[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28751-28753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14102]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024-AC29


Cape Lookout National Seashore, Airstrip Closure

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is publishing this final rule 
to close the Portsmouth Village Airstrip at Cape Lookout National 
Seashore, North Carolina, to the operation of aircraft. The special 
regulation is necessary for the operation of the airstrip. Removal of 
the special regulation will effectively close the airstrip as a 
violation of 36 CFR 2.17. This action is necessary to prevent aircraft 
accidents and eliminate a use that is incompatible with preserving the 
historic scene in Portsmouth Village, a historic district listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places. This rule will protect the flying 
public by closing an airstrip that does not comply with Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) and North Carolina Department of 
Transportation safety standards. Closure of the airstrip will also 
eliminate the potential for an aircraft accident that could destroy one 
or more irreplaceable historic structures, eliminate the anachronistic 
intrusion of aircraft in a historic village and provide for the safety 
of park visitors who cross the airstrip runway as they walk from 
Portsmouth Village to the beach.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on July 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. James Zahradka, Supervisory Park 
Ranger, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 131 Charles Street, Harkers 
Island, NC. 28531. Telephone 919-728-2250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Portsmouth Village Airstrip (Airstrip) is located on the northeast 
corner of Portsmouth Village (Village). The Village is geographically 
remote because of its location on a part of the outer banks (Core 
Banks) not connected to the mainland by bridge. The origins of 
Portsmouth Village can be traced back to 1752, when it was authorized 
by the Colonial Legislature of North Carolina. There are no permanent 
residents in this well-preserved ``ghost town,'' although over 2,000 
people visit annually. The historical significance of the Village is 
underscored by its listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
    Long-term residents of the Village area report that the unpaved 
Airstrip was constructed by private individuals for recreational use 
shortly after World War II. In this earlier period, the Airstrip was 
not as long as it is today, but was leveled and extended to its present 
approximate length of 1640 feet in 1959.
    The NPS began managing the Airstrip after the State of North 
Carolina ceded Core Banks to the Federal Government to establish Cape 
Lookout National Seashore (Seashore) in 1976. Operating or using 
aircraft on lands and waters managed by the NPS is prohibited (36 CFR 
2.17(a)(1)) other than at locations designated pursuant to special 
regulations. In 1984, the NPS promulgated a special regulation (36 CFR 
7.98(a)) legalizing aircraft operations on the Airstrip. Seashore 
management continued to maintain the grass surface and trimmed back 
encroaching woody vegetation to the extent that limited funding 
allowed.
    Recently, the NPS became concerned about potential hazards related 
to aircraft operations on the Airstrip. These concerns stem from a 
report by an inspector of the North Carolina

[[Page 28752]]

Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, that the Airstrip 
does not meet the following FAA recommended runway standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Standard                                               Description                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR, Part 77...........................................  Each end of the runway should have a 20 to 4 approach  
                                                          slope. (Obstacles should not exceed more than one foot
                                                          of rise for every 20-foot increment of horizontal     
                                                          distance from the end of a runway).                   
FAA AC 150/5300-1300...................................  Each side of the runway centerline should be clear of  
                                                          obstacles by at least 125 feet.                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, brush and small trees up to 12 feet tall grow on the south 
end of the Airstrip. Dense brush and trees growing on the Airstrip 
edges narrow the area clear of obstacles from the centerline to an 
average of only 59 feet, less than half the recommended width.
    Although several accidents have occurred to aircraft landing on or 
taking off from the Airstrip, only three accidents are officially 
documented with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A 
review of these NTSB reports indicates that the Airstrip is considered 
``unsuitable terrain'' because it has a soft spot at its center and has 
``high obstructions'' (dense brush and trees up to 20 feet tall) lining 
the runway.
    Protecting irreplaceable historic structures and preserving the 
historic scene are also very important concerns related to aircraft 
use. One of the most important historic structures in the Village, the 
Portsmouth Life Saving Station (Station), is only 101 feet east of the 
airstrip centerline. A detached kitchen for the Station is only 78 feet 
east of the centerline and the Station stable is only 89 feet west of 
the centerline. The possibility of aircraft eventually colliding with 
structures so close to the center line is considered high with 
continued use of this narrow Airstrip. It would be necessary to move 
the Station and nearby associated structures to bring the Airstrip into 
compliance with FAA standards. Moving historic structures from their 
original locations seriously degrades their historical integrity and 
may affect their status on the National Register of Historic Places.
    Direct impact is not the only concern of the NPS. The Airstrip and 
the Village lie in a mixed brush/maritime forest. Dense vegetation of 
this plant community grows inside the Village. Fire from an aircraft 
accident in the vicinity of the Airstrip could easily spread from the 
brush/forest into the Village and destroy many structures. Because of 
the isolated character of the Village, fire suppression services are 
minimal. The foot and vehicle trail from the Village to the beach 
crosses the Airstrip at the old Lifesaving Station. As a result, 
visitors potentially are exposed to aircraft takeoffs and landings 
without prior warning. Visitors also desire a quiet, historic scene 
when visiting the Village. Aircraft noise and visual intrusions are not 
conducive to preserving such a setting.
    Approximately 300 of the 2,000+ people visiting the Village 
annually arrive by aircraft. (This estimate is based on approximately 
75 aircraft landings recorded by staff annually, with an average of 
four visitors per aircraft.) An alternate airport, Ocracoke Island 
Airport, is just 6 miles from the Airstrip. NPS-authorized ferry boat 
services provide transportation between Ocracoke and the Village for 
$15 to $20 per person. At least one of these services offers free 
ground transportation between Ocracoke Island Airport and the ferry 
dock for groups that prefer landing at Ocracoke Island Airport rather 
than the Airstrip.
    The anticipated costs, approximately $40,000, of clearing 
vegetation from the Airstrip centerline and repairing the runway 
surface (levelling and resodding) are prohibitive under present funding 
levels for the Seashore. The estimated annual cost for maintaining the 
grass surface of the Airstrip is $3,000, also prohibitive under present 
fiscal constraints.

Summary of Comments Received

    On July 12, 1995, the NPS published proposed regulations that would 
close Portsmouth Village Airstrip to Aircraft use (60 FR 35887) and 
public comment was invited. The comment period closed August 12, 1995. 
During the public comment period, the NPS received two written 
responses regarding the proposed rule. One responder opposed the 
closure. The other sought clarification of the proposed closure.
    1. Issue: After affect of closure. One responder was concerned that 
government agencies/entities would still use the Airstrip after the 
closure and wanted to know if the NPS was planning to post the Airstrip 
with signs such as ``Closed to the Recreational Users.'' This responder 
was also concerned as to whether the NPS would allow the Airstrip to 
revert to a natural state.
    Response: The Airstrip will be closed to all aircraft use. The 
Airstrip has been removed from the 1996 North Carolina and National 
Aeronautical Charts and has been physically marked with an ``X'' at 
both ends. At present, the park mows the Airstrip at least once a week 
during the grass growing season. This frequency will not be necessary 
after the official closure of the airstrip.
    The NPS intends to reduce the threat of fire to the historic 
district by brushing the undergrowth to bring the area back to its 
approximate appearance of the early 1900's. Portions of the present 
Airstrip will be maintained as open space.
    2. Issue: No reference to a visitor visiting the Village by an 
ultra-light aircraft or seaplane.
    Response: There is no documented history of the airstrip being used 
by an ultra-light aircraft. Seaplanes are prohibited under 36 CFR 2.17. 
36 CFR 7.98(a) was promulgated to allow aircraft use of the Airstrip.
    3. Issue: Safety and the likelihood of damage to the historical 
structures at the end of the airstrip. One responder questioned safety 
as a justification for the closure and that the FAA standards cited do 
not apply to this Airstrip. The responder felt that the history of 
minor damage to planes as a result of the soft runway is not 
justification for closure and that most pilots are proficient enough to 
prevent becoming stuck.
    Response: On August 25, 1989, an Aviation Planner/Inspector with 
the North Carolina Department of Transportation visited the Airstrip to 
gather information for the FAA Airport Safety Data Program.
    At that time, the NPS learned that the Airstrip was in violation of 
the ``recommended safety standards''. With the lack of fire and rescue 
protection at Portsmouth and, knowing that the airstrip is sub-
standard, the NPS chooses not to add to the risk of the visiting public 
nor to increase the risk of damage to the historical structures. No 
funds are planned to be allocated in the future to maintain the 
Airstrip in a safe and operational condition. With each passing year, 
the Airstrip will continue to deteriorate and foot traffic in the area 
will increase.
    4. Issue: Historical use and significance. One responder commented 
on the history of the Airstrip and the

