[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 148 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40120-40139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19489]
[[Page 40119]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 148 / Wednesday, July 31, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 40120]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135
[Docket No. 28537; Notice No. 96-11]
RIN 2120-AF93
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National
Park
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to amend part 93
of the Federal Aviation Regulations by adding a new subpart to codify
and amend the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-
2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park.
Specifically, the FAA is proposing to modify the dimensions of the
Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA); establish
new and modify existing flight-free zones; establish new and modify
existing flight corridors; and establish reporting requirements for
commercial sightseeing companies operating in the SFRA. In addition, to
provide further protection for Park resources, this notice contains
proposals for flight-free periods within the Park and/or an interim
moratorium on additional commercial sightseeing air tours and tour
operators. Both flight-free periods and a moratorium could be effected
in various ways; in order to focus public comment, this notice contains
a description of both fixed and variable flight-free periods and one
possible moratorium. The FAA is proposing these changes to reduce the
impact of aircraft noise on the park environment and to assist the
National Park Service in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by
Public Law 100-91 to provide for the substantial restoration of natural
quiet and experience in Grand Canyon National Park.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 30, 1996.
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. 28537, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments may also be sent
electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet
address: nprmcmts@mail.hq.faa.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:
Mr. Neil Saunders, 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:
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. 28537.'' 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) 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 or the Federal Register's web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs for access to recently published rulemaking
documents.
History
Beginning in the summer of 1986, the FAA initiated regulatory
action to address increasing air traffic over Grand Canyon National
Park (GCNP). On March 26, 1987, the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. 50 (subsequently amended on June 15, 1987; 52 FR
22734) establishing flight regulations in the vicinity of the Grand
Canyon. The purpose of the SFAR was to reduce the risk of midair
collision, reduce the risk of terrain contact accidents below the rim
level, and reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the park environment.
In 1987, Congress enacted Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-91, commonly
known as the National Parks Overflights Act (the Act). The Act stated,
in part, that noise associated with aircraft overflights at GCNP was
causing ``a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and
experience of the park and current aircraft operations at the Grand
Canyon National Park have raised serious concerns regarding public
safety, including concerns regarding the safety of park users.''
Section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91 required the Department of the Interior
(DOI) to submit to the FAA recommendations to protect resources in the
Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with aircraft overflights.
The law mandated that the recommendations: (1) provide for substantial
restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park and
protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated
with aircraft overflight; (2) with limited exceptions, prohibit the
flight of aircraft below the rim of the canyon; and (3) designate
flight-free zones except for purposes of administration and emergency
operations.
In December 1987, the DOI transmitted its ``Grand Canyon Aircraft
Management Recommendation'' to the FAA, which included both rulemaking
and nonrulemaking actions. Pub. L. 100-91 required the FAA to prepare
and issue a final plan for the management of air traffic above the
Grand Canyon, implementing the recommendations of the DOI without
change unless the FAA
[[Page 40121]]
determined that executing the recommendations would adversely affect
aviation safety. After the FAA determined that some of the DOI
recommendations would adversely affect aviation safety, the
recommendations were modified to resolve those concerns.
On May 27, 1988, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50-2 revising the
procedures for operation of aircraft in the airspace above the Grand
Canyon (53 FR 20264, June 2, 1988). SFAR No. 50-2 established a Special
Flight Rules Area (SFRA) from the surface to 14,499 feet above mean sea
level (msl) in the area of the Grand Canyon. The SFAR prohibited flight
below a certain altitude in each of five sectors of this area, with
certain exceptions. The SFAR established four flight-free zones from
the surface to 14,499 feet msl above large areas of the park. The SFAR
provided for special routes for commercial sightseeing operators, which
are required to conduct operations under part 135, as authorized by
special operations specifications. Finally, the SFAR contained certain
terrain avoidance and communications requirements for flights in the
area.
A second major provision of section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91 required
the DOI to submit a report to Congress ``* * * discussing * * * whether
[SFAR No. 50-2] has succeeded in substantially restoring the natural
quiet in the park; and * * * such other matters, including possible
revisions in the plan, as may be of interest.'' The report was to
include comments by the FAA ``regarding the effect of the plan's
implementation on aircraft safety.'' The Act mandated a number of
studies related to the effect of overflights on parks. The National
Park Service (NPS) took longer than originally anticipated to complete
the studies because many of the issues involved are on the cutting edge
of technical and scientific capability. According to the NPS, measuring
natural quiet is different from measuring levels of aircraft noise. On
June 15, 1992, the FAA promulgated a final rule to extend the
expiration date of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1995, while the NPS
studies and analyses were being conducted (57 FR 26764).
On September 12, 1994, the DOI submitted its final report and
recommendations to Congress. This report, entitled, Report on Effects
of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System, was published in
July 1995. The report recommended numerous revisions to SFAR No. 50-2
that are described below.
On June 15, 1995, the FAA published a final rule that extended the
provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1997 (60 FR 31608). This action
allowed the FAA sufficient time to review thoroughly the NPS
recommendations as to their impact on the safety of air traffic over
GCNP, and to initiate and complete any appropriate rulemaking action.
Interagency Working Group
On December 22, 1993, Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena and
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt formed an interagency working
group (IWG) to explore ways to limit or reduce the impacts from
overflights on national parks, including GCNP. Secretary Babbitt and
Secretary Pena concur that increased flight operations at GCNP and
other national parks have significantly diminished the national park
experience for some park visitors, and that measures can and should be
taken to preserve a quality park experience for visitors, while
providing access to the airspace over national parks. The Secretaries
see the formation of the working group and the mutual commitment to
addressing the impacts of park overflights as the initial steps in a
new spirit of cooperation between the two departments to promote an
effective balance of missions. The FAA has been working closely with
the NPS to identify and deal with the impacts of aviation on parks, and
the two agencies will continue to identify and pursue the most
effective solutions. This close cooperation is necessary because the
FAA has sole authority for control of the nation's airspace to ensure
aviation safety and efficiency, while the NPS is charged with managing
the natural and cultural resources in the national park system and
providing for public enjoyment of those resources in such a manner that
they are unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
The FAA's role in the IWG has been to promote, develop, and foster
aviation safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient use of
airspace, while recognizing the need to preserve, protect, and enhance
the environment by minimizing the adverse effects of aviation on the
environment. The NPS' role in the IWG has been to protect public land
resources in national parks, preserve environmental values of those
areas, including wilderness areas, and provide for public enjoyment of
those areas.
In March 1994, the two agencies jointly issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on policy
recommendations addressing the effects of aircraft overflights on
national parks, including GCNP (59 FR 12740; March 17, 1994). The
recommendations presented for comment included voluntary measures,
altitude restrictions, flight-free periods, flight-free zones,
allocation of noise equivalences, and incentives to encourage use of
quiet aircraft technology.
The President, on April 22, 1996, issued a Memorandum for the Heads
of Executive Departments and Agencies to address the significant
impacts on visitor experience in national parks. Specifically, the
President directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue proposed
regulations for the Grand Canyon National Park placing appropriate
limits on sightseeing aircraft to reduce the noise immediately and make
further substantial progress toward restoration of natural quiet, as
defined by the Secretary of the Interior, while maintaining aviation
safety in accordance with the Overflight Act (Public Act 100-91). This
proposed rule was issued in response to the President's direction.
In response to the ANPRM, the FAA received 30,726 comments,
including duplicate form letters and several petitions with multiple
signatures; the FAA received 24,510 submissions of one form letter with
comments addressing the GCNP. Of the total number of comments, 1,975
were distinct letters. This NPRM will discuss only those comments that
relate to GCNP. The remainder of the comments relating to the above
noted recommendations may be addressed in a later rulemaking.
Of the 644 comments that specifically addressed GCNP, 337
commenters opposed, while 232 commenters supported, further regulation.
Commenters included members of State and local governments;
congresspersons; helicopter operators; Native Americans and other
individuals; and aviation, environmental, and recreational
organizations and associations.
Commenters opposing additional regulation argued that: (a) SFAR No.
50-2 is effective, decreasing the visitor complaint rate by 92 percent;
(b) air tour operator-funded studies indicate that natural quiet has
been restored and the NPS studies are substantially flawed and biased;
(c) 84 percent of the park is already off limits to air tour
operations; (d) air tours are an environmentally friendly way to see
the park and provide a real service to the handicapped; (e) additional
regulation could present safety implications or cause compression of
traffic; (f) more regulations will have economic impacts; (g) noise
budgets are too complex and will not work; (h) quieter aircraft are
[[Page 40122]]
expensive and incentives to invest in this technology are needed; (i)
although there have been adverse impacts on the noise level in GCNP,
those impacts have only occurred in limited corridors and only because
of visitors' demand; (j) the growth of the commercial sightseeing
industry at about 5.9 percent is about the same as other types of
visitor tours; (k) air passengers do not use any NPS resources like
trails or trash disposal; (l) to protect sound for sound's sake is in
conflict with the FAA's interpretation of its mission to protect
persons and property on the ground; and (m) air tour passengers are
paying visitors and should be accorded the same considerations as
ground visitors.
Commenters supporting additional regulation argued that: (a)
Current measures are not effective and have not increased the safety of
operations, but instead have compressed traffic; (b) the total number
of flights must be restricted to pre-1975 levels to lessen noise
disruption caused by unlimited flights and to protect passenger safety;
(c) air tours over national parks use parks by consuming the natural
quiet resources, imposing costs, and detracting from scenic values; (d)
the NPS should decide the level of protection of park resources that is
necessary for it to achieve its mission and mandates under existing
laws and regulations; (e) results of the NPS study should be used to
strengthen SFAR No. 50-2 that must include limits on the number of air
tours to be effective; (f) to resolve noise problems at GCNP, more
flight-free zones should be established, all flights should be
perpendicular to hiking trails and the Colorado River, and flights
should be prohibited during the oars-only season; (g) an aircraft noise
budget should be created; and (h) incentives to minimize noise per
passenger should be established.
Other commenters argued that: (a) Commercial jets should be routed
away from the Grand Canyon; (b) the airspace around the canyon should
be simplified for noncommercial visual flight rules (VFR) pilots who
want to sightsee from the air; (c) park boundaries on the charts should
be better defined; and (d) ``natural quiet'' should be redefined as a
metric that involves perception, rather than percent time audible.
Since issuance of the joint ANPRM, the FAA and the NPS have
continued to evaluate the impact of noise from aircraft overflying the
Grand Canyon for the purpose of developing a comprehensive policy to
minimize these impacts. (See Other Actions section.)
NPS Report to Congress
The NPS ``Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National
Park System,'' was based on more than 20 separate studies. These
studies included acoustical measurements from GCNP sites, GCNP visitor
surveys, noise dose-visitor response analyses, and noise modeling of
commercial sightseeing aircraft overflying GCNP using FAA survey data.
The NPS defined natural quiet as the natural ambient sound
conditions found in the park and ``substantial restoration'' to mean
when 50 percent or more of the park achieved ``natural quiet'' (i.e.,
no aircraft audible) for 75 to 100 percent of the day.
The NPS evaluated whether SFAR No. 50-2 resulted in the substantial
restoration of quiet and concluded, in part:
9-3. Flight-free zones can limit the areas where aircraft,
especially tour aircraft, are audible high percentages of the time.
But aircraft of all types may still be heard for some percent of the
time at virtually all areas where sound data were collected, notably
within a few miles of the edges of some of the flight-free zones.
These results suggest that a substantial restoration of natural
quiet has not been achieved for large segments of the Canyon.
9-4. The percent of time aircraft are audible correlates with
how visitors feel about aircraft sound. Even when aircraft are
audible for relatively low percentages of time, a percentage of the
visitors can notice the aircraft and believe that the sound has
interfered with their appreciation of natural quiet. Further, it is
likely that visitors who hike away from auto accessible locations
are more sensitive to intruding aircraft sounds than are visitors
who do not. Hence, the NPS concludes that preservation of natural
quiet is of significant value to visitors, especially for the
backcountry, river corridor and Cross Canyon Corridor trail system
use zones at GCNP.
9-5. The Air Access Coalition-sponsored data demonstrate that
SFAR 50-2 has reduced aircraft should levels significantly at some
locations. However, these data do not address restoration of natural
quiet, since no information is given about how much of the time
aircraft can be heard, and reported non-aircraft sound levels are
probably inaccurately high.
9-8. Except for park management and emergency-related
overflights, large percentages of Grand Canyon visitors regard
aircraft overflights within sight or hearing of visitors on the
ground as somewhat of very inappropriate over National Park areas.
9-9. There is little support among the five categories of Grand
Canyon visitors for a ``do nothing'' policy or a ``reasonable
growth'' policy. Maintenance of the current level, or reduction/
elimination are preferred policies.
9-10. A majority of visitors to the Grand Canyon would support
several specific types of limitations on air tour overflights.
9-11. Computer modeling supports the conclusion that natural
quiet has not been substantially restored, that very few areas
currently experience natural quiet, and that the areas of natural
quiet will diminish considerably if no quiet aircraft are introduced
and if tour operations are permitted to increase. The acoustic
profiles tend to verify the computed results.
9-12. There has not been a substantial restoration of natural
quiet in Grand Canyon, although the NPS acknowledges the value of
the SFAR [50-2] and the improvement it has brought.
9-13. If no changes are made to the SFAR [50-2], progress to
date in the restoration of natural quiet will be lost. Projections
suggest that without further improvements, the loss of natural quiet
will accelerate to an unacceptable level.
