Establishment of Corridors in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area

Federal RegisterMay 15, 1997

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend two of the Flight-free Zones

within the Grand Canyon National Park by establishing two corridors.

The first corridor through the Bright Angel Flight Free Zone would be

an incentive corridor to be used only by the most noise efficient

aircraft. The second corridor through the Torroweap/Shinumo Flight-free

Zone would go through the National Canyon area and would create a

viable air tour route through the central section of the Park while

addressing concerns of the Native Americans. The proposed corridor

would not affect the existing Tuckup Corridor currently used by general

aviation. These proposals are made in response to comments received on

related Grand Canyon rulemaking actions, National Park Service

recommends the environmental merit of such routes conducted pursuant to

the comments, and ongoing discussions with Native American tribal

government units and their representatives.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 1997.

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

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28902, 800 Independence

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

electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet

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

28902. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Dave Metzbower, Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-220, Flight

Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-3724. For the

draft Environmental Assessment contact Mr. William J. Marx, Division

Manager, ATA-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-3075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed

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

may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, federalism,

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

notice are also invited. Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful

in developing reasoned regulatory decisions. Communications should

identify the regulatory docket number and be submitted in triplicate to

the above specified address. All communications and a report

summarizing any substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this

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

public inspection both before and after the closing date for receiving

comments.

Before taking any final action on this proposal, the Administrator

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

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

received.

The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter

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

postcard should be marked ``Comments to Docket No. 28902.'' When the

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

stamped, and returned to the commenter.

Availability of the NPRM

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

to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800

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

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

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

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

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes application

procedures.

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

and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section

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

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

(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee Bulletin Board Service (telephone: 800-FAA-ARAC). Internet

users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal

recently published rulemaking documents.

History

On December 31, 1996, the FAA published three concurrent actions, a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), a Notice of Availability of

Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes, and a final rule, in the Federal

to reduce further the impact of aircraft noise on the park environment

and to assist the NPS in achieving the statutory mandate imposed by

Public Law 100-91.

The NPRM, Notice No. 96-15, proposed to establish noise limitations

for certain aircraft operating in the vicinity of GCNP. The comment

period for the NPRM closed on March 31, 1997. Notice No. 96-15 had

several purposes. The first was to provide incentives for the use of

quieter aircraft within the GCNP. The second was to establish

additional noise limitations to reduce further the impact of aircraft

noise on the GCNP environment. The third would have lifted for the

quietest aircraft the immediate temporary cap placed on the number of

aircraft permitted to be used for commercial sightseeing operations in

the GCNP.

The Notice of Availability of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes

for the GCNP was published with a 30-day comment period that closed on

January 30, 1997. The Notice requested comments on the proposed new or

modified existing air tour routes, which complement the final rule

affecting the Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of GCNP.

The final rule amended 14 CFR part 93 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (Part 93) by adding a new subpart which codified and

replaced SFAR No. 50-2; modified the dimensions of the GCNP SFRA;

established and modified existing flight corridors; established

reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing operations;

established curfews for operations in the Zuni and Dragon corridors

during certain time periods; and placed a temporary limit on the number

of aircraft that can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in

the GCNP SFRA. The final rule was originally scheduled to become

effective May 1, 1997. However, for the

[[Page 26903]]

reasons stated below, the FAA published another final rule on February

26, 1997, 62 FR 8861, which changed the effective date to January 31,

1998, for those portions of the December 31, 1996, final rule which

define the Grand Canyon SFRA (14 CFR Sec. 93.301), define the flight

free zones and flight corridors (14 CFR Sec. 93.305), and establish

minimum flight altitudes in the vicinity of the GCNP (14 CFR Sec.

93.307). The February 26, 1997, final rule also reinstated the

corresponding sections of SFAR 50-2 until January 31, 1998.

In order to meet the May 1, 1997 effective date, the FAA would have

had to transmit the data on the proposed routes to the National Ocean

Service (NOS) by February 21, 1997. The NOS is the agency responsible

for the production and printing of aeronautical charts. The NOS would

then have produced by April 1, 1997, an aeronautical chart that would

have been used by the air tour operators for training purposes.

However, during the comment period, the FAA received valuable

information from commenters, as well as suggestions for alterations and

refinements of the route structure from officials of the GCNP and NPS

that could potentially produce noise reduction benefits and also

address other related impacts. Both the FAA and the DOI believe that a

number of the suggested changes would produce a significantly better

rule for GCNP users, the aviation operators, and interested Native

American tribes. The FAA had to decide between proceeding with the

proposed routes to meet the May 1 final rule effective date, or

developing a better and more comprehensive route structure in response

to the comments and suggestions. The latter would require additional

time for analysis and would not go into effect until after the busy

summer tourist season.

