[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 252 (Tuesday, December 31, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69302-69333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-33146]



[[Page 69301]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 91, et al.



Special Flight Rules, Noise Limitations and Proposed Air Tour Routes in 
the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park; Final Rule, Proposed Rule 
and Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 252 / December 31, 1996 / Rules and 
Regulations  

[[Page 69302]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135

[Docket No. 28537; Amendment Nos. 91-253, 93-73, 121-262, 135-66]
RIN 2120-AF93


Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National 
Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule is one part of an overall strategy to further 
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. This action is issued concurrently with: a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking regarding Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the 
Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park; a Notice of Availability of 
Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes for Grand Canyon National Park and 
Request for Comments; and the Environmental Assessment issued with this 
final rule. This action amends part 93 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations by adding a new subpart to codify the provisions of Special 
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the 
Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park; modifies the dimensions of the 
Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area; establishes new 
and modifies existing flight-free zones; establishes new and modifies 
existing flight corridors; and establishes reporting requirements for 
commercial sightseeing companies operating in the Special Flight Rules 
Area. In addition, to provide further protection for park resources, 
this final rule prohibits commercial sightseeing operations in the Zuni 
and Dragon corridors during certain time periods, and limits the number 
of aircraft that can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in 
the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1997.

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. For the Environmental Assessment 
contact Mr. William J. Marx, Manager, Environmental Programs Division, 
ATA-300, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
Telephone: (202) 267-3075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. Public Law 100-91 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 Public Law 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. Public Law 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 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 covering 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 Public Law 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.'' Public Law 100-91 mandated a number of studies 
related to the effect of overflights on parks.
    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'' (Report to 
Congress), was published in July 1995. The Report to Congress 
recommended numerous revisions to SFAR No. 50-2 in order to 
substantially restore natural quiet in GCNP. Recommendation No. 10, 
which is of particular interest to this rulemaking, states: ``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

[[Page 69303]]

problem solving; and institution of changes in approaches to park 
management, including the establishment of an acoustic monitoring 
program by the National Park Service (NPS) in coordination with the 
FAA.
    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 the NPS recommendations and 
to initiate and complete 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 concurred 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 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.
    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 equivalencies, and incentives to encourage use of 
quiet aircraft technology. In response to the ANPRM, the FAA received 
644 comments that specifically addressed GCNP. These comments were 
summarized in the NPRM published on July 31, 1996 (61 FR 40120; Notice 
96-11).

President's Memorandum

    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 GCNP that would place appropriate limits on sightseeing 
aircraft to reduce the noise immediately and make further substantial 
progress towards restoration of natural quiet, as defined by the 
Secretary of the Interior, while maintaining aviation safety in 
accordance with Public Law 100-91.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Draft Environmental Assessment

    On July 31, 1996 the FAA published an NPRM (61 FR 40120; Notice 96-
11), to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on GCNP and to assist the 
NPS in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by Public Law 100-91 to 
provide for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience 
in GCNP. Notice 96-11 proposed the following: Codification and 
amendment to the SFAR 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of 
GCNP; modification of the dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park 
Special Flight Rules Area; establishment of new flight-free zones and 
flight corridors, as well as modification of existing flight-free zones 
and flight corridors; establishment of flight-free periods (curfews) 
and/or an interim moratorium on additional commercial sightseeing air 
tours or tour operators (caps); and establishment of reporting 
requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating in the 
SFRA. In addition to these areas, the FAA sought comment on a number of 
questions and alternatives regarding curfews and caps, as well as on 
the issue of quiet aircraft technology. The comment period for the 
proposed rule, originally set for 60 days, was subsequently extended 
for 45 days (61 FR 54716; October 21, 1996) as directed by the Congress 
in the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996.
    On August 21, 1996, the notice of availability of the draft 
Environmental Assessment (EA) was published in the Federal Register (61 
FR 43196). Comments on the draft EA were to be received on or before 
October 4, 1996. This date was subsequently extended, as directed by 
Congress in the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996, to November 
18, 1996.
    Comments received in response to this Notice of Availability of the 
draft EA have been addressed in the final EA published concurrently 
with this final rule.

