[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 68 (Friday, April 9, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17293-17295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8920]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 1999 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 17293]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91 and 135

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

[Docket No. 27643; Notice No. 94-4]
RIN 2120-AF46


Overflights of Units of the National Park System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration; National Park Service.

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); Disposition of 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document disposes of comments received in response to an 
ANPRM published in the Federal Register on March 17, 1994. The ANPRM 
sought public comment on general policy options and specific 
recommendations for voluntary and regulatory actions to address the 
impacts of aircraft overflights on national parks. This document 
summarizes those comments and provides an update to the public on 
matters concerning air tours over units of the national park system.

ADDRESSES: The complete docket, No. 27643, including a copy of the 
ANPRM and comments on it, may be examined in the Rules Docket, Room 
915G, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC, 20591, weekdays (except Federal 
holidays), from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Davis, Air Transportation 
Division (AFS-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone: (202) 267-4710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 17, 1994, the FAA and the National Park Service (NPS) 
jointly issued an ANPRM titled Overflights of Units of the National 
Park System (59 FR 12740). The ANPRM cited the commitment of both 
Secretary Babbitt and (then) Secretary Pena to address the issue that 
increased flights over the Grand Canyon and other national parks have 
diminished the park experience for park visitors and that measures 
should be taken to preserve the quality of the park experience. This 
ANPRM sought comments and suggestions that could minimize the adverse 
impacts (e.g., noise) of commercial air tour operations and other 
overflights affecting units of the national park system.
    The FAA and the NPS sought public comment and recommendations on a 
number of options, including voluntary measures, the use of the Grand 
Canyon Model, a prohibition of flights during flight-free time periods, 
altitude restrictions, flight-free zones and flight corridors, 
restrictions on noise through allocation of aircraft noise 
equivalencies, and incentives to encourage use of quiet aircraft. In 
addition, the FAA and NPS asked specific questions, from both a 
technical and a policy perspective. For example, the agencies asked 
whether commercial flights should be banned from some parks, and what 
criteria should be used in making these determinations. In the ANPRM 
the FAA also asked the public to consider categories other than air 
tour/sightseeing operations, and the factors to be considered for 
addressing recommendations regarding overflights. The agencies sought 
comment on the use of quiet technology, and whether overflights should 
be conducted under the regulations of part 135. The use of special 
operations specifications was questioned, as well as the use of the 
Grand Canyon, with its extensive regulation of airspace, and Hawaii, 
which at the time was undergoing a public planning process, as models 
for other parks. The full range of questions is found at 52 FR 12745 
(March 17, 1994).
    The FAA received over 30,000 comments in response to the ANPRM, 
most of which were duplicate form letters (one form letter accounts for 
over 24,000 comments). Some of the comments included references to 
other studies and analyses of overflights issues, which the FAA 
considered in its review. Of the comments received, other than form 
letters, slightly more than half favor further regulation, and slightly 
less than half oppose further regulation. Of the form letters, most of 
which were collected and submitted by air tour operators, over 90% 
oppose further regulation.
    Commenters included individual park users, air tour operators and 
their representatives, environmental organizations, state and local 
organizations, and congressional representatives.

Summary of Comments

    The following is a brief summary of the comments received. While 
space does not permit an in depth discussion of every comment, this 
summary presents an overview of the public positions on the most 
important issues related to overflights.
    (1) Voluntary measures. Many commenters state that the voluntary 
measures already in place, such as the 2,000 foot minimum altitude 
guideline, are not working. Some of these commenters argue that such 
measures fail because aircraft operators do not recognize the inherent 
conflict between solitude and noise.
    Other commenters argue that voluntary measures work, stating that 
the few operators who refuse to comply with the voluntary programs are 
at fault, not the industry as a whole. Several of the commenters note 
that pilots who make the effort to comply with existing voluntary 
guidelines are not recognized and are often criticized along with 
pilots who are not following voluntary guidelines.
    (2) National rule versus park-specific rules. Although the ANPRM 
did not specifically address a national rule versus park-specific 
rules, there were some who commented on this issue. Generally, those 
persons do not think that a general rule could cover all park 
situations because of the variations among parks in such areas as 
ambient sound levels. For example, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) 
points to the amount of air traffic and unusual terrain at the Grand 
Canyon, which require specific regulations for that park.
    Several commenters, including the Alaska Regional Office of the 
National Parks and Conservation Association, recommend separate 
regulations for national parks in Alaska because, in