[[Page 28753]]

role aviation played in making Portsmouth more accessible.
    Response: The NPS's decision to preserve an area of historical 
importance is based on the criteria of its uniqueness and national 
significance. It was determined that Portsmouth would preserve American 
life in the early 1900's. Aviation history may be interpreted as part 
of Portsmouth's history, but preservation of an active airstrip is not 
necessary to interpret the area and is incompatible with the early 
1900's scene. In recent history, with access to Portsmouth via private 
and public vessels and one vehicle ferry, the number of persons 
visiting Portsmouth will not be significantly affected by the closure 
of the Airstrip.
    5. Issue: Delay in concern for hazards. One responder asked why it 
took the NPS 11 years to register a concern for the hazards if the 
Airstrip was in violation of safety regulations. Specifically, was a 
cut in the NPS budget a cause in the delay?
    Response: The NPS became aware and concerned about the hazards as a 
result of the inspection by the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation on August 25, 1989. The NPS then developed cost 
estimates for meeting and maintaining the recommended safety standards. 
With a decline in use of the Airstrip, the already existing 
incompatibility concern, and the high cost of maintaining the Airstrip 
to standards, the NPS decided that the Airstrip should be closed. An 
``X'' was placed on both ends of the Airstrip and persons who inquired 
were advised of the safety conditions. The budget was a factor in the 
decision to close the Airstrip, but it was not the only factor.
    6. Issue: Recent use statistics. One responder inquired that there 
was no mention of historical use of the Airstrip. The responder used 
the example of ``1984 landings and takeoff's vs. 1994 landings and 
takeoffs.''
    Response: No record has been maintained on the amount of use for 
the Airstrip other than the 74 flights per year, a figure derived in 
the late 1980's. Local observation is that there has been a decline in 
aircraft landings annually.
    7. Issue: Noise and visual intrusions including military 
operations. One responder questioned the noise and visual intrusions, 
based on the number of aircraft landings and takeoffs, as not being 
significant enough to justify closure. The responder added that 
military air operations in the area pose a far greater intrusion to the 
quiet setting of Portsmouth Village.
    Response: The NPS agrees that the noise level of military jets 
overhead presents an intrusion, but this intrusion is for a short 
duration measured in seconds. The NPS has a Memorandum of Understanding 
with the United States Marine Corps stating that air operations will be 
no closer than 2 miles to the south of the Village and at an altitude 
of not less than 500 feet.

Summary and Conclusion

    The Airstrip does not comply with FAA safety standards and the 
flying public should not be exposed to the potential hazards associated 
with operating aircraft from a substandard airstrip. The taxpayer 
should not risk liability for an aircraft accident resulting from a 
defect in the Airstrip. Derogating the historical significance of 
nearby National Register structures to accommodate aircraft operations 
is not justifiable. Even if funding levels allowed compliance with 
safety standards, low visitor use and availability of a nearby 
alternate airport with connecting transportation services suggest that 
such an expenditure is neither cost-effective nor justifiable. For 
these reasons, the NPS is closing Portsmouth Village Airstrip by 
deleting Section 7.98(a) of Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations.

Drafting Information

    The primary authors of this rule are Felix Revello, Chief Ranger, 
Fort Larned National Historic Site, Charles Harris, Chief of 
Operations, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and Dennis Burnett, 
Washington Office of Ranger Activities, National Park Service.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain collections of information 
requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Compliance With Other Laws

    This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review 
under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior determined 
that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). The economic effects of this rulemaking are 
local in nature and negligible in scope.
    The NPS has determined that this final rule will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of human environment, health, and 
safety because it is not expected to:
    (a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature 
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
    (b) Introduce non-compatible uses which compromise the nature and 
characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it;
    (c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
    (d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
    Based on this determination, this rule is categorically excluded 
from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) by Departmental regulations in 516 DM 6, (49 FR 21438). As 
such, neither an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) nor an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7

    National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 36 CFR Chapter I is amended as 
follows:

PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

    1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also 
issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).


Sec. 7.98   [Removed]

    2. Section 7.98 is removed.

    Dated: May 29, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-14102 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P