An NPS analysis, using 1989 FAA survey data of commercial
sightseeing route activity, indicated that 43 percent of GCNP met the
NPS criterion for substantially restoring natural quiet at that time.
However, a subsequent NPS analysis using 1995 FAA survey data indicated
that 31 percent of GCNP met the NPS criterion for substantially
restoring natural quiet. The NPS concludes that the noise mitigation
benefits of SFAR No. 50-2 are being significantly eroded. As noted in
conclusion 9-13, if no further action is taken, the proportion of GCNP
experiencing a substantial restoration of natural quiet would probably
drop to less than 10 percent by the year 2010.
NPS studies maintain that the percent of time that aircraft are
audible is a good predictor of visitor sensitivity to aircraft. This is
especially true relative to backcountry and river users who are more
sensitive to noise than other visitors. Specifically, the NPS noise
dose-visitor response studies suggest that among those individuals who
hike away from their cars, approximately 30-40 percent can be expected
to report moderate to extreme interference with their appreciation of
natural quiet when aircraft are audible as little as 10 percent of the
time. NPS acoustic measurements from a variety of sites throughout the
park showed that the sound of aircraft was measurable for some part of
the time at virtually all areas where sound data was collected, even
well within flight-free zones. NPS acoustic modeling also suggests that
aircraft sound will carry 13-16 miles on the eastern end of the canyon
and even farther on the western end, more than enough to fully
penetrate to the center of every flight-free zone created by SFAR No.
50-2.
Based on the extent of aircraft noise exposure and low ambient
sound levels found by NPS measurements, visitor response to those noise
levels, and the predicted aircraft noise levels over the park, the NPS
believes that airspace management must be used as one means
[[Page 40123]]
of noise abatement to create a maximum separation between noise sources
and sensitive resources and visitor use sites. Consequently, the NPS
concluded that flight-free zones must be as large as possible.
Based on these study conclusions, the NPS developed recommendation
No. 10 in its report to Congress: ``Improve SFAR 50-2 to Effect and
Maintain the Substantial Restoration of Natural Quiet at Grand Canyon
National Park.'' This recommendation incorporated the following general
concepts: simplification of the commercial sightseeing route structure;
expansion of flight-free zones; accommodation of the forecast growth in
the air tour industry; phased-in use of quieter aircraft technology;
temporal restrictions (``flight-free'' time periods); use of the full
range of methods and tools for problem solving; and institution of
changes in approaches to park management, including the establishment
of an acoustic monitoring program by the NPS in coordination with the
FAA.
Flagstaff, Arizona, Public Meeting
On June 28, 1995, the FAA and the NPS jointly published a notice
announcing a public meeting to provide the interested parties with an
opportunity to comment on improving SFAR No. 50-2 (60 FR 33452). The
meeting, held on August 30, 1995, yielded 62 speakers representing air
tour operators, environmentalists, government, tourist boards,
corporations, Native American tribes, and other individuals. An
additional 349 public comments were subsequently received during the
comment period that ended on September 8, 1995.
Eighty percent of the speakers and the majority of written comments
support the operating procedures in SFAR No. 50-2 and the air tour
industry operating in the Grand Canyon. Many commenters supporting
aircraft overflights in GCNP were associated with the industry or were
satisfied customers who had flown over the Grand Canyon. Their comments
relate to: (a) the positive effects of SFAR No. 50-2; (b) access for
the disabled or elderly; (c) jobs or support for small business; and
(d) lessened impact of air tourism relative to on-ground use.
Many commenters opposing aircraft overflights in GCNP were
affiliated with the river-running industry, environmental groups, and
recreationists. They cite personal experiences that were marred by
aircraft noise. Their comments relate to: (a) new regulations and
greater restrictions on overflights to restore natural quiet to the
area, including limitations on the number of overflights each day; (b)
a greater number of flight-free zones; and (c) higher minimum altitudes
over the park.
Consultation With Native Americans
Three Indian reservations border GCNP, and several tribes have
cultural ties to the Grand Canyon. The DOT and the DOI recognize that,
before taking any final action, they have an obligation to consult with
these tribes, on a government-to-government basis, concerning the
possible effects of this proposed rule. Both the Department of
Transportation and the Department of Interior have a responsibility to
address tribal concerns including the effects of the proposed rule on
the economic opportunities of the tribes as well as to assure that
noise impacts are not simply transferred to tribal lands.
Opportunities have been provided for the tribes to make their views
known to the DOT. The Hualapai tribe submitted comments to the ANPRM
jointly issued by the DOT and DOI, one member of the Hualapai Tribe
spoke at the Flagstaff public meeting, and the Hualapai Tribe submitted
written comments in response to the public meeting. Also, informal
discussions covering aircraft overflight matters, among other issues,
have taken place between NPS personnel and tribal leaders locally. The
DOT and the DOI have received correspondence identifying interests of
the Hualapai Tribe, and the DOT and the FAA met with Hualapai leaders
and heard first hand many of their specific concerns.
The DOT and the DOI are committed to full consultation with tribal
governments and will consult directly with interested tribes concerning
the potential impacts of the proposed rule during the comment period.
The Proposal
This proposal is based on the comments received in response to the
ANPRM jointly issued by the FAA and the NPS, recommendation No. 10 in
the NPS report to Congress, comments from the Flagstaff meeting,
recommendations from the IWG, and the FAA's assessment of safety and
noise issues. The proposal contains several elements.
First, the FAA is proposing to restrict the areas of Grand Canyon
National Park in which commercial tour operations would be permitted.
Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to: (a) modify the dimensions of the
SFRA; (b) establish new and modify existing flight-free zones; (c)
establish new and modify existing flight corridors; and (d) establish
reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating
in the SFRA. The proposal would continue to prohibit aircraft from
operating within 500 feet of any terrain or structure located between
the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon, with certain exceptions.
The proposal would continue to require that pilots monitor certain
frequencies while operating in the SFRA.
Second, and in addition to the above, the FAA is proposing to
establish flight-free periods (curfews) for commercial sightseeing
operations; and/or to cap the number of commercial sightseeing
aircraft, operations, or operators operating in the SFRA. Such a curfew
or cap could be made effective either immediately or in two years'
time. The preamble discussion below first describes the proposed new
operating rules and flight-free zones in the SFRA, and then turns to an
explanation of the additional curfew and/or moratorium limits under
consideration.
The proposed rule makes significant progress toward the substantial
restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. NPS modeling indicates that the
proposal provides almost as much immediate natural quiet restoration as
provided through the NPS report to Congress recommendation.
Special Flight Rules Area
Proposed Sec. 93.301 describes the lateral and vertical dimensions
of the SFRA. (See attached map.) All persons operating aircraft in this
airspace must comply with the special rules contained within the new
proposed subpart U. The proposal would modify the dimensions of the
SFRA as follows:
(a) Extend the SFRA north-northeast of the confluence of the Little
Colorado and Colorado Rivers to allow commercial sightseeing aircraft
to remain within the SFRA while avoiding expanded flight-free zones.
(b) Extend the SFRA southward below the Bright Angel and Desert
View Flight-free Zones to allow commercial sightseeing aircraft to
remain within the SFRA while avoiding expanded flight-free zones.
(c) Extend the SFRA at the western edge to cover that portion of
the Grand Wash Cliffs in the park that was inadvertently omitted from
the 1987 NPS Grand Canyon Aircraft Management Recommendation and the
original rule.
(d) Increase the altitude of the SFRA ceiling from 14,499 to 17,999
feet msl. The proposed altitude modification protects the park from the
impact of commercial sightseeing aircraft overflying the flight-free
zones and ensures effective FAA management of
[[Page 40124]]
the SFRA up to the 17,999-foot msl ceiling. It would have minimal
impact on commercial sightseeing operators and no impact on other types
of aviation. Additionally, it would not affect any minimum altitudes
established in the SFRA.
The SFRA continues to exclude the GCNP airport Class D Airspace
Area in recognition of the need for aircraft to descend to and climb
out from the airport. Further, the SFRA boundary would still provide
for unrestricted access to the airport on the Hualapai Reservation,
located south of the canyon rim in the west canyon area. The minimum
sector altitudes for North Canyon, Marble Canyon, Supai, Diamond Creek,
and Pearce Ferry Sectors remain unchanged, with the exception of the
minimum sector altitudes for transient and general aviation operations
in Marble Canyon. The minimum sector altitudes for the North Canyon and
Marble Canyon Sectors would increase from 5,000 and 6,000 feet msl,
respectively, to 8,500 feet msl for transient and general aviation
operations.
This proposal increases the lateral dimensions of the existing SFRA
by approximately 2.8 percent.
Flight-Free Zones and Flight Corridors
Proposed Sec. 93.305 describes the lateral and vertical dimensions
of the flight-free zones. (See attached map.) Except in an emergency,
or unless necessary for safety of flight, or unless authorized by the
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), no person may operate an
aircraft in these flight-free zones.
The proposal would increase the size of the flight-fee zones as
part of the continuing effort to meet the stated objectives of the
drafters of Pub. L. 100-91. As stated by Senator John McCain in the
legislative history of Pub. L. 100-91.
The purpose of flight-free areas is to provide a location where
visitors can experience the park essentially free from aircraft-
sound intrusions. The boundaries of these flight-free zones are
meant to be drawn to maximize protection to the backcountry users
and other sensitive park resources. The extent of these areas should
be adequate to ensure that sound from aircraft traveling adjacent to
these zones is not detectable from most locations within the zones.
It is within these zones that we expect to achieve the substantial
restoration of the natural quiet. (Congressional Record--Senate, p.
S10799, July 28, 1987)
This proposal creates two new flight-free zones: the Sanup Flight-
free Zone in the southwest portion of the park and the Marble Canyon
Flight-free Zone in the northeast portion of the park. The park areas
covered by the new Marble Canyon flight-free zones have been identified
by the NPS as especially valued by river and backcountry users. In the
western end of GCNP which, according to the NPS, is important to river
users and commercial sightseeing, the southwest boundary of the Sanup
Flight-free Zone would be configured to continue allowing commercial
sightseeing flights to access both sides of the Colorado River from
Pearce Canyon to near Separation Canyon. This is consistent with the
NPS report to Congress. The proposed Sanup Flight-free Zone would
affect the minimum en route altitude (MEA) on Victor Airway 235 between
the Peach Springs VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation
(VORTAC) and Mormon Mesa VORTAC. Specifically, the proposed Sanup
Flight-free Zone would require, if adopted, raising the MEA of the
above indicated portion of Victor Airway 235 from 10,000 to 14,500 feet
msl. The FAA will address this matter, if the proposed flight-free zone
is adopted, in a separate rulemaking action.
In addition, the proposal merges the Toroweap/Thunder River and
Shinumo Flight-free Zones and extends this zone to the park boundary.
The current Desert View Flight-free Zone would be expanded to the north
and east to the GCNP boundary. The current Bright Angel Flight-free
Zone would be extended to the north to the GCNP boundary; it would also
be expanded to the south to enclose a portion of the park that was
inadvertently omitted form the original rule. The net result would be
five, rather than four, flight-free zones; these new flight-free zones
would cover 87, rather than 45, percent of the park area. The five new
flight-free zones are: Marble Canyon, Desert View, Bright Angel,
Toroweap/Shinumo, and Sanup. The upper limit of the flight-free zones
remains unchanged at 14,499 feet msl.
This proposal is consistent with the NPS recommendation to provide
a maximum separation between aircraft noise sources and sensitive
resource areas and visitor use sites, especially since the Dragon
Corridor, recommended for closure in NPS recommendation No. 10, remains
open. By leaving the Dragon Corridor open, the proposal maintains
certain viable commercial sightseeing routes over the canyon while
providing greater noise mitigation in other parts of the park from
larger flight-free zones. The legislative history of Pub. L. 100-91
indicates that it was not the intent of the legislation to ban aircraft
from overflying the Grand Canyon.
Based on the NPS modeling using FAA-supplied information on 1995
commercial sightseeing operations, the proposal would increase to 38
percent the proportion of the park experiencing a substantial
restoration of natural quiet at 1995 operational levels. This
restoration includes a significant 14 percent of the area experiencing
a total restoration of natural quiet. In total, the NPS believes that
this proposal has major mitigation value for users of the Cross-Canyon
Corridor Trail System, other parts of the park's trail system in the
eastern half of the Canyon, and the river corridor.
Section 93.305 also describes the five flight corridors that allow
access through the canyon area for general aviation and transient
operations and routes for commercial sightseeing flights. (See attached
map.) Flight corridors are areas established for pilot use in
navigating the SFRA while avoiding flight-free zones. Prominent terrain
features were chosen, where feasible, to assist pilots in navigating
the corridors.
The historical context of flight corridors is in the 1987 NPS Grand
Canyon Aircraft Management Recommendation. The NPS proposed
establishing flight corridors to provide: (a) an opportunity to fly
over Grand Canyon to view scenic vistas; (b) approximately 30- to 60-
minute commercial sightseeing opportunities from GCNP Airport; and (c)
avoidance of noise-sensitive locations within the park.
The proposal adds or modifies existing flight corridors, as
follows:
(a) Two new flight corridors would be established in the proposed
Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone to facilitate transient, general
aviation, and commercial sightseeing traffic through the area: the
Navajo Bridge Corridor in northern Marble Canyon and the North Canyon
Corridor over central Marble Canyon.
