proposed that air tours nationwide be
regulated using the Grand Canyon model: that air tours would be flown
under FAA Part 135 rules and Operations Specifications that would
prescribe tour routes, altitudes, and frequencies. Environmental and
native-American interests brought to the table expertise regarding the
mandate of the NPS to preserve and protect national park resources and
sensitive historical and cultural sites within or adjacent to our
national Parks. We all recognized that air tour regulation had to be
developed in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA). We argued, but resolved, the matter of lead authority and
cooperating authority of the Federal Agencies and what objectives were
to be achieved in regulating national park air tours . Our sessions
were fractious, but productive. We finally agreed that air tours over
National Parks should be permitted, but not in all circumstances, and
that air tours should be conducted in accordance with the reasons our
national parks were established; to protect for future generations
unimpaired their unique resources whether geological, biological,
historical or cultural.
The product of NPOWG, the ``Air Tour Management Plan'' (ATMP)
process was not perfect, but we felt it was workable. We recommended
that it become a matter of federal law and that the same interests,
aviation, environmental and native-American, continue to have an
advisory role in its implementation. Once again, this Senate Committee
led the way in introducing that legislation and it too was signed into
law two and one half years ago in the same legislation that provided
for revitalizing our aviation infrastructure and directed FAA to adopt
quiet aircraft incentives at Grand Canyon. Like we have proposed for so
long as a solution in mitigating air tour sounds at Grand Canyon, NPOWG
adopted strong language in support of quiet aircraft incentives as good
public policy.
Unfortunately, the Air Tour Management Plan process has yet to be
implemented at any national park and we await publication of the final
rules that will define what types of operations over National Parks
will come under it. FAA and NPS have established the advisory group as
Congress directed, the National Park Overflight Advisory Group (NPOAG),
of which I am a member. In fact, I am leaving here immediately today to
return to Grand Canyon to attend the second meeting of NPOAG being held
tomorrow at which time I expect to learn what progress FAA and NPS have
made in implementing the ATMP process.
Throughout the nearly two decades I have spent representing the air
tour industry, I have always felt that aerial sightseeing was an
environmentally sensitive and appropriate manner for national park
visitation. Air touring permits visitors to appreciate the unique
reasons our national parks have been established by seeing often remote
and/or inaccessible sites and features. Air tours are consistent with
the NPS mandate to protect and preserve park resources impaired for
future generations since air tour passengers impose no long lasting
impact on, or demand for, park resources. Air tourists require no roads
or trails, campsites or sanitation services, leave no garbage, pick no
flowers and take no souvenirs. Although aircraft sound is the sole
short-coming of air visitation, air tour sound is temporary and can be
mitigated by choosing appropriate routes and altitudes so any
associated sound impact is brief, if not virtually inaudible, for the
vast majority of park ground visitors.
That said, I recognize that there are times and places where air
touring may not always be appropriate over national parks and public
lands. I will continue to represent our industry's interests but with a
keen appreciation for the concerns of others over how air tours can
have adversely affects if not regulated properly. You have my word that
I will continue to be committed to seeing through those objectives for
Grand Canyon and as we apply the ATMP process to other national park
locations.
Thank you for your interest in our testimony. I am pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Stephens. I have appreciated
the dialogue and communication we have had over a number of
years, and I thank you for your contribution to it.
Mr. Robinson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF TOM ROBINSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
GRAND CANYON TRUST
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Senator McCain, Senator Ensign for
the opportunity to testify on the status of the effort to
restore the precious resource of natural quiet to a place that
was once thought of as one of the quietest places on earth, the
Grand Canyon. Before I actually read some of my testimony, I
would like to speak directly to the issue of both quiet and
quieter technology, because it is obviously, from what I am
hearing, the most germane issue on the table right now, and
maybe not surprisingly, maybe surprisingly, I want to start out
by totally agreeing with what Alan just said. Alan flies what
the FAA will probably at least certify as, if not the quietest
plane in the air, at least the first step to what will
eventually be the quietest plane in the air, and I believe that
we do need to finish this quiet technology/quieter technology
efficiency rulemaking process sooner rather than later.
Quiet and efficient airplanes will not, in and of
themselves, satisfy the noise problems, but they are key
ingredients, because developing quiet technology is an
expensive undertaking. Companies want regulatory certainty,
obviously, before they make the financial investments in
quieter helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Some of these
companies like Alan Brenda at Papillon have already started to
do that.
According to the May issue of Rotor and Wing Magazine, and
here is a quote: ``The quiet and quieter helicopters is nothing
if not easier and cheaper to promote than to achieve. Every new
decibel down costs much more than the last. It is a very
expensive proposition.'' I think that the agencies believe that
there is probably more hope in efficiency than there is in
quiet technology, and in fact Alan's planes probably represent
the most efficient technology in the air. They seat 19 people,
which is a lot of people and, in fact, they are quieter than
other airplanes.
I believe that particularly given the latest court
decision, that eventually the numbers of flights will probably
have to come down. These are hard decisions that will be made
by the agencies. One of the least painful approaches would be
if some of these companies are going to go out of business for
financial reasons, shouldn't those operation caps be reverted
to the Government, the FAA, the Park Service, whomever? That is
a fairly painless approach.
A big question I have is, should all companies be treated
equally? Why should Alan receive the same noise cap
restrictions that companies that have made no attempt to invest
in technology receive? I do not believe he should.
Another issue which is obviously very touchy is, not all
companies are paying the fees that are mandated. This has been
through litigation. I went through a report recently that shows
there are 6 or 7 companies that are not paying their fees. Alan
is not one of them, and I am wondering if perhaps, given how
tight things are, and how precious caps are in the Grand
Canyon, why should Alan be penalized the same as companies that
are not paying their fees? I feel very strongly about that one.
Getting back to the main body of my testimony, I would like
to send three messages here to the FAA and the Park Service
responsible for this process. 15 years is too long. Senator
McCain already said that. We should not have to rely on
litigation to move this process. The Federal appeals court has
finally lost its patience, and they have made it very clear
they will not tolerate further delay and, in fact, they will be
looking very closely at even the science that will be
developed, because they are very sensitive to political
pressure that happens to agencies.
This Committee will have to continue its oversight. I
believe that that is particularly important, given the
different missions of the two agencies involved, if we are to
move beyond what I would call their very dysfunctional working
relationship over the past 15 years.
The last message is once again to the industry. The legal
uncertainty I believe that has clouded this process is behind
us now for the most part and I believe, as Alan does, that it
is time to work together. Perhaps 3 or 4 years ago it was not
so right, because partly people thought they could do a better
job in court. That is the classic approach to mediation. If
people think they are going to get a better deal outside of the
table, they wait. I do not really believe the courts have much
role anymore now.
Speaking to a couple of key issues, the comprehensive noise
management plan for substantial restoration of quiet in the
Grand Canyon has not been released. This was to have been the
core plan for which real improvements were to have been made,
sequenced, and quantitatively assessed for achieving the final
2008 restoration of natural quiet at the canyon. This plan has
not yet been developed, and it will most likely require at
least 2 years before such a plan reaches an operative stage.
What is most outrageous is that the FAA has failed to input
and aggregate for analysis any of the quarterly reports
covering a \1/4\ million tour operations. The reports of
individual operators have simply piled up in boxes. I believe
there may be some progress now. I do not really know if the FAA
can speak to that. There is no up-to-date record of trends and
noise impacts for any day, season, or other period during the
past 3 years. This lack of analysis guarantees the 2-year trial
for the cap on operations cannot be reviewed. It guarantees the
FAA cannot even evaluate flight congestion as promised in the
rule. It is critical to computing the noise and percent
substantially restored.
The East End route date, the target date for the much-
delayed East End routes, which should have been done in 1997,
is delayed. Much of the noise impact from air tours is
experienced in the back country, on the rims, along the river
at this end of the park. Further progress is clearly needed
here.
I would like to conclude with a quote from Arizona's
largest newspaper and, in fact, this issue has had so much
coverage since August with the court decision that I could have
listed any one of many editorials. ``The canyon is anything but
quiet. It is not even close to the tranquility that Congress
envisioned for a meaningful experience for visitors. 15 years
is much too long to wait for a quieter park and richer
experience.'' This was written by the Arizona Republic, August
20, 2002.
I will agree that progress has been made, but not nearly as
much as should have been made in 15 years.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement by Tom Robinson, Director of Government Affairs,
Grand Canyon Trust
Thank you Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller,
Senator Hutchison, and other Members of the Senate Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee for the opportunity to testify on the
status of the effort to restore the precious resource of natural quiet
to a place that was once thought of as one of the quietest places on
earth, the Grand Canyon.
My testimony today is intended to send three messages. The first
message is to the FAA and the NPS, which are responsible for restoring
natural quiet to the Grand Canyon. Fifteen years is way too long. We
should not have to rely on litigation to move this process forward. The
Federal Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, in its landmark
August opinion, has demonstrated that it, too, has lost patience with
this process and will not tolerate further delay or any effort by the
NPS and the FAA to weaken the planning process or the effort to include
meaningful science in this process. The second message is to our
elected representatives responsible for overseeing the NPS and the FAA.
