National Parks Air Tour Management Act: More Flexibility and Better Enforcement Needed
Published: 2006-01-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Primarily because of concerns that noise from air tours over national parks could impair visitors' experiences and park resources, Congress passed the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 to regulate air tours. The act requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service to develop air tour management plans for all parks where air tour operators apply to conduct tours. A plan may establish controls over tours, such as routes, altitudes, time of day restrictions, and/or a maximum number of flights for a given period; or ban all air tours. GAO was asked to (1) determine the status of FAA and the Park Service's implementation of the act; (2) assess how the air tour operators and national parks have been affected by implementation; and (3) identify what issues, if any, need to be addressed to improve implementation.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: FAA and the Park Service have taken some steps to implement the National Parks Air Tour Management Act, but almost 6 years after its passage, the required air tour management plans have not been completed. FAA issued regulations implementing the act and the agencies began developing plans at nine parks. But implementation has been slow, in part, because FAA needed to address airline security after the September 11, 2001, attacks and because the two agencies disagreed over how to comply with environmental laws. Agency officials expect that future plans will be developed more quickly since they have drafted an implementation plan to guide their development. Nevertheless, because no plans have been completed, it is unclear how some of the act's key requirements will be addressed, such as creating incentives for air tour operators to adopt quiet aircraft technology. FAA and the Park Service's slow implementation of the act has limited the ability of air tour operators to make major decisions, such as expanding or selling their businesses, while it has had little effect on the parks. For example, operators have been unable to increase their number of air tours beyond their pre-2000 levels or expand to additional parks. Also, air tour operators face uncertainty about whether they can legally transfer their authority to conduct air tours. In contrast, the implementation of the act has so far had little effect on the 112 national parks we surveyed. Most of the parks responded that they had not experienced any positive or negative effect of the implementation of the act, or that they were uncertain or did not know the extent of the effect. Nonetheless, 47 percent responded that their park could benefit by having a plan to mitigate or prevent potential adverse impacts on park resources, visitor experiences, and air safety. GAO identified four key issues that need to be addressed to improve implementation of the act. Lack of flexibility for determining which parks should develop plans: Not all parks required to develop a plan may need one because they have few air tours or are more affected by other types of flights. Yet, the act does not provide the agencies with any flexibility to exclude some parks. Absence of Park Service funding for its share of plan development costs: The Park Service has not requested nor received funding for its share of the costs of developing plans. Limited ability to verify and enforce the number of air tours: Air tour operators are not required to report the number of tours they conduct. As a result, the agencies are limited in their ability to enforce the act. Based on information provided by operators, GAO found some operators had inappropriately exceeded their number of authorized tours. FAA's inadequate guidance concerning the act's safety requirements: FAA has not instructed its district offices or air tour operators on how to interpret the act's requirement that operators meet a specified level of safety certification.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Primarily because of concern that noise from air tours over our national  park units could impair visitors’ experiences and natural, cultural, and  historic resources, the Congress passed the National Parks Air Tour  Management Act of 2000 (the act) to regulate commercial air tours (air  tours) over units of the national park system. To regulate air tours, the act  requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in cooperation with  the National Park Service (Park Service), to develop air tour management  plans (ATMPs) for national park units and abutting tribal lands where air  tour operators apply for authority to conduct air tours. The purpose of an  ATMP is to develop acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or  prevent significant adverse impacts, if any, of air tours on national park  units’ natural and cultural resources and visitors’ experiences, and on  abutting tribal lands. An ATMP may establish controls over tours, including  flight routes, altitudes, time of day restrictions, and maximum number of  flights for a given time period, or prohibit air tours altogether.
In October 2002, FAA notified companies that conduct air tours (air tour  operators) of the need to apply for authority to conduct air tours over  national park units. Before approving an air tour operator’s application for  authority to fly over a park unit (operating authority), the two agencies  must create an ATMP for that park unit. When an operator that conducted  air tours over the park unit before the act (i.e., an existing operator) applies  for operating authority for that park unit, FAA must grant the existing  operator interim operating authority, which lasts until 180 days after the  ATMP is completed. In accordance with the act, the number of air tours  FAA approves under interim operating authority is based on either an air  tour operator’s total number of air tours during the 12-month period before  the act was passed, or the average number of annual air tours conducted in  the 36 months before the act was passed, whichever is greater. The act also  contains provisions for granting interim operating authority to operators  who had not conducted air tours over a particular national park unit before  the act (new entrants) and for granting increases in interim operating  authority for existing operators over and above their pre-act level of  activity. Once an ATMP is created for a park unit, an air tour operator may  or may not be granted final operating authority, depending upon the  restrictions the ATMP imposes. In addition, the act generally requires air  tour operators to meet a specified level of safety certification, if they are  not already certified.
As of November 2005, FAA had active applications for operating authority  at 94 of the 388 national park units: applications from 77 existing operators  for authority to conduct air tours at a total of 85 park units, and from 16  new entrants at some park units with existing operators, as well as 9  additional park units. FAA and the Park Service have not completed any  ATMPs, and thus FAA has not granted final operating authority to any  operator. In issuing its regulations codifying the act, FAA stated that all  operators seeking to conduct air tours had to file an application for  operating authority and have interim operating authority before January 23,  2003, almost 3 years after the act’s passage, in order to avoid a break in  operations. In oversight hearings in 2002 and 2004, Congress raised  concerns primarily about the agencies’ lengthy implementation process— the agencies had not completed any ATMPs—and the validity of the air tour  data being used to establish ATMPs.
In this context, you asked us to (1) determine the status of FAA and the  Park Service’s implementation of the act; (2) assess how the air tour  operators and national park units have been affected by the  implementation of the act; and (3) identify what issues, if any, remain to be  addressed to improve the implementation of the act. You also asked us to  report on compliance regarding payment of fees for air tours over national  park units. We will report on the fee issue separately because the air tour  fee legislation is distinct from the National Parks Air Tour Management Act,  and air tour fees are currently charged at only three national park units.
To determine the status of implementation, we analyzed FAA and Park  Service policy and guidance documents, reports, data, and applicable laws  and regulations. We also assessed the agencies’ budget data, and FAA’s data  on both the number of air tours authorized under interim operating  authority and the number of new entrant operators; we determined that  these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To  assess how the air tour operators are affected by the implementation of the  act, we interviewed a sample of 29 air tour companies that conduct tours at  12 different national park units. This sample included different sizes of  existing air tour operators based on the number of air tours they conduct  annually, as well as all new entrant operators and existing operators that  have requested increases in operating authority. To assess effects on  national park units, we surveyed (and received responses from) all of the  112 national park units where applications for operating authority were  valid as of July 2005. Since then, two operators withdrew their applications  for operating authority at 15 park units, and FAA withdrew authority for  one operator at 3 park units where there were no other applicants. This  reduced the number of park units needing ATMPs to 94, as of November  2005. See appendix III for a list of the 94 park units. When reporting survey  results, we refer to all 112 park units that were surveyed. Ten tribal lands  within or abutting national park units have also been identified as needing  to be part of the ATMPs developed at the relevant park units, but our  review is limited to the implementation of the act at national park units. We  also interviewed Park Service officials at 12 different national park units  selected through nonprobability sampling. We selected these park units  because 9 of the 12 were the first park units for which FAA and the Park  Service chose to develop ATMPs, and the other 3 faced circumstances that  differed from the first 9: one had a military flight restriction, one was a  potential candidate for an alternative method for developing an ATMP, and  one believed an ATMP was not needed because it had few air tours. To  identify issues that remain to be addressed to improve the implementation  of the act, we analyzed the agencies’ policies, guidance, reports, and  applicable regulations and laws. We also interviewed FAA and Park Service  officials at headquarters and at field offices. A more detailed description of  our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I, and the survey  instrument and aggregate results are presented in appendix II. We  performed our work from January 2005 through January 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Primarily out of concern that noise from air tours over national park units  could impair visitors’ experiences and park unit resources, the Congress  passed the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 to regulate air  tours conducted over national park units. The act mandates new  responsibilities for FAA and the Park Service, including developing ATMPs  for all national park units where air tour operators apply for authority to  conduct air tours. The purpose of an ATMP is to develop acceptable and  effective measures to mitigate or prevent the significant adverse impacts, if  any, from air tours on the natural and cultural resources and visitor  experiences at national park units, and on abutting tribal lands. To  implement the act, FAA and the Park Service must, among other things:  establish an advisory group to provide continuing advice and counsel on  air tours over and near national park units;   establish an ATMP at any national park unit whenever an air tour  operator applies for authority to conduct an air tour over the park unit;   grant interim operating authority to existing air tour operators to  provide annual authorizations to operators until 180 days after an ATMP  is developed at the relevant park unit;  develop an open, competitive process for air tour operators interested in  providing air tours over a park unit whenever an ATMP limits the  number of air tours during a specified time frame;   include incentives in an ATMP for air tour operators to adopt technology  that makes aircraft quieter for tours over park units; and  submit a report to Congress by April 5, 2002, on the effectiveness of the  act in providing incentives for the development and use of quiet aircraft  technology.
