Modification of the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the special operating rules and

airspace for all persons operating aircraft in the airspace designated

as the Grand Canyon Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). Specifically,

this action proposes to modify the eastern portion of the SFRA and the

Desert View Flight-free Zone (FFZ) to address concerns raised by Native

Americans; modify the Bright Angel FFZ to provide a provisional

corridor to be available at a future date for noise efficient/quiet

technology aircraft; modify the Sanup FFZ to provide for a planned

revision to a commercial route over the northwestern section of the

Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP); and provide for an additional

commercial route over the northern section of the Sanup plateau for

those aircraft transiting between Las Vegas, Nevada and Tusayan,

Arizona. The FAA is taking this action as part of a continuing effort

to assist the National Park Service in fulfilling its statutory mandate

of providing for the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and

experience in GCNP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 7, 1999.

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

U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, Docket No. [FAA99-5926] 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC, 20590. Comments may also be sent

electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet

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

99-5926]. Comments may be filed and examined in Room Plaza 401 on

weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph C. White, Airspace and Rules

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

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

20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. For the draft Environmental

Assessment contact Tina Hunter, Environmental Affairs Division, ATA-

300, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation

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

telephone: (202) 267-7685.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed

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

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

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

notice are also invited. Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful

in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal.

Communications should identify the regulatory docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. All communications

and a report summarizing any substantive public contact with FAA

personnel on this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. The docket is

available for public inspection both before and after the closing date

for receiving comments.

Before taking any final action on this proposal, the Administrator

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

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

received. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent possible

without incurring expense or delay.

The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter

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

postcard should marked ``Comments to Docket No. [ ].'' When the

comment is received, the postcard will be date stamped and mailed to

the commenter.

Availability of This NPRM

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

modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations

section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone:

(703) 321-3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board

service (telephone: (202) 512-1661). Internet users may reach the FAA's

web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Federal

Register'12s web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs for access

to recently published rulemaking documents.

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

request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,

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

267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.

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

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

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the

application procedure.

Public Meetings

The FAA intends to hold two public meetings to provide interested

persons an additional opportunity to comment on this proposal. The

details pertaining to the public meetings will be announced in the

notice section of the Federal Register. For more information, contact

Linda Williams at (202) 267-9685 or by email at

[email protected]

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 SFRA; establishing new and modifying existing

flight corridors and FFZs; establishing reporting requirements for

commercial sightseeing companies operating in the SFRA; restricting

flights in the Zuni Point 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 SFRA (aircraft cap)

(61 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 (noise efficient/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 Public Law 100-91, to provide for the substantial

restoration of natural quiet and experience in GCNP.

[[Page 37297]]

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

expansion of the FFZs, the air tour routes, and other related airspace

provisions of the 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.

On December 17, 1997, the FAA took action to further delay the

implementation of the above mentioned sections of the final rule and to

further extend certain portions of SFAR 50-2 until January 31, 1999 (62

FR 66248). On December 7, 1998, the FAA again took action to further

delay implementation of the above mentioned sections and to extend

certain portions of SFAR 50-2 until January 31, 2000 (63 FR 67544).

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 noise efficient/quiet technology incentive corridors over the GCNP

(62 FR 26901). The first corridor, through the Bright Angel FFZ, was

planned for use by noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft use only.

The second corridor, through National Canyon, was planned for use by

noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft westbound after December 31,

2001. The FAA, in consultation with the NPS, determined not to proceed

with a corridor through National Canyon. The FAA received suggestions

for alterations and refinements from officials of the GCNP and NPS that

could potentially produce noise reductions. Based on comments from

environmentalists, Native Americans, and air tour operators, the FAA

was led to conclude that the National Canyon air tour route was not a

viable option. This proposal was subsequently withdrawn in July 1998,

along with the quiet technology NPRM's proposal for a route through the

central portion of GCNP. Due to resource constraints, the FAA has not

been able to prepare a disposition of the comments received in response

to Notice 97-6. The FAA plans to summarize those comments and publish a

disposition of comments document in the Federal Register.

