Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park

summary: This action continues, for an additional 2 years, the

effectiveness of SFAR No. 50-2, which contains procedures governing the

operation of aircraft in the airspace above Grand Canyon National Park.

SFAR No. 50-2, which originally established the flight regulations for

a period of 4 years, had previously been extended to allow the National

Park Service (NPS) time to complete studies concerning aircraft

overflight impacts on the Grand Canyon, and to forward its

recommendations to the FAA. The NPS study, completed in September 1994,

recommended alternatives, such as use of quiet aircraft, additional

flight-free zones, altitude restrictions, operating specifications,

noise budgets, and time limits. This rule allows the FAA sufficient

time to review thoroughly the NPS recommendations as to their impact on

the safety of air traffic over the Grand Canyon National Park, and to

initiate and complete any appropriate rulemaking action.

dates: Effective date. June 15, 1995. Expiration date. SFAR 50-2

expires June 15, 1997.

for further information contact: Mrs. Ellen Crum, Air Traffic Rules

Branch, ATP-230, Airspace Rules and Aeronautical Information Division,

Air Traffic Rules and Procedures Services, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

Telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 26, 1987, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50 (subsequently amended

on June 15, 1987; 52 FR 22734) establishing flight regulations in the

vicinity of the Grand Canyon. The purpose of the SFAR was to reduce the

risk of midair collision, reduce the risk of terrain contact accidents

below the rim level, and reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the

park environment.

On August 18, 1987, Congress enacted legislation that required a

study of aircraft noise impacts at a number of national parks and

imposed flight restrictions at three parks: Grand Canyon National Park

in Arizona, Yosemite National Park in California, and Haleakala

National Park in Hawaii (Pub. L. 100-91).

Section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91 required that the Department of the

Interior (DOI) submit to the FAA recommendations to protect resources

in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with aircraft

overflights. The law mandated that the recommendations (1) provide for

substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the

Grand Canyon; (2) with limited exceptions, prohibit the flight of

aircraft below the rim of the Canyon; and (3) designate zones that were

flight free except for purposes of administration of underlying lands

and emergency operations.

Further, Pub. L. 100-91 required the FAA to prepare and issue a

final plan for the management of air traffic above the Grand Canyon. It

also required that the plan establish a means to implement the

recommendations of the DOI without change unless the FAA determined

that executing the recommendations would adversely affect aviation

safety. In that event, the FAA was required to revise the DOI

recommendations to resolve the safety concerns and to issue regulations

implementing the revised recommendations in the plan.

In December 1987, the DOI transmitted to the FAA preliminary

recommendations for an aircraft management plan at the Grand Canyon.

The recommendations included both rulemaking and nonrulemaking actions.

On May 27, 1988, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50-2 revising the

procedures for operation of aircraft in the airspace above the Grand

Canyon (53 FR 20264, June 2, 1988). The rule implemented DOI's

preliminary recommendations for an airspace management plan with some

modifications that the FAA initiated in the interest of aviation

safety.

Pub. L. 100-91 also required the DOI to conduct a study, with DOT

technical assistance, to determine the proper minimum altitude to be

maintained by aircraft when flying over units of the National Park

System. The research was to include an evaluation of the noise levels

associated with overflights. It required that, before submission to

Congress, the DOI provide a draft report (containing the results of its

studies) and recommendations for legislative and regulatory action to

the FAA for review. The FAA is to notify the DOI of any adverse effects

these recommendations may have on the safety of aircraft operations.

Additionally, section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91, required the DOI to submit a

Report to Congress regarding the success of the Grand Canyon airspace

management plan, and any necessary revisions, within 2 years of the

effective date of the plan. The FAA was to report whether any of these

recommendations would have an adverse effect on safety. On June 15,

1992, because of a delay in the completion of the DOI study, the FAA

promulgated a final rule to extend the expiration date to SFAR No. 50-2

to June 15, 1995 (57FR 26766).

On September 12, 1994, the DOI submitted its final report and

recommendations to Congress. The report recommends numerous revisions

to the current flight restrictions contained in SFAR 50-2. In addition,

the report recommends the use of quiet aircraft, additional flight-free

zones, altitude restrictions, operating specifications, noise budgets,

and time limits for flight in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon.

Upon completing a review of the NPS congressional report, the FAA

may amend SFAR 50-2 through the rulemaking process. On April 12, 1995,

the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed

to extend the provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 for 2 years from the June 15,

1995, expiration date (60 FR 18700). This action extends the

effectiveness of the rule, allowing the FAA sufficient time to

determine if there is a need to adjust SFAR No. 50-2 in accordance with

the NPS recommendations and to make any necessary changes.