The act requires FAA and the Park Service to prepare each ATMP in  accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  NEPA requires each federal agency to prepare an environmental impact  statement to assess proposed actions that will have a significant impact on  the environment. If the agency is unsure whether the proposed action will  have a significant impact, it prepares a briefer document called an  environmental assessment. If the assessment concludes the action will  have a significant impact, the agency must then prepare an environmental  impact statement—otherwise it issues a “finding of no significant impact.”  The act requires both FAA and the Park Service to approve the NEPA  decision document associated with each ATMP; agency officials believe  they will need to prepare an environmental assessment for most ATMPs.
The act defines an “air tour” as any flight conducted for compensation or  hire in an aircraft where a purpose of the flight is sightseeing over a  national park unit or within one-half mile outside the boundary of any  national park unit—the agencies further defined air tours to include only  flights below 5,000 feet above ground level. The act defines two types of air  tour operators: existing and new entrant operators. Existing operators are  those that were providing air tours over a national park unit at any time  during the 12-month period ending April 5, 2000. A new entrant is an air  tour operator that applies for operating authority but did not provide air  tours over a national park unit during the same 12-month period. Before an  ATMP is developed for a park unit, the act instructs FAA to grant interim  operating authority to any existing air tour operator that applies for  operating authority, which lasts until 180 days after an ATMP is developed.  Interim operating authority provides existing air tour operators with an  annual number of tours that can be conducted over a park unit. The  number of tours authorized is equal to the number of air tours conducted  by the operator during the 12-month period prior to the act’s passage on  April 5, 2000, or the average number of air tours per 12-month period  conducted by the operator for the 36 months before the act—whichever is  greater. The act allows FAA and the Park Service to grant increases in  interim operating authority to existing operators, and to grant interim  operating authority to new entrant operators, under certain circumstances,  but the agencies have chosen not to do so.
For safety reasons, the act requires certain air tour operators—known as  Part 91 operators because they operate under safety rules in Part 91 of Title  14 of the Code of Federal Regulations—to apply for the more stringent  operational and safety rules outlined in Part 135. Some of the more  stringent safety rules under Part 135 include passing an annual flight check,  passing an instrument proficiency check every 6 months, maintaining  copies of the aircraft’s maintenance log, and flying no more than 8 hours in  a 24-hour period. The act’s ATMP and safety certification requirements do  not apply to Part 91 operators that obtain a letter of agreement from FAA  and the relevant park unit’s superintendent describing the conditions under  which their air tours will be conducted. The act limits air tours by Part 91  operators under this provision to no more than five air tours per park unit  (not per operator) in any 30-day period.
To implement the act, FAA directed its Western Pacific Region to work with  the Park Service’s Natural Sounds Program. FAA’s mission is to provide the  safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world, which now includes  managing air tours over national park units. It is pursuing its mission with  an annual budget of over $14 billion for fiscal year 2005, approximately $8  million of which was budgeted for air tour management; FAA has provided  a total of about $29 million for implementing the act for fiscal years 2001  through 2005. The Volpe Center, a fee-for-service organization in the  Department of Transportation, performs work primarily for the  department, as well as other entities, and covers such issues as safety,  mobility, security, and noise pollution. FAA contracted with the Volpe  Center to perform, among other things, sound monitoring, environmental  analyses, and economic analysis in support of creating ATMPs; FAA has  allocated $27 million of its $29 million in funding to the Volpe Center for  these activities.
The National Park Service is responsible for conserving the scenery, the  natural and historic objects, and the wildlife in national park units, and for  providing for the enjoyment of national park units in ways that leave them  unimpaired for future generations. To accomplish its mission, the Park  Service received a budget from Congress of about $1.7 billion for fiscal year  2006, $1.4 million of which is allocated to the Natural Sounds Program,  according to a program official. The Park Service established the  Soundscapes Program Center in 2000 (now the Natural Sounds Program)  primarily to work with FAA’s Western Pacific Region Manager to develop  ATMPs, though the Natural Sounds Program’s mission is not limited to  creating ATMPs. The Natural Sounds Program works to protect, maintain,  or restore natural sounds in the national park units by working in  partnership with park units to increase scientific and public understanding  of the value and character of sounds that are appropriate for a park unit  and to eliminate or minimize noise intrusions. The program provides  technical assistance to park units in managing sounds and assessing  impacts from noise, and performing outreach and education on sounds.
section_title: FAA and the Park Service Have Begun to Implement the Act, but No ATMPs Have Been Completed
paragraphs: FAA and the Park Service have taken steps to implement the act, but  implementation has been slow and some of the act’s key requirements have  not been addressed. Implementation of the act has been slow, in part, due  to disagreements between FAA and the Park Service over the procedures  necessary to implement the act in compliance with NEPA. While agency  officials expect to develop ATMPs more quickly in the future now that they  have drafted an implementation plan, they acknowledge that issues must  still be addressed before the first ATMP is completed.
subsections: section_title: FAA and the Park Service Have Taken Actions to Implement the Act and Resolved Some Differences That Slowed ATMP Development
paragraphs: FAA and the Park Service have taken several actions to implement the act  and addressed some of its requirements. Specifically:   As the act requires, the agencies established the National Parks  Overflights Advisory Group (advisory group) in April 2001 to provide,  among other things, continuing advice and counsel about air tours over  and near national park units. The advisory group is composed of a  balanced group of representatives of general aviation, air tour  operators, environmental concerns, and Indian tribes. Since 2001, the  advisory group has met periodically to discuss issues related to  implementation, such as interim operating authority, increases in  operating authority, and noise monitoring in the park units.
In October 2002, FAA issued a final rule that completed the definition of  an air tour and informed air tour operators that they must file an  application for operating authority over national park units by January  23, 2003, in order to avoid a break in conducting such tours. Operators  that conducted tours prior to April 5, 2000, may still apply for operating  authority and may be granted interim operating authority. Owing in part  to some confusion over application requirements on the part of air tour  operators, in January 2005 FAA notified air tour operators that they  could self-correct the information they provided in their applications for  operating authority. In June 2005, FAA published in the Federal  Register for public comment the list of air tour operators and the  number of annual air tours each operator received under interim  operating authority; the comment period closed October 31, 2005.
To meet the act’s requirement for developing ATMPs, the agencies began  developing plans in January 2003 for nine national park units—reduced  to six in July 2005—for which air tour operators had applied for  operating authority, with the goal of completing ATMPs at all park units  by approximately 2010.
Despite the progress made, officials at both agencies said that  implementation has been slow because of (1) other priorities that took  precedence over ATMP development and (2) disagreements between FAA  and the Park Service over how to implement NEPA in assessing the impact  of noise on park units. According to FAA officials, the agency temporarily  suspended work on many rulemaking projects, including air tour  management, and refocused its resources to address air passenger safety  and security in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. In  addition, FAA and Park Service officials said the agencies’ differing  missions and environmental policies have delayed some actions to  implement the act. For example, FAA and the Park Service have some  procedural differences over how to implement NEPA in assessing noise  impacts on park units, including the appropriate noise model to use and the  noise metrics that are applicable. While NEPA requires the preparation of  an environmental impact statement for actions having significant  environmental impacts, the agencies could not agree on the criteria to use  in determining when noise from aircraft would have a significant impact on  the environment and park unit resources. To resolve their differences, the  agencies developed new methodologies to assess the potential adverse  impacts of air tour noise on park unit resources and visitors’ experiences  and agreed to a combination of FAA and Park Service guidance and  practices to implement NEPA. Agency officials explained that the slow  implementation was also due in part to the unexpected complexities of  meeting some of the act’s requirements. Thus, it took time to resolve these  and other issues between the agencies. For example, FAA and the Park  Service developed new procedures to calculate emissions for aircraft that  conduct air tours.