Your continued oversight will be necessary to ensure that these two
agencies, with very different missions, finally move beyond their
dysfunctional working relationship. Finally, the last message is to the
air tour industry. The legal uncertainty that has clouded this process
is now behind us and the parameters have been set. It is now time to
work together. The FAA and the National Park Service need our help as
they both search for creative solutions and at the same time face some
very difficult decisions.
The Work Ahead of us
On May 1, 2002, the FAA and the Park Service were to have completed
a comprehensive noise management plan for the substantial restoration
of natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. This plan was promised in the
1996 Final Rule Preambles (from Federal Register, Dec. 31, 1996, Vol.
61, No. 252 at pages 69328 and 69329). The rule states that . . .on May
1, 2002, we are supposed to move clearly from the 5-year ``interim''
phase to a ``plan implementation'' . . . phase. This was to have been
the core plan by which ``real improvements'' were to have been
sequenced and quantitatively assessed for achieving the final April
2008 restoration of natural quiet deadline for the Grand Canyon.
Unfortunately, this plan has not yet been developed and it will most
likely require at least two years before such a plan reaches an
``operative'' stage.
During the past three plus years, the FAA has failed to input, and
aggregate for analysis, any of the quarterly reports covering a quarter
million tour operations. The reports of individual operators have
simply piled up in boxes in the FAA's Las Vegas FSDO office. Thus, the
FAA has no up-to-date record of air tour trends and/or noise impacts
for any day, season, or other period during the past three plus years.
This lack of analysis guarantees that the two-year trial term for the
cap on flight operations cannot be reviewed. It also guarantees that
the FAA cannot evaluate ``flight congestion'' as promised in the rule,
as a matter of safety. This data is absolutely critical to computing
the noise and the ``percent substantially restored.''
Another missing component is the noise model validation report and
conclusion, which is based on sound monitoring studies at Grand Canyon
National Park in the fall of 1999. Originally, this should have been
prepared by spring 2000 to ground-truth the currently used model.
However, the Park Service did not receive the final report from the
contractor (HMMH) until June 5, 2002. Without this, there can be no
determination about the noise levels. The release of this report will
be a milestone in the scoring of substantial restoration.
Late September of 2002 was the target date for the much-delayed
``East End Routes'', which should have been developed in 1997. Most of
the noise impact from air tours is experienced in the backcountry, on
the rims, and along the river at this end of the park. Further progress
is needed here if substantial restoration is to be achieved.
Finally, there are still no ``quiet technology'' (noise efficiency)
specifications and/or rule. Although quieter helicopters and airplanes
will not, in themselves, solve the noise problem, they are key
ingredients. Because developing quieter technology is an expensive
undertaking, companies want regulatory certainty before they make the
financial investment in quieter helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
According to the May issue of Rotor and Wing magazine, ``the quiet in
quiet helicopters is nothing if not easier and cheaper to promote than
to achieve . . . every new decibel down costs much more than the last .
. . it's a very expensive proposition.''
I would like to conclude my testimony with a quote from Arizona's
largest newspaper, the Arizona Republic, August 20, 2002.
``The canyon is anything but quiet. It's not even close to the
tranquility that Congress envisioned for a meaningful
experience for visitors . . . Fifteen years is much too long to
wait for a quieter park and a richer experience.''
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Robinson, and thank you for
all that the Grand Canyon Trust does for the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Bosak.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN BOSAK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF VISITOR
EXPERIENCE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL PARKS
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bosak. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Senator Ensign, thank
you for the opportunity to present the views of the National
Parks Conservation Association on the management of air tours
in our national parks.
My name is Steven Bosak. I am the associate director for
visitor experience programs at NPCA. We are America's only
nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting,
preserving, and enhancing the national park system. I have
submitted written testimony which I wish to be entered into the
record.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
commitment to this important issue. The Committee has
contributed greatly to our country's national park legacy by
protecting the natural quiet in our national parks with past
air tour overflight legislation, and I also wanted to say that
I am honored to share this panel today with others who care
deeply about our national parks. I think we all want to see
progress here, and I do not dispute that.
Congress elevated two basic principles when it passed the
overflights act of 1987 and the Parks Air Tour Management Act
of 2001, that the sounds of nature are among the inherent
components of the scenery and the natural and historic objects
and the wildlife that form the core of the National Parks
Service's conservation mandate. Second, within units of the
national park system, natural quiet and the opportunity to
experience natural sounds shall be preserved unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations. These two principles embody
the most fundamental purposes of the National Park Service
Organic Act, and they reflect the act's enduring importance to
the world today.
Taken together, the Overflights and Air Tour Management
Acts require the Park Service to exercise some control with the
assistance of FAA over the commercial air tours that fly over
the national parks. Both acts ordered a high level of agency
cooperation. Unfortunately, that cooperation seems to have been
difficult for both agencies.
You stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, that there has been much
delay in the implementation of both air tour laws. We are very
concerned that it has been nearly 2\1/2\ years since the
passage of the Air Tour Management Act, and that there is no
final rule out that defines the air space over national parks
regulated by that act. I understand that the FAA says that now
that rule is under final review. We would hope the Subcommittee
demands a commitment from the FAA on the release date as well
as an explanation, a better explanation for this prolonged
delay.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, many parties have contributed to
the delay in this issue, but the conservation community does
believe that FAA's reluctance to follow the intent of these
laws and apply appropriate resources has been a major stumbling
block. Our past involvement in lawsuits was to ensure that the
intent of Congress was followed.
We are particularly concerned about the delayed Air Tour
Management Act rule because we see air tour operations
increasing over other national parks. As you has mentioned
earlier, parks such as Yellowstone and Grand Teton are now
facing new air tour operations. Air tour overflights continue
to be a problem over parks such as Hawaii Volcanoes, Glacier in
Montana, and Acadia National Park in Maine. It is a nationwide
problem.
The parks Air Tour Management Act sought to avoid the
unmanaged growth of air tour industry by forbidding the start
of new operations over any park until the park had completed an
air tour management plan, but parks cannot start air tour
management plans until that air space rule is out.
I wish to submit to the record some written testimony from
citizens near some of the national parks that are affected by
this issue. Their comments attest to the frustration felt in
local communities by those seeking to reduce the impact of air
tours on park visitors and park neighbors. To prevent further
delays in the implementation of both acts, Congress must keep a
close eye on both agencies with a keen eye on which agency
determines the standards and measurements used to assess air
tour impacts on our parks. This issue has dogged the entire
process. The recent decision that Mr. Robinson referred to
earlier by the U.S. Court of Appeals was clear. FAA must give
deference to the Park Service on the issue of natural quiet
standards.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Ensign, park visitors want to hear
the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the canyon by
2008. They want to see the National Parks Air Tour Management
Act implemented in a timely fashion, and NPCA would like to see
the air tour industry receive genuine incentives so they can
see a future in cooperating fully in a program that enables
their clients to enjoy the views from above while providing the
national park visitors on the ground the opportunity to
experience the undisturbed natural sounds in the parks.
We respectfully ask the Subcommittee to ensure that neither
agency repeat the mistakes of the past. They must adjust their
priorities and resources so that we can deal proactively with
air tour management nationwide as Congress intended. I also ask
the Subcommittee to consider in my written testimony a number
of tasks and goals for the agencies that we feel are critical
to breaking this cycle of delay.
In conclusion, I should emphasize that NPCA is not opposed
to air tours over national parks per se. We do, however, feel
that air tours over some park units are inappropriate, and we
will participate in the air tour management process to express
those views. It is critical the FAA and National Park Service
fulfill the will of Congress by moving quickly on the
implementation of these laws and by managing these issues
proactively.
The FAA's role should be ensuring safety, the Park
Service's role should be determining the impact on national
park visitors and values. This is the intent of both laws.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share our
views.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bosak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Bosak, Associate Director of Visitor
Experience Programs, National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA) on the management of tour aircraft flying over the
national parks and the delay in implementing both the National Parks
Overflight Act of 1987 (Pub.L. 100-91) and the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000 (Pub.L. 106-181). My name is Steven Bosak. I am
the Associate Director of Visitor Experience programs for NPCA,
America's only nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to
protecting, preserving and enhancing the National Park System.
I want to thank the Chairman and Senator McCain for your commitment
to this important issue. This Subcommittee has contributed greatly to
our country's national park legacy by protecting the natural quiet and
natural soundscapes in our national parks with past air tour overflight
legislation.
Significance of Air Tour Legislation to National Parks
Congress elevated two basic principles when it passed the Parks
Overflight Act of 1987 and the Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.
