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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to extend, for 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, has 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 proposal would allow the FAA sufficient time to review thoroughly

the NPS recommendations as to their impact on the safety of air traffic

at the Grand Canyon National Park, and to initiate any appropriate

rulemaking action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this NPRM should be mailed, in triplicate to:

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 25149, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments also may be submitted

electronically to [email protected]. The official docket may be

examined in the Rules Docket, Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 916,

800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, weekdays, except Federal

holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

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:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed

rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they

may desire. Comments are also invited relating to the aeronautical,

environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that might result

from adopting the proposals in this notice. Substantive comments should

be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the

regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in triplicate to

the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments received on or

before the specified closing date for comments will be considered by

the Administrator before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. The

proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments

received. All comments received will be available, both before and

after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for

examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this

notice must include a readdressed, stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 25149.'' The

postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request

to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, APA-

220, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the docket number of this

rule. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future

rules should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular

No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which

describes the application procedure.

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 [[Page 18671]] 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 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 of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1995 (57 FR 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 No. 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 No. 50-2 through the rulemaking process. However, at the

present time, the FAA is reviewing and analyzing these recommendations

to determine an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the FAA is

proposing to extend the provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 for 2 years from

the June 15, 1995, expiration date to allow sufficient time to

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

Environmental Review

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

report to Congress within 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 statute 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, the proposal 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.

Alternately, 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 proposed 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 that 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 NPRM is not ``a significant

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

Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This

NPRM would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of

small entities and would not constitute a barrier to international

trade.

SFAR No. 50-2 was justified based on 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 the benefits to park resources and visitors would be

significant.

For the purpose of this proposal, 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 the proposal to

extend the current SFAR No. 50-2 would not alter current industry

practices in the Grand Canyon special flight rules area and would not

affect growth in air traffic. Additionally, the proposal would not

cause significant economic impact because it would 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

proposed extension would not result in additional costs to the air tour

operators. Since the rule was first promulgated in 1987, the number of

[[Page 18672]] 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.

Initial 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 NPRM will not result in

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

This NPRM 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

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

competitive environment is confined to the Grand Canyon National Park.

Conclusion

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

NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this NPRM, if adopted, would

not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. This NPRM is not considered significant

under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This notice contains no information collection requests requiring

approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

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 proposes to amend 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. 1354(a), 1355(a), 1421 through 1431, and

1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

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

* * * * *

Section 9. Termination date. This Special Federal Aviation

Regulation expires on June 15, 1997.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 6, 1995.

Harold W. Becker,

Manager, Airspace--Rules and Aeronautical Information Division.

[FR Doc. 95-8952 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M