For the reasons stated above, the FAA determined that permitting

the final rule to become effective on May 1, 1997, would be contrary to

the public interest and, therefore, decided not to send the originally

proposed routes to NOS for charting at that time. Rather, the FAA

decided to analyze the new ideas with the expectation of creating the

best possible routes.

The FAA's training and checking experience indicates that

qualifying air tour pilots on new routes during a peak tourist season

when the air traffic is the densest is not the appropriate time for

such a transition. At GCNP, the peak season extends approximately from

May through October. To afford operators a more favorable opportunity

for training on the new routes, the FAA determined that the training

should take place after the summer tourist season when the volume of

air traffic is lower. Therefore, the FAA determined that January 31,

1998, would be an appropriate revised effective date of the new

airspace and route structure. This additional time will permit the FAA

to develop the best possible route structure, facilitate production and

printing of aeronautical charts, and give the operators sufficient time

to train their pilots adequately and safely on the new routes after the

close of the busy summer season.

The FAA determined that 5 U.S.C. 553(b) provides sufficient

justification to issue a final rule delaying the effective date of the

relevant portions of the December 31, 1996 final rule without notice or

an opportunity for comment. Therefore, the FAA changed the effective

date of 14 CFR 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 to January 31, 1998, and

reinstated the corresponding sections of SFAR 50-2. While there was not

sufficient time to allow prior notice or comment concerning the FAA

decision to delay the May 1 effective date, the FAA invited comments

concerning any other aspect of the notice, including the new

implementation date of January 31, 1998. The comment period closed

March 24, 1997. The temporary cap provisions, curfews, and reporting

requirements were unaffected by these actions and will go into effect

for Grand Canyon air tour operators on May 1, 1997.

Public Comments on Proposed Routes and on Noise Limitations NPRM

During the comment period on the Notice of Availability of Proposed

Commercial Air Tour Routes for the GCNP, the FAA received valuable

information from commenters, as well as suggestions for alterations and

refinements of the route structure from officials of the GCNP and NPS

that could potentially produce noise reduction benefits. Based on an

analysis of these comments and suggestions the FAA issued a new

proposed route structure concurrent with the issuance of this proposal.

Several of the comments relate to the proposals in this NPRM.

Public Comments on the Central Region

Commenters state that, with the move of air tours south of the

National Canyon as required by the expansion of the Toroweap/Shinumo

Flight-free Zone, operators will not be able to sell an air tour in the

central region of GCNP as passengers would not be able to see the

Canyon or its other unique topography. Commenters further believe that

the loss of a viable air tour route in the National Canyon area would

cause significant and irreparable harm to economic viability of air

tour operators and other dependent businesses as well as the local

economy. According to commenters, this will result in shifting of

traffic to the routes south of the Sanup Flight-free Zone or to the

routes around the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. Commenters fear that

the resulting compression and congestion of traffic in those areas will

eventually lead to a mid-air collision.

Other comments address the proposed Blue One Alpha route through

the proposed National Canyon Corridor as addressed in Notice 96-15,

published December 31, 1996. These commenters believe that no air tour

routes should be permitted through the Toroweap-Shinumo Flight-free

Zone, even for less noisy (Category C) aircraft. The river corridor

from National Canyon to Havasu Creek should receive maximum protection

from air tour noise. The addition of the National Canyon to the

Toroweap-Shinumo Flight-free Zone was critically necessary for the

restoration of natural quiet. Furthermore, commenters allege that this

route is non-essential since most of the Las Vegas-Tusayan flights are

shuttles to the Canyon and not solely air tours.

Consultation with the Havasupai Tribe under section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act also revealed potential impacts on

sacred and cultural sites should the National Canyon Corridor be

implemented as proposed in the December 31, 1996, NPRM.

FAA Response: The National Canyon Corridor, as proposed in this

NPRM, provides a workable solution to several issues addressed by

commenters and raised in consultation with Native American tribes.

