Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Notices 1795

to the revised December 1993, part 150

Noise Compatibility Program for

Washington National Airport. The

Addendum includes reasonable

justification for the use of the above

stated NEM’s as the official Maps.

The FAA has completed its review of

the Addendum and the NEM’s and

related descriptions submitted by the

MWAA. The specific maps as identified

in the Addendum are the ‘‘1994 Noise

Exposure Map: Improved Fleet Mix and

Enhanced Compliance as the base case/

current NEM shown in the revised NCP

as Figure V–3, and the ‘‘All Stage 3

Operations’’ NEM shown in Attachment

1 of the NEM as Figure 8 as the five-year

forecast NEM. The FAA has determined

that these maps for DCA are in

compliance with applicable

requirements. This determination is

effective January 3, 1997. FAA’s

determination on an airport operator’s

NEM is limited to a finding that the

maps were developed in accordance

with the procedures contained in

Appendix A of FAR Part 150.

Such determination does not

constitute approval of the applicant’s

data, information or plans, or a

commitment to approve a NCP or to

fund the implementation of that

program.

If questions arise concerning the

precise relationship of specific

properties to noise exposure contours

depicted on a NEM submitted under

Section 103 of the Act, it should be

noted that the FAA is not involved in

any way in determining the relative

locations of specific properties with

regard to the depicted noise contours, or

in interpreting the noise exposure maps

to resolve questions concerning, for

example, which properties should be

covered by the provisions of Section 107

of the Act. These functions are

inseparable from the ultimate land-use

control and planning responsibilities of

local government. These local

responsibilities are not changed in any

way under Part 150 or through FAA’s

review of noise exposure Maps.

Therefore, the responsibility for the

detailed overlaying of noise exposure

contours onto the maps depicting

properties on the surface rests

exclusively with the airport operator

which submitted those maps, or with

those public agencies and planning

agencies with which consultation is

required under Section 103 of the Act.

The FAA has relied on the

certification by the airport operator

under Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150,

that the statutorily required consultation

has been accomplished.

The FAA has formally received the

noise compatibility program for DCA,

also effective on January 3, 1997.

Preliminary review of the submitted

material indicates that it conforms to the

requirements for the submittal of noise

compatibility programs, but that further

review will be necessary prior to

approval or disapproval of the program.

The formal review period, limited by

law to a maximum of 180 days, will be

completed on or before July 3, 1997.

The FAA’s detailed evaluation will be

conducted under the provisions of 14

CFR Part 150.33. The primary

considerations in the evaluation process

are whether the proposed measures may

reduce the level of aviation safety,

create an undue burden on interstate or

foreign commerce, or be reasonably

consistent with obtaining the goal of

reducing existing noncompatible land

uses and preventing the introduction of

additional noncompatible land uses.

Interested persons are invited to

comment on the proposed program with

specific reference to these factors. All

comments, other than those properly

addressed to local land-use authorities,

will be considered by the FAA to the

extent practicable. The public comment

period ends March 3, 1997. Copies of

the noise exposure maps, the FAA’s

evaluation of the maps and the

proposed noise compatibility program

are available for examination at the

following locations:

FAA—National Headquarters, 800

Independence Ave., SW, APP–600,

Washington, DC 20591

FAA—Eastern Region, Fitzgerald

Federal Bldg., JFK Int’l Airport,

Airports Division, AEA–600, Jamaica,

NY 11430

Airport Manager’s Office, Rm. 260,

Washington National Airport,

Washington, DC 20001

Neil Phillips, Manager, Noise

Abatement, Metropolitan Washington

Airports Authority, 44 Canal Center

Plaza, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Questions may be directed to the

individual named above under the

heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Issued in Jamaica, New York on January 3,

1997.

William DeGraaff,

Manager, Airports Division.

[FR Doc. 97–791 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Notice of Finding of No Significant

Impact

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Finding of No

Significant Impact.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) has made a finding of no

significant impact (FONSI) based on an

Environmental Assessment (EA) for

Special Flight Rules in the vicinity of

the Rocky Mountain National Park

(RMNP).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. William J. Marx, Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of Air Traffic

Airspace Management, Environmental

Programs Division, ATA–300, 800

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20591; Telephone:

(202) 267–3075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Action

On April 22, 1996, President Clinton

issued a Memorandum for Heads of

Executive Departments and Agencies, in

which he announced his Earth Day

initiative, Parks for Tomorrow. Included

in that initiative was the directive to the

Secretary of Transportation, in

consultation with appropriate officials,

to consider a rulemaking to address the

potential adverse impacts on RMNP and

its visitors of overflights by sightseeing

aircraft. The President’s announcement

also directed that the value of the

natural quiet and the natural experience

of the park be factors in any rulemaking

action, along with protection of public

health and safety. The Presidential

Memorandum also required the FAA to

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) establishing national standards

for air tour operations over national

parks.

