Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park

SUMMARY: On December 31, 1996, the FAA published a final rule that

codifies the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)

No. 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National

Park (GCNP); modifies the dimensions of the GCNP Special Flight Rules

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

establishes new and modifies existing flight corridors; establishes

reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating

in the Special Flight Rules Area; prohibits commercial sightseeing

operations during certain time periods; and limits the number of

aircraft that can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in the

GCNP Special Flight Rules Area. This action delays the effective date

for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 of the final rule and

reinstates portions of and amends the expiration date of SFAR No. 50-2.

This action does not affect or delay the implementation of the curfew,

aircraft restrictions, reporting requirements or the other portions of

the rule.

Dates: Effective date: The effective date of May 1, 1997, for 14 CFR

Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307, is delayed until 0901 UTC January

31, 1998. SFAR No. 560-2 is reinstated and amended effective 0901 UTC

May 1, 1997. SFAR No. 50-2, Sections 2, 3, 6, 6, 7 and 8 are removed

effective 0901 UTC May 1, 1997.

Comments must be received on or before March 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments 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 be sent electronically to the Rules

Docket by using the following Internet address

[email protected]. Comments must be marked Docket No. 28537.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Saunders, Airspace and Rules

Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC

20591; Telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments on the Rule

Although this action is a final rule, and was not preceded by

notice and public procedure, comments are invited on the rule. This

rule will become effective on the date specified in the DATES section.

Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and

suggestions presented are particularly helpful in evaluating the

effects of the rule, and in determining whether additional rulemaking

is required.

History

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

final rule, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM], and a Notice of

Availability of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes) in the Federal

Register (62 FR 69301) as part of an overall strategy to reduce further

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

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

by Public Law 100-91. The final rule amends part 93 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations and adds a new subpart to codify the provisions of

SFAR No. 50-2, modifies the dimensions of the GCNP Special Flight Rules

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

reestablishes 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, the final rule prohibits

commercial sightseeing operations in the Zuni and Dragon corridors

during certain time periods, and places a temporary limit on the number

of aircraft that can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in

the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area. These provisions become effective

on May 1, 1997.

An NPRM, Notice No. 96-15, proposing to establish noise limitations

for certain aircraft operating in the vicinity of GCNP was also

published with a comment period that closes on March 31, 1997.

Finally, a Notice of Availability of proposed Commercial Air Tour

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

closed on January 31, 1997. This Notice requested comment 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.

Petitions

By petition dated January 15, 1997, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots

Association requested that the FAA reconsider the rule because of its

perceived negative impact on the general aviation community and the

fact that general aviation traffic does not contribute to the issues

addressed by the final rule.

On January 30, 1997, the Clark County Department of Aviation, et

al., filed a petition seeking reconsideration and/or a stay of

effectiveness of the implementation of the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-Free

Zone that will bar the use of the current ``Blue 1'' commercial air

tour route until the FAA has taken adequate steps to assure the

availability of an adequate alternative for Las Vegas based air tour

operators.

On January 31, 1997, the Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition

(Coalition) requested a stay of the effective date arguing that the

necessary pilot training and certification could not be reasonably and

safely completed prior to the May 1, 1997, effective date. The petition

also alleged that discontinuing and limiting existing tour routes as of

May 1, 1997, would disrupt the travel plans of a substantial portion of

GCNP visitors, and air tour operators would be forced to dishonor

contractual obligations based on material printed prior to August 1996.

(This administrative action is separate from but interrelated to a

Petition for Review filed by the Coalition in the Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit, Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v.

FAA, (Case No. 97-1003)).

On February 18, 1997, the Grand Canyon Trust, et. al., (Trust)

filed a request with the FAA opposing the Coalition's request for stay

of the final rule and urged the FAA to deny the Coalition's request.

The Trust argued that the Coalition has not presented valid grounds to

support its stay request.

Even though the specific Petitions filed with the FAA focus on

different aspects of the operating environment within the Park, the

underlying concepts of the three Petitions are similar in nature. All

three administrative Petitions are concerned

[[Page 8863]]

with the air tour route structure or its implementation.

In support of the requests for a stay of the effective date, the

Petitions have alleged several economic and safety concerns. The

economic concerns are inextricably tied with the implementation of the

new routes in the Park. As will be discussed below, if the

implementation of the new routes is delayed, the economic concerns are,

at a minimum, also delayed. In essence, the safety concerns stem from

the Petitioners' position that there is not enough time to train and

certify all operators and pilots for operations on the new Grand Canyon

routes that are scheduled to be in place on May 1, 1997, and that this

would create an inherently unsafe situation in the Grand Canyon. The

FAA strongly disagrees with this assertion that implementing the new

routes effective May 1, 1997, would be unsafe. Even though the FAA is

committed to achieving the substantial restoration of natural quiet in

the Park as soon as possible, safety is, and always will be, paramount.

