[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26902-26908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12745]
[[Page 26901]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 93
Establishment of Corridors in the Grand Canyon National Park Special
Flight Rules Area; Proposed Rule
Air Tour Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 26902]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. 28902; Notice No. 97-6]
RIN 2120-AG38
Establishment of Corridors in the Grand Canyon National Park
Special Flight Rules Area
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend two of the Flight-free Zones
within the Grand Canyon National Park by establishing two corridors.
The first corridor through the Bright Angel Flight Free Zone would be
an incentive corridor to be used only by the most noise efficient
aircraft. The second corridor through the Torroweap/Shinumo Flight-free
Zone would go through the National Canyon area and would create a
viable air tour route through the central section of the Park while
addressing concerns of the Native Americans. The proposed corridor
would not affect the existing Tuckup Corridor currently used by general
aviation. These proposals are made in response to comments received on
related Grand Canyon rulemaking actions, National Park Service
recommends the environmental merit of such routes conducted pursuant to
the comments, and ongoing discussions with Native American tribal
government units and their representatives.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this NPRM should be mailed, in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28902, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments may also be sent
electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet
address: 9-nprm-cmts@faa.dot.gov. Comments must be marked Docket No.
28902. 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:
Mr. Dave Metzbower, Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-220, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-3724. For the
draft Environmental Assessment contact Mr. William J. Marx, Division
Manager, ATA-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-3075.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons 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. Communications should
identify the regulatory docket number and be submitted in triplicate to
the above specified address. 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.
The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter
includes a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the comment. The
postcard should be marked ``Comments to Docket No. 28902.'' When the
comment is received by the FAA, the postcard will be dated, time
stamped, and returned to the commenter.
Availability of the NPRM
Any person may 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-
9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future FAA
NPRM's should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes application
procedures.
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), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee Bulletin Board Service (telephone: 800-FAA-ARAC). Internet
users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal
Register's webpage at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs for access to
recently published rulemaking documents.
History
On December 31, 1996, the FAA published three concurrent actions, a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), a Notice of Availability of
Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes, and a final rule, in the Federal
Register (61 FR 69301). These actions are part of an overall strategy
to reduce further the impact of aircraft noise on the park environment
and to assist the NPS in achieving the statutory mandate imposed by
Public Law 100-91.
The NPRM, Notice No. 96-15, proposed to establish noise limitations
for certain aircraft operating in the vicinity of GCNP. The comment
period for the NPRM closed on March 31, 1997. Notice No. 96-15 had
several purposes. The first was to provide incentives for the use of
quieter aircraft within the GCNP. The second was to establish
additional noise limitations to reduce further the impact of aircraft
noise on the GCNP environment. The third would have lifted for the
quietest aircraft the immediate temporary cap placed on the number of
aircraft permitted to be used for commercial sightseeing operations in
the GCNP.
The Notice of Availability of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes
for the GCNP was published with a 30-day comment period that closed on
January 30, 1997. The Notice requested comments on the proposed new or
modified existing air tour routes, which complement the final rule
affecting the Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of GCNP.
The final rule amended 14 CFR part 93 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (Part 93) by adding a new subpart which codified and
replaced SFAR No. 50-2; modified the dimensions of the GCNP SFRA;
established and modified existing flight corridors; established
reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing operations;
established curfews for 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 SFRA. The final rule was originally scheduled to become
effective May 1, 1997. However, for the
[[Page 26903]]
reasons stated below, the FAA published another final rule on February
26, 1997, 62 FR 8861, which changed the effective date to January 31,
1998, for those portions of the December 31, 1996, final rule which
define the Grand Canyon SFRA (14 CFR Sec. 93.301), define the flight
free zones and flight corridors (14 CFR Sec. 93.305), and establish
minimum flight altitudes in the vicinity of the GCNP (14 CFR Sec.
93.307). The February 26, 1997, final rule also reinstated the
corresponding sections of SFAR 50-2 until January 31, 1998.
In order to meet the May 1, 1997 effective date, the FAA would have
had to transmit the data on the proposed routes to the National Ocean
Service (NOS) by February 21, 1997. The NOS is the agency responsible
for the production and printing of aeronautical charts. The NOS would
then have produced by April 1, 1997, an aeronautical chart that would
have been used by the air tour operators for training purposes.
