Establishing of Corridors in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. 28902; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 97-6]

Establishing of Corridors in the Grand Canyon National Park

Special Flight Rules Area

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Disposition of comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document summarizes and disposes of comments to a notice

of proposed rulemaking (Notice 97-6), published May 15, 1997, which

proposed a National Canyon corridor for an air tour route through the

central portion of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). The FAA withdrew

Notice 97-6 because it was considering alternatives to this route. This

action summarizes and responds to the comments concerning the National

Canyon corridor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alberta Brown, Air Transportation

Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)

267-3724.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 15, 1997, the FAA issued Notice No. 97-6, which proposed a

modification to the National Canyon corridor that was originally

proposed in December 1996 in the Notice of Proposing Rulemaking (NPMR)

addressing the use of quiet technology aircraft in GCNP (61 FR 69334;

December 31, 1996). Notice No. 97-6 proposed two quiet technology

corridors: (1) the National Canyon corridor through the central portion

of the Park; and (2) the Bright Angel corridor in the eastern portion

of the Park. The FAA received a total of 143 comments on this proposal

from associations, the air tour industry, and individuals. A summary of

comments and FAA's response to those comments follows:

Comments

Clark County comments that the proposed National Canyon route ``* *

* still fails to provide a sufficient scenic view to support a viable

air tour.'' Specifically, this commenter finds that air visitors would

lose the extremely scenic views of the Grand Canyon, Havasu Canyon, and

Mt. Sinyala that are seen on the current Blue 1. Further, the commenter

claims that the lack of a viable Blue 1/1A will result in a dangerous

diversion of traffic to the Blue 2 route, economic injury to the air

tour industry, and a shift of noise to the Hualapai reservation. It

also suggests that, given the lack of a scenic air tour, some visitors

will opt for ground tours by bus, train or car. Clark County believes

that the Blue 1 route, proposed in above-referenced December 1996

proposal for quiet technology aircraft, is the best option for viable

air tour. Clark County continues to endorse the use of quiet technology

as providing the best opportunity to promote long-term noise reduction

at the least cost to the air tour industry.

In a related economic comment, Clark County notes that the current

Blue 1 generates $97.5 million in operating revenues. This commenter

finds the FAA's economic analysis flawed in that it assumes that all

air visitors would take the `unscenic' proposed route, and because it

assumes that the only loss of revenue from the lose of the scenic

portions of Blue 1 would be a tiny diminution in ticket prices.

Finally, Clark County comments that, together, the proposed quiet

technology route and quiet aircraft will more than meet the Overflight

Act's mandate to substantially restore natural quiet in the Park. Clark

County also raises a number of rulemaking issues for GCNP not directly

related to this rulemaking proposal.

Lake Mead Air urges the FAA to retain the Blue 1 route as it is

less offensive to the Native Americans than the proposed route. This

commenter believes that the FAA should cease all rulemaking until an

Environmental Impact Statement is completed.

Eagle Canyon Airlines believes that there is a potential for

increasing unsafe operating conditions if there is no viable air tour

route through the National Canyon area. Moreover, this commenter finds

it appropriate to return to the route structure as it existed before

December 31, 1996. Rather than change the structure of the National

Canyon route to accommodate the Havasupai, Eagle Canyon Airlines finds

that it

[[Page 62134]]

would be more beneficial for the air tour operations if the FAA shifted

the route slightly to the north. Eagle reiterates that an air tour must

have at least 40 miles of canyon overflight to justify an air tour sold

as such.

Southwest Safaris comments that the FAA has failed to consider air

tour operations approaching from the south and east and suggests some

modifications of routes to avoid congestion and possible safety

problems. In a second comment, Southwest Safaris comments that the FAA

should not allow any operator to use the Bright Angel corridor until

all operators have had the opportunity to convert to quiet technology

aircraft; 3 years should be sufficient for this conversion. This

commenter also cites competition problems since other companies are

unwilling to lease quiet technology aircraft to small operators who

might compete with them for tour business.

Airstar Helicopters commends the FAA for responding to the safety

concerns generated by Notice 96-15 (Noise Limitations for Aircraft

Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park) with a

recommendation that the FAA convene a panel of affected parties to

reach a consensus on the GCNP.

Scenic Airlines encourages the FAA to adopt the December 1996

proposal for quiet technology aircraft and finds that the proposal in

notice 97-6 contains no incentives for operators to convert to quieter

aircraft. Scenic finds that the National Canyon route as proposed does

not provide a `quality aerial tour experience' and instead proposes a

corridor that would run north of Havasupai tribal lands while remaining

south of the Colorado river. This commenter also suggested other route

options.

Air Vegas commends the FAA for the reasoned decision to amend two

of the flight-free zones with corridors, but finds that the National

Canyon route does not provide a viable air tour. Air Vegas believes

that Special Federal Aviation Regulation 50-2 has been successful in

meeting the goals of substantially restoring the natural quiet in GCNP.

The commenter also suggests a slight alternate to the National Canyon

route.

The Sierra Club comments that the proposal to establish two routes

through flight-free zones is a move away from the goal of Public Law

100-91 to restore the natural quiet in GCNP. While it supports the use

of quiet technology aircraft, this commenter believes that methods such

as creating corridors through flight-free zones are counterproductive.

Sierra Club finds that the National Canyon route provides some relief

for the Havasupai reservation; however, it does not provide enough

protection for the river corridor. It also finds that a 4-mile width is

excessive; if safety is a concern, the number of flights should be

reduced. Sierra Club believes that a cap on operations is the only

solution to the noise problem in GCNP.

