[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6216]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 17, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 91 and 95
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
National Park Service
_______________________________________________________________________
36 CFR Part 1, et al.
Overflights of Units of the National Park System; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91 and 135
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
[Docket No. 27643; Notice No. 94-4]
Overflights of Units of the National Park System
AGENCY: National Park Service (NPS), DOI and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice seeks public comment on general policy and
specific recommendations for voluntary and regulatory actions to
address the effects of aircraft overflights on national parks.
On December 22, 1993, Transportation Secretary Federico Pena and
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt announced the formation of an
interagency working group to explore ways to limit or reduce impacts
from overflights on national parks. Secretary Babbitt and Secretary
Pena concur that increased flight operations at the Grand Canyon and
other national parks have significantly diminished the national park
experience for park visitors, and that measures can and should be taken
to preserve a quality park experience for visitors. The Secretaries see
the formation of the working group, and the mutual commitment to
addressing the impacts of park overflights, as the initial steps in a
new spirit of cooperation between the two departments.
National parks are unique national resources that have been
provided special protection by law. The National Park Service (NPS) and
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognize that excessive
noise from commercial air tours and other flights over units of the
national parks system can interfere with NPS efforts to achieve a
natural park experience for visitors and to preserve other park values.
Through the interagency working group, the NPS and FAA will cooperate
in developing measures to resolve current noise impacts and prevent
potential future impacts from overflights at national parks. The
purpose of this ANPRM is twofold. First, the ANPRM addresses
overflights of Grand Canyon National Park and national parks in the
State of Hawaii, with particular emphasis on overflights by commercial
tour operators. Second, the ANPRM solicits policy views and
recommendations on more general issues as part of an effort to form a
comprehensive policy on preventing, minimizing, or eliminating impacts
of aircraft overflights.
This notice presents options that may be considered as means to
minimize the adverse effects of commercial air tour operations and
other overflights on units of the national park system, and seeks
public comments and suggestions on voluntary and regulatory actions to
deal with noise and other overflight issues that may affect national
parks.
DATES: Comments on this ANPRM must be received on or before June 15,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this advance notice should be mailed, in
triplicate, to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 27643, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments delivered must
be marked Docket No. 27643. Comments may be examined in room 915G
weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Bennett, Office of Chief
Counsel, AGC-600, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3473, or Michael
M. Tiernan, Office of the Solicitor, Department of Interior (DOI), 18th
and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone (202) 208-7597.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. Comments relating to the policy,
environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that might result
from considering the options in this advance notice are also invited.
Comments should identify the regulatory docket number and should be
submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above.
All comments received on or before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered by NPS and FAA before taking action on this
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. All comments received will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Commenters wishing
the FAA or NPS to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this notice must include a preaddressed, stamped postcard
on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No.
27643.'' The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of ANPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this ANPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-200, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3485. Communications
must identify the notice number of this ANPRM.
Background
The management of the national park system is guided by the
Constitution, public laws (Pub. L.), proclamations, executive orders,
rules and regulations, and directives of the Secretary of the Interior
and the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. The Act of
August 25, 1916, otherwise known as the NPS Organic Act, established
the NPS and serves as the touchstone for national park system
management philosophy and policy. The Act created the NPS to promote
and regulate national parks, monuments, and reservations in accordance
with the fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments, and
reservations, which is ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' (16 U.S.C.
1). Subsequent legislation further states that any authorized activity
``shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes'' of
a park area or the national park system, except as may have been or
shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 U.S.C. 1a-
1).
Thus, ``unimpairment'' is joined by a responsibility to avoid
derogation not only of the purposes of a park area but also the values
for which the national park system and its individual units have been
established.
In 1987, the Congress enacted the NPS Overflights Act because it
recognized that aircraft overflights can adversely affect national
parks. The Act specifically found that noise associated with aircraft
overflight at the Grand Canyon National Park was causing ``a
significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the
park and current operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have
raised serious concerns regarding safety of park users.'' (Pub. L. 100-
91, section 3(a)). The Act mandated a number of studies related to the
effects of overflights on parks. The studies have taken longer than was
originally anticipated because many of the issues with which they deal
are on the cutting edge of technical and scientific capability.
Measuring degrees of quiet and perception of quiet is very different
from measuring amounts of noise. Since the Overflights Act was passed,
the adverse effects associated with the numbers and extent of
commercial air sightseeing tours have continued to expand.