The Proposal

Special Flight Rules Area and Desert View FFZ

In this action, the FAA is proposing to modify the Grand Canyon

SFRA by moving the eastern boundary five (5) nautical miles to the

east. The FAA is also proposing to modify the Desert View FFZ by moving

the eastern boundary five (5) nautical miles to the east.

The current design of the eastern portion of the SFRA and the

Desert View FFZ allows entry and exit as well as travel over several

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) on the eastern side of the Grand

Canyon National Park, of importance to the Zuni, Hopi, and Navajo

Tribes. These sites were identified through consultation with affected

tribes in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA). The specific locations of the TCP are not

identified pursuant to section 304 of the NHPA which provides for

confidentiality of cultural and religious sites. The proposed expansion

of the Desert View FFZ and associated proposed changes to the SFRA

would provide mitigation of impacts on the TCP in accordance with

Section 106 requirements.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone

The FAA is proposing to reinstate the provisional incentive

corridor, one nautical mile in width, through the Bright Angel FFZ to

be used at some future date only by aircraft meeting a noise

efficiency/quiet technology standard. The FAA acknowledges that

currently no standard for noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft

exists. Both the FAA and NPS are anticipating, however, that such a

standard will be developed in the future. Readers must understand that

until such a standard is developed and adopted, that the Bright Angel

incentive corridor will not be available for commercial operations. The

FAA and NPS find that it is of value, however, for commenters to have

the opportunity to comment on the merit of this specific proposal.

This proposed incentive corridor would pass through the Bright

Angel FFZ along the northern boundary of the current Bright Angel FFZ

as defined in SFAR 50-2. Even without a standard, it is intuitively

clear that the proposed Bright Angel Corridor would have a three-fold

benefit. First, fewer aircraft would be flying over the northern rim of

the canyon along the Saddle Mountain Wilderness Area, where the NPS and

U.S. Forest Service have indicated that noise-sensitive activity

regularly occurs. Second, noise from the air tour aircraft would be

dispersed between the northern boundary of the Bright Angel FFZ and the

proposed incentive corridor, thereby reducing the level of concentrated

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

aircraft that could meet the noise efficiency/quiet technology

standard, yet to be developed, would provide a valuable and tangible

incentive for the air tour operators to convert to quieter aircraft.

The GCNP could thereby experience the benefit of a reduction in the

level of aircraft noise over time.

Sanup Flight-Free Zone

The FAA is proposing to modify the Sanup FFZ to continue to provide

for a commercial route over the northwestern section of the GCNP and to

provide for an additional commercial route between the vicinity of Las

Vegas, Nevada and Tusayan, Arizona. As discussed in the preamble to the

December 1996 final rule (61 FR 69302), the Blue 1 and Blue 1A routes

were eliminated due to environmental and Native American concerns.

Concurrently, the noise limitations NPRM included a corridor to permit

routes through National Canyon to continue with noise efficient/quiet

technology aircraft. Since the FAA did not finalize the NPRM and

delayed the effective date for the December 1996 final rule and

extended certain portions of SFAR 50-2 until January 31, 2000, they are

still in use. With the elimination of the Blue 1 and Blue 1A, the FAA

anticipates that aircraft operating on these routes would move to the

Blue Direct, which may be renamed Blue Direct North (BDN), thus

increasing operations on the route. The Blue Direct South (BDS) route

was eliminated from the December 1996 and April 1997 route maps.

Therefore, to accommodate safely the expected increase in operations

moving from the Blue 1 and Blue 1A, the FAA plans to restore and modify

the BDS route. The FAA recognizes that increased aircraft operations on

BDS would be over the northern portion of the newly created Sanup FFZ

(December 1996 final rule), at altitudes less than 3,000 feet above the

elevation of some areas of the Sanup plateau. At this altitude, these

aircraft operations may have a noise impact. It is with this in mind

that the FAA believes that the northern portion of the Sanup FFZ, that

would lie beneath BDS, should be eliminated from the FFZ to accommodate

safely an additional route between Tusayan, Arizona and Las Vegas,

Nevada. Therefore, the FAA is proposing to modify the Sanup FFZ by

moving the northern portion of the FFZ south approximately one mile

south of the BDS route.