The air tour routes in the central region of the park, as

previously proposed on December 31, 1996, did not provide air tour

operators using less noise efficient aircraft with a viable air tour

route. The proposed incentive route for Category C aircraft would have

resulted in a continued level of aircraft activity just north of Supai

Village, which is the central location of the Havasupai Tribe. In

addition, there would have been a number of flights over some of the

sites sacred to the Havasupai Tribe. By altering the National Canyon

Corridor, and by permitting all aircraft to use the corridor until

December 31, 2001, after which time westbound traffic would only be

permitted to traverse the corridor in Category C aircraft, and

proposing an

[[Page 26904]]

incentive route on the eastern region of the GCNP, the FAA expects

several benefits to accrue.

First, the Corridor, as proposed in this NPRM, feeds into an

altered proposed route that is significantly shorter than that

previously proposed. By eliminating the portion of the route north of

Supai Village, it eliminates air tour flights around Supai Village, the

current home of the Havasupai Tribe, and minimizes and/or avoids

increased overflights of the vast majority of their traditional

cultural properties, including sacred sites. It also minimizes socio-

economic impacts to their economy which is based primarily on tourism

which in turn is based on the isolated and natural character of the

northern part of the reservation.

Second, this proposal produces positive net effects on the

environment over the previous proposal. The redefined corridor

traverses a much smaller segment of the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free

Zone than does the corridor proposed in Notice No. 96-15. While the

corridor proposed in this NPRM would be open to all aircraft until

December 31, 2001, as opposed to only Category C aircraft as in the

previous proposal, the overall effect of aircraft noise is lessened by

routing air traffic over less frequently used, less noise-sensitive

areas. The FAA believes that permitting only Category C aircraft to be

used in westbound traffic of the National Canyon Corridor after

December 31, 2001, would work toward further reduction of noise in the

corridor.

Third, this proposal permits the establishment of a viable air tour

route in the central region of the GCNP, which will be available to all

aircraft. The operators have informed the FAA that the Blue One route,

as depicted on December 31, 1996, is not a viable air tour, and that

the proposed Blue One Alpha route was an example of a viable air tour

route. In view of all of these concerns, the FAA is proposing a route

that is similar in nature to the previously proposed Blue One Alpha but

would permit all operators to operate on a viable route in the central

region of the GCNP and provide relief to a number of areas that are

considered sacred to the Havasupai Nation.

This proposal avoids the economic harm which otherwise could be

expected to accrue to air tour operators should they be deprived of a

viable air tour route through the central region of the GCNP.

Finally, the FAA believes that a viable air tour route over the

central region of the park, open to all aircraft until December 31,

2001, would promote air safety. The FAA believes that if there were not

a viable air tour route in the central region of the GCNP, operators

would divert their operations to the routes south of the Sanup Flight-

free Zone resulting in compression of traffic. The corridor as proposed

in this NPRM enhances air traffic safety by removing a factor that

could lead to compression of traffic in the routes south of the Sanup

Flight-free Zone. In the absence of the proposed corridor, and

associated route, the potential for unsafe operating conditions could

lead to mid-air collision due to the resulting compression of air

traffic.

Athough the FAA believes that there are many advantages to the

National Canyon route as proposed, it also acknowledges that the actual

users of the GCNP--air tour operators, Native Americans, and Park

visitors--may suggest an alternate route that could be more viable than

the exact route proposed. Therefore, based on comments received and on

further consultation with Native Americans, the FAA advises commenters

that the route, as proposed, may be altered in the final rule.

Public Comments on the Eastern Region

Some commenters state that the routes proposed in the December 31,

1996, notice of availability offer no reduction of aircraft sound in

the eastern and most sensitive region of GCNP and that there should be

route incentives for quiet airplanes.

The FAA has also conducted a preliminary review of the comments

received on Notice 96-15. Most of the comments received on that NPRM

will be addressed in a future final rule.

FAA Response: The expansion of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone is

a significant step towards achieving the substantial restoration of

natural quiet in the eastern region of the GCNP by relocating the air

tour aircraft to the north of an expanded Flight-free Zone. While this

modification is beneficial for a major part of the eastern region, the

expansion does create a concentration of aircraft in the northeastern

end of the GCNP SFRA north of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone.

