Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park

SUMMARY: This final rule is one part of an overall strategy to further

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. This action is issued concurrently with: a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking regarding Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the

Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park; a Notice of Availability of

Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes for Grand Canyon National Park and

Request for Comments; and the Environmental Assessment issued with this

final rule. This action amends part 93 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations by adding a new subpart to codify the provisions of Special

Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the

Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park; modifies the dimensions of the

Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area; establishes new

and modifies existing flight-free zones; establishes new and modifies

existing flight corridors; and establishes reporting requirements for

commercial sightseeing companies operating in the Special Flight Rules

Area. In addition, to provide further protection for park resources,

this final rule prohibits commercial sightseeing operations in the Zuni

and Dragon corridors during certain time periods, and limits the number

of aircraft that can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in

the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1997.

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. For the Environmental Assessment

contact Mr. William J. Marx, Manager, Environmental Programs Division,

ATA-300, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation

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

Telephone: (202) 267-3075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. Public Law 100-91 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 Public Law 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. Public Law 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 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 covering 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 Public Law 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.'' Public Law 100-91 mandated a number of studies

related to the effect of overflights on parks.

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'' (Report to

Congress), was published in July 1995. The Report to Congress

recommended numerous revisions to SFAR No. 50-2 in order to

substantially restore natural quiet in GCNP. Recommendation No. 10,

which is of particular interest to this rulemaking, states: ``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

[[Page 69303]]

problem solving; and institution of changes in approaches to park

management, including the establishment of an acoustic monitoring

program by the National Park Service (NPS) in coordination with the

FAA.

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 the NPS recommendations and

to initiate and complete 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 concurred 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 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.

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 equivalencies, and incentives to encourage use of

quiet aircraft technology. In response to the ANPRM, the FAA received

644 comments that specifically addressed GCNP. These comments were

summarized in the NPRM published on July 31, 1996 (61 FR 40120; Notice

96-11).

President's Memorandum

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 GCNP that would place appropriate limits on sightseeing

aircraft to reduce the noise immediately and make further substantial

progress towards restoration of natural quiet, as defined by the

Secretary of the Interior, while maintaining aviation safety in

accordance with Public Law 100-91.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Draft Environmental Assessment

On July 31, 1996 the FAA published an NPRM (61 FR 40120; Notice 96-

11), to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on GCNP and to assist the

NPS in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by Public Law 100-91 to

provide for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience

in GCNP. Notice 96-11 proposed the following: Codification and

amendment to the SFAR 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of

GCNP; modification of the dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park

Special Flight Rules Area; establishment of new flight-free zones and

flight corridors, as well as modification of existing flight-free zones

and flight corridors; establishment of flight-free periods (curfews)

and/or an interim moratorium on additional commercial sightseeing air

tours or tour operators (caps); and establishment of reporting

requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating in the

SFRA. In addition to these areas, the FAA sought comment on a number of

questions and alternatives regarding curfews and caps, as well as on

the issue of quiet aircraft technology. The comment period for the

proposed rule, originally set for 60 days, was subsequently extended

for 45 days (61 FR 54716; October 21, 1996) as directed by the Congress

in the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996.

On August 21, 1996, the notice of availability of the draft

Environmental Assessment (EA) was published in the Federal Register (61

FR 43196). Comments on the draft EA were to be received on or before

October 4, 1996. This date was subsequently extended, as directed by

Congress in the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996, to November

18, 1996.

Comments received in response to this Notice of Availability of the

draft EA have been addressed in the final EA published concurrently

with this final rule.

Public Meetings

On September 16-20, 1996, in Scottsdale, AZ, and Las Vegas, NV, the

FAA held public meetings to obtain additional comment on the Notice 96-

11 and on the draft environmental assessment. Comments and the

transcripts of these meetings have been placed in the rulemaking

docket.

The following information summarizes what occurred at the public

meetings on the Grand Canyon NPRM and draft EA, held in Scottsdale,

Arizona, September 16 and 17, 1996, and Las Vegas, Nevada, September 19

and 20, 1996.

Senator Reid of Nevada, by proxy in Las Vegas, noted his opposition

to the proposed rule. He indicated that 44 percent of the Canyon was

already covered by flight-free zones, and that only 14 percent of park

airspace is available to the operators now. He also opined that (1) the

requirements of Public Law 100-91 (i.e., substantial restoration of

natural quiet) have been accomplished by the SFAR; and (2) the new rule

would have major adverse impacts on safety and economics. He foresaw

devastating financial impacts on the air tour industry and on local

communities. Congresswoman Vucanovich of Nevada, also by proxy in Las

Vegas, indicated that she was concerned about the effects of the

proposed rule on the air tour industry, noting that there were no

flight routes specified in Notice 96-11. She believed that flight-free

periods/curfews would raise both economic and safety issues. She also

believed that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as opposed to an

EA, was required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

based on the highly controversial nature of the NPRM.

The air tour operators talked about potential adverse economic

impacts of the NPRM, potential negative impacts on safety--such as

compressing more flights into the smaller areas as the result of

curfews and additional flight-free zones--and the importance of quiet

aircraft technology, and incentives to manufacture and use quieter

aircraft, noting specifically that quieter aircraft are far more

expensive to purchase and operate than are noisier aircraft. A number

of operators emphasized their belief that ``SFAR 50-2 works,'' both

from safety and environmental standpoints. Many of these same operators

questioned the NPS's

[[Page 69304]]

definitions of natural quiet and substantial restoration thereof, and

challenged the science involved, including noise modeling conducted by

both FAA and NPS, in measuring the noise impacts of commercial air tour

overflights and in assessing the degree to which natural quiet has been

restored under SFAR 50-2. Several operators and representatives of

aircraft manufacturers offered concrete suggestions as to the kinds of

incentives that might prove useful.

As for other aviation interests, general aviation groups expressed

concerns about their constituents' ability to transit the park safely

and conveniently.

Representatives of environmental groups and individual

environmentalists pointed out that the addition of two flight-free

zones is misleading, in that aircraft noise can travel from 13-16 miles

laterally, so the flight-free zones are not free of noise. A number of

environmentalists indicated that the NPS's definition of substantial

restoration of natural quiet is too liberal and allows too much

aircraft noise. They also pointed out that, in contrast to the lack of

control on air tour overflight volume, there are tight controls on all

commercial activities on the ground in parks. Environmentalists spoke

favorably about the promise of quieter aircraft technology and

supported the development of incentives to manufacture and use quieter

aircraft.

Representatives of Native American tribes living in and around the

Grand Canyon expressed major disappointment with what they viewed as

the failure by the FAA and NPS to consult with them adequately on the

NPRM and the draft EA. They emphasized that the net effect of the

revised rule would be to relocate noise impacts from the park to tribal

lands, with concomitant adverse effects on their natural and cultural

resources and on the health and safety of tribe members and visitors to

tribal lands. They believed that the situation called for an EIS, not

an EA.

While the FAA held separate meetings in both Scottsdale, AZ, and

Las Vegas, NV, on the NPRM and the EA, a number of commenters at the

NPRM meetings addressed the EA as well, and vice versa. The majority of

comments from all ``sides'' of the issue were negative with regard to

the EA itself, which many found inadequate for a variety of reasons,

including the fact that the range of alternatives was limited to either

no action or the proposed alternative, and an overall lack of

specificity. Several commenters pointed to inconsistencies between FAA

and NPS noise modeling methodologies, which led the agencies to two

different conclusions as to the potential effectiveness of the revised

rule. Air tour operators pointed out that the potential adverse impacts

of the NPRM on their operations, including safety concerns, were not

justified in view of FAA's findings that the proposed alternative would

not provide any significant improvement in natural quiet, while

environmentalists argued that the EA failed to include any alternative

which would substantially restore natural quiet to the park. More than

a few commenters felt that NEPA compliance in this case required an

EIS, not an EA.

One of the few areas of common ground to emerge from these meetings

was widespread support for further use of quieter aircraft technology

and for the development and implementation of incentives to manufacture

and use quieter aircraft.

Congressional Hearings

From October 10 to 11, 1996, Congressional hearings were held by

the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Tempe, Arizona. The

hearings were held to gather testimony from various entities involved

in or affected by the FAA's proposed Special Flight Rules in the

Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park. Senator McCain of Arizona

chaired and made opening statements at both field hearings indicating

that they were there to examine the impacts of the proposed rule and

the draft environmental assessment. He expressed his disappointment in

the lack of mention of quiet aircraft technology in Notice 96-11,

indicating that he hoped FAA would provide appropriate incentives in

the final rule.

The Nevada Congressional delegation (Senator Bryan and Congressman

Ensign in person, Senator Reid and Congresswoman Vucanovich by proxy)

indicated, at the Las Vegas hearing, their opposition to Notice 96-11

as written, noting safety concerns as well as ones related to

economics, NEPA compliance, and the lack of quiet aircraft technology

incentives.

The issues raised by Senator McCain and the Arizona delegation were

also addressed by others testifying at the field hearings. There were

points and counterpoints raised as to the effectiveness of SFAR 50-2 in

substantially restoring natural quiet in the Grand Canyon, as mandated

by Public Law 100-91; NPS's definition of substantial restoration (50

percent or more of the park quiet at least 75-100 percent of the day);

methodology involved in measuring and modeling noise impacts; potential

impacts of the new rule on safety in the SFRA; effects of the new rule

on general aviation; potential adverse impacts of the rule on the

economy of Las Vegas and Nevada; adequacy of the consultation process

with Native American tribes; and controls on other users of the park

vis-a-vis air tour overflights.

Many of the air tour operators, some of whom had also voiced

concerns about the safety implications of Notice 96-11, predicted dire

economic consequences for the industry if the NPRM, which included

possible caps on operations, curfews, and two additional flight-free

zones, went into effect. In response to the operators' economic

concerns, Senator McCain reminded them that they had unanimously

opposed his bill, which became Public Law 100-91, in 1987, claiming

that it would put the entire industry out of business. Instead, he

noted, the number of air tour overflights of Grand Canyon had increased

from approximately 40,000 per annum in 1987 to the 95,000 reported by

the Arizona Republic newspaper during the 12-month period which ended

September 30, 1996.

Aside from a commitment to air safety, perhaps the only issue on

which all of the interests represented at the field hearings could

agree was the need for quiet aircraft technology incentives for both

manufacturers and air tour operators. From Senator McCain and members

of the Nevada Congressional delegation to the Native American Indian

tribal leaders and from environmental groups to air tour operators and

aircraft manufacturers, as well as aviation and tourism industry

representatives, quieter aircraft technology incentives were viewed as

integral to efforts to substantially restore natural quiet to the Grand

Canyon while maintaining a viable air tour industry. Among specific

suggestions made were providing more attractive routes to quieter

aircraft, setting aside a portion of air tour overflight fees to

provide loans to air tour operators to invest in further quiet aircraft

technology, and lowering fees for those operators using quieter

aircraft.

The FAA has considered the statements made at the hearings in

developing this final rule and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

regarding Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of

the Grand Canyon National Park found in this part of today's Federal

Register.

[[Page 69305]]

Consultation with Affected Native American Tribes

The Navajo, Hualapai, and Havasupai Native American reservations

border GCNP, and several other tribes have cultural ties to the Grand

Canyon. The DOT and DOI have satisfied their obligation to consult with

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

possible effects of this rule, as required under applicable statutes,

regulations, and Executive Orders. Although they did not elect to do

so, the tribes were invited to participate as cooperating agencies in

the environmental review process. Their major concerns were recognition

of their sovereignty over the airspace, air access, potential noise

increases over tribal lands and religious/historic/cultural sites, and

the lack of early coordination during the development of the proposed

rule. Both DOT and DOI have addressed tribal concerns, including the

effects of the rule on economic opportunities of the tribes, in

preparing this final rule. The consultation process, and the mitigation

commitments made to address tribal concerns, are described in detail in

the final EA, a copy of which has been included in the docket for the

final rule.

The consultation process, which began with the development of

Notice 96-11, for reduction of aircraft noise, will continue. This will

include a dialogue in which potentially affected tribes will have the

opportunity to identify, on a confidential basis, any religious,

cultural, or historic area that may be potentially affected by

significant noise increases. The FAA has committed to mitigate any such

impacts during the development of air tour routes for GCNP.

Public Input

As previously mentioned, on July 31, 1996, the FAA published Notice

96-11 in the Federal Register proposing several actions to reduce the

impact of aircraft noise on GCNP and assist the NPS in its efforts to

substantially restore natural quiet and experience in the park.

Interested persons were invited to participate in this rulemaking

action by submitting written data, views, or arguments. In response to

this notice, the FAA received approximately 14,000 comments. Almost 95

percent of these comments were form letters, or virtual form letters,

stating a position either favoring restrictions on air tour overflights

or opposing them, with no substantive discussion. While all comments

received were considered before issuing this final rule, the specific

comments addressed in this preamble are those that contained

substantive information.

The following is an analysis of the pertinent general comments

received in response to Notice 96-11. Later in the document the FAA has

included a section-by-section analysis of the rule, including a

discussion of the relevant comments related to each of these sections,

and rationale of the final rule.

Discussion of Pertinent General Comments

Comments were received from industry associations (e.g., Grand

Canyon Air Tour Council, United States Air Tour Association, Aircraft

Owners and Pilots Association, Helicopter Association International);

environmental groups (e.g., Sierra Club, National Parks and

Conservation Association); air tour operators; aircraft manufacturers;

government officials; and Native American tribes (e.g., Havasupai

Tribe, Hualapai Tribe).

Approximately one-third of the comments support overflight

restrictions to reduce aircraft noise over GCNP. Many of these

commenters say that, even with the current SFAR, the noise problem has

worsened as the air tour industry has grown. These commenters want to

see the proposal strengthened to preserve the natural quiet of the park

and recommend permanent caps on the number of air tour flights (based

on the number of flights in 1987 when Public Law 100-91 was passed);

expansion of the flight-free zones; stricter curfews; and incentives

for the use of quiet aircraft (combined with caps and curfews).

Approximately two-thirds of the comments oppose further overflight

restrictions. These commenters argue that SFAR 50-2 has been successful

in reducing noise (as shown by visitor surveys); air tour operations

allow everyone access to the park and have less environmental impact on

the park than do ground visitors; the proposed flight corridors and

flight-free zones could create safety problems by causing denser

traffic patterns; and the air tour industry would face severe economic

consequences.

Statutory Authorities

A few commenters state that Notice 96-11 is basically allowing the

NPS to regulate the airspace over the national parks, thereby diluting

the authority of the FAA. Others state that the FAA has no authority to

regulate noise over the national parks, that the FA Act (now codified

in 49 U.S.C.) authorizes the FAA to regulate safety, and to regulate

noise only as it concerns aircraft certification.