Additionally, to provide for a proposed revision of the current

Blue 2 commercial route over the northwestern portion of the GCNP, the

FAA is proposing to modify the Sanup FFZ by moving the northwestern

portion of the

[[Page 37298]]

FFZ east approximately one mile east of the Blue 2 route.

Information on the proposed commercial routes for the Grand Canyon

SFRA can be obtained through instructions in a Notice of Availability

that will be published concurrently with this proposed rulemaking

effort. In addition, the alternatives considered are more fully

discussed in the Environmental Assessment for these rulemaking/

nonrulemaking efforts.

Economic Summary

Any changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic

analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency

shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination

that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,

the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the

Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect

of regulatory changes on international trade. A regulatory evaluation

of the proposal is in the docket.

Because of the continued high public interest surrounding GCNP

regulations and the potential implications within a small locality, the

FAA has determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is

considered a significant regulatory action under 3(f) of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, is subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget. This notice is considered significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation

(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The FAA, however, has determined that

this NPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities (commercial air tour operators conducting

flights within Grand Canyon National Park), and does not warrant

further regulatory flexibility action. Accordingly, pursuant to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation

Administration certifies that this rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This NPRM would not have a significant impact on international

trade.

Introduction

The FAA proposes to modify the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP)

Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) and three Flight-free Zones (FFZs).

The eastern boundaries of the SFRA and the Desert View FFZ would each

be moved five (5) nautical miles to the east, respectively. The FAA

also proposes to modify the Bright Angel FFZ to provide an incentive

corridor, one nautical mile in width, for use at some time in the

future by only the most noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft.

Finally, the FAA proposes to modify the Sanup FFZ to continue to

provide for a commercial air tour route over the northwestern section

of the GCNP.

Costs

Costs associated with the reconfiguration of the Desert View and

Bright Angel FFZs, as described in 14 CFR Sec. 93.305, were accounted

for in the December 31, 1996 final rule (61 FR 69302), hereafter

referred to as the Final Rule. This analysis, therefore, is concerned

only with the costs associated with the currently proposed

modifications to the reconfigurations.

14 CFR Sec. 93.317 requires each operator (effective May 1, 1997)

to report to the FAA the following commercial air tour activity for

each flight conducted in the Grand Canyon SFRA: (1) routes flown; (2)

departure airport, date and time; and (3) aircraft registration number.

Based on the operator reports, the FAA has developed a database for the

time period May 1997 through April 1998, the first full year of

operator reporting. The information developed in the database forms the

basis, or baseline, for the following economic analysis.

Special Flight Rules Area and Desert View Flight-Free Zone

The Black 2E and Green 3E routes are the only air tour routes that

would be affected by the eastward shifts of the SFRA and the Desert

View FFZ. During the baseline period, three operators conducted 577 air

tours that would likely use the Black 2E route. The combined estimated

gross operating revenue of these three operators for tours which would

use the Black 2E route was about $825,000; net operating revenue

adjusted for variable operating costs was $496,000.

The FAA believes that a shift in the Black 2E route eastward

resulting from the eastward shift in the SFRA and Desert View FFZ by 5

nautical miles would serve only to realign the access/approach to the

Black 2 tour route. It would not alter the tour offerings of the

individual operator, and any changes in the operator's variable

operating costs resulting from adding 5 nautical miles to the overall

air tour (about 2-3 minutes) are small. Similarly, the FAA believes

there will be little impact on the three operators entering the SFRA on

the Black 2E route to conduct air tours of the Canyon. Therefore, the

FAA concludes that this part of the proposed rulemaking is non-

significant and requests comments.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone

In the Final Rule, the FAA determined that the increase in average

annual variable operating costs associated with the expansion of the

Bright Angel FFZ was just over $1 million. FAA argued that these costs

could be passed onto the consumer as higher ticket prices so long as

all operators were similarly confronted by higher variable operating

costs. The FAA concluded, therefore, that no net operating losses would

be borne by GCNP air tour operators. The full societal cost of the

increase in variable operating costs would be reflected in higher

commercial air tour prices and would be borne by the consumer.

