Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135

[Docket No. 28537; Amendment Nos. 91-253, 93-73, 121-262]

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National

Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of clarification; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action sets forth the FAA's reevaluation of the economic

and environmental impacts associated with the Special Flight Rules in

the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Final Rule, published

on December 31, 1996. The Final Rule codifies the provisions of Special

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-2; modifies the dimension of

the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area; establishes new and modifies

existing flight corridors and flight free zones; establishes reporting

requirements and a curfew over certain areas for commercial sightseeing

companies operating in the GCNP; and limits the number of aircraft that

can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP. After

implementation of certain provisions of the Final Rule, the FAA

discovered that it had significantly underestimated the number of

commercial air tour aircraft operating in GCNP in 1995. The FAA has

reevaluated the economic and environmental analyses completed for the

Final Rule in light of this new information. The FAA has determined

that the changes are not of such magnitude as to affect the Agency's

position on the implementation of the Final Rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be mailed in triplicate to:

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28537, 800 Independence

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

electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch,

Regulations

[[Page 58899]]

Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments on the Notice

Although this action is intended to clarify the Agency's position

and evaluation of the new data, comments are invited on the new

information presented and the corresponding reevaluation of the

economic and environmental analysis. Once the comment period has

closed, the FAA will review the comments and determine whether any

changes to the Final Rule are warranted based on the submitted

comments.

Background

On December 31, 1996, the FAA published a Final Rule amending part

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

codify the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No.

50-2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of GCNP; modifying the

dimension of the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area; establishing new and

modifying existing flight corridors and flight free zones; establishing

reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating

in the Special Flight Rules Area; restricting flights in Zuni and

Dragon Corridors during certain time periods (curfews); and limiting

the number of aircraft that can be used for commercial sightseeing

operations in the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area (cap) (69 FR 69302).

The provisions contained in the Final Rule were to become effective on

May 1, 1997.

Published concurrently with the Final Rule on December 31, 1996,

was a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on noise limitations for

aircraft operations in the vicinity of GCNP (Quiet Technology NPRM) and

a Notice of Availability of Proposed Routes. All three of the above

referenced actions comprise an overall strategy to further reduce the

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

National Park Service (NPS) in achieving its statutory mandate, imposed

by Pub. L. 100-91, to provide for the substantial restoration of

natural quiet and visitor experience in GCNP.

On February 21, 1997, the FAA delayed the effective date for the

expansion of the flight free zones, the air tour routes, and the other

related airspace provisions of the Final Rule until January 31, 1998

(62 FR 8861; February 26, 1997). However, this action did not affect or

delay implementation of the curfew, aircraft cap, or the reporting

requirements of the Final Rule, which became effective on May 1, 1997.

In analyzing the economic impact of the Final Rule, the FAA used

data derived from the SFAR 50-2 Air Tour Usage Report (1995 Survey), a

survey designed to assist the NPS in obtaining information to assess

noise impacts of air tour overflights at GCNP. The 1995 Survey,

completed by the FAA's Las Vegas Flight Standards District Office,

requested that air tour operators report the number of operations

conducted along GCNP air tour routes by type of aircraft used. The FAA

believed that the information presented in the survey provided the best

data available to determine the number and type of commercial air tour

aircraft operating in the GCNP. This survey information assisted the

Agency in completing the Regulatory Evaluation.

Specifically, the Regulatory Evaluation matched the number of

aircraft determined from each operator's operations specifications

contained in the FAA`s Vital Information System (VIS) data base with

the type of aircraft reported by the operators in the 1995 Survey to

attribute the estimated cost of the proposed and Final Rule actions to

each of the air tour operators conducting air tours in the Park.

Utilizing data from the 1995 Survey, the FAA estimated that in 1995 the

31 GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators flew just over 70,000

commercial sightseeing air tours utilizing 136 aircraft. No comments

were received throughout the rulemaking process that directly

questioned the number of aircraft or the number of air tours. Since

this number of aircraft had been derived from official information

contained in the VIS as well as information reported by the air tour

operators, the FAA was confident in those numbers.

In conducting the analysis for the Final Environmental Assessment

(EA) for the Final Rule, the FAA used modeling input that was based on

information prepared by the NPS in October 1995 to model noise impacts

in the vicinity of the GCNP. The October 1995 modeling input was

prepared using a combination of the 1995 Survey and air traffic counts

prepared by air traffic controllers at the Grand Canyon National Park

Airport traffic control tower. Each of these data sources provided

slightly different perspective on operational levels. The tower count

provides a complete record of air taxi and commuter operations to and

from Grand Canyon National Park Airport. The tower count does not,

however, specifically identify any of the operations other than those

that take off or land at Grand Canyon National Park Airport.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Final Rule, the FAA obtained

additional information suggesting that the number of air tour aircraft

conducting tours in the GCNP identified in the 1995 Survey had not

accounted for the full GCNP air tour fleet that likely operated in

1995. During May 1997, the FAA conducted a voluntary air tour operator

survey and site visitation that detailed identification of the number

and type of aircraft engaged in GCNP air tours during that time period.