(b) The Fossil Canyon Corridor would be closed as a result of the
merger of the Toroweap-Thunder River and Shinumo Flight-free Zones.
There is a low amount of traffic in this corridor, little of which is
commercial sightseeing traffic. Closure makes an important contribution
to the NPS statutory mandate to provide for the substantial restoration
of natural quiet and experience in the GCNP.
(c) The Zuni Point Corridor would be extended into a Y-shape in the
north to accommodate the extension of the flight-free zones. Commercial
sightseeing aircraft would be allowed to operate in only one direction.
This traffic pattern would limit noise
[[Page 40125]]
exposure along the Zuni Point Corridor, mitigating some of the impacts
from overflights. It would provide aerial access to the eastern end of
the canyon or a link to a longer aerial route around to Dragon
Corridor.
(d) The Dragon Corridor remains open with traffic patterns
unchanged, but the southern portion of the corridor would shift toward
the west. This action should mitigate the aircraft noise in the Hermit
Basin region. The change is consistent with the 1987 NPS recommendation
and responds to comments made at the Flagstaff public meeting. These
changes provide for noise mitigation while supporting a viable industry
at the eastern end of the canyon.
Proposed corridors would remain 2 nautical miles wide for
commercial sightseeing operations and 4 nautical miles wide for general
aviation and transient operations. Tuckup Corridor would remain limited
to general aviation and transient operations.
Minimum Flight Altitudes
Proposed Sec. 93.307 describes different minimum altitudes in
sectors and corridors for commercial sightseeing flights, and transient
and general aviation operations to separate different types of
operations to the maximum extent practical. Minimum altitudes for Zuni
Point Corridor, Dragon Corridor, and Tuckup Corridor would not change.
Minimum altitudes for Navajo Bridge Corridor and North Canyon Corridor
would be 5,000 feet msl for commercial tour operations and 8,500 feet
msl for general aviation and transient operations.
The Las Vegas FSDO would develop specific conditions and
limitations, including the location of sightseeing routes for each
commercial sightseeing operator in the SFRA. Those conditions and
limitations would be included in each operator's operations
specifications and would be enforced by the FAA. The provisions would
detail routes, altitudes, communications and other procedures, pilot
experience, and equipment requirements.
All pilots flying in the SFRA remain fully responsible for seeing
and avoiding other aircraft. While the routes reserve different
altitudes for different types of operations, they do not in any way
assure separation of individual aircraft. Further, the routes do not
relieve pilots of compliance with any other Federal Aviation
Regulation. As in SFAR No. 50-2, all pilots could continue to deviate
from course to maintain safety of flight in avoidance of other aircraft
or unsafe weather conditions.
The SFRA boundaries, flight-free zones, flight corridors, minimum
altitudes, commercial sightseeing routes, and radio frequencies would
continue to be indicated on the revised Grand Canyon VFR aeronautical
chart. The chart would be published to coincide with the effective date
of the final rule.
Proposals for Further Action (Curfews and Caps)
The FAA and NPS believe additional action is necessary to protect
the resources of Grand Canyon National Park from adverse effects of
aviation noise. The agencies are proposing two additional means to
achieve this objective--flight-free period (curfews) and a temporary
moratorium on increasing the number of commercial sightseeing flights
(caps). Moreover, we seek comment on whether caps should be employed
beyond the temporary period for which it is proposed.
We recognize that each of these options has both advantages and
disadvantages and the discussion below is intended to encourage public
comment on how best to fashion the final rule. Moreover, these
proposals should not be considered mutually exclusive; commenters are
expressly invited to consider whether and how the FAA might adopt a
rule different from the current proposal, combining parts or none of
the two options.
Flight-Free Periods (Curfews)
Proposed Sec. 93.316(a) would establish specific time periods
during which commercial sightseeing operations over the GCNP would be
prohibited. Curfews could be imposed in terms of fixed periods
throughout the year, variable periods based on perceived noise impacts
in specific areas, or a combination of conditions. The FAA is
requesting specific comments on the general concept as well as the
specific questions listed below, under ``Questions About Curfews,'' to
assist the FAA in determining whether a certain type of limitation on
sightseeing overflights would be beneficial and, if so, whether the
limitations should be imposed on an immediate basis or in the near
future.
General Curfew Provisions
Flight-free periods would prohibit the operation of commercial
sightseeing aircraft during specific hours of the day in flight
corridors and routes in the GCNP. The flight-free periods would not
apply to the ``Blue Direct'' route, but the Blue One tour route is
covered which carriers traffic flying between Las Vegas and GCNP
airports but would apply to the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' route for
commercial sightseeing operations. If adopted, the flight-free period
would apply to all commercial sightseeing operators. Flight-free period
limitations would be incorporated into the operations specifications
for commercial air tour companies and enforced by the FAA. Flight-free
periods could be adopted in two different ways--fixed and variable.
Fixed Flight-Free Periods (Fixed Curfews)
Fixed flight-free periods would close commercial sightseeing
operations in the GCNP during specific time periods the NPS has
identified as particularly sensitive for park visitors. Fixed flight-
free periods could defined in terms of an absolute ban during specified
times of the day; e.g., from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily throughout the
year. Such flight-free periods also could, for example, be based on
season and time of day. For example, the FAA is proposing to establish
the following fixed flight-free periods for commercial sightseeing
operations:
(a) Summer season (May 1-September 30)--6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily; and
(b) Winter season (October 1-April 30)--5 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily.
Variable Flight-Free Period (Variable Curfews)
Variable flight-free periods would be designed to provide a
flexible regulatory response to potential changes in the noise impact
of commercial sightseeing air tours. Information reported by commercial
air tour companies (see Reporting Requirements), acoustic monitoring
and modeling protocols, and other analyses jointly developed and
approved by the FAA and the NPS would be used to determine whether
there is a need to establish or modify a variable flight-free period.
Either agency would be able to initiate recommendations to the IWG, and
the IWG would serve as the forum for discussion of these
recommendations. The FAA would disseminate the results of the above-
mentioned analyses, and the criteria used to apply the variable flight-
free restrictions, for public review and comment. It would then take
action to invoke any restrictions necessary.
The variable restrictions could be expanded to the following
absolute maximum time periods, provided such restrictions would not
adversely affect aviation safety:
(a) Dragon Corridor--2 p.m. to 10 a.m.; and
(b) All other routes--4 p.m. to 9 a.m. However, variable flight-
free periods could be established to restrict
[[Page 40126]]
operations for lesser time periods depending on the supporting
evaluation.
Questions About Curfews
The FAA is requesting specific comments on the nature of the
proposals for flight-free periods. Should fixed flight-free periods be
constant during the year or should they vary be season? Would a
combination of fixed and variable flight-free periods be appropriate?
There are a number of basic questions applicable to flight-free periods
in general, whether fixed or variable. Should flight-free periods be
applied to specific routes or areas or implemented park-wide? Would
flight-free periods act to discourage or encourage the cooperation of
the sightseeing operators to convert to quieter type aircraft or
voluntarily act in a manner as to reduce the effect of overflight
noise? What would be the economic consequences associated with the
implementation of flight-free periods? How many operations would be
curtailed by the reduced time periods during which commercial
sightseeing operations could be conducted? What would be the effect of
flight-free periods on the schedule of operations that remain after
restrictions are imposed? What is the effect on an operator's schedule
for those operations that are not curtailed? What would be the effect
on revenue if flight-free periods are implemented? Is it likely that
operators would use different aircraft for the commercial sightseeing
operations; i.e., larger or smaller aircraft, if flight-free periods
are imposed? Since creation of flight-free periods is only one of the
two major alternatives under consideration in this notice, what would
be the effect of employing flight-free periods in conjunction with and
in addition to a ``cap,'' i.e., a moratorium? Can flight-free periods
be developed and applied with the current level of data and information
available to the decision-makers? Should they be imposed immediately or
only after commercial sightseeing operations data are collected for a
minimum of 2 years following the effective date of the final rule and
evaluated for impact on GCNP? Should flight-free periods be set for a
specific length of time (one, two, three years, etc.), stay in
existence until the final management plan is announced, or
indefinitely? Should they expire 5 years after the effective date of
the final rule, when the FAA and the NPS plan to implement a more
comprehensive noise management plan for substantially restoring natural
quiet to GCNP (see Other Actions)? Are flight-free periods necessary to
and can their implementation help to achieve the goal of substantial
restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP? If so, would fixed or
variable flight-free periods be most effective in substantially
restoring natural quiet in the GCNP with the least impact on air tour
operators and Park visitors?
Temporary Moratorium on Increasing Commercial Sightseeing Operations
A moratorium would place a cap on the number of commercial air tour
operations, aircraft, and/or operators within the Grand Canyon SFRA.
Such a cap could be imposed in a variety of ways, and commenters are
specifically invited below to address these different possibilities. It
is the opinion of FAA and the NPS, nonetheless, that public comment
should be focused on the regulatory language of at least one cap
option. That option, as developed by the NPS, is presented in proposed
section 93.316(b). The FAA and the NPS believe that public comments
will be facilitated by the public review of the cap proposed by
93.316(b). Therefore, the FAA is requesting specific comments on the
proposed limitations as well as the questions listed to assist the FAA
in determining what is the most appropriate type of limitation to
adopt.
Section 93.316(b) would establish a temporary moratorium on
increasing commercial sightseeing flights for 1997 and 1998. Under this
proposal, each operator would be limited to the number of monthly
operations equal to the monthly operations in the base year August 1,
1995 through July 31, 1996. Operators would establish their baseline
monthly allocation by certifying to the number of operations conducted
each month during the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31,
1996. One means that the FAA may use as evidence of the accuracy of the
information filed by operators is to compare it to the payment made of
fees by operators as required under the Budget Reconconciliation Act of
1993 (P.L. 103-66). Operators also would file monthly reports, along
with fees required by the Budget Reconciliation Act, certifying that
they did not exceed their monthly allocation of the base year in the
most current month. As a convenience, commercial tour operators could
choose to submit the reports through the NPS, along with NPS'
appropriate fee for use of the park, as required by the Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66), rather than submit them
directly to the FAA. For operator choosing to file through the NPS, the
NPS would forward the report to the FAA.
If an operator intended to reduce operations so that it did not use
its monthly allocation or terminate operations altogether, it would so
advise the FAA. New or existing operators could apply for the monthly
allocation. In the event that there is more than one operator applying
for the monthly allocation, a preference would be granted to the
operator which will utilize the quietest commercially available new or
retrofitted aircraft among the applicants. This preference is intended
to serve as an incentive to employ quieter aircraft in the Park. No
operator would have any property rights in its monthly allocation.
These restrictions would apply to all commercial sightseeing
operators for the two-year period. By adopting a temporary moratorium
on flights, the FAA is seeking to assure that the noise mitigation
benefits of the proposal are not significantly eroded during this
period. The FAA also seeks comments on whether the temporary moratorium
should be extended until the adoption of the comprehensive Noise
Management Plan. It also seeks comments on whether a cap should be a
component of the Noise Management Plan itself.
Keeping in mind the goal of the proposed rulemaking, there are a
variety of limitations or caps that could be placed on commercial air
tour oveflights, on either an interim or permanent basis, that might
achieve the desired effect. The FAA is seeking comments on what type of
cap would have the greatest effect on substantial restoration of
natural quiet. While this proposal envisions one type of cap on an
interim basis, there are other approaches, described below, on which we
seek comment.
Cap on Operations
One form of cap would be to impose a limitation on the number of
operations conducted by commercial air tour operators. An operational
limitation could be applied to restrict the number of overflights on a
hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or seasonal basis. If the FAA adopts a
cap on operations, it might be necessary to include a definition of an
``operation'' within the airspace over the GCNP, as, for example, a
one-way or directional pass, a round-trip, or any penetration of
airspace over the Park. Some operators might be differentially affected
by the definition selected. The FAA requests comments on these factors
from the perspective of both noise and economic impact.
[[Page 40127]]
Cap on Aircraft
Similarly, limitations or caps could be placed on the number of
commercial sightseeing aircraft, the type of aircraft used or both?
Should the number of aircraft permitted to operate above GCNP be
affected by the type of aircraft used; i.e., if an aircraft is using a
more quiet technology, should the number of aircraft be increased? As
in the case of caps on operations, should caps be implemented on a time
or seasonal basis?
Cap on Air Tour Operators
A third limitation or cap could be placed on the number of air tour
operators permitted to operate within GCNP airspace. As with the caps
on operations or aircraft, a cap on the number of operators could be
utilized in a variety of ways. For instance, should the current
operators be grandfathered? Should the current operators be permitted
to operate indefinitely or should there be a time restriction with a
requirement of renew ability to operate? Should caps be set at a level
that would permit the introduction of new entrants into the GCNP
market? The particular proposal set forth in this notice describes one
method of allocating operating rights and accommodating new entrants.
Are there other methods that would be fairer or more efficient?
General Questions About Caps
In addition to the types of caps listed above, the FAA would
appreciate comments proposing different limitations that would work to
achieve the goal of substantially restoring natural quiet in the GCNP.
No matter what form of cap is implemented, there are several basic
questions applicable to caps in general and to each cap in particular.
