Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to amend part 93

of the Federal Aviation Regulations by adding a new subpart to codify

and amend the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-

2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park.

Specifically, the FAA is proposing to modify the dimensions of the

Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA); establish

new and modify existing flight-free zones; establish new and modify

existing flight corridors; and establish reporting requirements for

commercial sightseeing companies operating in the SFRA. In addition, to

provide further protection for Park resources, this notice contains

proposals for flight-free periods within the Park and/or an interim

moratorium on additional commercial sightseeing air tours and tour

operators. Both flight-free periods and a moratorium could be effected

in various ways; in order to focus public comment, this notice contains

a description of both fixed and variable flight-free periods and one

possible moratorium. The FAA is proposing these changes to reduce the

impact of aircraft noise on the park environment and to assist the

National Park Service in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by

Public Law 100-91 to provide for the substantial restoration of natural

quiet and experience in Grand Canyon National Park.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 30, 1996.

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. 28537, 800 Independence

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

electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet

address: [email protected]. Comments must be marked Docket No.

28537. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on

weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Neil Saunders, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air

Traffic Airspace Management, 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 relating to the environmental, energy, federalism,

or economic impact that may result from adopting the proposals in this

notice are also invited. Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful

in developing reasoned regulatory decisions. Communications should

identify the regulatory docket number and be submitted in triplicate to

the above specified address. All communications and a report

summarizing any substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for

public inspection both before and after the closing date for receiving

comments.

Before taking any final action on this proposal, the Administrator

will consider all comments made on or before the closing date for

comments, and the proposal may be changed in light of the comments

received.

The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter

includes a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the comment. The

postcard should be marked ``Comments to Docket No. 28537.'' When the

comment is received by the FAA, the postcard will be dated, time

stamped, and returned to the commenter.

Availability of the NPRM

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

to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800

Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-

9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future FAA

NPRM's should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes application

procedures.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem

and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section

of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-

3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service

(telephone: 202-512-1661). Internet users may reach the FAA's web page

at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs for access to recently published rulemaking

documents.

History

Beginning in the summer of 1986, the FAA initiated regulatory

action to address increasing air traffic over Grand Canyon National

Park (GCNP). On March 26, 1987, the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation

Regulation (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.

In 1987, Congress enacted Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-91, commonly

known as the National Parks Overflights Act (the Act). The Act stated,

in part, that noise associated with aircraft overflights at GCNP was

causing ``a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and

experience of the park and current aircraft operations at the Grand

Canyon National Park have raised serious concerns regarding public

safety, including concerns regarding the safety of park users.''

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

(DOI) to 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 park and

protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated

with aircraft overflight; (2) with limited exceptions, prohibit the

flight of aircraft below the rim of the canyon; and (3) designate

flight-free zones except for purposes of administration and emergency

operations.

In December 1987, the DOI transmitted its ``Grand Canyon Aircraft

Management Recommendation'' to the FAA, which included both rulemaking

and nonrulemaking actions. Pub. L. 100-91 required the FAA to prepare

and issue a final plan for the management of air traffic above the

Grand Canyon, implementing the recommendations of the DOI without

change unless the FAA

[[Page 40121]]

determined that executing the recommendations would adversely affect

aviation safety. After the FAA determined that some of the DOI

recommendations would adversely affect aviation safety, the

recommendations were modified to resolve those concerns.

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). SFAR No. 50-2 established a Special

Flight Rules Area (SFRA) from the surface to 14,499 feet above mean sea

level (msl) in the area of the Grand Canyon. The SFAR prohibited flight

below a certain altitude in each of five sectors of this area, with

certain exceptions. The SFAR established four flight-free zones from

the surface to 14,499 feet msl above large areas of the park. The SFAR

provided for special routes for commercial sightseeing operators, which

are required to conduct operations under part 135, as authorized by

special operations specifications. Finally, the SFAR contained certain

terrain avoidance and communications requirements for flights in the

area.

A second major provision of section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91 required

the DOI to submit a report to Congress ``* * * discussing * * * whether

[SFAR No. 50-2] has succeeded in substantially restoring the natural

quiet in the park; and * * * such other matters, including possible

revisions in the plan, as may be of interest.'' The report was to

include comments by the FAA ``regarding the effect of the plan's

implementation on aircraft safety.'' The Act mandated a number of

studies related to the effect of overflights on parks. The National

Park Service (NPS) took longer than originally anticipated to complete

the studies because many of the issues involved are on the cutting edge

of technical and scientific capability. According to the NPS, measuring

natural quiet is different from measuring levels of aircraft noise. On

June 15, 1992, the FAA promulgated a final rule to extend the

expiration date of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1995, while the NPS

studies and analyses were being conducted (57 FR 26764).

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

recommendations to Congress. This report, entitled, Report on Effects

of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System, was published in

July 1995. The report recommended numerous revisions to SFAR No. 50-2

that are described below.

On June 15, 1995, the FAA published a final rule that extended the

provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1997 (60 FR 31608). This action

allowed the FAA sufficient time to review thoroughly the NPS

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

GCNP, and to initiate and complete any appropriate rulemaking action.

Interagency Working Group

On December 22, 1993, Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena and

Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt formed an interagency working

group (IWG) to explore ways to limit or reduce the impacts from

overflights on national parks, including GCNP. Secretary Babbitt and

Secretary Pena concur that increased flight operations at GCNP and

other national parks have significantly diminished the national park

experience for some park visitors, and that measures can and should be

taken to preserve a quality park experience for visitors, while

providing access to the airspace over national parks. The Secretaries

see the formation of the working group and the mutual commitment to

addressing the impacts of park overflights as the initial steps in a

new spirit of cooperation between the two departments to promote an

effective balance of missions. The FAA has been working closely with

the NPS to identify and deal with the impacts of aviation on parks, and

the two agencies will continue to identify and pursue the most

effective solutions. This close cooperation is necessary because the

FAA has sole authority for control of the nation's airspace to ensure

aviation safety and efficiency, while the NPS is charged with managing

the natural and cultural resources in the national park system and

providing for public enjoyment of those resources in such a manner that

they are unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

The FAA's role in the IWG has been to promote, develop, and foster

aviation safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient use of

airspace, while recognizing the need to preserve, protect, and enhance

the environment by minimizing the adverse effects of aviation on the

environment. The NPS' role in the IWG has been to protect public land

resources in national parks, preserve environmental values of those

areas, including wilderness areas, and provide for public enjoyment of

those areas.

In March 1994, the two agencies jointly issued an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on policy

recommendations addressing the effects of aircraft overflights on

national parks, including GCNP (59 FR 12740; March 17, 1994). The

recommendations presented for comment included voluntary measures,

altitude restrictions, flight-free periods, flight-free zones,

allocation of noise equivalences, and incentives to encourage use of

quiet aircraft technology.

The President, on April 22, 1996, issued a Memorandum for the Heads

of Executive Departments and Agencies to address the significant

impacts on visitor experience in national parks. Specifically, the

President directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue proposed

regulations for the Grand Canyon National Park placing appropriate

limits on sightseeing aircraft to reduce the noise immediately and make

further substantial progress toward restoration of natural quiet, as

defined by the Secretary of the Interior, while maintaining aviation

safety in accordance with the Overflight Act (Public Act 100-91). This

proposed rule was issued in response to the President's direction.

In response to the ANPRM, the FAA received 30,726 comments,

including duplicate form letters and several petitions with multiple

signatures; the FAA received 24,510 submissions of one form letter with

comments addressing the GCNP. Of the total number of comments, 1,975

were distinct letters. This NPRM will discuss only those comments that

relate to GCNP. The remainder of the comments relating to the above

noted recommendations may be addressed in a later rulemaking.

Of the 644 comments that specifically addressed GCNP, 337

commenters opposed, while 232 commenters supported, further regulation.

Commenters included members of State and local governments;

congresspersons; helicopter operators; Native Americans and other

individuals; and aviation, environmental, and recreational

organizations and associations.

Commenters opposing additional regulation argued that: (a) SFAR No.

50-2 is effective, decreasing the visitor complaint rate by 92 percent;

(b) air tour operator-funded studies indicate that natural quiet has

been restored and the NPS studies are substantially flawed and biased;

(c) 84 percent of the park is already off limits to air tour

operations; (d) air tours are an environmentally friendly way to see

the park and provide a real service to the handicapped; (e) additional

regulation could present safety implications or cause compression of

traffic; (f) more regulations will have economic impacts; (g) noise

budgets are too complex and will not work; (h) quieter aircraft are

[[Page 40122]]

expensive and incentives to invest in this technology are needed; (i)

although there have been adverse impacts on the noise level in GCNP,

those impacts have only occurred in limited corridors and only because

of visitors' demand; (j) the growth of the commercial sightseeing

industry at about 5.9 percent is about the same as other types of

visitor tours; (k) air passengers do not use any NPS resources like

trails or trash disposal; (l) to protect sound for sound's sake is in

conflict with the FAA's interpretation of its mission to protect

persons and property on the ground; and (m) air tour passengers are

paying visitors and should be accorded the same considerations as

ground visitors.

Commenters supporting additional regulation argued that: (a)

Current measures are not effective and have not increased the safety of

operations, but instead have compressed traffic; (b) the total number

of flights must be restricted to pre-1975 levels to lessen noise

disruption caused by unlimited flights and to protect passenger safety;

(c) air tours over national parks use parks by consuming the natural

quiet resources, imposing costs, and detracting from scenic values; (d)

the NPS should decide the level of protection of park resources that is

necessary for it to achieve its mission and mandates under existing

laws and regulations; (e) results of the NPS study should be used to

strengthen SFAR No. 50-2 that must include limits on the number of air

tours to be effective; (f) to resolve noise problems at GCNP, more

flight-free zones should be established, all flights should be

perpendicular to hiking trails and the Colorado River, and flights

should be prohibited during the oars-only season; (g) an aircraft noise

budget should be created; and (h) incentives to minimize noise per

passenger should be established.

Other commenters argued that: (a) Commercial jets should be routed

away from the Grand Canyon; (b) the airspace around the canyon should

be simplified for noncommercial visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who

want to sightsee from the air; (c) park boundaries on the charts should

be better defined; and (d) ``natural quiet'' should be redefined as a

metric that involves perception, rather than percent time audible.

Since issuance of the joint ANPRM, the FAA and the NPS have

continued to evaluate the impact of noise from aircraft overflying the

Grand Canyon for the purpose of developing a comprehensive policy to

minimize these impacts. (See Other Actions section.)

NPS Report to Congress

The NPS ``Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National

Park System,'' was based on more than 20 separate studies. These

studies included acoustical measurements from GCNP sites, GCNP visitor

surveys, noise dose-visitor response analyses, and noise modeling of

commercial sightseeing aircraft overflying GCNP using FAA survey data.

The NPS defined natural quiet as the natural ambient sound

conditions found in the park and ``substantial restoration'' to mean

when 50 percent or more of the park achieved ``natural quiet'' (i.e.,

no aircraft audible) for 75 to 100 percent of the day.

The NPS evaluated whether SFAR No. 50-2 resulted in the substantial

restoration of quiet and concluded, in part:

9-3. Flight-free zones can limit the areas where aircraft,

especially tour aircraft, are audible high percentages of the time.

But aircraft of all types may still be heard for some percent of the

time at virtually all areas where sound data were collected, notably

within a few miles of the edges of some of the flight-free zones.

These results suggest that a substantial restoration of natural

quiet has not been achieved for large segments of the Canyon.

9-4. The percent of time aircraft are audible correlates with

how visitors feel about aircraft sound. Even when aircraft are

audible for relatively low percentages of time, a percentage of the

visitors can notice the aircraft and believe that the sound has

interfered with their appreciation of natural quiet. Further, it is

likely that visitors who hike away from auto accessible locations

are more sensitive to intruding aircraft sounds than are visitors

who do not. Hence, the NPS concludes that preservation of natural

quiet is of significant value to visitors, especially for the

backcountry, river corridor and Cross Canyon Corridor trail system

use zones at GCNP.

9-5. The Air Access Coalition-sponsored data demonstrate that

SFAR 50-2 has reduced aircraft should levels significantly at some

locations. However, these data do not address restoration of natural

quiet, since no information is given about how much of the time

aircraft can be heard, and reported non-aircraft sound levels are

probably inaccurately high.

9-8. Except for park management and emergency-related

overflights, large percentages of Grand Canyon visitors regard

aircraft overflights within sight or hearing of visitors on the

ground as somewhat of very inappropriate over National Park areas.

9-9. There is little support among the five categories of Grand

Canyon visitors for a ``do nothing'' policy or a ``reasonable

growth'' policy. Maintenance of the current level, or reduction/

elimination are preferred policies.

9-10. A majority of visitors to the Grand Canyon would support

several specific types of limitations on air tour overflights.

9-11. Computer modeling supports the conclusion that natural

quiet has not been substantially restored, that very few areas

currently experience natural quiet, and that the areas of natural

quiet will diminish considerably if no quiet aircraft are introduced

and if tour operations are permitted to increase. The acoustic

profiles tend to verify the computed results.

9-12. There has not been a substantial restoration of natural

quiet in Grand Canyon, although the NPS acknowledges the value of

the SFAR [50-2] and the improvement it has brought.

9-13. If no changes are made to the SFAR [50-2], progress to

date in the restoration of natural quiet will be lost. Projections

suggest that without further improvements, the loss of natural quiet

will accelerate to an unacceptable level.

An NPS analysis, using 1989 FAA survey data of commercial

sightseeing route activity, indicated that 43 percent of GCNP met the

NPS criterion for substantially restoring natural quiet at that time.