This NPRM proposes to re-open a provisional flight corridor

(incentive corridor) along the routes that are currently depicted on

the Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart as the Green 1A and Black 1A,

or Alpha routes. This corridor would be available at some future date

only to noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft. Currently, the FAA

and the NPS have not defined a standard for what is a noise efficient/

quiet technology aircraft. Consequently, the route will not be

available for immediate use. However, for the purpose of this cost

analysis, the FAA has assumed that one or more operator(s) may use

aircraft that meet the above standard, and that this (these)

operator(s) could use the corridor and thereby benefit from no increase

in variable operating costs.

The FAA believes that the operator(s) assumed to be permitted to

conduct air tours on the incentive route would continue to conduct air

tours along the Black 1A route or Green 1A route as per usual business

practice, and thus would avoid the higher variable operating costs

facing competitors. The FAA assumes cost relief would accrue to the

operator(s) conducting air tours in noise efficient/quiet technology

aircraft. By holding constant the price of the ``Black 1, 1A'' air tour

or ``Green 1, 1A'' air tour, this (these) operator(s) could become the

price setter(s), and some of their competitors conducting commercial

air tours along other, longer tour routes may be required to absorb the

increased variable operating costs to remain price competitive. The FAA

estimates, however, that only one (or two) of these operators would

have to maintain the current price in the face of rising variable

operating costs. The amount of cost transfer from consumers of air

tours

[[Page 37299]]

to this operator over the 1999-2008 time period would depend on which

operator (or operators) ultimately introduce quiet aircraft. A

discussion of this expectation is presented in a section summarizing

the ``Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis'' below.

Sanup Flight-Free Zone

The Sanup FFZ would be altered to accommodate other proposed FAA

action contained in the concurrent Notice of Route Availability,

thereby providing current commercial air tour traffic using the Blue 1,

Blue Direct and Blue Direct South routes a commercial air tour route.

The FAA has identified no costs associated with the alteration of the

Sanup FFZ.

Cost Summary

The FAA estimates that any costs associated with the eastward

expansion of the SFAR and Desert View FFZ 5 nautical miles would be

non-significant. Also, the FAA determines that the proposed

modification to the Sanup FFZ would result in no additional costs.

However, the FAA estimates the cost impact of the proposed Bright Angel

FFZ incentive corridor could result in some reduction in average annual

variable operating costs and accompanying price increases previously

estimated in the Final Rule. In addition, some of the remaining cost

burden previously estimated in the Final Rule would shift from air tour

consumers to one or two air tour operators.

Benefits

The benefits associated with this NPRM include the following:

(1) The potential reduction in the impact of air tours over

Traditional Cultural Properties as a result of the proposed

modification of the eastern portion of the SFRA and the Desert View

FFZ; (2) a reduction in the number of aircraft flying over the northern

rim of the canyon along Saddle Mountain as a consequence of the

proposed incentive corridor, which could result in some dispersal of

noise from air tour aircraft over an area the NPS has pointed out as

noise sensitive; and (3) the provision of an incentive for the air tour

operators to convert to quieter aircraft. The particular groups that

would benefit most from this rulemaking action are Native Americans and

some of the operators and consumers of GCNP commercial air tours.

The establishment of the proposed corridor for noise efficient/

quiet technology aircraft through the Bright Angel FFZ along the

``Alpha'' routes would mitigate some of the potential adverse effects

created by the consolidation of aircraft overflight noise at the

northern edge of the expanded FFZ as described in the Final Rule.

Furthermore, to the extent the consumer perceives the current shorter,

more established commercial air tour through the proposed incentive

corridor as having a greater value, then demand for these tours

conducted in the more noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft would

increase. Concurrently, demand for the longer commercial air tours that

are conducted in less noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft could

decrease. In combination, the two potential outcomes of this proposed

rulemaking could create a significant incentive for operators of non-

qualifying aircraft to convert to quieter aircraft.

the expansion of the eastern boundary of the SFRA and the Desert

View FFZ redress certain concerns of the Native Americans in that area

while at the same time imposing no perceived additional costs on

operators.