Several commenters focus on the authority provided in Public Law

100-91. Some of these commenters do not believe that Public Law 100-91

gives the FAA the authority to do more than it has already done in

issuing SFAR 50-2. One commenter states that since Public Law 100-91

requires NPS to submit its report on the effectiveness of the airspace

management plan to Congress, only Congress was intended to review the

NPS recommendations and provide specific guidance on what further

agency action, if any, would be appropriate.

A presenter at the Congressional hearing, as well as an individual

from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA commenting to the docket, adds

that Public Law 102-581 (The Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise

Improvement Transportation Act of 1992) (also related to aircraft noise

at the Grand Canyon), called for a report to Congress outlining the

FAA's plan to manage increased air traffic over GCNP. As in Public Law

100-91, this report would be used only by Congress for any further

action. Another commenter states that the FAA and NPS have done only

half of the task mandated under Public Law 100-91 since they have not

yet proposed the air tour routes that will be followed. An air tour

operator comments that the proposal does not comply with Public Law

100-91 because the statute requires an overflight system that will

substantially protect the ground visitor from aircraft noise, while the

proposal is based on a standard called percent time audible.

One commenter believes that the FAA has violated the Administrative

Procedure Act by not providing a reasonable opportunity for public

comment on the meanings of the terms ``natural quiet'' and

``substantial restoration of natural quiet.''

Two commenters state that the proposal violates the Americans with

Disabilities Act and provisions of the FA Act that guarantee air access

to elderly and disabled persons. Counter to these commenters, another

commenter states that most handicapped visitors see the park from the

rim overlooks and paved rim trails and that such visitors should not be

an excuse for the park's inability to achieve its Congressional

mandated goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet.

FAA Response: The FAA has broad authority and responsibility to

regulate the operation of aircraft and the use of the navigable

airspace and to establish safety standards for and regulate the

certification of airmen, aircraft, and air carriers. 49 U.S.C. 40101,

et seq. Subtitle VII of Title 49 U.S.C. provides guidance

[[Page 69306]]

to the Administrator in carrying out this responsibility. Moreover, the

FAA's authority is not limited to regulation for aviation safety and

efficiency.

The FAA has authority to manage the navigable airspace to protect

persons and property on the ground. The Administrator is authorized to

``prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft

(including regulations on safe altitudes) for-- * * * (B) protecting

individuals and property on the ground.'' 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2). In

addition, under 49 U.S.C. 44715(a) the Administrator of the FAA, in

consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, is directed to

issue such regulations as the FAA may find necessary to control and

abate aircraft noise and sonic boom to ``relieve and protect the public

health and welfare.''

The FAA construes these provisions, taken together, to authorize

the adoption of this regulation. It is the general policy of the

Federal Government that the FAA, like other agencies, will exercise its

authority in a manner that will enhance the environment. Section 101 of

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 42 U.S.C.

4321 and Executive Order 11514, as amended by Executive Order 11991.

The unambiguous intent of Public Law 100-91 with respect to the

Grand Canyon was for the FAA to work cooperatively with the NPS to

devise a plan that would safely provide for a substantial restoration

of natural quiet while maintaining a viable air tour industry. For this

reason Sections 3(b)(3) (A) and (B) provided for an evaluation of the

initial plan and any necessary revisions based upon that evaluation.

Because the report recommended regulatory action rather than

legislative action, the FAA was not constrained to wait for

Congressional response. For GCNP, the law specifically addressed the

substantial restoration of natural quiet, not the protection of ground

visitors.

Public Law 102-581 required the FAA to submit to Congress a report

on increased air traffic over GCNP. This report, like the report

required to be submitted by Public Law 100-91, did not limit the

ability of the FAA to use its general regulatory authority to take

appropriate actions in implementing provisions of either report.

Indeed, Public Law 102-581 specifically requires a plan of action to

``manage increased air traffic over Grand Canyon National Park to

ensure aviation safety and to meet the requirements established by such

Section 3 of the Act of August 18, 1987, including any measures to

encourage or require the use of quiet aircraft technology by commercial

air tour operators.'' Public Law 102-581, Section 134(b)(4).

Both the FAA and NPS recognize that additional work will be

necessary in delineation of air tour routes to be followed as well as

other actions. In consultation with the NPS, FAA has proposed air tour

routes in a separate notice issued concurrently with this final rule.

Additionally, in a separate Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued

today, further actions to facilitate the substantial restoration of

natural quiet to the Grand Canyon have been proposed. Both this final

rule and the NPRM acknowledge the need for the development of a Noise

Management Plan to further mitigate impacts from commercial

overflights. These actions are also taken in full recognition that the

restoration of natural quiet to the Canyon will require these

additional steps to meet the definitions established for natural quiet.

The rationale for the establishment of the percent time audible is

included in the NPS report to Congress. While this methodology may

differ from some measurements, it assures protection of the ground

visitor from aircraft noise. Furthermore, the threshold of audibility

used in the NPS model is louder than the level which would be detected

by an attentive listener, guaranteeing that virtually all visitors

would notice the noise while engaged in normal visitor activities.

The terms ``natural quiet'' and ``substantial restoration of

natural quiet'' are taken from language in Public Law 100-91. These

terms were defined in the Report to Congress issued by the NPS under

the direction of that Act. That report has been available to the public

and its role in the development of this regulatory proposal has been

clearly defined in previous notices, including the ANPRM on this rule.

The concepts of ``natural quiet'' and ``substantial restoration of

natural quiet'' have been the subject of academic research, agency

disclosure and adversarial dialogue for a number of years and are used

as recognized technical benchmarks in the analysis of the effects of

this rule. As such, the terms do not need additional comment under the

Administrative Procedure Act.

In addition, the Grand Canyon Enlargement Act specifically provides

that the Department of Interior shall submit to the FAA and EPA

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44715 any recommendations for rules or

regulations or other actions he believes appropriate to protect the

public health, welfare, and safety or natural environment within the

park. After reviewing the submission of the Secretary, the FAA is to

take appropriate action.

This action does not violate provisions of the Americans with

Disabilities Act or any other guarantees of air access to elderly or

disabled persons. The disabled and the elderly will still have a

variety of opportunities to view the Grand Canyon by air. In addition,

opportunities for ground visits to GCNP will also be as available as

they are at present. Provisions for ground access include issuance of

special permits to the elderly and handicapped for access to areas

closed to automobiles at certain times of the year. Visitor facilities

within the park, including overnight accommodations, restaurants and

developments are accessible to the handicapped and the elderly.

Impact on Tribal Lands

An individual from a local office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA) and representatives of Native American tribes affected by this

rulemaking state that the FAA and NPS have violated certain treaties,

statutes, and Executive Orders by not consulting with the affected

tribes during the development of Notice 96-11 and by not analyzing the

impact the proposed rule would have on these tribes and their lands.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that treaties, statutes, and

executive orders have been violated by not consulting with affected

Native American tribes. Public involvement is an important part of the

rulemaking process. Public hearing activities have included public

meetings with interested parties and consultation with Native

Americans. The FAA has not yet received concurrence from the Arizona

Historic Preservation Officer and the Tribal Historic Preservation

Office for the Hualapai Tribe in a determination of no adverse effect

pursuant to Section 106. The FAA will continue to consult and work with

Native American Nations and Tribes during development of the air tour

routes to address any requested measures to minimize noise increases

over specifically identified traditional cultural sites as part of the

Section 106 process. This includes areas potentially affected by

traffic and air tour routes outside the Flight Free Zones.

An initial determination of no adverse effect by the FAA was based

upon an analysis of cultural resources in the vicinity of the GCNP as

identified by the NPS and knowledge shared by Native American tribes

with comtemporary and ancestral involvement with the Grand Canyon.

Native Americans tribes may have been reluctant to identify the

locations of other specific sites of concern due to a desire to limit

public access and preserve their sacred character and integrity. The

FAA

[[Page 69307]]

commits to preserve the confidentiality of the locations of any

specifically identified traditional cultural sites that the Native

Americans elect to disclose to the FAA during consultation to establish

the air tour routes. The FAA further commits to complete Section 106

consultation before it finalizes and permanently implements the air

tour routes and to adopt all measures necessary to support a

determination of no adverse effect. The FAA will also adopt all

measures necessary to assure that the routes developed to implement the

proposed final rule do not substantially interfere with the use of

sacred religious sites of the Native American tribes in the vicinity of

the GCNP.

As discussed in detail in Chapter 4.2 of the Environmental

Assessment (EA), the FAA will continue to consult and work with Native

American Tribes pursuant to Section 106, during development of the air

tour routes to address any requested measures to minimize noise

increases over traditional cultural properties as part of the Section

106 process. This includes areas potentially affected by traffic and

air tour routes outside the Flight Free Zones, like the 10-12 miles

radius around the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers

that was identified by the Hopi Tribe.

The FAA will protect any confidentiality requested to limit public

access and preserve the character and integrity of sacred sites. The

FAA will complete Section 106 consultation before it finalizes and

permanently implements the air tour routes and will adopt all measures

necessary to support a determination of no adverse effect. The FAA will

also adopt all measures necessary to assure that the routes developed

to implement the proposed final rule do not substantially interfere

with the religious practices of the Native American tribes.

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

announcing a public meeting to provide the interested parties with an

opportunity to comment on improving SFAR 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.

The FAA sponsored public meetings, in Scottsdale, Arizona, on

September 16 and Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 19, 1996, to receive

comments on the NPRM. These meetings were announced in the Federal

Register on August 30 (61 FR 45921) and in newspapers in Phoenix,

Flagstaff, and Kingman, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada, on several

dates in early September.

On August 27 and 28, 1996, the FAA hosted a meeting in Flagstaff,

Arizona, at which tribal representatives were given the opportunity to

express their views on the rule. FAA invited two representatives each

from the Hualapai, Havasupai, Hopi, San Juan Southern Paiute, Paiute of

Utah, and Kaibab Piaute Tribes, the Pueblo of Zuni, and the Navajo

Nation. During the meetings, the Native American representatives were

given a detailed briefing by the FAA on changes proposed in the NPRM.

Following the briefing, there was a question-and-answer session where

FAA and NPS representatives fielded questions on the revised rule.

Minutes of the meeting were provided to each tribe that was invited.

Subsequently, from October 14 to 21, 1996, representatives of the

FAA met on-site in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah with representatives

of each tribe to further assess the concerns of the Native Americans.

Each tribe was offered a briefing on the proposed rule and given the

opportunity to ask questions of the FAA representatives.

Other opportunities have been provided for the tribes to make their

views known to the DOT. The Hualapai Tribe submitted comments to the

Advance Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (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. The Hualapai Tribe commented on the

need for a socio-economic analysis of the proposed flight restrictions

on the Hualapai Nation. The Chairman of the Hualapai Tribe spoke at the

Las Vegas public meeting. Written comments have been received into the

docket from the Hualapai, Hopi, and Havasupai Tribes.

Additionally, 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 on several occasions and heard

first hand many of their specific concerns.

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-2

Several commenters believe that SFAR 50-2 is working and further

regulation is not necessary. According to these commenters complaints

about noise have been practically eliminated and no accidents have

occurred since the SFAR's implementation. Environmentalist groups,

however, state that while SFAR 50-2 has improved natural quiet in the

front country, erosion of natural quiet is occurring in the

backcountry. According to these commenters, Notice 96-11 does not bring

GCNP into compliance with Public Law 100-91.

FAA Response: Notwithstanding the value of SFAR 50-2, this

regulatory action responds to a clear legislative mandate to

substantially restore natural quiet, expressed in Public Law 100-91. As

discussed in Notice 96-11, the NPS Report to Congress was based on a

number of studies evaluating whether SFAR 50-2 resulted in a

substantial restoration of natural quiet. NPS found that, while flight-

free zones have helped to limit the areas where aircraft are audible,

aircraft of all types are still audible for some percentage of the time

at virtually all areas where sound data were collected. NPS also found

a correlation between the percentage of time that aircraft are audible

and how visitors feel about aircraft sound. Even when aircraft are

audible for relatively low percentages of the time, some visitors

notice the aircraft and believe that the sound has interfered with

their appreciation of natural quiet. Finally, in its Report to

Congress, the NPS indicated that if no changes are made to SFAR 50-2,

progress to date in the restoration of natural quiet will be lost due

to an increase in air tour operations. 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. 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. These findings led the NPS to

conclude that the noise mitigation benefits of SFAR 50-2 are being

significantly eroded.

These findings indicate that the current SFAR was not sufficiently

adequate in substantially restoring the natural quiet to GCNP. The FAA

believes that further regulatory action is therefore necessary to best

ensure the substantial restoration of the natural quiet as called for

by Public Law 100-91. Additionally, substantial restoration of natural

quiet will be further advanced by the NPRM and Notice of Availability

of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes for Grand Canyon National Park

[[Page 69308]]

and the Comprehensive Noise Management Plan.

Restoration of Natural Quiet

While some commenters are concerned that the proposed action goes

too far in regulating the air tour industry in order to satisfy a small

group of park users, others believe that it does not go far enough.

Some commenters state that the proposal, at best, would only modestly

improve natural quiet. Other comments are concerned that

``overregulation'' in this instance would set a precedent for national

parks all over the country.

Another commenter states that the proposal would not achieve the

goal of Public Law 100-91 because it would not meet the NPS definition

of ``natural quiet.'' According to some commenters the NPS definition

of ``substantial restoration of natural quiet'' is not supported by

Public Law 100-91 or the Congressional record. According to these

commenters NPS has separated the concept of ``natural quiet'' from

complaints from park visitors by making ``natural quiet'' a park

resource that must be protected whether noise is disturbing park

visitors or not. These commenters object to the NPS definition and to

using it as a justification for rulemaking. One commenter states that

the FAA is on record as having concerns about the NPS definition and

recommends withdrawal of Notice 96-11 until the FAA develops a proposed

definition and invites comment.

One commenter finds the NPS definition too liberal since it allows

half the park to be noisy 25 percent of the day and the other half 100

percent of the day. A presenter at the Congressional hearing says that

the intent of Public Law 100-91 was to restore the natural quiet within

the flight-free zones only and not the entire park.

The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (GCATC), which represents a

number of air tour operators, states that, because the proposed

restrictions do not apply to NPS-operated and other non-tour aircraft

(e.g., military, Native American reservations), these aircraft could

consume the entire 25 percent audible aircraft cap as defined in

``substantial restoration of natural quiet.'' Thus, air tour operators

would be even further restricted.