Public Meetings

    On September 16-20, 1996, in Scottsdale, AZ, and Las Vegas, NV, the 
FAA held public meetings to obtain additional comment on the Notice 96-
11 and on the draft environmental assessment. Comments and the 
transcripts of these meetings have been placed in the rulemaking 
docket.
    The following information summarizes what occurred at the public 
meetings on the Grand Canyon NPRM and draft EA, held in Scottsdale, 
Arizona, September 16 and 17, 1996, and Las Vegas, Nevada, September 19 
and 20, 1996.
    Senator Reid of Nevada, by proxy in Las Vegas, noted his opposition 
to the proposed rule. He indicated that 44 percent of the Canyon was 
already covered by flight-free zones, and that only 14 percent of park 
airspace is available to the operators now. He also opined that (1) the 
requirements of Public Law 100-91 (i.e., substantial restoration of 
natural quiet) have been accomplished by the SFAR; and (2) the new rule 
would have major adverse impacts on safety and economics. He foresaw 
devastating financial impacts on the air tour industry and on local 
communities. Congresswoman Vucanovich of Nevada, also by proxy in Las 
Vegas, indicated that she was concerned about the effects of the 
proposed rule on the air tour industry, noting that there were no 
flight routes specified in Notice 96-11. She believed that flight-free 
periods/curfews would raise both economic and safety issues. She also 
believed that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as opposed to an 
EA, was required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
based on the highly controversial nature of the NPRM.
    The air tour operators talked about potential adverse economic 
impacts of the NPRM, potential negative impacts on safety--such as 
compressing more flights into the smaller areas as the result of 
curfews and additional flight-free zones--and the importance of quiet 
aircraft technology, and incentives to manufacture and use quieter 
aircraft, noting specifically that quieter aircraft are far more 
expensive to purchase and operate than are noisier aircraft. A number 
of operators emphasized their belief that ``SFAR 50-2 works,'' both 
from safety and environmental standpoints. Many of these same operators 
questioned the NPS's

[[Page 69304]]

definitions of natural quiet and substantial restoration thereof, and 
challenged the science involved, including noise modeling conducted by 
both FAA and NPS, in measuring the noise impacts of commercial air tour 
overflights and in assessing the degree to which natural quiet has been 
restored under SFAR 50-2. Several operators and representatives of 
aircraft manufacturers offered concrete suggestions as to the kinds of 
incentives that might prove useful.
    As for other aviation interests, general aviation groups expressed 
concerns about their constituents' ability to transit the park safely 
and conveniently.
    Representatives of environmental groups and individual 
environmentalists pointed out that the addition of two flight-free 
zones is misleading, in that aircraft noise can travel from 13-16 miles 
laterally, so the flight-free zones are not free of noise. A number of 
environmentalists indicated that the NPS's definition of substantial 
restoration of natural quiet is too liberal and allows too much 
aircraft noise. They also pointed out that, in contrast to the lack of 
control on air tour overflight volume, there are tight controls on all 
commercial activities on the ground in parks. Environmentalists spoke 
favorably about the promise of quieter aircraft technology and 
supported the development of incentives to manufacture and use quieter 
aircraft.
    Representatives of Native American tribes living in and around the 
Grand Canyon expressed major disappointment with what they viewed as 
the failure by the FAA and NPS to consult with them adequately on the 
NPRM and the draft EA. They emphasized that the net effect of the 
revised rule would be to relocate noise impacts from the park to tribal 
lands, with concomitant adverse effects on their natural and cultural 
resources and on the health and safety of tribe members and visitors to 
tribal lands. They believed that the situation called for an EIS, not 
an EA.
    While the FAA held separate meetings in both Scottsdale, AZ, and 
Las Vegas, NV, on the NPRM and the EA, a number of commenters at the 
NPRM meetings addressed the EA as well, and vice versa. The majority of 
comments from all ``sides'' of the issue were negative with regard to 
the EA itself, which many found inadequate for a variety of reasons, 
including the fact that the range of alternatives was limited to either 
no action or the proposed alternative, and an overall lack of 
specificity. Several commenters pointed to inconsistencies between FAA 
and NPS noise modeling methodologies, which led the agencies to two 
different conclusions as to the potential effectiveness of the revised 
rule. Air tour operators pointed out that the potential adverse impacts 
of the NPRM on their operations, including safety concerns, were not 
justified in view of FAA's findings that the proposed alternative would 
not provide any significant improvement in natural quiet, while 
environmentalists argued that the EA failed to include any alternative 
which would substantially restore natural quiet to the park. More than 
a few commenters felt that NEPA compliance in this case required an 
EIS, not an EA.
    One of the few areas of common ground to emerge from these meetings 
was widespread support for further use of quieter aircraft technology 
and for the development and implementation of incentives to manufacture 
and use quieter aircraft.