The proposed rule for RMNP was to

be issued within 90 days. On May 15,

1996 (61 FR 24382), the FAA published

a NPRM that proposed several methods

of preserving the natural park

experience of RMNP by restricting

aircraft-based sightseeing flights: (1) A

total ban (2) limits on operations, and

(3) voluntary agreements. The NPRM

indicated that the FAA would select a

viable alternative based on comments

received and other pertinent

information, identify a proposed

alternative for final rulemaking, and if

rulemaking was selected, issue an EA

for public comment. The NPRM

indicated that the EA would evaluate

the alternatives identified for detailed

study and assess the current condition

and the preferred alternative.

To enhance opportunities for public

participation, the FAA reopened the

comment period on the NPRM to allow

comment on a Draft EA that addressed
1796 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Notices

the alternatives in the NPRM. In

preparing the final EA, the FAA

considered the public comments on

environmental issues. Those comments

were limited in number, and mainly

addressed the NPRM itself. The majority

of comments on the Draft EA were

favorable to the implementation of the

NPRM as it applies to a total of air tour

operations in RMNP, e.g., citing

excessive noise, reduced safety, and loss

of quality wilderness experience if tour

operations were allowed. A minority of

commenters, virtually all representing

aviation interests, voiced opposition to

any regulation of overflights at RMNP,

e.g., citing unreasonable interference

with interstate and intrastate commerce,

FAA’s lack of statutory authority to

implement the NPRM, and that air

tourism creates less pollution than

ground visitors. In response to

comments, the FAA has decided to take

temporary action here, complete a

review of the temporary ban within

twenty-four months, and proceed to

consider a national rule that will

supersede any temporary ban that

remains in effect.

The FAA by issuance of the proposed

Final Rule would temporarily ban

operators from conducting commercial

air tour operations within the RMNP

Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). The

ban on commercial air tour operations is

the preferred alternative for a temporary

period because it appears to be the most

efficient and viable method of

preserving the natural enjoyment of the

visitors to RMNP. In application and

result it would assure that the

environment relative to air tour

operators will not be degraded while the

benefits of a temporary ban are

evaluated or relevant national standards

are developed. Within twenty-four

months of the effective date of this

temporary ban, the FAA, in conjunction

with the National Park Service (NPS),

will complete a review of the temporary

ban and publish its findings in the

Federal Register. The FAA will

determine whether the ban continues to

be necessary to meet the objectives of

the FAA and NPS. If the Proposed Final

Rule is not repealed by a separate

rulemaking, it will expire as soon as a

general rule on national standards is

adopted.

Purpose

National parks are unique resources

that have been provided special

protection by law. The FAA and the

NPS recognize that commercial aviation

sightseeing tours, once initiated in

national parks, tend to increase to levels

that potentially adversely affect visitor

enjoyment and park values.

The special flight rules in the vicinity

of the RMNP seek to preserve the

natural environment of RMNP from

potential future overflights by

commercial sightseeing aviation tour

operators. Several operators have

recently explored the possibility of

conducting tour flights over RMNP and

the park has identified potential impacts

from such activities. The NPS has also

determined that such impacts would not

be acceptable given the particular

circumstances at the park, and has

identified a need to take preventive

action.

Experience demonstrates a trend of

increased commercial air tour overflight

at other national parks. In addition, the

Governor of Colorado, members of the

Colorado congressional delegation, and

other officials have requested regulatory

action to place a preemptive ban on air

tour operations to preserve visitor

enjoyment.

The RMNP rule is being adopted to

respond to the very unique

circumstances surrounding this park, as

explained in detail in the proposed

Final Rule and Final EA. Among the

unique circumstances is that it has a

high percentage of elevations above

10,000 feet above ground level (AGL)

and has roads that afford numerous

opportunities for viewing its vistas. Park

officials estimate that fifty percent of the

park can be seen from 149 miles of its

roads. it features Trail Ridge Road, the

highest continuous paved road in the

country, which offers spectacular vistas

that encompass approximately 415

squire miles of parkland. Further, there

is strong local support for a ban on air

tour overflights.

Environmental Impacts

The FAA has prepared the EA for the

proposed Final Rule consistent with

FAA Order 1050.1D, Para. 35. The major

categories of concern are noise, wildlife,

historic and cultural resources, and air

quality. Since there are no tours at

present, modified Alternative 1, the

temporary ban, would maintain the

existing environment relative to such

operations. Based upon consultation

with the US Fish and Wildlife Service,

there are no concerns about potential

impacts on threatened or endangered

species. Based upon consultation with

the Colorado State Historic Preservation

Society, in its capacity as the State

Historic Preservation Office for

Colorado, there are no potentially

significant effects on historic or cultural

properties. The requirement to

determine conformity with the State Air

Quality Implementation Plan pursuant

to Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act

as amended in 1990, does not apply

because the area is designated

attainment for all criteria pollutants.

Modified Alternative 1, the temporary

ban, should have a beneficial impact by

reducing potential emissions.

Implementation of the other alternatives

and the No Action Alternative should

not appreciably affect air quality.