However, a subsequent NPS analysis using 1995 FAA survey data indicated

that 31 percent of GCNP met the NPS criterion for substantially

restoring natural quiet. The NPS concludes that the noise mitigation

benefits of SFAR No. 50-2 are being significantly eroded. As noted in

conclusion 9-13, if no further action is taken, the proportion of GCNP

experiencing a substantial restoration of natural quiet would probably

drop to less than 10 percent by the year 2010.

NPS studies maintain that the percent of time that aircraft are

audible is a good predictor of visitor sensitivity to aircraft. This is

especially true relative to backcountry and river users who are more

sensitive to noise than other visitors. Specifically, the NPS noise

dose-visitor response studies suggest that among those individuals who

hike away from their cars, approximately 30-40 percent can be expected

to report moderate to extreme interference with their appreciation of

natural quiet when aircraft are audible as little as 10 percent of the

time. NPS acoustic measurements from a variety of sites throughout the

park showed that the sound of aircraft was measurable for some part of

the time at virtually all areas where sound data was collected, even

well within flight-free zones. NPS acoustic modeling also suggests that

aircraft sound will carry 13-16 miles on the eastern end of the canyon

and even farther on the western end, more than enough to fully

penetrate to the center of every flight-free zone created by SFAR No.

50-2.

Based on the extent of aircraft noise exposure and low ambient

sound levels found by NPS measurements, visitor response to those noise

levels, and the predicted aircraft noise levels over the park, the NPS

believes that airspace management must be used as one means

[[Page 40123]]

of noise abatement to create a maximum separation between noise sources

and sensitive resources and visitor use sites. Consequently, the NPS

concluded that flight-free zones must be as large as possible.

Based on these study conclusions, the NPS developed recommendation

No. 10 in its report to Congress: ``Improve SFAR 50-2 to Effect and

Maintain the Substantial Restoration of Natural Quiet at Grand Canyon

National Park.'' This recommendation incorporated the following general

concepts: simplification of the commercial sightseeing route structure;

expansion of flight-free zones; accommodation of the forecast growth in

the air tour industry; phased-in use of quieter aircraft technology;

temporal restrictions (``flight-free'' time periods); use of the full

range of methods and tools for problem solving; and institution of

changes in approaches to park management, including the establishment

of an acoustic monitoring program by the NPS in coordination with the

FAA.

Flagstaff, Arizona, Public Meeting

On June 28, 1995, the FAA and the NPS jointly published a notice

announcing a public meeting to provide the interested parties with an

opportunity to comment on improving SFAR No. 50-2 (60 FR 33452). The

meeting, held on August 30, 1995, yielded 62 speakers representing air

tour operators, environmentalists, government, tourist boards,

corporations, Native American tribes, and other individuals. An

additional 349 public comments were subsequently received during the

comment period that ended on September 8, 1995.

Eighty percent of the speakers and the majority of written comments

support the operating procedures in SFAR No. 50-2 and the air tour

industry operating in the Grand Canyon. Many commenters supporting

aircraft overflights in GCNP were associated with the industry or were

satisfied customers who had flown over the Grand Canyon. Their comments

relate to: (a) the positive effects of SFAR No. 50-2; (b) access for

the disabled or elderly; (c) jobs or support for small business; and

(d) lessened impact of air tourism relative to on-ground use.

Many commenters opposing aircraft overflights in GCNP were

affiliated with the river-running industry, environmental groups, and

recreationists. They cite personal experiences that were marred by

aircraft noise. Their comments relate to: (a) new regulations and

greater restrictions on overflights to restore natural quiet to the

area, including limitations on the number of overflights each day; (b)

a greater number of flight-free zones; and (c) higher minimum altitudes

over the park.

Consultation With Native Americans

Three Indian reservations border GCNP, and several tribes have

cultural ties to the Grand Canyon. The DOT and the DOI recognize that,

before taking any final action, they have an obligation to consult with

these tribes, on a government-to-government basis, concerning the

possible effects of this proposed rule. Both the Department of

Transportation and the Department of Interior have a responsibility to

address tribal concerns including the effects of the proposed rule on

the economic opportunities of the tribes as well as to assure that

noise impacts are not simply transferred to tribal lands.

Opportunities have been provided for the tribes to make their views

known to the DOT. The Hualapai tribe submitted comments to the ANPRM

jointly issued by the DOT and DOI, one member of the Hualapai Tribe

spoke at the Flagstaff public meeting, and the Hualapai Tribe submitted

written comments in response to the public meeting. Also, informal

discussions covering aircraft overflight matters, among other issues,

have taken place between NPS personnel and tribal leaders locally. The

DOT and the DOI have received correspondence identifying interests of

the Hualapai Tribe, and the DOT and the FAA met with Hualapai leaders

and heard first hand many of their specific concerns.

The DOT and the DOI are committed to full consultation with tribal

governments and will consult directly with interested tribes concerning

the potential impacts of the proposed rule during the comment period.

The Proposal

This proposal is based on the comments received in response to the

ANPRM jointly issued by the FAA and the NPS, recommendation No. 10 in

the NPS report to Congress, comments from the Flagstaff meeting,

recommendations from the IWG, and the FAA's assessment of safety and

noise issues. The proposal contains several elements.

First, the FAA is proposing to restrict the areas of Grand Canyon

National Park in which commercial tour operations would be permitted.

Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to: (a) modify the dimensions of the

SFRA; (b) establish new and modify existing flight-free zones; (c)

establish new and modify existing flight corridors; and (d) establish

reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating

in the SFRA. The proposal would continue to prohibit aircraft from

operating within 500 feet of any terrain or structure located between

the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon, with certain exceptions.

The proposal would continue to require that pilots monitor certain

frequencies while operating in the SFRA.

Second, and in addition to the above, the FAA is proposing to

establish flight-free periods (curfews) for commercial sightseeing

operations; and/or to cap the number of commercial sightseeing

aircraft, operations, or operators operating in the SFRA. Such a curfew

or cap could be made effective either immediately or in two years'

time. The preamble discussion below first describes the proposed new

operating rules and flight-free zones in the SFRA, and then turns to an

explanation of the additional curfew and/or moratorium limits under

consideration.

The proposed rule makes significant progress toward the substantial

restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. NPS modeling indicates that the

proposal provides almost as much immediate natural quiet restoration as

provided through the NPS report to Congress recommendation.

Special Flight Rules Area

Proposed Sec. 93.301 describes the lateral and vertical dimensions

of the SFRA. (See attached map.) All persons operating aircraft in this

airspace must comply with the special rules contained within the new

proposed subpart U. The proposal would modify the dimensions of the

SFRA as follows:

(a) Extend the SFRA north-northeast of the confluence of the Little

Colorado and Colorado Rivers to allow commercial sightseeing aircraft

to remain within the SFRA while avoiding expanded flight-free zones.

(b) Extend the SFRA southward below the Bright Angel and Desert

View Flight-free Zones to allow commercial sightseeing aircraft to

remain within the SFRA while avoiding expanded flight-free zones.

(c) Extend the SFRA at the western edge to cover that portion of

the Grand Wash Cliffs in the park that was inadvertently omitted from

the 1987 NPS Grand Canyon Aircraft Management Recommendation and the

original rule.

(d) Increase the altitude of the SFRA ceiling from 14,499 to 17,999

feet msl. The proposed altitude modification protects the park from the

impact of commercial sightseeing aircraft overflying the flight-free

zones and ensures effective FAA management of

[[Page 40124]]

the SFRA up to the 17,999-foot msl ceiling. It would have minimal

impact on commercial sightseeing operators and no impact on other types

of aviation. Additionally, it would not affect any minimum altitudes

established in the SFRA.

The SFRA continues to exclude the GCNP airport Class D Airspace

Area in recognition of the need for aircraft to descend to and climb

out from the airport. Further, the SFRA boundary would still provide

for unrestricted access to the airport on the Hualapai Reservation,

located south of the canyon rim in the west canyon area. The minimum

sector altitudes for North Canyon, Marble Canyon, Supai, Diamond Creek,

and Pearce Ferry Sectors remain unchanged, with the exception of the

minimum sector altitudes for transient and general aviation operations

in Marble Canyon. The minimum sector altitudes for the North Canyon and

Marble Canyon Sectors would increase from 5,000 and 6,000 feet msl,

respectively, to 8,500 feet msl for transient and general aviation

operations.

This proposal increases the lateral dimensions of the existing SFRA

by approximately 2.8 percent.

Flight-Free Zones and Flight Corridors

Proposed Sec. 93.305 describes the lateral and vertical dimensions

of the flight-free zones. (See attached map.) Except in an emergency,

or unless necessary for safety of flight, or unless authorized by the

Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), no person may operate an

aircraft in these flight-free zones.

The proposal would increase the size of the flight-fee zones as

part of the continuing effort to meet the stated objectives of the

drafters of Pub. L. 100-91. As stated by Senator John McCain in the

legislative history of Pub. L. 100-91.

The purpose of flight-free areas is to provide a location where

visitors can experience the park essentially free from aircraft-

sound intrusions. The boundaries of these flight-free zones are

meant to be drawn to maximize protection to the backcountry users

and other sensitive park resources. The extent of these areas should

be adequate to ensure that sound from aircraft traveling adjacent to

these zones is not detectable from most locations within the zones.

It is within these zones that we expect to achieve the substantial

restoration of the natural quiet. (Congressional Record--Senate, p.

S10799, July 28, 1987)

This proposal creates two new flight-free zones: the Sanup Flight-

free Zone in the southwest portion of the park and the Marble Canyon

Flight-free Zone in the northeast portion of the park. The park areas

covered by the new Marble Canyon flight-free zones have been identified

by the NPS as especially valued by river and backcountry users. In the

western end of GCNP which, according to the NPS, is important to river

users and commercial sightseeing, the southwest boundary of the Sanup

Flight-free Zone would be configured to continue allowing commercial

sightseeing flights to access both sides of the Colorado River from

Pearce Canyon to near Separation Canyon. This is consistent with the

NPS report to Congress. The proposed Sanup Flight-free Zone would

affect the minimum en route altitude (MEA) on Victor Airway 235 between

the Peach Springs VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation

(VORTAC) and Mormon Mesa VORTAC. Specifically, the proposed Sanup

Flight-free Zone would require, if adopted, raising the MEA of the

above indicated portion of Victor Airway 235 from 10,000 to 14,500 feet

msl. The FAA will address this matter, if the proposed flight-free zone

is adopted, in a separate rulemaking action.

In addition, the proposal merges the Toroweap/Thunder River and

Shinumo Flight-free Zones and extends this zone to the park boundary.

The current Desert View Flight-free Zone would be expanded to the north

and east to the GCNP boundary. The current Bright Angel Flight-free

Zone would be extended to the north to the GCNP boundary; it would also

be expanded to the south to enclose a portion of the park that was

inadvertently omitted form the original rule. The net result would be

five, rather than four, flight-free zones; these new flight-free zones

would cover 87, rather than 45, percent of the park area. The five new

flight-free zones are: Marble Canyon, Desert View, Bright Angel,

Toroweap/Shinumo, and Sanup. The upper limit of the flight-free zones

remains unchanged at 14,499 feet msl.

This proposal is consistent with the NPS recommendation to provide

a maximum separation between aircraft noise sources and sensitive

resource areas and visitor use sites, especially since the Dragon

Corridor, recommended for closure in NPS recommendation No. 10, remains

open. By leaving the Dragon Corridor open, the proposal maintains

certain viable commercial sightseeing routes over the canyon while

providing greater noise mitigation in other parts of the park from

larger flight-free zones. The legislative history of Pub. L. 100-91

indicates that it was not the intent of the legislation to ban aircraft

from overflying the Grand Canyon.

Based on the NPS modeling using FAA-supplied information on 1995

commercial sightseeing operations, the proposal would increase to 38

percent the proportion of the park experiencing a substantial

restoration of natural quiet at 1995 operational levels. This

restoration includes a significant 14 percent of the area experiencing

a total restoration of natural quiet. In total, the NPS believes that

this proposal has major mitigation value for users of the Cross-Canyon

Corridor Trail System, other parts of the park's trail system in the

eastern half of the Canyon, and the river corridor.

Section 93.305 also describes the five flight corridors that allow

access through the canyon area for general aviation and transient

operations and routes for commercial sightseeing flights. (See attached

map.) Flight corridors are areas established for pilot use in

navigating the SFRA while avoiding flight-free zones. Prominent terrain

features were chosen, where feasible, to assist pilots in navigating

the corridors.

The historical context of flight corridors is in the 1987 NPS Grand

Canyon Aircraft Management Recommendation. The NPS proposed

establishing flight corridors to provide: (a) an opportunity to fly

over Grand Canyon to view scenic vistas; (b) approximately 30- to 60-

minute commercial sightseeing opportunities from GCNP Airport; and (c)

avoidance of noise-sensitive locations within the park.

The proposal adds or modifies existing flight corridors, as

follows:

(a) Two new flight corridors would be established in the proposed

Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone to facilitate transient, general

aviation, and commercial sightseeing traffic through the area: the

Navajo Bridge Corridor in northern Marble Canyon and the North Canyon

Corridor over central Marble Canyon.

(b) The Fossil Canyon Corridor would be closed as a result of the

merger of the Toroweap-Thunder River and Shinumo Flight-free Zones.

There is a low amount of traffic in this corridor, little of which is

commercial sightseeing traffic. Closure makes an important contribution

to the NPS statutory mandate to provide for the substantial restoration

of natural quiet and experience in the GCNP.

(c) The Zuni Point Corridor would be extended into a Y-shape in the

north to accommodate the extension of the flight-free zones. Commercial

sightseeing aircraft would be allowed to operate in only one direction.

This traffic pattern would limit noise

[[Page 40125]]

exposure along the Zuni Point Corridor, mitigating some of the impacts

from overflights. It would provide aerial access to the eastern end of

the canyon or a link to a longer aerial route around to Dragon

Corridor.