Benefit/Cost Comparison

The FAA has determined that the three proposed modifications could

result in net cost savings for some commercial air tour operators while

one or two operators could be forced to absorb cost increases

associated with the Final Rule. However, there will be no significant

net increase in societal costs, only redistribution between producers

and consumers of Grand Canyon air tours. This rulemaking would result

in a potential reduction of noise over Native American Traditional

Cultural Properties and a potential reduction of noise over the

sensitive northern rim of the Canyon along Saddle Mountain, and would

provide an incentive for air tour operators to convert to quieter

aircraft.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle

of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with

the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory

and information requirements to the scale of the business,

organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.''

To achieve that principal, the Act requires agencies to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rational for

their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including

small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental

jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or

final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the

agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as

described in the Act. However, if an agency determines that a proposed

or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act

provides that the head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not

required. The certification must include a statement providing the

factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be

clear.

Ten operators (7 fixed-wing; 3 helicopter) conducted air tours

during the base period of May 1997-April 1998 along routes that would

be affected by the proposed incentive corridor modification to the

Bright Angel FFZ. In the regulatory evaluation, the FAA assumed that

one or more operators of aircraft that qualified for operating on the

incentive route might avoid the estimated increase in variable

operating costs determined in the Final Rule, and therefore, would not

have to raise ticket prices to offset higher costs.

The FAA believes that if the above qualifying operators use fixed-

wing aircraft and operate out of Tusayan, then the helicopter operators

at Tusayan could continue to pass the increase in variable operating

costs resulting from the expansion of the Bright Angel FFZ accounted

for in the Final Rule onto the consumer as higher prices, and would not

be impacted by the proposed rulemaking. The three helicopter operators

have been able to maintain their air tour fares twice that of the

fixed-wing operators in a declining market for East-end air tours. This

suggests that helicopters and fixed-wing operators are not close

competitors in the East-end GCNP market.

Of the fixed-wing operators conducting air tours in non-qualifying

aircraft in competition with the above qualifying fixed-wing operators,

two ceased operating as Grand Canyon air tour operators during the

baseline period May 1997-April 1998. Therefore, this rulemaking would

no longer be applicable to them. A third operator conducted 10 ``Black

1, 1A'' air tours during the baseline period, but this accounted for

only one one-thousandth of this operator's total Grand Canyon air tour

business. The FAA believes that this operator would not be affected by

this rulemaking. Another operator, originating out of Phoenix, AZ, is

the only remaining operator providing a Grant Canyon air tour service

from the Phoenix market. Furthermore, this operator includes the

``Black 1, 1A'' tour

[[Page 37300]]

only as a part of a more comprehensive air tour, the price for which is

3 to 4 times the ``Black 1, 1A'' air tour as offered by the other

operators. Therefore, this operator, because of a captured market and

exclusive tour offering, would likely be able to pass on the increase

in variable operating costs to customers without consequence, and thus,

would not be impacted by this NPRM, either.

One fixed-wing aircraft operator also conducts helicopter tours in

the East-end of the Canyon in addition to the fixed-wing ``Black 1,

1A'' tour during the baseline period. The price of this operator's

helicopter tours, however, are at the low end ($150) of the price

range, and the portion of his total air tour business represented by

his fixed-wing ``Black 1, 1A'' tour is only about 17 percent. If this

operator were to redistribute the per passenger increase in variable

operating costs for this fixed-wing customers to his helicopter

customers (cross-subsidy), it would add about $1.35 to the ticket price

of the helicopter air tour, and this operator would still be a below

market price for a helicopter air tour on the East-end.

The remaining fixed-wing operator(s) conducting ``Black 1, 1A'' air

tours in non-qualifying aircraft on the East-end of the Canyon, could

be significantly affected by the introduction of quiet aircraft by a

competitor, in that the increased operating costs imposed by the Final

rule may no longer be passed onto the customers because of the

operator(s) who may be able to operate in the incentive corridor

established by this proposal. This cost could be as much as $7 per

passenger. The FAA does not consider one or two small operators to be a

substantial number of small operators significantly impacted by this

proposed rule.