FAA and the Park Service have taken steps to mitigate their disagreements  and increase the efficiency of ATMP development. To establish a  framework for cooperation and participation in implementation, the  agencies signed a memorandum of understanding that addresses, among  other things, the scope of work, financial terms, the process for developing  and approving ATMPs, and outlines a dispute resolution process. Officials  are to resolve their disagreements at the program level and elevate them to  higher levels if they cannot resolve them. At the time of this report, the  agencies had elevated one disagreement and were still working to resolve  their differences over the language used in the environmental compliance  documents that describes the purpose and need for an ATMP at a park unit.  The lack of resolution on this issue could cause further delays, according to  agency officials. Furthermore, the agencies drafted an implementation plan  in September 2005 that will guide them through the process of developing  ATMPs for the remaining park units that need them. The draft  implementation plan establishes criteria for determining the order in which  park units will develop ATMPs, the roles and responsibilities of FAA and  the Park Service in developing ATMPs, how to develop ATMPs and the  supporting environmental compliance documents, how ATMPs will be  implemented and enforced once completed, and how the plans can be  changed. As a result, agency officials expect the implementation plan, once  finished, to help them develop ATMPs at the remaining park units in less  time than it is taking to develop ATMPs for the first set of park units.  However, according to FAA officials, it may take 5 more years before all of  the 94 national park units begin developing ATMPs. Figure 1 summarizes  the steps taken to implement the act, as of November 2005.
section_title: Key Implementation Issues Have Yet to Be Addressed
paragraphs: Despite the progress made, some of the act’s key requirements have not  been fully implemented. First, at the time of our review, it was unclear  whether any of the six park units currently developing ATMPs will limit the  number of air tours authorized, and if so, how competitive bidding will be  handled. As agency officials acknowledge, they will eventually need to  address this issue in the implementation plan and in ATMPs. Second, the  agencies have not identified incentives for air tour operators to adopt  technology that make aircraft quieter, such as enclosed tail rotors on  helicopters. In general, air tour operators and FAA officials said that  incentives are needed because of the high cost of retrofitting old aircraft  with quiet technology or purchasing new aircraft already equipped with  quiet technology. However, according to FAA officials, before incentives  can be provided in an ATMP, noise studies must be conducted to determine  what impact, if any, quiet technologies would have on park unit resources.  Although the draft implementation plan broadly addresses quiet technology  incentives, it acknowledges that such incentives are yet to be devised for  the first ATMPs underway. FAA and Park Service officials said they expect  to develop a competitive bidding process and quiet technology incentives  on a park-unit-by-unit basis and will address these issues before the first  ATMP is drafted in fiscal year 2007.
section_title: Act’s Implementation Has Limited Air Tour Operators’ Ability to Make Major Business Decisions but Had Little Effect on National Park Units
paragraphs: FAA and the Park Service’s implementation of the act has limited the ability  of air tour operators to make major decisions, such as expanding or selling  their businesses. FAA, in cooperation with the Park Service, has not  granted increases in interim operating authority to existing operators, nor  interim operating authority to new entrants. Furthermore, air tour  operators face uncertainty about whether they can legally transfer their  authority to conduct air tours. As a result of the slow implementation of the  act and the current time frame for developing ATMPs, these adverse effects  on operators have been prolonged. In addition, as a safety requirement of  the act, Part 91 operators must apply for more stringent safety certification  from FAA in order to initiate or continue conducting air tours. In contrast  to these effects on operators, the implementation of the act has so far had  little effect on the 112 national park units we surveyed in July 2005.  Specifically, more than half of the park units reported that the act’s  implementation had no positive or negative effect on their park unit, and  about 30 percent were uncertain or did not know.
subsections: section_title: Air Tour Operators’ Ability to Make Major Business Decisions Has Been Limited by the Implementation Process
paragraphs: FAA and the Park Service’s implementation of the act has limited the ability  of air tour operators to make major business decisions because FAA, in  cooperation with the Park Service, has not granted (1) increases in interim  operating authority to existing operators who applied for such increases or  (2) interim operating authority to new entrants. Furthermore, air tour  operators face uncertainty about whether they can legally transfer their  authority to conduct air tours—which they believe should be valued in the  marketplace—both during the interim operating period and once an ATMP  is established. In addition to these uncertainties, in order to maintain the  level of air tour activity they held prior to the act, Part 91 operators have  generally decided to invest resources for their operations to meet the more  stringent level of safety certification required by the act.
subsections: section_title: Agencies’ Slow Implementation Has Limited Air Tour Operators’ Expansion
paragraphs: According to FAA data, four existing operators have applied to FAA for a  total increase of 7,860 air tours during interim operating authority at two  park units (see table 1). Although the act allows FAA, in cooperation with  the Park Service, to grant increases if certain conditions are met, the  agencies have not done so. As a result, existing operators have not been  able to expand their air tour businesses over national park units. For  example, one air tour operator told us it had expanded its air tour business  over Hawaii Volcanoes National Park at an average annual rate of 22  percent in the 4 years before it applied for operating authority in 2003. FAA  granted the operator interim operating authority based on its activity  during the year prior to the act, and the operator then requested an  increase in the annual number of tours authorized. Since no increases have  been granted, the operator has had to reduce the number of tours in order  to remain compliant with the act.
Existing operators have faced uncertainty about their potential to expand  their air tour businesses for a longer period of time than expected: nearly 6  years after the act’s passage, no ATMPs have been completed, and the  process for developing the vast majority of plans has not even begun. FAA  officials told us they would like to grant increases in interim operating  authority, and Park Service officials told us they would consider such  increases in order to minimize the negative effects of the act’s slow  implementation on air tour operators. The act allows increases in interim  operating authority only if it is agreed to by both agencies, and promotes  safe air tour operations and the protection of national park unit resources.  Park Service officials said that because such increases could have  significant environmental impacts, the agencies would either have to  prepare an environmental assessment or collect additional data on where  operators propose conducting more tours—such as flight paths, frequency  of tours, and times of day—to evaluate those impacts prior to approving  the requested increase in air tours. The two agencies have not reached an  agreement on how they will handle increases during interim operating  authority; due to the time and cost involved with an assessment, the  agencies may not be able to determine whether increases can be granted  until the assessment associated with the relevant park’s ATMP is  developed.
The agencies also have not issued interim operating authority to 16 new  entrants that have applied for authority to conduct tours over a combined  46 national park units (see table 2). As a result, 10 operators have not been  able to begin flying tours over any national park units, and 6 existing  operators have not been able to expand their businesses to include  additional park units. Among the former, for example, are two new entrant  companies in Hawaii that told us they had refrained from flying within a  half-mile of park units, despite customer demand and their own desire to  grow their businesses. These two new entrants also said they were still  waiting for official responses from FAA about the applications they filed in  January 2003. The longer it takes to fully implement the act in developing  ATMPs, the longer these and other new entrants may be impaired.
The act gives FAA, in cooperation with the Park Service, the authority to  grant interim operating authority to new entrants if certain conditions are  met: (1) FAA determines the authority is necessary to ensure competition,  (2) the authority would not create a safety or noise problem, and (3) the  ATMP has not been developed within 2 years of the act’s passage. Although  the third condition has been met in all cases, and the first condition might  be met in some cases, Park Service officials told us they interpret the  clause regarding noise as triggering the same environmental analysis that is  needed for an ATMP—unless new entrants provide more data about when  and where they propose flying. Because the agencies have not reached an  agreement on how they will handle new entrants during interim operating  authority, they may not be able to determine whether new entrants can be  accommodated until they develop the relevant ATMPs. In the meantime,  new entrants—like existing operators seeking increases in interim  authority—are not able to make important decisions regarding their air  tour businesses.
section_title: Operators Are Uncertain About Transferability of Air Tour Allocations
paragraphs: Air tour operators are uncertain about whether they can legally transfer  their flight allocations under the act, both during the period of interim  operating authority and once an ATMP is completed, because FAA has not  adequately communicated its opinion on this subject to operators and its  field offices. As a result, operators have not been able to make major  business decisions such as retiring or selling their businesses—or have  made inappropriate decisions to transfer, sell, or buy air tour allocations.  FAA’s opinion is that operating authority is not a property right or interest.  However, as both FAA and aviation members of the advisory group stated  at their June 2005 meeting, operators believe they should be able to  transfer their air tour allocations if, for instance, an operator wants to go  out of business. Now that air tours over national park units are regulated,  they said, an existing operator’s value lies in its pre-2000 level of activity, as  well as in its pilots and personnel, equipment, reputation, and other  business assets. If an operator is not able to transfer its air tour allocations,  advisory group members said there might not be any business to sell.
FAA officials told us that operators’ uncertainty about their ability to  transfer their air tour allocations stems from the fact that the act,  regulations, and formal FAA guidance to its flight standards district offices  and air tour operators have not addressed this subject. The air tour  community is aware that while regulations for air tours over Grand Canyon  National Park specify that operators have no property interest in air tour  allocations, the regulations nevertheless allow such transfers subject to  FAA control. And in practice, operators have successfully bought and sold  allocations for that park unit with FAA’s knowledge. In addition, air tour  operators have learned that some operators have successfully transferred  or sold air tour allocations to other operators for other park units, causing  further confusion about their permissibility. For example, we found one air  tour operator had paid another operator in January 2003 for 10,911 air tours  the latter conducted over 11 national park units prior to the act, including 7  park units over which the purchasing operator had not previously flown.  Subsequently, the purchasing operator included all but three of these tours  in its application for operating authority, with the FAA district office’s  knowledge. FAA granted the operator interim operating authority to  conduct a number of tours based on its own historical activity, plus the  tours purchased from the other operator.