First: The sounds of nature are among the inherent components of the
``scenery and the natural and the historic and the wild life therein,''
which form the core of the National Park Service's conservation
mandate. Second: Within units of the National Park System, natural
quiet--the opportunity to experience natural sounds--shall be preserved
``unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' These two
principles embody the most fundamental purposes of the National Park
Service Organic Act of 1916, and reflect the Act's enduring importance
for the world today. Taken together, these two Acts both enable and
require the Park Service to exercise some regulatory authority, with
the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration, over the
commercial air tours that fly over national parks. Both Acts broke new
ground in ordering a high level of agency cooperation. Unfortunately,
this cooperation has been difficult for both agencies, resulting in
delays in implementing the intent of Congress.
Cause and Impacts of Delay
As this Committee is well aware, it has been more than 15 years
since the passage of the Parks Overflight Act, which specifically
directed the Park Service and FAA to provide for the ``substantial
restoration of natural quiet'' in the Grand Canyon. Yet the
excruciatingly slow pace at which the Overflights Act and the Air Tour
Management Act are being implemented contributes to the frustration and
uncertainty for park visitors and air tour operators alike. While the
Park Service bears some blame for the lack of progress, it has been our
experience that the FAA has been reluctant to follow the intent of
these laws and apply the appropriate resources to complete rulemakings
in a timely and efficient manner.
It has been two and a half years since Congress passed the Air Tour
Management Act, but the FAA has yet to release the final rule that
would complete the definition of regulated airspace over national
parks. This is a non-controversial rule that mostly enacts language
already recommended by the National Parks Overflight Working Group, a
federally convened advisory group made up of representatives from the
air tour industry, the conservation community, Native American tribal
governments, and the Park Service and FAA. NPCA has submitted comments
to the FAA in support of the draft language (U.S. DOT Docket No. FAA-
2001-8690).
Our concern over the delayed rule is intensified by what we have
observed around the country over the past few years: That air tour
operations over national parks are increasing, and in some cases new
air tour operations have sprung up over parks where no air tours
previously operated. Parks such as Yellowstone and Grand Teton are now
facing new air tour operations. Air tour overflights continue to be a
problem over parks such as Hawaii Volcanoes, Bryce Canyon in Utah, and
Glacier National Park in Montana. These parks are all on the Park
Service's priority list of units requiring air tour management plans.
An NPCA survey of national park superintendents in 1998 found that
55 park units reported adverse impacts from air tour overflights. That
figure represents an increase in park air tour overflights from surveys
we conducted 1994 and 1996.\1\ As you recall, the Parks Air Tour
Management Act sought to avoid the unmanaged growth of the air tour
industry over parks and specifically forbade the start of new
operations over any park until the park had completed an air tour
management plan. The FAA, however, will not commence the air tour
management planning process in any park until the delayed ``airspace''
rule is finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A National Park Service survey of its units for its 1994 report
to Congress of the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park
System found that 42 park units experienced commercial air tour
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached to my testimony is additional testimony I wish to submit
for the record on behalf of citizens living near some of these affected
national parks. These comments I am submitting attest to the
frustration felt in local communities by those who are seeking to
reduce the impact of air tour overflights on park visitors and park
neighbors.
Meeting Congressional Intent
To prevent further delays in the implementation of both Acts,
Congress must keep a close watch on both agencies, with a keen eye on
which agency determines the standards and measurements used to assess
air tour noise impacts on the parks. The intent of Congress seemed
clear enough. In Section 3(b)(1) and (b)(2) of P.L. 100-91, Congress
required FAA to `issue a final plan for management of air traffic in
the air space above the Grand Canyon that implements the
recommendations of the Secretary (of Interior) without change unless
FAA determines that those recommendations would adversely affect
aviation safety.' But still the question regarding which agency
determines impacts has dogged the entire process. The conservation
community took the issue to court to provide clarification. The recent
decision in U.S. Air Tour Association v. FAA by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit should provide clarity to both agencies
and motivation for finishing the job expeditiously.
That decision directed the FAA to give deference to the Park
Service as it reconsiders its position on the standard for assessing
restoration of natural quiet and the measurement of aviation noise in
the Grand Canyon. Among other things, the court called upon the
agencies to:
Apply the ``Peak Day'' standard in place of the ``Average
Day'' standard for assessing progress towards substantial
restoration of natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. Judge Garland
noted in the court decision that ``People do not visit the Park
on `average' days, nor do they stay long enough to benefit from
averaging noise over an entire year. For the typical visitor,
who visits the Grand Canyon for just a few days during the peak
summer season, the fact that the Park is quiet `on average' is
cold comfort.''
Measure all aviation noise sources above the Grand Canyon
when assessing progress towards substantial restoration of
natural quiet.
Park visitors want to see progress at the Grand Canyon; we want the
Park Service to realize the goal of ``substantial restoration of
natural quiet'' to the Canyon by 2008. We also want to see the air tour
industry receive genuine incentives so that they can see a future in
cooperating fully in a program that enables their clients to enjoy the
views from above while providing the national park visitor on the
ground the opportunity to experience the undisturbed natural sounds of
the Canyon. Those incentives, though--be they in the form of so-called
``quiet technology'' or ``noise efficiency'' regulations--must be fair
and reasonable not just to air tour operators, but also to the national
park visitors who visit the front and backcountry of national parks
with the expectation of experiencing undisturbed natural sounds.
NPCA and its members also want to see forward movement on the
implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act. We
respectfully ask the Committee to help ensure that neither agency
repeats the mistakes of the past. Air tour management must receive the
appropriate level of priority and allocation of resources so that we
can deal proactively with air tour management nationwide, as Congress
intended. We respectfully ask the Subcommittee to help ensure that the
following goals are met to assist in the preservation of natural quiet
in our national parks and restoration of natural quiet to the Grand
Canyon:
Release of the National Parks Air Tour Management final
rule: The FAA must release this rule as soon as possible; a
two-year delay is unacceptable. The rule will define the air
space over parks regulated by the law and will allow the
agencies to commence the air tour management planning processes
at parks impacted by air tours. The Committee should demand
explanations from both agencies for the cause of the delay.
Recognize the Park Service's authority to determine air
tour impacts: During the development of air tour management
plans and noise management plans, the Park Service must be the
agency that determines air tour impacts to natural quiet in
national parks and designates the desired solutions for
eliminating or mitigating unwanted air tour impacts. The FAA
must focus on ensuring the safety of air tour operations over
national parks. The Court of Appeals has ruled on this point
and both agencies should comply with their ruling.
Develop a Noise Management Plan for Grand Canyon National
Park: The Park Service, with FAA assistance, must develop a
Noise Management Plan for the Grand Canyon National Park. Due
date was May 1, 2002.
Analyze and release Grand Canyon air tour operations data:
The FAA must analyze and release the Grand Canyon air tour
operations data that it has collected since 1998. This data
will enable NPS and FAA to gain a better understanding of the
current air tour industry behavior and take appropriate
management and noise mitigation actions.
Issue a Quiet Technology Rule: The FAA and the NPS must
develop and release the ``Quiet aircraft technology and noise
efficiency'' final rule that would give air tour operators
incentives for using more quiet aircraft over national parks;
this rule could include incentives for using higher capacity
aircraft for fewer flights.
Release of noise model validation report and conclusion:
This report would provide feedback on the effectiveness of the
current noise impact model and help the agencies determine
progress toward ``substantial restoration of natural quiet''.
The due date passed in spring of 2000. NPS received the final
report from Contractor (HMMH) on June 5, 2002 but has not
released its conclusions to the public.
Collect all current and past due air tour use fees at Grand
Canyon and other air tour use fee parks: Some air tour
companies have not been paying the air tour passenger fees to
NPS as required by law. NPS is entitled to these revenues.
Those air tour operators who are unwilling to pay the
appropriate fees to NPS should be denied the privilege of
flying over the parks requiring air tour fees. The Park Service
does not allow park visitors to enter parks requiring gate fees
without payment; the same standard should apply to air tour
passengers if the operators wish their clients to be considered
``park visitors.''
Retire the allocations over the Grand Canyon for air tour
operators who cease tour operations: The Park Service and FAA
can pick the ``low hanging fruit'' in restoring natural quiet
by retiring allocations of air tour operators who go out of
business.
Substantially restore natural quiet at Grand Canyon
National Park: The Park Service and the FAA should meet the
April 22, 2008 target date committed to by both agencies in the
Final Rule preamble of the FAA on Dec. 31, 1996. The
``substantial restoration of natural quiet'' must meet the Park
Service definition that says ``50 percent or more of the park
achieve `natural quiet' (i.e. no aircraft audible) for 75-100
percent of the day.'' Unless the definite steps as outlined
above are finalized, this target cannot be met.
In conclusion, I should emphasize that NPCA is not opposed to air
tours over national parks per se; we do, however, feel that air tours
over some park units are inappropriate. It is critical that the FAA and
NPS fulfill the will of Congress by moving quickly on implementation
and by managing these issues proactively. The FAA's role should be to
ensure the safety of air tour passengers over parks and of other
aircraft in the vicinity. The National Park Service must determine what
impacts commercial air tours have on national park visitors and values.
This was the intent of both laws.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to share NPCA's
views on this issue.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, and your full text, as
well as the comments you wish included in the record, will be
made a part of the record without objection.