The FAA believes that if the qualifying operator(s) use helicopters

and operate out of Tusayan, then the fixed-wing operators could

continue to pass the increase in variable operating costs resulting

from the expansion of the Bright Angel FFZ in the Final Rule onto the

consumer as higher prices, and the (these) remaining helicopter

operator(s) would not be impacted by the proposed rulemaking (in the

East-end market, helicopter operators and fixed-wing operators are not

close competitors). The remaining non-qualifying helicopter operator(s)

at Tusayan could be significantly affected by competition from the

qualifying helicopter operator(s) in that the increased operating costs

imposed by the 1996 final rule may no longer be passed onto the

customers. The FAA does not consider one or two small operators to be a

substantial number of small operators significantly impacted by this

proposed rule.

Last, the FAA believes that if a qualifying operator operates from

an airport other than Tusayan, the remaining East-end operators could

continue to pass the increase in variable operating costs resulting

from the expansion of the Bright Angel FFZ accounted for in the Final

Rule onto the consumer. The remaining operators are located at

different airports and would not be in direct competition with the

qualifying operator.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that this rule

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. The FAA solicits comments from affected entities with

respect to this finding and determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The FAA has determined that the proposed rulemaking would have no

affect on non-U.S. operators of foreign aircraft operating outside the

United States nor would it have an affect on U.S. trade to trade

relations. However, because the proposed rulemaking has been determined

to be cost beneficial to commercial air operators and a large

proportion of GCNP commercial air tour passengers are foreign, it could

have a positive affect on foreign tourism in the U.S. The FAA cannot

put a dollar value on the potential gain in commercial air tour revenue

associated with possible increases in foreign tour dollars.

Environmental Review

The FAA is preparing a draft supplemental environmental assessment

(EA) for this proposed action to ensure conformance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other applicable environmental

laws. The draft supplemental EA indicates that this NPRM, the companion

air tour limitation NPRM, and revised air tour routes on the western

and of the Sanup would result in 41.3% of the GCNP achieving natural

quiet 75% of the time by 2008.

Copies of the draft supplemental EA will be circulated to

interested parties and placed in the docket, where it will be available

for review.

The proposed rule is premised on the National Park Service's noise

evaluation methodolology for GCNP, which was published in the Federal

Register on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3969). The NPS is reviewing

comments submitted in response to that notice. If, on completion of

that review, the NPS determines not to adopt the methodology described

in the notice (such as the two-zone system and accompanying noise

thresholds), the FAA will reevaluate the proposal and draft

Supplemental Environmental Assessment in light of whatever final action

is taken by the NPS.

Federalism Implications

This proposed rule would not have substantial 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 12866, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L.

104-13), there are no requirement for information collection associated

with the proposed regulation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

Air traffic control, Airports, Naviagtion (air), Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part 93 of Title 14, Chapter 1, Code

of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

1. 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.

2. Section 93.301 is revised as follows:

Subpart U--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon

National Park, AZ

Sec. 93.301 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes special operating rules for all persons

operating aircraft in the following airspace, designated as the Grand

Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area: That airspace extending

from the surface up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL within an area

bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.55' 12'' N., Long.

112 deg.04' 05'' W.; east to Lat. 35 deg.55'38'' N., Long.

111 deg.36'03'' W.;

[[Page 37301]]

north to Lat. 36 deg.15'30'' N., Long. 111 deg.36'06'' W.; to Lat.

36 deg.24 deg.49'' N., Long. 111 deg.47'45'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.52'23''

N., Long. 111 deg.33'10'' W.; west-northwest to Lat. 36 deg.53'37'' N.,

Long. 111 deg.38 deg.29'' W.; southwest to Lat. 36 deg.35'02'' N.,

Long. 111 deg.53'28'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.21'30'' N., Long.

112 deg.00'03'' W.; west-northwest to Lat. 36 deg.30'30'' N., Long.

112 deg.35'59'' W.; southwest to Lat. 36 deg.24'46'' N., Long.

112 deg.51'10'' W.; thence west along the boundary of Grand Canyon

National Park (GCNP) to Lat. 36 deg.14'08'' N., Long. 113 deg.10'07''

W.; west-southwest to Lat. 36 deg.09'50'' N., Long 114 deg.01'53'' W.;

southeast to Lat. 36 deg.06'24'' N., Long. 113 deg.58'46'' W.; thence

south along the boundary of GCNP to Lat. 36 deg.00'23'' N., Long.

