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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-17320

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** July 9, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 37296

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-17320. Public record. Not legal advice.