As a result of this discovery, on July 9, 1997, the FAA filed a

Motion for Voluntary Remand of the Record and Stay of the Litigation

challenging the Final Rule. The purpose of the request was to permit

the Agency to review the apparent discrepancy in the number of

commercial sightseeing aircraft being operated in the GCNP under the

December 31, 1996, Final Rule, and to determine if further regulatory

action was necessary or appropriate in light of the information

developed as a result of that review.

Although the FAA's motion was denied, the Agency continued its

efforts to verify or correct the number of aircraft operating in the

GCNP between July 31, 1996, and December 31, 1996. Agency personnel met

on-site with each air tour operator in July 1997 to reconcile the May

1997 survey data with the information contained in the 1995 Survey. The

FAA finished the collection of that data in July 1997.

The FAA has reevaluated the economic analysis computed for the

Final Rule and has completed a Written Reevaluation of the

Environmental Assessment for the Final Rule in light of the new

information. A copy of this Written Reevaluation has been included in

the docket.

Summary of Decision

As a result of this reevaluation, the FAA has determined that the

increase in the number of aircraft and air tour operations requires

additional analysis of the Final Rule. In promulgating the Final Rule,

the FAA used the best available data and explicitly stated that the

Final Rule was a single part of an overall strategy to address the

effect of aircraft noise in GCNP. The Final Rule continues to be the

first step in achieving the goal of the substantial restoration of

natural quiet in GCNP. While the benefits of the Final Rule are less

than originally predicted by the FAA, the rule continues to provide

benefits in comparison to withdrawing portions of the rule or the rule

in its

[[Page 58900]]

entirety. Moreover, the result of the FAA's analysis of the additional

information does not affect the Federal government's commitment to

further the above stated policy.

As discussed in the Analysis section below, there is a change in

the economic and environmental analyses due to the additional aircraft.

However, the changes are not of such magnitude as to affect the FAA's

decision concerning the implementation of the Final Rule or the Federal

government's overall policy to address the effects of air tour

operations in GCNP.

Based on the new data, the Final Rule's total costs are now

estimated at $47 million (discounted), originally estimated at $42

million, over the period 1997-2008, while total benefits are now

estimated at $144 million (discounted), originally estimated at $172

million, over the same period.

The FAA believes that the goal of substantially restoring natural

quiet in GCNP will be accomplished after implementation of the revised

air tour routes and completion of the Quite Technology rulemaking.

Therefore, the FAA does not find that these revised conclusions, as set

forth below, warrant any change to the Final Rule as implemented.

However, the FAA is seeking comments on the new information concerning

the number of aircraft operation in GCNP in 1995 and the reevaluation

of the economic and environmental analyses. The FAA will review

comments on these matters and determine whether any changes to the

Final Rule are warranted.

Nothing in this reevaluation has led the FAA to reconsider the

provisions established in the Final Rule. However, following

discussions with the NPS, the FAA and NPS have agreed to delay the

final route selection until the fall of 1998 so that further review and

discussions may be undertaken on the routes through the proposed

National Canyon Corridor. Further, this comment period will provide all

interested parties an opportunity to review this analysis and to assess

the impact of the new information concerning the number of commercial

air tour aircraft being operated in the GCNP, and to provide their

views to the FAA.

Economic Analysis

Written Supplemental Reevaluation of the Regulatory Evaluation and

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The FAA has partially revised its regulatory evaluation and

regulatory flexibility analysis of the Final Rule, Special Flight Rules

in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (61 FR 69302; Dec. 31,

1996). The Agency's decision to review and supplement both analyses

stems from the development of more accurate data than those that formed

the basis for the original analyses. Subsequent to issuance of the

Final Rule, the FAA obtained additional information suggesting that the

number of air tour aircraft conducting tours in the GCNP identified in

the 1995 field survey had not accounted for the full GCNP air tour

fleet that likely operated in 1995. During May 1997, the FAA therefore

conducted a voluntary air tour operator survey and site visitation that

detailed identification of the number and type of aircraft engaged in

GCNP air tours during that time period. To confirm the May survey

aircraft count, reconcile the May survey results with the 1995 survey,

and obtain more comprehensive data regarding numbers of air tours

conducted in 1995, the FAA decided to conduct follow-up site visits

with each GCNP air tour operator in July 1997.

During this process, the Agency discovered other data elements or

assumptions that required revision; accordingly, several methodological

changes have been made, however, the FAA has not reprinted the full

regulatory evaluation and regulatory flexibility analysis. The original

documents, as they appear in the docket, combined with this summary of

revisions, constitute the complete economic analysis.

The results of the original analysis have changed somewhat on the

basis of the new data. (See summary table below.) Total costs are now

estimated at $50 million, originally estimated at $42 million

(discounted), over the period 1997-2008, while total benefits are now

estimated at $144 million, originally estimated at $172 million

(discounted), over the same period. Although costs have increased and

benefits have decreased, the FAA concludes that the rule is still cost-

beneficial. The rationale for these changes is described below.

Estimated Benefits and Costs of Final Rule, Original and Revised Totals

Over Period 1997-2008

[In millions of 1995 dollars, discounted]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Revised

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Benefits.................................. $172 $144

Total Costs..................................... 42 47

Modify SFRA................................... 0 0

Modify FFZs................................... 19 11

Modify Corridors.............................. 10 2

Curfew........................................ 11 34

Reporting..................................... 0.4 0.4

Cap........................................... 3 0

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Totals may not sum accurately due to rounding.