The general and over-arching responsibilities for park management
by NPS may be modified by specific direction in individual enabling
legislation and proclamations. The individual statutes and
proclamations for some units of the national park system make it clear
that the units were established to provide visitors with natural quiet,
an opportunity for solitude, and other attributes that are not
necessarily compatible with the noise of commercial air tour
sightseeing flights. Some people simply find commercial sightseeing
tours over parks inappropriate and incompatible with protection of
certain park values and resources. On the other hand, a commercial air
tour may provide an opportunity for people to see some park resources
in ways not otherwise attainable.
As is pointed out in the Management Policies (NPS 1988):
Over the years, legislative and administrative actions have been
taking place that have brought some measure of change to these
components of our national parks. Such actions impact park
resources, yet they are not necessarily deemed to have impaired
resources for the enjoyment of future generations. Whether an
individual action is or is not an ``impairment'' is a management
determination based on NPS policy. In reaching it, the manager
should consider such factors as the spatial and temporal extent of
the impacts, the resources being impacted and their ability to
adjust to those impacts, the relation of the impacted resources to
other park resources, and the cumulative as well as the individual
effects.
Both physical resources, such as wildlife or geologic features or
cultural resources, and intangible values, such as natural quiet
solitude, and the experience of wilderness, can be impaired.
Impacts to Parks
In the case of commercial air tour sightseeing flights operating
over and near units of the national park system, the NPS believes that
significant park resources are being impaired in some units. Managers
of almost one-third of national park system units perceive a problem
with some aspect of already existing aircraft overflights. The sound of
aircraft is regarded as the primary impact. A survey of park managers
confirmed that mechanical noise is among the more serious problems in
parks and aircraft noise is the most prominent among these. The
perception of noise and adverse effects in units of the national park
system may be related to the fact that parks tend to be quieter places
in general and that typical sources of noise found in urban and
suburban settings are absent in most parks. The potential exists for
impairment of park resources and values by the noise and visual
intrusion associated with commercial air tour/sightseeing operations in
other units where the air tour sightseeing industry is not yet
established or developed.
Given the changes in our population distribution, patterns of use
of our national parks, and other factors related to transportation, it
is no longer sufficient for park managers to consider strategies and
actions solely within park boundaries to protect parks and their
resources. Overflights are a case in point. Most overflights of units
of the national park system begin and end at airports outside parks;
the attractions the overflights offer are the resources of the parks
themselves. Technically, the park overflight passenger is not a park
visitor even though there may be significant adverse effects from noise
on the park. In recognition of this fact, the FAA and the NPS are
working more closely to use the FAA's plenary authority for regulation
of aviation in support of NPS management objectives.
FAA Authorities
The FAA has broad authority and responsibility to regulate the
operation of aircraft and the use of the navigable airspace, and to
establish safety standards for and regulate the certification of
airmen, aircraft, and air carriers. (Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended (FAAct), Section 307(a) and (c); Title VI.) The FAAct provides
guidance to the Administrator in carrying out this responsibility.
Section 102 of the FAAct states that the Administrator will consider
the public interest to include among other things, regulation for
safety and efficiency of both civil and military operations, promotion
of the development of civil aviation, fulfillment of the requirements
of national defense, and operation of a common system of air traffic
control for civil and military aircraft. Section 104 provides to each
citizen of the United States a public right of transit through the
navigable airspace of the United States. Section 305 directs and
authorizes the Administrator to encourage and foster the development of
civil aeronautics and air commerce. Section 306 requires the
Administrator in exercising his authority, to give full consideration
to the requirements of national defense, commercial and general
aviation, and to the public right of freedom of transit through the
navigable airspace.
The FAA's authority is not limited to regulation for aviation
safety, efficiency, and development. Subsection 307(c) of the FAAct
provides that FAA air traffic rules and flight regulations may be
adopted ``for the protection of persons and property on the ground.''
The FAA considers this protection to extend to environmental values on
the surface as well as to the safety of persons and property. Section
611 of the FAAct, ``in order to afford present and future relief to the
public health and welfare from aircraft noise,'' directs the
Administrator to adopt regulations ``as the FAA may find necessary for
the control and abatement of aircraft noise,'' including application of
such regulations to any of the various certificates issued under Title
VI. Finally, it is the general policy of the Federal government that
the FAA, like other agencies, will exercise its authority in a manner
that will enhance the environment, and that the FAA will make a special
effort to preserve the natural beauty of public park and recreation
lands, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges. Section 101 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321;
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 303;
and Executive Order 11514, as amended by Executive Order 11991. In
addition, the DOT has further authority to regulate services by
commercial operators.
