24582 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 127, and 135

RIN 2120–AG11

[Docket No. 28577; Notice No. 96–4]

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of

the Rocky Mountain National Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to

establish a Special Federal Aviation

Regulation (SFAR) to preserve the

natural quiet of Rocky Mountain

National Park (RMNP) from any

potential adverse impact from aircraftbased sightseeing overflights. This

NPRM discusses alternative methods to

achieve this goal, and commenters are

invited to address the alternatives. The

primary alternative would impose

restrictions on commercial sightseeing

flights operated in the airspace over

RMNP. Other alternatives include

restrictions on some flights or types of

operations over RMNP and various

forms of operating procedures based on

the particular and specific requirements

of the park.

DATE: Comments must be received on or

before August 13, 1996.

ADDRESS: Comments on this NPRM

should be mailed, in triplicate to:

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket (AGC–200), Docket No. 28577,

800 Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591. Comments may

also be sent electronically to the Rules

Docket by using the following Internet

address: nprmcmts@mail.hq.faa.gov.

Comments must be marked Docket No.

28577. Comments may be examined in

the Rules Docket in Room 915G on

weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00

p.m., except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neil Saunders, Airspace and Rules

Division, ATA–400, Airspace

Management Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;

Telephone: 202–267–8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments relating to the

environmental, energy, federalism, or

economic impact that may result from

adopting the proposals in this notice are

also invited. Comments that provide the

factual basis supporting the views and

suggestions presented are particularly

helpful in developing reasoned

regulatory decisions. Communications

should identify the regulatory docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the above specified address. All

communications and a report

summarizing any substantive public

contact with FAA personnel on this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

The docket is available for public

inspection both before and after the

closing date for receiving comments.

Before taking any final action on this

proposal, the Administrator will

consider all comments made on or

before the closing date for comments,

and the proposal may be changed in

light of the comments received. The

FAA would particularly welcome

comments from any operator that is

planning or contemplating air tour

operations over RMNP.

The FAA will acknowledge receipt of

a comment if the commenter includes a

self-addressed stamped postcard with

the comment. The postcard should be

marked ‘‘Comments to Docket No.

28577.’’ When the comment is received

by the FAA, the postcard will be dated,

time stamped, and returned to the

commenter.

Availability of the NPRM

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

202–267–9677. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future FAA

NPRM’s should request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution

System, which describes application

procedures.

Background

National parks are unique natural

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

aircraft overflights can interfere with

NPS efforts to achieve a natural park

experience for visitors on the ground

and to preserve other park values.

Ensuring access to national parks,

while still maintaining the beauty and

experience of the individual park, is one

of the goals of the national park system.

To this end, the Departments of the

Interior and Transportation formed an

interagency working group (IWG) on

December 22, 1993, to explore ways to

limit or reduce the impacts from

overflights on national parks, including

RMNP, while still ensuring access to the

parks. The IWG’s tasks include

reviewing the environmental and safety

concerns resulting from park overflights

and working toward resolution of

specific park impacts where they are

found to exist. The FAA’s role in the

IWG has been to promote aviation and

aviation safety, and to provide for the

safe and efficient use of airspace. At the

same time, the FAA recognizes the

importance of preserving, protecting,

and enhancing the environment and

minimizing adverse effects of aviation.

The Department of Interior’s role in the

IWG has been to protect public land

resources in national parks, preserve

environmental values of those areas,

including wilderness areas, and provide

for public enjoyment of those areas.

The secretaries of the two

Departments see the formation of the

working group and the commitment to

addressing the effects of park overflights

as the initial stage in a spirit of

cooperation between the two

departments to promote an effective

balance of missions. This cooperation is

also necessary to integrate the roles of

the two departments: the FAA’s

authority to control the nation’s airspace

to ensure aviation safety and efficiency,

and the Department of the Interior’s

responsibility for managing the nation’s

parks, such as RMNP.

The FAA, with the cooperation of the

Department of the Interior through the

IWG, is developing national standards

that can be applied to air traffic over all

national parks, not just RMNP. The FAA

expects that any SFAR adopted in this

rulemaking may be superseded by any

national standards. This Notice is not a

part of the discussion on national

standards; it presents options that will

be considered as means to minimize the

adverse effects of overflights on RMNP,

and it seeks comments and suggestions

on voluntary and regulatory actions to

deal with the issue of aircraft noise

within the Park.