However, during the comment period, the FAA received valuable
information from commenters, as well as suggestions for alterations and
refinements of the route structure from officials of the GCNP and NPS
that could potentially produce noise reduction benefits and also
address other related impacts. Both the FAA and the DOI believe that a
number of the suggested changes would produce a significantly better
rule for GCNP users, the aviation operators, and interested Native
American tribes. The FAA had to decide between proceeding with the
proposed routes to meet the May 1 final rule effective date, or
developing a better and more comprehensive route structure in response
to the comments and suggestions. The latter would require additional
time for analysis and would not go into effect until after the busy
summer tourist season.
For the reasons stated above, the FAA determined that permitting
the final rule to become effective on May 1, 1997, would be contrary to
the public interest and, therefore, decided not to send the originally
proposed routes to NOS for charting at that time. Rather, the FAA
decided to analyze the new ideas with the expectation of creating the
best possible routes.
The FAA's training and checking experience indicates that
qualifying air tour pilots on new routes during a peak tourist season
when the air traffic is the densest is not the appropriate time for
such a transition. At GCNP, the peak season extends approximately from
May through October. To afford operators a more favorable opportunity
for training on the new routes, the FAA determined that the training
should take place after the summer tourist season when the volume of
air traffic is lower. Therefore, the FAA determined that January 31,
1998, would be an appropriate revised effective date of the new
airspace and route structure. This additional time will permit the FAA
to develop the best possible route structure, facilitate production and
printing of aeronautical charts, and give the operators sufficient time
to train their pilots adequately and safely on the new routes after the
close of the busy summer season.
The FAA determined that 5 U.S.C. 553(b) provides sufficient
justification to issue a final rule delaying the effective date of the
relevant portions of the December 31, 1996 final rule without notice or
an opportunity for comment. Therefore, the FAA changed the effective
date of 14 CFR 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 to January 31, 1998, and
reinstated the corresponding sections of SFAR 50-2. While there was not
sufficient time to allow prior notice or comment concerning the FAA
decision to delay the May 1 effective date, the FAA invited comments
concerning any other aspect of the notice, including the new
implementation date of January 31, 1998. The comment period closed
March 24, 1997. The temporary cap provisions, curfews, and reporting
requirements were unaffected by these actions and will go into effect
for Grand Canyon air tour operators on May 1, 1997.
Public Comments on Proposed Routes and on Noise Limitations NPRM
During the comment period on the Notice of Availability of Proposed
Commercial Air Tour Routes for the GCNP, the FAA received valuable
information from commenters, as well as suggestions for alterations and
refinements of the route structure from officials of the GCNP and NPS
that could potentially produce noise reduction benefits. Based on an
analysis of these comments and suggestions the FAA issued a new
proposed route structure concurrent with the issuance of this proposal.
Several of the comments relate to the proposals in this NPRM.
Public Comments on the Central Region
Commenters state that, with the move of air tours south of the
National Canyon as required by the expansion of the Toroweap/Shinumo
Flight-free Zone, operators will not be able to sell an air tour in the
central region of GCNP as passengers would not be able to see the
Canyon or its other unique topography. Commenters further believe that
the loss of a viable air tour route in the National Canyon area would
cause significant and irreparable harm to economic viability of air
tour operators and other dependent businesses as well as the local
economy. According to commenters, this will result in shifting of
traffic to the routes south of the Sanup Flight-free Zone or to the
routes around the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. Commenters fear that
the resulting compression and congestion of traffic in those areas will
eventually lead to a mid-air collision.
Other comments address the proposed Blue One Alpha route through
the proposed National Canyon Corridor as addressed in Notice 96-15,
published December 31, 1996. These commenters believe that no air tour
routes should be permitted through the Toroweap-Shinumo Flight-free
Zone, even for less noisy (Category C) aircraft. The river corridor
from National Canyon to Havasu Creek should receive maximum protection
from air tour noise. The addition of the National Canyon to the
Toroweap-Shinumo Flight-free Zone was critically necessary for the
restoration of natural quiet. Furthermore, commenters allege that this
route is non-essential since most of the Las Vegas-Tusayan flights are
shuttles to the Canyon and not solely air tours.