FAA Response: The NPS defined ``natural quiet'' and identified it

as a natural resource in its 1986 ``Aircraft Management Plan

Environmental Assessment for Grand Canyon National Park'' which

underwent extensive public review in 1986 (i.e., ``the absence of man-

made sounds * * * considered a natural resource''). The term was

subsequently discussed in numerous public documents, which have also

undergone public review, including NPS Management Policies (1988), and

the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning

Overflights of Units of the National Park System published in the

Federal Register on March 17, 1994.

The authority of the NPS to define the ``substantial restoration of

natural quiet'' is recognized in Public Law 100-91, Public Law 102-581,

and in the general authorities of the NPS. The NPS's Management

Policies (1988, page 1:3) states that the terms ``park resources and

values'' refer to the ``full spectrum of tangible and intangible

attributes'', including ``intangible qualities'' such as natural quiet,

for which parks have been established and are being managed. National

park areas are set aside to preserve their resources as well as their

special qualities and experiences unimpaired for the enjoyment of

present and future generations. The NPS has the authority and

responsibility to manage these areas, including their resources, values

and visitors.

The NPS definition of ``substantial restoration of natural quiet''

involves time, area, and acoustic components. Because many park

visitors typically spend limited time in particular sound environments

during specific park visits, the amount of aircraft noise present

during those specific time periods can have great implications for the

visitor's opportunity to experience natural quiet in those particular

times and spaces. Those visitors with longer exposures, such as

backcountry and river users, have more opportunity to experience a

greater variety of natural ambient and aircraft sound conditions, but

typically they move through a number of sound environments. Based on

its studies, the NPS concluded that the visitors' opportunity to

experience natural quiet during their visits and the extent of noise

impact depends on a number of factors. These factors include the number

of flights, the sound levels of those aircraft, as well as other sound

sources at the natural sound environment, and the duration (or amount

of time) during that visit that aircraft were audible in specific

locations. Integrated measures of noise (such as DNL and Leq) are

commonly used to quantify time varying noises such as are described

above. Most of the FAA's experience has been in assessing noise impacts

in airport and residential environments where people are exposed to a

variety of sound conditions in the same basic sound environment over a

very long period of time. However, because park environments and the

set of conditions typically experienced by park visitors is completely

different, the NPS concluded that these integrated measures were, by

themselves, inadequate to represent the effect of overflights on park

environments and a person's visit. However, the FAA and the NPS agree

that Leq integrated over a short time period correlates with park

visits and can be useful in assessing park noise impacts.

This action only considers the air tour contribution to the GCNP

noise. In other words, noise contributed from other sources is treated

separately for purposes of noise modeling analysis.

The NPS will continue to strictly control its rescue, law

enforcement, maintenance and critical resource management overflights

to minimize their number and effect on park resources and visitors.

These flights are made for lifesaving and essential management purposes

and will not be a factor in any restrictions on air tour operations.

Discrimination Against Air Tourists vs. Other Users

A number of commenters state that SFAR 50-2 and Notice 96-11

discriminate against air tour visitors to the park, who have little

environmental impact on the park, while ignoring the noise, litter, and

pollution problems associated with ground users. A few commenters

believe that NPS is purposely trying to eliminate air tours from the

park. Other commenters point out that air tour visitors are not being

discriminated against since all commercial enterprises that use the

Grand Canyon are restricted.

FAA Response: The FAA does not agree. The actions by the FAA in

addressing mitigation measures associated with noise from commercial

air tour operations is additive to actions being taken by the NPS to

preserve and protect for future generations the resources of GCNP.

Recent actions include the development of a General Management Plan

which will greatly restrict automobile use in congested rim areas,

provide high occupancy public transit, and establish pedestrian and

bicycle trails. Other actions have included restrictions on the

operation of diesel buses, on diesel and steam locomotives serving the

park, and on outboard engines on river rafts. In addition, the NPS has

a long standing administrative practice in the control and mitigation

of impacts to resources resulting from visitation through the use of

reservation systems for campgrounds and other sites both on the rim and

in the inner canyon, as well as providing for times when use types are

restricted,

[[Page 69309]]

such as the ``oar only'' season for rafting on the Colorado River. As

such, use allocation is a common practice within NPS areas in order to

meet the demands of the general provisions of acts relating to the

administration of National Park Service Areas (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) as

well as specific park legislation such as Public Law 100-91.

Further, it was not the intent of Public Law 100-91 to ban aircraft

from overflying the Grand Canyon. In this regard, the FAA believes that

viewing of the canyon from the air is a legitimate and valuable means

of appreciating the beauty of the Grand Canyon. This policy is

supported by the legislative history of Public Law 100-91 and the

objectives states by DOI in its December 1987 recommendations to the

FAA. The agency further believes that the resources of the canyon can

be protected without an exclusion of aircraft, which would have a major

adverse impact on air travel through this area of the southwest. It is

the intent of the rule adopted to permit the continuation of aerial

viewing of the canyon, and air travel through the area, in a manner

consistent with the stated purposes of section 3 of Public Law 100-91

to substantially restore the natural quiet of the Grand Canyon within

the boundaries of the national park.

The NPS has had a consistent position for years regarding air tours

at the Grand Canyon. As stated on page 184 of the 1994 NPS Report to

Congress, one of the six management objectives for the park is:

``Provide a quality aerial viewing experience while protecting park

resources (including natural quiet) and minimizing conflicts with other

park visitors.''

Number of Operators and Operator Fees

An environmentalist group states that one third of the Grand Canyon

air tour operators dodge fees and that air tour numbers may be twice

those reported. Another commenter stated that tribes in the GCNP

vicinity should be able to regulate and collect fees for the airspace

on their lands as the NPS does.

FAA Response: Fee collection is beyond the scope of Notice 96-11.

Through the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Congressional

action required the NPS to collect a commercial tour use fee of $25 for

aircraft with 25 seats or less and $50 for aircraft with more than 25

seats. Collection and enforcement of this fee is the responsibility of

the NPS and the NPS can use all information available to assure that

fees are collected in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, payment of

fees has no direct relationship to this rule. Regarding the collection

of fees by Native Americans, Congressional action would be required to

authorize the collection of an overflight fee.

Noise Level Surveys, Monitoring, Studies, and Modeling

Some commenters state that the NPS overstated the impact of air

tour overflights on park visitors in its 1992 visitor survey. For

example, the commenter noted that backcountry users do not venture out

of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone, and some complaints were

collected at a time when an aerial search was being made for an escaped

convict and NPS service flights were on-going. Furthermore, the

commenters complained that the NPS made no attempt to distinguish what

type of flights were causing the annoyance.

Other commenters state that the NPS-solicited surveys show an

unusually high number of complaints because more complaints are

received from solicited surveys than from unsolicited reports.

Another commenter says that some of the survey questions were

biased because they used the word ``noise'' instead of ``sound'' (e.g.,

visitor perceptions of aircraft noise versus aircraft sound).

Industry commenters also express doubts about the noise monitoring

studies contracted by the NPS. Several commenters state that monitoring

sites were directly under, or in close proximity to, the tour routes

flown by air tour operators as directed by SFAR 50-2.

Several commenters state that although Public Law 100-91 directed

the NPS to distinguish between the impacts caused by sightseeing

aircraft and other types of aircraft, the noise monitoring results do

not distinguish the amount of noise attributable to different types of

aircraft.

Industry commenters also object to the NPS model for noise. One

commenter states that the noise model used for establishing predicted

aircraft noise impacts eliminated the coefficient of lateral over-the-

ground attenuation. BIA states that the NPS established no baseline

other than ambient sound levels, which does not differentiate among the

impacts on visitors from different types of flights. Another commenter

states that the noise analysis is flawed because it was based on NPS

estimates of fleet sizes, aircraft use levels, and certificated noise

levels for aircraft in that fleet, which do not necessarily indicate

the actual noise an aircraft will produce in flight.

FAA Response: The NPS noise level surveys, dose-response studies,

and acoustic modeling were conducted by internationally-respected

acoustical research firms known for the quality of their work. These

firms advised the agency on the design, analysis, and conduct of these

surveys and studies. The NPS consulted extensively with these firms to

ensure that the conclusions in the NPS report to Congress were drawn

directly from study results. The studies were based on standard

research methodologies, including statistically valid random samples,

and have been reviewed by scientists not affiliated with the NPS or the

FAA. They represent the only large-scale, scientifically sound studies

of park noise environments and park visitor reactions to aircraft noise

in outdoor recreation settings.

Acoustic modeling is the accepted approach for addressing noise

concerns over large areas such as Grand Canyon. Noise level

measurements only reflect individual site conditions but can be

productively used to improve the accuracy of the modeling. Both the FAA

and NPS used a standard aircraft noise database and made adjustments

based on actual field measurements. The measured ambient background

sound levels (the baseline for natural quiet taken from Grand Canyon

noise level measurements) were factored into FAA and NPS modeling

efforts, and both models were able to factor in terrain effects, albeit

to different extents. Finally, data from an FAA survey of air tour

operators was used by both agencies to provide the aircraft types,

numbers, and routes used in the acoustic modeling. Although the FAA and

NPS noise models are quite different, the FAA found sufficient

convergence in modeling results to suggest that valid conclusions can

be drawn from both models.

NPS acoustic measurements found that the sound of aircraft was

measurable for some part of the time at virtually all areas where sound

data was collected, including a wide variety of locations and

environments well within the flight-free zones as well as near the

flight routes. This is consistent with NPS modeling which suggested

that aircraft sound can carry 13-16 miles in the eastern end of the

Canyon and even further on the western end--enough to fully penetrate

to the center of every flight-free zone created by SFAR 50-2.

Results from the 1992 survey show that almost 75 percent of fall

backcountry and river oar visitors who heard aircraft responded that

they were moderately to extremely annoyed (NPS Report to Congress, Page

139). The NPS

[[Page 69310]]

did not anticipate this level of annoyance from groups supposedly

protected by the SFAR and was an important indication to the NPS that

additional action was needed to protect quiet in the park. For all

categories of visitors, the stronger category ``interference,'' was

selected more frequently than the weaker category, ``annoyance.'' Of

the visitors who heard aircraft, over 90 percent of fall backcountry

visitors and 100 percent of river oar visitors responded that aircraft

noise interfered with their appreciation of natural quiet (NPS Report

to Congress, Page 192). Both the dose-response study and the survey

found visitor results varied by activity and site.

Aircraft noise is the subject of the second largest number of

complaints in the park. Complaints are an indicator that a problem may

exist, but scientifically valid surveys have been consistently shown to

be necessary to accurately measure visitor reactions.

The NPS found that noise from the air tour routes in place under

SFAR 50-2 is clearly audible (and was measured) from many locations

within Flight-free zones, accounting for the results cited by some

commenters. The search for the escaped convict referred to did not

affect the study which was suspended during that period.

NPS-contracted acoustic monitoring was conducted with a technician

recording the type of aircraft observed and measured. The tour flights

all occurred on standard routes and altitudes and were easy to separate

from any other aircraft, such as NPS flights and high altitude

commercial jets. In fact, pages 187-188 of the NPS report to Congress

provide a breakdown of the amount of time aircraft were audible by

aircraft type during the study, and also show the variety of sites both

within flight-free zones and under or near flight corridors.

In the NPS deliberations that led to development of the survey

questions the question of inducing bias by the use of terms, or by the

wording or sequence of questions, was very carefully considered and

tested before the study. The term ``noise'' was used in the survey

questionnaires very carefully to allow correlations with the large body

of aircraft noise research conducted primarily in airport environs. The

term ``sound'' was used where possible, and the analysis of the

responses suggested that the terms did not affect the results.

The data and the modeling on which the proposed rule is based are

scientifically valid and the best available. The monitoring program

resulting from this rule will also provide additional data which will

help to further validate and refine the modeling.

In formulating the Comprehensive Noise Management Plan for GCNP,

the FAA and the NPS expect to conduct further research regarding

visitors' reactions to noise and natural quiet issues to validate the

current studies and the two agencies' respective modeling systems.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Final Rule

The following is a brief summary of the major proposals, and the

comments, received. The FAA's response to those comments and the final

rule action follow.

Section 93.301 Applicability

Proposed Sec. 93.301 described the lateral and vertical dimensions

of the SFRA. Notice 96-11 solicited comments on modifying the

dimensions of the SFRA by extending the SFRA north-northeast of the

confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers; extending the

SFRA southward below the Bright Angel and Desert View Flight-free

Zones; extending 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; and increasing the altitude of the SFRA ceiling from

14,499 to 17,999 feet MSL.

Comments

Heli USA states that the revised SFRA could affect access to the

Grand Canyon West airport.

An individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA says that the

extension of the SFRA to the north-northeast of the Little Colorado and

Colorado Rivers would introduce air traffic into an area outside the

current SFRA, over the Marble Canyon and Navajo land, which did not

have traffic before.

The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation

Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots

Association (AOPA) object to the proposed extension of the SFRA

ceiling. EAA states that the FAA has not presented any information

showing that any commercial sightseeing aircraft are using or plan to

use these altitudes. GAMA says that requiring turbo-charged piston-

engine and turboprop turbine-powered aircraft that have optimum

operating altitudes between 14,500 and 17,000 feet to take alternate

routes around the SFRA will add considerable costs to implementing the

rule. AOPA says that the proposed requirement is discriminatory towards

general aviation because it forces all general aviation flights over

the Grand Canyon to take place at a higher altitude than flights by

commercial air tour operators.

Another commenter says that Notice 96-11 is counter to FAA's

General Aviation Policy Statement (adopted by the FAA Administrator in

1995), which calls for fostering general aviation and maintaining

safety through voluntary compliance and other means to reduce the

regulatory burden on general aviation.

Another commenter contends that Notice 96-11 will impact many other

aircraft who operate across Northern Arizona between 14,500 MSL and the

base of Class A airspace under VFR. The commenter adds that increasing

the SFRA altitude would make it impossible to fly over the SFRA without

obtaining an ATC clearance to operate in Class A airspace.

The Soaring Society of America, Inc. (SSA) opposes the proposed

rule as it applies to quiet and unobtrusive civil aircraft such as

sailplanes and gliders. Since airplane and helicopter sightseeing

overflights are the perceived cause of the noise problem in the Grand

Canyon, the SSA believes the regulations should be tailored

specifically toward such aircraft and the FAA should permit sailplanes

and gliders to continue to operate under the current SFAR 50-2. SSA

refers to the Department of the Interior's Report on Effects of

Aircraft overflights on the National Park System which suggests to that

society that sailplane ``noise'' is approximately equal to daytime

ambient noise, therefore nothing will be gained by burdening sailplanes

and gliders with the proposed rule.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: In 1989, the FAA revised the

southern boundaries of the SFRA in the West Canyon area to establish a

corridor to the Grand Canyon West Canyon Airport. This corridor was

designed to permit access to the airport to assist the economic

development of the Hualapai tribes. Nothing in this final rule modifies

the corridor that was established in 1989. The FAA will reserve its

response to comments regarding specific routes until after the comment

period closes for the Notice of Proposed Routes.