Methodological Revisions

Based on information collected directly from air tour operators

after publication of the Final Rule, the FAA has revised several

aspects of its methodology. The following sections describe changes to

data and assumptions.

Revisions to Baseline Data Elements

Several baseline data elements have been revised on the basis of a

recent survey and follow-up interviews with tour operators. The reasons

for each change and the impact on the analysis are described below.

Number of aircraft: The estimated total number of aircraft

providing air tours of the Park in 1995 has increased from 136 to 260.

The earlier number was derived from the 1995 Survey, a survey designed

to assist the NPS in obtaining information on the noise impacts of air

tour overflights of GCNP. The 1995 Survey, completed by the FAA's Las

Vegas Flight Standards District Office, requested that air tour

operators report the number of operations conducted along GCNP air tour

routes by type of aircraft used. At the time of the original analysis,

the FAA believed that the survey results, accurately accounted for all

air tour aircraft operated by GCNP tour providers.

After issuing the Final Rule and prior to implementing the aircraft

cap, however, the FAA acquired evidence that the total number of

aircraft appearing on the operator's operations specifications and

available to provide air tours in 1995 was substantially more than

originally estimated. Accordingly, the FAA conducted extensive site

visits with air tour operators and, based on the more complete

information obtained, has determined that the actual number of aircraft

was 260. The impact of this revision is most apparent with respect to

the aircraft cap, the estimated costs of which has decreased

substantially for the reasons discussed in the cost section below.

Number of air tours: The total estimated number of air tours

provided in GCNP in 1995 has been revised upward from 70,076 to

102,794. The

[[Page 58901]]

original number was derived from operations reported on the 1995

Survey. Several months after issuance of the Final Rule, the FAA

discovered that not all operations had been reported in the 1995

Survey. In particular, one large operator had provided the FAA with

data for only one of two operating bases. In addition, the number of

air tours reported by one operator in the 1995 survey was grossly

understated. The increase in air tours is primarily responsible for an

upward adjustment in the estimated cost of the curfew (see cost section

below).

Price of air tours: The method of estimating the price of air tours

has been refined from one average estimate of all operators for each

air tour route to actual prices charged by individual operators based

on 1995 tour brochures. In most cases, the updated prices are lower

than the average estimated in the original analysis.

Aircraft load factor: The original analysis assumed a load factor

of 95 percent for all operators. During recent field interviews,

several operators provided actual load factors. Where provided, the FAA

has incorporated them into the revised analysis. Where load factors

were not explicitly provided, the FAA has assumed a load factor of 90

percent, based on an average of those actually provided to the Agency.

Number of routes analyzed: The original analysis incorporated data

from 8 primary air tour routes. The revised analysis is more

comprehensive, including data from 11 primary routes, based on data

provided by operators. This revision allows for a more comprehensive,

accurate accounting of the cost of the Final Rule.

Revisions to Calculated Data Elements

Based on revisions to baseline data, several data elements have

been recalculated. The reasons for each change are described below.

Number of passengers: The total number of air tour passengers--a

function of the number of air tours, the load factor, and the seating

capacity per aircraft for each route--has been revised from 655,640 to

820,980. Due to the decrease in load factor, the number of passengers

has not increased proportionally as much as the number of air tours.

Total operating revenue: Total operating revenue, defined as the

price of each tour multiplied by the number of passengers on all tour

routes, has been adjusted upward from $113.1 million to $120.6 million.

The relatively small change in total operating revenue is due to the

downward revision in tour prices, the modest increase in passengers

relative to the increase in air tours, and the upward revision in the

number of air tours occurring mainly on one of the lower priced air

tours.

Total variable operating costs: Although hourly variable operating

costs are slightly lower than originally estimated, total variable

operating costs are $27.4 million rather than $36.8 million, because

the number of air tours is greater than originally estimated.

Net operating revenue: Net operating revenue, defined as total

operating revenue less total variable operating costs, has decreased

from $85.7 million to $83.7 million. The decrease results when the

relatively larger increase in total variable operating costs (as a

result of the increase in air tours) is subtracted from the less than

proportionate increase in total operating revenue resulting from lower

load factors.

Peak summer traffic as percent of total: Based on data available at

the time, the FAA estimated that air tours during the peak summer

season accounted for two-thirds of total annual air tours from each

base of operation. Based on revised data from Tusayan operators,

however, the FAA now estimates that air tours provided during the

summer account for 75 percent of annual air tours out of Tusayan.

Revised data from other operators confirm that summer air tours from

other locations account for 67 percent of annual totals. This revision

affects the estimate of curfew-related costs(see cost section below).

Revised Assumptions

Based on new information, the following basic assumption has also

been revised.

Reporting requirements: The original analysis based the cost

estimates associated with reporting requirements on the number of

aircraft. The FAA now believes that the number of air tours is the more

appropriate basis for estimating the cost of reporting requirements for

operators and has made the appropriate changes in the analysis. The

costs of the reporting requirements to the FAA have been revised

upwards but remain a minor part of total costs. The FAA has found that

analyzing and using the operators' reports requires more staff time

than originally estimated.