Regarding Section 4(f) of the

Department of Transportation Act,

Section 4(g) is not triggered because the

proposed Final Rule does not involve

construction activity so as to cause

actual, physical use of RMNP. Further,

the proposed Final Rule potentially

reduces rather than increase noise

levels, and accordingly does not

substantially interfere with the use and

value of RMNP, resulting in a

constructive use. The EA has not

disclosed potentially significant direct

or indirect impacts affecting the quality

of the human environment. Based on

this EA, it has been determined that no

additional environmental analysis is

required and that all aspects of the

proposed Federal action are consistent

with a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Alternatives

The FAA completed an analysis of

various alternatives identified in the

Proposed Final Rule, including an

explanation for the selection of a

modified Alternative 1 as the Preferred

Alternative. Modified Alternative 1 is a

temporary ban, which is to expire upon

adoption of a national rule on air tour

standards as explained above. In

developing alternatives for study in this

EA, the FAA was guided by the

purposes and need for this rulemaking

and its statutory mission and objectives,

as well as those of the NPS. Alternatives

other than the temporary ban that were

considered were a limit on commercial

aviation sightseeing tour below 2,000

feet AGL in RMNP, and voluntary

agreements. The ‘‘no action’’ alternative,

the continued possibility of air tour

operators to conduct tour flights over

RMNP, was also considered. It was

found to have no significant

environmental impacts. However, it

does not meet the FAA’s and NPS

objective to initiate preventive action to

preserve the natural enjoyment of

visitors to the RMNP.

Conclusion

After careful and thorough

consideration of the facts contained

herein, the undersigned finds that the

proposed Federal action is consistent

with existing national environmental

policies and objectives as set forth in

Section 101(a) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended (NEPA) and that it will not
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Notices 1797

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment or otherwise

include any condition requiring

consultation pursuant to Section

102(2)(c) of NEPA.

Dated: January 6, 1997.

Nancy B. Kalinowski,

Manager, Planning and Analysis Division,

ATA–200, Air Traffic Airspace Management,

FAA Headquarters.

[FR Doc. 97–664 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

[Summary Notice No. PE–97–1]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received, and corrections.

The purpose of this notice is to improve

the public’s awareness of, and

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s

regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary

is intended to affect the legal status of

any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received

must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received

on or before January 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–

200), Petition Docket No. llll, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

Comments may also be sent

electronically to the following internet

address: nprmcmts@faa.dot.gov.

The petition, any comments received,

and a copy of any final disposition are

filed in the assigned regulatory docket

and are available for examination in the

Rules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,

FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),

800 Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fred Haynes (202) 267–3939 or Angela

Anderson (202) 267–9681 Office of

Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to

paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 7,

1997.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 28679.

Petitioner: King County Department of

Public Safety.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135 and 49 CFR § 41102.

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit King County Department of

Public Service to be reimbursed for the

use of its military surplus Bell UH–1H

and OH–58C helicopters for law

enforcement operations in support of

other political subdivisions that are not

of a common treasury with King County.

Dispositions of Petitions

Docket No.: 10633

Petitioner: FAA Technical Center

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.117(a), 91.119(c), 91.159(a), and

91.303(e)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the FAA

Technical Center to conduct flight

operations in support of its research and

development projects without meeting

certain FAA regulations governing: 1)

aircraft speed, 2) minimum safe

altitudes, 3) cruising altitudes for flights

conducted under visual flight rules, and

4) aerobatic flight. GRANT, November

22, 1996, Exemption No. 1200B.

Docket No.: 23495.

Petitioner: U.S. Army Aeronautical

Service Agency.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.209 (a) and (b).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To continue to permit the

Army to conduct certain military

training operations at night without

lighted aircraft position lights. GRANT,

November 22, 1996, Exemption No.

3946E.

Docket No.: 26695.

Petitioner: Comair Aviation Academy.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

141.65.

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow Comair Aviation

academy to recommend graduates of its

approved flight instructor-airplane

certification course for flight instructor

certificates without those graduates

taking the FAA flight test. GRANT,

November 14, 1996, Exemption No.

5523C.

Docket No.: 28445.

Petitioner: Aircraft Braking Systems

Corporation.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

43.9(a)(4), 43.11(a)(3), appendix B to

part 43, and 145.57(a).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow the petitioner to

use computer-generated electronic

signatures in lieu of physical signatures

to satisfy approval for return-to-service

signature requirements. GRANT,

October 31, 1996, Exemption No. 6542.

Docket No.: 28563.

Petitioner: Mercer County Community

College.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

141.91.

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the petitioner to

provide ground school courses over

interactive television simultaneously to

three institutions while notifying only

one Flight Standards District Office

(FSDO), instead of notifying each FSDO

having jurisdiction over the individual

satellite base. DENIAL, November 12,

1996, Exemption No. 6543.

Docket No.: 28628.

Petitioner: William W. Webb.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.109(a).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow the petitioner to

conduct certain flight instruction in

Beechcraft Bonanza airplanes equipped

with a functioning throwover control

wheel in place of functional dual

controls. GRANT, November 21, 1996,

Exemption No. 6544.

[FR Doc. 97–662 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

[Summary Notice No. PE–97–2]

Petitions for Exemptions; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),