Rocky Mountain National Park

Rocky Mountain National Park

receives approximately three million

visitors a year, making it the sixth most

visited national park in the United

States, despite its relatively small size

(for a major Western national park) of

265,727 acres. RMNP is located

approximately 40 miles outside the city

limits of Denver and approximately 50

miles from the Denver International
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24583

Airport. The topography of the park is

characterized by steep mountains,

narrow valleys, and high elevations

(8,000 to 14,250 ft). Seventy percent of

park terrain is above 10,000 feet.

As with other similar mountainous

areas, RMNP presents pilots with a

challenging flying environment. It has

high winds, often in excess of 100 mph.

The park’s high altitudes diminish

engine output and propeller efficiency,

making it more difficult for an aircraft

to perform in high winds. The rugged

terrain limits maneuverability, and

rapidly changing weather can envelop

an aircraft. Perhaps in part for these

reasons, the use of the airspace over

RMNP has so far not been extensive.

Unlike many other national parks, there

are currently no air tour operators

overflying the park or operating in the

surrounding airspace. Other aviation

users do operate in the airspace above

RMNP. Non-commercial, general

aviation aircraft overfly the park

following the routes established for safe

passage through the topography. In

addition, due to the Park’s proximity to

the Denver International Airport,

aircraft operating to or from the airport

overfly RMNP. Arrival and departure

routes above the Park are necessary to

ensure the safe and efficient handling of

air traffic into the airport. Traffic into

the airport operates at approximately

19,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL)

for jets and 16,000 feet above MSL for

turboprop aircraft.

The Park enjoys an extensive road

system within its boundaries, which

provides numerous opportunities for

viewing the park’s vistas. Park officials

estimate that 54 percent of the park can

be seen from one or more of the 149

miles of roads.

Ninety-two percent of the park is

proposed for conclusion in the National

Wilderness Preservation System and is

required by law to be managed as a de

facto wilderness until action is taken by

Congress. This means that, among other

things, most motorized vehicles must be

contained within specific narrow

corridors on the existing roadway

system, and no future development is

permitted. The natural quiet provided

by the wilderness environment is

valued by park users. In a survey of

RMNP users conducted for the NPS, 93

percent of the respondents listed

tranquillity as an ‘‘extremely’’ or ‘‘very’’

important value found in the park. And

approximately 90 percent stated that the

noise from helicopter tours would affect

their enjoyment of the park. A copy of

the study has been placed in the

rulemaking docket.

Recently, the Department of

Transportation has been requested by

the Governor of Colorado, members of

the Colorado Congressional delegation,

and other officials to place a preemptive

ban on air tour operations at RMNP.

Even though there are no air tour

operations at the Park currently, some

operators apparently have expressed an

interest in starting such tours to officials

of Estes Park, Colorado. The government

officials who have requested regulatory

action are concerned that an influx of

air tour operations at RMNP would

undermine enjoyment of the Park by

visitors on the ground.

The FAA wishes to be responsive to

concerns about the effects of overflights

on the national park system. Although,

as noted, the FAA is still developing

nationwide standards for overflights of

national parks, a relatively unusual set

of circumstances has occurred at RMNP.

Judging from the requests received by

the FAA, there is apparently broad

support for limitations on overflights

among local leaders, even in the absence

of current overflights. There is also

value in being able to take the initiative

now, before any overflights occur. At

this point, there has been no

environmental loss from overflights and

no economic loss to any incumbent

operator. Accordingly, the Department

is exploring the options and alternatives

available. The IWG has examined both

traditional regulatory solutions and

alternatives to regulation during its

review of the national overflight issue.

Following a review of the comments

submitted in response to this Notice, the

FAA could proceed immediately to

implement a final rule that best balances

the competing needs of different users

of the park. Therefore, comment is

requested on each alternative listed in

the Proposal Section, as the FAA could

adopt none, one, or a combination of the

listed alternatives. Comments are also

invited to recommend an approach

different from those discussed here. Any

such recommendation should fully

discuss the associated costs and benefits

of the recommended approach.

Environmental Documentation

This notice proposes a number of

alternatives for addressing potential

aviation noise issues over Rocky

Mountain National Park. The FAA will

select viable alternatives based on

comments received and other pertinent

information, identify a proposed

alternative for final rulemaking, and if

rulemaking is selected, publish a draft

environmental assessment for comment.