(d) The Dragon Corridor remains open with traffic patterns

unchanged, but the southern portion of the corridor would shift toward

the west. This action should mitigate the aircraft noise in the Hermit

Basin region. The change is consistent with the 1987 NPS recommendation

and responds to comments made at the Flagstaff public meeting. These

changes provide for noise mitigation while supporting a viable industry

at the eastern end of the canyon.

Proposed corridors would remain 2 nautical miles wide for

commercial sightseeing operations and 4 nautical miles wide for general

aviation and transient operations. Tuckup Corridor would remain limited

to general aviation and transient operations.

Minimum Flight Altitudes

Proposed Sec. 93.307 describes different minimum altitudes in

sectors and corridors for commercial sightseeing flights, and transient

and general aviation operations to separate different types of

operations to the maximum extent practical. Minimum altitudes for Zuni

Point Corridor, Dragon Corridor, and Tuckup Corridor would not change.

Minimum altitudes for Navajo Bridge Corridor and North Canyon Corridor

would be 5,000 feet msl for commercial tour operations and 8,500 feet

msl for general aviation and transient operations.

The Las Vegas FSDO would develop specific conditions and

limitations, including the location of sightseeing routes for each

commercial sightseeing operator in the SFRA. Those conditions and

limitations would be included in each operator's operations

specifications and would be enforced by the FAA. The provisions would

detail routes, altitudes, communications and other procedures, pilot

experience, and equipment requirements.

All pilots flying in the SFRA remain fully responsible for seeing

and avoiding other aircraft. While the routes reserve different

altitudes for different types of operations, they do not in any way

assure separation of individual aircraft. Further, the routes do not

relieve pilots of compliance with any other Federal Aviation

Regulation. As in SFAR No. 50-2, all pilots could continue to deviate

from course to maintain safety of flight in avoidance of other aircraft

or unsafe weather conditions.

The SFRA boundaries, flight-free zones, flight corridors, minimum

altitudes, commercial sightseeing routes, and radio frequencies would

continue to be indicated on the revised Grand Canyon VFR aeronautical

chart. The chart would be published to coincide with the effective date

of the final rule.

Proposals for Further Action (Curfews and Caps)

The FAA and NPS believe additional action is necessary to protect

the resources of Grand Canyon National Park from adverse effects of

aviation noise. The agencies are proposing two additional means to

achieve this objective--flight-free period (curfews) and a temporary

moratorium on increasing the number of commercial sightseeing flights

(caps). Moreover, we seek comment on whether caps should be employed

beyond the temporary period for which it is proposed.

We recognize that each of these options has both advantages and

disadvantages and the discussion below is intended to encourage public

comment on how best to fashion the final rule. Moreover, these

proposals should not be considered mutually exclusive; commenters are

expressly invited to consider whether and how the FAA might adopt a

rule different from the current proposal, combining parts or none of

the two options.

Flight-Free Periods (Curfews)

Proposed Sec. 93.316(a) would establish specific time periods

during which commercial sightseeing operations over the GCNP would be

prohibited. Curfews could be imposed in terms of fixed periods

throughout the year, variable periods based on perceived noise impacts

in specific areas, or a combination of conditions. The FAA is

requesting specific comments on the general concept as well as the

specific questions listed below, under ``Questions About Curfews,'' to

assist the FAA in determining whether a certain type of limitation on

sightseeing overflights would be beneficial and, if so, whether the

limitations should be imposed on an immediate basis or in the near

future.

General Curfew Provisions

Flight-free periods would prohibit the operation of commercial

sightseeing aircraft during specific hours of the day in flight

corridors and routes in the GCNP. The flight-free periods would not

apply to the ``Blue Direct'' route, but the Blue One tour route is

covered which carriers traffic flying between Las Vegas and GCNP

airports but would apply to the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' route for

commercial sightseeing operations. If adopted, the flight-free period

would apply to all commercial sightseeing operators. Flight-free period

limitations would be incorporated into the operations specifications

for commercial air tour companies and enforced by the FAA. Flight-free

periods could be adopted in two different ways--fixed and variable.

Fixed Flight-Free Periods (Fixed Curfews)

Fixed flight-free periods would close commercial sightseeing

operations in the GCNP during specific time periods the NPS has

identified as particularly sensitive for park visitors. Fixed flight-

free periods could defined in terms of an absolute ban during specified

times of the day; e.g., from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily throughout the

year. Such flight-free periods also could, for example, be based on

season and time of day. For example, the FAA is proposing to establish

the following fixed flight-free periods for commercial sightseeing

operations:

(a) Summer season (May 1-September 30)--6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily; and

(b) Winter season (October 1-April 30)--5 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily.

Variable Flight-Free Period (Variable Curfews)

Variable flight-free periods would be designed to provide a

flexible regulatory response to potential changes in the noise impact

of commercial sightseeing air tours. Information reported by commercial

air tour companies (see Reporting Requirements), acoustic monitoring

and modeling protocols, and other analyses jointly developed and

approved by the FAA and the NPS would be used to determine whether

there is a need to establish or modify a variable flight-free period.

Either agency would be able to initiate recommendations to the IWG, and

the IWG would serve as the forum for discussion of these

recommendations. The FAA would disseminate the results of the above-

mentioned analyses, and the criteria used to apply the variable flight-

free restrictions, for public review and comment. It would then take

action to invoke any restrictions necessary.

The variable restrictions could be expanded to the following

absolute maximum time periods, provided such restrictions would not

adversely affect aviation safety:

(a) Dragon Corridor--2 p.m. to 10 a.m.; and

(b) All other routes--4 p.m. to 9 a.m. However, variable flight-

free periods could be established to restrict

[[Page 40126]]

operations for lesser time periods depending on the supporting

evaluation.

Questions About Curfews

The FAA is requesting specific comments on the nature of the

proposals for flight-free periods. Should fixed flight-free periods be

constant during the year or should they vary be season? Would a

combination of fixed and variable flight-free periods be appropriate?

There are a number of basic questions applicable to flight-free periods

in general, whether fixed or variable. Should flight-free periods be

applied to specific routes or areas or implemented park-wide? Would

flight-free periods act to discourage or encourage the cooperation of

the sightseeing operators to convert to quieter type aircraft or

voluntarily act in a manner as to reduce the effect of overflight

noise? What would be the economic consequences associated with the

implementation of flight-free periods? How many operations would be

curtailed by the reduced time periods during which commercial

sightseeing operations could be conducted? What would be the effect of

flight-free periods on the schedule of operations that remain after

restrictions are imposed? What is the effect on an operator's schedule

for those operations that are not curtailed? What would be the effect

on revenue if flight-free periods are implemented? Is it likely that

operators would use different aircraft for the commercial sightseeing

operations; i.e., larger or smaller aircraft, if flight-free periods

are imposed? Since creation of flight-free periods is only one of the

two major alternatives under consideration in this notice, what would

be the effect of employing flight-free periods in conjunction with and

in addition to a ``cap,'' i.e., a moratorium? Can flight-free periods

be developed and applied with the current level of data and information

available to the decision-makers? Should they be imposed immediately or

only after commercial sightseeing operations data are collected for a

minimum of 2 years following the effective date of the final rule and

evaluated for impact on GCNP? Should flight-free periods be set for a

specific length of time (one, two, three years, etc.), stay in

existence until the final management plan is announced, or

indefinitely? Should they expire 5 years after the effective date of

the final rule, when the FAA and the NPS plan to implement a more

comprehensive noise management plan for substantially restoring natural

quiet to GCNP (see Other Actions)? Are flight-free periods necessary to

and can their implementation help to achieve the goal of substantial

restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP? If so, would fixed or

variable flight-free periods be most effective in substantially

restoring natural quiet in the GCNP with the least impact on air tour

operators and Park visitors?

Temporary Moratorium on Increasing Commercial Sightseeing Operations

A moratorium would place a cap on the number of commercial air tour

operations, aircraft, and/or operators within the Grand Canyon SFRA.

Such a cap could be imposed in a variety of ways, and commenters are

specifically invited below to address these different possibilities. It

is the opinion of FAA and the NPS, nonetheless, that public comment

should be focused on the regulatory language of at least one cap

option. That option, as developed by the NPS, is presented in proposed

section 93.316(b). The FAA and the NPS believe that public comments

will be facilitated by the public review of the cap proposed by

93.316(b). Therefore, the FAA is requesting specific comments on the

proposed limitations as well as the questions listed to assist the FAA

in determining what is the most appropriate type of limitation to

adopt.

Section 93.316(b) would establish a temporary moratorium on

increasing commercial sightseeing flights for 1997 and 1998. Under this

proposal, each operator would be limited to the number of monthly

operations equal to the monthly operations in the base year August 1,

1995 through July 31, 1996. Operators would establish their baseline

monthly allocation by certifying to the number of operations conducted

each month during the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31,

1996. One means that the FAA may use as evidence of the accuracy of the

information filed by operators is to compare it to the payment made of

fees by operators as required under the Budget Reconconciliation Act of

1993 (P.L. 103-66). Operators also would file monthly reports, along

with fees required by the Budget Reconciliation Act, certifying that

they did not exceed their monthly allocation of the base year in the

most current month. As a convenience, commercial tour operators could

choose to submit the reports through the NPS, along with NPS'

appropriate fee for use of the park, as required by the Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66), rather than submit them

directly to the FAA. For operator choosing to file through the NPS, the

NPS would forward the report to the FAA.

If an operator intended to reduce operations so that it did not use

its monthly allocation or terminate operations altogether, it would so

advise the FAA. New or existing operators could apply for the monthly

allocation. In the event that there is more than one operator applying

for the monthly allocation, a preference would be granted to the

operator which will utilize the quietest commercially available new or

retrofitted aircraft among the applicants. This preference is intended

to serve as an incentive to employ quieter aircraft in the Park. No

operator would have any property rights in its monthly allocation.

These restrictions would apply to all commercial sightseeing

operators for the two-year period. By adopting a temporary moratorium

on flights, the FAA is seeking to assure that the noise mitigation

benefits of the proposal are not significantly eroded during this

period. The FAA also seeks comments on whether the temporary moratorium

should be extended until the adoption of the comprehensive Noise

Management Plan. It also seeks comments on whether a cap should be a

component of the Noise Management Plan itself.

Keeping in mind the goal of the proposed rulemaking, there are a

variety of limitations or caps that could be placed on commercial air

tour oveflights, on either an interim or permanent basis, that might

achieve the desired effect. The FAA is seeking comments on what type of

cap would have the greatest effect on substantial restoration of

natural quiet. While this proposal envisions one type of cap on an

interim basis, there are other approaches, described below, on which we

seek comment.

Cap on Operations

One form of cap would be to impose a limitation on the number of

operations conducted by commercial air tour operators. An operational

limitation could be applied to restrict the number of overflights on a

hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or seasonal basis. If the FAA adopts a

cap on operations, it might be necessary to include a definition of an

``operation'' within the airspace over the GCNP, as, for example, a

one-way or directional pass, a round-trip, or any penetration of

airspace over the Park. Some operators might be differentially affected

by the definition selected. The FAA requests comments on these factors

from the perspective of both noise and economic impact.

[[Page 40127]]

Cap on Aircraft

Similarly, limitations or caps could be placed on the number of

commercial sightseeing aircraft, the type of aircraft used or both?

Should the number of aircraft permitted to operate above GCNP be

affected by the type of aircraft used; i.e., if an aircraft is using a

more quiet technology, should the number of aircraft be increased? As

in the case of caps on operations, should caps be implemented on a time

or seasonal basis?

Cap on Air Tour Operators

A third limitation or cap could be placed on the number of air tour

operators permitted to operate within GCNP airspace. As with the caps

on operations or aircraft, a cap on the number of operators could be

utilized in a variety of ways. For instance, should the current

operators be grandfathered? Should the current operators be permitted

to operate indefinitely or should there be a time restriction with a

requirement of renew ability to operate? Should caps be set at a level

that would permit the introduction of new entrants into the GCNP

market? The particular proposal set forth in this notice describes one

method of allocating operating rights and accommodating new entrants.

Are there other methods that would be fairer or more efficient?

General Questions About Caps

In addition to the types of caps listed above, the FAA would

appreciate comments proposing different limitations that would work to

achieve the goal of substantially restoring natural quiet in the GCNP.

No matter what form of cap is implemented, there are several basic

questions applicable to caps in general and to each cap in particular.

For instance, regardless of the type of cap imposed, should caps be

implemented on an immediate basic to act as a freeze of current

numbers, should it be implemented on a future basis, or should it be

implemented using the numbers of a date that predates the publication

of this NPRM? What should the duration of caps be? Should caps be set

for a specific length of time (one, two, three years, etc.), stay in

existence until the final management plan is announced, or

indefinitely? Should caps or restrictions be based on the average

number of operations or the maximum number? Should there be any

operational exceptions, such as for the quietest commercially available

aircraft, to the restrictions or caps? How will the size of aircraft

operated under caps be affected by 14 CFR Part 119? Can caps be

developed and applied with the current level of data and information

available to the decision-makers?

How should these caps be allocated or distributed? Should the

current level of operations, aircraft, or operators be grandfathered?

Should all operators, including those that presently do not operate

above GCNP be able to participate in the allocation? Will new entrants

into the commercial air tour market over GCNP be able to gain access or

entry into the market? Should existing operators be required to

decrease existing levels to create a pool available to be used only by

the new entrants? If an allocation procedure is required, what type of

process should be used, i.e., lotteries, auctions, administrative

allocation, other mechanisms?

In addition to those operators eligible for the allocation of the

subject caps (limitations on the number of operations, aircraft, or

operators), should caps or the rights to operate above GCNP be

transferable from one operator to another? Should commercial

sightseeing operators be permitted to lease, trade, sell or buy the

ability to operate over the Park? Should the operating ability be

returned to the FAA, as would be required in the example set forth in

proposed Sec. 93.316(b), if an operator ceases operation? Has the FAA

created a ``right'' or ``privilege'' subject to withdrawal when it

would establish the limitation or cap system?

