Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28751

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

(a) Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The agencies have considered the

impact of the rulemaking action under

E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’ This action has been

determined to be not ‘‘significant’’

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures.

(b) Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C.

601–612), the agencies have evaluated

the effects of this rule on small entities.

Based on the evaluation, the agencies

hereby certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, the preparation of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is

unnecessary.

(c) Executive Order 12612 (Federalism

Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive order

12612, and it has been determined that

this action does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a federalism assessment.

(d) Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain a

collection of information requirement

for purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

(e) National Environmental Policy Act

The agencies have analyzed this

action for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and have

determined that this action would not

have any effect on the quality of the

environment.

(f) Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This action does not have any

preemptive or retroactive effect. It

imposes no requirements on the States,

but rather simply removes a regulation

to reflect statutory changes. The

enabling legislation does not establish a

procedure for judicial review of the final

rules promulgated under its provisions.

There is no requirement that individuals

submit a petition for reconsideration or

other administrative proceedings before

they may file suit in court.

Notice and Comment

Because the amendments relate to a

grant program and are therefore not

covered by the Administrative

Procedure Act, and since they reflect

statutory changes and do not impose

any additional requirements, the

amendments are being made without

prior notice and opportunity to

comment.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1230

Highway Safety Program Standards—

Applicability to Federally Administered

Areas.

PART 1230—[REMOVED]

Under the authority of 49 CFR Parts

1.48 and 1.50, the Administrators of the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration and Federal Highway

Administration amends Title 23 of the

Code of Federal Regulations by

removing part 1230.

Issued on: May 3, 1996.

Rodney E. Slater,

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator, National Highway Safety

Traffic Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14259 Filed 6–05–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

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
28752 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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).

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 21

RIN 2900–AH78

Veterans Education: Increased

Allowances for the Educational

Assistance Test Program

AGENCY: Department of Defense and

Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The law provides that rates of

subsistence allowance and educational

assistance payable under the

Educational Assistance Test Program

shall be adjusted annually by the

Secretary of Defense based upon the

average actual cost of attendance at

public institutions of higher education

in the twelve-month period since the