Increasing the SFRA ceiling from 14,499 feet MSL upward to but not

including 18,000 feet MSL is intended to prevent commercial sightseeing

operators from circumventing the intent of this rule by overflying the

fly free zones between 14,500 feet MSL and 17,999 feet MSL.

[[Page 69311]]

The upward expansion of the SFRA does not impose a barrier to

general aviation aircraft. The effect of the expansion is to regulate

commercial sightseeing flight operations pursuant to Sec. 93.315 which

permits only those operations authorized in operations specifications.

The Grand Canyon attracts an unusual level of air traffic. The FAA

continues to be concerned that safety could be impacted by the

concentration of air traffic, including powered and nonpowered aircraft

over GCNP. Therefore, it opts not to relax SFRA operating requirements

for sailplanes and gliders. The FAA adopts the SFRA as proposed.

Section 93.305 Flight-Free Zones and Flight Corridors

Proposed Sec. 93.305 described the lateral and vertical dimensions

of the proposed flight-free zones; proposed creating two new flight-

free zones: The Sanup Flight-free Zone and the Marble Canyon Flight-

free Zone; proposed merging the Toroweap/Thunder River and Shinumo

Flight-free Zones and extending this zone to the park boundary;

proposed expanding Desert View Flight-free Zone to the north and east

to the GCNP boundary; and proposed extending the current Bright Angel

Flight-free Zone to the north to the GCNP boundary.

Proposed Sec. 93.305 also described the five flight corridors that

allow access through the canyon area for general aviation and transient

operations and routes for commercial sightseeing flights.

The FAA proposed to add two new flight corridors in the proposed

Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone. In addition, the FAA proposed to close

the Fossil Canyon Corridor, extend the Zuni Point Corridor into a Y-

shape in the north, and shift the southern portion of Dragon Corridor

to the west. The FAA also proposed that commercial sightseeing aircraft

would be allowed to operate in only one direction in the Zuni Point

Corridor.

General Comments on Flight-free Zones and Flight Corridors

Safety Comments: Several commenters express concerns about safety

if the proposed rule is implemented. According to these commenters, the

combination of restricted corridors, changes in route structure, and

curfews would increase the density of aircraft in the available

airspace, thereby increasing the potential for a mid-air collision.

The NTSB commented that the compression of air traffic into smaller

airspace would limit safe maneuverability in marginal weather

conditions, funnel air traffic into fewer routes, and in some areas,

compress slower single-engine airplanes, helicopters, and higher

performance airplanes into the same airspace. This would increase the

likelihood of midair collisions in GCNP. The NTSB adds that the FAA

should systematically analyze the possible effects of the proposed

changes on air safety and ensure that these results are considered

before adopting the proposal.

One commenter disagrees with the claim that the proposed rule would

create an unsafe environment. The commenter points to the FAA's 1995

Report to Congress, ``Report on the Study on Increased Air Traffic over

Grand Canyon National Park,'' which states that it would be highly

unlikely that operations would ever approach saturation level. The

commenter also points out that the proposed rule allows pilots to make

evasive flight maneuvers necessary to maintain safety.

General Aviation: One commenter objects to the proposed flight-free

zones because they will effectively ban general aviation from flying

over the park. The average general aviation aircraft is not equipped to

operate at the minimum altitudes required by the proposal. According to

the commenter, the proposed new flight-free areas will prohibit general

aviation aircraft from flying directly from Las Vegas to either

Albuquerque or Farmington. The commenter asks that general aviation

aircraft be allowed to overfly the flight-free areas at altitudes above

10,499 MSL.

Native American Tribal Lands: In a statement given at the

Congressional hearing, representatives of the Havasupai Tribe say that

a foreseeable result of the proposed changes will push overflights

south of GCNP resulting in adverse environmental effects. In a comment

subsequently submitted to the docket, representatives of this Tribe say

that while reducing the negative impacts of overflights by regulating

the airspace within the park is worthwhile, the result will be to

increase aircraft noise outside the park, including the Havasupai

reservation. The commenter adds that there has been no analysis of the

environmental effects of these regulations outside the park boundaries

and that ``the FAA's unjustified rush to action must be slowed.''

Other General Comments: Two commenters remind the FAA that flight-

free zones are not noise free zones since noise travels 13 to 16 miles;

nor are they entirely flight free since high flying aircraft still

overfly them. These commenters point out that while flight corridors

are necessary, they are not a solution for the noise problem since they

heavily affect several scenic areas in the park, such as Point

Imperial, Nankoweap, Cape Final, Unkar, Hermit, Boucher, and Crystal

Rapids trails.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The comments regarding safety

express similar concerns: (1) Flight-free zones require changes to

routes, (2) flight-free zones create smaller available airspace, (3)

the effect of curfews on the density of air traffic, (4) increased

possibility of midair collisions because of route changes and combining

aircraft of differing flight characteristics. Each of these general

areas of concern will be addressed separately.

Flight-free zones require changes to routes: The modified and new

flight-free zones are necessary to comply with the mandate of Public

Law 100-91 to achieve substantial restoration of the natural quiet in

GCNP. One of the primary responsibilities of the Las Vegas Flight

Standards District Office (FSDO), through a special unit, is to provide

oversight of the commercial sightseeing operators in the Grand Canyon.

The members of this unit are all highly experienced with this subject

and have worked closely with the commercial sightseeing operators and

the NPS. The Notice of Availability of Proposed Air Tour Routes of GCNP

(Notice of Proposed Routes), which is published simultaneously with

this final rule, explains how interested persons may obtain detailed

information on the routes. The FAA will review the comments received

from the public related to the notice of proposed routes and if

appropriate, make modifications to the routes.

Flight free zones create smaller available airspace: The FAA agrees

with the NTSB that the additional flight-free zones create a smaller

airspace for air tour aircraft. The NTSB is concerned that the smaller

airspace may limit ``safe maneuverability in marginal weather

conditions.'' As in SFAR 50-2, the FAA has specifically included

language in Sec. 93.305, Flight-free zones, that will allow air tour

aircraft to fly within the flight-free zones ``in an emergency or if

otherwise necessary for safety of flight.'' The intent of this language

is to allow flight into a flight-free zone for any safety reason

including emergencies. This language will also enable pilots to deviate

from course to avoid other aircraft and unsafe weather conditions. This

provision will be liberally construed when applied in the interests of

safety. This should resolve any concern about the ability of an

aircraft to maneuver in a smaller available

[[Page 69312]]

airspace. Additionally, the FAA agrees with a commenter that the

airspace has not approached any unsafe saturation level.

The effect of curfews on the density of air traffic: The FAA agrees

that curfews on the west end of GCNP might create a situation whereby

large numbers of aircraft could attempt to enter the air tour routes at

the same time and along the same routes. Based on the FAA's safety

analysis of the air tour flights originating from the Las Vegas area,

the FAA has decided to exempt the routes beginning on the western end

of the park from any curfew.

However, Sec. 93.316(a) prescribes a fixed curfew. Specifically, no

person shall conduct commercial sightseeing operations within the

Dragon and Zuni Corridors during the following periods. (1) Summer

season (May 1-September 30)--6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily; and (2) Winter

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

later in the document.)

Increased possibility of midair collisions because of the changes

and combining aircraft of differing flight characteristics: In light of

these concerns the FAA will change the flow of traffic along the routes

on the eastern side of the park (e.g., Dragon corridor) to a clockwise

direction. This change will prevent conflict with aircraft merging from

other existing and proposed routes. Also, the clockwise direction was

designed for other safety reasons. (See discussion/response on Zuni

Corridor.) More detail is contained in the Notice of Proposed Routes

that is being published simultaneously with this final rule. Regarding

combining aircraft of differing flight characteristics, the FAA will

continue its practice of separating fixed-wing aircraft from rotary-

wing aircraft through altitude restrictions. Experience, cooperation,

and a proactive partnership developed between the commercial

sightseeing operators and the FAA resulted in flight procedures that

are included in the operator's FAA approved operations manual. The FAA

believes that these established procedures will prevent potential

conflicts.

Likewise, for safety, the rule continues to segregate commercial

sightseeing operations from general aviation/transient operations in

the SFRA. Commercial operators, under their operations specifications,

are held to a higher operational proficiency standard that addresses

the complexities of the route systems, terrain, flight corridors,

weather norms, etc. It would be unrealistic to impose an equally high

proficiency standard for the occasional general aviation pilot.

Therefore, the FAA continues to believe that it is necessary to

segregate these communities of operators.

General Comments on Commercial Air Tour Routes

Several commenters state that it is difficult to comment on the

effects of the proposed changes since the proposed routes are not

included in Notice 96-11. Nevertheless, the FAA received some general

comments on potential route changes. Twin Otter says that the FAA has

not proposed one quieter aircraft route, even though the NPS had

proposed, in its Report to Congress, that some flight tour routes be

restricted to ``quiet aircraft only.''

Southwest Safaris says the helicopter operations have been given

preferential treatment by the FAA. They are allowed to fly from 500 to

1,500 feet lower than fixed-wing aircraft and to fly shorter routes in

the middle of the park. According to the commenter, helicopter tours

are on the rise and constitute much of the noise problem.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA agrees with the

comments that the operators should have an opportunity to comment on

proposed routes. Simultaneously with this final rule, the FAA is

publishing a Notice of Proposed Routes, which includes the proposed

tour routes within the Grand Canyon. Operators will have an opportunity

to comment on the proposed routes. The FAA will reserve its response to

comments regarding specific routes until after the comment period

closes for the Notice of Proposed Routes.

Regarding routes for ``quiet aircraft,'' simultaneously with the

final rule, the FAA is publishing an NPRM, Noise Limitations for

Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park,

which proposes certain routes that will be limited to noise efficient

aircraft only.

The FAA disagrees with the comment that helicopter operations have

been given preferential treatment. Regarding altitude, the FAA's long-

standing policy is to separate helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft

because the two classes of aircraft generally have vastly different

flight characteristics. Traditionally helicopters, normally slower and

more maneuverable than fixed-wing aircraft, have been allowed to fly

lower. The FAA intends to continue this safety rationale.

Comments on Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone--Navajo Bridge and North

Canyon Corridors

Three commenters support the Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone. The

Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter states that the flight-free zone would

be of particular benefit, particularly to fishers and river runners,

and believes that the rim rather than the river bank should be the

eastern boundary of the flight-free zone.

Another commenter suggests that the proposed Marble Canyon Flight-

free Zone be modified to protect significant locations such as Blue

Spring or other sacred places in the Little Colorado vicinity. Also,

according to the commenter, no flights should be allowed over popular

side canyon attractions such as North Canyon, South Canyon, Silver

Grotto, and Saddle Canyon.

EAA states that the top of all three sections of this flight-free

zone should be reduced from 14,000 to 8,500 feet MSL to allow general

aviation flights between Las Vegas, Nevada and Farmington, New Mexico.

Twin Otter states that the flight-free zone is too small to be

meaningful and would eliminate a popular air tour route.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA has reconsidered its

proposal for the Marble Canyon flight-free zone in light of the

comments received. The FAA has determined that the proposed flight-free

zone would provide only a minimal noise mitigation benefit because of

the narrow dimensions. In addition, the FAA agrees that the proposed

zone could have impacted general aviation flights between Las Vegas and

Farmington. Therefore, the final rule eliminates the Marble Canyon

Flight-free Zone.

However, the FAA is modifying the minimum sector altitude for this

area. (See discussion under Sec. 93.307, Minimum Flight Altitudes.)

Comments on Desert View Flight-free Zone and Zuni Point Corridor

Several commenters state that making Zuni Point Corridor one-way

may present safety problems due to inclement weather and unexpected

weather changes in the north canyon. GCATA states that because of the

lack of a weather reporting station on the north rim, tour pilots

proceeding through the Zuni Point Corridor will be required to make

weather decisions in the vicinity of the ``Y'' on what direction to

proceed.

Papillon states that the noise problem over the area between the

Little Colorado River confluence and Imperial Point has been

exacerbated by the piston-driven single and multiengine six to nine

passenger airplanes. To clear the north rim, these airplanes climb.

When entering the canyon via Zuni Point

[[Page 69313]]

Corridor, these types of airplanes should enter at a higher level, thus

eliminating the noisy climb configuration.

The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter supports the enlargement of

the Desert View Flight-free Zone (as does NPCA) but states that the

Zuni Northwest Corridor cuts though the Critical Noise Sensitive Area

that has Point Imperial at its center. This corridor is also a problem

for users of the Saddle Mountain-Nankoweap Basin area. The Sierra Club-

Angeles Chapter believes that the proposal should close Zuni Point

Corridor because it impacts at least six trails, four permanent stream

basins, important archaeological and historical sites, and Papago

Point, the only major point on the south rim where one could formerly

find solitude and escape the sounds of auto traffic.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: Concurrent with the publication

of this final rule, the FAA is publishing a Notice of Proposed Routes

discussing route structures and directions of flights. The FAA will

consider pertinent comments received in response to Notice 96-11

regarding routes, as well as any additional comments submitted in

response to the Notice of Proposed Routes. In response to the perceived

safety problems regarding weather, the FAA will route traffic in a

clockwise fashion through the Dragon and Zuni Corridors. This flow will

allow operators to better observe weather conditions around the North

Rim so as to avoid encountering adverse weather condition in the

vicinity of the North Rim, e.g., high winds, low visibility,

turbulence, etc. The FAA believes this flow will enhance safety by

pilots having the opportunity to take appropriate actions to avoid

these conditions. Noise mitigation will be an additional benefit, as

aircraft will no longer be climbing as they pass near Point Imperial.

Comments on Bright Angel Flight-free Zone, Zuni Point, and Dragon

Corridors

NPCA notes that the NPS has estimated that the one-way

restructuring of the Zuni Point Corridor will add 3,800 operations into

the Dragon Corridor. Some commenters object to the northern extension

of Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. Two other commenters say that the

northern extension will lengthen the distance of the Grand Discovery

Tour by 20 percent, which will increase operator costs and require

operators to fly over the highest points of the north rim, resulting in

frequent weather cancellations.

The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter supports the enlargement of

the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. Twin Otter and Grand Canyon Airlines

recommend that the Dragon Corridor be converted within 2 years to a

quiet airplane flight corridor. The commenters also recommend that the

FAA define what operating characteristics an airplane model must have

in order for it to conduct round-trip air tours within Dragon Corridor

and then immediately permit such fixed-wing air tours within this

corridor (just as the FAA now permits out-and-back helicopter tours).