Concerning the applicability of caps, should a cap be applied to

specific routes or areas or should it be implemented park-wide? Would

any of the limitations or caps act to discourage or encourage the

cooperation of the sightseeing operators to convert to quieter type

aircraft or voluntarily act in a manner as to reduce the effect of

overflight noise? If so, why, and in what way? What would be the

economic consequences associated with the implementation of one or a

combination of any of the types of caps? How many operations would be

curtailed? What would be the impact of caps on the schedule of

operations that remain? What is the impact on an operator's schedule

for those operations that are not curtailed? What would be the impact

on revenue if caps are implemented? Is it likely that operators would

use different aircraft for the commercial operations, i.e., larger or

smaller aircraft? Are caps necessary to and can the implementation of

caps help to achieve the goal of substantial restoration of natural

quiet? If so, which type of cap would do the most to restore

substantially the natural quiet in the Park with the least impact on

tour operators and Park visitors?

The proposal described in Sec. 93.316(b) would be predicated upon

information reported by commercial air tour companies. Should other

information, such as acoustic monitoring and modeling protocols, or

other analyses be used separately or in combination with the

information received from the operators? What standards and criteria

should be used for the necessity for and the result of implementing

caps? Similarly with the process cited for the implementation of the

variable flight-free periods, the IWG would serve as the forum for

discussion of recommendation coming from either the FAA or NPS as to

the need for and type of cap that should be implemented. As a result of

the comments received to this NPRM, the FAA may decide to promulgate a

curfew, a cap, a combination of the two, or neither.

The questions outlined above are suggested to help focus public

discussion. The public response to these questions will assist in the

adoption of a rule limiting overflights by commercial sightseeing

operators.

Potential Alternatives to Implementation of the Curfew and/or the Cap

The FAA seeks specific comments on any alternatives to imposing

either the proposed curfew or proposed cap that would address the

problem of aircraft noise in GCNP in a different manner, such as by

limiting the number of commercial sightseeing aircraft operating in the

SFRA during certain hours of the day. Aircraft authorized to fly under

the cap could fly between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. during the summer season

(May 1-September 30) and 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. during the winter season

(October 1-April 30). Other aircraft, not subject to the cap, would be

limited to operations between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. year round. If the

number of aircraft are limited, any replacement aircraft could be

limited to those with a certificated noise level equal to or less than

the aircraft being replaced.

If this alternative is selected, the cap would be applied only

after commercial sightseeing operations data are collected for a

minimum of 2 years following the effective date of the final rule and

evaluated for impact on GCNP. This evaluation would be based on

information reported by commercial sightseeing companies (see Reporting

Requirements), acoustic monitoring and modeling protocols, and other

analyses jointly approved by the FAA and the NPS. This temporary noise

management mechanism would expire 5 years after

[[Page 40128]]

the effective date of the final rule, at which time the FAA and the NPS

plan to implement a more comprehensive noise management plan. The

duration of any aircraft authorization under the cap would similarly

expire 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. By posing

the above questions, the FAA solicits specific comments on the

effectiveness and feasibility of implementing a temporary cap.

The FAA wishes to advise the public that a broad array of different

regulatory approaches may be adopted as a result of this notice. No

combination of options is foreclosed.

Quieter Aircraft

The NPS report to Congress suggested that quieter aircraft could be

used in substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. It identified

the DHC-6-300 Vistaliner and Cessna 208 Caravan airplanes and the

McDonnell Douglas ``No Tail Rotor'' helicopters as the quietest

aircraft currently operating in the park. The NPS made this

determination based on its evaluation of aircraft certification data

derived from applicable noise certification standards in part 36 of

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and from NPS flyover noise

measurements taken in the park. In addition, the cap option described

in this Notice contains a provision that would give a preference to

operators of quieter aircraft in the event that unused allocation

becomes available. Comenters are invited to address the criteria that

should be used in selecting the quietest aircraft.

Reporting Requirements

Proposed Sec. 93.317 would establish commercial sightseeing flight

reporting requirements. During the 5-year period following the

effective date of the final rule, each certificate holder would be

required to submit, in a form and manner acceptable to the

Administrator, three operational reports yearly to the Las Vegas FSDO.

Each report would cover a 4-month period ending April 30, August 31, or

December 31, and would be required to be submitted no later than 30

days after the reporting period closes. Certificate holders would be

required to provide the aircraft identification number (registration

number), departure airport, departure date and time, and route(s) for

each operation flown in the SFRA. Note that, as currently contemplated,

these reports would be in addition to any reports required for the

purpose of monitoring the use of an allocation under an interim

moratorium. However, the FAA invites comments on how to combine the

reports or otherwise minimize the reporting burden on operators.

Changes in reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing

aircraft operating in the SFRA are essential to: (a) Establish accurate

information on GCNP overflights for noise and safety management

purposes; (b) validate FAA and NPS noise models for use in mitigating

studies; (c) determine with precision when and where noise mitigation

is required; and (d) provide the basis for a more flexible and

adaptable noise management system.

Environmental Review

The FAA is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for this

proposed action to assure conformance with the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969. The FAA has conducted an abbreviated scoping

process and prepared a Draft EA. Copies of the Draft EA will be

circulated to interested parties and placed in the docket, where it

will be available for review. Comments are invited concerning the Draft

EA and the environmental impacts that might result from adopting this

rule for 45 days. Before the final rule is issued, the FAA will prepare

a Final EA and determine whether a Finding of No Significant Impact may

be issued or an environmental impact statement is required.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed 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. A regulatory

evaluation of the proposal is in the docket.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this NPRM

would be ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in the

Executive Order and the Department of Transportation Regulatory

Policies and Procedures. In consideration of the proposed changes

scheduled to take affect upon promulgation of a final rule, this

proposed rulemaking would also have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. The FAA has therefore included an

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the Regulatory Evaluation

which includes consideration of three alternatives to the current

proposed rulemaking. The FAA has concluded, however, that the current

NPRM is preferable to the alternative considered and would assure the

continued viability of the GCNP commercial sightseeing industry.

Although the proposed changes contained in the NPRM would not

constitute a barrier to international trade, a loss of foreign tour

dollars could result.

Introduction

To assist the NPS effort to measure aircraft noise levels in GCNP,

the Las Vegas FSDO conducted a field survey of all operators certified

to provide commercial sightseeing tours within the GCNP SFRA. The Las

Vegas FSDO SFAR No. 50-2 Air Tour Route Usage Report (field survey)

detailed information for each operator with regard to the number of

operations conducted along each commercial sightseeing tour route

within the GCNP SFRA. This information was further broken down for each

type of commercial sightseeing aircraft in the operator's fleet that

operated along these routes during the most recent 3 years through

early October 1995. With the exception of the ``Blue Direct South'' and

certain ``Brown'' routes for fixed wing aircraft and the ``Green 3''

and ``Green 3A'' routes for helicopters, all routes identified in the

Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart were identified by GCNP commercial

operators as routes flown.

To determine the different kinds of commercial sightseeing tours as

well as to estimate the total number of commercial sightseeing tours,

commercial sightseeing passengers, and commercial sightseeing revenue

for GCNP, the FAA, utilizing known passenger seating capacities of each

type of aircraft used by GCNP commercial sightseeing operators, cross

referenced the Las Vegas FSDO field survey detail with tour and cost

information as provided in Grand Canyon commercial sightseeing

brochures. The estimates derived from this cross referencing form the

basis on which the FAA developed the preliminary cost estimates of this

NPRM.

Costs

In 1995, commercial sightseeing tours of GCNP numbered

approximately 70,000, were provided by 31 operators using 136 aircraft,

carried 682,500 passengers, and generated $115.9 million in revenue as

measured in 1995 dollars. Proportionately, fixed-wing tours accounted

for 72.4 percent of the commercial sightseeing tours, 85.6

[[Page 40129]]

percent of the commercial sightseeing passengers, and 89.2 percent of

commercial sightseeing revenue in GCNP. Helicopter tours accounted for

27.6 percent of the commercial sightseeing tours, 14.4 percent of the

commercial sightseeing passengers, and only 10.8 percent of commercial

sightseeing revenue in GCNP.

Forty-four percent of all commercial sightseeing tours were fixed-

wing tours conducted along the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' commercial

sightseeing route. However, an overwhelming 80 percent of all

commercial sightseeing revenue was generated by the various tours

conducted along this tour route. Comparatively, fixed-wing and

helicopter tours that featured or included the Dragon Corridor

accounted for about 25 percent of all commercial sightseeing tours

(about 50/50 for each aircraft type), but only accounted for about 10.7

percent of commercial sightseeing revenue. Estimates for the Zuni Point

Flight Corridor are very nearly the same; 24.6 percent of all

commercial sightseeing tours account for approximately 11.2 percent of

all GCNP commercial sightseeing tour revenue.

Changes to Operating Corridors, Flight-Free Zones, Etc.

The proposed changes would effectively reconfigure GCNP flight-free

zones and flight corridors and require certain current commercial

sightseeing routes to be adjusted or possibly eliminated. The

reconfiguration of flight-free zones and flight corridors would require

some commercial sightseeing operators to redesign and repackage certain

currently available commercial sightseeing tours, and in those cases

where a VFR route would be eliminated, to create new commercial

sightseeing offerings, if possible. Based on a analysis of the

commercial sightseeing revenue generated in 1995 by different

commercial sightseeing routes, the FAA has determined that these

proposed modifications could result in costs associated with loss of

revenue or increased commercial sightseeing prices due to the

elimination or modification of commercial sightseeing tours.

The proposed extension of the GCNP SFRA would result in only those

costs associated with revising and publishing a new Grand Canyon VFR

Aeronautical Chart. Similarly, the proposal to increase the altitude of

the SFRA ceiling from 14,499 to 17,999 feet msl would have minimal

impact on GCNP commercial sightseeing operators; its cost would be

included under the revision and publishing costs noted above. The FAA

considers these costs to be a part of normal, on-going administrative

costs, not costs incurred as a result of this rulemaking action.

The reconfiguration of GCNP flight-free zones and flight corridors

would impact several commercial sightseeing routes. The total

commercial sightseeing revenue derived from those routes was just over

$10.7 million in 1995, or about 9.3 percent of the $115.9 million total

GCNP commercial sightseeing revenue generated in 1995. It is based on

the estimated revenue generated by 18 operators conducting about 21,700

commercial sightseeing tours serving 122,700 passengers in 1995 on the

affected commercial sightseeing routes.

The $10.7 million estimate represents the maximum potential revenue

impact of these two proposed changes on GCNP commercial sightseeing

operators. Only under the unlikely worst case scenario in which GCNP

commercial sightseeing operators directly impacted by the

reconfiguration of the GCNP SFRA cease commercial sightseeing

operations in the canyon altogether, would it represent the maximum

potential revenue loss. The FAA estimates that the potential dollar

cost of the proposed changes to the current configuration of the

flight-free zones and the flight corridors is more likely to be about

$1.2 million in average annual revenue loss and added flight time cost

for the 10-year period, 1997-2006.

The FAA believes this estimate more accurately reflects the true

cost of the proposed modifications because several viable alternative

tour configurations remain available to the GCNP commercial sightseeing

industry. And GCNP commercial sightseeing operators would most likely

adapt their commercial sightseeing tours to the proposed

reconfigurations, and pass on the increased costs to commercial

sightseeing passengers. However, commercial sightseeing operators'

adaptation to the proposed changes could result in possible addition of

nearly 3,800 commercial sightseeing flights annually through the Dragon

Corridor as a result of restricting the Zuni Point Corridor to one-way

traffic only. The FAA solicits specific comments on the ability of GCNP

commercial sightseeing operators to change their commercial sightseeing

routes to minimize the impact of the reconfiguration of GCNP flight-

free zones and flight corridors. Comments should address the impact on

specific commercial sightseeing tours and tour routes.

The proposed 5-year recordkeeping requirements would cost the

commercial sightseeing operators approximately $366,000 ($73,200, 5-

year average annual cost) and the FAA approximately $16,000 ($3,200, 5-

year average annual cost).

Curfews and Caps

The adoption of a curfew would reduce the time available in the day

during which commercial sightseeing tours could be conducted. Either

fixed flight-free periods or variable flight-free periods would require

operators to conduct all commercial sightseeing tours inside a tighter

time frame. Commercial sightseeing aircraft operate at virtually full

capacity utilization during the peak summer season, There, operators

would likely have to eliminate some portion of the number of commercial

sightseeing tours currently offered during the summer season. To offset

the potential revenue loss associated with a reduction in commercial

sightseeing tours, commercial sightseeing operators could raise the

price of their tours. While these monopolistic rents for commercial

sightseeing operators would tend to offset revenue losses for tour

operators, it would shift the cost burden to the consumers of

commercial sightseeing tours. In either event, there would be an

economic cost to society.

A cap or moratorium could result in a reduction of commercial

sightseeing tours during the summer season and concomitant loss of

revenue or increased commercial sightseeing prices. A cap would impose

a ``freeze'' on commercial sightseeing activity; for example, in

proposed Sec. 93.316(b) this freeze would be applied on a monthly basis

at the level existing during the corresponding month between August

1995 and July 1996. Caps, therefore, are essentially a containment of

commercial sightseeing activity as all growth in commercial sightseeing

operations would be suspended.

The impact of the fixed flight-free periods is most likely to be

realized by GCNP operators only during the summer season, because

commercial sightseeing aircraft are utilized at full operational

capacity during the summer season. In the absence of a substantial

commitment to additional aircraft with the concomitant increase in

operating requirements, the only alternative available to GCNP

commercial sightseeing operators during the summer season would be the

elimination of commercial sightseeing tours which currently occur

during the hours included in the flight-free period. The FAA assumes

that during the winter season operational under-utilization of aircraft

could allow GCNP operators to reschedule commercial

[[Page 40130]]

sightseeing tours currently operating during the proposed fixed flight-

free period into non-flight-free times.