Discussion of Comments

The FAA received nine comments in support of, and one comment in

opposition to, this action. Commenters included the Aircraft Owners and

Pilots Association (AOPA); the Las Vegas Department of Aviation; the

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); the U.S. Department of

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); environmental associations

and air tour operators.

AOPA supports extension of the rule; however, it states that the

rule is ``inherently discriminatory'' to many general aviation (GA)

aircraft due to their operating characteristics. AOPA contends that

this rule restricts many GA overflights to a narrow corridor and

strongly opposes any similar overflight restrictions at any other

national parks.

The Las Vegas Department of Aviation supports extension of the rule

in order to allow the FAA sufficient time to study the NPS report.

However, the [[Page 31609]] commenter is concerned with several

recommendations in the report and encourages the Department of

Transportation to carefully consider the evidence, believing that there

can be a balance among the air tour industry, the NPS, the FAA, and

environmental groups.

The NTSB supports extending the SFAR for 2 years. However the NTSB

believes that a permanent nationwide policy for air tour operators

should be implemented.

The BIA states that, if the FAA extends the SFAR, it should consult

with various Indian tribes residing within or having ties to the Grand

Canyon area during the 2-year extension period concerning potential

impact to their reservation environment.

Several commenters support extension of the current rule; however,

they request an adjustment to the tour route known as the Dragon

Corridor. The commenters believe that adjustment to this corridor would

lessen the noise impact on visitors to the heavily used Hermit's Rest

overlook and trail.

One commenter ``strongly opposes'' the SFAR in its present form,

given the NPS report. The commenter recommends prohibiting an increase

in the number of Grand Canyon tour flights from 1988 levels and

requiring tour operators to provide the FAA with sufficient information

to monitor the number of tour operations.

The FAA has determined that comments requesting amendments to the

current rule are beyond the scope of the NPRM. The NPRM did not

recommend any changes to the current SFAR; it merely proposed extending

the rule in its existing form. The FAA is currently reviewing and

analyzing the NPS report and recommendations as to the impact on the

safety of air traffic at the Grand Canyon. The FAA has determined that

any substantive change at this point will be inappropriate. Upon

completing the review and analysis of the NPS report, the FAA may amend

SFAR No. 50-2 through the rulemaking process.

The Rule

This rule amends the expiration date of the current SFAR 50-2 from

June 15, 1995, to June 15, 1997. The airspace restrictions and

operating procedures for the airspace over the Grand Canyon are not

altered by this action. In consideration of the need to avoid confusion

on the part of pilots operating in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon,

the FAA finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d), for making

this action effective in less than 30 days to promote the safe and

efficient operation of aircraft in the airspace above the Grand Canyon.

Environmental Review

As discussed above, Pub. L. 100-91 required the DOI to submit a

report to Congress with 2 years of implementation regarding the success

of the final airspace management plan for the Grand Canyon, including

possible revisions. Now that this report has been forwarded to both

Congress and the FAA, the FAA is required to comment on whether any of

these revisions would have an adverse effect on aircraft safety.

Pub. L. 100-91 essentially reflects a decision by Congress that a

final airspace management plan, currently set forth in SFAR No. 50-2,

should continue permanently with any appropriate modifications

developed as a result of the follow-on study. The statue and its

legislative history show that Congress considered the environmental and

economic concerns inherent in regulating the navigable airspace over

the Grand Canyon. Since Congress, and not the FAA, determined to make

permanent an airspace management plan as delineated in SFAR No. 50-2,

this extension of SFAR No. 50-2 does not require compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the FAA has discretion to

terminate SFAR No. 50-2, this action to extend its effectiveness for 2

more years is categorically excluded from the requirements of the NEPA.

(See FAA Order 1050.1D, Par. 31(a)(4), ``Policies and Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts.'') A documented categorical

exclusion has been placed in the docket.

Alternatively, the analysis in the 1988 Environmental Assessment

(EA) and the Finding of No Significant Impact remain valid and support

a determination that this extension is not likely to significantly

impact the environment. The extension will not cause significant

environmental impacts because it will not change the volume of traffic,

the altitude of flight routes, or the noise characteristics of the

aircraft typically used in canyon flights between now and 1997.

This extension will enable the FAA to consider recommendations that

the DOI forwarded in September 1994 to enhance the effectiveness of the

SFAR. Based upon its studies, the DOI has concluded that the SFAR has

significantly reduced noise impacts in areas of the Grand Canyon.