Congressional Hearings

    From October 10 to 11, 1996, Congressional hearings were held by 
the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Tempe, Arizona. The 
hearings were held to gather testimony from various entities involved 
in or affected by the FAA's proposed Special Flight Rules in the 
Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park. Senator McCain of Arizona 
chaired and made opening statements at both field hearings indicating 
that they were there to examine the impacts of the proposed rule and 
the draft environmental assessment. He expressed his disappointment in 
the lack of mention of quiet aircraft technology in Notice 96-11, 
indicating that he hoped FAA would provide appropriate incentives in 
the final rule.
    The Nevada Congressional delegation (Senator Bryan and Congressman 
Ensign in person, Senator Reid and Congresswoman Vucanovich by proxy) 
indicated, at the Las Vegas hearing, their opposition to Notice 96-11 
as written, noting safety concerns as well as ones related to 
economics, NEPA compliance, and the lack of quiet aircraft technology 
incentives.
    The issues raised by Senator McCain and the Arizona delegation were 
also addressed by others testifying at the field hearings. There were 
points and counterpoints raised as to the effectiveness of SFAR 50-2 in 
substantially restoring natural quiet in the Grand Canyon, as mandated 
by Public Law 100-91; NPS's definition of substantial restoration (50 
percent or more of the park quiet at least 75-100 percent of the day); 
methodology involved in measuring and modeling noise impacts; potential 
impacts of the new rule on safety in the SFRA; effects of the new rule 
on general aviation; potential adverse impacts of the rule on the 
economy of Las Vegas and Nevada; adequacy of the consultation process 
with Native American tribes; and controls on other users of the park 
vis-a-vis air tour overflights.
    Many of the air tour operators, some of whom had also voiced 
concerns about the safety implications of Notice 96-11, predicted dire 
economic consequences for the industry if the NPRM, which included 
possible caps on operations, curfews, and two additional flight-free 
zones, went into effect. In response to the operators' economic 
concerns, Senator McCain reminded them that they had unanimously 
opposed his bill, which became Public Law 100-91, in 1987, claiming 
that it would put the entire industry out of business. Instead, he 
noted, the number of air tour overflights of Grand Canyon had increased 
from approximately 40,000 per annum in 1987 to the 95,000 reported by 
the Arizona Republic newspaper during the 12-month period which ended 
September 30, 1996.
    Aside from a commitment to air safety, perhaps the only issue on 
which all of the interests represented at the field hearings could 
agree was the need for quiet aircraft technology incentives for both 
manufacturers and air tour operators. From Senator McCain and members 
of the Nevada Congressional delegation to the Native American Indian 
tribal leaders and from environmental groups to air tour operators and 
aircraft manufacturers, as well as aviation and tourism industry 
representatives, quieter aircraft technology incentives were viewed as 
integral to efforts to substantially restore natural quiet to the Grand 
Canyon while maintaining a viable air tour industry. Among specific 
suggestions made were providing more attractive routes to quieter 
aircraft, setting aside a portion of air tour overflight fees to 
provide loans to air tour operators to invest in further quiet aircraft 
technology, and lowering fees for those operators using quieter 
aircraft.
    The FAA has considered the statements made at the hearings in 
developing this final rule and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
regarding Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of 
the Grand Canyon National Park found in this part of today's Federal 
Register.