To that end, the FAA has been preparing to take dramatic steps to

alleviate any potential problems that could adversely affect the safety

in the Park on May 1, 1997, by arranging for additional inspectors to

be available for the operators to complete the training on the new

routes prior to the May 1, 1997, effective date. The FAA would never

permit an unsafe situation to take place at the Grand Canyon.

While the FAA has been diligently working toward a May 1, 1997,

implementation date for the entire rule, the Agency has also been

reviewing comments concerning proposed routes and working toward the

establishment of these routes. During the process of establishing the

new routes in response to the final rule, the FAA has met with aviation

users, Park users, and Native Americans. Several new and innovative

ideas were offered by those groups. Many of these creative ideas

suggest alternatives to both the existing environment at the Park and

the proposed environment that could significantly improve the operating

situation in both the environmental and operational arenas. These new

suggestions have not yet been adequately explored, but are deserving of

further investigation and analysis. Additional time would afford the

FAA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) an opportunity to review

these new ideas. In addition, the FAA is committed to a continued

working relationship with the affected Native American tribal units,

and the FAA intends to complete consultation with the affected Native

American tribes concerning these new route suggestions pursuant to

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Although the FAA

is fully prepared to implement the new route structure on May 1, 1997,

as originally proposed, it would be extremely difficult to accommodate

the new proposals now being discussed by that date.

The FAA has consulted with the DOI concerning the new suggestions

received by the FAA and the need for further consultation. The DOI

reexamined the situation at the Park and concluded that the

implementation of the curfew as required by the final rule on May 1,

1997, will, on its own, be a significant step to achieving the

substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Park. The subsequent

implementation of the new air tour route structure, together with the

proposal of quiet technology, will form the basis for the next step

towards the substantial restoration of natural quiet. The DOI and the

FAA have determined that additional time would be beneficial to permit

the further exploration of these new ideas submitted by the affected

and interested parties, and that a delay in the effective date of the

implementation of the new routes in the Park is warranted. Therefore,

to permit continued discussions on, and possible changes to, the

proposed new routes and to permit further consultation with the Native

American tribes, the FAA has determined to delay the effective date of

the expansion of the flight-free zones and minimum altitudes as stated

in 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305 and 93.307 to January 31, 1998. The

effective date of May 1, 1997, for all the other aspects of the rule,

i.e., the curfew, aircraft limitations, and reporting requirements,

will remain unchanged.

Since the FAA is delaying certain portions of the final rule, as

stated above, SFAR 50-2 must be reinstated, and certain portions of the

SFAR be extended. The continuation of the SFAR is vital to maintain the

existing environmental and safety benefits. Specifically, the FAA finds

it necessary to amend Section 9 of the reinstated SFAR 50-2 to extend

the provisions of Sections 1, 4, and 5, (i.e., the Special Flight Rules

Area, the flight-free zones and the minimum flight altitudes) until

January 31, 1998. The termination of SFAR 50-2 Sections 1, 4, and 5

will coincide with the delayed effective date of 14 CFR Sections

93.301, 93.305, and 93.307.

On May 1, 1997, the provisions of the final rule that are

unaffected by the pending route structure will go into effect. These

provisions consist of the curfew, aircraft limitations, and reporting

requirements, and are continued in 14 CFR Sections 93.303, 93.309,

93.311, 93.313, 93.315, 93.316, and 93.317. To avoid redundancy and

confusion the FAA also finds it necessary to remove certain sections of

SFAR 50-2 effective May 1, 1997. Sections 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 will be

removed on May 1, 1997 to coincide with the implementation of the above

referenced sections of the final rule contained in part 93.

Further Consultation and Review

As mentioned above, during the comment period on the new routes,

the FAA received many insightful and cogent comments on the proposed

route structure. Consultation with the Native American representatives

also produced several useful and valid alternate operational schemes.

Many of these ideas received from the comments and through the

consultations are innovative and may prove to be quite beneficial for

both the safety and the environmental arenas. A good example of this

concerns the direction of air tour traffic in the eastern side of the

Park, e.g. in the Dragon Corridor. The FAA's preliminary view that

traffic should operate in a clockwise direction is being revisited,

based on comments from the air tour operators as well as from NPS. With

new considerations given by the operators, the existing direction of

traffic operations, ie., counterclockwise, may be the more safe and

environmentally sound decision.

The FAA has determined that the responses to the proposed routes

should be further analyzed prior to implementation of airspace changes.

Therefore, in light of the comments and additional information

received, the FAA will reexamine the proposed route structure in

relation to the operating environment in the Park. The FAA expects to

revisit the proposed route structure and incorporate several of the

above mentioned ideas. Involvement of the interested and affected

parties will be crucial in this process.

