[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67544-67546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32406]
[[Page 67543]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 91 et al.
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grant Canyon National Park;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 67544]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135
[Docket No. 28537; SFAR 50-2; Notice No. 98-18]
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National
Park
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 31, 1996, the FAA published a final rule that
codified the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
No. 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National
Park (GCNP); modified the dimensions of GCNP Special Flight Rules Area
(SFRA); established new and modified existing flight-free zones;
established new and modified existing flight corridors; established
reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating
in the SFRA; prohibited commercial sightseeing operations during
certain time periods; and limited the number of aircraft that can be
used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP SFRA. On
February 21, 1997, the FAA delayed the implementation of certain
portions of that final rule. Specifically, that action delayed the
effective date for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 of the
final rule and reinstated portions of and amended the expiration date
of SFAR No. 50-2. However, that action did not affect or delay the
implementation of the curfew, aircraft restrictions, reporting
requirements or the other portions of the rule. This proposal would
delay the effective date for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307
of the December 31, 1996 final rule until January 31, 2000.
Additionally, this proposal would amend the expiration date of those
portions of SFAR No. 50-2 that were reinstated in the February 21, 1997
final rule and extended in the rule published on December 17, 1997.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 6, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed, in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28537, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. Comments may be sent electronically to the Rules
Docket by using the following Internet address
nprmcmts@mail.faa.dot.gov. Comments must be marked Docket No. 28537.
Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on weekdays
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Crum, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic
Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 31, 1996, the FAA published three concurrent actions (a
final rule, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and a Notice of
Availability of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes) in the Federal
Register (62 FR 69301) as part of an overall strategy to further reduce
the impact of aircraft noise on the GCNP environment and to assist the
National Park Service (NPS) in achieving its statutory mandate imposed
by Public Law 100-91. The final rule amended part 93 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations and added a new subpart to codify the provisions
of SFAR No. 50-2, modified the dimensions of the GCNP Special Flight
Rules Area; established new and modifies existing flight-free zones;
established new and modifies existing flight corridors; and established
reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating
in the Special Flight Rules Area. In addition, to provide further
protection for park resources, the final rule prohibited commercial
sightseeing operations in the Zuni and Dragon corridors during certain
time periods, and placed a temporary limit on the number of aircraft
that can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP
Special Flight Rules Area. These provisions originally were to become
effective on May 1, 1997.
On February 21, 1997, the FAA issued a final rule and request for
comments that delayed the implementation of certain sections of the
final rule (62 FR 8862; February 26,1 997). Specifically, that action
delayed the effective date, until January 31, 1998, of those sections
of the rule that address the Special Flight Rules Area, flight-free
zones, and flight corridors, respectively Secs. 93.301, 93.305, and
93.307. In addition, certain portions of SFAR No. 50-2 were reinstated
and the expiration date was extended. With the goal to produce the best
air tour routes possible, implementation was delayed to allow the FAA
and the Department of Interior (DOI) to consider comments and
suggestions to improve the proposed route structure. This latter action
did not affect or delay the implementation of the curfew, aircraft cap,
or reporting requirements of the rule. This delay was subsequently
extended until January 31, 1999 (62 FGR 66248; December 17, 1997).
Discussion of Comments
Eleven comments were submitted in response to the December 17,
1997, final rule that extended the implementation date of certain
provisions of the final rule issued on December 31, 1996.
The Hualapai nation applauded the delay, saying that the FAA should
reconsider what the Tribe considers the double standard used for
measuring noise in the GCNP versus the Hualapai reservation. The
Hualapai urged the FAA to develop an appropriate noise measurement
standard for its religious sites and ceremonies. The nation also
repeated its admonition to the FAA to be considered as a sovereign
nation with incumbent rights therein.
The Sierra Club generally criticized the FAA and NPS for not making
greater progress in the overall reduction of noise in GCNP. It also
urged that the Zuni and Dragon corridors be closed to air tour traffic.