Grand Canyon Airlines states that SFAR 50-2 management policies

have encouraged rotorcraft operators to concentrate on Dragon Corridor

tours. Since 1994, when helicopter operators began concentrating their

tours within the Dragon Corridor, Grand Canyon Airlines has conducted

35 percent fewer air tours in this area. This commenter wants to be

permitted to conduct similar round-trip Dragon Corridor tours to remain

competitive if the FAA adopts the extension of the north rim air tour

route.

Grand Canyon River Guides believes that the out-and-back helicopter

route into Dragon Corridor should be abolished. This route allows

helicopters to offer a shorter trip which is similar in cost to the

least expensive tour of the larger, quieter fixed wing operators which

carry more people with much less impact. According to the commenter,

this shorter route is causing a very negative trend as noticed by the

increased helicopter traffic on the Dragon Corridor with each passing

year.

NATA is pleased that Notice 96-11 establishes the dog-leg within

the Dragon Corridor because it would route air traffic away from the

only location on the rim of the canyon where air tours and ground

visitors interact. Papillon also agrees with the proposed change to

relocate the south end of Dragon Corridor to the west.

USATA contends that the current routes that air tour operators fly

encompass only 17 percent of the entire park. With the Dragon Corridor

``dog leg,'' the front country areas of the park (where 99 percent of

all ground users visit) would be 100 percent protected from air tour

noise. If flights were to double or even quadruple, one could expect

the number of aircraft seen or heard to remain well within reason at a

maximum of less than one aircraft per hour.

The Sierra Club--Grand Canyon Chapter, NPCA, and Grand Canyon River

Guides do not support the changes to Bright Angel and Toroweap-Shinumo

Flight-free Zones to accommodate the Dragon Corridor dog leg. They

argue that these changes would degrade a portion of the park on the

south rim that is currently relatively quiet. This area includes

Havasupai Point. The Sierra Club suggests extension of the southwest

corner of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone (from 36 deg.09'31'' N,

112 deg.11'15'' W; to approximately 36 deg.02'35'' N, 112 deg.14'30''

W; then southeast along the GCNP boundary).

The Sierra Club also points out that the seventh point

(36 deg.01'16'' N, 112 deg.11'39'' W) should be approximately

36 deg.00'58'' N, 112 deg.11'45'' W.

AOPA says that changes to the Dragon Corridor could make navigation

extremely difficult and increase the chance that a pilot could

inadvertently transgress into a flight-free zone.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: Flight-free zones are being

expanded and/or modified to aid the substantial restoration of the

natural quiet, as mandated by Public Law 100-91. As stated by Senator

John McCain in the legislative history of Public Law 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).

The FAA agrees that there should be incentives for operators to

convert to noise efficient aircraft in the Dragon Corridor; those

incentives are addressed in the NPRM being published simultaneously

with this final rule.

The FAA agrees with the Sierra Club that the Bright Angel Flight-

free Zone boundary description is incorrect, and corrects it in this

action.

The FAA has adopted the proposed shift to the west in the Dragon

Corridor (the ``dog-leg'') because it provides important noise

mitigation to the Hermit's Basin Region and presents no safety

concerns. This action responds to requests made by both the majority of

the operators and NPS. By leaving the Dragon Corridor open, this action

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 Public Law

100-91 indicates that it was not the intent of the legislation to

[[Page 69314]]

ban aircraft from overflying the Grand Canyon.

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.

The corridors will remain 2 nautical miles wide for commercial

sightseeing operations and 4 nautical miles wide for general aviation

and transient operations. The addition of a bend or ``dog-leg'' in the

Dragon Corridor will make navigating the corridor a bit more involved

but will be manageable. The revised Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart

will contain latitude/longitude and VFR check points to assist pilots

navigating in the area. Specifically, the corridor centerline and

``turn-point'' will be identified electronically via latitude/longitude

coordinates. The ``turn-point'' will be identified by VOR/DME

information from the Grand Canyon VOR. And the corridor and ``turn-

point'' will be identified by topographic features as well.

Comments on Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone and Tuckup Corridor

Several commenters state that the extension of the Toroweap/Thunder

River Flight-free Zone and the merger of Toroweap/Thunder River with

the Shinumo Flight-free Zone will eliminate certain routes, thus

reducing scenic viewing while extending tour times. One commenter adds

that this extension is meaningless because air tour aircraft diverting

around National Canyon will still be audible since the flight-free

extension is too small for effective noise attenuation.

An individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA states that

the expansion of Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone will block flight

departures on the Brown 3 route from the Bar 10 airstrip which provides

river runner support to the Hualapai Tribe.

Several commenters support expansion of the Toroweap/Shinumo

Flight-free Zone and recommend that it be extended even farther back

from the south rim to reduce the visual and noise intrusions from air

tours. The Sierra Club--Grand Canyon Chapter states this is necessary

to address the concern that air tours will fly just outside the flight-

free zone boundary over the river corridor. They add that the existing

flight-free zone located within a 1.5 nautical mile radius of the

Toroweap overlook is inadequate and should be expanded.

The Sierra Club points out an error in the flight-free zone: the

second point (112 deg.3'19'' W) should be 112 deg.13'19'' W and the

third point (36 deg.02'' N) should be 36 deg.20'02'' N.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: In analyzing the commenters'

statements on the extension of the southern boundary, the FAA believes

that the commenters are referring to the Blue 1 route. The FAA is

soliciting comments in the NPRM that is published simultaneously with

this rule regarding the feasibility of limiting a portion of the Blue 1

route in the National Canyon to noise efficient aircraft.

In response to comments regarding routes, the FAA will consider

pertinent comments received in response to Notice 96-11, as well as any

additional comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed

Routes.

Any further expansion of the Toroweap Flight-free Zone will need to

be considered in the context of the Comprehensive Noise Management

Plan.

The FAA disagrees that the rule will result in an adverse effect on

the safe operation of the Bar 10 airstrip or black river runner

flights.

The FAA agrees with the Sierra Club that the Toroweap/Shinumo

Flight-free Zone boundary description is incorrect, and corrects it in

this action.

The FAA will reserve its response to comments regarding the Brown 3

commercial sightseeing tour route until after the comment period closes

for the Notice of Proposed Routes.

Comments on Sanup Flight-Free Zone

The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter supports the new Sanup Flight-

free Zone. The chapter suggests that boundaries be changed to give some

protection to the Shivwits Rim and Sanup Plateau.

AOPA states that the new Sanup Flight-free Zone would force an

increase in the minimum enroute altitude for Victor Airway 235 from

10,000 to 14,500 feet MSL between Peach Springs and Mormon Mesa

navigational aids; that portion of the airway would be unusable by

general aviation aircraft. One commenter feels that this increase would

adversely affect safety and cause burdensome requirements for oxygen

equipment because of the increased altitude.

EAA wants the ceiling of the flight-free zone lowered for general

aviation operations from 14,000 to 8,500 MSL. This change would

accommodate general aviation flights between Las Vegas and Albuquerque.

The FAA also received several comments regarding the possible

impacts of the proposed Sanup Flight-free Zone on commercial

sightseeing tour routes.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: After analyzing the impact on

VFR and IFR traffic, the FAA has adopted the Sanup Flight-free Zone.

However, the vertical limits of the Sanup Flight-free Zone will be at

7,999 feet MSL. This will accommodate general aviation aircraft

operations between Las Vegas and Albuquerque. By lowering the vertical

limit of this flight-free zone, the minimum enroute altitude for V-235

remains unchanged.

In response to comments regarding routes, the FAA will consider

pertinent comments received in response to Notice 96-11, as well as any

additional comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed

Routes.

Comments on Elimination of Fossil Corridor

GCATC states that the closure of the Fossil Canyon Corridor could

possibly bring an end to Las Vegas-based air tours of GCNP. Although

the FAA claims that only a low amount of traffic goes through this

corridor, in fact most Las Vegas-based operators conduct air tours over

the Blue 1 route which traverses the Fossil Canyon Corridor and

adjacent lands. If this corridor were to close, the 200-mile air tour

route from Las Vegas to Tusayan would include only approximately 20

miles over less striking portions of the Grand Canyon, including only 4

miles over GCNP. Such a decrease in Grand Canyon overflight would

virtually eliminate the demand for such flights.

The individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA says that the

Hualapai Tribe utilizes the Brown 1A route to support river runner

traffic across Kaibab Plateau, which will be eliminated by the closure

of the Fossil Corridor, as will the Blue 1A route be eliminated due to

closure of the Fossil Corridor.

The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter and Grand Canyon River Guides

support closing the Fossil Canyon Corridor.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA recognizes that closing

Fossil Canyon Corridor will affect some air tour routes. However, this

action is necessary to aid in the goal of substantially restoring

natural quiet to the park, as mandated by Public Law 100-91. The FAA

believes, based on its 1995 survey of air tour operators and the routes

that they fly, that Fossil Canyon Corridor is not heavily used for

commercial sightseeing purposes and

[[Page 69315]]

those few operators who use it will have alternate routes available.

In response to comments regarding routes, the FAA will consider

pertinent comments received in response to Notice 96-11, as well as any

additional comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed

Routes.

Section 93.307 Minimum Flight Altitudes

Proposed Sec. 93.307 set forth different minimum altitudes in

sectors and corridors for commercial sightseeing operations and

transient and general aviation operations to separate these operations

to the maximum extent practical. Notice 96-11 solicited comments

concerning minimum altitudes for Navajo Bridge Corridor at 5,000 feet

MSL for commercial tour operations and 8,000 feet MSL for general

aviation and transient operations.

Comments on Minimum Flight Altitudes

The Northern California Aviation Users Working Group (NCAUWG) says

that the NPS did not comply with Public Law 100-91 because it did not

establish the ``proper minimum altitude which should be maintained by

aircraft when flying over units of the National Park System.''

Kenai Helicopters, Inc. states that although Notice 96-11 does not

change many of the minimum altitudes through the flight corridors,

serious consideration for lower altitudes, coupled with noise

attenuating flight procedures and maneuvers, should be analyzed in

order to restore quiet in the flight-free zones in the best way.

The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter states that Notice 96-11 will

not prevent flights below the canyon rim. This commenter suggests that

the minimum flight altitude between Boundary Ridge and Supai be raised

to 10,500 feet MSL to prevent aircraft from flying below the rim at

Point Imperial, and that the FAA verify minimum flight altitudes for

the entire SFRA to prevent below rim flights.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA does not agree with

these comments. The NPS Report to Congress concluded that establishing

a simple minimum altitude for aircraft overflights over all units of

the National Park System was neither feasible nor necessary. Instead it

recommended that all reasonable methods and tools be used in issue

resolution: voluntary agreements, quiet aircraft incentives, spatial

zoning, altitude restrictions, operations specifications, and limits on

time of operation. Public Law 100-91 mandated much more than an

appropriate minimum overflight altitude for GCNP. Specifically, section

3 required the FAA to prepare and issue a comprehensive airspace

management plan, which in part provided for provisions prohibiting

below rim flights and designation of flight-free zones. Section 3 of

Public Law 100-91 prohibits the flight of aircraft below the rim of the

Canyon. Consequently, Kenai Helicopters, Inc.'s suggestion is not

appropriate. Finally, the FAA believes the clockwise flow through the

Zuni and Dragon Corridors will preclude aircraft from flying below the

rim at Point Imperial.

In order to simplify the northeast sector of the SFRA, the FAA has

combined the Marble Canyon and the North Canyon sector into one sector

and renamed this section the Marble Canyon Sector. This sector will

have a minimum sector altitude of 8,000 MSL.

Section 93.316 Limitations for Commercial Sightseeing Operations

The FAA proposed several additional methods to help achieve the

objective of restoring natural quiet. One such method was flight-free

periods (curfews). Proposed Sec. 93.316(a) provided for both a fixed

curfew and a variable curfew.

Comments on Fixed and Variable Curfews

A number of commenters (e.g., Twin Otter, HAI, Kenai Helicopters,

an individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA) say that curfews

could create significant congestion and safety problems as air tour

operators reschedule aircraft to arrive at the edge of the SFRA at the

same time.

GCATA states that GCNP Airport will have a major traffic problem

with all Las Vegas operators arriving at the same time for one runway

of operations. Also, since all helicopter operators have moved to the

Airport, they will be ready for their initial launch of the business

day. GCATA asks which operator will get priority, and says that the

number of flights could create havoc for the tower operators at the

Airport. Another problem is that all airplanes arrive from the west and

helicopters will be departing on the east side. GCATA asks how the

tower operators would handle this. The commenter believes that the

curfews will push airports to their maximum operation and questions if

this is safe.

According to Las Vegas McCarran Airport, the majority of air tour

operators operate by ``banking'' Grand Canyon air tour flights. In

other words, based on passenger demand during a given period, each

operator departs a number of aircraft more or less simultaneously from

an origin airport to perform Grand Canyon air tours.

This commenter states that, under the fixed curfew, peak operations

in the SFRA are anticipated to occur between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. Under

the variable curfew, total operations are anticipated to increase

substantially from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. In addition, for airports in

the Las Vegas region, a total of 60 Grand Canyon air tour operations

would be affected by the proposed fixed curfew, and 99 by the proposed

variable curfew. These aircraft operations would be required to alter

the existing times of operations to non-curfew hours, or operate on the

Blue Direct route, which is not considered an air tour route and not

subject to the restrictions proposed in either curfew alternative.

Several commenters are concerned about the economic impact of

curfews. Heli USA states that the proposed curfews would eliminate 20

percent of its flights and cause severe economic problems.

GCATC says that the FAA's estimate of $6.6 million in annual loss

of revenue, as a result of fixed curfews, is underestimated because:

(1) The FAA states that all losses would be incurred in the summer

season (May 1-September 30), wrongly assuming that all flights during

the winter season (October 1-April 30) can be rescheduled. Although

rescheduling of some winter flights may be possible, the flexibility of

both air tour operators and passengers is limited and, consequently,

not all passenger groups can be accommodated under FAA's proposed

restricted operating hours. (2) The proposed fixed curfew forces air

tour operators to begin tours substantially later and end them

substantially earlier than under the dusk-to-dawn flight period

currently allowed. For some months, the FAA's proposal may shorten

available flight time by 25 to 33 percent, causing operators to lose

multiple flights on a daily basis.