The FAA estimates that the amount of 1995 commercial sightseeing

revenue that could be potentially lost during the summer season is

approximately $5.3 million. This potential loss of revenue is about 5.7

percent of the $115.9 million total GCNP commercial sightseeing revenue

generated in 1995. The estimated amount of average annual commercial

sightseeing revenue for the 10-year period 1997-2006 that could be

potentially affected during the summer season is about $5.5 million.

The breakdown by principal commercial sightseeing tour routes indicates

potential average annual revenue losses of: (1) $2.3 million for

commercial sightseeing tours operating on the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct''

tour routes; (2) $2.7 million for commercial sightseeing tours flying

the Dragon Corridor; and (3) $1.6 for commercial sightseeing tours

operating along all other tour routes.

The FAA estimates that approximately 5,160 additional commercial

sightseeing tours would be rescheduled during the proposed winter

season. The resulting air traffic compression during non-flight-free

periods would result in increased aircraft activity and corresponding

increased noise levels in GCNP during the time periods that commercial

sightseeing aircraft are permitted to operate. The FAA seeks specific

comments on the capability and flexibility of commercial sightseeing

operators to rearrange GCNP tour schedules to minimize the impact of

the flight-free period during the proposed winter season curfew.

Implementation of variable flight-free periods would be predicated

on information reported by commercial sightseeing operators as

specified under the reporting requirements of this proposed rulemaking,

and the results from acoustic monitoring and modeling protocols and

other analyses jointly developed and approved by the FAA and the NPS. A

system of variable flight-free periods would subsume fixed flight-free

periods, because the mechanism for imposing variable restrictions would

be triggered only if noise data indicated that the initial curfew

periods were no longer adequate to reducing noise adverse impacts.

Precise calculation of the actual costs of a cap or variable

flight-free periods is not possible at this time. However, placing a

cap may limit new entrants in the market and, as a result, could

increase costs to users. Similarly, with fewer new entrants, there may

be less competition in the quality, number of trips, and other

associated amenities. However, both of these adverse effects would be

limited in the cap proposed in Sec. 93.316(b) because of the limited

duration (2 years). Similarly, making caps or the rights to operate

above GCNP transferable could mitigate these adverse effects by

allowing more efficient new entrants to replace operators with more

costly operations. Absent the imposition of a cap, the number of air

tour overflights could be expected to increase, given past market

behavior, bringing with it increased adverse reactions associated with

noise disturbance.

Freezing the number of overflights during the interim period would

have beneficial effects and enhance some aspects of the recreational

experience at Grand Canyon National Park. Further, if the number of

overflights is allowed to grow during the time period, it may be

markedly more difficult to implement a comprehensive aircraft

management plan designed to mitigate noise impacts.

Existing operators likely will have committed additional capital to

their operations. Demand may be sufficient to draw new entrants into

the market. Other economic activity can be expected to occur in support

of these increased investments. One would consider this growth in

economic activity beneficial, but it also would adversely affect the

experience of park visitors. The cost to park visitors' experience is a

loss of benefits which is unaccounted for in national income accounting

and may reflect an inefficient, over-investment of capital. The

additional capital investment could exacerbate the problem of

implementing any restrictions emanating from the management plan.

It is possible, however, to estimate the maximum potential revenue

loss from reduced GCNP commercial sightseeing tours that could occur if

the most restrictive operating time constraints designated for the

variable flight-free periods in the proposal were imposed. This maximum

potential revenue loss is estimated to average $10.5 million annually

for the 3 years that the variable flight-free periods could be in

place. The distribution of the 3-year average annual commercial

sightseeing revenue loss is as follows: $4.1 million, ``Blue 1, Blue

Direct'' tour routes; $5.2 million, Dragon Corridor tours; and $1.3

million, all other tour routes.

A number of factors come into play to keep actual lost revenues

below the maximum estimates. For example, operators may choose to use

larger aircraft, raise commercial sightseeing tour prices, reschedule

flights, or divert some aircraft to other revenue producing uses. In

any event, reduced revenue is by no means a direct measure of cost to

commercial sightseeing operators; even in the worst case of an aircraft

sitting idle instead of flying commercial sightseeing tours, the

operator avoids direct operating costs. Lost revenues, in terms of

dollar value, could be viewed as an approximation of the cost to the

consumer of the foregone opportunity to take a commercial sightseeing

tour; lost revenues reflect what the consumer would have been willing

to pay for GCNP commercial sightseeing tours before their elimination

under the proposed constraints. Lost revenues are estimated for the

summer season only because commercial sightseeing operators can

reschedule around the variable flight-free periods during the winter

season, thereby avoiding revenue losses.

The FAA also estimates that with the introduction of variable

flight-free periods, approximately 8,100 additional commercial

sightseeing tours would be conducted during the permitted operating

times. This assumes that GCNP commercial sightseeing tour operators are

indeed able to reschedule all commercial sightseeing tours affected by

the variable flight-free periods during the winter season. This is an

increase of nearly 3,000 commercial sightseeing tours (57 percent)

being conducted during the permitted operating hours of the variable

flight-free periods relative to the fixed flight-free periods.

With the introduction of the variable flight-free periods for the

3-year frame 1999-2001, the average annual cost would rise to about

$11.0 million. The potential revenue losses associated with imposing

only variable flight-free periods would impact commercial sight-seeing

operators conducting tours in the Dragon Flight Corridor more than

those operators conducting commercial sight-seeing tours along any of

the other routes. About 46 percent of the potential average annual

revenue loss would be borne by the commercial sightseeing operators in

the Dragon Corridor under the special variable flight-free periods in

comparison with about 40 percent under the fixed flight-free periods.

With respect to the particular cap proposed in this notice, the FAA

estimates the average annual potential cost impact is $4.6 million

during 1997 and 1998. The derivation of the following estimates is

predicated on the assumption that all of the 3.3 percent compound

annual rate of growth projected for GCNP commercial sightseeing

activity would be held in abeyance for the years 1997 and 1998. The

distribution of this 2-year average

[[Page 40131]]

annual commercial sightseeing revenue loss is as follows: $3.2 million,

``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' tour routes; $513,000, Dragon Corridor tours;

and $290,000, all other tour routes. The FAA further estimates that the

average annual administrative and reporting costs to the FAA and the

operators from the imposition of temporary caps on commercial

sightseeing operations would be approximately $640,000. The breakdown

is as follows: (1) $418,000 is attributed to the FAA to cover the cost

of five full-time employees to receive, analyze, and enforce the cap

operation limitations, and (2) $219,600 is attributed as a reporting

cost to the operators. The potential cost impact, therefore, is the

valuation of the revenue foregone under the presence of caps plus the

administrative and reporting requirement of the rule. The estimates,

however, do not take into consideration that GCNP operators could

adjust for the 2-year cap by adopting similar measures as noted for the

variable flight-free periods, any of which would serve to offset

revenue losses. The FAA is seeking specific comments on the

effectiveness and feasibility of implementing such a temporary cap and

the adaptability of GCNP commercial sightseeing operators.

The FAA is also considering combining both caps and curfews by

capping operations in the GCNP in addition to imposing flight free

periods. The FAA estimates the maximum potential average annual cost

impact of combining fixed flight-free periods and caps is $10.2 million

for 1997 and 1998. This estimate includes the two-year average annual

maximum potential cost of revenue loss due to caps and fixed flight-

free periods at $9.6 million. The distribution of this 2-year [average

annual] commercial sightseeing revenue loss due to operational caps and

fixed flight periods is as follows: $5.2 million, ``Blue 1, Blue

Direct'' tour routes; $2.8 million Dragon Corridor tours; and $1.6

million, all other tour routes. The remaining $640,000 loss is

attributable to the administrative cost to the FAA of administering and

enforcing the rule and the amount attributable to the operator's

reporting costs. The potential cost impact is the valuation of the

revenue foregone under the addition of caps and fixed flight-free

periods and the administrative and reporting costs. The estimates,

however, do not take into consideration that GCNP operators could

adjust for the 2-year cap by adopting similar measures as noted for the

variable flight-free periods, any of which would serve to offset

revenue losses. For the combined alternatives, the FAA estimates that

the average annual cost would be $8.6 million for imposing caps for two

years and flight-free periods for 10 years. The combined alternatives,

however, would shift a disproportionate amount of the average annual

revenue loss onto the operators of commercial sightseeing tours along

the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' commercial sightseeing route. Just over 54

percent of the potential average annual revenue loss would be borne by

these commercial sightseeing operators under the caps in comparison

with about 38 percent under the variable flight-free periods. The FAA

is seeking specific comments on the effectiveness and feasibility of

implementing a combination of temporary cap with flight-free periods

and the adaptability of GCNP commercial sightseeing operator.

The FAA also estimates that that the annual average costs of the

different alternatives are as follows: (1) Fixed flight-free periods:

$6.6 million (2) Temporary two-year cap on operations: $4.6 million (3)

Combination of fixed flight-free periods and two-year caps: $10.2

million (4) Variable flight-free periods: $11 million.

To summarize, the FAA estimates that the annual cost of

establishing and modifying the flight-free zones and corridors and

adding the new reporting requirement is approximately $1.3 million in

potential operator revenue losses and added consumer costs. The

breakdown by proposed change is as follows: (1) $1.2 million is

accounted for by the proposed establishment and modification of flight-

free zones and corridors; and (2) about $76,300 reflects the added

costs to the operators and the FAA of new recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

The FAA also estimates that with the introduction of the variable

flight-free periods for the 3-year time frame 1999-2001, the average

annual cost would rise to about $11.0 million for variable and fixed

curfews. The potential revenue losses associated with the expanded

variable flight-free periods, only, would impact commercial sightseeing

operators conducting tours in the Dragon Flight Corridor more than

those operators conducting commercial sightseeing tours along any other

routes. About 46 percent of the potential average annual revenue loss

would be borne by the commercial sightseeing operators in the Dragon

Corridor under variable flight-free periods in comparison with about 40

percent under the fixed flight-free periods.

Benefits

Pub L. 100-91 mandates the NPS to provide for the substantial

restoration of natural quiet and experience in GCNP. The NPS defines

``natural quiet'' as the natural ambient sound conditions found in the

park and defines ``substantial restoration'' to mean when 50 percent or

more of the park has achieved ``natural quiet'' (i.e., no aircraft

audible) for 75 to 100 percent of the day. The benefit of this action

therefore, would be to contribute to the substantial restoration of

natural quiet (e.g., reduce aircraft sound disturbance) in GCNP.

The NPS has concluded that the initial gains made by SFAR No. 50-2

are being steadily eroded by increasing air traffic. The NPS conclusion

is based on a comparison of the commercial sightseeing route activity

reported in a 1989 FAA survey with the commercial sightseeing route

activity reported in a 1995 FAA survey. In 1989, the NPS estimated that

43 percent of GCNP met its criteria for substantially restoring natural

quiet. In 1995, a similar analysis indicated that the restoration of

natural quiet had been reduced to 31 percent. The NPS also forecasts

that if no further action is taken, by the year 2010, less than 10

percent of the park area would experience a substantial restoration of

natural quiet.

This proposal would reverse that trend. Based on the NPS' analytic

model, and again using 1995 FAA survey data, the proposal would

increase the proportion of the park experiencing a substantial

restoration of natural quiet to 38 percent, including 14 percent of the

park experiencing a total restoration of natural quiet. Therefore, in

this proposal, the FAA has attempted to achieve what it believes to be

the intent of Congress; that is, to strike a balance that would

accommodate a viable commercial aerial sightseeing industry while

achieving the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Grand

Canyon.

Conclusion

The proposed rule would promote natural quiet in GCNP more

effectively than the current SFAR No. 50-2. However, the estimated 10-

year average annual loss of commercial sightseeing tour revenue and

added consumer costs for all proposed changes except the introduction

of flight-free periods or a moratorium (cap) is just over $1.2 million.

For fixed flight-free periods, the estimated 10-year average annual

cost is approximately $7.8 million. Variable flight-free periods and

cap alternatives would each result in additional lost revenue from some

reduction in GCNP

[[Page 40132]]

commercial sightseeing tours. The FAA has estimated that the maximum

potential incremental revenue loss under the most restrictive

conditions would be an average annual revenue loss of $10.5 million for

the variable flight-free periods and $4.2 million for the caps

alternative for the 1999-2001 time frame only. The actual amount,

however, would depend on the as yet undetermined degree to which either

the proposal or its possible alternative would be imposed. The FAA is

soliciting specific comments regarding the potential economic impacts

of the proposed variable flight-free periods and the alternative of

caps, particularly as the impacts relate to specific commercial

sightseeing tours and tour routes.

From a national perspective, the revenue loss would be much less

than that estimated for Las Vegas and the local GCNP community and less

than that estimated from the commercial sightseeing operators'

perspective because commercial sightseeing operators, pilots, and many

businesses that provide services to the GCNP commercial sightseeing

industry could move to other areas of the United States. In a sense,

the drop in revenues for Las Vegas and the local GCNP community would

be offset by the gains other areas of the United States would enjoy as

aircraft and personnel were shifted to provide aviation services to

these other areas.

The gains that the other areas would experience would not

necessarily offset all the expected losses experienced by Las Vegas and

the GCNP community. Presumably, providing commercial sightseeing

services for GCNP maximizes the revenue streams for the aircraft,

personnel, and other resources used to support GCNP commercial

sightseeing operations; otherwise, they would already be located

elsewhere. It is assumed therefore, that aviation services provided in

other areas of the country generate less revenue. The FAA, however, is

not able to estimate this differential in revenue when commercial

sightseeing aircraft, personnel, and other resources are moved to other

areas. Therefore, the FAA is soliciting comments regarding the

potential revenue impact of this proposed rule when considered from a

national perspective.

