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; SFAR 50-2; Notice No. 98-18]

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National

Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

codified the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)

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

Park (GCNP); modified the dimensions of GCNP Special Flight Rules Area

(SFRA); established new and modified existing flight-free zones;

established new and modified existing flight corridors; established

reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating

in the SFRA; prohibited commercial sightseeing operations during

certain time periods; and limited the number of aircraft that can be

used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP SFRA. On

February 21, 1997, the FAA delayed the implementation of certain

portions of that final rule. Specifically, that action delayed the

effective date for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 of the

final rule and reinstated portions of and amended the expiration date

of SFAR No. 50-2. However, that action did not affect or delay the

implementation of the curfew, aircraft restrictions, reporting

requirements or the other portions of the rule. This proposal would

delay the effective date for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307

of the December 31, 1996 final rule until January 31, 2000.

Additionally, this proposal would amend the expiration date of those

portions of SFAR No. 50-2 that were reinstated in the February 21, 1997

final rule and extended in the rule published on December 17, 1997.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 6, 1999.

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 Ave., 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:

Ellen Crum, 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:

Background

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 further reduce

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

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

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

Aviation Regulations and added a new subpart to codify the provisions

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

Rules Area; established new and modifies existing flight-free zones;

established new and modifies existing flight corridors; and established

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 prohibited commercial

sightseeing 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

Special Flight Rules Area. These provisions originally were to become

effective on May 1, 1997.

On February 21, 1997, the FAA issued a final rule and request for

comments that delayed the implementation of certain sections of the

final rule (62 FR 8862; February 26,1 997). Specifically, that action

delayed the effective date, until January 31, 1998, of those sections

of the rule that address the Special Flight Rules Area, flight-free

zones, and flight corridors, respectively Secs. 93.301, 93.305, and

93.307. In addition, certain portions of SFAR No. 50-2 were reinstated

and the expiration date was extended. With the goal to produce the best

air tour routes possible, implementation was delayed to allow the FAA

and the Department of Interior (DOI) to consider comments and

suggestions to improve the proposed route structure. This latter action

did not affect or delay the implementation of the curfew, aircraft cap,

or reporting requirements of the rule. This delay was subsequently

extended until January 31, 1999 (62 FGR 66248; December 17, 1997).

Discussion of Comments

Eleven comments were submitted in response to the December 17,

1997, final rule that extended the implementation date of certain

provisions of the final rule issued on December 31, 1996.

The Hualapai nation applauded the delay, saying that the FAA should

reconsider what the Tribe considers the double standard used for

measuring noise in the GCNP versus the Hualapai reservation. The

Hualapai urged the FAA to develop an appropriate noise measurement

standard for its religious sites and ceremonies. The nation also

repeated its admonition to the FAA to be considered as a sovereign

nation with incumbent rights therein.

The Sierra Club generally criticized the FAA and NPS for not making

greater progress in the overall reduction of noise in GCNP. It also

urged that the Zuni and Dragon corridors be closed to air tour traffic.

The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (GCATC) was critical of the FAA

for issuing a final rule with comment instead of a proposal, stating

that there is no incentive for FAA to respond to comments after the

fact and that such action without notice created `discriminatory

uncertainty'. GCATC also urged the FAA to delay implementation of the

December 1996 final rule until the Air Tour Management Plan is

completed.

Likewise, the Wilderness Society was critical of the FAA for not

seeking comment on a proposal rather than publishing a final rule

extension. The Society also commented that the delay was not warranted,

that there has been little progress since the legislation 10 years ago,

and that the FAA should cap operations now. National Parks and

Conservation Society filed a similar comment, objecting to the delay

and calling for a cap on operations.

The Grand Canyon Trust's comment incorporated its comments from

previously filed comments on the July 1, 1996, notice.

A number of comments were submitted by individuals; the majority of

these persons regretted the delay as being a setback for enjoyment of

the park.

FAA's Response

The FAA agrees that the proper procedure for the delay in

implementation of a final rule is

[[Page 67545]]

through notice and comment. The FAA and NPS have expended substantial

resources on trying to determine the most appropriate air tour route

through the SFRA in GCNP. These expenditures include noise modeling,

interagency discussions, consultations with Native Americans,

clarification of comments made on the various rulemakings, and

preliminary development of the Comprehensive Noise Management Plan. To

the extent that time permitted, the agencies would have sought comment

prior to issuing a final decision to extend the effective date for the

1996 final rule. However, the FAA is responding to previously filed

comments and now seeks comments from affected parties before further

delaying those portions of the 1996 final rule pertaining to FFZs and

flight corridors.

In response to those comments that nothing has been accomplished

since the Overflights Act was enacted, the FAA and NPS disagree. The

number of air tour operations in the GCNP have decreased in the past

year. There is a cap on the number of aircraft permitted to operate in

the Park, which prevents the addition of new aircraft into the SFRA.

The curfew has been effective in removing both very early morning and

late afternoon noise during peak tourist seasons for covered areas. The

reporting requirement has provided the agencies with valuable

information on how many operations there are, where they are occurring,

and definitive noise footprints for most areas of the GCNP. In

addition, valuable information has been gained through public meetings

with the interested parties, through open forums exploring additional

routes, and through consultations with the Native Americans.