For instance, regardless of the type of cap imposed, should caps be
implemented on an immediate basic to act as a freeze of current
numbers, should it be implemented on a future basis, or should it be
implemented using the numbers of a date that predates the publication
of this NPRM? What should the duration of caps be? Should caps be set
for a specific length of time (one, two, three years, etc.), stay in
existence until the final management plan is announced, or
indefinitely? Should caps or restrictions be based on the average
number of operations or the maximum number? Should there be any
operational exceptions, such as for the quietest commercially available
aircraft, to the restrictions or caps? How will the size of aircraft
operated under caps be affected by 14 CFR Part 119? Can caps be
developed and applied with the current level of data and information
available to the decision-makers?
How should these caps be allocated or distributed? Should the
current level of operations, aircraft, or operators be grandfathered?
Should all operators, including those that presently do not operate
above GCNP be able to participate in the allocation? Will new entrants
into the commercial air tour market over GCNP be able to gain access or
entry into the market? Should existing operators be required to
decrease existing levels to create a pool available to be used only by
the new entrants? If an allocation procedure is required, what type of
process should be used, i.e., lotteries, auctions, administrative
allocation, other mechanisms?
In addition to those operators eligible for the allocation of the
subject caps (limitations on the number of operations, aircraft, or
operators), should caps or the rights to operate above GCNP be
transferable from one operator to another? Should commercial
sightseeing operators be permitted to lease, trade, sell or buy the
ability to operate over the Park? Should the operating ability be
returned to the FAA, as would be required in the example set forth in
proposed Sec. 93.316(b), if an operator ceases operation? Has the FAA
created a ``right'' or ``privilege'' subject to withdrawal when it
would establish the limitation or cap system?
Concerning the applicability of caps, should a cap be applied to
specific routes or areas or should it be implemented park-wide? Would
any of the limitations or caps act to discourage or encourage the
cooperation of the sightseeing operators to convert to quieter type
aircraft or voluntarily act in a manner as to reduce the effect of
overflight noise? If so, why, and in what way? What would be the
economic consequences associated with the implementation of one or a
combination of any of the types of caps? How many operations would be
curtailed? What would be the impact of caps on the schedule of
operations that remain? What is the impact on an operator's schedule
for those operations that are not curtailed? What would be the impact
on revenue if caps are implemented? Is it likely that operators would
use different aircraft for the commercial operations, i.e., larger or
smaller aircraft? Are caps necessary to and can the implementation of
caps help to achieve the goal of substantial restoration of natural
quiet? If so, which type of cap would do the most to restore
substantially the natural quiet in the Park with the least impact on
tour operators and Park visitors?
The proposal described in Sec. 93.316(b) would be predicated upon
information reported by commercial air tour companies. Should other
information, such as acoustic monitoring and modeling protocols, or
other analyses be used separately or in combination with the
information received from the operators? What standards and criteria
should be used for the necessity for and the result of implementing
caps? Similarly with the process cited for the implementation of the
variable flight-free periods, the IWG would serve as the forum for
discussion of recommendation coming from either the FAA or NPS as to
the need for and type of cap that should be implemented. As a result of
the comments received to this NPRM, the FAA may decide to promulgate a
curfew, a cap, a combination of the two, or neither.
The questions outlined above are suggested to help focus public
discussion. The public response to these questions will assist in the
adoption of a rule limiting overflights by commercial sightseeing
operators.
Potential Alternatives to Implementation of the Curfew and/or the Cap
The FAA seeks specific comments on any alternatives to imposing
either the proposed curfew or proposed cap that would address the
problem of aircraft noise in GCNP in a different manner, such as by
limiting the number of commercial sightseeing aircraft operating in the
SFRA during certain hours of the day. Aircraft authorized to fly under
the cap could fly between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. during the summer season
(May 1-September 30) and 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. during the winter season
(October 1-April 30). Other aircraft, not subject to the cap, would be
limited to operations between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. year round. If the
number of aircraft are limited, any replacement aircraft could be
limited to those with a certificated noise level equal to or less than
the aircraft being replaced.
If this alternative is selected, the cap would be applied only
after commercial sightseeing operations data are collected for a
minimum of 2 years following the effective date of the final rule and
evaluated for impact on GCNP. This evaluation would be based on
information reported by commercial sightseeing companies (see Reporting
Requirements), acoustic monitoring and modeling protocols, and other
analyses jointly approved by the FAA and the NPS. This temporary noise
management mechanism would expire 5 years after
[[Page 40128]]
the effective date of the final rule, at which time the FAA and the NPS
plan to implement a more comprehensive noise management plan. The
duration of any aircraft authorization under the cap would similarly
expire 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. By posing
the above questions, the FAA solicits specific comments on the
effectiveness and feasibility of implementing a temporary cap.
The FAA wishes to advise the public that a broad array of different
regulatory approaches may be adopted as a result of this notice. No
combination of options is foreclosed.
Quieter Aircraft
The NPS report to Congress suggested that quieter aircraft could be
used in substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. It identified
the DHC-6-300 Vistaliner and Cessna 208 Caravan airplanes and the
McDonnell Douglas ``No Tail Rotor'' helicopters as the quietest
aircraft currently operating in the park. The NPS made this
determination based on its evaluation of aircraft certification data
derived from applicable noise certification standards in part 36 of
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and from NPS flyover noise
measurements taken in the park. In addition, the cap option described
in this Notice contains a provision that would give a preference to
operators of quieter aircraft in the event that unused allocation
becomes available. Comenters are invited to address the criteria that
should be used in selecting the quietest aircraft.
Reporting Requirements
Proposed Sec. 93.317 would establish commercial sightseeing flight
reporting requirements. During the 5-year period following the
effective date of the final rule, each certificate holder would be
required to submit, in a form and manner acceptable to the
Administrator, three operational reports yearly to the Las Vegas FSDO.
Each report would cover a 4-month period ending April 30, August 31, or
December 31, and would be required to be submitted no later than 30
days after the reporting period closes. Certificate holders would be
required to provide the aircraft identification number (registration
number), departure airport, departure date and time, and route(s) for
each operation flown in the SFRA. Note that, as currently contemplated,
these reports would be in addition to any reports required for the
purpose of monitoring the use of an allocation under an interim
moratorium. However, the FAA invites comments on how to combine the
reports or otherwise minimize the reporting burden on operators.
Changes in reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing
aircraft operating in the SFRA are essential to: (a) Establish accurate
information on GCNP overflights for noise and safety management
purposes; (b) validate FAA and NPS noise models for use in mitigating
studies; (c) determine with precision when and where noise mitigation
is required; and (d) provide the basis for a more flexible and
adaptable noise management system.
Environmental Review
The FAA is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for this
proposed action to assure conformance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. The FAA has conducted an abbreviated scoping
process and prepared a Draft EA. Copies of the Draft EA will be
circulated to interested parties and placed in the docket, where it
will be available for review. Comments are invited concerning the Draft
EA and the environmental impacts that might result from adopting this
rule for 45 days. Before the final rule is issued, the FAA will prepare
a Final EA and determine whether a Finding of No Significant Impact may
be issued or an environmental impact statement is required.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Proposed 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.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this NPRM
would be ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in the
Executive Order and the Department of Transportation Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. In consideration of the proposed changes
scheduled to take affect upon promulgation of a final rule, this
proposed rulemaking would also have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The FAA has therefore included an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the Regulatory Evaluation
which includes consideration of three alternatives to the current
proposed rulemaking. The FAA has concluded, however, that the current
NPRM is preferable to the alternative considered and would assure the
continued viability of the GCNP commercial sightseeing industry.
Although the proposed changes contained in the NPRM would not
constitute a barrier to international trade, a loss of foreign tour
dollars could result.
Introduction
To assist the NPS effort to measure aircraft noise levels in GCNP,
the Las Vegas FSDO conducted a field survey of all operators certified
to provide commercial sightseeing tours within the GCNP SFRA. The Las
Vegas FSDO SFAR No. 50-2 Air Tour Route Usage Report (field survey)
detailed information for each operator with regard to the number of
operations conducted along each commercial sightseeing tour route
within the GCNP SFRA. This information was further broken down for each
type of commercial sightseeing aircraft in the operator's fleet that
operated along these routes during the most recent 3 years through
early October 1995. With the exception of the ``Blue Direct South'' and
certain ``Brown'' routes for fixed wing aircraft and the ``Green 3''
and ``Green 3A'' routes for helicopters, all routes identified in the
Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart were identified by GCNP commercial
operators as routes flown.
To determine the different kinds of commercial sightseeing tours as
well as to estimate the total number of commercial sightseeing tours,
commercial sightseeing passengers, and commercial sightseeing revenue
for GCNP, the FAA, utilizing known passenger seating capacities of each
type of aircraft used by GCNP commercial sightseeing operators, cross
referenced the Las Vegas FSDO field survey detail with tour and cost
information as provided in Grand Canyon commercial sightseeing
brochures. The estimates derived from this cross referencing form the
basis on which the FAA developed the preliminary cost estimates of this
NPRM.
Costs
In 1995, commercial sightseeing tours of GCNP numbered
approximately 70,000, were provided by 31 operators using 136 aircraft,
carried 682,500 passengers, and generated $115.9 million in revenue as
measured in 1995 dollars. Proportionately, fixed-wing tours accounted
for 72.4 percent of the commercial sightseeing tours, 85.6
[[Page 40129]]
percent of the commercial sightseeing passengers, and 89.2 percent of
commercial sightseeing revenue in GCNP. Helicopter tours accounted for
27.6 percent of the commercial sightseeing tours, 14.4 percent of the
commercial sightseeing passengers, and only 10.8 percent of commercial
sightseeing revenue in GCNP.
Forty-four percent of all commercial sightseeing tours were fixed-
wing tours conducted along the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' commercial
sightseeing route. However, an overwhelming 80 percent of all
commercial sightseeing revenue was generated by the various tours
conducted along this tour route. Comparatively, fixed-wing and
helicopter tours that featured or included the Dragon Corridor
accounted for about 25 percent of all commercial sightseeing tours
(about 50/50 for each aircraft type), but only accounted for about 10.7
percent of commercial sightseeing revenue. Estimates for the Zuni Point
Flight Corridor are very nearly the same; 24.6 percent of all
commercial sightseeing tours account for approximately 11.2 percent of
all GCNP commercial sightseeing tour revenue.
Changes to Operating Corridors, Flight-Free Zones, Etc.
The proposed changes would effectively reconfigure GCNP flight-free
zones and flight corridors and require certain current commercial
sightseeing routes to be adjusted or possibly eliminated. The
reconfiguration of flight-free zones and flight corridors would require
some commercial sightseeing operators to redesign and repackage certain
currently available commercial sightseeing tours, and in those cases
where a VFR route would be eliminated, to create new commercial
sightseeing offerings, if possible. Based on a analysis of the
commercial sightseeing revenue generated in 1995 by different
commercial sightseeing routes, the FAA has determined that these
proposed modifications could result in costs associated with loss of
revenue or increased commercial sightseeing prices due to the
elimination or modification of commercial sightseeing tours.
The proposed extension of the GCNP SFRA would result in only those
costs associated with revising and publishing a new Grand Canyon VFR
Aeronautical Chart. Similarly, the proposal to increase the altitude of
the SFRA ceiling from 14,499 to 17,999 feet msl would have minimal
impact on GCNP commercial sightseeing operators; its cost would be
included under the revision and publishing costs noted above. The FAA
considers these costs to be a part of normal, on-going administrative
costs, not costs incurred as a result of this rulemaking action.
The reconfiguration of GCNP flight-free zones and flight corridors
would impact several commercial sightseeing routes. The total
commercial sightseeing revenue derived from those routes was just over
$10.7 million in 1995, or about 9.3 percent of the $115.9 million total
GCNP commercial sightseeing revenue generated in 1995. It is based on
the estimated revenue generated by 18 operators conducting about 21,700
commercial sightseeing tours serving 122,700 passengers in 1995 on the
affected commercial sightseeing routes.
The $10.7 million estimate represents the maximum potential revenue
impact of these two proposed changes on GCNP commercial sightseeing
operators. Only under the unlikely worst case scenario in which GCNP
commercial sightseeing operators directly impacted by the
reconfiguration of the GCNP SFRA cease commercial sightseeing
operations in the canyon altogether, would it represent the maximum
potential revenue loss. The FAA estimates that the potential dollar
cost of the proposed changes to the current configuration of the
flight-free zones and the flight corridors is more likely to be about
$1.2 million in average annual revenue loss and added flight time cost
for the 10-year period, 1997-2006.
The FAA believes this estimate more accurately reflects the true
cost of the proposed modifications because several viable alternative
tour configurations remain available to the GCNP commercial sightseeing
industry. And GCNP commercial sightseeing operators would most likely
adapt their commercial sightseeing tours to the proposed
reconfigurations, and pass on the increased costs to commercial
sightseeing passengers. However, commercial sightseeing operators'
adaptation to the proposed changes could result in possible addition of
nearly 3,800 commercial sightseeing flights annually through the Dragon
Corridor as a result of restricting the Zuni Point Corridor to one-way
traffic only. The FAA solicits specific comments on the ability of GCNP
commercial sightseeing operators to change their commercial sightseeing
routes to minimize the impact of the reconfiguration of GCNP flight-
free zones and flight corridors. Comments should address the impact on
specific commercial sightseeing tours and tour routes.
The proposed 5-year recordkeeping requirements would cost the
commercial sightseeing operators approximately $366,000 ($73,200, 5-
year average annual cost) and the FAA approximately $16,000 ($3,200, 5-
year average annual cost).