Revised Cost Estimates

As described below, cost estimates for five of the six provisions

of the Final Rule have been revised based on new data and assumptions.

In total, the discounted costs of the Final Rule have been revised

upward from $42 million to $50 million over the period 1997-2008.

Modification of the Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA): There is no

change in this estimate. As in the analysis of the Final Rule, the FAA

believes that charting costs associated with a change in the Special

Flight Rules Area over the flight-free zones will have no measurable

impact on air tour operators.

Establish/Modify FFZs and Corridors: The FAA has revised its cost

estimates for the changes in flight-free zones and flight corridors.

For the reasons stated in the original analysis, the FAA continues to

predict no costs for four of the alterations in the SFRA. Estimates for

the remaining two have decreased, bringing the average annual costs of

these provisions down from $3.6 million to $2.2 million over the period

1999-2008. The annual costs of the Toroweap FFZ extension and closure

of the National Canyon Corridor have decreased from $2.4 million to

$1.8 million, largely because prices and load factors were adjusted

down by a greater proportion than air tours were increased. For the

same reasons, the annual cost of creating a one-way traffic pattern in

the Zuni Corridor decreased from $1.2 million to $0.4 million. The

total costs of these provisions have decreased somewhat because the FAA

has delayed their implementation until 1999; therefore, they were

analyzed over the period 1999-2008 instead of the standard 1997-2008

used for other cost items in this analysis.

Curfew: The FAA now calculates that the curfew will be the highest

cost provision of the rule. Based on the new data, the calculated

average annual cost of the curfew has increased from $1.4 million to

$4.4 million. The primary reason for this is the large upward revision

in estimated air tours in the east end of the park, the only area where

the curfew applies. The affected operators are unified in the view that

prohibiting early morning and late afternoon air tours will reduce

their business by about 20 percent. They strongly believe that they

cannot accommodate this restriction by activating underutilized

aircraft to increase the number of tours during authorizing times. They

state that their arrangements with tour companies call for the air tour

to be part of a larger tour package to take place at specific times of

the day and that the time cannot be rearranged. The FAA accepts the

operators' strong position on this issue and has recalculated costs

based on the assumption that tours now being carried out during the

curfew periods cannot be rescheduled.

[[Page 58902]]

It may be possible for these operators to reschedule the air tours

affected by the curfew when the tour packages are renegotiated in the

future. If this can be done, then the curfew's impact on operator

revenue would be less in the future. However, since the FAA does not

know the extent to which air tours affected by the curfew can be

rescheduled in the future, the FAA has not adjusted downward the costs

of the curfew to take into account any future rescheduling of air tours

affected by the curfew.

Reporting Requirements: The estimated average annual cost of the

reporting requirements has increased slightly to $77,000 over the five

years that the provision will be in effect (1997-2001). The revised

costs are borne differently than those in the original estimate,

however. The calculated annual cost to operators has been revised

downward from $73,000 to $53,000, due to a change in the basis for the

estimate from aircraft to air tours. The cost to the FAA has been

revised upward from $3,200 to $24,000 because the Agency has found that

additional staff time is necessary to analyze operators' reports.

Aircraft Cap: The calculated cost of the freeze on aircraft has

been revised down from $2.9 million for the first year to zero for all

years. Based on an analysis of the higher aircraft count (260) and

corresponding air tours (102,794), the FAA concludes that there is

enough excess capacity in terms of aircraft numbers for air tours to

increase by 3.3 percent annually for the next twelve years if the

demand exists. In the aggregate, and for most individual operators, the

number of air tours provided can continue to increase while the number

of aircraft remains the same. While the cap could affect a few

individual operators who fully utilize their aircraft, the FAA predicts

that the cap will have no impact on aggregate growth and will impose no

cost in the aggregate over the period of the analysis.

Revised Benefits Estimates

The original benefits analysis was based on an estimate of noise

reduction that would be produced from the provisions of the Final Rule.

The noise reduction estimate, as described in the Written Reevaluation

of the Environmental Assessment of the Final Rule, has changed somewhat

on the basis of the new aircraft numbers. Largely due to the reduced

effectiveness of the aircraft cap, there will be a lesser reduction in

aircraft noise than originally estimated. Accordingly, the estimate of

economic benefits has been reduced from $172 million over 12 years to

$144 million (discounted).

Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

All new data and assumptions, as described above, have been

incorporated into the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The FAA

certifies that the Final Rule will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small commercial tour operators conducting

flights within GCNP.

The FAA determined that there would be a significant economic

impact on small entities at the time it issued the Final Rule; for that

reason, it prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. However, the

certification statement accompanying the Final Rule incorrectly stated

that there was no significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The FAA is now clarifying that the certification was

erroneous. The new data, however, requires additional analysis. The

impact of each provision on small entities is described below.

Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected: The

Final Rule will affect commercial operators conducting air tours over

GCNP under 14 CFR part 135. Revised FAA data show that there were 22

potentially affected tour operators with 9 or fewer aircraft in 1995.

These operators owned a total of 75 aircraft, and the average fleet

included about 3 aircraft. They conducted about 34,700 air tours, or

about 34 percent of all air tours over the Canyon.