Fees
The Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66, August 10,
1993) amended Section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a) requiring the NPS to impose a commercial tour
use fee on each vehicle entering a unit of the national park system,
that presently charges an entrance fee, for the purpose of providing
commercial tour services.
In addition to surface transportation, this commercial use fee
applies to aircraft entering ``the airspace of units of the National
Park System'' identified in sections 2(b) and 3 of Public Law 100.91
(Grand Canyon National Park and Haleakala National Park) as well as any
other park areas where the level of commercial aircraft services are
equal to or greater than these two identified areas.
The actual fees established by the legislation are as follows:
$25 per vehicle with a capacity of 25 people or less, and
$50 per vehicle with a capacity greater than 25 people.
The legislation also gives the Secretary the authority to make
reasonable adjustments to these recommended commercial tour fees.
Currently, there are no additional NPS areas that charge entrance fees,
and also have a level of commercial aircraft services equal or greater
to Grand Canyon or Haleakala National Parks. As a result of the
legislation, the NPS will need to monitor the number of air tour
operations over the affected parks.
Grand Canyon National Park
At Grand Canyon, 42 companies offer aerial tours operating from
five states (Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico). These
companies provide air tours of the Grand Canyon to about 750,000 people
and generate revenues in excess of $100 million. During peak summer
months, the number of tours exceeds 10,000 each month. On June 5, 1987,
the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-1 (52
FR 22734, June 15, 1987) which provided rules to enhance safety of
overflight operations in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National
Park. Section 3 of Public Law 100-91 required the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior (DOI) to submit to the FAA Administrator
recommendations 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 Grand Canyon. With limited
exceptions, the recommendations were to prohibit the flight of aircraft
below the rim of the Canyon and to designate zones that were flight
free except for purposes of administration of underlying lands and
emergency operations.
Public Law 100-91 further required the Secretary of the Interior to
prepare and issue a final plan for the management of air traffic above
the Grand Canyon. In December 1987, the DOI submitted recommendations
to the FAA for an aircraft management plan at the Grand Canyon. The
recommendations included both rulemaking and non-rulemaking actions. On
May 27, 1988, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50-2 (53 FR 20264, June 2, 1988)
which revises the procedures for operation of aircraft in the airspace
above the Grand Canyon. The rule implements the preliminary
recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior for an aircraft
management plan at the Grand Canyon with some modifications that the
FAA initiated in the interest of aviation safety. SFAR No. 50-2
establishes a Special Flight Rules Area from the surface to 14,500 feet
above mean seal level (MSL) in the area of the Grand Canyon. The SFAR
prohibits flight below a certain altitude in each of five sectors of
this area with some exceptions. The SFAR also establishes flight free
zones from the surface to 14,500 feet msl above large areas of the
park. The ``flight free zones'' cover virtually all of the visitors to
the North and South Rims and about 90 percent of backcountry users. The
SFAR also provided special routes for commercial tour operators and
transient operators through the canyon area, Commercial air tour
operations are required to be conducted as air taxi and commercial
operations under part 135 with stringent requirements including special
operations specifications for Grand Canyon. The NPS believes the SFAR
has been successful in limiting some noise-associated adverse impacts
to the park but most, if not all, of the gain has been, or may be, lost
as a result of the exponential growth in numbers of flights over the
canyon.
Virtually every class of visitor activity at Grand Canyon National
Park is limited or controlled in some way by the NPS to insure that
there will be no derogation or impairment of resources and values. Each
raft trip on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park must
have a permit and the number of permits is limited for both commercial
and private rafters. For some private raft trips, a permit may take 4
or 5 years to obtain. Each over-night visitor in the backcountry must
have a backcountry permit; the demand for such permits far exceeds the
supply. The waiting list for trips by mule into the inner canyon runs
into years for some times of the year. There are a limited number of
hotel rooms in the park and there are a limited number of parking
spaces. In contrast, the commercial air tour sector has experienced
unlimited growth at Grand Canyon National Park in the last 10 years.
This is so even though Congress found noise associated with overflights
to be significantly and adversely affecting the park in the 1987
Overflights Act. In addition, the NPS believes there is ample evidence
that the uncontrolled and unregulated growth in this sector is in
derogation of the resources and values of the park. NPS studies to that
effect will be published later this year.
