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

Letter

Background

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.

FAA and the Park Service Have Begun to Implement the Act, but No ATMPs Have Been Completed

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.

FAA and the Park Service Have Taken Actions to Implement the Act and Resolved Some Differences That Slowed ATMP Development

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.

Key Implementation Issues Have Yet to Be Addressed

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.

Act’s Implementation Has Limited Air Tour Operators’ Ability to Make Major Business Decisions but Had Little Effect on National Park Units

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.

Air Tour Operators’ Ability to Make Major Business Decisions Has Been Limited by the Implementation Process

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.

Agencies’ Slow Implementation Has Limited Air Tour Operators’ Expansion

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.

Operators Are Uncertain About Transferability of Air Tour Allocations

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.

Operators Have Generally Opted to Invest Resources to Meet Higher Standards and Avoid the Five-Tour Limit

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.

Act’s Implementation Has Had Little Effect on National Park Units

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.

Issues Remain to Improve Implementation and Enforcement of the Act

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.

Lack of Flexibility for Determining Which Park Units Should Develop ATMPs

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.

Absence of Park Service Funding for Its Share of ATMP Development Costs

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.

Limited Ability to Verify and Enforce the Number of Air Tours

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.

FAA’s Inadequate Guidance Concerning the Act’s Safety Requirements

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.

Conclusions

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.

Matter for Congressional Consideration

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Scope and Methodology

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.

Survey Instrument and Results from 112 National Park Units

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!

Applications for Operating Authority by National Park Unit

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.

Applications for Operating Authority by Air Tour Operator

Air Tours Authorized under Interim Operating Authority by National Park Unit

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)

Comments from the Department of the Interior

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) letter dated January 5, 2006.

GAO Comments

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.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgment

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.