Cost of Compliance to Small Entities

Establish/Modify Flight-Free Zones and Corridors

Merge Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-Free Zones: The merging of the

Toroweap-Thunder River and Shinumo Flight-free Zones and the resulting

closure of the Fossil Canyon Corridor will eliminate tour routes

Blue1A, Brown1A, and Green3A. Newly acquired information from the FAA's

fieldwork in May and July of 1997 shows that this provision would have

affected four small operators providing tours in 1995. Collectively,

these four small operators generated total air tour operating revenues

of approximately $565,000 in 1995 by providing 1,150 air tours that

carried 4,700 passengers. The FAA has also learned, however, that two

of the four operators are no longer in the tour business. Jointly,

these two small operators accounted for $91,000 in air tour revenues in

1995, the loss of which the FAA continues to assume will be absorbed by

other operators. The FAA believes that the two remaining small

operators using the Fossil Canyon Corridor can modify their current

tour packages with minimal cost outlay because they already offer

established air tours along other similar routes. Thus, the FAA

maintains, as in the original analysis, that this modification of the

flight-free zones and corridors will have no cost impact.

Extend Toroweap Flight-Free Zone Southward: The southward extension

of the Toroweap-Thunder River Flight-free Zone and elimination of the

National Canyon corridor will affect small operators who use the Blue 1

route. Based on the FAA's new data, small operators carried 41,600

passengers along the Blue 1 route and generated annual net operating

revenues of $154,800 in 1995. The FAA estimates that any operator

carrying more than 1,300 passengers along the Blue 1 route would incur

significant costs from this provision. Of the small operators affected,

the FAA concludes that four operators (as opposed to zero in the

original analysis) carry more than 1,300 passengers each year on Blue 1

air tours and, therefore, would be significantly affected by the

extension.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone: There are 10 small operators with

total revenues of approximately $8.13 million who conducted air tours

along the Black1/1A route (7 fixed wing aircraft operators) and the

Green 1/1A/2 tour route (3 helicopter operators). The three small

helicopter operators also conducted air tours in the Dragon Corridor

along the Green 2 tour route, accounting for an additional $1.45

million in total revenue. The total 1995 revenue potentially affected

by this part of the rule, therefore, is estimated to be about $9.6

million.

The FAA estimates that due to the extension of the Bright Angel

Flight-free Zone and the dog-legging of the southern portion of the

Dragon Corridor there will be modest cost increases as discussed in the

regulatory evaluation. As in the original analysis, the FAA believes

that these modest cost increases can be offset by increased ticket

prices and, therefore, that no net operating losses will be incurred as

a result of the northern extension of the Bright-Angel Flight-free Zone

or the dog-legging of the Dragon Corridor.

Create One-Way Traffic Pattern in Zuni Point Corridor:

Reconfiguring the Zuni Point Corridor and limiting it to one-way

traffic will affect those air tours approaching Grand Canyon Airport in

Tusayan from the north along the Black 1 tour route and all air tours

that depend on the current two-way VFR

[[Page 58903]]

routes to offer a simple fly around type tour of the Zuni Point

Corridor. While there are not small operators with tours approaching

Grand Canyon Airport in Tusayan from the north, two small fixed wing

operators and three small helicopter operators fly a tour loop of the

Zuni Point Corridor.

The two small fixed wing aircraft operators flying a tour loop of

the Zuni Point Corridor generated air tour revenue of approximately

$64,200 from this particular tour in 1995. The alternatives for these

operators will be the Black 1/1A tour route or flying east over the

Painted Desert. These tour route options are expected to increase the

tour price by about $10 per passenger, or about $13,060 total annual

added cost to the air tour consumers based on 1,306 passengers opting

for this tour in 1995. The three small helicopter operators generated

1995 air tour revenue of $370,500 flying 790 tours and 3,100 passengers

over the Green 1 route. Options available to the helicopter operators

include the Green 1/1A/2 tour route or the Painted Desert tour route.

Each of these could increase the tour price by about $35 per passenger

or $108,045 total annual added cost to the commercial air tour

sightseeing consumers based on 3,100 passengers opting for this tour in

1995. For the customers of these small operators, therefore, the total

potential increase in 1995 annual costs of this particular alteration

in the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area will be about $121,105 ($13,060 +

$108,045) because of the elimination of less costly air tour

sightseeing options.

In addition to the consumer costs above, operators will incur

increases in variable operating costs that exceed the additional

revenue. The ticket price increases do not fully cover the increase in

variable operating costs to the tour operators adopting the new Zuni-

Alpha-Dragon Corridors loop. The new operators of this type of tour are

limited to raising tour prices to what is currently charged by

established operators of this type of tour (the incremental $10 and $35

cited above). The difference between what these operators could receive

in additional revenue through price increases ($121,000) and the added

operator costs imposed by this rule (estimated at $199,400) in

increased operating costs) will result in about $78,400 that the small

operators must absorb as losses. Thus, the total 1995 cost to small

operators of making the Zuni Point Corridor one-way with the north

expansion of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone is $121,100 in increased

consumer costs and $78,400 in operator losses.