Grand Canyon--Actions to Date
Public Law 100-91 directed the DOI to substantially restore
``natural quiet'' to the Grand Canyon National Park. Public Law 100-91
also required a study of aircraft noise impacts at a number of national
parks and imposed flight restrictions at three parks: Grand Canyon
National Park, Yosemite National Park in California, and Haleakala
National Park in Hawaii. Public Law 100-91 also required the DOI to
conduct a study, with the technical assistance of the Secretary of
Transportation, to determine the proper minimum altitude to be
maintained by aircraft when flying over units of the national park
system. The research was to include an evaluation of the noise levels
associated with overflights. Before submission to Congress, the DOI is
to provide a draft report (containing the results of its studies) and
recommendations for legislative and regulatory action to the FAA for
review. The FAA is to notify the DOI of any adverse effects these
recommendations would have on the safety of aircraft operations. The
FAA is to consult with the DOI to resolve these issues. The final
report must include a finding by the FAA that implementation of the DOI
recommendations will not have adverse effects on the safety of aircraft
operations, or, in the alternative, a statement of the reasons why the
recommendations will have an adverse effect. The DOI expects to
complete the report by early summer, 1994.
Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks
The national parks in Hawaii--Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala--have
similar problems with commercial air sightseeing tours, principally
noise associated with helicopters. The FAA held a series of public
hearings in January 1994 to elicit public comments and recommendations
for regulatory or policy action related to overflights, including their
effects on parks. There are 9 tour operators on the island of Hawaii,
and there are approximately 60 commercial air tours a day over Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park. At Haleakala, which was established to
preserve resources in ``natural condition,'' (39 Stat. 432, section 4),
seven companies based on the island of Maui offer helicopter tours. On
clear days, helicopters fly over the park during all hours of daylight
so that helicopter noise is audible over 30 minutes of every daylight
hour (personal communication, Haleakala National Park). Interpretive
talks, wildlife observations and censuses, ceremonies, and other normal
activities are interrupted by air tour overflights. The NPS recognizes
that the commercial air tour industry is important to the economy of
Hawaii but also believes that the tourism industry benefits from the
continued NPS protection of the superlative resources of its national
parks, unimpaired.
Hawaii--Actions to Date
The majority of flights conducted by helicopter companies in Hawaii
are commercial air tour/sightseeing operations. Both the NPS and FAA
have received numerous complaints of commercial air sightseeing tour
flights over residential communities, national parks, wildlife refuge
areas, State natural reserve areas, sanctuaries and areas of
significant historic or cultural value. Issues raised by the growth of
air tour sightseeing activity and the associated increase in the number
of flights conducted over a given area include aircraft noise, flight
noise, flight safety, and airport site constraints near scenic areas.
It may be necessary to determine if there are thresholds of adverse
effects that have been met in terms of impacts to the parks.
The FAA has taken several steps to address the overflight issues in
Hawaii. In 1986, the FAA conducted a study of helicopter sightseeing
operations in Hawaii. As a result of that study, recommendations were
made to the State and to operators in Hawaii to improve safety and
community relations. Also in 1986, the FAA conducted a joint study with
the State on heliport and airport access. A result of that study was a
helicopter operating plan for Hawaii. Numerous meetings have since been
held with NPS personnel, industry, and local communities, including
four public meetings conducted in January 1994.
Impacts to Parks and Their Resources
At some parks, including Grand Canyon National Park, Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park, and Haleakala National Park, the temporal and
spatial extent of commercial air tours are, in the judgment of NPS
managers, impairing park resources and visitor experience. While the
NPS and FAA are interested in evaluating potential solutions to the
problems at these parks, they are also seeking solutions that will make
it possible to avert problems in the future throughout the national
park system as have developed at these parks.
Cultural Resources
Very limited information is available on the response of structures
to subsonic aircraft and helicopters. The greatest potential risk to
historic structures and cultural resources in units of the national
park system is from helicopters. The noise characteristics of
helicopters are such that they tend to excite nearby structural
elements at their resonance frequency, causing low frequency
vibrations, rattle, and in some cases, damage. The sound pressure is
greatest at structures in the plane of the main rotor, such as could be
the case for a helicopter approaching cliff dwellings. When
representative cultural resources were reviewed for probability of
damage, most were found to be at some risk from commercial air
sightseeing tours. Mesa Verde (Colorado) and Canyonlands National Parks
(Utah), among others, protest fragile prehistoric stone and adobe
structures, including granaries and cliff dwellings, as well as
associated cultural materials that are susceptible to damage from
helicopter-induced noise and rotor wash. The cultural and spiritual
values commemorated in units of the national park system like San
Antonio Missions National Historical Parks and the battlefields of the
Civil War can be wholly lost by frequent and intrusive commercial air
sightseeing tour overflights.