However, the DOI believes the benefits may be lost unless additional

restrictions are adopted.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic

analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency

shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination

that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,

the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the

Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect

of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these

analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and the

Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This

rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of

small entities and will not constitute a barrier to international

trade.

SFAR No. 50-2 was justified based on the DOI's December 1987

benefit-cost analysis. This analysis stated that 40 to 45 operators

conducted air tours over the Grand Canyon with an estimated revenue of

$30 to $50 million per year. The number of operations over the Grand

Canyon was growing, with operations at Grand Canyon National Park

Airport increasing 300 percent from 1974 to 1980.

The establishment of large flight-free zones was expected to

roughly double the time for Tusayan-based operators to reach the canyon

rim. The DOI analysis assumed that these operators could adjust for the

increased travel time by increasing the overall tour length and passing

on any additional costs to the consumer. While the percent of tour time

spent over the canyon would decrease, small price increases or slightly

decreased flight time over the canyon was not expected to result in a

decreased ridership. In addition, even though Tusayan-based companies

would incur costs to modify advertising literature and tour narrations

due to route change requirements, the DOI analysis assumed that these

costs would likely be part of the normal operating program. The

benefits to the park resources (natural quiet, wildlife, archeological

features, etc.) and the more than 3,315,000 visitors (about 3 million

front-country users and over 90 percent of the 350,000 back-country,

below rim users each year) would accrue primarily from the increased

quiet resulting from noise reduction. Thus, DOI concluded that this

NPRM would be cost-beneficial because cost to air tour operators would

be minimal and [[Page 31610]] the benefits to park resources and

visitors would be significant.

For the purpose of this rule, the FAA updated the DOI's December

1987 data as follows: (1) There are still 40 to 45 air tour operators;

(2) the estimated revenue generated by the industry is now over $100

million each year; and (3) the number of ground visitors has increased

to almost 5 million. The FAA believes that extending the current SFAR

No. 50-2 will not alter current industry practices in the Grand Canyon

special flight rules area and will not affect growth in air traffic.

Additionally, the rule will not cause significant economic impact

because it will not change the volume of traffic, the altitude of

flight routes, or the noise characteristics of the aircraft typically

used in canyon flights between now and 1997. Therefore, the FAA has

determined that the extension will not result in additional costs to

the air tour operators.

Since the rule was first promulgated in 1987, the number of ground

visitors increased by 50 percent. During this period, the estimated

number of air tour operators remained unchanged, while the estimated

revenue generated by the air tour industry has doubled. Therefore, the

FAA has determined that any costs incurred by the air tour operators

are not overly burdensome.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by

Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or

disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule will have ``a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' FAA Order

2100.14A outlines the FAA's procedures and criteria for implementing

the RFA. Small entities are independently owned and operated small

businesses and small, not-for-profit organizations. A substantial

number of small entities is defined as a number that is 11 or more and

which is more than one-third of the small entities subject to this

direct final rule. The FAA determined that this rule will not result in

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

International Trade Impact Analysis

This action is expected to have neither an adverse impact on the

trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business abroad nor on foreign

firms doing business in the United States. This assessment is based on

the fact that part 135 air tour operators potentially impacted by this

rule do not compete with similar operators abroad. That is, their

competitive environment is confined to the Grand Canyon National Park.

Federalism Implications

This action will not have substantial effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of

government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is

determined that this action will not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation

Regulations

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on

International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with

International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended

Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent practicable. For this action,

the FAA has reviewed the SARP of Annex 10. The FAA has determined that

this amendment will not present any differences.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-

511), there are no requirements for information collection associated

with this rule.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the FAA has determined that this

rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this action will not have a

significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. This rule is not considered significant under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 91 and 135

Aircraft, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation

Administration is amending SFAR No. 50-2 (14 CFR parts 91 and 135) as

follows:

PART 91--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1301(7), 1303, 1344, 1348, 1352 through

1355, 1401, 1421 through 1431, 1471, 1472, 1502, 1510, 1522, and

2121 through 2125; Articles 12, 29, 31, and 32(a) of the Convention

on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq., E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902; 49

U.S.C. 106(g).

PART 135--[AMENDED]

2. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40105, 44113, 44701-

44705, 44707-44717, 44722, and 45303.

3. In parts 91 and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-

2, the text of which appears at the beginning of part 91, is amended by

revising section 9 to read as follows:

SFAR No. 50-2--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon

National Park, AZ

* * * * *

Sec. 9. Termination date. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation

expires on June 15, 1997.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 9, 1995.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-14649 Filed 6-14-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M