The $78,400 in operator losses will be borne by two small fixed

wing aircraft operators ($10,536) and three small helicopter operators

($67,787). Based on the number of air tours conducted, the cost impact

for the two small fixed wing aircraft operators is $34.10 per air tour

($10,536/309 fixed wing air tours), and the cost impact for the three

small helicopter operators is $85.81 per air tour ($67,787/790

helicopter air tours). One of the fixed wing operators conducted 240

air tours and the other conducted 69 air tours. The annual increase to

these two fixed wing tour operators is $8,184 and $2,353, respectively.

For helicopters, the operator conducting 521 helicopter air tours will

incur an annual cost increase of $44,707 and the operator conducting

256 air tours will incur an annual cost increase of $22,053. The third

helicopter operator with 12 air tours will incur an annual cost

increase of $1,030. Based on these numbers, the FAA concludes that one

fixed wing and two helicopter operators will incur significant cost

increases.

Sanup Flight-Free Zone: The creation of the Sanup Flight-free Zone

in the southwest portion of GCNP restricts air traffic to one side of

the Colorado River beyond Separation Canyon. This change will affect

six small fixed wing operators offering tours on the Blue 2 VFR route

and three small helicopter operators offering tours on the Green 4 VFR

route. Combined, these nine small GCNP air tour operators accounted for

approximately $11.8 million total air tour revenue in 1995, flying

nearly 11,000 air tours and approximately 53,900 passengers. Based on

information provided to the FAA by air tour operators and pilots, more

than 95 percent of fixed wing air tours conducted on the Blue 2 route

turn back at either Horse Flat Canyon or Spencer Canyon; the former is

located west of Separation Canyon and the latter is located on the

south side of the Colorado River across from Separation Canyon. Air-

ground helicopter tours conducted along the Green 4 route turn back at

or just beyond Quartermaster Canyon. Air-only helicopter tours along

the ``Green 4'' turn back at or before Spencer Canyon. With the

exception of a limited number of fixed-wing training flights or air

tours along the Blue 2 that are precluded from turning back because of

weather, no flights extend beyond Separation Canyon as far as Diamond

Creek. The FAA therefore concludes, as in the regulatory evaluation,

that there will be no measurable impact associated with the creation of

the Sanup Flight-free Zone.

Desert View Flight-Free Zone: A limited number of air tours are

currently conducted in the vicinity of the Desert View Flight-free

Zone, and these take place along the Black 2 or Black 3 entry routes

linking to the Black 1 and Black 1A routes. As in the regulatory

evaluation, the FAA concludes that the expansion of the Desert View

Flight-free Zone in and of itself will have no known cost impact on

small GCNP commercial sightseeing operators or their tour passengers.

Curfew: The introduction of the new curfew (basic flight-free

periods) for operators conducting air tours at the east end of GCNP

will result in lost revenue for small operators conducting air tours in

the Zuni Point and Dragon Corridors. In 1995, 16.7 percent of daily

tours were offered during the flight-free periods and will no longer be

able to operate during those periods. Based on the reduction in time

available for air tour flights in the Zuni Point and Dragon Corridors,

small entities are expected to lose about $1.07 million annually. This

impact will be spread among a maximum of ten operators who have

recently conducted air tours on the east end of CGNP. Eight of these

operators (as opposed to six in the original analysis) will incur

annual costs exceeding $5,000.

Reporting Requirements: 14 CFR Section 93.917 will establish

operator reporting requirements. All certificate holders operating

within the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area will incur costs from these

reporting requirements during the five years that they will be in

effect (1997 through 2001).

Based on information contained in the regulatory evaluation, it

will cost each operation about $340 ($8.51/hour*40 hours) to establish

and set up the reporting system. The one-time cost for 22 small

operators is expected to be $7,480. To update records regularly, the

FAA estimates that the 22 small operators will incur costs of $14,770

annually (34,711 air tours*3 min./air tour*$8.51/hr). The average

annual cost for each small operator is about $670. The small operator

conducting the fewest tours (36, based on revised 1995 baseline) will

incur recordkeeping costs of about $15 annually. The small operator

conducting the greatest number of air tours (5,600) will incur

recordkeeping costs of $2,380.

Operators will also be required to provide the data to the Las

Vegas FSDO three times in each of the years 1997 through 2001. The FAA

assumes that this will take about one-half of an hour for each operator

to compile the

[[Page 58904]]

information, 15 minutes for each operator to fill out the generic

information on the report and an additional 15 minutes for the specific

information needed in the report. The FAA estimates that this part of

the recordkeeping requirement will cost operators $562 annually, or

about $26 per operator.

The FAA estimates that the total annualized cost of this

requirement to the 22 small operators will be about $18,170. The FAA

has determined that no (zero in the RFA for the Final Rule) operator

will incur costs exceeding $5,000 per year.

Aircraft Cap: The FAA stated in the regulatory evaluation that most

operators can increase the number of air tours they provide without

increasing the number of aircraft in their tour fleets. However, FAA

estimates that the aircraft cap will immediately restrict the growth of

one small fixed-wing operator operating out of Tusayan. The cap is also

predicted to affect one small helicopter operator within four years and

another small helicopter operator with six years. While the aircraft

cap will have no immediate impact on aggregate growth in the number of

air tours over the GCNP, the aircraft cap will impose a significant

loss of future revenues (expected to exceed $5,000 annually) on these

three operators. (The original analysis assumed that the cap would be

in effect for no more than one year and, as a result, no small operator

would be significantly affected. The revised analysis assumed no

particular end date and estimates impacts over the period 1997-2008.)