Curfews and Caps
The adoption of a curfew would reduce the time available in the day
during which commercial sightseeing tours could be conducted. Either
fixed flight-free periods or variable flight-free periods would require
operators to conduct all commercial sightseeing tours inside a tighter
time frame. Commercial sightseeing aircraft operate at virtually full
capacity utilization during the peak summer season, There, operators
would likely have to eliminate some portion of the number of commercial
sightseeing tours currently offered during the summer season. To offset
the potential revenue loss associated with a reduction in commercial
sightseeing tours, commercial sightseeing operators could raise the
price of their tours. While these monopolistic rents for commercial
sightseeing operators would tend to offset revenue losses for tour
operators, it would shift the cost burden to the consumers of
commercial sightseeing tours. In either event, there would be an
economic cost to society.
A cap or moratorium could result in a reduction of commercial
sightseeing tours during the summer season and concomitant loss of
revenue or increased commercial sightseeing prices. A cap would impose
a ``freeze'' on commercial sightseeing activity; for example, in
proposed Sec. 93.316(b) this freeze would be applied on a monthly basis
at the level existing during the corresponding month between August
1995 and July 1996. Caps, therefore, are essentially a containment of
commercial sightseeing activity as all growth in commercial sightseeing
operations would be suspended.
The impact of the fixed flight-free periods is most likely to be
realized by GCNP operators only during the summer season, because
commercial sightseeing aircraft are utilized at full operational
capacity during the summer season. In the absence of a substantial
commitment to additional aircraft with the concomitant increase in
operating requirements, the only alternative available to GCNP
commercial sightseeing operators during the summer season would be the
elimination of commercial sightseeing tours which currently occur
during the hours included in the flight-free period. The FAA assumes
that during the winter season operational under-utilization of aircraft
could allow GCNP operators to reschedule commercial
[[Page 40130]]
sightseeing tours currently operating during the proposed fixed flight-
free period into non-flight-free times.
The FAA estimates that the amount of 1995 commercial sightseeing
revenue that could be potentially lost during the summer season is
approximately $5.3 million. This potential loss of revenue is about 5.7
percent of the $115.9 million total GCNP commercial sightseeing revenue
generated in 1995. The estimated amount of average annual commercial
sightseeing revenue for the 10-year period 1997-2006 that could be
potentially affected during the summer season is about $5.5 million.
The breakdown by principal commercial sightseeing tour routes indicates
potential average annual revenue losses of: (1) $2.3 million for
commercial sightseeing tours operating on the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct''
tour routes; (2) $2.7 million for commercial sightseeing tours flying
the Dragon Corridor; and (3) $1.6 for commercial sightseeing tours
operating along all other tour routes.
The FAA estimates that approximately 5,160 additional commercial
sightseeing tours would be rescheduled during the proposed winter
season. The resulting air traffic compression during non-flight-free
periods would result in increased aircraft activity and corresponding
increased noise levels in GCNP during the time periods that commercial
sightseeing aircraft are permitted to operate. The FAA seeks specific
comments on the capability and flexibility of commercial sightseeing
operators to rearrange GCNP tour schedules to minimize the impact of
the flight-free period during the proposed winter season curfew.
Implementation of variable flight-free periods would be predicated
on information reported by commercial sightseeing operators as
specified under the reporting requirements of this proposed rulemaking,
and the results from acoustic monitoring and modeling protocols and
other analyses jointly developed and approved by the FAA and the NPS. A
system of variable flight-free periods would subsume fixed flight-free
periods, because the mechanism for imposing variable restrictions would
be triggered only if noise data indicated that the initial curfew
periods were no longer adequate to reducing noise adverse impacts.
Precise calculation of the actual costs of a cap or variable
flight-free periods is not possible at this time. However, placing a
cap may limit new entrants in the market and, as a result, could
increase costs to users. Similarly, with fewer new entrants, there may
be less competition in the quality, number of trips, and other
associated amenities. However, both of these adverse effects would be
limited in the cap proposed in Sec. 93.316(b) because of the limited
duration (2 years). Similarly, making caps or the rights to operate
above GCNP transferable could mitigate these adverse effects by
allowing more efficient new entrants to replace operators with more
costly operations. Absent the imposition of a cap, the number of air
tour overflights could be expected to increase, given past market
behavior, bringing with it increased adverse reactions associated with
noise disturbance.
Freezing the number of overflights during the interim period would
have beneficial effects and enhance some aspects of the recreational
experience at Grand Canyon National Park. Further, if the number of
overflights is allowed to grow during the time period, it may be
markedly more difficult to implement a comprehensive aircraft
management plan designed to mitigate noise impacts.
Existing operators likely will have committed additional capital to
their operations. Demand may be sufficient to draw new entrants into
the market. Other economic activity can be expected to occur in support
of these increased investments. One would consider this growth in
economic activity beneficial, but it also would adversely affect the
experience of park visitors. The cost to park visitors' experience is a
loss of benefits which is unaccounted for in national income accounting
and may reflect an inefficient, over-investment of capital. The
additional capital investment could exacerbate the problem of
implementing any restrictions emanating from the management plan.
It is possible, however, to estimate the maximum potential revenue
loss from reduced GCNP commercial sightseeing tours that could occur if
the most restrictive operating time constraints designated for the
variable flight-free periods in the proposal were imposed. This maximum
potential revenue loss is estimated to average $10.5 million annually
for the 3 years that the variable flight-free periods could be in
place. The distribution of the 3-year average annual commercial
sightseeing revenue loss is as follows: $4.1 million, ``Blue 1, Blue
Direct'' tour routes; $5.2 million, Dragon Corridor tours; and $1.3
million, all other tour routes.
A number of factors come into play to keep actual lost revenues
below the maximum estimates. For example, operators may choose to use
larger aircraft, raise commercial sightseeing tour prices, reschedule
flights, or divert some aircraft to other revenue producing uses. In
any event, reduced revenue is by no means a direct measure of cost to
commercial sightseeing operators; even in the worst case of an aircraft
sitting idle instead of flying commercial sightseeing tours, the
operator avoids direct operating costs. Lost revenues, in terms of
dollar value, could be viewed as an approximation of the cost to the
consumer of the foregone opportunity to take a commercial sightseeing
tour; lost revenues reflect what the consumer would have been willing
to pay for GCNP commercial sightseeing tours before their elimination
under the proposed constraints. Lost revenues are estimated for the
summer season only because commercial sightseeing operators can
reschedule around the variable flight-free periods during the winter
season, thereby avoiding revenue losses.
The FAA also estimates that with the introduction of variable
flight-free periods, approximately 8,100 additional commercial
sightseeing tours would be conducted during the permitted operating
times. This assumes that GCNP commercial sightseeing tour operators are
indeed able to reschedule all commercial sightseeing tours affected by
the variable flight-free periods during the winter season. This is an
increase of nearly 3,000 commercial sightseeing tours (57 percent)
being conducted during the permitted operating hours of the variable
flight-free periods relative to the fixed flight-free periods.
With the introduction of the variable flight-free periods for the
3-year frame 1999-2001, the average annual cost would rise to about
$11.0 million. The potential revenue losses associated with imposing
only variable flight-free periods would impact commercial sight-seeing
operators conducting tours in the Dragon Flight Corridor more than
those operators conducting commercial sight-seeing tours along any of
the other routes. About 46 percent of the potential average annual
revenue loss would be borne by the commercial sightseeing operators in
the Dragon Corridor under the special variable flight-free periods in
comparison with about 40 percent under the fixed flight-free periods.
With respect to the particular cap proposed in this notice, the FAA
estimates the average annual potential cost impact is $4.6 million
during 1997 and 1998. The derivation of the following estimates is
predicated on the assumption that all of the 3.3 percent compound
annual rate of growth projected for GCNP commercial sightseeing
activity would be held in abeyance for the years 1997 and 1998. The
distribution of this 2-year average
[[Page 40131]]
annual commercial sightseeing revenue loss is as follows: $3.2 million,
``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' tour routes; $513,000, Dragon Corridor tours;
and $290,000, all other tour routes. The FAA further estimates that the
average annual administrative and reporting costs to the FAA and the
operators from the imposition of temporary caps on commercial
sightseeing operations would be approximately $640,000. The breakdown
is as follows: (1) $418,000 is attributed to the FAA to cover the cost
of five full-time employees to receive, analyze, and enforce the cap
operation limitations, and (2) $219,600 is attributed as a reporting
cost to the operators. The potential cost impact, therefore, is the
valuation of the revenue foregone under the presence of caps plus the
administrative and reporting requirement of the rule. The estimates,
however, do not take into consideration that GCNP operators could
adjust for the 2-year cap by adopting similar measures as noted for the
variable flight-free periods, any of which would serve to offset
revenue losses. The FAA is seeking specific comments on the
effectiveness and feasibility of implementing such a temporary cap and
the adaptability of GCNP commercial sightseeing operators.
The FAA is also considering combining both caps and curfews by
capping operations in the GCNP in addition to imposing flight free
periods. The FAA estimates the maximum potential average annual cost
impact of combining fixed flight-free periods and caps is $10.2 million
for 1997 and 1998. This estimate includes the two-year average annual
maximum potential cost of revenue loss due to caps and fixed flight-
free periods at $9.6 million. The distribution of this 2-year [average
annual] commercial sightseeing revenue loss due to operational caps and
fixed flight periods is as follows: $5.2 million, ``Blue 1, Blue
Direct'' tour routes; $2.8 million Dragon Corridor tours; and $1.6
million, all other tour routes. The remaining $640,000 loss is
attributable to the administrative cost to the FAA of administering and
enforcing the rule and the amount attributable to the operator's
reporting costs. The potential cost impact is the valuation of the
revenue foregone under the addition of caps and fixed flight-free
periods and the administrative and reporting costs. The estimates,
however, do not take into consideration that GCNP operators could
adjust for the 2-year cap by adopting similar measures as noted for the
variable flight-free periods, any of which would serve to offset
revenue losses. For the combined alternatives, the FAA estimates that
the average annual cost would be $8.6 million for imposing caps for two
years and flight-free periods for 10 years. The combined alternatives,
however, would shift a disproportionate amount of the average annual
revenue loss onto the operators of commercial sightseeing tours along
the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' commercial sightseeing route. Just over 54
percent of the potential average annual revenue loss would be borne by
these commercial sightseeing operators under the caps in comparison
with about 38 percent under the variable flight-free periods. The FAA
is seeking specific comments on the effectiveness and feasibility of
implementing a combination of temporary cap with flight-free periods
and the adaptability of GCNP commercial sightseeing operator.
The FAA also estimates that that the annual average costs of the
different alternatives are as follows: (1) Fixed flight-free periods:
$6.6 million (2) Temporary two-year cap on operations: $4.6 million (3)
Combination of fixed flight-free periods and two-year caps: $10.2
million (4) Variable flight-free periods: $11 million.
To summarize, the FAA estimates that the annual cost of
establishing and modifying the flight-free zones and corridors and
adding the new reporting requirement is approximately $1.3 million in
potential operator revenue losses and added consumer costs. The
breakdown by proposed change is as follows: (1) $1.2 million is
accounted for by the proposed establishment and modification of flight-
free zones and corridors; and (2) about $76,300 reflects the added
costs to the operators and the FAA of new recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
The FAA also estimates that with the introduction of the variable
flight-free periods for the 3-year time frame 1999-2001, the average
annual cost would rise to about $11.0 million for variable and fixed
curfews. The potential revenue losses associated with the expanded
variable flight-free periods, only, would impact commercial sightseeing
operators conducting tours in the Dragon Flight Corridor more than
those operators conducting commercial sightseeing tours along any other
routes. About 46 percent of the potential average annual revenue loss
would be borne by the commercial sightseeing operators in the Dragon
Corridor under variable flight-free periods in comparison with about 40
percent under the fixed flight-free periods.
Benefits
Pub L. 100-91 mandates the NPS to provide for the substantial
restoration of natural quiet and experience in GCNP. The NPS defines
``natural quiet'' as the natural ambient sound conditions found in the
park and defines ``substantial restoration'' to mean when 50 percent or
more of the park has achieved ``natural quiet'' (i.e., no aircraft
audible) for 75 to 100 percent of the day. The benefit of this action
therefore, would be to contribute to the substantial restoration of
natural quiet (e.g., reduce aircraft sound disturbance) in GCNP.
The NPS has concluded that the initial gains made by SFAR No. 50-2
are being steadily eroded by increasing air traffic. The NPS conclusion
is based on a comparison of the commercial sightseeing route activity
reported in a 1989 FAA survey with the commercial sightseeing route
activity reported in a 1995 FAA survey. In 1989, the NPS estimated that
43 percent of GCNP met its criteria for substantially restoring natural
quiet. In 1995, a similar analysis indicated that the restoration of
natural quiet had been reduced to 31 percent. The NPS also forecasts
that if no further action is taken, by the year 2010, less than 10
percent of the park area would experience a substantial restoration of
natural quiet.
This proposal would reverse that trend. Based on the NPS' analytic
model, and again using 1995 FAA survey data, the proposal would
increase the proportion of the park experiencing a substantial
restoration of natural quiet to 38 percent, including 14 percent of the
park experiencing a total restoration of natural quiet. Therefore, in
this proposal, the FAA has attempted to achieve what it believes to be
the intent of Congress; that is, to strike a balance that would
accommodate a viable commercial aerial sightseeing industry while
achieving the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the Grand
Canyon.