The NPS reviewed this situation and recommended that a new

incentive route should be available for the most noise efficient

aircraft. This proposed corridor would pass through the Bright Angel

Flight-free Zone along the northern boundary of the current Bright

Angel Flight-free Zone as defined in SFAR 50-2. The proposed Bright

Angel Corridor would have a three-fold benefit. First, fewer aircraft

would be flying over the northern rim of the canyon along Saddle

Mountain, where the NPS has pointed out some noise sensitivity. Second,

noise from the air tour aircraft would be dispersed between the

northern boundary of the new Bright Angel Flight-free Zone and the

proposed corridor, thereby reducing the level of concentrated aircraft

noise along any one route. Third, opening this corridor only to the

most noise efficient aircraft would provide a valuable and tangible

incentive for the air tour operators to convert to quieter aircraft

well before they are required to do so. The GCNP could thereby

experience the benefit of an earlier reduction in the level of aircraft

noise.

The FAA agrees with this analysis. For that reason, the FAA is

proposing the creation of the Bright Angel Corridor available for use

only by the most efficient aircraft.

The Proposal

The FAA proposes to create two corridors that pass through flight-

free zones.

One corridor would be through the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone

along the route that is currently depicted on the Grand Canyon VFR

Aeronautical Chart as the Green One Alpha and Black One Alpha. The

establishment of this corridor would mitigate any potential adverse

effects by dispensing the noise from air tour aircraft through out the

eastern sector of the park. This corridor, one mile in width, is being

proposed for the most noise efficient aircraft only.

The second proposed corridor, which is two miles in width, would be

through the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone in that portion of that

Flight-free Zone which covers the National Canyon area. This corridor

is proposed to allow the route known currently as the Blue One on the

Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart and as Blue One Alpha on the

Proposed Air Tour Routes map to continue through that portion of the

Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone that covers the National Canyon area.

At the approximate point (estimated to be within 1 to 3 miles) where

the current Blue One or proposed Blue One Alpha makes its first right

turn in the National Canyon area the route would turn southeast from

that point intercepting a route that goes directly to Tusayan.

The FAA proposes to place the corridor through the National Canyon

area in a location that will provide the greatest amount of noise

mitigation for Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai tribe,

while addressing the economic concerns of the air tour industry. The

official position of the Havasupai is that there should be no air tour

routes over Havasupai tribal lands.

[[Page 26905]]

After a meeting between the tribe and the FAA on April 9, 1997, the

Havasupai representatives agreed to present the FAA's suggestions to

the Tribal Council and to discuss possible ways of dealing with the

issue. The FAA is working with the Havasupai to minimize any potential

adverse effects and will continue to work with the tribal and monitor

the situation in the future. Therefore, the FAA is requesting comments

on this specific proposal as well as alternative placements of a

corridor in the National Canyon area.

Based on comments from the public and further consultation with

Native Americans, the FAA may alter the routes to create the most

viable route structure in the GCNP for all concerned. The FAA advises

the public that comments on the proposed routes or any alternative

routes should be sufficiently detailed and show definitive benefits so

that they may be adopted in a final rule.

Relationship of This NPRM to Other Actions

As previously stated, the FAA published three actions on December

31, 1996, that related to the airspace management of the GCNP. One of

those actions was a final rule that established a reporting requirement

on the air tour operators, established operational curfews on certain

air tour routes within the GCNP, and temporarily restricted the number

of aircraft that could be operated on commercial air tour routes within

the GCNP. These three provisions will become effective on May 1, 1997.

The final rule, as amended on February 26, 1997, also enlarged the

existing flight free zones in the GCNP. Those provisions will become

effective on January 31, 1998.

A Notice of Availability of Routes was the second of the three

actions published on December 31, 1996. The FAA issued a map that

delineated proposed routes for air tour operations within the GCNP.

Subsequent comments on the proposed routes from the air tour operators,

environmental groups, and Native American tribal government units

strongly supported alternative routes that could protect the sacred

sites of the Native Americans, further reduce aircraft overflight

noise, and continue to provide viable air tour routes for the

operators. Based on those comments, concurrent with the issuance of

this proposal, the FAA issued further refinements to the air tour

routes previously proposed. The FAA will consider the comments already

received along with the new comments submitted by the end of the

current comment period. The FAA plans to release a chart that depicts

the air tour routes which can be used for training and familiarizing

the operators well in advance of the January 31, 1998, effective date

of the expansion of the flight free zones. The new routes would also

become effective on January 31, 1998.

In addition to the two actions listed above, the FAA also published

an NPRM on December 31, 1996, proposing a methodology and outlining the

effects of classifying the air tour aircraft in noise efficiency

categories. The categories are based on the concept that the most

desirable aircraft to be used in the GCNP are those aircraft that can

accommodate air tour passengers with the least amount of noise per

seat. The comment period on the NPRM closed on March 31, 1997. The FAA

will address the comments received on the NPRM issues in a subsequent

rulemaking. However, comments pertaining to the National Canyon

Corridor will be addressed in the final rule to this action.