FAA senior officials and attorneys told us that transfers of air tour  allocations, whether during the interim period or once an ATMP is  established, are generally not allowed but should be handled on a case-by- case basis. In a letter to one air tour operator in January 2003, FAA  described the limited circumstances under which an operator could obtain  the existing operator status of another operator for the purposes of  applying for operating authority. Specifically, FAA said both the operator  and the purchased entity would have to be corporations, and the purchased  corporation would have to continue to exist as its own legal entity, in order  for the new owner to obtain the existing operator status. However, this  letter did not address the broader issue of transferring air tour allocations  once interim or final operating authority is granted. FAA headquarters  officials told us they had not widely communicated this letter or the  agency’s broader position to its district offices or to air tour operators  because the confusion had not been brought to their attention until our  review. As a result of this lack of communication, the district offices have  addressed this issue inconsistently, and there may be deviations from  headquarters’ position. For example, one operator in South Dakota  acquired an existing air tour operator in 2001 and applied for operating  authority, considering its predecessor’s history of air tour activity to be an  acquired asset. The FAA district office and headquarters officials initially  considered this operator to be a new entrant and denied it interim  operating authority, causing it to pursue alternative sources of income for  2-1/2 years. Then, in mid-2005, FAA headquarters investigated the case and  granted the purchasing operator interim operating authority because it had  met the agency’s requirements for obtaining existing operator status. But in  the example mentioned earlier in which one air tour operator paid another  operator for 10,911 air tours, another district office was aware of the  transfer before it issued operating authority. Finally, under the jurisdiction  of a third district office, we found one operator with two companies has  allowed one of his companies to use the other company’s air tour  allocations over several park units—effectively making an inappropriate  transfer, according to FAA’s position.
section_title: Operators Have Generally Opted to Invest Resources to Meet Higher Standards and Avoid the Five-Tour Limit
paragraphs: FAA officials told us that in order to continue their historic levels of air tour  activity and income, Part 91 operators have to meet the higher standards of  Part 135 regulations. According to FAA data, 68 of the 77 existing operators  have been allowed to maintain their pre-2000 level of air tour activity over  national park units because they were already certified under Part 135  regulations. Eight of the remaining nine operators that were Part 91  operators have applied for Part 135 certification, and one operator chose to  remain a Part 91 operator. These eight operators have to invest resources in  additional pilot training and check rides, aircraft inspections, safety  manuals, record-keeping, and other activities to meet the Part 135 safety  requirements that go beyond those required under Part 91 regulations.  Although the amount of investment required to meet Part 135 standards  varies from one operator to another, FAA officials told us the initial cost  can vary from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars.
Alternatively, if Part 91 operators had decided not to apply for the Part 135  standards required by the act, and they had a high level of air tours prior to  2000, their loss of air tour business could have been significant. For  example, one air tour operator applied for operating authority under Part  135 and reported that it had conducted 5,200 tours over Mount Rushmore  National Memorial strictly under Part 91 regulations in the year before the  act. FAA then issued interim operating authority to this operator for 5,200  tours annually over that park unit because the operator applied for Part 135  certification. But if this operator had not applied for authority under Part  135, it would have been restricted to five or fewer tours per month over  that park unit—if it had acquired a letter of agreement signed by both  agencies. At the time of our review, FAA data showed that only one Part 91  operator had not applied for Part 135 certification and had received a letter  of agreement from FAA for up to five flights per month at one park unit.  However, Park Service officials said this operator had not obtained a letter  of agreement from the Park Service.
section_title: Act’s Implementation Has Had Little Effect on National Park Units
paragraphs: A majority of the 112 park units we surveyed in July 2005, as well as Park  Service officials we spoke with, reported that FAA and the Park Service’s  implementation of the act has had neither a positive or negative effect on  the park units, yet many still want an ATMP. Specifically, 62 (55 percent)  of the park units reported that the act’s implementation had no positive  effect on their park unit, and 64 (57 percent) reported no negative effect,  while only 17 (15 percent) reported a positive effect to some extent and 14  (13 percent) reported a negative effect to some extent. Another 33 (29  percent) and 34 (30 percent) park units responded that they were uncertain  or did not know the effect, positive or negative, respectively. In written  comments in the survey, 14 of the 112 park units attributed this lack of  effect to their unit not having air tours.
The act’s implementation may result in positive, negative, or no effects on  park units because the level of air tour activity has been held constant over  park units under interim operating authority. For those park units wanting  to reduce air tours, interim operating authority has preserved a level of  activity that those park units already consider too high. On the other hand,  for those park units where a low level of air tour activity currently exists  (as defined by those park units), freezing the level of air tours under  interim operating authority has prevented the growth of air tours. Finally,  some park unit officials told us there has been no effect and that the status  quo is acceptable.
Regarding the act’s requirement that FAA and the Park service establish  ATMPs at all park units where applications for operating authority are  made, 53 (47 percent) park units responded in the survey that they need an  ATMP to mitigate or prevent potential adverse impacts on park unit  resources, visitor experiences, and air safety. Fifty-nine (53 percent) of the  park units stated that they had air tours over their park units and identified  how air tours are affecting park unit resources. For example, as shown in  table 3, 23 (39 percent) of the 59 park units reported a negative effect on  visitors’ experiences, and 3 (5 percent) reported a positive effect. Because  the agencies plan to first develop ATMPs at park units on the basis of the  presence of new entrants, higher levels of air tour activity, and other  priorities, some park units are not likely to have a complete ATMP until  2012. Some park units we visited told us this delay does no harm because  they are not substantially affected by air tours, and they are therefore  satisfied with the act’s limited implementation and the time frame for  developing ATMPs.
section_title: Issues Remain to Improve Implementation and Enforcement of the Act
paragraphs: We identified four key issues to be addressed by the Congress and the  agencies to improve implementation of the act: (1) a lack of flexibility for  determining which park units should develop ATMPs, (2) an absence of  Park Service funding for its share of ATMP development costs, (3) limited  ability to verify and enforce the number of air tours, and (4) FAA’s  inadequate guidance concerning the act’s safety requirements.
subsections: section_title: Lack of Flexibility for Determining Which Park Units Should Develop ATMPs
paragraphs: The act requires an ATMP to be developed for any park unit where an  application for operating authority is made, regardless of the size of the  park unit, the number of air tours or operators at a park unit, or their  impact. Thus FAA and the Park Service are not authorized to exclude any  park units from the ATMP process. The number of air tours authorized at  park units under interim operating authority ranges from more than 35,000  to 5 air tours per year. Of the 94 park units currently expected to develop  ATMPs, 49 park units (52 percent) have 61 or more authorized air tours per  year under interim operating authority. Of the remainder, 36 park units (38  percent) have 60 or fewer authorized air tours per year, and 9 park units (10  percent) have no authorized air tours because only new entrants applied  for authority at those park units.
According to the 112 park units we surveyed, more park units have other  types of aviation than air tours, and more park units cited those other types  of aviation as their biggest aviation concern. Specifically, more national  park units reported having military, general aviation, and high-altitude  commercial flights than air tours over their park units: 89 park units (79  percent) had military overflights, 97 park units (87 percent) had general  aviation overflights, and 95 park units (85 percent) had high-altitude  commercial overflights. In contrast, 59 park units (53 percent) reported  having air tours, and 59 park units had other types of overflights, such as  pesticide spraying, search and rescue, and Park Service research flights.  Furthermore, when asked to identify the one or two types of overflights  that had the most negative effect on their park unit, 56 park units cited  general aviation and 44 park units reported military flights, compared with  the 33 park units that cited air tours.
More than half of the 112 park units we surveyed responded either that they  did not need an ATMP or they were unsure if they needed one, despite the  act’s current requirement. Specifically, 43 park units (38 percent) reported  not needing an ATMP, and 16 park units (14 percent) did not know or were  uncertain about the need for a plan. In our discussions with Park Service  and FAA officials and air tour operators, we found that voluntary  agreements at some park units, such as Haleakala and Badlands National  Parks and the Statue of Liberty National Monument, had successfully  established air tour routes and elevation levels to minimize impacts from  air tours on park unit resources and visitors on the ground. These voluntary  agreements, some of which were adopted prior to the act, are good  management practices that could be replicated at other park units. For  example, Haleakala officials started working with air tour operators in the  early 1990s in response to visitors’ complaints about noise from helicopter  tours over the park unit’s crater, while recognizing that such tours provide  an alternative means for visitors to enjoy the park unit. In 1998, the  Haleakala officials and operators signed an agreement establishing routes  that keep air tours outside the crater and away from visitor centers but still  allow air visitors to enjoy the crater from 500 feet above ground level  within one mile of its southern boundary. In addition, the helicopter  companies agreed to take punitive action against pilots if there are  complaints of violations, and Park Service officials and helicopter  companies meet once a month to discuss issues. As a result of this  agreement, Haleakala officials and air tour operators told us complaints  have decreased substantially, and operators have been able to maintain  their tour businesses.