Consultation with the Havasupai Tribe under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act also revealed potential impacts on
sacred and cultural sites should the National Canyon Corridor be
implemented as proposed in the December 31, 1996, NPRM.
FAA Response: The National Canyon Corridor, as proposed in this
NPRM, provides a workable solution to several issues addressed by
commenters and raised in consultation with Native American tribes.
The air tour routes in the central region of the park, as
previously proposed on December 31, 1996, did not provide air tour
operators using less noise efficient aircraft with a viable air tour
route. The proposed incentive route for Category C aircraft would have
resulted in a continued level of aircraft activity just north of Supai
Village, which is the central location of the Havasupai Tribe. In
addition, there would have been a number of flights over some of the
sites sacred to the Havasupai Tribe. By altering the National Canyon
Corridor, and by permitting all aircraft to use the corridor until
December 31, 2001, after which time westbound traffic would only be
permitted to traverse the corridor in Category C aircraft, and
proposing an
[[Page 26904]]
incentive route on the eastern region of the GCNP, the FAA expects
several benefits to accrue.
First, the Corridor, as proposed in this NPRM, feeds into an
altered proposed route that is significantly shorter than that
previously proposed. By eliminating the portion of the route north of
Supai Village, it eliminates air tour flights around Supai Village, the
current home of the Havasupai Tribe, and minimizes and/or avoids
increased overflights of the vast majority of their traditional
cultural properties, including sacred sites. It also minimizes socio-
economic impacts to their economy which is based primarily on tourism
which in turn is based on the isolated and natural character of the
northern part of the reservation.
Second, this proposal produces positive net effects on the
environment over the previous proposal. The redefined corridor
traverses a much smaller segment of the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free
Zone than does the corridor proposed in Notice No. 96-15. While the
corridor proposed in this NPRM would be open to all aircraft until
December 31, 2001, as opposed to only Category C aircraft as in the
previous proposal, the overall effect of aircraft noise is lessened by
routing air traffic over less frequently used, less noise-sensitive
areas. The FAA believes that permitting only Category C aircraft to be
used in westbound traffic of the National Canyon Corridor after
December 31, 2001, would work toward further reduction of noise in the
corridor.
Third, this proposal permits the establishment of a viable air tour
route in the central region of the GCNP, which will be available to all
aircraft. The operators have informed the FAA that the Blue One route,
as depicted on December 31, 1996, is not a viable air tour, and that
the proposed Blue One Alpha route was an example of a viable air tour
route. In view of all of these concerns, the FAA is proposing a route
that is similar in nature to the previously proposed Blue One Alpha but
would permit all operators to operate on a viable route in the central
region of the GCNP and provide relief to a number of areas that are
considered sacred to the Havasupai Nation.
This proposal avoids the economic harm which otherwise could be
expected to accrue to air tour operators should they be deprived of a
viable air tour route through the central region of the GCNP.
Finally, the FAA believes that a viable air tour route over the
central region of the park, open to all aircraft until December 31,
2001, would promote air safety. The FAA believes that if there were not
a viable air tour route in the central region of the GCNP, operators
would divert their operations to the routes south of the Sanup Flight-
free Zone resulting in compression of traffic. The corridor as proposed
in this NPRM enhances air traffic safety by removing a factor that
could lead to compression of traffic in the routes south of the Sanup
Flight-free Zone. In the absence of the proposed corridor, and
associated route, the potential for unsafe operating conditions could
lead to mid-air collision due to the resulting compression of air
traffic.
Athough the FAA believes that there are many advantages to the
National Canyon route as proposed, it also acknowledges that the actual
users of the GCNP--air tour operators, Native Americans, and Park
visitors--may suggest an alternate route that could be more viable than
the exact route proposed. Therefore, based on comments received and on
further consultation with Native Americans, the FAA advises commenters
that the route, as proposed, may be altered in the final rule.
Public Comments on the Eastern Region
Some commenters state that the routes proposed in the December 31,
1996, notice of availability offer no reduction of aircraft sound in
the eastern and most sensitive region of GCNP and that there should be
route incentives for quiet airplanes.
The FAA has also conducted a preliminary review of the comments
received on Notice 96-15. Most of the comments received on that NPRM
will be addressed in a future final rule.