Mr. Stephens, will the air tour operators appeal the recent
Federal court decision affecting the FAA's regulations
governing air tour overflights in the Grand Canyon?
Mr. Stephens. The USATA, the Air Tour Association, is not a
party to any appeal. Grand Canyon Airlines is not a party to
any appeal. I believe there may be one operator at Grand Canyon
that wishes to appeal that decision.
Senator McCain. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Bosak, there has been
conversation about the use of alternative dispute resolution as
a way to end some of the difficulties that we face. How do you
feel about that proposal? Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. I have actually spoken to Mr. Hoffman about
that, and I have indicated that we would be interested in such
a process. It should not be a process intended to somehow
short-circuit or undermine what the agencies are responsible
for doing and, in fact, what the court has very much reaffirmed
and affirmed, but if nothing else it would be a way to show the
agencies that people can work together, because these two
agencies have not done very well over the last 15 years.
I am hoping that after this hearing that will change, but I
think given the right people and the right parameters and
issues, I think progress could be made. As I said before, a
couple of years ago may not have been the best time, partly
because the courts were involved, and I am actually sorry to
hear there is an appeal, but people are entitled to do that.
Mr. Bosak. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hoffman has spoken to me also
about ADR for the Grand Canyon issue. We are not opposed to it.
We would like to see exactly what it would entail. We do feel
that the court decision that was made recently makes it pretty
clear what the agencies need to do, and it is a question of
resources and priorities, so we welcome the ADR opportunity if
there are certain parameters that bracket the discussion that
goes on there, making sure that the agencies comply with the
court-ordered mandates and also with the intent of Congress.
Senator McCain. Mr. Bosak, the air tour operators believe
no matter how quiet an aircraft may be, any air tour that is
audible will not satisfy the Park Service or environmental
critics of the industry. What is your reaction to that
allegation?
Mr. Bosak. I do not think that is true. We are supportive
of the quiet technology regulations. We want to make sure they
are fair to the air tour industry and to the park visitors on
the ground. We certainly do not think that it is the cure-all
for this situation. We believe there still may need to be some
caps of some sort on what, there needs to be some sort of route
structure to ensure that certain areas of the park remain quiet
all the time, but we are open to that. We are open to quiet
technology, and we are willing to be involved in discussions
about it.
Senator McCain. Well, let me just suggest to you on the
alternative dispute resolution, I think everybody would go to
the meeting recognizing that you are bound by court decisions.
I mean, that is to state the obvious, so why not say, look, we
will sit down and talk to you. Clearly, we are not going to be
able to overturn court decisions. There is no possible way to
do that, but to set, quote, ``parameters,'' close quote, for
discussions, it seems to me it might have a chilling effect.
And this is to sit down and discuss things, it is not to commit
yourself to a resolution, and so I hope that you would have a
position that you would be willing to sit down and discuss
these and every issue, recognizing fully that nobody is going
to be able to reach an agreement that is in violation of the
judicial process.
I hope that since we have been waiting 15 years at least,
it cannot hurt to sit down and have a conversation amongst all
interested parties without saying, we are not going to talk
about this, we are not going to talk about that. Because then I
think that does not have a beneficial effect on the atmosphere,
because I do not think any of your constituents would expect
you to agree to anything that is in violation or contravention
to the gains, and there were significant gains you made in this
court decision.
That is a little gratuitous and probably unneeded advice in
this process.
Mr. Stephens. Mr. Chairman, the court really came across
with a ruling which really is going to send us all back to the
drawing boards. I do not think anybody in the Government and--I
do not know how to deal on the air tour side with the idea of
the court overturning the concept of average user day, which is
the whole basis of the regulatory scheme at Grand Canyon that
has been enacted. The court has thrown out how we measure
whether or not we have restored natural quiet by overturning
average user day. Thus I would like to sit down and hear the
views of everybody, including the Government, and I would hope
they would like to hear our views, because I am not sure how we
get there. Now that the Court has issued an opinion I know I
can think of a thousand ways we could go down a regulatory
process that would be really counterproductive. We have to deal
with this one way or another. The court has given us a mandate,
and I agree we have to deal with it promptly. But I would like
to deal with it in an open forum where we can hear ideas on
what alternatives there are to coming up with a system of
measuring natural quiet that fits with the court decision. Thus
we believe an alternative process to more rulemaking is now
appropriate.
Mr. Robinson. May I respond to that?
Senator McCain. Sure.
Mr. Robinson. I referred to this before. One of the tough
issues here, and it is going to be tough for even people at the
table to come to grips with, is that very difficult decisions
are going to have to be made. Now that the court has said that
averaging cannot be done, we have gone way back to which
percentage of the park, way back in terms of percentage, is
supposedly restored to natural quiet. That means that when you
look around the landscape to figure out how do you get there,
clearly quiet and quieter technology is one way. Another way is
possibly to eliminate one of the East End routes. The question
is, is that duplicative?
Another way is, and I mentioned this before, and this is a
really tough one that I think this Committee and the Government
is going to have to look at is, are all operators equal? I
cannot make that decision. If I were a dictator right now, I
would say, Alan gets more caps than other people because he is
flying much quieter technology, much more efficient.
I would say that the folks that have not been paying fees
for quite some time, if ever, should not be allowed to fly.
That immediately increases the percentage of restoration. Why
do they get to fly if they have basically snubbed their nose at
the laws that have already been through the court system?
There are ways to make difficult decisions. I am not a
dictator. I can make suggestions at the table, but I just do
not think it is fair for someone like Alan to be brought down
by some of his colleagues that are contributing noise but not
contributing as good public stewards and citizens.
Senator McCain. Well, thank you. On that subject I would
just make two points. One of the reasons why I have discussed
the issue of quiet technology, not because I believe that it is
the answer. Clearly, it is not. I think it is one of many ways
to address this problem, but it has been our impression, either
rightly or wrongly, that that aspect has been neglected to a
large degree when clearly we wrote that in the law as to one of
the factors that needed to be considered.
And to take your position one step further, it seems to me
the free enterprise system indicates that if you want people to
spend money, you have to have some kind of incentive for them
to do so. I would hope that perhaps that would be part of the
discussion in alternative dispute resolution. I cannot expect a
business person to invest--how much does it cost you to quiet
engines of one of your large aircraft, Mr. Stephens?
Mr. Stephens. In total investment we have about $1.2
million in each one of our Vistaliner airplanes. We have six,
so we have $7 million plus invested in our aircraft, and about
a million of that is in the quiet technology. That is just on
the Grand Canyon side. On our Twin Otter side, where we produce
Vistaliners that we lease to companies at Grand Canyon and at
other locations and we have about 25 Visaliners, so we have
invested quite a bit of money into quiet technology with the
belief that it was the solution.
Senator McCain. And I am sure if one of the small operators
was sitting at the table next to Mr. Bosak he would say, I
cannot afford $1.2 million per aircraft, I simply cannot do
that. And I am not without sympathy for that situation, but it
seems to me--and I am not speaking for Mr. Stephens or any
other air tour company, but it seems to me they should have
some incentive to acquire this technology, and it is a small
item, Mr. Robinson, but I think there is a difference between
quiet technology of a helicopter and quiet technology of a
fixed wing aircraft.
We look at the stage 3 aircraft that now fly into National
Airport. There is a huge difference--and there is going to be a
stage 4 aircraft, and I am only talking about commercial
airliners. There will be a stage 4. They are on the drawing
board already. But helicopter, quieting a helicopter, I think
the state of the art is a lot further along, to say the least.
It is a minor point, but I thought I would throw that in.
Mr. Bosak, you have been quiet. What do you want to add to
this conversation?
Mr. Bosak. I would say I concur. As I said earlier in my
testimony, we would like to see the quiet technology
regulations move ahead, and I completely understand that
businesses want some sort of certainty when they are trying to
plan into the future, and it must be very difficult to exist
under the regulatory regime that we have in place right now.
Mr. Robinson. Senator McCain, one other point. If there are
not penalties along with incentives, then we keep moving the
target away. If we give the folks flying quieter airplanes and
helicopters goodies, then we have actually kept the levels up
high. There will also have to be penalties, and those are the
ones--it is actually easier to give--it should be easier to
give Alan an incentive. It has not been done yet. It is harder
to penalize someone.
Senator McCain. I think that is a very important point. The
free enterprise system not only rewards but sometimes it
punishes as well, as we are finding out in recent days.
Finally, one of the reasons why I focused more of the
attention on this hearing, Mr. Bosak, on the Grand Canyon
overflight, if we cannot get this issue moved forward, then it
seems to me it is going to be extremely difficult to move the
other parks forward, and I had always hoped that this would
serve as a model of what to do.