If some park units find that they do not need ATMPs, then the agencies will  save federal dollars if they have the option of not developing such plans.  FAA estimates spending an average of $405,000—ranging from $257,000 to  $681,000—on the environmental analyses required at each of the first nine  park units that started developing ATMPs, compared with the agency’s  original estimate of an average $300,000 per park unit. Based on the current  cost and the number of park units currently expected to develop ATMPs,  the development of such plans could cost the federal agencies an estimated  $38 million in current dollars. Officials from both agencies and members of  the federal advisory group have expressed concern about the cost and time  required to fully implement the act by developing ATMPs at all 94 park  units where applications for operating authority were still active as of  November 2005. In particular, officials at both agencies have questioned  whether it is cost-effective to develop ATMPs for park units where there is  a low level of air tour activity or where there is greater concern about other  environmental impacts, such as vehicular traffic or other types of aviation.
Within the confines of the act, officials from both agencies said they are  considering alternatives to the ATMP development approach used at the  first nine park units—alternatives that these officials believe would fulfill  the act’s requirements but potentially save the agencies time and money in  developing the plans. Under NEPA, agencies may adopt procedures to  determine which actions usually do not have any significant impact on the  environment and therefore need not be the subject of an environmental  assessment or impact statement; these actions are referred to as  categorical exclusions. In cases where the stakeholders agree there are no  significant impacts from air tours, agency officials said they may be able to  issue ATMPs using their respective categorical exclusion procedures or  they could issue an abbreviated environmental assessment. With this in  mind, FAA has proposed creating an aviation rulemaking committee to  pursue an expedited ATMP process at park units where there is low air tour  activity and little public controversy. FAA envisions this rulemaking  committee could be chaired by a park unit’s superintendent and would  comprise stakeholders from both agencies, the aviation community,  environmental groups, the nearby residential community, and any other  appropriate interest groups. The committee would hold a public hearing  and create an ATMP that would be published for comment and then issued  as a final rule. As precedent for this proposal, FAA officials pointed to the  success of a rulemaking committee it convened in 1999 to address issues  surrounding the regulation of operations conducted by fractional owners  and managers. That committee, composed of 27 representatives of the  aviation community and relevant federal agencies, drafted proposed  regulations and provided the necessary funding to conduct environmental  and economic analyses of the proposed regulations.
The two agencies are also considering three other approaches to expedite  the ATMP process: (1) group several park units under one plan, (2) perform  one environmental analysis to support multiple ATMPs, or (3) develop an  environmental impact statement that could be used for as many ATMPs as  possible nationwide. However, at the time of our review, the agencies had  not committed to any of these approaches or agreed on when and where  they might be applied; thus it is too early to know what results may come  from these efforts. Furthermore, even if they are successful, the agencies  will still have the responsibility of developing an ATMP for each park unit  where an operator proposes to conduct air tours, then monitoring air tour  operators’ compliance with an ATMP and enforcing the ATMP’s  requirements. These responsibilities require resources beyond the creation  of the ATMP. As a result, FAA and the Park Service have discussed the  benefit of legislative changes to the act in order to give the agencies  authority to determine which park units need an ATMP. FAA officials  expressed concern that if the agencies were to recommend a legislative  change to the Congress, it may trigger an environmental review under  NEPA that is similar to what is already being done to develop the ATMPs,  which is both costly and time-consuming. This would effectively diminish  the benefits of seeking such a change. FAA and Park Service officials  concurred that this is an issue the Congress should handle without a formal  legislative proposal from the agencies.
section_title: Absence of Park Service Funding for Its Share of ATMP Development Costs
paragraphs: The Park Service has not funded its share of the cost of developing ATMPs,  despite its agreement with FAA to fund 40 percent of this effort. In a  memorandum of understanding between FAA and the Park Service, the  agencies agreed that FAA would fund 60 percent and the Park Service  would fund 40 percent of the cost of developing ATMPs. The agreement  describes the qualifying costs as external contractor costs required to  produce ATMPs. These qualifying costs exclude staff salaries, benefits, and  travel for agency personnel; agency equipment and supplies; and any costs  for in-house contractors hired by either agency. From fiscal year 2001  through fiscal year 2005, FAA has funded 100 percent of the initial ATMPs’  development, which amounts to $27 million through distinct budget  appropriations, while the Park Service had not requested or received any  dedicated funding for the program until fiscal year 2006 when Congress  provided $500,000 toward air tour management. Although the Park Service  has also contributed staff time to work with FAA on the development of  ATMPs, the cost of doing so does not count toward its 40 percent  obligation, according to the memorandum of understanding. FAA officials  said at the current estimate of an average $405,000 per park unit for ATMP  development, the agency estimates it will cost an additional $13 million for  fiscal years 2006 through 2010, for a total program cost since 2001 of about  $38 million for 94 ATMPs. At that level, FAA has already received about 67  percent of the total ATMP cost—if the Park Service receives funds for the  remaining $13 million that FAA estimates is needed, that will be just 33  percent of the total cost. If the Park Service does not meet its obligation  within the next 2 years, according to FAA and Park Service officials,  implementation may be hindered. However, officials from both agencies  said adoption of alternative approaches to the ATMP process could lower  costs.
section_title: Limited Ability to Verify and Enforce the Number of Air Tours
paragraphs: FAA and existing laws and regulations do not require operators to record  and report the number of air tours they conduct over national park units.  Consequently, FAA and the Park Service lack a mechanism to verify the  number of air tours conducted over national park units, both historically  and under interim operating authority. Of the 25 existing operators we  interviewed, 23 told us they had used a variety of documents, such as flight  logs and ticket sales receipts, to estimate their pre-2000 air tour activity in  their applications for operating authority. However, FAA officials and  operators said the quality of these data varied since there is no record- keeping requirement, and two operators told us they had no records of  their pre-2000 activity. In addition, we found two operators had deliberately  inflated their estimates to ensure some growth in future years—even  though that action ran counter to the act’s intent. Specifically:  According to one air tour operator, because of the act’s passage in 2000,  the operator started keeping track of its air tours and deliberately  inflated the number reported in its application for operating authority in  2003 to allow for future expansion. Without the documentation to verify  this information, FAA issued interim operating authority to this operator  for the inflated amount, and this operator has not had to limit its tours in  recent years as it might have if it had reported actual numbers.
Another operator with one pilot applied for operating authority at  dozens of park units spanning 6 Western states totaling more than 1,500  air tours annually. FAA and Park Service officials said it was unlikely  this operator could have conducted that many tours, and in their view,  the company had inflated the amount of tours it reported. However,  without reliable data to prove or disprove the operator’s claim, FAA  granted the company interim operating authority for the reported  activity.
In addition, without reliable air tour data, FAA and the Park Service cannot  determine whether operators are violating their interim authority. As a  result, the agencies are limited in their ability to enforce the act. We  determined 3 of the 25 existing operators we interviewed were exceeding  the number of tours they were authorized to conduct under interim  operating authority, flying over park units for which they did not have  authority, or both. For example, one owner told us his company was  exceeding its interim operating authority by more than 3,000 tours per year  over a major national park unit, and was conducting tours over two other  park units for which it had no authority.
According to FAA officials, it is in an operator’s best interest to keep  records of its tours over national park units to verify the number of tours  conducted, and some operators are doing so as a good business practice.  Without a requirement for operators to maintain and report such records,  however, the agencies cannot take appropriate action to enforce the act or  deter violations. Consequently, those operators who deliberately inflated  their pre-2000 flight activity in their applications enjoy higher levels of  activity under interim operating authority than the act intended, and thus  may have a competitive advantage over operators who provided more  accurate data.
To address this problem, FAA told us, legislation or rulemaking is needed to  require operators to maintain and report records during the interim  operating period. Once an ATMP for a park unit is completed, agency  officials believe each ATMP should include reporting requirements in order  to make the act enforceable. However, at the time of our review, FAA, as  the agency responsible for regulating air tour operators, had not decided  how it would implement a reporting requirement.
section_title: FAA’s Inadequate Guidance Concerning the Act’s Safety Requirements
paragraphs: FAA has not instructed its flight standards district offices or air tour  operators on how to interpret and enforce the act’s requirements for Part  91 operators, which are now required to meet the safety standards of Part  135 regulations. Under an exemption in the act, Part 91 operators may  continue to be regulated under Part 91 if they obtain a letter of agreement  from FAA and the relevant park unit’s superintendent and are limited to a  combined total of five air tours per park unit per month. We found that 3 of  the 29 companies we interviewed had not taken steps for all their pilots and  aircraft to meet Part 135 standards, had not obtained letters of agreement  from the two agencies, and were exceeding the five-tour limit using pilots  and/or aircraft qualified only for Part 91 operations. Furthermore, we found  that the number of tours conducted by one operator’s Part 91 pilots and  aircraft exceeded its interim operating authority. Specifically, this operator  employed a single pilot and a single helicopter qualified for Part 135  operations, and seven pilots and three helicopters under Part 91  regulations, to conduct tours within a half-mile of a major national park  unit. The operator’s manager estimated those Part 91 pilots and aircraft had  given hundreds of tours within one half-mile of a national park unit in the  previous year. The manager believed the interim operating authority  applied only to himself and his one Part 135-certified helicopter, and did  not apply to the other pilots and aircraft.