Notice and Comment

As is explained below, this final rule is being issued without

prior notice and comment because of the time constraints. The FAA spent

the month of January and most of February receiving and reviewing

comments on the proposed routes and consulting with the various

affected parties. Had the FAA not received the valuable information on

the route structure that it did, the FAA would have been able to

transmit the data on the proposed routes to the proper charting

authorities

[[Page 8864]]

(the National Ocean Service [NOS]), and an aeronautical chart would

have been available by at least April 1, 1997, that would have been

used by the operators for training and navigational purposes. To have

the appropriate chart produced by April 1, the FAA would have had to

forward the charting data to NOS by February 21, 1997. However, once

the FAA started to receive the relevant information from the

commenters, the Agency had to make a determination as to whether to

proceed with the proposed routes so as to have the routes and the

complete Grand Canyon final rule effective and implemented on May 1, or

whether to take additional time to analyze the comments and possibly

develop a better and more comprehensive route structure that would not

go into effect until after the busy summer tourist season.

Further, officials of the Park and NPS had suggested alterations

and refinements in the route structure that have the potential to

produce noise reduction benefits. They have requested the opportunity

to explore these new options with the FAA. Both the FAA and the DOI

believe that all these suggested changes could produce a significantly

better rule for both the Park users and the aviation operators.

Additional time is needed, however, to review, analyze, and implement

these route changes, which, again, would preclude a May 1, 1997,

effective date.

To permit what the FAA and the DOI believe will culminate in a

better overall route structure, the FAA has decided not to send the

originally proposed routes to NOS for charting, but to analyze the new

ideas with the expectation of creating better routes. Due to the

specific and strict requirements of NOS for the charting preparation

time, any further alteration to the route structure, such as the ones

suggested by DOI and interested parties, make it impossible to meet the

charting date necessary for a May 1 effective date. A delay in the

charting data to NOS would mean that NOS would not have been able to

produce the charts by April 1 and, consequently, operators would not

have been able to train their pilots by May 1. Essentially, therefore,

any delay in sending the data to NOS results in an equivalent delay of

the effective date. With the goal to produce the best routes possible,

the FAA determined that it would be contrary to the public interest to

implement the originally proposed routes when better alternatives might

be available as a result of the comments received and the consultations

with DOI and others.

Moreover, past experience has demonstrated that the training of

pilots on new routes during a peak tourist season could be unsafe. At

the Park, the peak season extends approximately from May through

October. To eliminate the potential for unsafe operations within the

Park, the FAA further determined that the training should take place in

the Park when the volume of air traffic traditionally decreases, i.e.,

after the summer tourist season. For that reason, the FAA is delaying

the effective date of the new airspace and route structure until

January 31, 1998, to give the operators sufficient time to train their

pilots adequately and safely after the close of the busy summer season.

Therefore, the FAA finds that there is sufficient justification under 5

U.S.C. 553(b) to issue this rule without notice and an opportunity for

comment. However, while there is not sufficient time to allow prior

notice and comments concerning the FAA decision to delay the May 1

effective date, we invite comments concerning any other aspect of this

notice, including the new implementation date of January 31, 1998.

Economic Evaluation

In promulgating the final rule for Special Flight Rules in the

Vicinity of the GCNP, the FAA prepared a cost-benefit analysis of the

rule. The delay in the implementation of 14 CFR Sections 93.301 and

93.307 will not affect that assessment. The delay in the implementation

of Section 93.305 will be cost-relieving.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,

FAA completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis of the final

rule. The delay in the implementation of 14 CFR Sections 93.301,

93.305, and 93.307 will not have an effect on that analysis.

Federalism Implications

The amendment set forth herein will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, or the relationship between the national

Government and the State, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this

amendment does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant

the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, Aviation safety, Noise

control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 93

Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air), Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 121

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety,

Transportation.

14 CFR Part 135

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

Adoption of Amendments

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends 14

CFR parts 91, 93, 121, and 135 as follows:

PARTS 91, 121 AND 135 [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111,

44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,

46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531.

2. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,

44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,

44912, 46105.

3. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,

44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

SFAR No. 50-2 [Reinstated]

4. In parts 91, 121, and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation

No. 50-2 is reinstated.

5. In parts 91, 121, and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation

No. 50-2, Section 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are removed.

6. In parts 91, 121, and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation

No. 50-2, Section 9 is revised to read as follows:

SFAR 50-2--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon

National Park, AZ

* * * * *

Section 9. Termination date. Sections 1. Applicability, Section

4, Flight-free zones, and Section 5. Minimum flight altitudes,

expire on 0901 UTC, January 31, 1998.

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS

7. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,

44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

The effective date of May 1, 1997, for new Secs. 93.301, 93.305,

and 93.307 to be

[[Page 8865]]

added to 14 CFR Chapter I is delayed until 0901 UTC, January 31, 1998.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 1997.

Barry L. Valentine,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-4824 Filed 2-21-97; 3:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M