Nevertheless, based on the best available information, this

proposed rule would strike a balance accommodating a viable commercial

sightseeing industry while achieving the substantial restoration of

natural quiet in the Grand Canyon.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

By both law and executive order, Federal regulatory agencies are

required to consider the impact of proposed regulations on small

entities. Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''

dated September 30, 1993, states that:

Each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least

burden on society, including individuals, businesses of different

sizes, and other entities (including small communities and

governmental entities), consistent with obtaining the regulatory

objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the

extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations.

The 1980 ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (RFA) requires Federal

agencies to prepare initial regulatory flexibility analysis of any

notice of proposed rulemaking that would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The definition of

small entities and guidance material for making determinations required

by the RFA were published in the Federal Register on July 29, 1982 (47

FR 32825). FAA Order 2100.14A outlines the agency's procedures and

criteria for implementing the RFA.

With respect to this proposed rule, a ``small entity'' is a

commercial sightseeing operator who owns, but does not necessarily

operate, nine or fewer airplanes. A significant economic impact on a

small entity is defined as an annualized net compliance cost to such a

small commercial sightseeing operator.

In the case of scheduled operators of aircraft for hire having less

than 60 passenger seats, a ``significant economic impact'' or cost

threshold is defined as annualized net compliance cost level that

exceeds $69,800; for unscheduled operators the threshold is $4,900. A

substantial number of small entities is defined as a number that is

more than one-third of the small commercial sightseeing operators

subject to the proposed rule.

The FAA has determined that this proposal could have a significant

economic impact on all operators conducting commercial sightseeing

flights within GCNP and therefore has prepared this initial regulatory

flexibility analysis. The analysis, structured in accordance with

section 603 of the RFA, requires the following:

1. Why FAA action is being considered.

2. Statement of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed

rule.

3. Description of and estimated number of small entities effected.

4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance

requirements of the proposed rule.

5. Any relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or

conflict with the proposed rule.

1. Why FAA action is being considered. The proposal to modify the

dimensions of GCNP SFRA stems from the need to reduce the impact of

aircraft noise over the park and to assist the NPS in achieving its

statutory mandate imposed by Pub. L. 100-91 to provide for the

substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience of the park's

environment.

2. Statement of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed

rule. In 1987, Congress enacted Pub. L. 100-91, commonly known as the

National Parks Overflights Act (the Act). The Act stated, in part, that

noise associated with aircraft overflights at GCNP was causing a

``significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the

park and current aircraft operations at GCNP have raised serious

concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the

safety of park users.''

Pub. L. 100-91 required the DOI to 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 park and protection of public health and

safety from adverse effects associated with aircraft overflights; (2)

with limited exceptions, prohibit the flight of aircraft below the rim

of the canyon; and (3) designate flight-free except for purposes of

administration and emergency operations. In December 1987, the DOI

transmitted its ``Grand Canyon Aircraft Management recommendations'' to

the FAA. 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 airspace above the Grand Canyon

(53 FR 20264, June 2, 1988). The SFAR, among other things, limited the

areas for aircraft operations by establishing special flight routes for

commercial operators. Since then, a substantial amount of public debate

has taken place regarding the affect of aircraft noise on the Grand

Canyon's environment. The debate and the objective of the proposal is

more thoroughly discussed in the preamble of this proposed rulemaking.

3. Description and estimated number of small entities effected. The

proposed rule would affect commercial

[[Page 40133]]

sightseeing operators conducting flights over the GCNP under part 135

of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These commercial

operators provide sightseeing tours of the Grand Canyon over the four

flight zones established by SFAR No. 50-2. FAA data shows that in 1995,

26 small commercial sightseeing operators were potentially affected.

Each operator owned, but did not necessarily operate 9 or fewer

aircraft. These operators owned a total of 70 aircraft and the average

fleet consisted of about 3 aircraft. The FAA estimates that, in 1997,

26 operators will be impacted by the proposed rule. Therefore 84

percent (26/31=84%) of the affected operators are small entities.

4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance

requirements of the proposed rule. The proposal would require affected

small commercial sightseeing operators to maintain and report

additional information to the Las Vegas FSDO. The information required

by the proposal would be needed to establish accurate information on

aircraft operations in GCNP. The information required would include

aircraft identification number (registration number), departure

airport, departure date and time, and route(s) flown. Affected

operators would be required to submit this information every 4 months.

The FAA estimates that compliance with the proposed recordkeeping

requirements would impose an additional 61 hours of labor per aircraft

each year once the initial setup of a reporting system had been

accomplished. The average annual cost per aircraft would be about $515,

but the average annual cost per affected operator would depend on an

operator's fleet size. The one-time initial setup cost for each

operator, regardless of fleet size would, be about $340.

5. Any relevant federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or

conflict with the proposed rule. There are no relevant Federal rules

which would duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.

Cost of Compliance to Small Entities

The annualized data derived from the October 1995 SFAR 50-2 Air

Tour Route Usage Report indicates that for all of 1995, 31 operators

(23 fixed-wing, 7 helicopter, and 1 mixed) utilizing 136 aircraft

conducted just over 70,000 commercial sightseeing aircraft tours in

GCNP. Of the 136 aircraft identified, 101 were fixed-wing aircraft,

ranging from single-engine Piper and Cessna 3-seat models to Twin

Otters with 19 passenger seats. Most of the 35 helicopters used for

commercial sightseeing tours in the canyon were various Bell models

with capacities of four-, five-, and six-passenger seats.

Ten operators conducted commercial sightseeing tours using a single

aircraft, six of which accounted for fewer than 100 commercial

sightseeing tours each. Only five operators operated fleets of more

than nine aircraft. Together, these five operators accounted for over

one-third (approximately 26,600) of the total 70,000 plus commercial

sightseeing tours estimated for 1995. One operator with nine aircraft

accounted for just over 8,200 commercial sightseeing tours.

Increasing the number of flight-free areas could impact GA

operations that cannot be conducted above 14,499 feet msl. This

requirement would only impact individual GA pilots and not small

business entities, small government entities, or small non-profit

organizations. The provisions of the RFA do not apply to individual

persons; thus, the FAA has not made a regulatory flexibility

determination for this proposed requirement.

Excluding the proposed flight-free periods (fixed and variable) and

cap, the most costly proposed changes--in terms of increased tour

lengths, increased consumer prices, and increased traffic in the Dragon

Corridor--would result from the restriction of one-way traffic in the

Zuni Point Corridor. This proposed change, however, would only impact

the five operators currently offering a two-way tour of the Zuni Point

Corridor. The number of operators affected by this proposed requirement

is less than one-third of all GCNP commercial sightseeing operators.

Thus, a substantial number of small operators would not be impacted.

All commercial sightseeing operators would be subject to the

recordkeeping requirement costs. The FAA estimates that the maximum

annual cost of this requirement would be about $540 per aircraft. If an

operator has nine aircraft (the maximum allowable number of aircraft

owned to be considered a small entity), that operator's annual cost

would be about $4,860, which is below the thresholds for significant

cost for scheduled and unscheduled operators.

If a fixed flight-free period is imposed, the FAA estimates that

the annual cost of this requirement would be about $34,600 ($23,800,

discounted) in net operating revenue loss per aircraft on average.

Clearly, any operator with nine or fewer aircraft would incur costs

which exceed the threshold for significant costs for unscheduled

($4,900) operators, and any operator with from three to nine aircraft

(but not 2 or 1 aircraft) would exceed the threshold for significant

costs for scheduled ($69,800) operators. Only 5 of the 31 operators

conducting commercial sightseeing tours of GCNP own more than nine

aircraft and would not be considered a small entity. Thus, this

proposed requirement would have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Because variable flight-free periods or the caps discussed in this

notice would likely be more costly than fixed flight-free periods,

further analysis of the potential significant impact of these proposed

requirements would be redundant. Combining the costs of the reporting

requirements with the costs of a fixed flight-free period results in a

per aircraft cost of approximately $35,000. Accordingly, the FAA has

determined that the proposed rule would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Alternatives Considered

After Pub. L. 100-91 was enacted, the NPS and the FAA attempted

through SFAR No. 50-2 to accomplish the substantial restoration of the

natural quiet.

SFAR No. 50-2 is the first attempt by the FAA to regulate airspace

for environmental and safety reasons to such an extent over a national

park, and design and implementation of the SFAR was a major

accomplishment. As a result of the SFAR:

Four flight-free zones cover 45 percent of the park and have a

ceiling of 14,499 feet msl;

Four flight corridors help aircraft navigate the special use

airspace while avoiding the flight-free zones;

Approximately 29 aerial tour routes created by the Las Vegas FSDO

allow commercial tour aircraft access to 55 percent of SFRA not

restricted by flight-free zones; and

At 14,500 feet msl, the entire park is accessible to overflights,

including general, high altitude commercial, and military aircraft.

The DOI report to Congress found that, although aircraft sound has

been significantly reduced for areas of the Grand Canyon and compliance

with SFAR No. 50-2 has been excellent, natural quiet has not been

substantially restored to the park. As a result, the NPS and the FAA

have made extensive efforts to determine the best alternative action to

respond to the Pub. L. 100-91. The following alternative, outlined in

the NPS report, describes ways that aircraft noise can be made less

obtrusive:

Separation of visitors and overflights. Defining certain areas of

the park for tour overflights is likely to be the first

[[Page 40134]]

step. In so doing, natural quiet under and to the side of corridors

will be degraded. The loss of natural quiet is the consequence of

accommodating aircraft overflights. Mitigation opportunities in the

land areas adjacent to flight areas or corridors will be park specific,

and may take advantage of natural attenuation opportunities.

Exploiting natural attenuation. To the extent that altitudes can be

minimized (without going below reasonable minimums), park terrain can

sometimes be used to acoustically shield flight-free areas from

aircraft noise. If hills or ridges are available, lowering aircraft

altitudes may be a consideration. By lowering altitudes, areas directly

beneath flight corridors that are already impacted will have impacts

intensified, but if local terrain features are present, land areas

where the protection of natural quiet is important may be increased.

Breaking the line-of-sight between the visitor and aircraft can reduce

maximum noise levels by an amount that would otherwise be gained only

by a near doubling of the distance between aircraft and the visitor.

In flat or open areas where terrain shielding cannot effectively be

used, distance (either in altitude or laterally) is a mitigation

option. Very large distance changes may be necessary to achieve natural

quiet, however. Depending on atmospheric and ground effect factors, 8-

12 decibels of reduction can be expected for every doubling of distance

between the visitor and aircraft at its closest point of approach. On

the average, to obtain 10 decibels of reduction, an approximate

doubling of the existing distance between aircraft and the nearest

visitor would be necessary. Continuing with this assumption, to obtain

20 decibels of reduction, the approximate distance would have to

quadruple, and to obtain 30 decibels of reduction, the distance would

have to increase by a factor of about eight.

Encouraging noise reduction at the source. Another mitigation

measure is encouraging and phasing in quieter aircraft, or retrofitting

existing aircraft. Aircraft speed, power, and propeller pitch on fixed-

wing aircraft, and flight regimes which eliminate blade slap for

helicopters are also effective mitigation measures to be taken at the

source of the noise. Relationships between these variables and aircraft

noise levels will be aircraft specific, and may require additional

study.

Reducing duration of noise intrusions. Limiting times of day may be

another mitigation alternative, but this measure may result in a

greater intensity of flying during other portions of the day. This

alternative may not be met with enthusiasm from air tour operators,

however, since their investment in aircraft could remain unproductive

for periods of time.

Encouraging use of greater payload aircraft. Tour aircraft which

can accept greater numbers of passengers without substantial increases

in noise level emissions may be an attractive step toward mitigation in

some circumstances. With larger numbers of people per flight, and fewer

flights, the percentage of time that natural quiet is compromised would

be reduced.

Clearly, doing nothing or taking no action is not a feasible

alternative. The NPS study has concluded that even with compliance with

SFAR 50-2, adequate quiet has not been achieved, and will be further

degraded in the future if action is not taken.

Another alternative would be to accept and adopt the NPS following

recommendations contained in the DOI report to Congress.

Year 1 of the NPS recommendation expands existing flight-free

zones from 45 to 82 percent of the park. Ceilings of the SFRA and

flight-free zones are raised to 17,999 feet MSL. About half the

current SFAR 50-2 tour routes and route segments are eliminated. The

Dragon Flight Corridor is abolished, but two quiet aircraft routes

(one for airplanes, one for helicopters) will exist in this area

(the new Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone) for five years. The Fossil

Canyon Flight Corridor has been realigned and two-way commercial

tour traffic eliminated in all flight corridors. The minimum

altitude for general aviation aircraft in the Tuckup Flight Corridor

has been lowered from 10,500 feet MSL to 9,500 feet MSL.

Year 5 of the NPS recommendation limits the Fossil Canyon Flight

Corridor to quiet commercial tour aircraft. Quiet aircraft routes

within the new Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone are eliminated.

Year 10 of the NPS recommendation limits the Zuni Point Flight

Corridor to quiet commercial tour aircraft.

Year 15 of the NPS recommendation limits the entire SFRA to

quiet commercial tour aircraft.

The NPS believes that the above-mentioned alternative would

essentially restore quiet to the park, but recognizes that it would

have a significant impact on commercial sightseeing operators. For

months, the IWG considered modifications to the initial NPS

recommendations that would achieve the basic objective of restoring

quiet to the park while at the same time preserve the viability of the

commercial sightseeing industry serving GCNP. Both the FAA and the NPS

recognize that commercial sightseeing operators provide a valuable

public service by creating a unique way to all to view the Grand Canyon

and provide an effective means for elderly and handicapped individuals

to enjoy the park.