FAA Response: The expansion of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone is
a significant step towards achieving the substantial restoration of
natural quiet in the eastern region of the GCNP by relocating the air
tour aircraft to the north of an expanded Flight-free Zone. While this
modification is beneficial for a major part of the eastern region, the
expansion does create a concentration of aircraft in the northeastern
end of the GCNP SFRA north of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone.
The NPS reviewed this situation and recommended that a new
incentive route should be available for the most noise efficient
aircraft. This proposed corridor would pass through the Bright Angel
Flight-free Zone along the northern boundary of the current Bright
Angel Flight-free Zone as defined in SFAR 50-2. 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 Saddle
Mountain, where the NPS has pointed out some noise sensitivity. Second,
noise from the air tour aircraft would be dispersed between the
northern boundary of the new Bright Angel Flight-free Zone and the
proposed corridor, thereby reducing the level of concentrated aircraft
noise along any one route. Third, opening this corridor only to the
most noise efficient aircraft would provide a valuable and tangible
incentive for the air tour operators to convert to quieter aircraft
well before they are required to do so. The GCNP could thereby
experience the benefit of an earlier reduction in the level of aircraft
noise.
The FAA agrees with this analysis. For that reason, the FAA is
proposing the creation of the Bright Angel Corridor available for use
only by the most efficient aircraft.
The Proposal
The FAA proposes to create two corridors that pass through flight-
free zones.
One corridor would be through the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone
along the route that is currently depicted on the Grand Canyon VFR
Aeronautical Chart as the Green One Alpha and Black One Alpha. The
establishment of this corridor would mitigate any potential adverse
effects by dispensing the noise from air tour aircraft through out the
eastern sector of the park. This corridor, one mile in width, is being
proposed for the most noise efficient aircraft only.
The second proposed corridor, which is two miles in width, would be
through the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone in that portion of that
Flight-free Zone which covers the National Canyon area. This corridor
is proposed to allow the route known currently as the Blue One on the
Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart and as Blue One Alpha on the
Proposed Air Tour Routes map to continue through that portion of the
Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone that covers the National Canyon area.
At the approximate point (estimated to be within 1 to 3 miles) where
the current Blue One or proposed Blue One Alpha makes its first right
turn in the National Canyon area the route would turn southeast from
that point intercepting a route that goes directly to Tusayan.
The FAA proposes to place the corridor through the National Canyon
area in a location that will provide the greatest amount of noise
mitigation for Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai tribe,
while addressing the economic concerns of the air tour industry. The
official position of the Havasupai is that there should be no air tour
routes over Havasupai tribal lands.
[[Page 26905]]
After a meeting between the tribe and the FAA on April 9, 1997, the
Havasupai representatives agreed to present the FAA's suggestions to
the Tribal Council and to discuss possible ways of dealing with the
issue. The FAA is working with the Havasupai to minimize any potential
adverse effects and will continue to work with the tribal and monitor
the situation in the future. Therefore, the FAA is requesting comments
on this specific proposal as well as alternative placements of a
corridor in the National Canyon area.
Based on comments from the public and further consultation with
Native Americans, the FAA may alter the routes to create the most
viable route structure in the GCNP for all concerned. The FAA advises
the public that comments on the proposed routes or any alternative
routes should be sufficiently detailed and show definitive benefits so
that they may be adopted in a final rule.
Relationship of This NPRM to Other Actions
As previously stated, the FAA published three actions on December
31, 1996, that related to the airspace management of the GCNP. One of
those actions was a final rule that established a reporting requirement
on the air tour operators, established operational curfews on certain
air tour routes within the GCNP, and temporarily restricted the number
of aircraft that could be operated on commercial air tour routes within
the GCNP. These three provisions will become effective on May 1, 1997.
The final rule, as amended on February 26, 1997, also enlarged the
existing flight free zones in the GCNP. Those provisions will become
effective on January 31, 1998.
A Notice of Availability of Routes was the second of the three
actions published on December 31, 1996. The FAA issued a map that
delineated proposed routes for air tour operations within the GCNP.