Conclusion
The proposed rule would promote natural quiet in GCNP more
effectively than the current SFAR No. 50-2. However, the estimated 10-
year average annual loss of commercial sightseeing tour revenue and
added consumer costs for all proposed changes except the introduction
of flight-free periods or a moratorium (cap) is just over $1.2 million.
For fixed flight-free periods, the estimated 10-year average annual
cost is approximately $7.8 million. Variable flight-free periods and
cap alternatives would each result in additional lost revenue from some
reduction in GCNP
[[Page 40132]]
commercial sightseeing tours. The FAA has estimated that the maximum
potential incremental revenue loss under the most restrictive
conditions would be an average annual revenue loss of $10.5 million for
the variable flight-free periods and $4.2 million for the caps
alternative for the 1999-2001 time frame only. The actual amount,
however, would depend on the as yet undetermined degree to which either
the proposal or its possible alternative would be imposed. The FAA is
soliciting specific comments regarding the potential economic impacts
of the proposed variable flight-free periods and the alternative of
caps, particularly as the impacts relate to specific commercial
sightseeing tours and tour routes.
From a national perspective, the revenue loss would be much less
than that estimated for Las Vegas and the local GCNP community and less
than that estimated from the commercial sightseeing operators'
perspective because commercial sightseeing operators, pilots, and many
businesses that provide services to the GCNP commercial sightseeing
industry could move to other areas of the United States. In a sense,
the drop in revenues for Las Vegas and the local GCNP community would
be offset by the gains other areas of the United States would enjoy as
aircraft and personnel were shifted to provide aviation services to
these other areas.
The gains that the other areas would experience would not
necessarily offset all the expected losses experienced by Las Vegas and
the GCNP community. Presumably, providing commercial sightseeing
services for GCNP maximizes the revenue streams for the aircraft,
personnel, and other resources used to support GCNP commercial
sightseeing operations; otherwise, they would already be located
elsewhere. It is assumed therefore, that aviation services provided in
other areas of the country generate less revenue. The FAA, however, is
not able to estimate this differential in revenue when commercial
sightseeing aircraft, personnel, and other resources are moved to other
areas. Therefore, the FAA is soliciting comments regarding the
potential revenue impact of this proposed rule when considered from a
national perspective.
Nevertheless, based on the best available information, this
proposed rule would strike a balance accommodating a viable commercial
sightseeing industry while achieving the substantial restoration of
natural quiet in the Grand Canyon.
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 costs of cumulative regulations.
The 1980 ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (RFA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare initial regulatory flexibility analysis of any
notice of proposed rulemaking that would 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 were published in the Federal Register on July 29, 1982 (47
FR 32825). 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 who owns, but does not necessarily
operate, nine or fewer airplanes. 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 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
subject to the proposed rule.
The FAA has determined that this proposal could have a significant
economic impact on all operators conducting commercial sightseeing
flights within GCNP and therefore has prepared this initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. The analysis, structured in accordance with
section 603 of the RFA, requires the following:
1. Why FAA action is being considered.
2. Statement of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed
rule.
3. Description of and estimated number of small entities effected.
4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule.
5. Any relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the proposed rule.
1. Why FAA action is being considered. The proposal to modify the
dimensions of GCNP SFRA stems from the need to reduce the impact of
aircraft noise over the park and to assist the NPS in achieving its
statutory mandate imposed by Pub. L. 100-91 to provide for the
substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience of the park's
environment.
2. Statement of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed
rule. In 1987, Congress enacted Pub. L. 100-91, commonly known as the
National Parks Overflights Act (the Act). The Act stated, in part, that
noise associated with aircraft overflights at GCNP was causing a
``significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the
park and current aircraft operations at GCNP have raised serious
concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the
safety of park users.''
Pub. L. 100-91 required the DOI to submit to the FAA
recommendations to protect resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse
impacts associated with aircraft overflights. The law mandated that the
recommendations: (1) provide for substantial restoration of the natural
quiet and experience of the park and protection of public health and
safety from adverse effects associated with aircraft overflights; (2)
with limited exceptions, prohibit the flight of aircraft below the rim
of the canyon; and (3) designate flight-free except for purposes of
administration and emergency operations. In December 1987, the DOI
transmitted its ``Grand Canyon Aircraft Management recommendations'' to
the FAA. The recommendations included both rulemaking and nonrulemaking
actions.
On May 27, 1988, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50-2 revising the
procedures for operation of aircraft in airspace above the Grand Canyon
(53 FR 20264, June 2, 1988). The SFAR, among other things, limited the
areas for aircraft operations by establishing special flight routes for
commercial operators. Since then, a substantial amount of public debate
has taken place regarding the affect of aircraft noise on the Grand
Canyon's environment. The debate and the objective of the proposal is
more thoroughly discussed in the preamble of this proposed rulemaking.
3. Description and estimated number of small entities effected. The
proposed rule would affect commercial
[[Page 40133]]
sightseeing operators conducting flights over the GCNP under part 135
of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These commercial
operators provide sightseeing tours of the Grand Canyon over the four
flight zones established by SFAR No. 50-2. FAA data shows that in 1995,
26 small commercial sightseeing operators were potentially affected.
Each operator owned, but did not necessarily operate 9 or fewer
aircraft. These operators owned a total of 70 aircraft and the average
fleet consisted of about 3 aircraft. The FAA estimates that, in 1997,
26 operators will be impacted by the proposed rule. Therefore 84
percent (26/31=84%) of the affected operators are small entities.
4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule. The proposal would require affected
small commercial sightseeing operators to maintain and report
additional information to the Las Vegas FSDO. The information required
by the proposal would be needed to establish accurate information on
aircraft operations in GCNP. The information required would include
aircraft identification number (registration number), departure
airport, departure date and time, and route(s) flown. Affected
operators would be required to submit this information every 4 months.
The FAA estimates that compliance with the proposed recordkeeping
requirements would impose an additional 61 hours of labor per aircraft
each year once the initial setup of a reporting system had been
accomplished. The average annual cost per aircraft would be about $515,
but the average annual cost per affected operator would depend on an
operator's fleet size. The one-time initial setup cost for each
operator, regardless of fleet size would, be about $340.
5. Any relevant federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the proposed rule. There are no relevant Federal rules
which would duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
Cost of Compliance to Small Entities
The annualized data derived from the October 1995 SFAR 50-2 Air
Tour Route Usage Report indicates that for all of 1995, 31 operators
(23 fixed-wing, 7 helicopter, and 1 mixed) utilizing 136 aircraft
conducted just over 70,000 commercial sightseeing aircraft tours in
GCNP. Of the 136 aircraft identified, 101 were fixed-wing aircraft,
ranging from single-engine Piper and Cessna 3-seat models to Twin
Otters with 19 passenger seats. Most of the 35 helicopters used for
commercial sightseeing tours in the canyon were various Bell models
with capacities of four-, five-, and six-passenger seats.
Ten operators conducted commercial sightseeing tours using a single
aircraft, six of which accounted for fewer than 100 commercial
sightseeing tours each. Only five operators operated fleets of more
than nine aircraft. Together, these five operators accounted for over
one-third (approximately 26,600) of the total 70,000 plus commercial
sightseeing tours estimated for 1995. One operator with nine aircraft
accounted for just over 8,200 commercial sightseeing tours.
Increasing the number of flight-free areas could impact GA
operations that cannot be conducted above 14,499 feet msl. This
requirement would only impact individual GA pilots and not small
business entities, small government entities, or small non-profit
organizations. The provisions of the RFA do not apply to individual
persons; thus, the FAA has not made a regulatory flexibility
determination for this proposed requirement.
Excluding the proposed flight-free periods (fixed and variable) and
cap, the most costly proposed changes--in terms of increased tour
lengths, increased consumer prices, and increased traffic in the Dragon
Corridor--would result from the restriction of one-way traffic in the
Zuni Point Corridor. This proposed change, however, would only impact
the five operators currently offering a two-way tour of the Zuni Point
Corridor. The number of operators affected by this proposed requirement
is less than one-third of all GCNP commercial sightseeing operators.
Thus, a substantial number of small operators would not be impacted.
All commercial sightseeing operators would be subject to the
recordkeeping requirement costs. The FAA estimates that the maximum
annual cost of this requirement would be about $540 per aircraft. If an
operator has nine aircraft (the maximum allowable number of aircraft
owned to be considered a small entity), that operator's annual cost
would be about $4,860, which is below the thresholds for significant
cost for scheduled and unscheduled operators.
If a fixed flight-free period is imposed, the FAA estimates that
the annual cost of this requirement would be about $34,600 ($23,800,
discounted) in net operating revenue loss per aircraft on average.
Clearly, any operator with nine or fewer aircraft would incur costs
which exceed the threshold for significant costs for unscheduled
($4,900) operators, and any operator with from three to nine aircraft
(but not 2 or 1 aircraft) would exceed the threshold for significant
costs for scheduled ($69,800) operators. Only 5 of the 31 operators
conducting commercial sightseeing tours of GCNP own more than nine
aircraft and would not be considered a small entity. Thus, this
proposed requirement would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Because variable flight-free periods or the caps discussed in this
notice would likely be more costly than fixed flight-free periods,
further analysis of the potential significant impact of these proposed
requirements would be redundant. Combining the costs of the reporting
requirements with the costs of a fixed flight-free period results in a
per aircraft cost of approximately $35,000. Accordingly, the FAA has
determined that the proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Alternatives Considered
After Pub. L. 100-91 was enacted, the NPS and the FAA attempted
through SFAR No. 50-2 to accomplish the substantial restoration of the
natural quiet.
SFAR No. 50-2 is the first attempt by the FAA to regulate airspace
for environmental and safety reasons to such an extent over a national
park, and design and implementation of the SFAR was a major
accomplishment. As a result of the SFAR:
Four flight-free zones cover 45 percent of the park and have a
ceiling of 14,499 feet msl;
Four flight corridors help aircraft navigate the special use
airspace while avoiding the flight-free zones;
Approximately 29 aerial tour routes created by the Las Vegas FSDO
allow commercial tour aircraft access to 55 percent of SFRA not
restricted by flight-free zones; and
At 14,500 feet msl, the entire park is accessible to overflights,
including general, high altitude commercial, and military aircraft.
The DOI report to Congress found that, although aircraft sound has
been significantly reduced for areas of the Grand Canyon and compliance
with SFAR No. 50-2 has been excellent, natural quiet has not been
substantially restored to the park. As a result, the NPS and the FAA
have made extensive efforts to determine the best alternative action to
respond to the Pub. L. 100-91. The following alternative, outlined in
the NPS report, describes ways that aircraft noise can be made less
obtrusive:
Separation of visitors and overflights. Defining certain areas of
the park for tour overflights is likely to be the first
[[Page 40134]]
step. In so doing, natural quiet under and to the side of corridors
will be degraded. The loss of natural quiet is the consequence of
accommodating aircraft overflights. Mitigation opportunities in the
land areas adjacent to flight areas or corridors will be park specific,
and may take advantage of natural attenuation opportunities.
Exploiting natural attenuation. To the extent that altitudes can be
minimized (without going below reasonable minimums), park terrain can
sometimes be used to acoustically shield flight-free areas from
aircraft noise. If hills or ridges are available, lowering aircraft
altitudes may be a consideration. By lowering altitudes, areas directly
beneath flight corridors that are already impacted will have impacts
intensified, but if local terrain features are present, land areas
where the protection of natural quiet is important may be increased.
Breaking the line-of-sight between the visitor and aircraft can reduce
maximum noise levels by an amount that would otherwise be gained only
by a near doubling of the distance between aircraft and the visitor.
In flat or open areas where terrain shielding cannot effectively be
used, distance (either in altitude or laterally) is a mitigation
option. Very large distance changes may be necessary to achieve natural
quiet, however. Depending on atmospheric and ground effect factors, 8-
12 decibels of reduction can be expected for every doubling of distance
between the visitor and aircraft at its closest point of approach. On
the average, to obtain 10 decibels of reduction, an approximate
doubling of the existing distance between aircraft and the nearest
visitor would be necessary. Continuing with this assumption, to obtain
20 decibels of reduction, the approximate distance would have to
quadruple, and to obtain 30 decibels of reduction, the distance would
have to increase by a factor of about eight.
Encouraging noise reduction at the source. Another mitigation
measure is encouraging and phasing in quieter aircraft, or retrofitting
existing aircraft. Aircraft speed, power, and propeller pitch on fixed-
wing aircraft, and flight regimes which eliminate blade slap for
helicopters are also effective mitigation measures to be taken at the
source of the noise. Relationships between these variables and aircraft
noise levels will be aircraft specific, and may require additional
study.
Reducing duration of noise intrusions. Limiting times of day may be
another mitigation alternative, but this measure may result in a
greater intensity of flying during other portions of the day. This
alternative may not be met with enthusiasm from air tour operators,
however, since their investment in aircraft could remain unproductive
for periods of time.
Encouraging use of greater payload aircraft. Tour aircraft which
can accept greater numbers of passengers without substantial increases
in noise level emissions may be an attractive step toward mitigation in
some circumstances. With larger numbers of people per flight, and fewer
flights, the percentage of time that natural quiet is compromised would
be reduced.
Clearly, doing nothing or taking no action is not a feasible
alternative. The NPS study has concluded that even with compliance with
SFAR 50-2, adequate quiet has not been achieved, and will be further
degraded in the future if action is not taken.
Another alternative would be to accept and adopt the NPS following
recommendations contained in the DOI report to Congress.