Recent Actions

On May 15, 1997, the FAA published a Notice of Availability of

Proposed Routes and a companion NPRM, Notice No. 97-6, that proposed

two quiet technology corridors in GCNP. The first corridor, through the

Bright Angel flight-free zone, would be used for quiet technology

aircraft only. The second corridor, through National Canyon, would be

for quiet technology aircraft for westbound traffic after December 21,

2001. The FAA, in consultation with the National Park Service (NPS),

has determined to not proceed with the proposals set forth in Notice

No. 97-6. The two agencies are considering alternatives to the National

canyon area for air tour routes. Consequently, the FAA withdrew Notice

No. 97-6 and amended the proposed rule, Notice No. 96-15, to remove the

two sections that first proposed a National Canyon corridor through the

Torroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone (FR 63 38232; July 15, 1998).

In addition, on April 28, 1998, the FAA convened interested parties

for a public meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona to discuss yet another

possible air tour route that is being considered by the FAA and NPS.

Most recently, by petition dated September 22, the Clark County

Department of Aviation (Clark County) requests that the FAA delay the

current January 31, 1999, effective date for the airspace portions of

the final rule to January 31, 2001, to avoid unnecessary impacts to

aviation safety and the Grand Canyon air tour industry. Petitioner also

asks that the FAA initiate a stakeholder-based cooperative process to

complete the Grand Canyon overflight regulatory structure in a coherent

and timely fashion. Specific to this proposal, Clark County points out

that it is too late for the FAA to promulgate a safe and defensible set

of air tour routes prior to the January 31, 1999, effective date. The

petitioner notes that the closing of the current tour route, Blue 1, by

making the FFZ's effective, would divert an immense quantity of traffic

onto other routes, such as Blue 2 and Blue Direct. Clerk County cites

the significant economic impact that the lack of safe and viable air

tour routes would effect; not only would air tour operators be

affected, but there would be impacts on the ability of the region to

attract both American and foreign tourists and on the ability of the

Clark County airport system to support Southern Nevada aviation needs.

Petitioner states that it does not seek an extension for the sake of

delay; rather the uncertainty of the regulatory environment is harmful

to air tour operators, local governments operating airports, Native

Americans, and investors. For this reason, Clark County encourages a

concerted effort whereby all stakeholders will negotiate long-term

workable rules.

In response to Clark County's petition, the FAA finds that, because

of the need to meet the legislative mandate to work toward the

substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP, it cannot extend the

effective date of the final rule as it relates to flight corridors and

flight-free zones beyond January 31, 2000. Based on a substantial

dedication of resources, in cooperation with NPS, the FAA believes that

an acceptable route structure may be established by January 2000. In

addition, while the FAA commends Clark County for its interest in a

negotiated rulemaking effort to meet the needs of all stakeholders, it

lacks the resources to direct this effort. Accordingly, the FAA must

deny Clark County's petition. However, if the stakeholders can

negotiate GCNP issues successfully, the FAA would be willing to accept

a recommendation that it then could publish for comment.

Proposal

As of this date, the FAA is still working with the NPS to determine

a route through the western portions of the Park that will provide air

tour operators with a safe, viable air tour route while at the same

time moving toward the legislatively mandated goal of the substantial

restoration of natural quiet in Grand Canyon National Park. Because the

air tour routes, flight free zones, and flight corridors are

intrinsically related and thus must be implemented at the same time,

the FAA proposes to extend the effective date of these portions of the

December 1996 final rule until January 31, 2000. Although Clark County

Department of Aviation requests that this date be extended to January

31, 2001, the FAA and NPS are optimistic that prior work done on

proposed routes in the western portion of the GCNP will assist them in

making a final determination in order to accommodate a January 31,

2000, effective date.

Economic Evaluation

In issuing the final rule for Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity

of the GCNP, the FAA prepared a cost benefit analysis of the rule. A

copy of the regulatory evaluation is located in docket Number 28537.

That economic evaluation was later revised based on new information

received on the number aircraft being operated in the SFRA. The

reevaluation of the economic data, including alternatives considered,

was published in the Notice of Clarification (62 FR 58898). In the

notice, the FAA concluded that the rule is still cost beneficial. This

extension of the effective date for the final rule will not affect that

reevaluation, although the delay in the implementation of the FFZs will

be cost relieving for air tour operators.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

the FAA completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis of the final

rule. This analysis was also reevaluated and revised findings were

published in the Notice of Clarification referenced above, as a

Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This extended delay of

the compliance date will not affect that supplemental analysis.

[[Page 67546]]

Federalism Implications

The regulation proposed herein would not have substantial direct

effects on the states, on the relationship between the national

government and the states, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this

proposed regulation would 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.

14 CFR Part 93

Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air).

14 CFR Part 121

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

Transportation.

14 CFR Part 135

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Proposal

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to

amend 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 U.S.C. 106(G), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111,

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

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

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

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,

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

44912, 46105.

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

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702 44705, 44709,

44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

4. 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

* * * * *

Sec 9. Termination date. Sections 1. Applicability, Section 4.

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

on 0901 UTC, January 31, 2000.

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

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

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,

44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

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

and 93.307 to be added to 14 CFR Chapter I, is delayed until 0901 UTC,

January 31, 2000.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 1998.

William J. Marx,

Acting Program Director, Air Traffic Airspace Management Program.

[FR Doc. 98-32406 Filed 12-2-98; 3:03 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M