The comments received on all the above mentioned actions, together

with the information obtained through continuing discussions with the

Native American tribes, form the basis of this action. Specifically,

the comments concerning the need for quiet incentive routes and the

location of the Blue One Alpha route that would feed into the National

Canyon Corridor prompted the FAA to review the airspace structure

within the GCNP and to propose the two new routes contained in this

NPRM. Comments previously submitted in other actions that pertain to

incentive routes and the National Canyon Corridor are addressed in this

NPRM. Even though this action is related to other actions, it does not

attempt to finalize any proposal made elsewhere. Therefore, the

proposals in this NPRM should be viewed in conjunction with other

actions and proposals, but should not be viewed as completing any other

action.

Environmental Review

The FAA is reevaluating the Final Environmental Assessment dated

December 24, 1996, for the Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the

GCNP to determine whether the proposed changes in this NPRM and the

second Notice of Availability of Proposed Routes are substantial so as

to warrant preparation of additional environmental documents. This

reevaluation is being done in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other applicable environmental

requirements. Copies of the written reevaluation will be circulated to

interested parties and placed in the docket. For those unable to view

the document in the docket, the written reevaluation can be obtained

from Mr. William J. Marx, Division Manager, ATA-300, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591,

Telephone: (202) 267-3075. Comments concerning the environmental

impacts of adopting this proposal or the written reevaluation should be

submitted to the docket before the comment period closes. Before any

final rule is issued, based on any comments and the written

reevaluation, the FAA will determine whether any further environmental

review is warranted.

Economic 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.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this

proposed rulemaking, when viewed as a component of and in conjunction

with other actions recently published by the FAA, is cost relieving to

one-half of the small entities significantly impacted economically. The

remaining operators affected by this proposed rulemaking, however,

would be significantly impacted by this NPRM in that they would be

required to absorb higher average annual variable operating costs

imposed by the GCNP final rule (Dec. 31, 1996 at 61 FR 69302).

Because of the continued high public interest surrounding GCNP

regulation, the FAA has determined that this NPRM does constitute a

``significant regulatory action'' based on the criteria outlined in

E.O. 12866. This NPRM, in accordance with OMB directives, however,

would not have a significant affect on international trade. A full

regulatory evaluation of the proposal is in the docket.

Costs

The possible quantifiable economic effects for this NPRM are

derived from the estimated costs germane to the two affected flight-

free zones (FFZ's) as developed in the final rule 61 FR 69302,

published December 31, 1996. These initial estimates were adjusted to

take

[[Page 26906]]

into account the effects of a subsequent final rule (Feb. 26, `97 at 62

FR 8862), which delayed the effective date of the expansion of the

FFZ's as stated in 14 CFR Sec. 93.305 to January 31, 1998. With regard

to the Bright Angel FFZ, the FAA estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302

that there would be no net operating losses, and hence, no added costs

to the GCNP commercial sightseeing operators associated with the

northward extension of this FFZ. The FAA assumed in that analysis, that

this increase in average annual variable operating costs would be

offset by an equal $1.0 million average annual increase in ticket

prices. The FAA therefore, concluded in final rule 61 FR 69302, that no

net operating losses (operating revenue minus variable operating costs)

would be borne by GCNP commercial sightseeing tour operators as a

result of the extension of the Bright Angel FFZ. Thus, the full

societal cost of a $1.0 million average annual increase in commercial

sightseeing prices would be borne by the consumer.

Only one fixed-wing operator, utilizing three 19-seat Vistaliners,

which are Category C aircraft, would be able to conduct commercial

sightseeing tours along the proposed flight corridor traversing the

Bright Angel FFZ. This operator, however, accounted for approximately

4,900 tours, 88,300 passengers, and $5.3 million in total operating

revenues in 1995. This operator also accounted for approximately

$538,000 of the more than $1.0 million in increased average annual

variable operating costs and prices estimated in final rule 61 FR

69302. The FAA assumes the operator of Category C aircraft would

continue to conduct commercial sightseeing tours along the Alpha routes

as always, and this would eliminate over one-half of the variable

operating cost and tour price increases previously estimated in final

rule 61 FR 69302. The remaining increase in variable operating costs

and tour prices estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302 ($497,000) would

continue, and would remain as an on-going cost of final 61 FR 69302.