Subsequent comments on the proposed routes from the air tour operators,
environmental groups, and Native American tribal government units
strongly supported alternative routes that could protect the sacred
sites of the Native Americans, further reduce aircraft overflight
noise, and continue to provide viable air tour routes for the
operators. Based on those comments, concurrent with the issuance of
this proposal, the FAA issued further refinements to the air tour
routes previously proposed. The FAA will consider the comments already
received along with the new comments submitted by the end of the
current comment period. The FAA plans to release a chart that depicts
the air tour routes which can be used for training and familiarizing
the operators well in advance of the January 31, 1998, effective date
of the expansion of the flight free zones. The new routes would also
become effective on January 31, 1998.
In addition to the two actions listed above, the FAA also published
an NPRM on December 31, 1996, proposing a methodology and outlining the
effects of classifying the air tour aircraft in noise efficiency
categories. The categories are based on the concept that the most
desirable aircraft to be used in the GCNP are those aircraft that can
accommodate air tour passengers with the least amount of noise per
seat. The comment period on the NPRM closed on March 31, 1997. The FAA
will address the comments received on the NPRM issues in a subsequent
rulemaking. However, comments pertaining to the National Canyon
Corridor will be addressed in the final rule to this action.
The comments received on all the above mentioned actions, together
with the information obtained through continuing discussions with the
Native American tribes, form the basis of this action. Specifically,
the comments concerning the need for quiet incentive routes and the
location of the Blue One Alpha route that would feed into the National
Canyon Corridor prompted the FAA to review the airspace structure
within the GCNP and to propose the two new routes contained in this
NPRM. Comments previously submitted in other actions that pertain to
incentive routes and the National Canyon Corridor are addressed in this
NPRM. Even though this action is related to other actions, it does not
attempt to finalize any proposal made elsewhere. Therefore, the
proposals in this NPRM should be viewed in conjunction with other
actions and proposals, but should not be viewed as completing any other
action.
Environmental Review
The FAA is reevaluating the Final Environmental Assessment dated
December 24, 1996, for the Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the
GCNP to determine whether the proposed changes in this NPRM and the
second Notice of Availability of Proposed Routes are substantial so as
to warrant preparation of additional environmental documents. This
reevaluation is being done in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other applicable environmental
requirements. Copies of the written reevaluation will be circulated to
interested parties and placed in the docket. For those unable to view
the document in the docket, the written reevaluation can be obtained
from Mr. William J. Marx, Division Manager, ATA-300, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591,
Telephone: (202) 267-3075. Comments concerning the environmental
impacts of adopting this proposal or the written reevaluation should be
submitted to the docket before the comment period closes. Before any
final rule is issued, based on any comments and the written
reevaluation, the FAA will determine whether any further environmental
review is warranted.
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.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rulemaking, when viewed as a component of and in conjunction
with other actions recently published by the FAA, is cost relieving to
one-half of the small entities significantly impacted economically. The
remaining operators affected by this proposed rulemaking, however,
would be significantly impacted by this NPRM in that they would be
required to absorb higher average annual variable operating costs
imposed by the GCNP final rule (Dec. 31, 1996 at 61 FR 69302).
Because of the continued high public interest surrounding GCNP
regulation, the FAA has determined that this NPRM does constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' based on the criteria outlined in
E.O. 12866. This NPRM, in accordance with OMB directives, however,
would not have a significant affect on international trade. A full
regulatory evaluation of the proposal is in the docket.
Costs
The possible quantifiable economic effects for this NPRM are
derived from the estimated costs germane to the two affected flight-
free zones (FFZ's) as developed in the final rule 61 FR 69302,
published December 31, 1996. These initial estimates were adjusted to
take
[[Page 26906]]
into account the effects of a subsequent final rule (Feb. 26, `97 at 62
FR 8862), which delayed the effective date of the expansion of the
FFZ's as stated in 14 CFR Sec. 93.305 to January 31, 1998. With regard
to the Bright Angel FFZ, the FAA estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302
that there would be no net operating losses, and hence, no added costs
to the GCNP commercial sightseeing operators associated with the
northward extension of this FFZ. The FAA assumed in that analysis, that
this increase in average annual variable operating costs would be
offset by an equal $1.0 million average annual increase in ticket
prices. The FAA therefore, concluded in final rule 61 FR 69302, that no
net operating losses (operating revenue minus variable operating costs)
would be borne by GCNP commercial sightseeing tour operators as a
result of the extension of the Bright Angel FFZ. Thus, the full
societal cost of a $1.0 million average annual increase in commercial
sightseeing prices would be borne by the consumer.
