[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18670-18672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8952]
[[Page 18669]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 91 and 135
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18670]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91 and 135
[Docket No. 25149, Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-2]
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National
Park
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to extend, for 2 years, the effectiveness
of SFAR No. 50-2, which contains procedures governing the operation of
aircraft in the airspace above Grand Canyon National Park. SFAR No. 50-
2 which originally established the flight regulations for a period of 4
years, has previously been extended to allow the National Park Service
(NPS) time to complete studies concerning aircraft overflight impacts
on the Grand Canyon, and to forward its recommendations to the FAA. The
NPS study, completed in September 1994, recommended alternatives, such
as use of quiet aircraft, additional flight-free zones, altitude
restrictions, operating specifications, noise budgets, and time limits.
This proposal would allow the FAA sufficient time to review thoroughly
the NPS recommendations as to their impact on the safety of air traffic
at the Grand Canyon National Park, and to initiate any appropriate
rulemaking action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 1995.
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. 25149, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments also may be submitted
electronically to [email protected]. The official docket may be
examined in the Rules Docket, Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 916,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, weekdays, except Federal
holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mrs. Ellen Crum, Air Traffic Rules Branch, ATP-230, Airspace-Rules and
Aeronautical Information Division, Air Traffic Rules and Procedures
Services, 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 are also invited relating to the aeronautical,
environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that might result
from adopting the proposals in this notice. Substantive comments should
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the
regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in triplicate to
the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments received on or
before the specified closing date for comments will be considered by
the Administrator before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. The
proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments
received. All comments received will be available, both before and
after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for
examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this
notice must include a readdressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 25149.'' The
postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of NPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, APA-
220, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the docket number of this
rule. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
rules should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
On March 26, 1987, the FAA issued 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.
On August 18, 1987, Congress enacted legislation that required a
study of aircraft noise impacts at a number of national parks and
imposed flight restrictions at three parks: Grand Canyon National Park
in Arizona, Yosemite National Park in California, and Haleakala
National Park in Hawaii (Pub. L. 100-91).
Section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91 required that the Department of the
Interior (DOI) 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
Grand Canyon; (2) with limited exceptions, prohibit the flight of
aircraft below the rim of the Canyon; and (3) designate zones that were
flight free except for purposes of administration of underlying lands
and emergency operations.
Further, Pub. L. 100-91 required the FAA to prepare and issue a
final plan for the management of air traffic above the Grand Canyon. It
also required that the plan establish a means to implement the
recommendations of the DOI without change unless the FAA determined
that executing the recommendations would adversely affect aviation
safety. In that event, the FAA was required to revise the DOI
recommendations to resolve the safety concerns and to issue regulations
implementing the revised recommendations in the plan.
In December 1987, the DOI transmitted to the FAA preliminary
recommendations for an aircraft management plan at the Grand Canyon.
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 the airspace above the Grand
Canyon (53 FR 20264, June 2, 1988). The rule implemented DOI's
preliminary recommendations for an airspace management plan with some
modifications that the FAA initiated in the interest of aviation
safety.
Pub. L. 100-91 also required the DOI to conduct a study, with DOT
technical assistance, to determine the proper minimum altitude to be
maintained by aircraft when flying over units of the National Park
System. The research was to include an evaluation of the noise levels
associated with overflights. It required that before submission to
Congress, the DOI provide a draft report (containing the results of its
studies) and recommendations for legislative [[Page 18671]] and
regulatory action to the FAA for review. The FAA is to notify the DOI
of any adverse effects these recommendations may have on the safety of
aircraft operations. Additionally, section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91,
required DOI to submit a report to Congress regarding the success of
the Grand Canyon airspace management plan, and any necessary revisions,
within 2 years of the effective date of the plan. The FAA was to report
whether any of these recommendations would have an adverse effect on
safety. On June 15, 1992, because of a delay in the completion of the
DOI study, the FAA promulgated a final rule to extend the expiration
date of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1995 (57 FR 26766).
On September 12, 1994, the DOI submitted its final report and
recommendations to Congress. The report recommends numerous revisions
to the current flight restrictions contained in SFAR No. 50-2. In
addition, the report recommends the use of quiet aircraft, additional
flight-free zones, altitude restrictions, operating specifications,
noise budgets, and time limits for flight in the vicinity of the Grand
Canyon.
Upon completing a review of the NPS congressional report, the FAA
may amend SFAR No. 50-2 through the rulemaking process. However, at the
present time, the FAA is reviewing and analyzing these recommendations
to determine an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the FAA is
proposing to extend the provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 for 2 years from
the June 15, 1995, expiration date to allow sufficient time to
determine if there is a need to adjust SFAR No. 50-2.
Environmental Review
As discussed above, Pub. L. 100-91 required the DOI to submit a
report to Congress within 2 years of implementation regarding the
success of the final airspace management plan for the Grand Canyon,
including possible revisions. Now that this report has been forwarded
to both Congress and the FAA, the FAA is required to comment on whether
any of these revisions would have an adverse effect on aircraft safety.
Pub. L. 100-91 essentially reflects a decision by Congress that a
final airspace management plan, currently set forth in SFAR No. 50-2,
should continue permanently with any appropriate modifications
developed as a result of the follow-on study. The statute and its
legislative history show that Congress considered the environmental and
economic concerns inherent in regulating the navigable airspace over
the Grand Canyon. Since Congress, and not the FAA, determined to make
permanent an airspace management plan as delineated in SFAR No. 50-2,
this extension of SFAR No. 50-2 does not require compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the FAA has discretion to
terminate SFAR No. 50-2, the proposal to extend its effectiveness for 2
more years is categorically excluded from the requirements of the NEPA.