The draft assessment will evaluate all

selected alternatives, at minimum

assessing the current condition, the

preferred alternative, and the worst case

scenario. Comments on the draft

environmental assessment will be

evaluated and a final assessment

prepared prior to issuing a final rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

Federal regulations must undergo

several economic analyses. First,

Executive Order 12866 directs that each

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a

regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the

intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effects of

regulatory changes on international

trade. In conducting these analyses, the

FAA has determined that this proposed

rule is ‘‘a significant regulatory action’’

as defined in the Executive Order and

the Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

This rule would not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities and would not constitute a

barrier to international trade. Due to the

minimal economic impact of this

proposed rulemaking, further economic

analysis is not necessary under the

Department’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedures.

Some of the proposed alternative

rules would not impose any costs on

society. However, Alternative One

would prevent air tour operators form

overflying the RMNP for sightseeing

purposes for the limited duration of the

SFAR. Currently, there are no

sightseeing air tour operators overflying

RMNP, and no operator has taken

formal action to begin such operations.

However, some operators may be

considering starting these types of

operations over the park in the future.

Alternative One would prevent these

possible sightseeing air tour overflights,

for a period to be specified, in order to

give the FAA and the NPS time to study

the situation and to develop a plan for

controlling these overflights to

minimize or eliminate their effect on

park visitors on the ground.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small entities are not

unnecessarily burdened by government

regulations. The RFA requires agencies

to review rules that may have a

‘‘significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’

There are no operators currently

performing sightseeing air tour

operations over RMNP. Therefore, the

expected impact of this regulatory
24584 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules

action is negligible, and the Agency

determines that this proposed

amendment would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. However, we

have asked elsewhere for comment on

whether any person intends to institute

commercial sightseeing operations at

RMNP. Any such person is also invited

to discuss the impact of the proposed

rule.

International Trade Impact Analysis

This action is not expected to have an

adverse impact either on the trade

opportunities for U.S. firms doing

business abroad or on foreign firms

doing business in the United States.

This assessment is based on the fact that

the segment of the aviation industry that

may be affected by this Notice and

subsequent rule do not compete with

similar operators abroad. That is, their

competitive environment would be

limited to RMNP.

Federalism Implications

This action would not have

substantial effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Indeed, State and

local government representatives has

been among the advocates for FAA

regulatory action to protect RMNP from

the noise created by overflights.

Therefore, in accordance with Executive

Order 12612, it is determined that this

action will not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

International Civil Aviation

Organization and Joint Aviation

Regulations

In keeping with United States

obligations under the convention on

International Civil Aviation, it is FAA

policy to comply with International

Civil Aviation Organization Standards

and Recommended Practices (SARP) to

the maximum extent practicable. For

this action, the FAA has reviewed the

SARP of Annex 10. The FAA has

determined that the proposals in this

Notice, if promulgated, will not present

any differences.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

the proposed regulation.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the

FAA has determined that this NPRM is

a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866. The FAA

certifies that this NPRM will not have a

significant economic impact, positive or

negative, on a substantial number of

small entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. This NPRM

is considered significant under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

The Proposal

As previously stated, the FAA wishes

to be responsive to concerns about the

effects of overflights on the national

park system. For that reason, the FAA

is considering the following alternatives

in response to RMNP and the overflights

issue. The FAA may proceed

immediately to a final rule based on this

proposal that would implement the best

alternative or alternatives. Therefore,

comment is required on each of these

proposals. The FAA may adopt one or

a combination of several of the listed

proposals.

The following alternatives are listed

in descending order of restrictiveness.

Each alternative lists the specific

implementing, regulatory language

followed by an explanation of the

alternative and possible variations on

the alternative.

Alternative One: Ban on commercial

Aviation Sightseeing Tours

‘‘No person may operate an aircraft

within the lateral boundaries of RMNP

if the purpose of that operation is to

carry passengers for hire for the purpose

of sightseeing or air tours.’’

This alternative would prohibit flights

within RMNP by commercial air tour

operators. In the opinion of RMNP

officials, air torus are the kind of

operations that pose the greatest

potential danger of creating adverse

effects on the Park. The FAA’s

preliminary view is that air tour

operations generally differ from other

operations; e.g., in frequency and

altitude above ground level. In addition,

of course, air tour operations tend to

visit points of interest within the park,

where ground-based visitors are also

likely to concentrate. General aviation

would continue to operate over the Park

under this variation. In discussions with

the FAA, NPS officials have indicated

that other forms of aviation activities

within RMNP have not, to date, caused

any serious noise problem. The FAA

specifically seeks comment on whether

the nature of air tour operations justify

banning them while continuing to

permit other commercial and private

operations.