Officials in the two FAA flight standards district offices overseeing the  three operators mentioned above were either not aware of these  circumstances or believed the operators were in compliance with the act  because they had at least a single pilot and single aircraft that were Part  135-certified. According to officials at the district office who were aware of  the circumstances, the fact that those operators used additional pilots and  aircraft qualified for only Part 91 operations was immaterial and not a  violation of the act. FAA attorneys and other agency managers disagreed,  indicating the operators mentioned above were in violation. They  interpreted the act to mean that unless an operator chose to operate under  the Part 91 restrictions, all pilots and aircraft conducting tours over  national park units should meet Part 135 standards in order to increase  safety. Until our review, FAA officials said the issue had not been brought  to their attention, and they agreed that interpretation of the act by some  FAA district offices seemed to be inconsistent.
We found that the guidance FAA headquarters provided to district offices  and air tour operators regarding the requirements for operating authority  applications was not clear about this issue. For instance, the guidance did  not require the companies to identify the number of pilots they employed,  or what specific certification level those pilots and their aircraft were  qualified for. In the three cases where we found the companies were  exceeding the five-tour limit using Part 91 pilots and aircraft, their  applications for operating authority did not disclose their additional pilots,  they did not specify the level of certification their aircraft met, or both.  Furthermore, both the act and FAA guidance routinely use the term  “operator,” which is broadly defined to refer to companies, corporations,  individuals, and other entities. Agency officials said the scope of the act’s  intentions was not clear on this matter, and the common use and  interpretation of the term “operator” as a business—not an individual— could have caused confusion within the aviation community.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The National Parks Air Tour Management Act provided FAA and the Park  Service with new authority to regulate air tours over national park units to  ensure that the noise from such tours does not impair visitors’ experiences  or damage park unit resources. However, some of the act’s requirements,  and FAA’s and the Park Service’s slow implementation, have had  unintended consequences on air tour operators and relevant park units.
The level of air tours over the park units has been held constant under  interim operating authority at pre-2000 levels for nearly 6 years because no  ATMPs have yet been completed. FAA and the Park Service, air tour  operators, and some members of Congress did not envision that so many  park units and air tour operators would be operating under interim  operating authority for so long. Maintaining the level of air tour activity for  those park units that were adversely affected by air tours may be justified  while the agencies try to assess their impacts. However, according to the  112 park units we surveyed, many of the park units currently scheduled to  get an ATMP may not need one for the foreseeable future—but the act does  not provide the agencies with any flexibility to determine which park units  do not need ATMPs. While the agencies are currently considering more  cost-effective methods for developing ATMPs within the confines of the  act, it is too early to know what results may come from those efforts.  Amending the act to authorize the agencies to determine which park units  should develop ATMPs would go a long way to addressing the unintended  consequences of the act at a number of park units, and could save federal  dollars by not requiring the development of ATMPs for some park units.  Park units identified as needing an ATMP would continue to be regulated  under the act as they are now, while the other park units that do not  currently need an ATMP would become unregulated, thus allowing existing  operators at those park units to grow their businesses and new entrants to  begin operating. At any time in the future, should the level of air tour  activity at an unregulated park unit expand to such a level so as to warrant  the development of an ATMP, the agencies would have the necessary  authority to begin regulating the air tours at that park unit. This flexibility  would also encourage park units and air tour operators, under the threat of  becoming regulated, to negotiate and comply with voluntary agreements to  mitigate the impacts of air tours.
In amending the act, the Congress could consider different processes and  criteria for the agencies to determine which park units will develop ATMPs.  For example, Congress, in consultation with the agencies, could establish a  process with specific criteria that the agencies use to determine which park  units should have ATMPs. Other options Congress could consider are a  nomination process with approval by the National Parks Overflights  Advisory Group, or a process whereby the agencies could assess the need  for an ATMP based on the likelihood of potential significant adverse  impacts.
FAA has determined, but not effectively communicated or consistently  enforced, the circumstances under which air tour operators may or may  not transfer or sell their air tour allocations. As a result, air tour operators  do not know if they should plan to expand, reduce, or even sell their  business. Since some air tour operators have assumed that their air tour  allocations can be transferred or sold, they have been doing so, with the  knowledge and approval of their local FAA flight standards district offices,  contrary to the position of FAA headquarters.
For consistent enforcement of the number of air tours authorized under  interim operating authority, and ultimately under ATMPs, FAA and the Park  Service must be able to verify the number of air tours conducted over a  national park unit by each authorized operator. Since air tour operators are  currently not required to maintain and report information on their air tours,  FAA and the Park Service are unable to enforce the air tour allocations. By  not enforcing the air tour allocations, the agencies are allowing operators  that are exceeding their allocations to have an unfair business advantage  over those operators that are complying with the act and may also have  adverse impacts on visitors’ experiences and park unit resources.
Finally, consistent enforcement of air tour operators’ allocations over  national park units, both under interim operating authority and once an  ATMP is established, is vital to controlling the impacts from air tour noise  on the national park units and in ensuring a level playing field among all the  air tour operators. Nearly 6 years after the passage of the act, a great deal of  confusion remains regarding the act’s safety requirements. FAA has not  provided definitive guidance to its flight standards district offices on how  they should interpret and enforce the act’s safety requirements and  exemption for Part 91 operators. As a result, this provision has generally  not been enforced, and some air tour operators are not in compliance with  act.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To allow more cost-effective implementation of the National Parks Air Tour  Management Act, Congress may wish to consider amending the act to  authorize the agencies to determine which park units should develop  ATMPs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve compliance, enforcement, and implementation of the National  Parks Air Tour Management Act, we recommend that the Secretary of  Transportation direct the Administrator of FAA to take the following three  actions:  Communicate the agency’s position to its district offices on whether  operating authority is transferable or sellable under both interim and  final operating authority, and if so, under what conditions.
Establish a procedure for air tour operators to record and report to FAA  and the Park Service the number of air tours they conduct over national  park units, under both interim and final operating authority.
Clearly communicate to FAA district offices how to interpret, and thus  enforce, the act’s requirements for Part 91 air tour operators.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Departments of Transportation and the Interior with a  draft of this report for review and comment. The Department of  Transportation offered technical comments and otherwise generally agreed  with the findings of this report and agreed to consider our  recommendations as they move forward with the program. The  Department of the Interior provided written comments that are included in  appendix VI, along with our specific response. Interior generally agreed  with our findings and recommendations, but it questioned whether  Congress needs to amend the act to give the agencies greater flexibility.  Interior commented that it was concerned that amending the act could  “unnecessarily or unwittingly” jeopardize the protection of park resources  and visitor enjoyment by excluding some park units from the ATMP  process solely based on their level of air tour activity. Furthermore, Interior  commented that there are several administrative remedies available to the  agencies that might be best used to address those park units with low air  tour activity. We agree that any amendments to the act should preserve the  Park Service’s authority to develop an ATMP at any park unit it deems  necessary and that park units should not be arbitrarily excluded from the  process solely based on their level of air tour activity. However, we  disagree that existing administrative remedies would provide the flexibility  that is needed to achieve the most effective and efficient implementation of  the act. The purpose of providing flexibility in the act is not to exclude park  units that need ATMPs, but rather to provide the agencies the flexibility not  to develop ATMPs for park units where the agencies deem them to be  unnecessary. In its comments, Interior suggested support for this approach  by stating that it “… would agree to a general grant of authority which  would provide the agencies discretion to make such determinations based  on agency developed criteria that goes beyond simply the level of air tour  activity.”
Interior also provided technical comments and editorial suggestions that  we have incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Transportation  and the Interior, and other interested parties. We will also make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We identified and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and  procedures to determine what actions the Federal Aviation Administration  (FAA) and the National Park Service (Park Service) have taken to  implement the act and what remains to be addressed. Specifically, we used  the act to identify what actions the agencies were required to take. To learn  what actions FAA and the Park Service have taken to implement the act’s  requirements, we reviewed notices and regulations published in the  Federal Register and agency documents, and interviewed agency officials  at FAA and Park Service headquarters, FAA district offices, and national  park units, and air tour operators. We selected a nonprobability sample of  12 park units to visit because 9 of the 12 were the first park units FAA and  the Park Service chose to develop air tour management plans (ATMPs), and  the other 3 faced circumstances that differed from the first 9: one had a  military flight restriction, one was a potential candidate for an alternative  method for developing an ATMP, and one believed an ATMP was not  needed because it had so few air tours. The 12 park units are: Great Smoky  Mountains, Hawaii Volcanoes, Haleakala, and Badlands National Parks;  Kalaupapa, Pu’uhonau o Honaunau, and Kaloko-Honokohau National  Historical Parks; Pu’ukohola Heiau National Historic Site; the USS Arizona  Memorial; Lake Mead National Recreation Area; and Mount Rushmore  National Memorial.