The proposed rule makes progress toward meeting the commitment of

the NPS and FAA in restoring natural quiet to Grand Canyon National

Park.

Members of the IWG carefully worked out the proposal while keeping

in mind (1) The views expressed at the Flagstaff public meeting, (2)

the objective of the NPS and the FAA to substantially restore the

natural quiet of GCNP, (3) the need to avoid expanding adverse noise

impacts from commercial sightseeing flight operations for an interim

period, and (4) the FAA objective to regulate the airspace over GCNP.

Although this proposal will have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of commercial sightseeing operators, it will assure

the continued viability of the industry.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The FAA has determined that the proposed rulemaking would not

affect non-U.S. operators of foreign aircraft operating outside the

United States or U.S. trade. It could however, have an impact on

commercial sightseeing at GCNP, much of which is foreign.

The proposed changes would effectively reconfigure GCNP flight-free

zones and flight corridors, reduce the time available for commercial

sightseeing tours to be conducted, and, in some cases, prolong the time

a commercial sightseeing passenger spends in an airplane not

necessarily sightseeing. To the extent a commercial sightseeing tour of

GCNP is perceived to be a devaluation in the current service offered,

commercial sightseeing could be impacted concomitant with a potential

loss of revenue.

The United States Air Tour Association estimates that 60 percent of

all commercial sightseeing tourists in the United States are foreign.

The Las Vegas FSDO, however, believes this estimate to be considerably

higher at GCNP, perhaps as high as 90 percent. The FAA cannot put a

dollar value on the portion of the potential loss in commercial

sightseeing revenue associated with the loss of foreign tour dollars.

Federalism Implications

The regulations herein would not have substantial direct 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 12866, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications

[[Page 40135]]

to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Section 93.317 contains information collection requirements. As

required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),

the FAA has submitted a copy of this section to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.

Collection of Information: The information to be collected is

needed to establish accurate information on aircraft operations in the

GCNP. The information to be collected includes aircraft identification

number (registration number), departure airport, departure date and

time, and route(s) flown. All information must be submitted every 4

months. The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this

information is estimated to average 30 minutes for each response,

including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information. Thus the total annual

reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to

be 60 hours.

Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the

information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 1235, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for

Federal Aviation Administration. A copy of the comments should also be

submitted to the FAA Rules Docket.

In addition to the reporting requirement delineated in section

93.317, the FAA is also proposing two additional reporting requirements

in section 93.316(b). Section 93.316(b)(2) would require that operators

file a report with the FAA Flight Standards District Office certifying

that it was operating commercial sightseeing operations in the park

during 1995 and 1996 and the number of operations it conducted each

month during the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996.

Additionally, section 93.316(b)(3) would require that each operator

conducting commercial sightseeing operations in the park would file a

monthly report certifying the number of commercial sightseeing

operations conducted in that month and whether that number exceeded the

operator's monthly operations allocation.

The additional paper burden associated with the requirements of

section 93.316(b) (2) and (3) shall be submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget for review. Those wishing to comment on this

additional reporting requirement should also send comments to the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 1235, New

Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk

Officer for Federal Aviation Administration. A copy of the comments

should also be submitted to the FAA Rules Docket.

The FAA is requesting comments from the public to establish

accurate information on GCNP overflights for noise and safety

management purposes, validate FAA and NPS noise models for use in

mitigation studies, determine with precision when and where noise

mitigation is required, and provide the basis for a more flexible and

adaptable noise management system.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of

information contained in this NPRM between 30 and 60 days after

publication in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is

best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30

days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public

to comment to the NPRM.

Conclusion

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

proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this proposal could have a

significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. This proposed rule is considered significant under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Other Actions

Since the formation of the IWG, the FAA and NPS have been working

closely to identify and deal with the impacts of aviation on GCNP, and

the two agencies will continue to identify and pursue effective

solutions. In this spirit of cooperation, the agencies plan to take the

following nonregulatory and regulatory actions to achieve the

substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP.

Park Air Operations

GCNP has one of the most strictly regulated aviation programs

within the NPS and the Department of Interior. The park limits use of

its contracted aircraft to activities involving life or health-

threatening emergencies, administration and/or protection of resources,

and for individually approved special purpose missions. Each flight

request is reviewed to ensure that it is the most efficient,

economical, and effective method of performing the required task

consistent with NPS and GCNP goals. These goals include the protection

of natural quiet and experience, as reinforced by the park's recently

approved General Management Plan. At the earliest possible date,

consistent with contracting requirements and budgetary constraints,

GCNP would convert to the quietest aircraft available that would also

meet mission requirements.

Development of a Comprehensive Noise Management Plan

NPS modeling has suggested that the conversion of the commercial

sightseeing aircraft fleet operating in the SFRA to the best available

(quiet) technology would allow for growth of commercial sightseeing

operations while providing for substantial restoration of natural quiet

mandated by Pub. L. 100-91. Accordingly, a comprehensive noise

mitigation plan would be jointly developed to provide a long-term

solution. It would address the best available technology, a monitoring

program for noise and operations, provision of appropriate incentives

for investing in quieter aircraft, appropriate treatment for commercial

sightseeing operators that have already made such investments, and a

more adaptive management system. The plan would be completed and

implemented in time to replace the temporary noise management mechanism

defined in section 93.316(a)(2). For the purpose of developing a

flexible and adaptive approach to noise mitigation and management, the

following actions would be taken:

(a) Development of aircraft operations and noise database. The two

agencies would develop and analyze a database on the volume and

frequency of operations in the SFRA, the time of day of operations, the

routes used, the aircraft types used, and the amount of noise

generated. The proposed reporting requirement would be used in

developing this database. The two agencies would jointly investigate

approaches to monitoring noise and operations in the SFRA and designate

an acceptable protocol for use in connection with the development of

the plan. Options may include installation of noise monitoring

equipment, similar to that used at airports, at the entrances or exits

for the flight corridors, and at other locations as deemed necessary.

(b) Validation and use of noise models. Information from the

database

[[Page 40136]]

established in (a), along with field measurements and other analyses

would be used to validate FAA and NPS noise impact modeling for the

SFRA. The validated models would then be used to explore and develop

noise mitigation measures.

(c) Development and implementation of noise management plan.

Approaches for reducing aircraft noise that consider both the noise

emission level of aircraft and the number of operations would be

reviewed and evaluated for development of an aircraft noise management

plan. The plan would be developed and proposed for implementation in

time to replace the temporary noise management mechanism defined in

Sec. 93.316(a)(2). The plan would address a number of factors,

including the utilization of quieter aircraft in the SFRA, appropriate

incentives for investment in quieter aircraft, treatment of quieter

aircraft that currently operate in the SFRA. Approaches that would be

considered in developing the plan would include, but would not be

limited to, noise budgets, a freeze on the existing fleet combined with

restrictive single event levels based on aircraft noise certification

criteria, further closure of corridors, and noise slots.

Before implementing any noise management plan, the FAA would seek

public participation/comment.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, Aviation safety, Noise

control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 93

Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air), Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 121

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety,

Transportation.

14 CFR Part 135

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR parts 91, 93, 121, and 135 as

follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

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

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111,

44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,

46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531.

SFAR NO. 50-2 [REMOVED]

2. In parts 91, 121, and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation

No. 50-2, the text of which appears at the beginning of part 91, is

removed.

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS

3. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,

44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

4. In part 93, subpart U is added to read as follows:

Subpart U--Special Flight Rules in The Vicinity of Grand Canyon

National Park, AZ

Sec.

93.301 Applicability.

93.303 Definitions.

93.305 Flight-free zones and flight corridors.

93.307 Minimum flight altitudes.

93.309 General operating procedures.

93.311 Minimum terrain clearance.

93.313 Communications.

93.315 Commercial sightseeing flight operations.

93.316 Limitations on commercial sightseeing operations.

93.317 Commercial sightseeing flight reporting requirements.

Subpart U--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon

National Park, AZ

Sec. 93.301 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes special operating rules for all persons

operating aircraft in the following airspace, designated as the Grand

Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area: That airspace extending

upward from the surface up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL within

an area bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.55'25'' N., Long.

112 deg.04'36'' W.; east to Lat. 35 deg.55'38'' N., Long.

111 deg.42'12'' W.; north to Lat. 36 deg.16'47'' N., Long.

111 deg.42'17'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.24'49'' N., Long. 111 deg.47'45''

W.; to Lat. 36 deg.52'23'' N., Long. 111 deg.33'10'' W.; west-northwest

to Lat. 36 deg.53'37'' N., Long. 111 deg.38'29'' W.; southwest to Lat.

36 deg.35'02'' N., Long. 111 deg.53'28'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.21'04'' N.,

Long. 112 deg.00'17'' W.; west-northwest to Lat. 36 deg.30'30'' N.,

Long. 112 deg.35'59'' W.; southwest to Lat. 36 deg.24'46'' N., Long.

112 deg.51'10'' W.; thence west along the boundary of Grand Canyon

National Park (GCNP) to Lat. 36 deg.14'08'' N., Long. 113 deg.10'07''

W.; west-southwest to Lat. 36 deg.09'50'' N., Long. 114 deg.01'53'' W.;

southeast to Lat. 36 deg.06'24'' N., Long. 113 deg.58'46'' W.; thence

south along the boundary of GCNP to Lat. 36 deg.00'23'' N., Long.

113 deg.54'11'' W.; northeast to Lat. 36 deg.02'14'' N.; Long.

113 deg.50'16'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.02'16'' N., Long. 113 deg.48'08''

W.; thence southeast along the boundary of GCNP (the historic high-

water mark on the southwest shore of the Colorado River) to Lat.

35 deg.58'09'' N., Long. 113 deg.45'04'' W.; southwest to Lat.

35 deg.54'48'' N., Long. 113 deg.50'24'' W.; southeast to Lat.

35 deg.41'30'' N., Long. 113 deg.35'50'' W., thence clockwise via the

4.2-nautical mile radius of the Peach Springs VORTAC to Lat.

35 deg.39'05'' N., Long. 113 deg.27'06'' W.; northeast to Lat.

113 deg.10'58'' N., Long. 113 deg.10'57' W.; north to Lat.

35 deg.57'51'' N., Long. 113 deg.11'06'' W., east to Lat.

35 deg.57'47'' N., Long. 112 deg.14'32'' W.; thence clockwise via the

4.3-nautical mile radius of the Grand Canyon National Park Airport

airport reference point (Lat. 35 deg.57'08'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'49''

W.) to the point of origin.

Sec. 93.303 Definitions.

For the purposes of this subpart:

(a) Flight Standards District Office means the FAA Flight Standards

District Office with jurisdiction for the geographical area containing

the Grand Canyon.

(b) Park means grand Canyon National Park.

(c) Special Flight Rules Area means the Grand Canyon National Park

Special Flight Rules Area.

Sec. 93.305 Flight-free zones and flight corridors.

Except in an emergency or if otherwise necessary for safety of

flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards District

Office for a purpose listed in Sec. 93.309, no person may operate an

aircraft below 14,500 feet MSL in the Special Flight Rules Area within

the following flight-free zones:

(a) Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone. The Marble Canyon Flight-free

Zone contains two corridors: the Navajo Bridge Corridor and the North

Canyon Corridor. These two corridors separate the flight-free zone into

three areas. These three areas are described as follows:

(1) Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone (north portion). Within an area

bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.49'51'' N., Long.

111 deg.37'20'' W.; thence north along the boundary of Grand Canyon

National Park (GCNP) to Lat. 36 deg.49'53'' N., Long. 111 deg.37'23''

W.; to the point of origin; but not including the airspace at and above

[[Page 40137]]

8,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the southern boundary of this

area. The corridor to the south of this area is designated the ``Navajo

Bridge Corridor.'' This corridor is 2 nautical miles wide for

commercial sightseeing flights and 4 nautical miles wide for transient

and general aviation operations.

(2) Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone (central portion). Within an

area bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.35'55'' N., Long.

111 deg.45'25'' W.; thence north along the GCNP boundary to Lat.

36 deg.47'53'' N., Long. 111 deg.38'27'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.48'01'' N.,

Long. 111 deg.38'49'' W.; thence south along the GCNP boundary to Lat.

36 deg.36'41'' N., Long. 111 deg.47'42'' W.; to the point of origin;

but not including the airspace at and above 8,500 feet MSL within 1

nautical mile of the northern and southern boundaries of this area. The

corridor to the north is designated the ``Navajo Bridge Corridor'' and

the corridor to the south is designated the ``North Canyon Corridor.''

These corridors are 2 nautical miles wide for commercial sightseeing

flights and 4 nautical miles wide for transient and general aviation

operations.

(3) Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone (southern portion). Within an

area bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.16'26'' N., Long.

111 deg.49'21'' W.; thence north along the GCNP boundary to Lat.

36 deg.34'10'' N., Long. 111 deg.47'11'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.34'38'' N.,

Long. 111 deg.48'34'' W.; thence south along the GCNP boundary to Lat.

36 deg.19'03'' N., Long. 111 deg.55'42'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.14'24'' N.,

Long. 111 deg.52'07'' W.; to the point of origin; but not including the

airspace at and above 8,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the

northern boundary of this area; and not including the airspace at and

above 10,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the southern boundary

of this area. The corridor to the north is designated the ``North

Canyon Corridor''. The corridor to the southeast, between this flight-

free zone and the Desert View Flight-free Zone, is designated the

``Zuni Point Northeast Corridor.'' The corridor to the southwest,

between the southern portion of the Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone and

the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone, is designated the ``Zuni Point

Northwest Corridor.'' These corridors are 2 nautical miles wide for

commercial sightseeing flights and 4 nautical miles wide for transient

and general aviation operations.

(b) Desert View Flight-free Zone. Within an area bounded by a line

beginning at Lat. 35 deg.59'58'' N., Long. 111 deg.52'47'' W.; thence

east and north along the GCNP boundary to Lat. 36 deg.14'05'' N., Long.