Alternative Two: Limits on Operations

‘‘Any person operating an aircraft

below 2,000 ft AGL for the purpose of

carrying passengers for hire for

sightseeing or air tours within the lateral

boundaries of RMNP must operate along

the following prescribed routes:

[designate routes that follow the existing

Park road system]’’

This alternative would require aircraft

that fly below 2,000 feet above ground

level (AGL) within the Park to follow

the road system. The purpose of this

proposal would be to concentrate the

noise of aircraft in the areas of the Park

that are already exposed to a high

concentration of noise from

automobiles, buses, etc. On the other

hand, the greatest percentage of groundbased visitors are also on or near the

Park road system.

Variant A: ‘‘No person may operate an

aircraft below 2,000 feet AGL for the

purpose of carrying passengers for hire

for sightseeing or air tours while within

the lateral boundaries of RMNP.’’

Variant B: ‘‘No person may operate an

aircraft below 2,000 feet AGL for the

purpose of carrying passengers for hire

for sightseeing or air tours within the

lateral boundaries of RMNP before 10:00

a.m. or after 4:00 p.m.’’

Variant C: ‘‘No person may operate an

aircraft below 2,000 ft AGL for the

purpose of carrying passengers for hire

for sightseeing or air tours within the

lateral boundaries of RMNP from June

through September.’’

These three variations on Alternative

Two are examples of the types of

restrictions that could be utilized to

minimize the effect of overflights on the

Park. Comments would be appreciated

on these as well as other types of

restrictions that could be possible,

including different operating altitudes

and times of day and season.

Commenters are requested to pay

particular attention to the following

questions:

• Would limiting air operations to

road corridors concentrate too much

noise in high visitor use areas?

Conversely, would limiting overflights

to such areas further the goal of

maximizing the areas within the Park

where visitors can enjoy the Park’s

natural quiet?

• Would limiting operations by time

of day or season of the year be

economically feasible for potential tour

operators?

Alternative Three: Voluntary

Agreement

Voluntary agreements are nonregulatory but, due to their unique

nature, are treated as binding by the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24585

signatories and are strictly self-policed,

with monitoring by the NPS. Voluntary

agreements have proven successful in a

number of cases. For instance, a

voluntary agreement between the NPS

and the operators of air tours around the

Statute of Liberty established air tour

routes around the Statute and Ellis

Island and stand-off distances for the air

tour aircraft. This in turn created a safer

environment and a more enjoyable

experience for the visitors to the Statute.

A similar arrangement can be found in

the voluntary agreement concerning the

Arch National Park in St. Louis,

Missouri. Of course, voluntary

agreements are easier to achieve when

there is an identifiable base of air tour

operators with which the NPS can enter

into agreement.

This alternative would provide a nonregulatory approach to the situation at

RMNP. Under this alternative, present

and potential future commercial air tour

operators (before they start operating)

would voluntarily enter into an

agreement that would prohibit or

restrict operations within the

boundaries of RMNP. Comments are

requested on the following matters,

among others:

• Areas that would be covered by a

voluntary agreement, including the

nature of the possible restrictions and

the identities of the participants;

• How such an agreement would be

enforced;

• How an agreement could be

implemented within the necessary time

frame for action to protect the Park;

• Suggestions with respect to

penalties for violations;

• The circumstances under which an

agreement could be terminated; and

• Whether a regulatory system should

be imposed now to serve as a

contingency back-up in the event that a

voluntary agreement is not reached or is

terminated. Perhaps most of all, the

FAA is interested in comments from

potential air tour operators on the

circumstances under which they would

be willing to enter into a voluntary

agreement to prohibit or limit

operations.

Of course, as with all the listed

alternatives, the FAA could combine a

voluntary agreement with any of the

other alternatives. For example, the

FAA could choose to seek a voluntary

ban on operations during the summer,

combined with route or time-of-day

restrictions during other months. Other

combinations could be considered, and

the above examples are intended merely

as illustrations.

Issued in Washington on May 9, 1996.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–12133 Filed 5–10–96; 3:08 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M