Year 1 of the NPS recommendation expands existing flight-free
zones from 45 to 82 percent of the park. Ceilings of the SFRA and
flight-free zones are raised to 17,999 feet MSL. About half the
current SFAR 50-2 tour routes and route segments are eliminated. The
Dragon Flight Corridor is abolished, but two quiet aircraft routes
(one for airplanes, one for helicopters) will exist in this area
(the new Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone) for five years. The Fossil
Canyon Flight Corridor has been realigned and two-way commercial
tour traffic eliminated in all flight corridors. The minimum
altitude for general aviation aircraft in the Tuckup Flight Corridor
has been lowered from 10,500 feet MSL to 9,500 feet MSL.
Year 5 of the NPS recommendation limits the Fossil Canyon Flight
Corridor to quiet commercial tour aircraft. Quiet aircraft routes
within the new Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone are eliminated.
Year 10 of the NPS recommendation limits the Zuni Point Flight
Corridor to quiet commercial tour aircraft.
Year 15 of the NPS recommendation limits the entire SFRA to
quiet commercial tour aircraft.
The NPS believes that the above-mentioned alternative would
essentially restore quiet to the park, but recognizes that it would
have a significant impact on commercial sightseeing operators. For
months, the IWG considered modifications to the initial NPS
recommendations that would achieve the basic objective of restoring
quiet to the park while at the same time preserve the viability of the
commercial sightseeing industry serving GCNP. Both the FAA and the NPS
recognize that commercial sightseeing operators provide a valuable
public service by creating a unique way to all to view the Grand Canyon
and provide an effective means for elderly and handicapped individuals
to enjoy the park.
The proposed rule makes progress toward meeting the commitment of
the NPS and FAA in restoring natural quiet to Grand Canyon National
Park.
Members of the IWG carefully worked out the proposal while keeping
in mind (1) The views expressed at the Flagstaff public meeting, (2)
the objective of the NPS and the FAA to substantially restore the
natural quiet of GCNP, (3) the need to avoid expanding adverse noise
impacts from commercial sightseeing flight operations for an interim
period, and (4) the FAA objective to regulate the airspace over GCNP.
Although this proposal will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of commercial sightseeing operators, it will assure
the continued viability of the industry.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The FAA has determined that the proposed rulemaking would not
affect non-U.S. operators of foreign aircraft operating outside the
United States or U.S. trade. It could however, have an impact on
commercial sightseeing at GCNP, much of which is foreign.
The proposed changes would effectively reconfigure GCNP flight-free
zones and flight corridors, reduce the time available for commercial
sightseeing tours to be conducted, and, in some cases, prolong the time
a commercial sightseeing passenger spends in an airplane not
necessarily sightseeing. To the extent a commercial sightseeing tour of
GCNP is perceived to be a devaluation in the current service offered,
commercial sightseeing could be impacted concomitant with a potential
loss of revenue.
The United States Air Tour Association estimates that 60 percent of
all commercial sightseeing tourists in the United States are foreign.
The Las Vegas FSDO, however, believes this estimate to be considerably
higher at GCNP, perhaps as high as 90 percent. The FAA cannot put a
dollar value on the portion of the potential loss in commercial
sightseeing revenue associated with the loss of 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 levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications
[[Page 40135]]
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Section 93.317 contains information collection requirements. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
the FAA has submitted a copy of this section to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information: The information to be collected is
needed to establish accurate information on aircraft operations in the
GCNP. The information to be collected includes aircraft identification
number (registration number), departure airport, departure date and
time, and route(s) flown. All information must be submitted every 4
months. The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
information is estimated to average 30 minutes for each response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Thus the total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to
be 60 hours.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 1235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for
Federal Aviation Administration. A copy of the comments should also be
submitted to the FAA Rules Docket.
In addition to the reporting requirement delineated in section
93.317, the FAA is also proposing two additional reporting requirements
in section 93.316(b). Section 93.316(b)(2) would require that operators
file a report with the FAA Flight Standards District Office certifying
that it was operating commercial sightseeing operations in the park
during 1995 and 1996 and the number of operations it conducted each
month during the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996.
Additionally, section 93.316(b)(3) would require that each operator
conducting commercial sightseeing operations in the park would file a
monthly report certifying the number of commercial sightseeing
operations conducted in that month and whether that number exceeded the
operator's monthly operations allocation.
The additional paper burden associated with the requirements of
section 93.316(b) (2) and (3) shall be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review. Those wishing to comment on this
additional reporting requirement should also send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 1235, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk
Officer for Federal Aviation Administration. A copy of the comments
should also be submitted to the FAA Rules Docket.
The FAA is requesting comments from the public to establish
accurate information on GCNP overflights for noise and safety
management purposes, validate FAA and NPS noise models for use in
mitigation studies, determine with precision when and where noise
mitigation is required, and provide the basis for a more flexible and
adaptable noise management system.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in this NPRM between 30 and 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public
to comment to the NPRM.
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 could 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.
Other Actions
Since the formation of the IWG, the FAA and NPS have been working
closely to identify and deal with the impacts of aviation on GCNP, and
the two agencies will continue to identify and pursue effective
solutions. In this spirit of cooperation, the agencies plan to take the
following nonregulatory and regulatory actions to achieve the
substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP.
Park Air Operations
GCNP has one of the most strictly regulated aviation programs
within the NPS and the Department of Interior. The park limits use of
its contracted aircraft to activities involving life or health-
threatening emergencies, administration and/or protection of resources,
and for individually approved special purpose missions. Each flight
request is reviewed to ensure that it is the most efficient,
economical, and effective method of performing the required task
consistent with NPS and GCNP goals. These goals include the protection
of natural quiet and experience, as reinforced by the park's recently
approved General Management Plan. At the earliest possible date,
consistent with contracting requirements and budgetary constraints,
GCNP would convert to the quietest aircraft available that would also
meet mission requirements.
Development of a Comprehensive Noise Management Plan
NPS modeling has suggested that the conversion of the commercial
sightseeing aircraft fleet operating in the SFRA to the best available
(quiet) technology would allow for growth of commercial sightseeing
operations while providing for substantial restoration of natural quiet
mandated by Pub. L. 100-91. Accordingly, a comprehensive noise
mitigation plan would be jointly developed to provide a long-term
solution. It would address the best available technology, a monitoring
program for noise and operations, provision of appropriate incentives
for investing in quieter aircraft, appropriate treatment for commercial
sightseeing operators that have already made such investments, and a
more adaptive management system. The plan would be completed and
implemented in time to replace the temporary noise management mechanism
defined in section 93.316(a)(2). For the purpose of developing a
flexible and adaptive approach to noise mitigation and management, the
following actions would be taken:
(a) Development of aircraft operations and noise database. The two
agencies would develop and analyze a database on the volume and
frequency of operations in the SFRA, the time of day of operations, the
routes used, the aircraft types used, and the amount of noise
generated. The proposed reporting requirement would be used in
developing this database. The two agencies would jointly investigate
approaches to monitoring noise and operations in the SFRA and designate
an acceptable protocol for use in connection with the development of
the plan. Options may include installation of noise monitoring
equipment, similar to that used at airports, at the entrances or exits
for the flight corridors, and at other locations as deemed necessary.
(b) Validation and use of noise models. Information from the
database
[[Page 40136]]
established in (a), along with field measurements and other analyses
would be used to validate FAA and NPS noise impact modeling for the
SFRA. The validated models would then be used to explore and develop
noise mitigation measures.
(c) Development and implementation of noise management plan.
Approaches for reducing aircraft noise that consider both the noise
emission level of aircraft and the number of operations would be
reviewed and evaluated for development of an aircraft noise management
plan. The plan would be developed and proposed for implementation in
time to replace the temporary noise management mechanism defined in
Sec. 93.316(a)(2). The plan would address a number of factors,
including the utilization of quieter aircraft in the SFRA, appropriate
incentives for investment in quieter aircraft, treatment of quieter
aircraft that currently operate in the SFRA. Approaches that would be
considered in developing the plan would include, but would not be
limited to, noise budgets, a freeze on the existing fleet combined with
restrictive single event levels based on aircraft noise certification
criteria, further closure of corridors, and noise slots.
Before implementing any noise management plan, the FAA would seek
public participation/comment.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, Aviation safety, Noise
control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 93
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 121
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety,
Transportation.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
The Proposed Amendment
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR parts 91, 93, 121, and 135 as
follows:
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
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.
SFAR NO. 50-2 [REMOVED]
2. In parts 91, 121, and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation
No. 50-2, the text of which appears at the beginning of part 91, is
removed.
PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS
3. 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.
4. In part 93, subpart U is added to read as follows:
Subpart U--Special Flight Rules in The Vicinity of Grand Canyon
National Park, AZ
Sec.
93.301 Applicability.
93.303 Definitions.
93.305 Flight-free zones and flight corridors.
93.307 Minimum flight altitudes.
93.309 General operating procedures.
93.311 Minimum terrain clearance.
93.313 Communications.
93.315 Commercial sightseeing flight operations.
93.316 Limitations on commercial sightseeing operations.
93.317 Commercial sightseeing flight reporting requirements.
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
upward from the surface up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL within
an area bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.55'25'' N., Long.
112 deg.04'36'' W.; east to Lat. 35 deg.55'38'' N., Long.
111 deg.42'12'' W.; north to Lat. 36 deg.16'47'' N., Long.
111 deg.42'17'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.24'49'' 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.38'29'' W.; southwest to Lat.
36 deg.35'02'' N., Long. 111 deg.53'28'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.21'04'' N.,
Long. 112 deg.00'17'' 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 (the historic high-
water mark on the southwest shore of the Colorado River) 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.41'30'' N., Long. 113 deg.35'50'' W., thence clockwise via the
4.2-nautical mile radius of the Peach Springs VORTAC to Lat.
35 deg.39'05'' N., Long. 113 deg.27'06'' W.; northeast to Lat.
113 deg.10'58'' 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.57'47'' N., Long. 112 deg.14'32'' W.; thence clockwise via the
4.3-nautical mile radius of the Grand Canyon National Park Airport
airport reference point (Lat. 35 deg.57'08'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'49''
W.) to the point of origin.
Sec. 93.303 Definitions.
For the purposes of this subpart:
(a) Flight Standards District Office means the FAA Flight Standards
District Office with jurisdiction for the geographical area containing
the Grand Canyon.
(b) Park means grand Canyon National Park.
(c) Special Flight Rules Area means the Grand Canyon National Park
Special Flight Rules Area.
Sec. 93.305 Flight-free zones and flight corridors.
Except in an emergency or if otherwise necessary for safety of
flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards District
Office for a purpose listed in Sec. 93.309, no person may operate an
aircraft below 14,500 feet MSL in the Special Flight Rules Area within
the following flight-free zones:
(a) Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone. The Marble Canyon Flight-free
Zone contains two corridors: the Navajo Bridge Corridor and the North
Canyon Corridor. These two corridors separate the flight-free zone into
three areas. These three areas are described as follows:
(1) Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone (north portion). Within an area
bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.49'51'' N., Long.
111 deg.37'20'' W.; thence north along the boundary of Grand Canyon
National Park (GCNP) to Lat. 36 deg.49'53'' N., Long. 111 deg.37'23''
W.; to the point of origin; but not including the airspace at and above
[[Page 40137]]
8,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the southern boundary of this
area. The corridor to the south of this area is designated the ``Navajo
Bridge Corridor.'' This corridor is 2 nautical miles wide for
commercial sightseeing flights and 4 nautical miles wide for transient
and general aviation operations.
(2) Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone (central portion). Within an
area bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.35'55'' N., Long.
111 deg.45'25'' W.; thence north along the GCNP boundary to Lat.
36 deg.47'53'' N., Long. 111 deg.38'27'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.48'01'' N.,
Long. 111 deg.38'49'' W.; thence south along the GCNP boundary to Lat.
36 deg.36'41'' N., Long. 111 deg.47'42'' W.; to the point of origin;
but not including the airspace at and above 8,500 feet MSL within 1
nautical mile of the northern and southern boundaries of this area. The
corridor to the north is designated the ``Navajo Bridge Corridor'' and
the corridor to the south is designated the ``North Canyon Corridor.''
These corridors are 2 nautical miles wide for commercial sightseeing
flights and 4 nautical miles wide for transient and general aviation
operations.
(3) Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone (southern portion). Within an
area bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.16'26'' N., Long.
111 deg.49'21'' W.; thence north along the GCNP boundary to Lat.
36 deg.34'10'' N., Long. 111 deg.47'11'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.34'38'' N.,
Long. 111 deg.48'34'' W.; thence south along the GCNP boundary to Lat.
36 deg.19'03'' N., Long. 111 deg.55'42'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.14'24'' N.,
Long. 111 deg.52'07'' W.; to the point of origin; but not including the
airspace at and above 8,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the
northern boundary of this area; and not including the airspace at and
above 10,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the southern boundary
of this area. The corridor to the north is designated the ``North
Canyon Corridor''. The corridor to the southeast, between this flight-
free zone and the Desert View Flight-free Zone, is designated the
``Zuni Point Northeast Corridor.'' The corridor to the southwest,
between the southern portion of the Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone and
the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone, is designated the ``Zuni Point
Northwest Corridor.'' These corridors are 2 nautical miles wide for
commercial sightseeing flights and 4 nautical miles wide for transient
and general aviation operations.
(b) Desert View Flight-free Zone. Within an area bounded by a line
beginning at Lat. 35 deg.59'58'' N., Long. 111 deg.52'47'' W.; thence
east and north along the GCNP boundary to Lat. 36 deg.14'05'' N., Long.