Comments from the Grand Canyon Trust state that the FAA's

assessment of the costs of basic curfews is fundamentally flawed in

that it makes no attempt to anticipate how mismatches between supply

and demand are likely to be resolved in the marketplace. Given that

Grand Canyon tours are once-in-a-lifetime experiences, and that roughly

60 percent of all visitors are foreigners for whom sightseeing tours

are only one part of a more extensive vacation package, consumers are

more likely to be relatively price insensitive, particularly at the

margin. This implies that operators will likely be able to more

[[Page 69316]]

than offset revenue losses resulting from the flight curfews proposed

by the FAA. The commenter suggests that the near-term response of air

tour operators to the regulation is likely to be a modest shift in

prices upward which will allow them to recover the revenues lost due to

canceled flight operations. Over the longer term, operators will be

able to replace their existing aircraft with larger, higher capacity

aircraft, thereby restoring the balance between supply and demand,

gradually bringing down prices and restoring market equilibrium. The

overall impact on the industry will likely be negligible, the commenter

suggests. GCATA states that variable curfews will be unworkable because

operators will not be able to handle advance reservations without

knowing if a corridor will be open or shut.

Papillon states that variable flight-free periods would be

unacceptable because most air tour passengers must fly in the early or

late part of the day and most book their flights 3 to 6 months in

advance. The variable flight-free periods would eliminate approximately

80 percent of the flight revenue of operations originating at the GCNP

Airport.

An individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA says that

curfews could create negative impacts to all three Native American

tribes in the GCNP vicinity and recommends a specific exemption to

Native American tribes for any flights sanctioned by such Native

American tribes over their own lands. Alternatively, if tribes'

commercial operations are considered as governmental flights, they

should be exempted from the SFAR restrictions.

The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter states that intrusive noise is

particularly annoying during the morning and evening hours and that

flight-free hours should not be considered a substitute for actual

restoration of natural quiet. This commenter recommends flight-free

months as well as flight-free periods that would coincide with engine-

free raft periods on the river.

Another commenter states that curfew times should be adjusted

monthly or on a seasonal basis, and that a time of 2 or 3 hours before

sunset would be a better compromise, because tourists particularly

enjoy the canyon rims and along the river in the late afternoon and

evening light.

Two commenters recommend fixed curfews over variable curfews. Grand

Canyon River Guides states that, since the variable curfews would

require further data and analysis that could not be accomplished before

the end of 1996, the proposed rule should focus on fixed curfews. NPCA

believes that variable curfews will take too long to implement. If some

tour operators opt for quiet technology while the monitoring is being

conducted, it will skew the monitoring results and reward those

operators that did not upgrade their equipment. NPCA still supports

noise monitoring in consideration of possible curfews for the

Comprehensive Noise Management Plan. The NPCA thus recommends the

seasonal fixed curfew.

Papillon states that air tours originating in the east end of the

canyon normally commence one hour after sunrise and terminate

approximately one hour before sunset. The commenter states that present

operations basically comply with the proposed fixed curfews and that

for 6 months of the year, there are no flights for more than 80 percent

of the time. Thus, Papillon recommends no fixed curfews for flights

originating out of GCNP airport to the east end of the canyon.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA agrees that curfews on

the west end of GCNP might create a situation whereby large numbers of

aircraft attempt to enter the air tour routes at the same time and

along the same routes. Based on the FAA's safety analysis of the air

tour flights originating from the Las Vegas area, the FAA has decided

to exempt the routes beginning on the western end of the park from any

curfew. This should eliminate any impacts on Native American tribes.

However, Sec. 93.316(a) of the final rule prescribes a fixed

curfew. Specifically, no person shall conduct commercial sightseeing

operations within the Dragon and Zuni Corridors during the following

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

daily; and (2) Winter season (October 1-April 30)--5 p.m. to 9 a.m.

daily.

The FAA has determined that the curfew will increase natural quiet

during sunset and sunrise in the most heavily visited portions of GCNP,

in the eastern portion of the park. The NPS identified these areas as

among the most sensitive parts of the park and these times as when

visitors are especially sensitive to noise impacts. Consequently, the

fixed curfew makes an important contribution to substantially restoring

natural quiet on a daily basis and mitigating noise impacts on the

experience of the park visitors in this portion of the Canyon.

This section of the final rule also responds to the President's

Memorandum of April 22, 1996, charging the Secretary of Transportation

to issue regulations for GCNP that immediately reduce noise and make

further substantial progress toward the restoration of natural quiet,

as defined by the Secretary of the Interior.

The FAA does not agree that the imposition of a curfew will unduly

impact air traffic operations at Grand Canyon National Park Airport.

The FAA believes that there are sufficient air traffic control (ATC)

procedures to manage those aircraft operating to and from the Grand

Canyon National Park Airport, as well as those aircraft transiting the

Class D airspace area. These aircraft will continue to receive ATC

service on a first-come-first-served basis and, if needed, traffic

management procedures will be developed and instituted.

Cap on Commercial Sightseeing Operations

Proposed Cap

Proposed Sec. 93.316(b) set forth a temporary moratorium on

increased commercial sightseeing flights. The proposal limited each

operator in 1997 and 1998 to the number of monthly operations equal to

the monthly operations in the base year August 1, 1995, through July

31, 1996.

Comments on the Proposed Cap

GCATA states that basing the number of monthly operations on the

period August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996 may not work since some

operators may have encountered a down year; rather an average of the

last three years should be used.

Papillon, Twin Otter, and Grand Canyon Airlines state that capping

flights regardless of type of aircraft would not provide an incentive

to convert to quiet technology, and that caps should only apply to

aircraft of conventional sound signature.

The NTSB says that the proposed caps are discussed almost

exclusively from the perspective of aircraft noise. The NTSB says that

the FAA must also analyze the possible safety impacts of the caps.

GCATC responds to the FAA's suggestions on measures to offset

revenue losses from caps, i.e., using larger aircraft; raising

commercial sightseeing tour prices; rescheduling flights; and diverting

some aircraft to other revenue producing uses. GCATC says that the

operations cap will provide no incentive for operators to invest in

larger aircraft because it will prevent operators from recouping their

investment in an economically feasible time period; operators are

constrained in their ability to raise prices because the demand for

GCNP air tour operators is relatively elastic; rescheduling flights

[[Page 69317]]

has no effect on increasing revenue when the number of flights an

operator may fly is limited artificially by regulation; and air tour

operators would already be using their aircraft for other purposes if

it were economically worthwhile to do so.

A number of commenters (e.g., NPCA, Sierra Club-Grand Canyon

Chapter, Wilderness Society, Grand Canyon Trust) say that basing the

caps on the number of flights in 1995-96 will not restore the natural

quiet and that the caps are too temporary. These commenters recommend

that, since Congress identified the overflight problem in 1987, and the

flight rate since then has dramatically increased, the FAA should use

the 1987 operation levels to determine the caps. In addition, the

maximum caps should be permanent. The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter

and NPCA also recommend that the flight caps be in effect until

completion and implementation of the comprehensive noise management

plan.

Comments from the Grand Canyon Trust state the FAA's assumptions

that any type of cap, whether it is on operators, aircraft, passengers,

or air tours, will have identical effect is erroneous. Air tour

operators can be expected to adjust their pricing structures, aircraft

fleets, and tour offerings to maximize net operating revenues under

whichever system of caps is adopted. Consequently, the commenter

suggests that the actual economic cost of caps to the industry is

likely to be small.

Grand Canyon River Guides says that since tour operators were

mandated to report and pay for their use of airspace during the base

year, those figures should be used by the NPS and the FAA to determine

the allocation levels; operators who may have been avoiding user fees

by underreporting their operations should not receive any special

consideration. This commenter recommends that, once operational

limitations are in place, the FAA should require that any new aircraft

be quieter than those being replaced, and that, as this shift occurs,

the number of aircraft should not be allowed to increase.

Kenai Helicopters proposes that any cap on air tour operators

should grandfather the current operators, of whom many have made

sizable investments in aircraft and facilities to meet the market

demand. Many of these facilities are located on lands with long term

(20-25 years) leases that necessitate long term operation potential to

stay in business.

Heli USA states that since a large majority of the air carriers

operating tours in GCNP are either new or have not reached the capacity

of business to pay for their investment, caps based on historical

records would be unfair.

Twin Otter and Grand Canyon Airlines state that setting operations

caps raises serious administrative problems. For example, Twin Otter

says that the ``use or lose'' rules which apply to air carrier slots

would not work at the Grand Canyon since air tour schedules are

seasonal and subject to revisions and cancellations for weather. This

commenter says that the only fair alternative would be a slot market

mechanism like that used to allocate restricted capacity at the High

Density Rule airports.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: In the final rule

Sec. 93.316(b) establishes a cap on commercial sightseeing aircraft

that can operate in the SFRA. Specifically, this section states that no

person may operate more commercial sightseeing aircraft in the Special

Flight Rules Area than the highest number of aircraft that appeared on

the certificate holder's operations specifications, and that were used

for commercial sightseeing operations in the Grand Canyon Special

Flight Rules Area, between July 31, 1996 and December 31, 1996.

NPS modeling suggested that between 1988 and 1994, that part of the

park experiencing a substantial restoration of natural quiet declined

from 43 to 31 percent. The modeling further suggested that by 2010 this

area would decline to about only 10 percent of the park. Because the

FAA and NPS concur that the best way to address the current erosion of

natural quiet and achieve the substantial restoration of natural quiet

is through reducing noise at the source (i.e. quieter aircraft), a cap

is an interim measure needed to prevent a worsening of the situation

prior to implementation of the noise limitations proposed in the NPRM

published simultaneously with this final rule. The combination of the

final rule and the noise limitations in the NPRM will make possible the

substantial restoration of natural quiet mandated by Public Law 100-91.

This section of the final rule also responds to the President's

Memorandum of April 22, 1996, charging the Secretary of Transportation

to issue regulations for GCNP that place appropriate limits on

sightseeing aircraft over GCNP to reduce the noise immediately and make

further substantial progress toward restoration of natural quiet, as

defined by the Secretary of Interior.

Section 93.317 Commercial Sightseeing Flight Reporting Requirements

Proposed Sec. 93.317 established commercial sightseeing flight

reporting requirements. As proposed, during the 5-year period following

May 1, 1997, each certificate holder would 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.

Comments on Commercial Sightseeing Flight Reporting Requirements

Two operators state that the reporting requirements would be

oppressive and burdensome, and the costs associated with this

requirement would be passed on to air tour customers. One of these

commenters recommends that if a report is necessary, it should only

require date, departure point, and total number of operations by route.

Grand Canyon River Guides says that, compared with the paperwork

already necessary to keep pilots and aircraft current, the additional

burden of recordkeeping in Notice 96-11 is minor, particularly since

operators probably already are keeping track of such things.

FAA Response and Final Rule Action: Commercial tour operators were

required by SFAR 50-1 to obtain a Part 135 air carrier operating

certificate. The existing reporting requirements under Part 135 for

operators using multiengine aircraft would capture the information

required by this rule. The FAA believes that any recordkeeping burden

imposed by this rule will be minor and related to copying the

information into an FAA format. The required information is needed to

provide accurate information on GCNP overflights for noise and safety

management purposes, to help validate noise models, to determine where

noise mitigation is needed, and to provide the basis for more flexible

noise management system. The recordkeeping requirements in the final

rule therefore are as proposed.

Environmental Review

The FAA conducted an abbreviated scoping process and prepared a

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed rule to assure

conformance with the National Environmental Policy

[[Page 69318]]

Act of 1969 and all applicable environmental laws. Copies of the Draft

EA were circulated to interested parties and placed in the Docket,

where it was available for review. The Notice of Availability of the

Draft EA was issued on August 21, 1996. The original 45-day comment

period, which was scheduled to close on October 4, was extended until

November 18, 1996. Based upon the Draft EA and careful review of the

public comments, the FAA has determined that a finding of no

significant impact (FONSI) is warranted. The final EA and the FONSI

were issued on December 24, 1996. Copies have been placed in the public

docket for this rulemaking, have been circulated to interested parties,

and may be inspected at the same time and location as the final rule.

This final rule constitutes final agency action under 49 U.S.C.

46110. Any party to this proceeding, having a substantial interest may

appeal the order to the courts of appeals of the United States or the

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upon

petition, filed within 60 days after entry of this Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Any 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

Final Rule will be ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in

the Executive Order and the Department of Transportation Regulatory

Policies and Procedures. However, this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The final rulemaking will not have a significant impact on

international trade. There may be some increase in the U.S. balance-of-

payments account as a result of a decrease in foreign expenditures on

GCNP tours.

Introduction

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

the Las Vegas Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) conducted a field

survey of all operators certificated to provide commercial sightseeing

air 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 air tour route within the GCNP SFRA. This

information was further broken down for each type of commercial air

tour 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 air

tour sightseeing operators as routes flown.

To determine the different kinds of commercial sightseeing air

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

air tours, commercial air tour sightseeing passengers, and commercial

air tour sightseeing revenue for GCNP, the FAA, utilizing known

passenger seating capacities of each type of aircraft used by GCNP

commercial air tour sightseeing operators, cross referenced the Las

Vegas FSDO field survey detail with tour and cost information as

provided in Grand Canyon commercial air tour sightseeing brochures. The

estimates derived from this cross referencing form the basis from which

the FAA developed the cost estimates for this final rulemaking.

Response to Comments on the Original Regulatory Evaluation

The FAA held public meetings in September 1996 at Scottsdale, AZ

and Las Vegas, NV where additional comments were offered and later

submitted to the docket. These comments have also been included in the

following discussion.

In addition to the individual comments, the FAA received

approximately 60 comments from industry and tourism associations (e.g.,

the Grand Canyon Air Tour Council, Grand Canyon Air Tourism

Association, National Air Transportation Association, and the United

States Air Tour Association); environmental groups (e.g., Grand Canyon

Trust and the Sierra Club); major GCNP air tour operators; certain

Federal Agencies (National Park Service, Small Business

Administration); and Indian Tribes (Hualapai and Havasupai). Some of

the more substantive comments also include commissioned studies in

support of their position. Many of the comments with more substantive

economic and analytical content however, were also offered by the

associations and operators as testimony at the public hearings, and are

summarizes below. A full summary of all the comments can be found in

the Preamble.

Typically, the comments from GCNP air tour operators and associated

trade associations emphasized the negative economic impact the FAA NPRM

would have on the overall GCNP air tour industry. Of particular note,

several commenters took exception to the FAA assumption that GCNP air

tour operators' capital and labor resources were relatively mobile,

i.e., the GCNP air tour operator could readily relocate his business to

another area of the United States. This concept unfortunately, was

poorly worded and misconstrued. The FAA has some information that some

commercial air tour sightseeing operators, SFAR 50-2 Tour Route Usage

Report, reported such a small volume of commercial air tour sightseeing

operations in GCNP as to indicate that the conducting of commercial

sightseeing air tours in GCNP was only a part of their overall

business. The implication was intended to convey mobility between the

operators' GCNP commercial sightseeing air tours and their operations

in other non-GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing ventures, presumably

while remaining within the GCNP environs. It was not intended to

suggest that GCNP operators in general, or in total, could simply start

up their commercial air tour sightseeing ventures elsewhere in the

United States. The FAA has refined this assumption in the final

regulatory evaluation.