111 deg.48'34'' W.; southwest to Lat. 36 deg.12'06'' N., Long.

111 deg.51'14'' W.; to the point of origin; but not including the

airspace at and above 10,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the

northern and western boundaries of the zone. The corridor to the north,

between this flight-free zone and the Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone,

is designated the ``Zuni Point Northeast Corridor.'' The corridor to

the west, between the Desert View and Bright Angel Flight-free Zones,

is designated the ``Zuni Point South Corridor.'' These corridors are 2

nautical miles wide for commercial sightseeing flights and 4 nautical

miles wide for transient and general aviation operations.

(c) Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. Within an area bounded by a line

beginning at Lat. 35 deg.58'39'' N., Long. 111 deg.55'43'' W.; north to

Lat. 36 deg.12'41'' N., Long. 111 deg.53'54'' W.; northwest to Lat.

36 deg.18'18'' N., Long. 111 deg.58'15'' W.; thence west along the GCNP

boundary to Lat. 36 deg.20'11'' N., Long. 112 deg.06'25'' W.; south-

southwest to Lat. 36 deg.09'31'' N., Long. 112 deg.11'15'' W.; to Lat.

36 deg.04'16'' N., Long. 112 deg.17'20'' W.; thence southeast along the

GCNP boundary to Lat. 36 deg.01'16'' N., Long. 112 deg.11'39'' W.;

thence clockwise via the 4.3-nautical mile radius of the Grand Canyon

National Park Airport reference point (Lat. 35 deg.57'08'' N., Long.

112 deg.08'49'' W.) to Lat. 35 deg.59'30'' N., Long. 112 deg.04'41''

W.; thence east along the GCNP boundary to the point of origin; but not

including the airspace at and above 10,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical

mile of the eastern boundary or the airspace at and above 10,500 feet

MSL within 2 nautical miles of the northwestern boundary. The corridor

to the east, between this flight-free zone and the Desert View Flight-

free Zone, is designated the ``Zuni Point South Corridor.'' The

corridor to the northeast, between the Bright Angel and Marble Canyon

Flight-free Zones, is designated the ``Zuni Point Northwest Corridor.''

The corridor to the west, between the Bright Angel and Toroweap/Shinumo

Flight-free Zones, is designated the ``Dragon Corridor.'' These

corridors are 2 nautical miles wide for commercial sightseeing flights

and 4 nautical miles wide for transient and general aviation

operations.

(d) Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone. Within an area bounded by a

line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.05'44'' N., Long. 112 deg.19'27'' W.;

north-northeast to Lat. 36 deg.10'49'' N., Long. 112 deg.3'19'' W.; to

Lat. 36 deg.02'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'47'' W.; thence west along the

GCNP boundary to Lat. 36 deg.10'58'' N., Long. 113 deg.08'35'' W.;

south to Lat. 36 deg.10'12'' N., Long. 113 deg.08'34'' W.; thence

northeast along the park boundary (the historic high-water mark on the

southeast shore of the Colorado River) to Lat. 36 deg.12'05'' N., Long.

113 deg.04'27'' W.; thence counter-clockwise via the 1.5-nautical mile

radius of the Toroweap Overlook (Lat. 36 deg.12'55'' N., Long.

113 deg.03'25'' W.) to Lat. 36 deg.13'31'' N., Long. 113 deg.02'21''

W.; thence in an easterly direction along the park boundary to the

point of origin; but not including the following airspace designated as

the ``Tuckup Corridor'': at or above 10,500 feet MSL within 2 nautical

miles either side of a line extending between Lat. 36 deg.24'42'' N.,

Long. 112 deg.48'47'' W. and Lat. 36 deg.14'17'' N., Long.

112 deg.48'31'' W.

(e) Sanup Flight-free Zone. Within an area bounded by a line

beginning at Lat. 36 deg.04'39'' N., Long. 113 deg.19'36'' W.; west to

Lat. 36 deg.08'11'' N., Long. 113 deg.50'11'' W.; west to Lat.

36 deg.08'11'' N., Long. 113 deg.54'17''W.; southeast to Lat.

36 deg.00'07'' N., Long. 113 deg.42'58'' W.; southeast to Lat.

35 deg.59'37'' N., Long. 113 deg.42'47'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.59'20'' N.,

Long. 113 deg.42'60'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.58'40'' N., Long.

113 deg.43'58'' W.; southeast to Lat. 35 deg.50'16'' N., Long.

113 deg.37'13'' W.; thence along the park boundary (the historic high-

water mark on the south and east shore of the Colorado River) to the

point of origin.

Sec. 93.307 Minimum flight altitudes.

Except in an emergency, or if otherwise necessary for safety of

flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards District

Office for a purpose listed in Sec. 93.309, no person may operate an

aircraft in the Special Flight Rules Area at an altitude lower than the

following:

(a) Minimum sector altitudes. (1) Commercial sightseeing flights.

(i) North Canyon Sector. Less Ferry to North Canyon: 5,000 feet MSL.

(ii) Marble Canyon Sector. North Canyon to Boundary Ridge: 6,000

feet MSL.

(iii) Supai Sector. Boundary Ridge to Supai Point: 7,500 feet MSL.

(iv) Diamond Creed Sector. Supai Point to Diamond Creek: 6,500 feet

MSL.

(v) Pearce Ferry Sector. Diamond Creek to the Grand Wash Cliffs:

5000 feet MSL.

(2) Transient and general aviation operations. (i) North Canyon

Sector. Lees Ferry to North Canyon: 8,500 feet MSL.

(ii) Marble Canyon Sector. North Canyon to Boundary Ridge: 8,500

feet MSL.

(iii) Sapai Sector. Boundary Ridge to Supai Point: 10,000 feet MSL.

[[Page 40138]]

(iv) Diamond Creek Sector. Supai Point to Diamond Creed: 9,000 feet

MSL.

(v) Pearce Ferry Sector. Diamond Creek to the Grand Wash Cliffs:

8,000 feet MSL.

(b) Minimum corridor altitudes. (1) Commercial sightseeing flights.

(i) Navajo Bridge Corridor, 5,000 feet MSL.

(ii) North Canyon Corridor. 5,000 feet MSL.

(iii) Zuni Point Corridors. 7,500 feet MSL.

(iv) Dragon Corridor. 7,500 feet MSL.

(2) Transient and general aviation operations. (i) Navajo Bridge

Corridor. 8,500 feet MSL.

(ii) North Canyon Corridor. 8,500 feet MSL.

(iii) Zuni Point Corridors. 10,500 feet MSL.

(iv) Dragon Corridor. 10,500 feet MSL.

(v) Tuckup Corridor. 10,500 feet MSL.

Sec. 93.309 General operating procedures.

Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft in the

Special Flight Rules Area unless the operation is conducted in

accordance with the following procedures

Note: The following procedures do not relieve the pilot from

see-and-avoid responsibility or compliance with the minimum safe

altitude requirements specified in 14 CFR 91.119.

(a) Unless necessary to maintain a safe distance from other

aircraft or terrain remain clear of the flight-free zones described in

Sec. 93.305;

(b) Unless necessary to maintain a safe distance from other

aircraft or terrain, proceed through the flight corridors described in

Sec. 93.305 at the following altitudes unless otherwise authorized in

writing by the Flight Standards District Office:

(1) Navajo Bridge and North Canyon Corridors. (i) Eastbound. 9,500,

11,500, or 13,500 feet MSL.

(ii) Westbound. 8,500, 10,500, or 12,500 feet MSL.

(2) Zuni Point Northeast, Zuni Point South, Dragon, and Tuckup

Corridors. (i) Northbound. 11,500 or 13,500 feet MSL.

(ii) Southbound. 10,500 or 12,500 feet MSL.

(3) Zuni Point Northwest Corridor. (i) Northbound. 10,500 or 12,500

feet MSL.

(ii) Southbound. 11,500 or 13,500 feet MSL.

(c) For operation in the flight-free zones described in

Sec. 93.305, or flight below the altitudes listed in Sec. 93.307, is

authorized in writing by the Flight Standards District Office and is

conducted in compliance with the conditions contained in that

authorization. Normally authorization will be granted for operation in

the areas described in Sec. 93.305 or below the altitudes listed in

Sec. 93.307 only for operations of aircraft necessary for law

enforcement, firefighting, emergency medical treatment/evacuation of

persons in the vicinity of the Park; for support of Park maintenance or

activities; or for aerial access to and maintenance of other property

located within the Special Flight Rules Area. Authorization may be

issued on a continuing basis;

(d) Is conducted in accordance with a specific authorization to

operate in that airspace incorporated in the operator's operations

specifications and approved by the Flight Standards District Office in

accordance with the provisions of this subpart;

(e) Is a search and rescue mission directed by the U.S. Air Force

Rescue Coordination Center;

(f) Is conducted within 3 nautical miles of Grand Canyon Bar Ten

Airstrip, Pearce Ferry Airstrip, Cliff Dwellers Airstrip, or Marble

Canyon Airstrip at an altitude less than 3,000 feet above airport

elevation, for the purpose of landing at or taking off from that

facility; or

(g) Is conducted under an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance

and the pilot is acting in accordance with ATC instructions. An IFR

flight plan may not be filed on a route or at an altitude that would

require operation in an area described in Sec. 93.305.

Sec. 93.311 Minimum terrain clearance.

Except in an emergency, when necessary for takeoff or landing, or

unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards District Office for

a purpose listed in Sec. 93.309(c), no person may operate an aircraft

within 500 feet of any terrain or structure located between the north

and south rims of the Grand Canyon.

Sec. 93.313 Communications.

Except when in contact with the Grand Canyon National Park Airport

Traffic Control Tower during arrival or departure or on a search and

rescue mission directed by the U.S. Air Force Rescue Coordination

Center, no person may operate an aircraft in the Special Flight Rules

Area unless he monitors the appropriate frequency continuously while in

that airspace.

Sec. 93.315 Commercial sightseeing flight operations.

(a) Non-stop sightseeing flights that begin and end at the same

airport, are conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of that airport,

and operate in or through the Special Flight Rules Area during any

portion of the flight are governed by the provisions of part 119, SFAR

38-2 of parts 121 and 135 of this chapter, part 121, and part 135 of

this chapter, as applicable.

(b) No person holding or required to hold an air carrier

certificate or an operating certificate under SFAR No. 38-2 or part 119

of this chapter may operate an aircraft having a passenger-seat

configuration of 30 or fewer seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and

a payload capacity of 7,500 or less pounds, in the Special Flight Rules

Area except as authorized by the applicable operations specifications.

Sec. 93.316 Limitations on Commercial Sightseeing Operations.

(a) (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards

District Office, no person shall conduct commercial sightseeing

operations during the following fixed flight-free periods:

(i) Summer season (May 1-September 30)--6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily; and

(ii) Winter season (October 1-April 30)--5 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily;

and

(2) The Administrator may restrict commercial sightseeing

operations to the following variable flight-free periods (As discussed

in the preamble, the criteria used to apply the variable flight-free

restrictions would be disseminated for public review and comment):

(i) Dragon Corridor--2 p.m. to 10 a.m.; and

(ii) All other routes--4 p.m. to 9 a.m.; and/or

(b) (1) Except in an emergency, or if otherwise necessary for

safety of flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the Flight

Standards District Office for a purpose listed in 93.309, each operator

is authorized to conduct only the same number of monthly operations in

any month during 1997 and 1998 as were performed during the

corresponding months in the baseline period from August 1, 1995 to July

31, 1996.

(2) In order to establish a baseline for monthly operations during

the interim moratorium, each operator shall certify to the FAA Flight

Standards District Office:

(i) that it was operating sightseeing tours in Grand Canyon

National Park in 1995 and 1996, and

(ii) the number of operations it conducted each month during the

period of August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996 (``monthly

allocation'').

(3)(i) Each operator shall file a report within 10 days of the end

of each month certifying

(A) the number of operations conducted within the Park during the

previous month; and

[[Page 40139]]

(B) that the number of operations did not exceed the operator's

monthly allocation.

(ii) This report shall be filed with the FAA Flight Standards

District Office. As an alternative, the operator may include its report

along with the fees submitted to the National Park Service in

compliance with the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The National

Park Service will forward the report to the FAA Flight Standards

District Office.

(4) If an operator desires to reduce or terminate commercial

sightseeing operations in the Park, it shall surrender to the FAA

Flight Standards District Office any portion of its monthly allocation

that it does not intend to use. No monthly allocation may be

transferred by gift, sale,or otherwise to any person.

(5) If the FAA and the NPS determine that there are unused monthly

allocations under the baseline for monthly operations, the FAA may make

available such monthly allocations to new or existing commercial

sightseeing operators. In the event there is more than one operator

applying for such monthly allocations, a preference will be granted to

the operator which will utilize the quietest commercially available new

or retrofitted aircraft among all of the applicants.

(6) No operator shall have any property right in its monthly

allocation. No operator shall have any right to compensation in the

event such monthly allocation is surrendered.

Sec. 93.317 Commercial sightseeing flight reporting requirements.

Each certificate holder conducting commercial sightseeing flights

within the Special Flight Rules Area shall submit in writing, within 30

days after April 30, August 31, and December 31, of each year, to the

Flight Standards District Office the following information for each

operation within the Special Flight Rules Area for the prior 4-month

period:

(a) Identification number (registration number) of each aircraft;

(b) Departure airport;

(c) Departure date and time; and

(d) Route(s) flown.

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL

OPERATIONS

5. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,

44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,

44912, 46105.

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS

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

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,

44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 26, 1996.

Jeff Griffith,

Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.

Note: This Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal

Regulations.

Appendix--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National

Park

[FR Doc. 96-19489 Filed 7-26-96; 3:25 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M