[[Page 69305]]

Consultation with Affected Native American Tribes

    The Navajo, Hualapai, and Havasupai Native American reservations 
border GCNP, and several other tribes have cultural ties to the Grand 
Canyon. The DOT and DOI have satisfied their obligation to consult with 
these tribes, on a government-to-government basis concerning the 
possible effects of this rule, as required under applicable statutes, 
regulations, and Executive Orders. Although they did not elect to do 
so, the tribes were invited to participate as cooperating agencies in 
the environmental review process. Their major concerns were recognition 
of their sovereignty over the airspace, air access, potential noise 
increases over tribal lands and religious/historic/cultural sites, and 
the lack of early coordination during the development of the proposed 
rule. Both DOT and DOI have addressed tribal concerns, including the 
effects of the rule on economic opportunities of the tribes, in 
preparing this final rule. The consultation process, and the mitigation 
commitments made to address tribal concerns, are described in detail in 
the final EA, a copy of which has been included in the docket for the 
final rule.
    The consultation process, which began with the development of 
Notice 96-11, for reduction of aircraft noise, will continue. This will 
include a dialogue in which potentially affected tribes will have the 
opportunity to identify, on a confidential basis, any religious, 
cultural, or historic area that may be potentially affected by 
significant noise increases. The FAA has committed to mitigate any such 
impacts during the development of air tour routes for GCNP.

Public Input

    As previously mentioned, on July 31, 1996, the FAA published Notice 
96-11 in the Federal Register proposing several actions to reduce the 
impact of aircraft noise on GCNP and assist the NPS in its efforts to 
substantially restore natural quiet and experience in the park. 
Interested persons were invited to participate in this rulemaking 
action by submitting written data, views, or arguments. In response to 
this notice, the FAA received approximately 14,000 comments. Almost 95 
percent of these comments were form letters, or virtual form letters, 
stating a position either favoring restrictions on air tour overflights 
or opposing them, with no substantive discussion. While all comments 
received were considered before issuing this final rule, the specific 
comments addressed in this preamble are those that contained 
substantive information.
    The following is an analysis of the pertinent general comments 
received in response to Notice 96-11. Later in the document the FAA has 
included a section-by-section analysis of the rule, including a 
discussion of the relevant comments related to each of these sections, 
and rationale of the final rule.

Discussion of Pertinent General Comments

    Comments were received from industry associations (e.g., Grand 
Canyon Air Tour Council, United States Air Tour Association, Aircraft 
Owners and Pilots Association, Helicopter Association International); 
environmental groups (e.g., Sierra Club, National Parks and 
Conservation Association); air tour operators; aircraft manufacturers; 
government officials; and Native American tribes (e.g., Havasupai 
Tribe, Hualapai Tribe).
    Approximately one-third of the comments support overflight 
restrictions to reduce aircraft noise over GCNP. Many of these 
commenters say that, even with the current SFAR, the noise problem has 
worsened as the air tour industry has grown. These commenters want to 
see the proposal strengthened to preserve the natural quiet of the park 
and recommend permanent caps on the number of air tour flights (based 
on the number of flights in 1987 when Public Law 100-91 was passed); 
expansion of the flight-free zones; stricter curfews; and incentives 
for the use of quiet aircraft (combined with caps and curfews).
    Approximately two-thirds of the comments oppose further overflight 
restrictions. These commenters argue that SFAR 50-2 has been successful 
in reducing noise (as shown by visitor surveys); air tour operations 
allow everyone access to the park and have less environmental impact on 
the park than do ground visitors; the proposed flight corridors and 
flight-free zones could create safety problems by causing denser 
traffic patterns; and the air tour industry would face severe economic 
consequences.