Clearly, it is serving as a model of what not to do, but
there is a whole lot of lessons learned here that I hope do not
have to be relearned as we address Yosemite, Yellowstone, all
of the other national parks that need varying degrees of
attention, and it is disturbing to hear that since the law was
passed, that there is increased activity over the parks, and if
you would submit for the record the information you have about
increased air tour activity over the parks since the passage of
the parks overflight act, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Bosak. Certainly. *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to was not available at the time this
hearing went to press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCain. Senator Ensign.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Robinson, you mentioned something that is very
important. We talk about incentives, we talk about punishment;
we have done just the opposite. We have now punished good
behavior. Now, Mr. Stephens--and it takes you back, if you
think about the other air tour operator who maybe looks at Mr.
Stephens and says, I am not going to do that because I get
punished.
In other words, I will cut my own flights down and invest
all this technology, and then they cut me down further,
because--it reminds me of when we were enacting welfare reform,
and that was one of the things that we had to be careful of,
not to punish the States that had already enacted a lot of the
reforms that we were asking them to enact. In other words, we
did not cut their money back because they had already enacted
those reforms.
In other words, we did not want to punish good behavior,
but also we have to be careful why some of these people did not
want to take the risk, because they probably looked at people
like Mr. Stephens and said, you know, there is no way I am
going to take that risk.
So we have got to try to bring everybody in to meet the
goals that we are trying to meet, and you know, there always is
a balance between punishment and incentive. You know, positive
always is a better way to get people to do things, as long as
you have the threat of the negative happening.
Mr. Stephens, or any of you could answer this, maybe, and
it is a little different than the question Senator McCain just
asked, but hopefully we have the statistics at least at Grand
Canyon about this. Do we know, compared to, say, the last 5
years, 10 years ago, 15 years ago the number--Mr. Stephens, you
quoted the number of your flights, but do we know the total
number of flights that are going over, helicopter flights and
fixed wing?
Mr. Stephens. Let me see if I can answer that, Senator. I
appreciate the question. I believe the number used at the peak
was about 90,000 air tour flights over Grand Canyon a year.
Since then, several things have happened. One is, because of
the economics there has been a real shift away from small
airplanes to the larger ones. Where there were a lot of five,
six and seven seat Cessnas flown, today operators fly aircraft
like the Beech 99s that seat 15, 44-seat Folker F-27s, and of
course 19 seat Vitaliners. The bigger the aircraft, the fewer
number of flights required.
The second thing, there has been massive consolidation and
failure within the industry. I can name, back when we were
dealing this 15, 16 years ago there were about 20 fixed-wing
air tour operators flying at Grand Canyon. Today I believe
there are 7. All the rest of them have gone out of business or
have consolidated. Some failures came about because of the
economics of this business, and then of course 9/11. If you
look at the traffic statistics or passengers boarded, and this
is probably the most telling statistic, the Grand Canyon air
tour industry carried 800,000 passengers annually.
Structurally that market changed in the year 2000. The cost
of air tours became pretty expensive, so we lost about 100,000
of our passengers a year to buses, so that reduced the number
of passengers to 700,000 in the year 2000. This year, we will
be lucky to hit 400,000 passengers. Since 9/11 foreign visitors
are simply not coming to the United States in any numbers like
they were, and that decline really rocked the air tour
industry. The FAA to my knowledge has never released any air
tour flight statistics beyond the original 90,000 air tour
flight at the peak.
But these changes in the industry have reduced the number
of flights today, tour flights over Grand Canyon to probably
under 35,000, perhaps 40,000 from the peak of 90,000. It is
hard to tell, because there has been an increase in helicopter
flights, and by definition they are a little smaller, and so
they are probably going to fly more flights for the same number
of people than flown with typical larger air tour airplane.
And with the consolidation of the industry, where companies
have outright failed, there has not been a reallocation of
those air tour flights to remaining air tour companies. As you
just asked, I would like to see the true numbers, because I
think if we do sit down in a negotiation over what is happening
at Grand Canyon, we have to have the current numbers to plug
into the noise model to determine whether or not we have gotten
to that definition of natural quiet . . . 50 percent of the
park 75 percent of the time.
Senator Ensign. Do either of the rest of you know the
numbers?
Mr. Bosak. No. That is the data the FAA has which will help
us validate the model and also determine how many overflights
are going over the park in the last couple of years.
Senator Ensign. It would seem to make sense, because total
number of passengers really does not work, because you may be
carrying 30 percent loads instead of 90 percent loads, or
whatever, and so you may have the same amount of air flights,
depending upon the percentage that are on the airplanes.
Mr. Chairman, I think the message from this hearing, and
hopefully everybody concerned as we go forward, is that we all
want to get something done. I mean, the air tour operators
obviously need to get it done for their business survivability.
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Bosak, your organizations want to get
things done because you want to try to meet the goals along
with the National Park Service, and I think that if we do this
with some balance, I think that we can achieve the goals that
have been set out by the act, and hopefully set a model that we
learn from, and when we finalize this thing we set a model that
we can use for the other parks.
The last comment I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that when
you are on the ground and you are enjoying natural quiet--and I
totally understand why people want that experience. I ride my
bike all the time to up around Red Rock Canyon Conservation
Area. It is an absolutely beautiful area, and I certainly would
not want flights going on all the time up there. It is a part
of being just on a road bike, just the natural quiet that you
just see the natural beauty and experience it, and I ride
virtually every Saturday morning, and I love that aspect of it,
so I understand why people want that.
But I also--I am healthy. I am able to do those kinds of
things. I love to go up there and hike, and things like that.
Well, the same thing, there has got to be a place for people
that can do those things, where they can enjoy that, but for
the senior citizen, or the disabled person, or whatever, there
has got to be a way for them to enjoy the park as well, and
that is one of the reasons for these air tour operators, that
is where the balance has to come in, is we have to have those
places for the people that can enjoy the truly natural areas,
or the truly natural experience in those parks, as Teddy
Roosevelt set out.
But recognizing that my 82-year-old grandmother, that there
is no way she could do the hiking and things like that to enjoy
the natural quiet, she has got to have some other way to really
experience that, and I know that you cannot do some of that
through the ground, but the air tour gives quite an experience
as well, and we have to recognize that.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Senator Ensign. Is
there any closing comments that the witnesses would like to
make? Beginning with you, Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Stephens. Thank you for having this hearing. I am very
pleased that my colleagues here and the Government witnesses
have all indicated an interest in bringing this to a close
through some type of a desperate negotiation.
I can tell Grand Canyon Airlines will be there. We have no
preconceived notions. We want to preserve a quality air tour
that we can sell to the public to take care of the people that
want to see the Grand Canyon that do not necessarily want to do
it by river rafting or ground visitation. As I have said in our
testimony, we understand, and believe me, we understand the
goal of making sure that our aircraft operations are as
inaudible as possible so as to have the least impact number of
people. The fastest way to get there is not the court. It is to
get on with desperate negotiation.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. I just want to thank you so much for holding
this hearing. I am afraid you may have created a love fest.
Senator McCain. Let us hope it lasts. Mr. Bosak.
Mr. Bosak. I would like to thank you also, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing, and I wanted to say that we are open
to new solutions on this problem, going out to the Grand Canyon
actually this afternoon to participate in the National Parks
Advisory Group meeting for overflights, and look forward to
meeting some of the air tour operators and other
conservationists working on this, so I think the dialogue is
going to begin pretty soon.
Senator McCain. Well, I thank you, and I thank all three of
you for your involvement, and Mr. Stephens, I do want to say
that I believe you all have come a long way, and I appreciate
that, and Mr. Robinson, I want to thank you for all that the
Grand Canyon Trust does for the Grand Canyon. I cannot state
how much I admire and appreciate all of the many contributions.
This is one of 100 that you have been involved in.
Mr. Bosak, we look forward to working with you. We find
your expertise and knowledge very important, and let us hope we
do not have to have another hearing like this ever again.
Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
National Parks Conservation Association
Protecting Parks for Future Generations, October 13, 2002
Hon. John McCain,
Ranking Member,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain:
Thank you again for chairing the October 3rd Aviation Subcommittee
oversight hearing on air tours and national parks. I was honored to
testify in front of the subcommittee on behalf of the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA). My organization and its members
appreciate you giving this issue the attention it deserves. Please find
attached to this letter written testimony from other conservation
groups regarding problems with new and existing air tour operations
over national parks.
As I stated during my testimony, NPCA shares your concern regarding
the lack of progress made on the implementation of the National Parks
Overflight Act of 1987 and the delayed FAA rulemaking for the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000. We are open to exploring new
ways to move forward on air tour regulations at the Grand Canyon
National Park and will communicate that to Mr. Hoffman at the
Department of Interior. We are also hopeful that FAA will release the
Air Tour Management Act rulemaking as soon as possible.
After the hearing last Thursday, I traveled to the Grand Canyon to
participate in a meeting of the National Parks Overflights Advisory
Group, an advisory group called for by Congress in the recent Air Tour
Management Act. I was impressed with the work the FAA and Park Service
have done to prepare for the development of air tour management plans
at parks. It became apparent at that meeting, however, that FAA and the
Park Service still have not settled the fundamental issue of which
agency determines the impacts of air tours on park visitors and
resources during the development of park air tour management plans. The
National Parks Air Tour Management Act and its legislative history
indicate that the Park Service should determine impacts and the FAA
should use the Park Service's information and expertise when developing
air tour management plans in cooperation with the Park Service.