Description of Alternative Actions

As stated in the original analysis completed for the Final Rule,

this rule is somewhat unique in that most of the economic impact of the

rule falls upon small businesses. The two primary goals of the Final

Rule continue to be: (1) substantially restore natural quiet, and (2)

preserve the opportunity for the public to enjoy air tours at GCNP.

Consequently, all alternatives considered during the formulation of the

Final Rule to achieve these goals and in this reevaluation focus on

alternatives related to small entities.

In view of the new information and the foregoing analysis, the FAA

has identified the provisions of the Final Rule in which the analysis

of the impacts on air tour operators differs from the original

assessment. As a result of the new analysis, the number of air tour

operators significantly affected has increased. The FAA evaluated new

alternatives, as well as reevaluated a combination of alternatives

suggested to the Agency during its original analysis. These

alternatives included suggestions from the NPS Report to Congress,

Congressional and public meetings, and comments submitted during the

comment period for the NPRM and the Draft EA. As more fully discussed

below, the FAA has concluded that implementing any of the alternatives

to the requirements of the Final Rule for small business entities would

prevent the FAA from achieving its goals for the Final Rule. For that

reason, the FAA determined that there were no feasible alternatives to

the requirements listed in the Final Rule.

Alternatives to the Expansion the Flight-Free Zones

As was mentioned above, the expansion of the Flight-free Zones will

affect certain small entity air tour operators in varying degrees. The

Agency considered several different ways to minimize the impact on the

small entities. One of those ways was to permit the small operators to

navigate within or through the Flight-free Zones. Similar waivers to

the Flight-free Zones based on time of day or area were also

considered. However, the Agency determined that since the vast majority

of the operators are small business entities, the relaxation of the

Flight-free Zones for the operators would defeat the main purpose of

the rule to restore substantially the natural quit within the Park. As

the NPS study mentioned above concluded that compliance with SFAR 50-2

had not achieved an adequate level of natural quiet in GCNP, the

alternative of no action for the small entities cannot be justified.

Therefore, operations within or through the Flight-free Zones by small

business operators by a relaxation of the restrictions or a blanket

approval cannot be considered in light of the goals of the Final Rule.

The FAA also considered corridors or routes through the Flight-free

Zones for the small entities. Those issues dealing with the route

structure and the corridors through the Flight-free Zones are

considered in a separate rulemaking action and were not part of the

analysis of the Final Rule.

Alternatives to the Curfew

The introduction of the curfew at the east end of GVNP is making

significant first steps in achieving the goal of the substantial

restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP. Once again, the FAA

considered ways to minimize the impact on small business operators. And

once again, the alternatives relaxing the restriction for small

entities is not feasible as it would defeat the purpose of the Final

Rule to substantially restore the natural quiet in the Park. The FAA

will consider the use of more quiet aircraft and the use of performance

standards, as suggested by the Small Business Administration, in future

rulemaking. For this Final Rule, however, the use of performance

standards is outside the scope of what was proposed and envisioned by

the current rulemaking.

Alternative to the Cap

The cap on the number of aircraft permitted to conduct air tours

within GCNP has generally been determined not to affect adversely the

industry as a whole. As mentioned above, however, the cap does have an

impact on at least one small operator. The FAA has concluded that it

will need to reevaluate the impact of the cap on the goal of

substantially restoring the natural quiet and its impact on the small

business entities in future rulemaking action. However, for the purpose

of the reevaluation, the FAA reanalyzed its alternatives discussed in

the Final Rule and determined that no alternative discussed or any new

alternative would serve to minimize the impact on the small business

entities and still promote the goals of the Final Rule.

Environmental

Pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1D, a

written reevaluation is appropriated to evaluate the continued validity

of any environmental document when new information becomes available.

The FAA has completed a Written Reevaluation of the findings in the

Final EA and accompanying Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

issued December 31, 1996, to determine whether additional operations in

Marble Canyon, growth in operations under the Proposed Action, and

possible additional operations on the helicopter loop in Dragon

Corridor that were indicated by the 1997 surveys or the minor

adjustments to the proposed air tour routes are so substantial as to

warrant preparation of additional environmental documents.

As discussed in detail in the Economic Analysis section of this

Notice, after the Final EA was published on December 31, 1996, the FAA

obtained additional information suggesting that the number of air tour

aircraft conducting tours in the GCNP identified in the 1995 Survey had

not accounted for the full GCNP air tour fleet that likely operated in

1995. Accordingly, the FAA conducted voluntary air tour operator

surveys in May and July 1997.