As further examples of areas impacted by aircraft overflights,
Mount Rushmore National Memorial and the Statue of Liberty National
Monument are cultural icons that can be adversely affected in
significant ways be commercial air tour overflights. At the Statue of
Liberty, an impending aircraft service would take off and land
helicopters from a floating raft less than one-half mile from the
statue. This service would be added to two existing commercial
sightseeing helicopter operators that account for 115 flights per day
and a service that operates four fixed-wing aircraft on air tours.
Similarly, the experience of Mount Rushmore National Memorial for the
visitors on the ground can be irretrievably lost as a consequence of
the aircraft flights close to memorial.
Wildlife Effects
A comprehensive study of the adverse effects of commercial air
sightseeing tours on wildlife in parks has yet to be concluded. Studies
to date indicate that aircraft can be associated with stress responses
on a number of animals, including migratory birds. Endangered species,
like the grizzly bear in Glacier National Park, can be harassed by
commercial air tour operators unaware of the potential adverse effects
of flying too close to them. Other mammals like desert bighorn sheep,
dear, and elk that have found refuge in parks can be panicked and
stressed by low-flying aircraft, as well. No studies that evaluate
long-term effects on wildlife, including population level impacts of
commercial air sightseeing tours, have been conducted. As with any
potential impact associated with activities in parks, the NPS policy is
to err on the side of resource protection until conclusive information
is available that would indicate otherwise.
Assessing Noise Impacts
The FAA is working with the NPS to define acceptable noise levels
as the basis for any proposed limitations on aircraft overflights. This
process involves identifying areas with the highest levels of noise
sensitivity. Highly sensitive areas potentially would be subject to
lower noise limits than would apply to other areas with higher ambient
noise levels, based on resource values, types of use, or other factors.
Depending on local conditions, alternative approaches may be employed
in different areas to achieve the same noise goal.
Current FAA policy and guidelines designate the yearly day-night
average sound level (DNL) as the single noise metric for measuring
aviation impacts on people in and around airports. This traditional
metric alone may not be appropriate for assessing aviation noise
impacts in parks and wilderness areas. Three supplemental metrics other
than DNL are proven and appear particularly suitable for site-specific
assessments. These are Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), Sound
Exposure Level (SEL) and Time Above a dBA Threshold (TA). Additionally,
defining a change of 5 dB as significant at any initial DNL level may
be appropriate for specifying further noise analysis in parks and
wilderness areas.
The ongoing NPS studies have identified two potential (dose-
response relationships that also may be appropriate for assessing
aircraft noise impacts. These are ``Annoyance vs. Percent Time Heard''
and ``Interference with Quiet vs. Percent Time Heard.'' These
relationships are preliminary and must be subjected to rigorous
analysis for further determination of their potential application.
Policy Considerations
In reviewing potential alternatives for achieving NPS and FAA
purposes, the FAA has considered a number of measures within its
authority under the FAAct that would have the potential to address the
problems identified by the NPS. In determining whether a particular
action would be beneficial for this purpose and otherwise feasible, the
FAA and NPS must take into account a number of legal and policy
considerations.
The action, if regulatory, must be consistent with Administration
rulemaking principles as set forth in Executive Order 12866. These
principles include requirements that regulations be drafted in the most
cost-effective manner to achieve the objective; that regulations be
based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical,
economic, and other information concerning the need for and
consequences of the action to be taken; and that regulations be
tailored to impose the least burden on society, including individuals,
businesses, and communities, consistent with obtaining the regulatory
objective.
The action must have no adverse effect on aviation safety. The
action should have the minimum possible adverse effect on the
efficiency of air navigation, consistent with the regulatory objective,
and should not unduly burden interstate commerce. It must also meet NPS
requirements for protecting resources, assuring that there is no
impairment, and that there is no derogation, to park resources and
values.
The action should focus directly on the problem rather than
indirectly. For example, if the issue is the adverse impacts of
overflights of a unit of the national park system, then the agency
action will address those overflights directly, rather than seek to
influence them through regulation of takeoffs and landings at a nearby
airport.