The agencies must settle this ``determination of impacts'' issue
before completing an interagency Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU).
That MOU will create the foundation that guides the agencies as they
cooperate on the implementation of the Air Tour Management Act. NPCA
believes some guidance from the Aviation subcommittee might help both
agencies resolve this issue and avoid the mistakes that have impeded
progress in the implementation of the Overflights Act of 1987.
We are also concerned that the inter-agency cooperation required by
the Air Tour Management Act might be compromised by the great imbalance
of personnel and resources the agencies are bringing to the process. If
the Park Service is to have a real opportunity to fulfill its
responsibilities under the Act, it clearly needs to dedicate more
resources to the task.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding our position,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Steven Bosak,
Associate Director, Visitor Experience Programs
______
Prepared Statement of Carl A. Schneebeck, Program Associate, Jackson
Hole Conservation Alliance
This statement is submitted for inclusion in the record of the
oversight hearing on overflights of national parks. The Jackson Hole
Conservation Alliance (JHCA) is dedicated to responsible land
stewardship in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to ensure that human activities
are in harmony with the area's irreplaceable wildlife, scenic and other
natural resources. JHCA was founded in 1979 and has more than 1800
members nationwide.
This community is nearly unanimous in its opposition to commercial
air tours over Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. JHCA has
been involved with the issue of commercial air tours over Jackson Hole,
including portions of Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, since
they were first proposed in May 2000. JHCA has attended airport board
meetings, analyzed documents, submitted comments, and proposed an
amendment to the Teton County land development regulations prohibiting
commercial air tours from operating out of private helicopter landing
facilities in the county. Thanks to the support of an array of economic
and political segments of the community, the local regulations were
enacted last year. In addition, JHCA collected over 6,000 signatures
from residents and visitors opposing commercial air tours over Jackson
Hole.
Threats Emerging
In May of 2002, JHCA noticed flight maps on the web site of a
scenic tour operator that showed egregious violations of the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA). Specifically, the maps
advertised air tours over sections of Yellowstone and Grand Teton,
including a flight directly over Old Faithful. The day that we made the
FAA aware of these maps they were removed from the web site. The intent
of the operator to fly over these parks is evident and will be an
increasing threat to the parks until air tour management plans can be
completed.
When our organization first learned of the proposed scenic tours in
Jackson Hole, we were relieved to learn of the Parks Air Tour
Management Act and the protections that it seemed to provide for Grand
Teton National Park. We quickly learned that the final rule for the Act
had not been completed and that until that time, an air tour management
plan for the park could not be completed. We have patiently waited for
the final rule, submitting comments on June 8, 2001 supporting the
FAA's proposal of an altitude of 5,000 feet AGL to define how low an
aircraft may fly over a national park without triggering the Act.
Conclusion
Without the final rule in place for the Parks Air Tour Management
Act, local communities have grown increasingly frustrated with the
inability to draft air tour management plans for national parks. The
vast majority of the tourism economy in Jackson Hole is reliant on the
tranquility and quiet of national parks. Without the implementation of
the final rule for the Act there is very little that citizens can do to
start an air tour management plan for a park. Nor can the FAA enforce
the act until such a rule is in place. JHCA believes that after two and
a half years, it is time to truly implement the Act by implementing a
final rule.
______
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Bozeman, MT, October 2, 2002
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
Chairman,
Senate Subcommittee on Aviation,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Re: Testimony for the October 3, 2002 Aviation Subcommittee oversight
hearing on air tours and national parks
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I submit this letter
on behalf of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition to be considered as
testimony in the Senate Aviation Subcommittee's October 3, 2002
oversight hearing on air tour management and national parks. The
Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) was founded in 1983 to protect
Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. GYC has 12,500 members throughout the Greater Yellowstone
region and around the country, as well as over 100 business members.
We greatly appreciate passage of the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000. The ability of national parks to control air
tours in order to protect park resources, primarily natural quiet, and
visitor experience is essential. The delay in promulgating final
regulations to implement the Act, however, is placing Yellowstone and
Grand Teton national parks at risk from commercial air tours. In the
time between passage of the Act and today, Vortex Aviation, Inc. set up
a commercial air tour operation in and around Yellowstone and Grand
Teton. The absence of a final rule has hamstrung the National Park
Service and Federal Aviation Administration from taking action to
regulate the company. This failure to act has frustrated park visitors,
employees and area residents, Flights over Yellowstone have been
witnessed by park employees in the summer of 2001 and the company's
recent publicization of park tours alarmed park visitors and local
residents alike. As a result, there is broad support among area
residents in Jackson, WY and Yellowstone's gateway towns for a ban of
commercial overflights. We urge the Subcommittee to expedite the final
rule so that the Park Service and FAA may proceed with action necessary
to protect park resources.
In addition, we encourage the Subcommittee to closely watch the
rulemaking process to ensure that the high standards of National Park
Service management are being upheld. NPS directives, policy and mission
must form the strong framework which guides design and implementation
of the final rule.
NPS Management Policies of 2001 direct that ``The Service will
restore degraded soundscapes to the natural condition wherever
possible, and will protect natural soundscapes from degradation due to
noise (undesirable human-caused sound) . . . . The Service will take
action to prevent or minimize all noise that, through frequency,
magnitude or duration, adversely affects the natural soundscape or
other park resources or values, or that exceeds levels that have been
identified as being acceptable to, or appropriate for, visitor use at
the sites being monitored.'' (NFS Management Policies at 4.9)
Director's Order #47 on Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management
also provides important guidelines and delineation of NPS standards for
resource protection.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on this important
matter. In Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks there is a
pressing need for a final rule implementing the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act and Congressional oversight to ensure that park values
and guiding laws are upheld. Please contact us if you would like
further information on the situation in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
national parks.
Sincerely,
Hope Sieck,
Association Program Director.
______
Prepared Statement of Riley McClelland, Wildlife Biologist, National
Park Service (Retired)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Riley McClelland,
retired after 25 years for the National Park Service as a wildlife
biologist. I reside close to Glacier National Park. I am a long-time
member of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), and I
support NPCA's mission to protect national parks, including their
wildlife and their natural soundscapes
In 1999 Glacier National Park adopted a new General Management Plan
that included a decision to ask the Federal Aviation Administration to
prohibit commercial sightseeing tours over the park. The helicopter
overflight issue was one of two park issues that attracted the vast
majority of public comment on the Plan. This decision was responsive to
the 861 comments received, more than 90 percent of which opposed the
intrusion of scenic overflights.
The Glacier community, including neighbors, visitors and Glacier
National Park itself, strongly supported the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000, which would begin to give the National Park
Service jurisdiction over commercial air tour operators flying over
national parks. I am providing this testimony today primary to express
my frustration and the community's frustration that final rules
implementing this law have not been published more than two years
later.
Every year, as autumn approaches, I am reminded of the urgency of
completing the rule-making process and allowing Glacier National Park
to complete an air tour management plan that phases out all commercial
air tour operations. October is the month that Glacier's skies become a
continental migration route for thousands of eagles, hawks and falcons.
At peak times, more than 100 eagles per hour pass given locations in
these corridors. On many occasions I have witnessed commercial
helicopters fly directly through the Park's migration corridors at
altitudes coincident with the flight paths of the birds. Although FAA
issues a voluntary request for pilots to stay 2,000 feet above ground
level, I have personally documented dozens of instances in which the
helicopters have hovered less than 500 feet above prime wildlife
habitat, including the raptor migration corridors.
Research had documented that helicopter overflights have adverse
impacts on bighorn sheep, mountain goats, nesting birds and bears.
Studies conducted in Glacier National Park in the 1980s found that over
80 percent of grizzly bears observed in a remote section of the park
elicited a ``strong'' reaction to helicopters.
The impact of helicopter overflights on the experience of park
visitors to Glacier National Park is equally negative. Every year I
hear visitors in front country areas, such as the Going-to-the-Sun
Road, vocalize their disgust at the noisy intrusion of overhead
helicopters. Some of the most spectacular views of America's wildest
mountains, lakes and valleys can be had from the Sun Road. There is
little sympathy among park visitors to the argument that helicopters
provide essential access for the elderly or disabled, when the Sun Road
provides world-class access to all.
Backcountry park users are especially impacted by commercial
overflights. Since its establishment, Glacier has been a symbol of
wildland values: the sounds and fragrances of Nature among magnificent
peaks, lakes, creeks, and a unique flora and fauna. The NPS has
characterized park wilderness (exemplified by Glacier) as ``solitude,
and the music of stillness.'' Solitude and stillness now are hard to
find in much of Glacier, even though NPS has recommended more than 95
percent of the park for wilderness designation and seeks to manage it
today as wilderness. The major and controllable factor responsible for
this loss of wildness is low altitude helicopter flying.