[[Page 17294]]

some instances, air travel may be the only way to access these parks.
    Some commenters suggest flexible regulations that could adjust to 
the varying considerations of parks (e.g., rules that could vary the 
spacing of flight-free times).
    (3) Regulation of sightseeing versus regulation of all commercial 
overflights. Several commenters recommend extending overflight 
regulation to other types of aircraft that create noise over national 
parks, including military aircraft, NPS aircraft used for 
administrative and park maintenance flights, and commercial jets. 
Several commenters suggest distinguishing between private and 
commercial flight operations over parkland zones.
    (4) Grand Canyon and Hawaii as models. Some commenters support 
applying the same limits used at the Grand Canyon and Hawaii to other 
parks, while other commenters oppose such measures.
    (a) Flight-free zones and corridors. Several commenters oppose the 
imposition of flight-free zones because they would create higher 
traffic density and therefore increase the possibility of accidents, as 
well as produce greater noise impacts. Some of these commenters point 
to the experience at the Grand Canyon stating that SFAR 50-2 has 
created more compressed air traffic resulting in less safety and 
increased noise problems. Others say that 84 percent of the Grand 
Canyon is already traffic-free, and therefore additional flight-free 
zones and corridors are unnecessary.
    Other commenters support the establishment of such corridors over 
certain sections of national parks. For example, several commenters 
support a two mile wide no-fly buffer zone around the entire perimeter 
of Hawaii's national parkland.
    (b) Flight-free times. Some commenters are against establishing 
flight-free time periods and say that they would do little to mitigate 
the negative impacts of overflights. Some air tour operators say that 
these restrictions would also have substantial economic consequences on 
their operations.
    Other commenters support the establishment of flight-free times or 
days, some of whom recommend capping the total number of flights 
allowed per day over national park. For example, the Grand Canyon 
Chapter of the Sierra Club recommends restricting the total number of 
flights at Grand Canyon National Park to pre-1975 levels in order to 
reduce crowding in flight corridors, thereby lessening noise impacts 
and increasing safety.
    (c) Altitude restrictions. Many commenters suggest imposing 
specific minimum flight altitudes, for example, the Grand Canyon 
Chapter of the Sierra Club recommends that altitude restrictions not 
allow flights below 14,500 feet mean sea level.
    Some commenters, such as the Grand Canyon Air Tourism Association, 
oppose blanket altitude restrictions that do not take geographic 
structures into account. Other commenters argue that altitude 
restrictions could be dangerous in weather that necessitates IFR 
operations.
    (5) Use of noise budgets and incentives for quiet aircraft 
technology. Most commenters oppose the adoption of noise budgets 
because they are difficult to administer and are not cost effective. 
For example, the Grand Canyon Air Tourism Association says that noise 
budgets would be difficult to apply to the Grand Canyon because they 
would require expensive noise monitoring to ensure equal implementation 
by operators. Others argue that noise budgets would not substantially 
relieve the overall noise problem.
    Several commenters support the adoption of noise budgets because 
they would provide operators with an incentive to operate quiet 
aircraft. A number of commenters recommend that if noise budgets are 
adopted, they should be grandfathered to the current noise level.
    Regarding the use of quiet aircraft technology, some commenters 
support governmental incentives to encourage operators to use quiet 
aircraft. Such incentives could include tax benefits, fee abatements, 
loan programs, and increased allocations on the number of flights 
allowed. Several air tour operators point out that without such 
incentives, air tour operators could not afford to use quiet aircraft 
technologies.
    (6 ) Factors for evaluating recommendations. One commenter, the 
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, says that the FAA and NPS, in 
evaluating recommendations, should ask: Will the measures be effective 
in eliminating aircraft noise in noise sensitive areas? Are fundamental 
park values, including natural quiet and protection of wildlife 
habitats, fully preserved by the rulemaking? Can the FAA and NPS 
implement effective management and enforcement strategies?
    Another commenter, Helicopter Association International, recommends 
the creation of a Federal Advisory Committee to conduct studies, 
analyze information, and recommend regulatory actions on the issue of 
overflights over national parks.
    (7) The need for special operations specifications for conducting 
sightseeing flights. Some commenters say that special operations 
specifications for air tour operators are unnecessary, while others 
support referencing the operation as part of operator specifications.
    Some commenters, addressing air tour operations in Hawaii, 
recommend that air tour operators conducting operations over water or 
mountains be required to have special safety equipment and appropriate 
pilot training. These commenters also recommend that low-altitude 
aircraft operators in Hawaii adhere to instrument flight rules and 
minimum flight regulations.
    (8) Certificate under Part 121 or Part 135. Most commenters agree 
that tour operation flights should be conducted under part 135. 
Commenters do not support conducting these flights under part 121, and 
several commenters argue that the safety record would not improve if 
the requirements of part 121 were imposed. These commenters also argue 
that operating under part 121 would not be cost effective.
    (9) Specific parks that should be regulated. Some commenters 
mention specific parks or areas that should be regulated. These areas 
include: Polipoli State Park in Maui, Guadalupe Mountains National Park 
in west Texas, Chiricahua National Monument in southeastern Arizona, 
Catskill Park, Adirondak Park, the Shawangunk Ridge, Allegany State 
Park, Glacier National Park, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, the Jamaica Bay wildlife 
preserve, Grand Teton National Park, Jedediah Smith Wilderness Area, 
and the Grand Canyon National Park.
    (10) Justification. Some commenters object to the justification for 
rulemaking presented in the ANPRM. Several commenters state that NPS 
has not conducted a study that would show that the park experience has 
been derogated by air tour operations. Others commented that noise 
studies being prepared for the NPS are biased against aircraft 
operations and should not be used in their present form for any of the 
future decisions regarding the use of airspace over NPS land.
    As to the authority to regulate, commenters were divided: some 
state that the FAA should continue to regulate airspace, others suggest 
that NPS should have authority so that it can regulate all visitors to 
a park. Certain commenters question whether the FAAct gives the agency 
the authority to ``protect'' the population on the ground from aircraft 
noise.