The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (GCATC) was critical of the FAA
for issuing a final rule with comment instead of a proposal, stating
that there is no incentive for FAA to respond to comments after the
fact and that such action without notice created `discriminatory
uncertainty'. GCATC also urged the FAA to delay implementation of the
December 1996 final rule until the Air Tour Management Plan is
completed.
Likewise, the Wilderness Society was critical of the FAA for not
seeking comment on a proposal rather than publishing a final rule
extension. The Society also commented that the delay was not warranted,
that there has been little progress since the legislation 10 years ago,
and that the FAA should cap operations now. National Parks and
Conservation Society filed a similar comment, objecting to the delay
and calling for a cap on operations.
The Grand Canyon Trust's comment incorporated its comments from
previously filed comments on the July 1, 1996, notice.
A number of comments were submitted by individuals; the majority of
these persons regretted the delay as being a setback for enjoyment of
the park.
FAA's Response
The FAA agrees that the proper procedure for the delay in
implementation of a final rule is
[[Page 67545]]
through notice and comment. The FAA and NPS have expended substantial
resources on trying to determine the most appropriate air tour route
through the SFRA in GCNP. These expenditures include noise modeling,
interagency discussions, consultations with Native Americans,
clarification of comments made on the various rulemakings, and
preliminary development of the Comprehensive Noise Management Plan. To
the extent that time permitted, the agencies would have sought comment
prior to issuing a final decision to extend the effective date for the
1996 final rule. However, the FAA is responding to previously filed
comments and now seeks comments from affected parties before further
delaying those portions of the 1996 final rule pertaining to FFZs and
flight corridors.
In response to those comments that nothing has been accomplished
since the Overflights Act was enacted, the FAA and NPS disagree. The
number of air tour operations in the GCNP have decreased in the past
year. There is a cap on the number of aircraft permitted to operate in
the Park, which prevents the addition of new aircraft into the SFRA.
The curfew has been effective in removing both very early morning and
late afternoon noise during peak tourist seasons for covered areas. The
reporting requirement has provided the agencies with valuable
information on how many operations there are, where they are occurring,
and definitive noise footprints for most areas of the GCNP. In
addition, valuable information has been gained through public meetings
with the interested parties, through open forums exploring additional
routes, and through consultations with the Native Americans.
Recent Actions
On May 15, 1997, the FAA published a Notice of Availability of
Proposed Routes and a companion NPRM, Notice No. 97-6, that proposed
two quiet technology corridors in GCNP. The first corridor, through the
Bright Angel flight-free zone, would be used for quiet technology
aircraft only. The second corridor, through National Canyon, would be
for quiet technology aircraft for westbound traffic after December 21,
2001. The FAA, in consultation with the National Park Service (NPS),
has determined to not proceed with the proposals set forth in Notice
No. 97-6. The two agencies are considering alternatives to the National
canyon area for air tour routes. Consequently, the FAA withdrew Notice
No. 97-6 and amended the proposed rule, Notice No. 96-15, to remove the
two sections that first proposed a National Canyon corridor through the
Torroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone (FR 63 38232; July 15, 1998).
In addition, on April 28, 1998, the FAA convened interested parties
for a public meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona to discuss yet another
possible air tour route that is being considered by the FAA and NPS.
Most recently, by petition dated September 22, the Clark County
Department of Aviation (Clark County) requests that the FAA delay the
current January 31, 1999, effective date for the airspace portions of
the final rule to January 31, 2001, to avoid unnecessary impacts to
aviation safety and the Grand Canyon air tour industry. Petitioner also
asks that the FAA initiate a stakeholder-based cooperative process to
complete the Grand Canyon overflight regulatory structure in a coherent
and timely fashion. Specific to this proposal, Clark County points out
that it is too late for the FAA to promulgate a safe and defensible set
of air tour routes prior to the January 31, 1999, effective date. The
petitioner notes that the closing of the current tour route, Blue 1, by
making the FFZ's effective, would divert an immense quantity of traffic
onto other routes, such as Blue 2 and Blue Direct. Clerk County cites
the significant economic impact that the lack of safe and viable air
tour routes would effect; not only would air tour operators be
affected, but there would be impacts on the ability of the region to
attract both American and foreign tourists and on the ability of the
Clark County airport system to support Southern Nevada aviation needs.