A 1957 NPS document entitled ``The National Park Wilderness''
clearly states the appropriate policy stance in a place like Glacier:
Some strange proposals find their way to the National Park
Service, often suggesting activities completely inappropriate
to the best use of the parks . . . for instance, we can find
requests for gambling concessions, helicopter sightseeing
service . . . . The National Park Service immediately rejects
such proposals, and it requires no rare understanding of park
objectives to make the decisions.
Unfortunately, the current regulatory environment precludes Glacier
National Park from rejecting helicopter sightseeing services today,
even though it would like to do so. That is what the 2000 legislation
promised to fix, and that's what we're still waiting for today.
We look forward to a federal rule that provides Glacier National
Park with jurisdiction over all commercial air tours operating within
5,000 feet above ground level over the park. This should apply to
airspace 5,000 feet above the highest terrain and within 5,000 feet
laterally of the route of flight. With respect to valleys, ground level
should refer to the highest point on the ridges immediately adjacent to
the valleys.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Subcommittee to determine the cause of the
delayed rulemaking process and to act expeditiously to resolve it.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Margaret Gilligan
Question 1. The National Parks Overflights Act of 1987, mandated
that the FAA and the National Park Service work together to
substantially restore natural quiet to the Grand Canyon. It has now
been 15 years since Public Law 100-91 was enacted. Has the statutory
mandate been achieved? If not, what are the reasons and when will this
objective be accomplished?
Answer. As currently measured, the standard has not been met.
Accomplishing the goals established by the National Parks Overflights
Act of 1987 has been more difficult, more complicated and involved more
people than we had ever expected. Initially, when the Act was passed,
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) developed Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 50-2 that controlled the location and altitude of
flights, moved flights above the rim of the canyon and placed those air
tour flights on specific routes.
Over time, FAA and the National Park Service (NPS) have learned
much about measuring and reducing noise in the park. NPS has refined
its measurement of substantial restoration of natural quiet. In
response, we have proposed and in some cases implemented new routes and
new altitude limits. We have limited the areas where tours may operate
and the times they can be flown. In fact, before the recent decision by
the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, FAA and NPS believed that
the actions taken restored natural quiet to 43 percent of the park.
That was short of our goal, but well on the way. Now, the Court has
remanded some of our rules and directed that we reevaluate the work we
have done. FAA and NPS are developing a response to the Court.
Grand Canyon Issues
Question 2. In a case decided on August 16, 2002, (United States
Air Tour Association, et al., v. Federal Aviation Administration), the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the FAA'S use of
``average annual day,'' in lieu of ``any given day,'' in its definition
of the substantial restoration of natural quiet at the Grand Canyon
``appears inconsistent with both the Park Service's definition of the
term and the premise on which that definition was based.'' The court
also concluded that the FAA's decision to exclude non-tour aircraft
from its noise model is ``arbitrary and capricious and requires
reconsideration by the agency.'' What does the Park Service need to do
to assist the FAA in resolving issues remanded back to the agency for
reconsideration by the Court?
Answer. NPS must provide guidance to FAA in choosing how to define
substantial restoration of natural quiet. This definition will
determine the extent to which the goal of substantial restoration of
natural quiet has been achieved. Prior to the court decision, FAA and
NPS jointly estimated that substantial restoration of natural quiet had
been achieved in over 43 percent of the Grand Canyon National Park
based on the decision to use the ``annual average day'' for
measurement. Once NPS clarifies the ``day'' it intends for us to use,
we will apply it.
Question 2a. Is the noise from non-tour aircraft truly incidental,
or will that part of the Court's ruling make it harder to restore
natural quiet without severe restrictions on air tours?
Answer. We believed that noise from non-tour aircraft was
incidental as concluded by our technical experts after a review of
available evidence that suggested that general aviation flights account
for about 3 percent of all aircraft in the park and that aircraft
flying over 30,000 feet have no impact. The Court's ruling requires the
agencies to conduct additional analyses to quantify the contribution of
other aircraft overflights.
Question 3. The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000
requires the FAA to designate within 12 months of the enactment of the
law, ``reasonably achievable requirements for fixed-wing and helicopter
aircraft necessary for such aircraft to be considered as employing
quiet aircraft technology for purposes of this section.'' The law also
requires the FAA to ``establish. routes or corridors for commercial air
tour operations . . . that employ quiet aircraft technology for . . .
tours of the Grand Canyon . . .''. What progress has been made toward
these two statutory requirements? What, if anything, remains to be done
and when can we expect to see these mandates accomplished?
Answer. In 1996, the FAA published the NPRM, Noise Limitations for
Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park,
which was the predecessor to the current quiet technology concept.
Following the publication of the NPRM, as well as a number of other
related rulemakings, it became clear that there were long-term
significant issues yet to be resolved before the quiet technology
rulemaking could be finalized. The FAA and NPS jointly agreed that the
best approach to substantially restore natural quiet to the Grand
Canyon was to devote resources to final rules that addressed critical
near-term needs. The agencies determined that considerable steps in
reaching the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Grand
Canyon could be achieved by modifying the airspace over the park,
creating larger flight-free zones, changing the route structure through
GCNP, and establishing limits on the numbers of commercial air tours
that could be flown in the park.
The joint FAA/NPS quiet technology rulemaking team reconvened in
2000. After successfully addressing a myriad of technically complex
issues, the joint FAA/NPS quiet technology rulemaking team prepared a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to define quiet
technology designation for aircraft types in commercial air tours at
Grand Canyon National Park. The SNPRM is undergoing review by the
Office of Management and Budget. Since FAA did not meet the 12-month
deadline set in the Act, the FAA prepared a report to Congress on Quiet
Aircraft Technology for Grand Canyon to explain the delay. This report
was submitted in October 2001. Also, in accordance with the Act, FAA
and NPS established, in June 2001, the National Parks Overflight
Advisory Group (NPOAG) to, in part, provide advice, information and
recommendations on the establishment of incentive routes and corridors
in Grand Canyon National Park. The FAA has briefed the NPOAG on its key
role in the implementation of the quiet technology standard once that
standard becomes a final rule. The Act also directed that, two years
after enactment, FAA and NPS were to submit to Congress a report on
``the effectiveness of this title in providing incentives for the
development and use of quiet aircraft technology.'' The second report
has not been prepared because it is also dependent upon the
promulgation of a final rule on the designation of quiet aircraft
technology.
Question 4. Why has the FAA failed to analyze any of the data in
the quarterly reports made by Grand Canyon air tour operators regarding
their operations? Hasn't this failure jeopardized the agency's ability
to review interim caps and other rules affecting operations?
Answer. FAA has been collecting data since 1997. The first round of
data collected was used to support the final rules published in April
2000. For example, the data was the basis for the operations cap
imposed on the air tour operators. Data collected since May 2000 is
being compiled and analyzed by a full time data analyst dedicated to
the Grand Canyon. This data will be used in our determination of any
additional action needed to achieve substantial restoration of natural
quiet.
Question 5. What is your view of the Park Service's proposal to use
an alternate dispute resolution process to resolve disputes between FAA
and the Park Service regarding the restoration of natural quiet at the
Grand Canyon?
Answer. FAA is receptive to the proposal to use an alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve issues regarding the restoration of
natural quiet at the park. To clarify, however, we believe that ADR was
proposed to resolve the many diverse interests in the park and not to
resolve potential conflicts between the agencies. FAA is mindful, that
how noise is measured in achieving the overall goal of substantial
restoration of natural quiet affects a number of regulatory issues and
competing interests such as the economic impact on small businesses,
costs and benefits analysis, the impact on endangered species, and the
impact on Native American traditional cultural properties and sacred,
religious sites.
Question 6. In your testimony, you state that the quiet technology
rule is in ``final review''. What does that mean? Similarly, former
Administrator Jane Garvey responded to a letter I wrote and told me
that a rule was in ``final coordination'' to implement the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000. Six months later there had been
no action on that rule. Is that what we can expect with regard to quiet
technology? How long will ``final review'' take?
Answer. The rule was transmitted to OMB for their review on
December 17, 2002. We expect the OMB review to be completed within 90
days.
National Parks Air Tour Management Issues
Question 7. This past January, Senator Akaka and I wrote to the FAA
Administrator to express our concern that the final rule to implement
the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 had not yet been
issued. Another nine months have gone by since then and it is our
understanding that the rule has still not been published. Many people
consider that this law, which was enacted 2\1/2\ years ago, is largely
self explanatory.
On April 10, 2002, then FAA Administrator Jane Garvey
responded to this letter, saying that the National Parks
Overflights rule was in ``final coordination.'' Yet no further
action appears to have been taken until I called this hearing.
Why is that so? Do I need to have a hearing every month in
order to ensure that action is being taken?
Are there issues between the FAA and the Park Service that
have complicated and therefore, delayed the promulgation of the
final rule?
Why is the rulemaking process taking so long?
When can we expect to see the final rule published?
Once the final rule is issued, how soon will the agencies
be ready to start developing Air Tour Management Plans?