Only one fixed-wing operator, utilizing three 19-seat Vistaliners,
which are Category C aircraft, would be able to conduct commercial
sightseeing tours along the proposed flight corridor traversing the
Bright Angel FFZ. This operator, however, accounted for approximately
4,900 tours, 88,300 passengers, and $5.3 million in total operating
revenues in 1995. This operator also accounted for approximately
$538,000 of the more than $1.0 million in increased average annual
variable operating costs and prices estimated in final rule 61 FR
69302. The FAA assumes the operator of Category C aircraft would
continue to conduct commercial sightseeing tours along the Alpha routes
as always, and this would eliminate over one-half of the variable
operating cost and tour price increases previously estimated in final
rule 61 FR 69302. The remaining increase in variable operating costs
and tour prices estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302 ($497,000) would
continue, and would remain as an on-going cost of final 61 FR 69302.
However, these costs would be transferred from a cost to the consumer
(increased prices) to a cost to the operators of Category A and
Category B aircraft (net operating revenue loss). This is because
operators of Category A and Category B aircraft would be required to
maintain their current tour prices in order to remain competitive with
the Category C operator who would no longer need to raise his tour
prices. Thus, the FAA estimates the cost savings of the proposed flight
corridor through the Bright Angel FFZ for Category C aircraft only,
would be a reduction of $538,000 in average annual variable operating
costs for operators of these aircraft; operators of Category A and
Category B aircraft would have to absorb the added variable operating
cost of the longer route established for them in final rule 61 FR
69302.
With regard to the southward extension of the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ
concurrent with the elimination of commercial sightseeing access to the
National Canyon portion of what is referred to as the ``Blue 1, Blue
Direct'' commercial sightseeing tour, the FAA estimated a reduction in
net operating revenues in final 61 FR 69302. This loss resulted from
the expected lowering of commercial sightseeing tour prices due to the
elimination of the most scenic aerial portion of the overall commercial
sightseeing package offset to some degree, by lower variable operating
costs due to the shortening of the tour route. The FAA estimated this
loss to be in excess of $2.5 million in reduced average annual net
operating revenue and was derived by subtracting the estimated
reduction of $2.5 million in average annual variable operating costs
from the estimated average annual revenue loss of $5.0 million.
Incorporaitng adjustments to reflect a partial restoration of the
National Canyon portion of the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' air tour, the
FAA estimates that the proposed flight corridor through the Toroweap/
Shinumo FFZ would lower the average annual net operating revenue loss
as previously estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302 form $2.5 million to
just over $1.7 million for the time period 1998-2008. This reduction in
average annual net operating revenue losses of $712,000 results from a
comparable reduction in average annual revenue losses from a previously
estimated $5.0 million to $2.5 million ($2.5 million) which in turn is
offset by a lowering of the reduced variable operating costs from a
previously estimated $2.5 million to $758,000 ($1.8 million). Thus, the
FAA estimates the cost savings of the proposed flight corridor through
the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ for all aircraft would be a reduction of
$712,000 in average annual net operating revenue losses as previously
estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302.
Adding commercial sightseeing flights per aircraft between Las
Vegas and Tusayan along the proposed flight corridor through the
Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ is not a viable option for these GCNP commercial
sightseeing operators. As was future in final 61 FR 69302, the
reduction in total commercial sightseeing tour aircraft flying time
does not provide sufficient savings in aggregate daily flying time to
allow operators to expand their number of daily commercial sightseeing
flights per aircraft.
The cost of the proposed rule would be any adverse impact of the
two proposed flight corridors on the restoration of natural quiet in
the canyon. The potential adverse impact cannot be quantified in this
NPRM. The FAA solicits comments on ways to quantify the effects on the
restoration of the natural quiet in this proposed rule. The more
detailed those comments, the better able the FAA will be to assess
those benefits in a final rule. The Bright Angel FFZ corridor would
create an additional incentive for air tour operators to use Category C
aircraft. The Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ corridor would permit the continued
operation of an air tour in that area, tours which were seriously
affected by final rule 61 FR 69302. Taken together, both of these
proposed corridors would benefit the GCNP commercial sightseeing
operators.
