[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31608-31610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14649]
[[Page 31607]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 91 and 135
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 1995 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 31608]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91 and 135
[Docket No. 25149, Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-2]
RIN 2120-AF60
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National
Park
agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
action: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: This action continues, for an additional 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, had 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 rule allows the FAA sufficient
time to review thoroughly the NPS recommendations as to their impact on
the safety of air traffic over the Grand Canyon National Park, and to
initiate and complete any appropriate rulemaking action.
dates: Effective date. June 15, 1995. Expiration date. SFAR 50-2
expires June 15, 1997.
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:
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 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 the 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 to SFAR No. 50-2
to June 15, 1995 (57FR 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 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 50-2 through the rulemaking process. On April 12, 1995,
the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed
to extend the provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 for 2 years from the June 15,
1995, expiration date (60 FR 18700). This action extends the
effectiveness of the rule, allowing the FAA sufficient time to
determine if there is a need to adjust SFAR No. 50-2 in accordance with
the NPS recommendations and to make any necessary changes.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA received nine comments in support of, and one comment in
opposition to, this action. Commenters included the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA); the Las Vegas Department of Aviation; the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); the U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); environmental associations
and air tour operators.
AOPA supports extension of the rule; however, it states that the
rule is ``inherently discriminatory'' to many general aviation (GA)
aircraft due to their operating characteristics. AOPA contends that
this rule restricts many GA overflights to a narrow corridor and
strongly opposes any similar overflight restrictions at any other
national parks.
The Las Vegas Department of Aviation supports extension of the rule
in order to allow the FAA sufficient time to study the NPS report.
However, the [[Page 31609]] commenter is concerned with several
recommendations in the report and encourages the Department of
Transportation to carefully consider the evidence, believing that there
can be a balance among the air tour industry, the NPS, the FAA, and
environmental groups.
The NTSB supports extending the SFAR for 2 years. However the NTSB
believes that a permanent nationwide policy for air tour operators
should be implemented.
The BIA states that, if the FAA extends the SFAR, it should consult
with various Indian tribes residing within or having ties to the Grand
Canyon area during the 2-year extension period concerning potential
impact to their reservation environment.
Several commenters support extension of the current rule; however,
they request an adjustment to the tour route known as the Dragon
Corridor. The commenters believe that adjustment to this corridor would
lessen the noise impact on visitors to the heavily used Hermit's Rest
overlook and trail.
One commenter ``strongly opposes'' the SFAR in its present form,
given the NPS report. The commenter recommends prohibiting an increase
in the number of Grand Canyon tour flights from 1988 levels and
requiring tour operators to provide the FAA with sufficient information
to monitor the number of tour operations.
The FAA has determined that comments requesting amendments to the
current rule are beyond the scope of the NPRM. The NPRM did not
recommend any changes to the current SFAR; it merely proposed extending
the rule in its existing form. The FAA is currently reviewing and
analyzing the NPS report and recommendations as to the impact on the
safety of air traffic at the Grand Canyon. The FAA has determined that
any substantive change at this point will be inappropriate. Upon
completing the review and analysis of the NPS report, the FAA may amend
SFAR No. 50-2 through the rulemaking process.
The Rule
This rule amends the expiration date of the current SFAR 50-2 from
June 15, 1995, to June 15, 1997. The airspace restrictions and
operating procedures for the airspace over the Grand Canyon are not
altered by this action. In consideration of the need to avoid confusion
on the part of pilots operating in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon,
the FAA finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d), for making
this action effective in less than 30 days to promote the safe and
efficient operation of aircraft in the airspace above the Grand Canyon.
Environmental Review
As discussed above, Pub. L. 100-91 required the DOI to submit a
report to Congress with 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 statue 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, this action 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.
Alternatively, 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 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 the 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 rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and the
Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities and will not constitute a barrier to international
trade.
SFAR No. 50-2 was justified based on the 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 [[Page 31610]] the benefits to park resources and
visitors would be significant.
For the purpose of this rule, 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 extending the current SFAR
No. 50-2 will not alter current industry practices in the Grand Canyon
special flight rules area and will not affect growth in air traffic.
Additionally, the rule will not cause significant economic impact
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. Therefore, the FAA has
determined that the extension will not result in additional costs to
the air tour operators.
Since the rule was first promulgated in 1987, the number of 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. Therefore, the
FAA has determined that any costs incurred by the air tour operators
are not overly burdensome.
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 rule will not result in
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
International Trade Impact Analysis
This action 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
rule do not compete with similar operators abroad. That is, their
competitive environment is confined to the Grand Canyon National Park.
Federalism Implications
This action will not have substantial effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is
determined that this action will not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended
Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent practicable. For this action,
the FAA has reviewed the SARP of Annex 10. The FAA has determined that
this amendment will not present any differences.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this rule.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the FAA has determined that this
rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this action will 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 rule is not considered significant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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 is amending 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. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40105, 44113, 44701-
44705, 44707-44717, 44722, and 45303.
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
* * * * *
Sec. 9. Termination date. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation
expires on June 15, 1997.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 9, 1995.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-14649 Filed 6-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M