[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