111 deg.48'34'' W.; 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
northern and western boundaries of the zone. The corridor to the north,
between this flight-free zone and the Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone,
is designated the ``Zuni Point Northeast Corridor.'' The corridor to
the west, between the Desert View and Bright Angel Flight-free Zones,
is designated the ``Zuni Point South Corridor.'' These corridors are 2
nautical miles wide for commercial sightseeing flights and 4 nautical
miles wide for transient and general aviation operations.
(c) Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. Within an area bounded by a line
beginning at Lat. 35 deg.58'39'' N., Long. 111 deg.55'43'' W.; north to
Lat. 36 deg.12'41'' N., Long. 111 deg.53'54'' W.; northwest to Lat.
36 deg.18'18'' N., Long. 111 deg.58'15'' W.; thence west along the GCNP
boundary to Lat. 36 deg.20'11'' N., Long. 112 deg.06'25'' W.; south-
southwest to Lat. 36 deg.09'31'' N., Long. 112 deg.11'15'' W.; to Lat.
36 deg.04'16'' N., Long. 112 deg.17'20'' W.; thence southeast along the
GCNP boundary to Lat. 36 deg.01'16'' N., Long. 112 deg.11'39'' 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 Lat. 35 deg.59'30'' N., Long. 112 deg.04'41''
W.; thence east along the GCNP boundary to the point of origin; but not
including the airspace at and above 10,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical
mile of the eastern boundary or the airspace at and above 10,500 feet
MSL within 2 nautical miles of the northwestern boundary. The corridor
to the east, between this flight-free zone and the Desert View Flight-
free Zone, is designated the ``Zuni Point South Corridor.'' The
corridor to the northeast, between the Bright Angel and Marble Canyon
Flight-free Zones, is designated the ``Zuni Point Northwest Corridor.''
The corridor to the west, between the Bright Angel and Toroweap/Shinumo
Flight-free Zones, is designated the ``Dragon Corridor.'' These
corridors are 2 nautical miles wide for commercial sightseeing flights
and 4 nautical miles wide for transient and general aviation
operations.
(d) Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone. Within an area bounded by a
line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.05'44'' N., Long. 112 deg.19'27'' W.;
north-northeast to Lat. 36 deg.10'49'' N., Long. 112 deg.3'19'' W.; to
Lat. 36 deg.02'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'47'' W.; thence west along the
GCNP boundary to Lat. 36 deg.10'58'' N., Long. 113 deg.08'35'' W.;
south to Lat. 36 deg.10'12'' N., Long. 113 deg.08'34'' W.; thence
northeast along the park boundary (the historic high-water mark on the
southeast shore of the Colorado River) to Lat. 36 deg.12'05'' N., Long.
113 deg.04'27'' W.; thence counter-clockwise via the 1.5-nautical mile
radius of the Toroweap Overlook (Lat. 36 deg.12'55'' N., Long.
113 deg.03'25'' W.) to Lat. 36 deg.13'31'' N., Long. 113 deg.02'21''
W.; thence in an easterly direction along the park boundary to the
point of origin; but not including the following airspace designated as
the ``Tuckup Corridor'': at or above 10,500 feet MSL within 2 nautical
miles either side of a line extending between Lat. 36 deg.24'42'' N.,
Long. 112 deg.48'47'' W. and Lat. 36 deg.14'17'' N., Long.
112 deg.48'31'' W.
(e) Sanup Flight-free Zone. Within an area bounded by a line
beginning at Lat. 36 deg.04'39'' N., Long. 113 deg.19'36'' W.; west to
Lat. 36 deg.08'11'' N., Long. 113 deg.50'11'' W.; west to Lat.
36 deg.08'11'' N., Long. 113 deg.54'17''W.; southeast to Lat.
36 deg.00'07'' N., Long. 113 deg.42'58'' W.; southeast to Lat.
35 deg.59'37'' N., Long. 113 deg.42'47'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.59'20'' N.,
Long. 113 deg.42'60'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.58'40'' N., Long.
113 deg.43'58'' W.; southeast to Lat. 35 deg.50'16'' N., Long.
113 deg.37'13'' W.; thence along the park boundary (the historic high-
water mark on the south and east shore of the Colorado River) to the
point of origin.
Sec. 93.307 Minimum flight altitudes.
Except in an emergency, or if otherwise necessary for safety of
flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards District
Office for a purpose listed in Sec. 93.309, no person may operate an
aircraft in the Special Flight Rules Area at an altitude lower than the
following:
(a) Minimum sector altitudes. (1) Commercial sightseeing flights.
(i) North Canyon Sector. Less Ferry to North Canyon: 5,000 feet MSL.
(ii) Marble Canyon Sector. North Canyon to Boundary Ridge: 6,000
feet MSL.
(iii) Supai Sector. Boundary Ridge to Supai Point: 7,500 feet MSL.
(iv) Diamond Creed Sector. Supai Point to Diamond Creek: 6,500 feet
MSL.
(v) Pearce Ferry Sector. Diamond Creek to the Grand Wash Cliffs:
5000 feet MSL.
(2) Transient and general aviation operations. (i) North Canyon
Sector. Lees Ferry to North Canyon: 8,500 feet MSL.
(ii) Marble Canyon Sector. North Canyon to Boundary Ridge: 8,500
feet MSL.
(iii) Sapai Sector. Boundary Ridge to Supai Point: 10,000 feet MSL.
[[Page 40138]]
(iv) Diamond Creek Sector. Supai Point to Diamond Creed: 9,000 feet
MSL.
(v) Pearce Ferry Sector. Diamond Creek to the Grand Wash Cliffs:
8,000 feet MSL.
(b) Minimum corridor altitudes. (1) Commercial sightseeing flights.
(i) Navajo Bridge Corridor, 5,000 feet MSL.
(ii) North Canyon Corridor. 5,000 feet MSL.
(iii) Zuni Point Corridors. 7,500 feet MSL.
(iv) Dragon Corridor. 7,500 feet MSL.
(2) Transient and general aviation operations. (i) Navajo Bridge
Corridor. 8,500 feet MSL.
(ii) North Canyon Corridor. 8,500 feet MSL.
(iii) Zuni Point Corridors. 10,500 feet MSL.
(iv) Dragon Corridor. 10,500 feet MSL.
(v) Tuckup Corridor. 10,500 feet MSL.
Sec. 93.309 General operating procedures.
Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft in the
Special Flight Rules Area unless the operation is conducted in
accordance with the following procedures
Note: The following procedures do not relieve the pilot from
see-and-avoid responsibility or compliance with the minimum safe
altitude requirements specified in 14 CFR 91.119.
(a) Unless necessary to maintain a safe distance from other
aircraft or terrain remain clear of the flight-free zones described in
Sec. 93.305;
(b) Unless necessary to maintain a safe distance from other
aircraft or terrain, proceed through the flight corridors described in
Sec. 93.305 at the following altitudes unless otherwise authorized in
writing by the Flight Standards District Office:
(1) Navajo Bridge and North Canyon Corridors. (i) Eastbound. 9,500,
11,500, or 13,500 feet MSL.
(ii) Westbound. 8,500, 10,500, or 12,500 feet MSL.
(2) Zuni Point Northeast, Zuni Point South, Dragon, and Tuckup
Corridors. (i) Northbound. 11,500 or 13,500 feet MSL.
(ii) Southbound. 10,500 or 12,500 feet MSL.
(3) Zuni Point Northwest Corridor. (i) Northbound. 10,500 or 12,500
feet MSL.
(ii) Southbound. 11,500 or 13,500 feet MSL.
(c) For operation in the flight-free zones described in
Sec. 93.305, or flight below the altitudes listed in Sec. 93.307, is
authorized in writing by the Flight Standards District Office and is
conducted in compliance with the conditions contained in that
authorization. Normally authorization will be granted for operation in
the areas described in Sec. 93.305 or below the altitudes listed in
Sec. 93.307 only for operations of aircraft necessary for law
enforcement, firefighting, emergency medical treatment/evacuation of
persons in the vicinity of the Park; for support of Park maintenance or
activities; or for aerial access to and maintenance of other property
located within the Special Flight Rules Area. Authorization may be
issued on a continuing basis;
(d) Is conducted in accordance with a specific authorization to
operate in that airspace incorporated in the operator's operations
specifications and approved by the Flight Standards District Office in
accordance with the provisions of this subpart;
(e) Is a search and rescue mission directed by the U.S. Air Force
Rescue Coordination Center;
(f) Is conducted within 3 nautical miles of Grand Canyon Bar Ten
Airstrip, Pearce Ferry Airstrip, Cliff Dwellers Airstrip, or Marble
Canyon Airstrip at an altitude less than 3,000 feet above airport
elevation, for the purpose of landing at or taking off from that
facility; or
(g) Is conducted under an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance
and the pilot is acting in accordance with ATC instructions. An IFR
flight plan may not be filed on a route or at an altitude that would
require operation in an area described in Sec. 93.305.
Sec. 93.311 Minimum terrain clearance.
Except in an emergency, when necessary for takeoff or landing, or
unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards District Office for
a purpose listed in Sec. 93.309(c), no person may operate an aircraft
within 500 feet of any terrain or structure located between the north
and south rims of the Grand Canyon.
Sec. 93.313 Communications.
Except when in contact with the Grand Canyon National Park Airport
Traffic Control Tower during arrival or departure or on a search and
rescue mission directed by the U.S. Air Force Rescue Coordination
Center, no person may operate an aircraft in the Special Flight Rules
Area unless he monitors the appropriate frequency continuously while in
that airspace.
Sec. 93.315 Commercial sightseeing flight operations.
(a) Non-stop sightseeing flights that begin and end at the same
airport, are conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of that airport,
and operate in or through the Special Flight Rules Area during any
portion of the flight are governed by the provisions of part 119, SFAR
38-2 of parts 121 and 135 of this chapter, part 121, and part 135 of
this chapter, as applicable.
(b) No person holding or required to hold an air carrier
certificate or an operating certificate under SFAR No. 38-2 or part 119
of this chapter may operate an aircraft having a passenger-seat
configuration of 30 or fewer seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and
a payload capacity of 7,500 or less pounds, in the Special Flight Rules
Area except as authorized by the applicable operations specifications.
Sec. 93.316 Limitations on Commercial Sightseeing Operations.
(a) (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards
District Office, no person shall conduct commercial sightseeing
operations during the following fixed flight-free periods:
(i) Summer season (May 1-September 30)--6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily; and
(ii) Winter season (October 1-April 30)--5 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily;
and
(2) The Administrator may restrict commercial sightseeing
operations to the following variable flight-free periods (As discussed
in the preamble, the criteria used to apply the variable flight-free
restrictions would be disseminated for public review and comment):
(i) Dragon Corridor--2 p.m. to 10 a.m.; and
(ii) All other routes--4 p.m. to 9 a.m.; and/or
(b) (1) Except in an emergency, or if otherwise necessary for
safety of flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the Flight
Standards District Office for a purpose listed in 93.309, each operator
is authorized to conduct only the same number of monthly operations in
any month during 1997 and 1998 as were performed during the
corresponding months in the baseline period from August 1, 1995 to July
31, 1996.
(2) In order to establish a baseline for monthly operations during
the interim moratorium, each operator shall certify to the FAA Flight
Standards District Office:
(i) that it was operating sightseeing tours in Grand Canyon
National Park in 1995 and 1996, and
(ii) the number of operations it conducted each month during the
period of August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996 (``monthly
allocation'').
(3)(i) Each operator shall file a report within 10 days of the end
of each month certifying
(A) the number of operations conducted within the Park during the
previous month; and
[[Page 40139]]
(B) that the number of operations did not exceed the operator's
monthly allocation.
(ii) This report shall be filed with the FAA Flight Standards
District Office. As an alternative, the operator may include its report
along with the fees submitted to the National Park Service in
compliance with the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The National
Park Service will forward the report to the FAA Flight Standards
District Office.
(4) If an operator desires to reduce or terminate commercial
sightseeing operations in the Park, it shall surrender to the FAA
Flight Standards District Office any portion of its monthly allocation
that it does not intend to use. No monthly allocation may be
transferred by gift, sale,or otherwise to any person.
(5) If the FAA and the NPS determine that there are unused monthly
allocations under the baseline for monthly operations, the FAA may make
available such monthly allocations to new or existing commercial
sightseeing operators. In the event there is more than one operator
applying for such monthly allocations, a preference will be granted to
the operator which will utilize the quietest commercially available new
or retrofitted aircraft among all of the applicants.
(6) No operator shall have any property right in its monthly
allocation. No operator shall have any right to compensation in the
event such monthly allocation is surrendered.
Sec. 93.317 Commercial sightseeing flight reporting requirements.
Each certificate holder conducting commercial sightseeing flights
within the Special Flight Rules Area shall submit in writing, within 30
days after April 30, August 31, and December 31, of each year, to the
Flight Standards District Office the following information for each
operation within the Special Flight Rules Area for the prior 4-month
period:
(a) Identification number (registration number) of each aircraft;
(b) Departure airport;
(c) Departure date and time; and
(d) Route(s) flown.
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
5. 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.
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS
6. 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.
Issued in Washington, DC on July 26, 1996.
Jeff Griffith,
Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
Note: This Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Appendix--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National
Park
[FR Doc. 96-19489 Filed 7-26-96; 3:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