[[Page 17295]]

FAA Response

    The FAA appreciates the time and effort that persons expended to 
respond to this ANPRM. Although comments concerning overflights of the 
national parks, and specifically how those flights should be regulated, 
are somewhat polarized, many commenters gave the FAA specific advice 
that will be helpful in future rulemaking. Commenters have indicated, 
for example, that different parks have different needs, and that even 
within parks, some areas may have different priorities for restoring 
`natural quiet'. We understand that while quiet technology aircraft can 
make a difference in noise levels, there must be some incentive for 
operators to obtain expensive equipment. Overall, both the FAA and NPS 
have gained a better understanding of the various positions on these 
issues, both from those representing air tour operators and those 
interested in preserving the beauty and quiet in our national parks.

Subsequent Rulemaking Efforts

    On April 22, 1996, President Clinton issued a Memorandum to address 
the significant impacts on visitor experience in national parks. In 
this memorandum the President set out three goals: to place appropriate 
limits on sightseeing aircraft at the GCNP; to address the potential 
impact of noise at Rocky Mountain National Park; and, for the national 
park system as a whole, to establish a framework for managing aircraft 
operations over those park units identified in the NPS 1994 study as 
priorities for maintaining or restoring the natural quiet.
    In response to this memorandum, the FAA and NPS established, under 
the authority of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and 
the National Park Service Advisory Board, a National Parks Overflights 
Working Group (NPOWG). The NPOWG members were selected to represent 
balanced interests that included the air tour operators, general 
aviation users, other commercial interests, environmental and 
conservation organizations, and Native Americans. The NPOWG was given 
the task of reaching consensus on a recommended NPRM which would 
establish a process for reducing or preventing the adverse effects of 
commercial air tour operations over units of the National Park System.
    The NPOWG met from May through November 1997. In December 1997, 
members presented a concept paper to both the ARAC and the NPS Advisory 
Board. Both advisory groups accepted the proposed concept, which 
provides a mechanism, a process, whereby each unit of the National Park 
System will determine the necessary restrictions for that unit based on 
a park management plan that will be developed by the FAA with guidance 
from the NPS and with input from all interested parties.
    Following the acceptance of the concept by the ARAC and NPS 
Advisory Board, the FAA and NPS are assisting the NPOWG in developing 
an NPRM. The FAA anticipates that when the NPRM is ready for 
publication, it would also plan public meetings to gain additional 
comment on how the concept would work for individual parks.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 5, 1999.
David Traynham,
Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and International 
Aviation.
Jacqueline Lowey,
Deputy Director, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 99-8920 Filed 4-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M