Statutory Authorities

    A few commenters state that Notice 96-11 is basically allowing the 
NPS to regulate the airspace over the national parks, thereby diluting 
the authority of the FAA. Others state that the FAA has no authority to 
regulate noise over the national parks, that the FA Act (now codified 
in 49 U.S.C.) authorizes the FAA to regulate safety, and to regulate 
noise only as it concerns aircraft certification.
    Several commenters focus on the authority provided in Public Law 
100-91. Some of these commenters do not believe that Public Law 100-91 
gives the FAA the authority to do more than it has already done in 
issuing SFAR 50-2. One commenter states that since Public Law 100-91 
requires NPS to submit its report on the effectiveness of the airspace 
management plan to Congress, only Congress was intended to review the 
NPS recommendations and provide specific guidance on what further 
agency action, if any, would be appropriate.
    A presenter at the Congressional hearing, as well as an individual 
from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA commenting to the docket, adds 
that Public Law 102-581 (The Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise 
Improvement Transportation Act of 1992) (also related to aircraft noise 
at the Grand Canyon), called for a report to Congress outlining the 
FAA's plan to manage increased air traffic over GCNP. As in Public Law 
100-91, this report would be used only by Congress for any further 
action. Another commenter states that the FAA and NPS have done only 
half of the task mandated under Public Law 100-91 since they have not 
yet proposed the air tour routes that will be followed. An air tour 
operator comments that the proposal does not comply with Public Law 
100-91 because the statute requires an overflight system that will 
substantially protect the ground visitor from aircraft noise, while the 
proposal is based on a standard called percent time audible.
    One commenter believes that the FAA has violated the Administrative 
Procedure Act by not providing a reasonable opportunity for public 
comment on the meanings of the terms ``natural quiet'' and 
``substantial restoration of natural quiet.''
    Two commenters state that the proposal violates the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and provisions of the FA Act that guarantee air access 
to elderly and disabled persons. Counter to these commenters, another 
commenter states that most handicapped visitors see the park from the 
rim overlooks and paved rim trails and that such visitors should not be 
an excuse for the park's inability to achieve its Congressional 
mandated goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet.
    FAA Response: The FAA has broad authority and responsibility to 
regulate the operation of aircraft and the use of the navigable 
airspace and to establish safety standards for and regulate the 
certification of airmen, aircraft, and air carriers. 49 U.S.C. 40101, 
et seq. Subtitle VII of Title 49 U.S.C. provides guidance

[[Page 69306]]

to the Administrator in carrying out this responsibility. Moreover, the 
FAA's authority is not limited to regulation for aviation safety and 
efficiency.
    The FAA has authority to manage the navigable airspace to protect 
persons and property on the ground. The Administrator is authorized to 
``prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft 
(including regulations on safe altitudes) for-- * * * (B) protecting 
individuals and property on the ground.'' 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2). In 
addition, under 49 U.S.C. 44715(a) the Administrator of the FAA, in 
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, is directed to 
issue such regulations as the FAA may find necessary to control and 
abate aircraft noise and sonic boom to ``relieve and protect the public 
health and welfare.''
    The FAA construes these provisions, taken together, to authorize 
the adoption of this regulation. It is the general policy of the 
Federal Government that the FAA, like other agencies, will exercise its 
authority in a manner that will enhance the environment. Section 101 of 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 42 U.S.C. 
4321 and Executive Order 11514, as amended by Executive Order 11991.
    The unambiguous intent of Public Law 100-91 with respect to the 
Grand Canyon was for the FAA to work cooperatively with the NPS to 
devise a plan that would safely provide for a substantial restoration 
of natural quiet while maintaining a viable air tour industry. For this 
reason Sections 3(b)(3) (A) and (B) provided for an evaluation of the 
initial plan and any necessary revisions based upon that evaluation. 
Because the report recommended regulatory action rather than 
legislative action, the FAA was not constrained to wait for 
Congressional response. For GCNP, the law specifically addressed the 
substantial restoration of natural quiet, not the protection of ground 
visitors.
    Public Law 102-581 required the FAA to submit to Congress a report 
on increased air traffic over GCNP. This report, like the report 
required to be submitted by Public Law 100-91, did not limit the 
ability of the FAA to use its general regulatory authority to take 
appropriate actions in implementing provisions of either report. 
Indeed, Public Law 102-581 specifically requires a plan of action to 
``manage increased air traffic over Grand Canyon National Park to 
ensure aviation safety and to meet the requirements established by such 
Section 3 of the Act of August 18, 1987, including any measures to 
encourage or require the use of quiet aircraft technology by commercial 
air tour operators.'' Public Law 102-581, Section 134(b)(4).
    Both the FAA and NPS recognize that additional work will be 
necessary in delineation of air tour routes to be followed as well as 
other actions. In consultation with the NPS, FAA has proposed air tour 
routes in a separate notice issued concurrently with this final rule. 
Additionally, in a separate Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued 
today, further actions to facilitate the substantial restoration of 
natural quiet to the Grand Canyon have been proposed. Both this final 
rule and the NPRM acknowledge the need for the development of a Noise 
Management Plan to further mitigate impacts from commercial 
overflights. These actions are also taken in full recognition that the 
restoration of natural quiet to the Canyon will require these 
additional steps to meet the definitions established for natural quiet. 
The rationale for the establishment of the percent time audible is 
included in the NPS report to Congress. While this methodology may 
differ from some measurements, it assures protection of the ground 
visitor from aircraft noise. Furthermore, the threshold of audibility 
used in the NPS model is louder than the level which would be detected 
by an attentive listener, guaranteeing that virtually all visitors 
would notice the noise while engaged in normal visitor activities.
    The terms ``natural quiet'' and ``substantial restoration of 
natural quiet'' are taken from language in Public Law 100-91. These 
terms were defined in the Report to Congress issued by the NPS under 
the direction of that Act. That report has been available to the public 
and its role in the development of this regulatory proposal has been 
clearly defined in previous notices, including the ANPRM on this rule. 
The concepts of ``natural quiet'' and ``substantial restoration of 
natural quiet'' have been the subject of academic research, agency 
disclosure and adversarial dialogue for a number of years and are used 
as recognized technical benchmarks in the analysis of the effects of 
this rule. As such, the terms do not need additional comment under the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
    In addition, the Grand Canyon Enlargement Act specifically provides 
that the Department of Interior shall submit to the FAA and EPA 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44715 any recommendations for rules or 
regulations or other actions he believes appropriate to protect the 
public health, welfare, and safety or natural environment within the 
park. After reviewing the submission of the Secretary, the FAA is to 
take appropriate action.
    This action does not violate provisions of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act or any other guarantees of air access to elderly or 
disabled persons. The disabled and the elderly will still have a 
variety of opportunities to view the Grand Canyon by air. In addition, 
opportunities for ground visits to GCNP will also be as available as 
they are at present. Provisions for ground access include issuance of 
special permits to the elderly and handicapped for access to areas 
closed to automobiles at certain times of the year. Visitor facilities 
within the park, including overnight accommodations, restaurants and 
developments are accessible to the handicapped and the elderly.