Comments were received with regard to certain general economic

issues such as (1) locality or market differentiation (e.g., the Las

Vegas/Southern Nevada economy as compared with the Tusayan/Northern

Arizona economy); (2) the ``trickle-down'' or multiplier effect; and

(3) the internationalism of GCNP tourism. Several commenters note that

the NPRM neglected to take into consideration that the majority of the

growth associated with GCNP commercial sightseeing air tours derives

from the significant growth of Las Vegas, and that the West and East

ends of GCNP are analytically distinguishable. The FAA notes that the

growth rate utilized in the NPRM regulatory evaluation was derived from

a composite of the tower operations of four Las Vegas vicinity airports

and

[[Page 69319]]

those of Tusayan as reported in the 1994 Tower Activity Forecast (TAF).

The compound annual rate of growth of 3.3 percent, therefore, accounts

for the different rates of growth at the West and East ends of GCNP.

The FAA believes this growth rate is representative of the growth rate

of GCNP. Nevertheless, the FAA has incorporated the concept of

different rates of growth between the West-end and the East-end in the

final rule.

With regard to the concept of the ``trickle-down'' or multiplier

effects of this rule, the Western States Coalition states that the air

tour industry is very important to the rural economies of the states

surrounding the Grand Canyon and asks the FAA not to further restrict

flights in the canyon. Cruise America, Inc., notes that the negative

economic impact will trickle down from a reduction in passengers

visiting the canyon to a reduction in income for local populations

surviving off tourism revenue. Additionally, bus tour companies and

European travel wholesalers would be forced to reroute their organized

tours, resulting in a detrimental effect of inbound tourism to America,

and the efforts of private air carriers who promote North America via

operations in the Canyon would also be hurt.

The Grand Canyon Air Tourism Association (GCATA) states that

Northern Arizona and its small towns along Rt. 40 are very dependent on

the tourist trade, and that any regulation that will have an adverse

economic impact or cost an American his or her job must be taken only

when there is overwhelming and compelling evidence to support the

action. (Air Star Helicopters states that the NPRM would create a loss

of pilot and administrative jobs; decrease aircraft, parts and fuel

sales; and cause an unnecessary loss of tax revenue). GCATA further

notes that the air tour industry is a viable business, both in Las

Vegas and Arizona, and contributes an annual input of approximately

$250 million. The commenter concludes with the example of Eagle

Airlines, a GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operator located in

Las Vegas which currently is building a $40 million dollar complex

which will include a Grand Canyon terminal and hanger/office facilities

for several operators.

The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (GCATC) cites the same $250

million revenue base, noting that 1,400 direct jobs are involved, and

criticizes the FAA economic impact numbers as seriously understated.

GCATC references a study being conducted by the University of Nevada at

Las Vegas (UNLV), Center for Business and Economic Research, as support

for this position. The draft UNLV study in its submission entitled

``The Economic Impact of the Nevada Air Tour Industry: Work-to-Date''

estimates an economic impact of the air tour operators to the Grand

Canyon on the Clark County (Las Vegas) economy as in excess of $500

million, assuming a loss of 436,925 visitors expected to travel from

Las Vegas by air to visit the Grand Canyon in 1996. Clark County air

tour operators alone could be expected to lose revenue in the range of

$81 million to $117 million, and non-aviation losses were estimated to

be in excess of $400 million. Extensive detail of the individual

components making up the indirect economic impact, inclusive of

individually calculated multipliers for each impact, was also

submitted.

In the full regulatory evaluation accompanying the NPRM, the FAA

states that its cost estimates and economic analysis are limited to the

direct economic impacts on commercial sightseeing air tour operators

and customers. The FAA also clearly identifies the generally accepted

multiplier of 2.5 in its discussions of costs. The FAA appreciates the

detailed information provided by UNLV in its preliminary findings.

However, the UNLV results are predicated on the following two somewhat

dire assumptions: (1) All Las Vegas GCNP commercial air tour

sightseeing operations will cease as a result of this rulemaking; and

(2) all Las Vegas tourists who planned to take an air tour of the

Canyon as part of their visit to Las Vegas will no longer come to Las

Vegas. Furthermore, by incorporating unadjusted input-output

coefficients as the individual multiplier factors used to assess the

economic impact of this rulemaking, a chain of double counting was

introduced that resulted in a total impact far in excess of even the

most severe predictions offered in other comments.

Comments were received regarding the importance of foreign

commercial air tour sightseeing passengers and foreign tour dollars.

The United States Air Tour Association (USA) included statistics

indicating that foreign air tour passengers constitute 60 percent of

all air tour passenger in the United States. Other commenters estimate

a higher percentage of foreign air tour passengers to GCNP, and Heli

USA notes that the Grand Canyon is the major reason most international

visitors come to Las Vegas. The foreign tourist as a group averages a

two-night stay in Las Vegas spending millions of dollars yearly in

hotels, restaurants, casinos, and shops.

A representative of Cruise America, Inc., specializing in the

rental and sale of recreational vehicles, draws a clear distinction

between the Japanese and other Asian tourists who typically travel in

large tour groups and German and other European tourists who tend to

travel as small family groups and are referred to as ``RV Travelers''.

The former group make up the majority of foreign tourists flying

commercial sightseeing air tours out of Las Vegas most of which connect

with bus tours of the South Rim; the latter group tend to drive to the

Canyon and take the commercial sightseeing air tours originating out of

Tusayan. With both groups, the majority typically advance book (or

reserve) their activities 3-6 months in advance, and the commenter

notes that the inability to pre-reserve the Grand Canyon portion of

their trip could potentially remove Arizona and/or Nevada from their

planned tour. The FAA appreciates the additional information regarding

international tourism to GCNP.

To a lesser extent, commenters also addressed the importance of

providing the opportunity to view the Canyon to the physically

challenged and otherwise physically unfit to hike, raft or even access

the viewer areas of the South Rim. The generally held estimate of the

proportion of physically challenged commercial air tour sightseeing

passengers is 20 percent or more (Eagle Canyon Airlines). Papillon,

however, suggests that while the real estimate of physically challenged

commercial air tour sightseeing passengers is closer to 3 percent, a

more notable statistic is that fully 80 percent of commercial air tour

sightseeing passengers are physically unfit to see the Canyon in any

other manner, including the visitor viewing areas of the South Rim. The

FAA noted the physically challenged passengers constitute a significant

portion of GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing passengers in its NPRM

assessment.

Comments addressing the economic impact of the rulemaking on the

Native American tribes of the GCNP area were also received by the FAA.

Heli USA notes that the combined helicopter industry of Las Vegas

yearly pays around $360,000 to the Hualapai Tribe for landing rights in

conjunction with the popular commercial sightseeing air tours out of

Las Vegas using the Green 4 tour route which also includes the Hualapai

River Runners white water rafting program. The commenter also notes

that new programs are being introduced with the River Runners and Heli

programs with Grand Canyon West which could gross revenues in excess of

$1 million in the forthcoming year.

[[Page 69320]]

Comments of the Havasupai Tribe also address the economic impact of

lost revenue if the tours conducted along the Green 3 helicopter tour

route (Papillon) are impacted by the rulemaking. The Havasupai also

note that the current change in the Blue 1 commercial sightseeing air

tour route resulting from the merging of the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-

free Zone could have serious adverse affects on Havasupai lands as a

prominent tourist attraction. Other issues concerning the impact of

this rulemaking on Native American Tribes and their properties are

addressed elsewhere in the final rule.

The FAA also received comments regarding the business operations of

the commercial air tour sightseeing industry. Alan R. Stephen,

President of Twin Otter International (TOIL) on behalf of Grand Canyon

Airlines (GCA) states that the FAA's economic analysis demonstrates

little understanding of business decision-making. The commenter notes

that profits rather than revenues normally drive business investment

decisions, and that the relationship between retained earnings

(profits) and changes in revenue is best described by the 80-20

principle--a 20 percent reduction in revenue results in an 80 percent

reduction in profits. The commenter adds that these profits are highly

leveraged by load factor, e.g., operating costs are the same regardless

of the number of commercial air tour sightseeing passengers on a tour

and the revenue per passenger (ticket price) over break-even

constitutes the bottom line profit. (The commenter does not indicate

what the minimum break-even number of passengers per commercial

sightseeing air tour is). Finally, the commenter notes the high capital

intensity of airlines such as Grand Canyon Airlines (GCA), and GCA

investment in facilities and equipment is the same regardless of the

percentage of its air tour potential is actually flown. GCA also notes

increased utilization as the single most important incentive for

operators to invest in quiet aircraft technologies.

Further comments on commercial air tour sightseeing profitability

were offered by Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters which notes that the

industry is economically fragile and capital intensive, and must stay

fully staffed even during the slow season. The result is a significant

loss to be overcome at the beginning of each tourist season. The

commenter estimates there are 30 to 45 days of potential profit for the

year's work and to operate successfully in the aviation business

requires optimum utilization of aircraft.

Another determining factor of profitability cited in the comments

is the number of commercial sightseeing air tours that can be conducted

in a given day. Comments were submitted in reference to the serious

potential economic consequences of placing curfews on commercial

sightseeing air tours. Heli USA, which offers Las Vegas originating

helicopter tours along the Green 4 tour route, states that at least

four round trips (turns) must be flown per day per helicopter to enable

a company to be financially stable, let alone profitable.

Sundance helicopters, which also offers Las Vegas originating

helicopter tours along the Green 4 tour route, confirms four trips as

the break-even level of daily operations per helicopter and cites the

obvious consequence of the NPRM curfew eliminating the day's final (5

p.m.) commercial sightseeing air tour. Air Vegas Airlines, which flies

Beech C-99 (15-seat) fixed-wing aircraft commercial sightseeing air

tours along the Blue 1 commercial sightseeing air tour route, indicates

that approximately 25 percent of the Air Vegas total revenue is

generated by its 7:30 a.m. departure from Las Vegas; elimination of

this tour would result in annual revenue losses of approximately $4

million. Air Vegas Airlines also notes that it has invested in excess

of $10 million in its fleet of Beech C-99 aircraft and a minimum

average of three revenue trips per day is necessary to amortize the

acquisition costs.

The FAA appreciates all comments regarding the derivation of

business profits for GCNP commercial sightseeing air tour operators.

Without accessibility to individual operators' books, the FAA relied on

operating revenue, and, to a lesser extent, net operating revenues, and

the concomitant changes therein, as proxies for changes in the

profitability of commercial air tour sightseeing operations.

Travel time, or its alteration from current practices, was also

cited by commenters as a contributing cost of this rulemaking. McCarran

International Airport (Las Vegas), through a commissioned study,

developed an airspace simulation analysis to estimate the potential

effects of the NPRM on aircraft delays, travel times, and operating

costs. According to the study, the major contributing factor to

increased aircraft delays is contained in the NPRM curfews which will

result in higher demand during already congested peak hours at Grand

Canyon Airport. The variable curfew would have a much more significant

effect on aircraft delays (as much as 4 to 6 minutes per aircraft

operation) than the fixed curfew (up to 2 minutes per operation). Some

of these delays could be reduced to about one minute per operation (or

less) by changing air tour operating strategies to fly non-curfew

affected routes during curfew periods. It is not known if flying non-

curfew routes would be a viable option for an operator. Air Vegas

Airlines comments that the average time to fly the Blue 1 route from

Las Vegas to Tusayan takes about 55 minutes; the return on the Blue

Direct passenger route requires about 45 minutes.

The rerouting of aircraft onto modified air tour routes results in

increases in aircraft travel time of approximately 1 to 2 minutes per

aircraft operation depending on the air tour routing alternatives

implemented. The operating cost penalty includes the costs of both

increased travel times and increased aircraft delays. GCATC adds that,

even if some operators could adapt to the new restriction, neither the

FAA nor the GCATC has any reason to believe that passengers would be

willing to pay more to fly over tightly restricted (and therefore, less

desirable) routes. TOIL/GCA note that restricting the Zuni Corridor to

one-way traffic would eliminate GCA's important east Canyon air tour

(Black 1) which is flown when poor weather conditions otherwise

preclude operating GCA's primary ``Grand Discovery'' air tour, which

flies up the Zuni, over the north rim, and back down the Dragon

Corridor. (This was also alluded to at the Las Vegas portion of the

public meetings by Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters which notes that

the restrictions placed on the Zuni Corridor with a fly-out to the NE

over the Painted Desert, provides about 9 minutes of Canyon viewing for

a 50-minute Grand Canyon air tour). Finally, TOIL/GCA indicates that

with the extension of the Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone to the GCNP

boundary, the distance of the Grand Discovery air tour is lengthened by

about 20 percent and, therefore, would increase GCA's operating costs

by a corresponding 20 percent.

The FAA appreciates the comments relating to curfews and their

impact on travel times and alternate tour options. The FAA has taken

these comments into consideration from a safety aspect, and refined

certain of its originally proposed changes to flight corridors and

flight-free zones.

Another major issue raised in the comments received by the FAA

concerns the adoption of quiet technology as an alternative means to

restore natural quiet. While this issue is addressed elsewhere in the

final rule, certain costs associated with this option

[[Page 69321]]

are noted. In general, according to TOIL/GCA comments, ``quiet''

aircraft models tend to be larger in passenger seating capacity than

the conventional aircraft they replace and also more expensive. With

regard to fixed-wing aircraft, TOIL/GCA identified the Cessna-208

Caravan (9 passenger seats) and the deHaviland DHC-6-300 Vistaliner (19

passenger seats) as the primary quiet replacements for the current,

predominately flown Cessna C-207 (6 passenger seats) and C-402/Piper

Navajo (9 passenger seats). However, the cost of a new Caravan is

approximately $1.3 million and about $1.4 million to purchase a DHC-6-

300 Twin Otter, convert and refurbish to the Vistaliner configuration.

Alternatively, TOIL/GCA suggests that twelve Cessna C-207's or nine C-

402/Piper Navajos could be purchased for the price of one Caravan or

one Vistaliner. Scenic Airlines, Inc., offers corresponding prices for

the Cessna C-208 Caravan and C-402/Piper Navajo of $1.25 million and

$200,000, respectively. Air Vegas Airlines, which operates a fleet of

Beech C-99 turbo-props (15 passenger seats), notes that the Beech C-99

is a faster aircraft than most currently operating in the Canyon and

that its power settings could be set to reduce noise.