Benefits
The benefits associated with this NPRM include (1) A more rapid
conversion to quieter aircraft in response to an inceptive route for
operators of noise efficient Category C aircraft; (2) the shifting away
of a commercial sightseeing tour route away from cultural and historic
sites of the Havasupai Tribe that would enhance the sacredness and
preservation of these sites; and (3) the restoration of an air tour
route between Las Vegas and Grand Canyon Airport that reduces average
annual net operating revenue losses. The particular groups that would
benefit most from this rulemaking action are the Havasupai Tribe and
some of the operators and consumers of GCNP commercial sightseeing
tours, particularly those able to use or convert to quieter aircraft.
The establishment of the proposed corridor for noise efficient
Category C aircraft through the Bright Angel FFZ along the ``Alpha''
routes would reduce increased aircraft noise created by the
consolidation of aircraft overflight noise at the northern edge of the
expanded FFZ as described in final rule 61 FR 69302. Furthermore, to
the extend the consumer perceives the current shorter, more established
commercial sightseeing tour through the proposed flight corridor as
having a greater value, then demand for these tours conducted in the
more noise efficient Category C aircraft would increase. Concurrently,
demand for the longer sightseeing tours conducted in Category A and
Category
[[Page 26907]]
B aircraft would decrease. As stated earlier, the operators of these
aircraft have to absorb the remaining $497,000 increase in average
annual variable operating costs re-estimated in final rule 61 FR 69302.
In addition, they might also face a decline in revenues as patronage
shifts to air tours offered in Category C aircraft. In combination,
these two potential outcomes of this proposed rulemaking could create a
significant incentive for operators of Category A and Category B
aircraft to convert to Category C aircraft sooner than was proposed in
61 FR 69334, leading to a more rapid mitigation of noise in GCNP.
Comments received on Notice No. 96-11 state that the use of noise
efficient aircraft will, in the long run, provide the most benefit
toward restoring natural quiet. There is an outstanding NPRM on the
issue of noise limitations for certain aircraft operated in GCNP
(Notice No. 96-15). Without prejudging Notice No. 96-15, but as an
incentive to the operators to convert to more noise efficient aircraft
as rapidly as possible, this proposed rule would allow operators using
quieter Category C aircraft to continue using the Bright Angel Corridor
for the Zuni-Dragon air tour on the east end of the Grand Canyon, and
on the west end, would allow operators using quieter Category C
aircraft to continue using the National Canyon air tour route on return
trips from the Grand Canyon to Las Vegas after the year 2001.
In consideration of Havasupai concerns regarding commercial
sightseeing overflights of their ancestral lands, the FAA is proposing
an abridged ``Blue 1A'' route in conjunction with the proposed
Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ. The proposed abridged ``Blue 1A'' route
effectively avoids 90 percent of Havasupai cultural and historic lands.
The economic benefit of this facet of the NPRM to this Native American
Tribe, however, is inherent and non-quantifiable, but nevertheless,
very real.
Economic Evaluation Summary
The FAA has determined that the average annual cost savings of this
NPRM from the years 1998-2008, would be about $1.25 million. That
portion of the average annual cost savings attributable to the proposed
flight corridor through the Bright Angel FFZ is accounted for by a
reduction of $538,000 in the previously estimated increase in average
annual variable operating costs. That portion of the total average
annual cost savings attributable to the proposed flight corridor
through the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ is accounted for by a reduction of
$712,000 in the previously estimated average annual loss in net
operating revenue. Except for potential adverse noise effects, the FAA
therefore concludes that this NPRM would be cost relieving.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
By both law and executive order, Federal regulatory agencies are
required to consider the impact of proposed regulations on small
entities. Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review'',
dated September 30, 1993, states that:
Each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least
burden on society, including individuals, businesses of different
sizes, and other entities (including small communities and
governmental entities), consistent with obtaining the regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the
extent practicable, the cost of cumulative regulations.
The 1980 ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (RFA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of any
notice of proposed rulemaking that will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The definition of
small entities and guidance material for making determinations required
by the RFA are contained in the Federal Register [47 FR 32825, July 29,
1982]. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) order 2100.14A outlines
the agency's procedures and criteria for implementing the RFA.