How many air tour management plans do the agencies
anticipate being able to complete with in the first 24 months?
What is the estimated cost to the agencies per Air Tour
Management Plan?
Answer. I am pleased to tell you that the final rule was published
on October 25, 2002, effective January 23, 2003.
While the rule was in development FAA established an Air Tour
Management Plan (ATMP) office that would be responsible for the
development of guidance material for the public and FAA personnel. The
ATMPs office is up and running and in cooperation with NPS will
formally initiate the first ATMPs at two parks in Hawaii in February
2003. Preliminary data collection activities are already underway at
those parks. Additionally, to ensure smooth implementation of the rule,
the ATMPs office published an Advisory Circular for the public and
internal guidelines for the FAA personnel involved. The organization
also developed video training material and established a web site at
http://www.atmp.faa.gov to provide the public with answers and other
information.
Current plans call for ten ATMPs to be initiated in Fiscal Year
2003 and 20 in Fiscal Year 2004. The FAA will make every effort to
complete these ATMPs within 24 months.
We estimate that the average cost to the agencies will be $300,000
per Air Tour Management Plan.
Question 8. I have received reports that new air tour operations
have begun at certain National Parks since the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000 was enacted. Further, I have heard that existing
air tour operators have expanded operations. Since the law was designed
to impose a moratorium on new or expanded operations pending the
development of Air Tour Management Plans at affected parks, how will
the FAA deal with such new or expanded operations once the final rule
has been issued?
Answer. With the publication of the Final Rule in October, FAA is
beginning to receive applications for Operating Authority. The initial
application deadline is January 23, 2003. Following this initial
deadline, FAA will make an initial inventory of National Parks and
Tribal Lands locations for which ATMPs will be required, air tour
operations, and new entrant air tour operations as defined in the Act.
The FAA and NPS are working on a plan to prioritize the development of
ATMPs.
Any operators who initiated service after April 5, 2000, will be
considered new entrants for purposes of applying the rule, since they
would not meet the statutory definition of an existing operator. Such
operators must cease commercial air tour operations over the national
park unit or tribal land unless they request and receive interim
operating authority in accordance with conditions established in the
Act.
Likewise, unless otherwise authorized by FAA, existing operators
will be limited to the greater of the number of operations conducted
within the 12-months preceding April 5, 2000 or the annual average for
the three year period preceding April 5, 2000.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Alan R. Stephens
Question 1. Why has FAA taken so long to develop a rulemaking
regarding the use of quiet aircraft technology at Grand Canyon?
Answer. We have advocated quiet aircraft incentives since 1986. We
put our money on the line and voluntarily developed propeller
technology that make our Vistaliner aircraft the quietest large air
tour aircraft flying over Grand Canyon and we did so in 1986. Everyone
acknowledges that our aircraft are quiet and that quiet aircraft
incentives must be a priority in restoring natural quiet to Grand
Canyon. Thus it simply baffles us that nothing has been done about
quiet aircraft incentives at Grand Canyon.
When FAA finally issues rulemaking to define quiet aircraft and
provide quiet aircraft incentives, Grand Canyon Airlines will give the
matter the highest priority.
Question 2. The Department of Interior is proposing Alternative
Dispute Resolution as a possible solution to this history of slow
progress. How do the air tour operators feel about this?
Answer. The air tour industry is firmly on record as being in favor
of using a process like the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee, or ARC,
as a means of bringing air tour interests, the environmental lobbyists
and native American interest together to resolve the issues that divide
us at Grand Canyon. The process that is employed needs to have unbiased
rules, have an impartial facilitator and importantly, bring only those
interests to the table that can speak for the organizations they
represent. For all too long we have seen that the environmental
lobbyists have never been able, or willing, to make an attempt at
negotiating a solution to the issues that divide them and us on air
tour regulations at Grand Canyon. Thus the focus must be on bringing
these environmental interests to the table. One more thing, this
alternative dispute resolution process must lead to a final set of air
tour regulations at Grand Canyon.
Question 3. What would you recommend being done to ensure that the
interests of the air tour operators are being addressed?
Answer. A fair alternative dispute resolution process will ensure
that we have a full opportunity to represent our concerns and
importantly our recommendations for developing a permanent air tour
management plan at Grand Canyon. However, that said, until the junk air
tour noise modeling at Grand Canyon is replaced with science that is
dependable and accurate, all we will we doing is akin to rearranging
the deck chairs as the Titanic is sinking. Junk science produces junk
results. Even the Park Service admits that its aircraft noise models at
Grand Canyon remain unvalidated. That must be the first step in
negotiating a good air tour management plan at Grand Canyon.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Steven Bosak
Question 1. Air tour operators believe that no matter how quiet an
aircraft may be, any air tour that is audible will not satisfy the Park
Service or environmental critics of the industry. What is your reaction
to this viewpoint?
Answer. The National Parks Conservation Association supports the
timely completion of the ``Quiet Technology'' regulations for air tour
operators so that air tours can lower their noise impact on park
visitors and resources, however, we do not think that less noisy
aircraft will be the solution for entire parks or at every park.
At the Grand Canyon, the Park Service interprets the National Parks
Overflights Act to require that 50 percent of the park experience
natural quiet for 75 percent of any given day. Regardless of
adaptations that air tour operators may make to quiet their aircraft,
the Overflights Act requirement for the Grand Canyon remains the same.
Quieter aircraft may contribute to reducing the area on the ground in
which- aircraft are audible, but noise modeling suggests that quieter
aircraft alone, without significant reduction in air tours and
elimination of certain tour routes, will not achieve the goal.
With regard to the implementation of the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act, the appropriateness of air tours at any park--or in
different areas of a given park--is a site-specific determination. It
has everything to do with the nature of the resource being protected.
For instance, the Park Service does not allow family picnics on the
Chickamauga battlefield. There is nothing inherently wrong with a
family picnic; it is simply inappropriate for the purpose and meaning
of that park unit. So, there will be areas of certain parks and even
entire parks where NPCA opposes the presence of air tours, regardless
of how much noise reduction an air tour can achieve. We will express
our views on the appropriateness of air tour operations at other parks
through the air tour management planning process that was called for by
the National Parks Air Tour Management Act. This is exactly why the air
tour management plan was the correct course of action to make these
determinations.
Question 2. In your prepared testimony, you state that the Park
Service bears some blame for the lack of progress in the implementation
of the National Parks Overflight Act of 1987 at the Grand Canyon. In
what ways has the Park Service impeded progress?
Answer. The National Parks Conservation Association believes the
Park Service has not given adequate staff and management time to
implementation of the Overflights Act of 1987. Measuring and mitigating
aviation noise in backcountry locations has been a new and complex task
for which NPS leadership has not allocated sufficient resources.
Moreover, NPCA believes the Park Service should have been more
forceful in its debate with FAA over which agency has authority to
determine air tours impacts in Grand Canyon. (It took the recent D.C.
Circuit decision to settle that debate).
Question 3. What is your position on Alternative Dispute Resolution
as a way to end some of the deadlock that consistently seems to come up
in this process?
Answer. We think that the recent D.C. Circuit decision on this
issue made clear what the FAA and Park Service must do to implement the
Overflights Act. They must substantially restore natural quiet, as that
term has been interpreted by the Park Service. (They are already more
than 15 years late in doing so.) NPCA would be open to a stakeholder
discussion regarding ways to achieve that statutory mandate consistent
with the Park Service's interpretation of ``substantial restoration of
natural quiet'' in Grand Canyon National Park, as upheld by the D.C.
Circuit Court. We would oppose any effort to reopen for ``negotiation''
issues regarding interpretation of the Overflights Act and its key
terms that have already been resolved by the D.C. Circuit.
I would note that we have not yet received any formal invitation
from NPS regarding an ``ADR'' process for the Grand Canyon.
Question 4. Do you believe that the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act faces the same hurdles and obstacles as we have faced in
the implementation of the law governing air tours at Grand Canyon? What
can be done to ensure that this process is not bogged down?
Answer. There appear to be many parallels between the Grand Canyon
overflights issue and implementation challenges facing the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act (the Act). To avoid delays in
implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act, we
suggest the Committee take the following steps:
Resolve the issue of which agency has the authority to
determine air tours' impacts on parks. The Park Service has the
expertise for managing national park resources, visitors, and
values. Congress has recognized the Park Service's
responsibility to protect national parks according to the
mandate of the Organic Act of 1916, yet the FAA is reluctant to
acknowledge formally the Park Service expertise in natural
quiet preservation.
Ensure that both the FAA and NPS make air tour management
planning a priority and agree to follow the spirit of the Act.
Perhaps a ``truce'' document signed at multiple levels--high
levels--of both agencies would create a mutual understanding of
past problems and help avoid repeating past mistakes.
Ensure that the Park Service commits sufficient resources
to implementation of the Act. Although FAA is the lead agency,
the resources it is dedicating to the park air tour management
process far outweighs the Park Services input. This lack of
balance in resources may leave park managers at a disadvantage
when advocating for the protection of natural quiet in park
areas.