Friends of Grand Canyon states that the proposed routes will

actually make noise levels worse in the eastern portion of the Canyon.

This commenter finds that the proposed National Canyon modification

would bring little relief to the Havasupai, while providing continuous

noise to the central portion of the GCNP. In addition, unlimited noise

would continue to permeate the entire park since there is no

restriction on non-tour aircraft at elevations of 1300 to 9500 feet.

This association finds that the NPS and FAA have failed in their

responsibility to restore natural quiet to the park.

The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) supports the

two corridors, saying that they will harm no entity and will have a

positive benefit for air tour operators. However, GAMA states that

limiting the use of one corridor to Category C aircraft is arbitrary

and subjective. Additionally, GAMA comments that the December 31, 2001

date does not provide sufficient time for industry to have new noise

reduction technologies available.

The Navajo Nation reminds the FAA of its Section 106

responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act and its

position that no flights be conducted over the ``salt trail'' and

``Blue Springs'' area. The FAA notes that these two areas are not

affected by the Notice 97-6 proposal.

Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (CGATC) comments that the National

Canyon route, as proposed, is not a viable air tour route. The Council

believes that the two goals of SFAR 50-2 have been met: to increase

safety and to substantially restore the natural quiet. AGATC notes that

visitor complaints constitute only .0001% of all visitors.

Twin Otter International (TOIL) comments that the FAA has exceeded

its statutory authority with the new GCNP rules and that it has

incorrectly applied the intent of Congress. Moreover, it has applied a

flawed NPS noise model to justify the rules. TOIL finds that there is

insufficient incentive for converting to the new technology. Moreover,

limiting west-bound traffic to quiet technology after December 2201 is

only symbolic since only 2-3% of the air tours from Las Vegas to

Tusayan are flown in reverse. In addition, this proposal reduces the

viewing time by about 40%. TOIL recommends maintaining a 40-minute

canyon viewing experience and further urges the FAA to limit it to

quiet technology only.

Grand Canyon Airlines (GCA) comments that there should be more

incentive routes for quiet technology aircraft. GCA urges FAA and NPS

to work together in a common sense approach, adding that the value in

knowing that there is quiet though no one is there is `elitist

hogwash'. GCA believes that FAA discriminated in favor of helicopters

by giving them the lowest altitudes and preferred routes.

Sierra Club--Grand Canyon Chapter comments that NPS modeling shows

that eliminating all aircraft from National Canyon corridor is an

important step in restoring natural quiet to GCNP. Likewise, the Sierra

Club--Los Angeles Chapter opposes the proposal to allow a National

Canyon route through a flight free zone.

Grand Canyon River Guides comments that there should be no flights

through flight free zones. This commenter notes that the Havasupai also

want these flights removed. The Guides believe that this is a non-

essential route and that people will still book tours, regardless of

the location of the route.

The Havasupai Indian Tribe comments that only through government to

government negotiations should any aircraft be able to fly over their

reservation. They suggest a route through the Sanup flight-free zone

that could avoid their reservation. The Havasupai also find the

Environmental Assessment insufficient.

More than 100 comments were received from individuals who enjoy the

GCNP as ground visitors. The majority of these comments state that

routes through flight-free zones defeated the purpose of the final

rule. Many of these commenters want no flights over GCNP, even by quiet

technology aircraft.

The FAA's response

As stated in the withdrawal of Notice No. 97-6, the FAA, in

consultation with the NPS, had determined to not proceed with the

proposals set forth in that notice. Following the withdrawal, the FAA

continued to search for a route through the GCNP that would provide a

viable air tour while at the same time contributing to the restoration

of natural quiet in the Park.

The focus of this search for a new air tour route changed

significantly with the publication in the Federal Register of NPS's

policy dressing a dual noise

[[Page 62135]]

standard for GCNP (64 FR 38006; July 14, 1999). NPS's policy revised

the noise evaluation methodology and established a dual noise level

mapping of GCNP. The methodology effectively devised a two zone system

for assessing the impacts related to the substantial restoration of

natural quiet in GCNP. Zone One is based on the standard of

noticeability, which was used previously for noise assessments in GCNP

and is determined to be three decibels above the A-weighted natural

ambient level. Zone Two is based on the standard of audibility, which

is determined to be eight decibels below the average A-weighted natural

ambient level. The National Canyon corridor proposed in Notice 97-6

would have passed through Zone 2. Consequently, application of the

audibility standard to the National Canyon area precludes this area

from consideration as a possible air tour route. The FAA recently has

proposed two air tour routes through the central portion of the GCNP,

which do not infringe on Zone Two. Notice No. 99-11, Modification of

the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules

Area and Flight Free Zones (64 FR 37296; July 9, 1999) and a companion

Notice of availability on routes in Grand Canyon National Park (64 FR

37191; July 9, 1999) both had a 60-day comment period that closed on

September 7, 1999.

The FAA appreciates the comments that the public provided on the

proposals in Notice 97-6. Commenters provided valuable insights into

what constitutes a viable air tour route. Other commenters expressed

the value of restoring natural quiet in GCNP. Native American tribes

took this opportunity to express their concerns for any air tour route

that could affect their sacred properties. These comments assist the

FAA and NPS in their continuing efforts to develop air tour routes in

GCNP.

Issued in Washington, DC on November 5, 1999.

L. Nicholas Lacey,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 99-29901 Filed 11-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M