With regard to helicopters, Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters notes

that only the McDonnell Douglas MD500 (MD 520-N, or NOTAR) is certified

and qualifies as a ``quiet'' aircraft. However, Heli USA comments that

the NOTAR cannot even perform; tests at the Canyon showed it could only

carry 3 passengers on a hot day (the MD 520-N is designed for 4

passengers). This was confirmed by Air Star Helicopters, Inc. which had

attempted to operate the MD 520-N as part of its commercial air tour

sightseeing fleet. Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters and McDonnell

Douglas both note that McDonnell Douglas has developed the MD600 (6/7

passenger seats) which meets the criteria for quiet aircraft and will

be available for delivery in early 1997. (Papillon has one on order and

Air Star Helicopters has two on order, all of which are scheduled for

delivery in 1997.) The MD600 costs between $1.25 million and $1.5

million depending on cost items over base. Finally, Papillon Grand

Canyon Helicopters also notes in its comments that they are developing

a 9-passenger seat helicopter (Whisper Jet S55-QT) which is equally as

quiet as the MD600 and costs approximately the same making it about 50

percent more cost efficient than the MD600 because of its expanded

seating capacity. Delivery of these aircraft are expected within the

forthcoming year.

The FAA appreciates the expanded information on ``quiet

technology'' aircraft provided by the commenters, all of whom have

taken an advocacy position for these type of aircraft with respect to

GCNP commercial sightseeing air tours. The FAA notes, however, that all

commenters in support of ``quiet technology'' aircraft either currently

maintain fleets, made up of ``quieter aircraft'' or are in the process

of taking delivery on new quiet aircraft within the year. Quiet

technology is addressed elsewhere in this final rule and is the subject

of a concurrent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking effort underway.

The above summary of comments reflect the economic issues arising

more often from the commenters; the FAA also received occasional

comment addressing other economic concerns, as well. Comments by the

Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) on the

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) challenge the initial RFA

findings on the impact on small tour operators because revenue losses

were assessed at the aggregate level. The SBA also suggests that a

different compliance and reporting requirement or timetables for small

entities should be explored, possibly even an exemption from these

parts of the rule. Air Vegas Airlines also notes the added cost

associated with the training (retraining) of pilots which will be

required as a result of the elimination or restructuring of present

routes; the commenter uses an example to illustrate his point which

suggests that training costs will be burdensome.

The FAA has carefully reviewed the SBA comment and, based on the

data available, has analyzed the regulatory flexibility impact using

reasonable assumptions--including analyzing revenue losses at the

aggregate level. Different compliance and reporting requirements for

the smaller entities were also considered.

The SBA had suggested that it would be appropriate to use

elasticity of demand information to calculate the extent to which small

businesses will recoup costs by increasing fares. The data for this

segment of the population, however, are not available. In another

example, the SBA had suggested that the FAA evaluate data on profits

which ``may be available from Dun and Bradstreet.'' Data on profits

from very small entities that would be affected by this proposal are

also not available from the recommended source or within the public

docket. The SBA also believes that the FAA has not fully addressed

significant options for consideration. Given both the qualitative and

quantitative costs and benefits, the FAA believes that the best option

that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits was chosen. With regard to

other concerns made by the SBA and Air Vegas Airlines, the FAA has

taken these comments into consideration in producing the final RFA and

in estimating costs associated with this rulemaking. (See the

accompanying Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for a more complete

discussion regarding the alternatives considered to reduce the cost

impact of this rulemaking on small entities.)

Costs

The total cost impact of this rulemaking will depend to a large

extent on the response to the changes on the part of commercial air

tour sightseeing operators. Under a worst case scenario, GCNP

commercial air tour sightseeing operators directly impacted by the

reconfiguration of the GCNP SFRA could cease commercial air tour

sightseeing operations altogether in the Canyon; this essentially would

mean the complete elimination of the GCNP commercial air tour

sightseeing industry. However, it is expected that the affected

commercial air tour sightseeing operators will adapt to the modified

routes resulting from the new GCNP SFRA changes by redesigning or

offering new commercial sightseeing air tours. The estimated cost

impact of the adjustments suggests a continued viable commercial air

tour sightseeing industry.

With regard to the consumers of commercial sightseeing air tours,

the altered commercial air tour sightseeing routes resulting from the

new changes to the GCNP SFRA, will, in some instances, shorten the

length of a commercial sightseeing air tour currently offered. In other

instances, it will prolong the time a commercial air tour sightseeing

passenger spends on a commercial sightseeing air tour, but it will not

necessarily prolong the time available to the passenger to view the

more prominent features of the Grand Canyon. In still other instances,

it will eliminate the most prominent feature of the commercial

sightseeing tour. Certain redesigned commercial sightseeing air tours

are likely to increase in price to cover the commercial air tour

sightseeing operator's added operating costs.

To the extent a commercial sightseeing air tour of GCNP is

perceived to be a devaluation in the current service offered, or its

value is perceived to be less than its price, commercial air tour

sightseeing could be

[[Page 69322]]

impacted adversely. However, consumption of goods and services such as

commercial sightseeing air tours are typically one-time only events and

not repeated by the same consumer. Therefore, the tourist is more

likely to be concerned with the current commercial air tour sightseeing

offering, and not its perceived loss of value in comparison to previous

years.

The preceding paragraph relates to the concept of consumer surplus

and the perceived loss thereof. Inherently, there will be a loss of

consumer surplus when currently existing GCNP commercial sightseeing

air tours are degraded as in the case of eliminating the National

Canyon portion of what the FAA refers to as the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct''

tour. Similarly, with the Zuni Point Corridor becoming one-way,

consumers taking an abridged commercial sightseeing air tour which

substitutes the Painted Desert to the east of the Canyon for the lost

viewing minutes of the Canyon itself, will likely also experience some

loss of satisfaction. The FAA, however, is unable to quantitatively

estimate these losses in consumer surplus because no consumer surplus

valuation of commercial sightseeing air tours is available, and the

comparison of the consumer surplus derived from slightly different

goods among different individuals (e.g., interpersonal comparisons) can

be very misleading. Thus, the FAA is only able to discuss the consumer

losses associated with this rulemaking in general terms.

In this analysis, the FAA has assumed that commercial air tour

sightseeing operators could recover any increase in operating cost due

to this rulemaking by charging their customer more for air tours of

GCNP. In fact, it may not always be possible for these operators to

recover all the cost increases imposed on them by this rulemaking by

raising prices of air tours. Customers are sensitive, in varying

degrees, to price increases and react by buying less of those goods and

services when their prices are increased. Customers tend to be

insensitive to very small increases in prices on goods and services

that are infrequently purchased (a one cent increase on the price of a

new car is not likely to have any impact on any potential customer's

purchasing behavior). Buyers do tend to be very sensitive to large

increases on goods and services that are frequently purchased (a one

dollar increase in the price of a gallon of milk will result in people

buying less milk). At this time, the FAA does not have adequate data to

estimate how sensitive customers are to noticeable price increases for

air tours of the Grand Canyon. However, the FAA believes that

commercial air tour sightseeing operators will be able to recover most

of the increased costs imposed by this rule, because the price

increases will usually be relatively small (compared to the price of a

air tour) so that most potential customers will continue to purchase

air tours of the Grand Canyon.

The following discusses the potential cost impact of each change:

(1) Modification of the Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)

The extension of the GCNP SFRA, which effectively increases the

lateral dimensions of the existing SFRA by approximately 2.8 percent,

will result in only those costs associated with revising and publishing

a new Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart. Similarly, the increase in

altitude of the SFRA ceiling from 14,499 to 17,999 feet msl, which is

intended to protect GCNP from the impact of commercial air tour

sightseeing aircraft overflying the flight-free zones, will have

minimal impact on GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators. Its

cost will be included under the revision and publishing costs noted

above. The FAA considers chart revision to be a part of normal, on-

going administrative costs, not costs incurred as a result of this

rulemaking action. Neither the chart revision nor the cost associated

with a change in altitude over the flight-free zone will have a

measurable impact on GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators.

(2&3) Modification of existing and establishment of new flight-free

zones and flight corridors

The reconfiguration of GCNP flight-free zones and flight corridors

will impact all commercial air tour sightseeing routes, and

consequently, all revenue ($113.1 million) received by the GCNP

commercial air tour sightseeing industry. Approximately $92.5 million,

or about 82 percent, of the total revenue generated by the GCNP

commercial air tour sightseeing industry is derived from the commercial

sightseeing air tours offered on the ``Blue 1'' tour route. The FAA

estimates that the cost impact associated with the elimination of the

National Canyon portion of this tour route will be about $2.4 million

average annual reduction in net operating revenue (1997-2008) with a

likely greater loss of consumer surplus. There will also be some

further reduction in net operating revenue associated with the

remaining $20.6 million in total commercial air tour sightseeing

revenue; most of this will result from the change to one-way traffic in

the Zuni Corridor.

A more detailed breakdown of the commercial sightseeing air tour

routes effected by this change and an assessment of the potential

losses are as follows:

Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone

(a) The merging of the Toroweap-Thunder River and Shinumo Flight-

free Zones and the resulting closing of the Fossil Canyon Corridor will

eliminate tour routes ``Blue 1A'', ``Brown 1A'', and ``Green 3A''. In

response to the Las Vegas FSDO SFAR 50-2 Tour Route Usage Report, no

operators indicated use of the ``Green 3A'' route, only one operator

reported use of the ``Brown 1A'' route and four operators reported use

of the ``Blue 1A'' route. The merging of the two flight-free zones and

resulting elimination of the Fossil Canyon Corridor will only impact

the tour offerings of these five operators, only one of which, however,

utilizes a single aircraft and offers only the one type of tour in

GCNP.

All of these commercial sightseeing air tour packages are part of a

larger group designated as ``miscellaneous'' tours; collectively, they

generated total commercial air tour sightseeing revenues of

approximately $724,000 in 1995 by providing approximately 1200 tours

that carried 6,500 passengers. However, only the one single tour/single

aircraft operator with 1995 annual revenue of approximately $9,000 (the

forecast annual average for the 12 year period 1997-2008, is $11,500)

will be required to develop and competitively offer a completely new

tour. The other four operators can readily modify their current tour

packages with minimal cost outlay because they already offer

established commercial sightseeing air tours along other similar

routes.

The single tour/single aircraft operation likely provides

transportation to river rafting tours, a ``tour'' endeavor which can be

modified. The only alternative for this operator is elimination as a

GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operator concomitant with the loss

of an average annual revenue stream of $11,500 over the 1997-2008 time

frame. However, the FAA believes that if this particular operator was

unable to adapt, his tour business will not be lost, but rather it will

be taken over by another similar operator. Thus, the FAA estimates the

cost of this change will be zero revenue loss, but possibly, will lead

to the elimination of a single commercial air tour sightseeing operator

doing a relatively small amount of business in GCNP.

(b) The southward extension of the Toroweap-Thunder River Flight-

free

[[Page 69323]]

Zone and concomitant elimination of commercial air tour sightseeing

access to the National Canyon portion of what is referred to as the

``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' commercial sightseeing air tour will result in

an estimated average annual reduction of net operating revenue in

excess of $2.4 million from 1997 through 2008. The source of this

revenue loss is the anticipated reduction in ticket prices. Reduced

ticket prices can be expected because commercial air tour sightseeing

operators will no longer be offering an aerial tour of the Grand

Canyon. Instead they will merely offer a commuter flight to Tusayan as

a result of being precluded from offering the National Canyon aerial

portion of their former commercial sightseeing air tour.

The estimated average annual reduction in net operating revenue of

$2.4 million was derived by subtracting the estimated reduction of $2.5

million in average annual variable operating costs from a total average

annual revenue loss of $4.9 million.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone

(a) In 1995, according to the SFAR No. 50-2 Air Tour Route Usage

Report, 13 operators (fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter) with total

revenues of approximately $9.3 million conducted commercial sightseeing

air tours along the ``Black 1, 1A'' and the ``Green 1, 1A, 2'' tour

routes and another five operators with total revenue of approximately

$1.4 million conducted helicopter commercial sightseeing air tours in

the Dragon Corridor. The total 1995 revenue potentially impacted by

this part of the rule is estimated to be about $10.7. The FAA

estimates, however, that the average annual increase in variable

operating costs resulting from an approximate 20 percent increase in

duration of the commercial sightseeing air tours operating on the

``Green 1, 1A & 2'' will be offset by increased ticket prices. Thus,

the FAA estimates no net operating losses associated with the north

extension of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone.

(b) The reconfiguration of the Zuni Point Corridor and the limiting

of it to one-way traffic will impact all commercial sightseeing air

tours that depend on the current two-way VFR routes to offer a simple

fly around type tour of the Zuni Point Corridor. This includes one

fixed-wing aircraft and four helicopter GCNP commercial air tour

sightseeing operators. The fixed-wing aircraft operator generated

commercial air tour sightseeing revenue of approximately $13,000 from

this particular tour in 1995, a tour part of the larger group of

``miscellaneous'' tours. The substitutes for this operator will be the

``Black 1, 1A'' tour route or flying out to the east over the Painted

Desert as a tour route option. Both of these tour route options are

expected to increase the tour price by about $10 per passenger, or

about $2,600 total annual added cost to the commercial air tour

sightseeing consumers based on 260 passengers opting for this tour in

1995.

The four helicopter operators generated 1995 commercial air tour

sightseeing revenue of just under $1.5 million flying the ``Green 1''

commercial air tour sightseeing route in conducting over 3,700

commercial sightseeing air tours with more than 12,800 passengers.

Similar options are also available to GCNP commercial air tour

sightseeing helicopter operators, i.e., the ``Green 1, 1A & 2'' (``Zuni

Point NW'') tour route or the Painted Desert tour route option. Each of

these will increase the tour price per passenger by about $45 or

$574,400 total annual added cost to the commercial air tour sightseeing

consumers based on the 12,800 passengers opting for this tour in 1995.

The total potential increase in 1995 annual costs of this

particular alteration in the GCNP SFRA will be about $577,000 ($2,600

plus $574,400) in added consumer costs (increased commercial air tour

sightseeing prices) because of the elimination of less costly

commercial air tour sightseeing options. The forecast annual average

cost for the 12 year period 1997-2008, is just over $740,700 per year.

However, adaptation on the part of commercial air tour sightseeing

operators to the changes in the Zuni Point Corridor could result in the

possible addition of one commercial air tour sightseeing flight per

hour through the Dragon Corridor. This will be the outcome if the five

affected operators choose the ``Zuni Point NW'' option as their

commercial air tour sightseeing substitute.

There is another cost associated with the one-way limitation of the

Zuni Point Corridor in conjunction with the north expansion of the

Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. The ticket price increases resulting in

added consumer costs detailed above do not fully cover the increase in

variable operating costs of the commercial air tour sightseeing

oper

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.