113 deg.54'11'' W.; northeast to Lat. 36 deg.02'14'' N., Long

113 deg.50'16'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.02'16'' N., Long. 113 deg.48'08''

W.; thence southeast along the boundary of GCNP to Lat. 35 deg.58'09''

N., Long. 113 deg.45'04'' W.; southwest to Lat. 35 deg.54'48'' N.,

Long. 113 deg.50'24'' W.; southeast to Lat. 35 deg.41'01'' N., Long.

113 deg.35'27'' W.; thence clockwise via the 4.2-nautical mile radius

of the Peach Springs VORTAC to Lat. 35 deg.28'53'' N., Long.

113 deg.27'49'' W.; northeast to Lat. 35 deg.42'58'' N., Long.

113 deg.10'57'' W.; north to Lat. 35 deg.57'51'' N., Long.

113 deg.11'06'' W.; east to Lat. 35 deg.57'44'' N.; Long.

112 deg.14'04'' W.; thence clockwise via the 4.3-nautical mile radius

of the Grand Canyon National Park Airport reference point (Lat.

35 deg.57'08'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'49'' W.) to the point of origin.

3. Section 93.305 is amended by revising paragrpah (a), by adding a

new sentence to the end of paragraph (b), and by revising paragraph (d)

to read as follows: (Note: All instructions in this amendment refer to

Sec. 93.305 as it currently exists. But if adopted, these changes would

be made in addition to the changes in Notice No. 99-12 published

elsewhere in this issue):

Sec. 93.305 Flight-free zones and flight corridors.

* * * * *

(a) Desert View Flight-free Zone. That airspace extending from the

surface up to but not including 14,500 feet MSL within an area bounded

by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.59'58'' N., Long. 111 deg.52'47''

W.; thence east to Lat. 36 deg.00'00'' N., Long. 111 deg.51'04'' W.;

thence north to 36 deg.00'24'' N.; Long. 111 deg.51'04'' W.; thence

east to 36 deg.00'24'' N., Long. 111 deg.45'44'' W.; continue east to

36 deg.00'24'' N., Long. 111 deg.39'34'' W.; thence north to

36 deg.12'35'' N., Long. 111 deg.39'33'' W.; thence west to

36 deg.12'35'' N., Long. 111 deg.45'44'' W.; thence west and north

along the GCNP boundary to Lat. 36 deg.14'05'' N., Long.

111 deg.48'34'' W.; thence southwest to Lat. 36 deg.12'06'' N., Long.

111 deg.51'14'' W.; to the point of origin; but not including the

airspace at and above 10,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the

western boundary of the zone. The corridor to the west between the

Desert View and Bright Angel Flight-free Zones, is designated the

``Zuni Point Corridor.'' * * *

(b) * * * The Bright Angel Flight-free Zone does not include the

following airspace designated as the Bright Angel Corridor: That

airspace one-half nautical mile on either side of a line extending from

Lat. 36 deg.14'21.24'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'57.54'' W. and Lat.

36 deg.14'15.32'' N., Long. 111 deg.55'07.32'' W.

* * * * *

(d) Sanup Flight-free Zone. That airspace extending from the

surface up to but not including 8,000 feet MSL within an area bounded

by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.59'32'' N., Long. 113 deg.20'28''

W.; west to Lat. 36 deg.00'55'' N., Long. 113 deg.42'09'' W.; southeast

to Lat. 35 deg.59'57'' N., Long. 113 deg.41'09'' W., to Lat.

35 deg.59'09'' N., Long. 113 deg.40'53'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.58'45'' N.,

Long. 113 deg.40'15'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.57'52'' N., Long.

113 deg.39'34'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.56'44'' N., Long. 113 deg.39'07''

W.; to Lat. 35 deg.56'04'' N., Long. 113 deg.39'20'' W.; to Lat.

35 deg.55'02'' N., Long. 113 deg.40'43'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.54'47'' N.,

Long.113 deg.40'51'' W., southeast to Lat. 35 deg.50'16'' N., Long.

113 deg.37'13'' W.; thence along the park boundary to the point of

origin.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 1999.

Reginald C. Matthews,

Acting Program Director, Air Traffic Airspace Management Program.

[FR Doc. 99-17320 Filed 7-6-99; 12:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M