However, these costs would be transferred from a cost to the consumer

(increased prices) to a cost to the operators of Category A and

Category B aircraft (net operating revenue loss). This is because

operators of Category A and Category B aircraft would be required to

maintain their current tour prices in order to remain competitive with

the Category C operator who would no longer need to raise his tour

prices. Thus, the FAA estimates the cost savings of the proposed flight

corridor through the Bright Angel FFZ for Category C aircraft only,

would be a reduction of $538,000 in average annual variable operating

costs for operators of these aircraft; operators of Category A and

Category B aircraft would have to absorb the added variable operating

cost of the longer route established for them in final rule 61 FR

69302.

With regard to the southward extension of the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ

concurrent with the elimination of commercial sightseeing access to the

National Canyon portion of what is referred to as the ``Blue 1, Blue

Direct'' commercial sightseeing tour, the FAA estimated a reduction in

net operating revenues in final 61 FR 69302. This loss resulted from

the expected lowering of commercial sightseeing tour prices due to the

elimination of the most scenic aerial portion of the overall commercial

sightseeing package offset to some degree, by lower variable operating

costs due to the shortening of the tour route. The FAA estimated this

loss to be in excess of $2.5 million in reduced average annual net

operating revenue and was derived by subtracting the estimated

reduction of $2.5 million in average annual variable operating costs

from the estimated average annual revenue loss of $5.0 million.

Incorporaitng adjustments to reflect a partial restoration of the

National Canyon portion of the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' air tour, the

FAA estimates that the proposed flight corridor through the Toroweap/

Shinumo FFZ would lower the average annual net operating revenue loss

as previously estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302 form $2.5 million to

just over $1.7 million for the time period 1998-2008. This reduction in

average annual net operating revenue losses of $712,000 results from a

comparable reduction in average annual revenue losses from a previously

estimated $5.0 million to $2.5 million ($2.5 million) which in turn is

offset by a lowering of the reduced variable operating costs from a

previously estimated $2.5 million to $758,000 ($1.8 million). Thus, the

FAA estimates the cost savings of the proposed flight corridor through

the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ for all aircraft would be a reduction of

$712,000 in average annual net operating revenue losses as previously

estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302.

Adding commercial sightseeing flights per aircraft between Las

Vegas and Tusayan along the proposed flight corridor through the

Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ is not a viable option for these GCNP commercial

sightseeing operators. As was future in final 61 FR 69302, the

reduction in total commercial sightseeing tour aircraft flying time

does not provide sufficient savings in aggregate daily flying time to

allow operators to expand their number of daily commercial sightseeing

flights per aircraft.

The cost of the proposed rule would be any adverse impact of the

two proposed flight corridors on the restoration of natural quiet in

the canyon. The potential adverse impact cannot be quantified in this

NPRM. The FAA solicits comments on ways to quantify the effects on the

restoration of the natural quiet in this proposed rule. The more

detailed those comments, the better able the FAA will be to assess

those benefits in a final rule. The Bright Angel FFZ corridor would

create an additional incentive for air tour operators to use Category C

aircraft. The Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ corridor would permit the continued

operation of an air tour in that area, tours which were seriously

affected by final rule 61 FR 69302. Taken together, both of these

proposed corridors would benefit the GCNP commercial sightseeing

operators.

Benefits

The benefits associated with this NPRM include (1) A more rapid

conversion to quieter aircraft in response to an inceptive route for

operators of noise efficient Category C aircraft; (2) the shifting away

of a commercial sightseeing tour route away from cultural and historic

sites of the Havasupai Tribe that would enhance the sacredness and

preservation of these sites; and (3) the restoration of an air tour

route between Las Vegas and Grand Canyon Airport that reduces average

annual net operating revenue losses. The particular groups that would

benefit most from this rulemaking action are the Havasupai Tribe and

some of the operators and consumers of GCNP commercial sightseeing

tours, particularly those able to use or convert to quieter aircraft.

The establishment of the proposed corridor for noise efficient

Category C aircraft through the Bright Angel FFZ along the ``Alpha''

routes would reduce increased aircraft noise created by the

consolidation of aircraft overflight noise at the northern edge of the

expanded FFZ as described in final rule 61 FR 69302. Furthermore, to

the extend the consumer perceives the current shorter, more established

commercial sightseeing tour through the proposed flight corridor as

having a greater value, then demand for these tours conducted in the

more noise efficient Category C aircraft would increase. Concurrently,

demand for the longer sightseeing tours conducted in Category A and