Petitioner states that it does not seek an extension for the sake of
delay; rather the uncertainty of the regulatory environment is harmful
to air tour operators, local governments operating airports, Native
Americans, and investors. For this reason, Clark County encourages a
concerted effort whereby all stakeholders will negotiate long-term
workable rules.
In response to Clark County's petition, the FAA finds that, because
of the need to meet the legislative mandate to work toward the
substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP, it cannot extend the
effective date of the final rule as it relates to flight corridors and
flight-free zones beyond January 31, 2000. Based on a substantial
dedication of resources, in cooperation with NPS, the FAA believes that
an acceptable route structure may be established by January 2000. In
addition, while the FAA commends Clark County for its interest in a
negotiated rulemaking effort to meet the needs of all stakeholders, it
lacks the resources to direct this effort. Accordingly, the FAA must
deny Clark County's petition. However, if the stakeholders can
negotiate GCNP issues successfully, the FAA would be willing to accept
a recommendation that it then could publish for comment.
Proposal
As of this date, the FAA is still working with the NPS to determine
a route through the western portions of the Park that will provide air
tour operators with a safe, viable air tour route while at the same
time moving toward the legislatively mandated goal of the substantial
restoration of natural quiet in Grand Canyon National Park. Because the
air tour routes, flight free zones, and flight corridors are
intrinsically related and thus must be implemented at the same time,
the FAA proposes to extend the effective date of these portions of the
December 1996 final rule until January 31, 2000. Although Clark County
Department of Aviation requests that this date be extended to January
31, 2001, the FAA and NPS are optimistic that prior work done on
proposed routes in the western portion of the GCNP will assist them in
making a final determination in order to accommodate a January 31,
2000, effective date.
Economic Evaluation
In issuing the final rule for Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity
of the GCNP, the FAA prepared a cost benefit analysis of the rule. A
copy of the regulatory evaluation is located in docket Number 28537.
That economic evaluation was later revised based on new information
received on the number aircraft being operated in the SFRA. The
reevaluation of the economic data, including alternatives considered,
was published in the Notice of Clarification (62 FR 58898). In the
notice, the FAA concluded that the rule is still cost beneficial. This
extension of the effective date for the final rule will not affect that
reevaluation, although the delay in the implementation of the FFZs will
be cost relieving for air tour operators.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
the FAA completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis of the final
rule. This analysis was also reevaluated and revised findings were
published in the Notice of Clarification referenced above, as a
Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This extended delay of
the compliance date will not affect that supplemental analysis.
[[Page 67546]]
Federalism Implications
The regulation proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposed regulation would not have sufficient Federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, Aviation safety, Noise
control.
14 CFR Part 93
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
14 CFR Part 121
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety,
Transportation.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
The Proposal
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to
amend 14 CFR parts 91, 93, 121, and 135 as follows:
PARTS 91, 121 AND 135--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(G), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111,
44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,
46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531.
2. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
3. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
4. In parts 91, 121, and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation
No. 50-2, Section 9 is revised to read as follows:
SFAR 50-2--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon
National Park, AZ
* * * * *
Sec 9. Termination date. Sections 1. Applicability, Section 4.
Flight-free zones, and Section 5. Minimum flight altitudes, expire
on 0901 UTC, January 31, 2000.
PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS
5. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.
The effective date of May 1, 1997, for new Sections 93.301, 93.305,
and 93.307 to be added to 14 CFR Chapter I, is delayed until 0901 UTC,
January 31, 2000.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 1998.
William J. Marx,
Acting Program Director, Air Traffic Airspace Management Program.
[FR Doc. 98-32406 Filed 12-2-98; 3:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