We assessed budget data describing the Park Service’s requests for annual  appropriations and FAA’s funding dedicated to developing ATMPs,  including those funds obligated to the Volpe Center. This budget  information covered the fiscal years 2001 through 2006 and were obtained  from budget appropriation reports, the agencies’ budget requests, and  budget summaries provided by FAA and the Volpe Center. We determined  that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We  also assessed data describing the number of air tours by operators over  various national park units. Of interest were data on numbers of air tour  operators, including existing operators, new entrants, and total applicants,  as well as numbers of annual authorized air tours and new or increased  authority requested. We interviewed agency officials regarding a series of  data reliability questions addressing areas such as data entry, data access,  quality control procedures, and data accuracy and completeness. We asked  follow-up questions whenever necessary. We determined that these data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To assess how air tour operators have been affected by the implementation  of the act, we reviewed FAA and Park Service documents, documents  provided by air tour operators, and interviewed a sample of 29 operators at  the 12 different park units we visited. Where appropriate, we used  documents provided by the operators, FAA, and the Park Service to  corroborate information we collected from interviews with the air tour  operators. To choose the operators to interview, we divided the operators  at each park into 3 groups based on the number of annual air tours they  were granted under interim operating authority—small (3,000 or fewer air  tours), medium (between 3,001 and 10,000 air tours), and large (more than  10,000 air tours). Next, we randomly selected operators in each group and  met with at least three in each group; we also met with all new entrant  operators regardless of the number at each park unit. The air tour  operators we interviewed are: Adventure Air, LC.; Air Grand Canyon, Inc.;  American Aviation, Inc.; Aris, Inc.; Aviation Ventures, Inc.; Badger  Helicopters, Inc.; Big Island Air, Inc.; Black Hills Aerial Adventures, Inc.;  Call Air, Inc.; Eagle Aviation, Inc.; Grand Canyon Airlines, Inc.; Great  Smoky Mountains Helicopter, Inc.; Helicopter Consultants of Maui, Inc.;   K & S Helicopters, Inc.; King Airelines, Inc.; Manuiwa Airways, Inc.;  Maverick Helicopters, Inc.; Mauiscape Helicopters, Inc.; Mokulele Flight  Service, Inc.; Rainbow Pacific Helicopters, Ltd.; Rambo Helicopter Charter,  Inc.; Rushmore Helicopters, Inc.; Safari Aviation, Inc.; Scenic Airlines, Inc.;  Schuman Aviation, Co. Ltd.; Vista Helicopter Services, Inc.; Skycraft Air  Maintenance, Ltd.; Sunshine Helicopters, Inc.; and Windrock Aviation, LLC.
To assess how the national park units have been affected by  implementation of the act, we reviewed FAA and Park Service documents,  conducted a survey of all 112 national park units identified to develop  ATMPs as of July 2005, interviewed representatives of the 12 park units we  visited, and also interviewed FAA and Park Service officials at their  headquarters offices. We surveyed all national park units where air tour  operators had applied for operating authority, which includes existing and  new entrant operators. Ten tribal lands within or abutting national park  units were also identified as needing to be part of the ATMPs developed at  the relevant park units, but our review is limited to the implementation of  the act at national park units. Since our survey was conducted, some air  tour operators withdrew their applications and other corrections were  made by FAA, which resulted in a reduced number of park units that have  been identified to develop ATMPs—as of November 2005, there are 94 park  units identified to develop ATMPs, which are listed in appendix III.
We designed our survey with the assistance of a GAO methodologist.  During its design, we reviewed a similar survey conducted by the National  Parks Conservation Association and also obtained input from FAA and  Park Service officials. Even though we surveyed all 112 national park units  identified to develop ATMPs as of July 2005, the practical difficulties of  conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly  referred to as “nonsampling error.” For example, differences in how a  particular question is interpreted or the sources of information available to  respondents can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We  included steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages for  purposes of minimizing such nonsampling errors. We pretested the content  and format of the survey with three national park units. We also had the  survey independently reviewed by a GAO survey specialist. Based on the  results of these pretests and reviews, we revised the survey instrument as  appropriate. All returned surveys were reviewed, and we called  respondents to obtain follow-up information when questions were not  answered or clarification was needed.
Our survey response rate was 100 percent. All survey data were  keypunched, and then an additional sample of the data were verified as an  added check for accuracy of the information. The data were then  summarized and tabulated, and the aggregate results are included in  appendix II. It is worth noting that not all park units surveyed responded to  question 6. In this question, park units were asked to identify what effect, if  any, air tours over the park unit have had on the following resources:  visitors’ experience, cultural/historical resources, natural  resources/wildlife, number of visitors to the park unit, and other resources.  Fifty-one park units indicated that they do not have air tours, which would  imply that the remaining 61 of the 112 park units surveyed do have air  tours. Yet, 59 park units responded that they do have air tours and 2 park  units did not respond because they were unsure whether the flights over  their park units were air tours or some other type of flight.
We conducted our work from January 2005 through January 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Survey Instrument and Results from 112 National Park Units
paragraphs: Thank you for taking the time to complete the following brief survey, which the U.S. Government  Accountability Office (GAO) is using to assess the effect of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act  of 2000 on National Park Units nationwide.  Senators Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Lamar Alexander (R-TN),  Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and John McCain (R-AZ) have requested GAO, as an  independent Congressional agency, to review the implementation of the Act by the Federal Aviation  Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS).  This important survey will help inform our  review of the Act and its implementation to date.
The following survey is designed to gauge the effects, both positive and negative, of commercial air tours  on the National Park Units.  For example, sound from such tours might have a negative effect on visitors’ experiences, wildlife, or other Park Unit resources.  On the other hand, air tours might have a positive  effect by allowing elderly, disabled, and other persons to experience the Park Unit.  Thus the effects could  be positive and/or negative; please respond to the following questions with all effects that apply.
This survey should take about 15 minutes or less to complete. Please read the following instructions carefully before starting the survey.
This survey can be completed on your computer.  To do this, first save the MSWord file containing the survey to your computer.  You may then enter your responses directly to that file.
Completing the survey is very simple.  There are only a few rules to follow.
Please use your mouse to navigate by clicking on the field or check box  you wish to answer.
To select a check box, simply click on the center of the box and an ‘X’ will appear.
To change or deselect a check box response, simply click on the checked box and the ‘X’ will  disappear.
To respond to a question that requires that you enter an answer or write a comment, click on the ] and begin typing.  You may type as much as you wish, the box will expand to accommodate your answer.
Please identify the individual at your particular Park Unit who is most knowledgeable of this subject area,  if not yourself, to complete this survey by Friday, July 22, 2005; we would like only 1 response per Park  Unit.  Also, please answer these questions from your perspective as a National Park Service  representative, rather than expressing your personal opinion as a private individual.  If you need additional room for written comments, please use the last page and/or submit additional text, and be sure  to indicate which question(s) your additional comments address.
Please email your completed survey to XXXX at XXXX, or fax it to: XXXX with Attn: XXXX on the  cover sheet.  Please complete and return this survey by Friday, July 22, 2005.  We understand there are  great demands on your time; however, your response is crucial to provide important information to  Congress.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
If your response will be delayed, or if you have any questions, please call or e- mail: Please enter the following information in the event we need to clarify a  response.
Definition: For the following survey questions, the word effect refers to the positive and/or negative impacts of commercial air tours on visitors’ experiences in the Park Unit, on Park Unit resources, and/or  on the number of visitors to the Park Unit.  1. Which of the following types of overflights are there over your Park Unit? (Please check all that  N=97    General Aviation (private, non-commercial flights)
N=59 Commercial air tours (sightseeing, fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters that fly less than 5,000  feet above ground level and within a National Park Unit or within a ½ mile outside its  boundary)
N=95    High-elevation commercial (jets used for transportation; fly at least 5,000 feet above ground level)
N=59    Other — please specify: N= 2     None  Please go to question 4 N= 2     Uncertain/don’t know  Please go to question 4  * The number of responses for Question 1 is greater than 112 because the respondent could select  more than one answer.  The 59 respondents that answered other specified that other types of  aviation include agricultural pesticide spraying, Park Service research, fire management, search  and rescue, medical evacuation, law enforcement, hot air balloon, ultralight aircraft, and other federal agency flights.  2.  Of the types of overflights that you checked in Question 1, which one or two types of overflights have  same types of overflights as having both positive and negative effects.) * The  number of responses for Question 2 is greater than 112 because the respondent could  provide up to two answers.  The responses included Military – 44, General Aviation – 56,  Commercial Air Tours – 33, High-Elevation Commercial – 17, Other – 22, None – 6.  3.  Of the types of overflights that you checked in Question 1, which one or two types of overflights have  same types of overflights as having both positive and negative effects.)  * The  number of responses for Question 3 is greater than 112 because the respondent could  provide up to two answers.  The responses included Military – 4, General Aviation – 11, Commercial Air Tours – 9, High-Elevation Commercial – 4, Other – 30, None –29, Uncertain/Don’t Know –2.  4.  Since April 2000, has your Park Unit received written complaints from visitors about any type of  overflights?