Options for Evaluation
The FAA and NPS believe that each of the following measures may
have some utility, in certain circumstances, as a measure to mitigate
the adverse effects of commercial air sightseeing tour overflights of
units of the national park system. Inasmuch as some of the measures
have not been used before, neither the FAA nor NPS has concluded that
such actions would meet the legal and policy considerations summarized
above, and specific comment is requested on the benefits, costs, and
impacts of each.
Voluntary Measures
Voluntary, non-regulatory measures that mitigate noise impacts
would impose the minimum burden on operators and can be effective. An
example is the recommended minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground
level described in FAA Advisory Circular 91-36C, which is honored by
most transient operators. Another option would be expansion of the
existing Interagency Agreement among the FAA, the NPS, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Through that
agreement the proponents agree to assess severe situations where impact
of aircraft operations upon human, cultural, or natural resources are
sufficiently serious to warrant consideration of site-specific action
by the FAA to minimize or eliminate the causes of such problems.
Expansion of the Interagency Agreement could provide for additional
non-regulatory actions by the agencies to mitigate overflight impacts.
The agencies seek comments on the relative merits of voluntary measures
generally, and specific suggestions for other voluntary measures not
currently used by the FAA or NPS.
Grand Canyon Model
One option is to follow a model similar to that in use at Grand
Canyon, with extensive regulation of airspace, routes, and minimum
altitudes as discussed separately below. Such an approach may not
adequately consider the fact that the total number and frequency of
flights, and the steady growth in numbers of flights, are not currently
addressed under that regulatory framework.
Prohibition of Flights During Flight-Free Time Periods
A prohibition could be established on use of some or all of the
airspace above parks at certain times; e.g., 1 hour per day, 1 day per
week, or 2-4 weeks per year. The ``quiet times'' would be published
well in advance both for air tour operator scheduling and for planning
by park visitors. In terms of noise mitigation, non-flying quiet
periods would present an unusual approach to the balance between air
access and the interest in restoring some degree of the natural quiet
in Grand Canyon National Park. At some cost in inconvenience and lost
business for air tour operators and temporarily reduced access to air
tours for their passengers, the park would enjoy a virtual absence of
aircraft noise in sensitive areas for specific periods. The agencies
specifically request comment on the potential efficacy of these
approaches in meeting FAA and NPS goals.
Altitude Restrictions
SFAR No. 50-2 at Grand Canyon currently specifies a minimum
altitude for flight over the different areas of the park as high as
14,500 feet msl. It also specifies minimum altitudes for operation in
the flight corridors between the flight-free zones. Different altitudes
are specified for transient general aviation operations and for air
tour operators, to separate high-frequency tour flights from one-time
transient flights. Different altitudes are also specified for fixed-
wing aircraft and helicopter tour flights, for safety and efficiency
reasons. The tour operation altitudes are at canyon rim level or above
(although some are slightly below the minimum altitude requested by NPS
as ``rim level'' in 1987). A relatively high minimum altitude in a
particular area limits access to the airspace over that area by many
general aviation aircraft because of performance limitations.
Generally, noise mitigation is achieved through higher minimum
altitudes because the greater the slant-range distance from an aircraft
to a point on the surface, the lower the sound level on the surface
from aircraft noise. However, this mitigation can be offset or reversed
based on attenuation factors such as hills, heavily wooded areas, and
``soft ground'' terrain.
Flight Free Zones/Flight Corridors
SFAR No. 50-2 at Grand Canyon now describes specific ``flight-
free'' zones to an altitude of 14,500 feet msl above the park. The
remaining airspace is defined as corridors for operations over the park
by both general aviation and commercial air tour operators. Impact
mitigation is achieved through specifying corridors for flight over the
park that assure there are no overflights of large areas of the park
below the current minimum altitude of 14,500 feet msl. The current
corridors and flight-free zones could be amended to address concerns
about effects on particular areas of the park.
Restrictions on Noise Through Allocation of Aircraft Noise
Equivalencies
A noise budget is a mechanism for limiting total aircraft noise
impact on the park by assigning each air tour operator an individual
limit on noise impact. This would allow individual air tour operators
the flexibility to decide what combination of equipment and flight
frequency they will use to attain the target noise level. The noise
budget would apply only to air tour sightseeing operators and not to
transient general aviation operations. The noise budget concept assumes
that the FAA and NPS could determine (1) the acceptable amount of
aircraft noise exposure on the park surface, and (2) the number of
aircraft operations under various mixes of aircraft types that could
operate within the total noise budget.