[[Page 58905]]

The 1997 surveys suggest that 260 air tour aircraft operated in the

GCNP in 1995, not 136 as premised in the Regulatory Evaluation of the

Final Rule. This new information about the number of aircraft led FAA

to change its assumptions about the effectiveness of the cap on

aircraft to limit growth in operations, but did not otherwise affect

the validity of the noise and air quality analyses in the Final EA,

which depends on the number of flights, not aircraft. In preparing the

Regulatory Evaluation, the FAA derived the 136 aircraft baseline by

comparing data in the 1995 Survey with operations specifications. In

contract, the Final EA used modeling input that was prepared by the NPS

in October 1995 to model noise impacts in the vicinity of the GCNP

(October 1995 NPS modeling input).

The October 1995 NPS modeling input was prepared using a

combination of the 1995 Survey and traffic counts prepared by air

traffic controllers for Grand Canyon National Park Airport. The FAA

selected the October 1995 modeling input to provide the best possible

picture of flights in the vicinity of the GCNP because the GCNP does

not provide the typical data sources used to predict aircraft noise

exposure in an airport environment.

In reevaluating the Final EA, the FAA continued to base its

analysis on the following data and modeling assumptions: (1) the use of

operations in the October 1995 NPS modeling data, incorporating

refinements from the May 1997 Written Reevaluation and the 1997

surveys; (2) the assumption that the curfew would somewhat reduce

operations; and (3) the use of a 3.3 percent compound annual rate of

growth. The 3.3 percent compound annual rate of growth was retained and

used to analyze the Proposed Action because the 1997 surveys show that

caps on numbers of aircraft would only immediately restrict the growth

of a few air tour operators. The 1997 surveys indicate that many

operators use their aircraft in revenue producing endeavors other than

the GCNP air tours and that neither aircraft nor seating capacities are

fully utilized. The baseline defined in the cap on number of aircraft

in the Final Rule allows air tour operators to use aircraft that were

only flown occasionally for CGNP tours in 1995. This means that most

operators can increase their flights to meet demand without increasing

their fleets. For these reasons, the cap does not appear likely to

immediately reduce growth in the number of flights over the CCNP.

The FAA decided to revise its noise analysis to address potential

increases in operations over those modeled in the Final EA and the May

1997 Written Reevaluation. The increase operations are in the Marble

Canyon area (along the Black4 and Black5 routes). The changes in

operational levels modeled were: (1) the addition of 5 daily operations

to the Black4 route and the addition of 6 daily operations to the

Black5 route for the 1997 No Action; (2) the addition of 5 daily

operations to Black4 and 6 daily operations to Black 5 for the 1997

Proposed Action with the curfew applied; and (3) the application of a

3.3 percent annual growth rate to the new 1997 annual No Action

condition for analysis of the 2008 No Action condition.

The Written Reevaluation also included sensitivity analysis

modeling as follows: (1) the addition of 29 daily operations to the

Green 2 route along the Dragon Corridor through the Bright Angel Flight

Free Zone (FFZ) for the 1997 Proposed Action; (2) the addition of 29

daily operations to the Green2 and the placement on the modern most

loop of all Dragon corridor loop traffic for the 1997 Proposed Action;

and (3) the assumption of an earlier turn around location at Separation

Canyon for helicopter traffic on the Green4 route and fixed wing

traffic on the Blue2 route for the return trip to Las Vegas (south of

the Sanup Flight Free Zone) for the 1997 No Action and the 1997

Proposed Action.

As to proposed routes, in addition to the turn around at Separation

Canyon, this Written Reevaluation evaluates minor adjustments in the

National Canyon Corridor route. These adjustments are proposed to

further mitigate Native American concerns. Otherwise, the routes

considered are those evaluated in the May 1997 Written Reevaluation.

The route changes evaluated in the May 1997 Reevaluation are comparable

to the routes modeled in the Final EA.

The noise modeling analysis reveals that the increase in

operations, and the minor air tour route adjustment will not

significantly impact the human and natural environment in the vicinity

of Grand Canyon National Park. More specifically, noise levels

associated with the Final Rule are well below any established

residential or other established threshold of significance in the

Special Flight Rules Area. The new information on number of aircraft

and air tour operations, and the minor air tour route adjustments does

not alter the previous analysis that indicted the Proposed Action

(Final Rule) in the Final EA reduces aircraft noise effects in the

GCNP. The analyses in the Written Reevaluation supports the conclusion

that the Final Rule, even with the new information, does not lead to

significant environmental impacts on historic, archaeological, and

cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, visual resources,

endangered species, DOT Section 4(f) properties, environmental justice,

and air quality. Nor will it result in other significant environmental

impacts such as cumulative, social, or induced socio-economic impacts.

With respect to the achievement of progress toward the substantial

restoration of natural quiet, the impact of increased air tour

operations as analyzed in the Written Reevaluation, serves to reduce

the percentage of the GCNP that will achieve substantial restoration of

natural quiet for more than 25 percent of the time when compared to

what was originally assumed in the Final EA. However, although the GCNP

with the implementation of the Final Rule, will not reach the same

percentage of substantial restoration of natural quiet as had been

originally projected in the Final EA, progress will still be made

toward the goal with the implementation of the Final Rule.

Accordingly, the conclusions of the December 31, 1996, Final EA

FONSI are still substantially valid as indicated in the Written

Reevaluation. No supplemental EA, or further environmental

documentation is required based upon this new information.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 1997.

John S. Walker,

Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.

[FR Doc. 97-28856 Filed 10-28-97; 9:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M