N=26 Yes ........................  Please go to question 5.
N=77 No..........................  Please go to question 6.
N= 9 Uncertain/don’t know  Please go to question 6. 5. Please enter the number of written complaints for each type of applicable overflights that your Park however, please indicate if you are doing so by noting (E) after the number): Other (please specify) * Question 5 was not reported because the data were unreliable  6.
If there are commercial air tours over your Park Unit, what effect, if any, have they had on the  following? (Please check all that apply): Visitors’ experience.......................................N=3 Cultural/Historical resources .........................N=2 Natural resources/Wildlife.............................N=1 Number of visitors to the Park Unit ..............N=3 (Number of respondents who provided comments)
If there are commercial air tours over your Park Unit, please explain your answer: N=52 (Number of  respondents who provided comments)
N=51  There are no commercial air tours over the Park Unit  Please go to question 8 remaining 61 of the 112 park units surveyed do have air tours.  Yet, only 59 park units  responded.  The remaining two park units were unsure as to whether the flights over their park  units were air tours or some other type of flight.  As a result, these two park units did not  respond to question 6.  7. In your opinion as a NPS representative, does your Park Unit have a level of commercial air tour  activity to warrant the cost of collecting business-use fees from air tour operators?
8. The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 requires FAA and NPS to jointly  develop an Air Tour Management Plan for every Park Unit with commercial air tours.   Regardless of this requirement, do you think your Park Unit needs an Air Tour Management  Plan to mitigate or prevent potential impacts to Park resources, visitor use, and air safety?
Yes ....................................N=53   No.....................................N=43    Uncertain/don’t know.......N=16 Please explain your answer: N=83 (Number of respondents who provided comments) 9. Has your Park Unit entered into any agreements, formal or informal, with commercial air tour  operators in recent years?
Yes ....................................N=12   No.....................................N=99    Uncertain/don’t know.......N=1 If yes, please briefly describe these agreements: N=15 (Number of respondents who provided comments) 10. Does your Park Unit collect fees upon entry from commercial bus tours using an Incidental Business  Permit?
N=22 Yes ..........................  Please go to question 11.
N=86  No...........................  Please go to question 12.
Please go to question 12. 11. How many commercial bus tours entered your Park Unit in fiscal year 2004, and how much did you  estimates; however, please indicate if you are doing so by noting (E) after the number.)
Number of commercial bus tours in FY 2004: _______*___________    Amount collected in commercial bus tour fees in FY 2004: : _____*_____________  * Question 11 was not reported because the data were unreliable  12. Since the National Parks Air Tour Management Act was passed in 2000, to what extent has the  implementation of the Act had a positive effect on your Park Unit?
To no extent (no effect)......N=62 To a small extent ................N=9  To a moderate extent ..........N=7 To a great extent.................N=1 To a very great extent.........N=0   Uncertain/don’t know........N=33 Please explain your answer: N=60 (Number of respondents who provided comments) 13. Since the National Parks Air Tour Management Act was passed in 2000, to what extent has the  implementation of the Act had a negative effect on your Park Unit?
To no extent (no effect)......N=64 To a small extent ................N=7   To a moderate extent..........N=5 To a great extent.................N=1 To a very great extent.........N=1   Uncertain/don’t know........N=34 Please explain your answer: N=51 (Number of respondents who provided comments) 14. No questionnaire of this type can cover every relevant topic.  If you wish to expand on your answers  or comment on any other topic related to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 or its  implementation, please use the space below and/or submit additional text.
N=56 (Number of respondents who provided comments)
Thank you for your time and participation in this important survey – we greatly appreciate your input!
section_title: Applications for Operating Authority by National Park Unit
paragraphs: Golden Gate National Recreation Area  (includes Alcatraz Island, Muir Woods National  Monument, Presidio of San Francisco, and Fort  Point National Historic Site)
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site Lake Mead National Recreation Area (includes  part of Parashant National Monument)
North Cascades National Park (includes Lake  Chelan National Recreation Area)
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument San Francisco Maritime National Historical  Park Statue of Liberty National Monument (includes  Ellis Island National Monument)
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument 959 Recreation Area; Gateway National Recreation Area; Lava Beds National Monument; Lower East Side  Tenement Museum National Historic Site; Manhattan Sites (which includes Castle Clinton National  Monument, Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site, Federal Hall National Memorial, General Grant  National Memorial, Hamilton Grange National Memorial, and Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National  Historic Site); Manzanar National Historic Site; Pinnacles National Monument; Santa Monica  Mountains National Recreation Area; Tonto National Monument; and Whiskeytown National  Recreation Area. In addition, FAA withdrew interim operating authority in October 2005 for one  operator at three park units where there were no other applicants. Those three park units are: John  Muir National Historic Site, Redwood National and State Parks, and Rosie the Riveter/World War II  Home Front National Historical Park. This information reflects applications for operating authority that  were still active as of November 2005.
section_title: Applications for Operating Authority by Air Tour Operator
section_title: Air Tours Authorized under Interim Operating Authority by National Park Unit
paragraphs: Lake Mead National Recreation Area (includes part of  Parashant National Monument)
Statue of Liberty National Monument (includes Ellis  Island National Monument)
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Golden Gate National Recreation Area (includes Alcatraz  Island, Muir Woods National Monument, Presidio of San  Francisco, and Fort Point National Historic Site)
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Great Smoky Mountains National Park North Cascades National Park (includes Lake Chelan  National Recreation Area)
185 (Continued From Previous Page)
Canyon de Chelly National Monument Chaco Culture National Historical Park Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument San Juan Island National Historical Park 18 (Continued From Previous Page)
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s  (Interior) letter dated January 5, 2006.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. While it is true that FAA and the Park Service could not agree on what  constitutes a significant impact, we did not include specifics of the  disagreement because, according to agency officials and the  implementation plan, the problem has been resolved. Furthermore, the  agencies’ slow implementation of the act has been discussed in past  congressional hearings and we concluded that we could not provide  any new information. 2. We agree that Congress, in amending the act, should preserve the Park  Service’s authority to develop an ATMP for any park unit it deems  necessary. Our intent for suggesting that Congress consider amending  the act was to provide the agencies with the flexibility not to develop  ATMPs for park units where the Park Service deems them to be  unnecessary. That flexibility currently does not exist in the act. As we  discuss in the report, an ATMP may be unnecessary for a specific park  unit for a variety of reasons, including (1) a low level of air tour activity,  (2) an existing voluntary agreement governing air tour activities, or (3)  more significant effects by other types of overflights at the park unit.  We agree that whether or not an ATMP is necessary for a specific park  unit could depend on a number of factors and not just solely on the  level of air tour activity. Furthermore, we agree that in amending the  act Congress should not arbitrarily exclude park units from the ATMP  process solely on the basis of their level of air tour activity. We believe  that such an exclusion would be an oversimplification of a complex  issue, and we did not imply such a solution in this report. 3. We disagree that programmatic approaches taken by the agencies could  provide the same flexibility as a legislative amendment. As Interior  acknowledges in its comments, the act does not give the agencies the  authority to exclude any park unit from the ATMP process. In the  matter for congressional consideration, we offer the point that  Congress may wish to give the agencies such authority. 4. We disagree with Interior’s characterization of our survey results as  “anecdotal.” We surveyed all 112 park units that were expected to  develop ATMPs as of July 2005, and we received a 100 percent response  rate. Per our instructions, the survey was to be completed by Park  Service officials with the most knowledge of the subject area. We  believe that our methodology was sound and that we gathered the most  authoritative data currently available from Park Service officials with  first-hand knowledge of the different causes of noise at their respective  park units. However, since only a small number of park units have  completed sound monitoring studies as part of the development of an  ATMP, we acknowledge that the responses provided were generally  based on the survey respondents’ first-hand knowledge and years of  experience rather than scientific data. Nevertheless, the survey results  clearly indicate that there are a number of park units currently  scheduled to develop ATMPs that may not need them. We agree with  Interior’s comments that the survey results should not be “used to  imply that low levels of air tour activity alone equates to little or no  adverse effects.” 5. We agree with this comment and we have revised the discussion of this  issue in the final report accordingly. 6. We agree, and note in the report, that the Park Service needs additional  information in order to grant increases in air tour allocations under  interim operating authority. FAA confirmed that it does have authority  to collect this data from air tour operators, as it is the agency with  jurisdiction over operators and could require operators to provide the  necessary information if an operator wants to increase its air tours  under interim operating authority. The agencies would have to evaluate  the information and determine whether an environmental analysis is  necessary.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgment
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant  Director, Josey Ballenger, Alisha Chugh, Richard Johnson, Cathy Hurley,  Wyatt R. Hundrup, Judy Pagano, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Monica  Wolford made key contributions to this report.  Also contributing to the  report were Roy Judy and Steve Martin.