While complex to develop and administer, the noise budget could
achieve noise mitigation through directly addressing the issue of noise
impact but would not address the impacts other than noise. Once the
``budget'' is established based on target noise levels in various areas
of the park, air tour operators would have substantial flexibility to
adjust their business operations without exceeding those levels. The
noise budget could act as a practical limit on the amount of aviation
activity, but would not impose limits on the number of operations. A
noise budget would also represent an incentive for operators to acquire
relatively quiet aircraft to avoid a penalty on the number of
operations that could be conducted within each operator's target noise
level.
Individual allocations under a noise budget could be established by
designating maximum noise levels for each operator. This could be done
by ``grandfathering'' the current noise contribution by each air tour
operator, or by some other administrative means.
Incentives To Encourage Use of Quiet Aircraft
Air tour operators could be encouraged to use relatively quiet
aircraft on park overflights. For example, a flight corridor with a
good scenic view of the canyon could be limited to aircraft meeting
certain noise emission standards. An air tour operator could find it
advantageous to convert its entire fleet to such quiet aircraft to
incorporate that corridor in its tours. While there is no Federal
requirement for aircraft to be manufactured to produce less noise than
Stage 3 standards, some aircraft appropriate for air tour operations
are quieter than Stage 3. Increased use of such aircraft in air tours
would achieve noise mitigation through reducing noise levels on the
surface of the park, although this option does not address issues other
than noise.
Questions
The NPS and FAA also solicit comments on several questions related
to air tour sightseeing operations in and adjacent to units of the
national park system.
Policy
1. Should commercial sightseeing flights be prohibited over certain
national parks? If so, what criteria should be used in determining
which parks should not have such tours?
2. Should action pertaining to aircraft overflights in national
parks be considered only for air tour/sightseeing operations? What
circumstances would include other categories of overflights?
3. What factors should be considered by NPS and FAA in evaluating
recommendations for addressing aircraft overflight issues?
Technical
1. Is the use of quiet technology aircraft a viable alternative for
reducing noise from commercial air tour/sightseeing operations in
national parks?
2. Should all commercial air tour/sightseeing operations be
conducted under air carrier rules of FAR part 135 and/or 121?
3. Should air carrier operators be required to have special
operations specifications for conducting sightseeing flights?
4. Should there be special airspace rules for identified units of
the national park system?
5. Should the measures developed for Grand Canyon and Hawaii become
models for more general use at parks with actual or potential
overflight impacts?
Request for Comments
The FAA and NPS solicit comments and information from all segments
of the public interested in aviation and national parks and their
relationship. The primary focus of this advance notice is commercial
air sightseeing tours, rather than military or general aviation
operations. It is anticipated that any regulations eventually developed
would be general in nature and applicable to the entire national park
system. It is not the intent of the NPS or FAA to develop regulations
specific to any one park at this time. However, examples of aviation
activities observed in one park may be used to support an opinion on
overall aviation management issues.
All comments received by FAA and NPS at the addresses and by the
dates listed above will be reviewed and utilized in any development of
proposed regulations. Comments received pursuant to this Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking will be analyzed and discussed in the preamble
to the Proposed Rule. Any proposed rulemaking will also be made
available for public review and comment.
Regulatory Process Matters
Economic Impact
The FAA and NPS are unable to determine at this point the likely
costs of imposing regulations affecting overflights of national parks
or the annual effect on the economy. Following a review of the comments
submitted to this ANPRM, the FAA and NPS will determine what regulatory
requirements will be proposed, if any, and will review the potential
costs and benefits, as required by Executive Order 12866.
Significance
This anticipated rulemaking is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined in Executive Order 12866. The FAA has determined
that the ANPRM is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and
Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034, February
2, 1979).
Other Regulatory Matters
At this preliminary stage it is not yet possible to determine
whether there will be a significant economic impact on a number of
small entities or what the paperwork burden might be. These regulatory
matters will be addressed at the time of publication of any NPRM on
this subject.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Parts 1 through 7
Grand Canyon National Park, Haleakala National Park, Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park.
14 CFR Parts 91 and 135
Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Air taxis, Air traffic control,
Aviation safety, Noise control.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 11, 1994.
Barry L. Valentine,
Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, & International Aviation.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Interior, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-6216 Filed 3-14-94; 12:28 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M