With respect to this proposed rule, a ``small entity'' is a
commercial sightseeing operator that owns or operates nine or fewer
aircraft. A significant economic impact on a small entity is defined as
an annualized net compliance cost to such a small commercial
sightseeing operator. In the case of scheduled operators of aircraft
for hire having less than 60 passenger seats, a ``significant economic
impact'' or cost threshold, is defined as an annualized net compliance
cost level that exceeds $69,800; for unscheduled operators the
threshold is $4,900. A substantial number of small entities is defined
as a number that is more than one-third of the small commercial
sightseeing operators (but not less than eleven operators) subject to
the proposed rule. The Federal Aviation Administration has determined
that this proposal could have a significant economic impact on most of
the small commercial sightseeing operators conducting flights within
Grand Canyon National Park and therefore, has prepared this initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
The proposed rulemaking could affect a substantial number of the
commercial sightseeing operators conducting tour flights in Grand
Canyon National Park under 14 CFR part 135. The commercial sightseeing
operators affected are those providing commercial sightseeing tours
currently operating along the ``Blue 1'', ``Black 1'', and ``Green 1''
tour routes who would be permitted to conduct commercial sightseeing
tours along the flight corridors proposed by this NPRM. FAA data
indicate that in 1995, of the 31 identified GCNP commercial sightseeing
operators, 25 conducted air tours along the affected routes, and of
these, 20 were potentially affected small commercial sightseeing
operators, each owning, but not necessarily operating 9 or fewer
aircraft. These operators owned a total of 61 aircraft and the average
fleet consisted of about 3 airplanes. The FAA therefore, estimates that
20 operators, which are also small entities, could be impacted by the
proposed rule. This impact is as discussed in the preceding analysis of
the full regulatory evaluation.
The Federal Aviation Administration, however, has determined that
this proposal, when viewed as a component of and in conjunction with
other actions (the FAA published three actions on December 31, 1996,
and one action on February 26, 1997, that related to the airspace
management of the GCNP) is cost relieving to one-half of these small
entities. The remaining operators affected by this proposed rulemaking
would be required to absorb higher average annual variable operating
costs imposed by final rule 61 FR 69302.
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 or trade
relations. However, because the proposed rulemaking has been determined
to be cost beneficial to commercial sightseeing operators and a large
proportion of GCNP commercial sightseeing 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
sightseeing revenue associated with possible increases in foreign tour
dollars.
Federalism Implications
The regulations 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
[[Page 26908]]
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 requirements for information collection
associated with the proposed regulation.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this proposal would have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This proposed rule is considered significant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 93 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 93.305 is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of
paragraph (b) and by adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 93.305 Flight-free zones and flight corridors.
* * * * *
(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., 111 deg.55'07.32'' W.
(c) * * * The airspace designated as the ``National Canyon
Corridor'': at or above 7,500 feet MSL within 2 nautical miles either
side of a line extending east, southeast from Lat. 36 deg.14'01'',
Long. 112 deg.53'38'' to Lat. 36 deg.14'24'', Long. 112 deg.52'30'' to
Lat. 36 deg.15'01'', Long. 112 deg.50'37'' to Lat. 36 deg.14'53'',
Long. 112 deg.49'10'' to Lat. 36 deg.14'05'', Long. 112 deg.48'39'' to
Lat. 36 deg.06'58'', Long. 112 deg.44'21''.
3. Section 91.306 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 93.306 Operation of GCNP Category C Aircraft in National Canyon
Corridor and Bright Angel Corridor.
No person may operate an aircraft westbound within the National
Canyon Corridor after December 31, 2001, or in the Bright Angel
Corridor within the Special Flight Rules Area unless the aircraft is a
commercial sightseeing operation aircraft that meets the GCNP Category
C aircraft standard, as defined in Sec. 93.319.
4. Section 93.307 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4)
as follows:
Sec. 93.307 Minimum flight altitudes.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) National Canyon Corridor. 7,500 feet MSL.
(4) Bright Angel Corridor. GCNP Category C helicopters, 9,500 feet
MSL; GCNP Category C airplanes, 10,000 feet MSL.
Issued in Washington, DC on May 12, 1997.
Dated: May 12, 1997.
W. Michael Sacrey,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 97-12745 Filed 5-12-97; 4:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