(See FAA Order 1050.1D, Par. 31(a)(4), ``Policies and Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts.'') A documented categorical
exclusion has been placed in the docket.
Alternately, the analysis in the 1988 Environmental Assessment (EA)
and the Finding of No Significant Impact remain valid and support a
determination that this extension is not likely to significantly impact
the environment. The proposed extension will not cause significant
environmental impacts because it will not change the volume of traffic,
the altitude of flight routes, or the noise characteristics of the
aircraft typically used in canyon flights between now and 1997.
This extension will enable the FAA to consider recommendations that
the DOI forwarded in September 1994 to enhance the effectiveness of the
SFAR. Based upon its studies, the DOI has concluded that the SFAR has
significantly reduced noise impacts in areas of the Grand Canyon.
However, the DOI believes that benefits may be lost unless additional
restrictions are adopted.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect
of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these
analyses, the FAA has determined that this NPRM is not ``a significant
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and the
Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This
NPRM would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities and would not constitute a barrier to international
trade.
SFAR No. 50-2 was justified based on DOI's December 1987 benefit-
cost analysis. This analysis stated that 40 to 45 operators conducted
air tours over the Grand Canyon with an estimated revenue of $30 to $50
million per year. The number of operations over the Grand Canyon was
growing, with operations at Grand Canyon National Park Airport
increasing 300 percent from 1974 to 1980.
The establishment of large flight-free zones was expected to
roughly double the time for Tusayan-based operators to reach the canyon
rim. The DOI analysis assumed that these operators could adjust for the
increased travel time by increasing the overall tour length and passing
on any additional costs to the consumer. While the percent of tour time
spent over the canyon would decrease, small price increases or slightly
decreased flight time over the canyon was not expected to result in a
decreased ridership. In addition, even though Tusayan-based companies
would incur costs to modify advertising literature and tour narrations
due to route change requirements, the DOI analysis assumed that these
costs would likely be part of the normal operating program. The
benefits to the park resources (natural quiet, wildlife, archeological
features, etc.) and the more than 3,315,000 visitors (about 3 million
front-country users and over 90 percent of the 350,000 back-country
below rim users each year) would accrue primarily from the increased
quiet resulting from noise reduction. Thus, DOI concluded that this
NPRM would be cost-beneficial because cost to air tour operators would
be minimal and the benefits to park resources and visitors would be
significant.
For the purpose of this proposal, the FAA updated the DOI's
December 1987 data as follows: (1) There are still 40 to 45 air tour
operators; (2) the estimated revenue generated by the industry is now
over $100 million each year; and (3) the number of ground visitors has
increased to almost 5 million. The FAA believes that the proposal to
extend the current SFAR No. 50-2 would not alter current industry
practices in the Grand Canyon special flight rules area and would not
affect growth in air traffic. Additionally, the proposal would not
cause significant economic impact because it would not change the
volume of traffic, the altitude of flight routes, or the noise
characteristics of the aircraft typically used in canyon flights
between now and 1997. Therefore the FAA has determined that the
proposed extension would not result in additional costs to the air tour
operators. Since the rule was first promulgated in 1987, the number of
[[Page 18672]] ground visitors increased by 50 percent. During this
period, the estimated number of air tour operators remained unchanged,
while the estimated revenue generated by the air tour industry has
doubled.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule will have ``a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' FAA Order
2100.14A outlines the FAA's procedures and criteria for implementing
the RFA. Small entities are independently owned and operated small
businesses and small, not-for-profit organizations. A substantial
number of small entities is defined as a number that is 11 or more and
which is more than one-third of the small entities subject to this
direct final rule. The FAA determined that this NPRM will not result in
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
This NPRM is expected to have neither an adverse impact on the
trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business abroad nor on foreign
firms doing business in the United States. This assessment is based on
the fact that part 135 air tour operators potentially impacted by this
NPRM do not compete with similar operators abroad. That is, their
competitive environment is confined to the Grand Canyon National Park.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the FAA has determined that this
NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this NPRM, if adopted, would
not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This NPRM is not considered significant
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This notice contains no information collection requests requiring
approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 91 and 135
Aircraft, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aviation safety.
The Amendment
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend SFAR No. 50-2 (14 CFR parts 91 and
135) as follows:
PART 91--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1301(7), 1303, 1344, 1348, 1352 through
1355, 1401, 1421 through 1431, 1471, 1472, 1502, 1510, 1522, and
2121 through 2125; Articles 12, 29, 31, and 32(a) of the Convention
on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180); 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902; 49
U.S.C. 106(g).
PART 135--[AMENDED]
2. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355(a), 1421 through 1431, and
1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).
3. In parts 91 and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-
2, the text of which appears at the beginning of part 91, is amended by
revising Section 9 to read as follows:
SFAR No. 50-2 Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon
National Park, AZ
* * * * *
Section 9. Termination date. This Special Federal Aviation
Regulation expires on June 15, 1997.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 6, 1995.
Harold W. Becker,
Manager, Airspace--Rules and Aeronautical Information Division.
[FR Doc. 95-8952 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M