Impact on Tribal Lands

    An individual from a local office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) and representatives of Native American tribes affected by this 
rulemaking state that the FAA and NPS have violated certain treaties, 
statutes, and Executive Orders by not consulting with the affected 
tribes during the development of Notice 96-11 and by not analyzing the 
impact the proposed rule would have on these tribes and their lands.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that treaties, statutes, and 
executive orders have been violated by not consulting with affected 
Native American tribes. Public involvement is an important part of the 
rulemaking process. Public hearing activities have included public 
meetings with interested parties and consultation with Native 
Americans. The FAA has not yet received concurrence from the Arizona 
Historic Preservation Officer and the Tribal Historic Preservation 
Office for the Hualapai Tribe in a determination of no adverse effect 
pursuant to Section 106. The FAA will continue to consult and work with 
Native American Nations and Tribes during development of the air tour 
routes to address any requested measures to minimize noise increases 
over specifically identified traditional cultural sites as part of the 
Section 106 process. This includes areas potentially affected by 
traffic and air tour routes outside the Flight Free Zones.
    An initial determination of no adverse effect by the FAA was based 
upon an analysis of cultural resources in the vicinity of the GCNP as 
identified by the NPS and knowledge shared by Native American tribes 
with comtemporary and ancestral involvement with the Grand Canyon. 
Native Americans tribes may have been reluctant to identify the 
locations of other specific sites of concern due to a desire to limit 
public access and preserve their sacred character and integrity. The 
FAA

[[Page 69307]]

commits to preserve the confidentiality of the locations of any 
specifically identified traditional cultural sites that the Native 
Americans elect to disclose to the FAA during consultation to establish 
the air tour routes. The FAA further commits to complete Section 106 
consultation before it finalizes and permanently implements the air 
tour routes and to adopt all measures necessary to support a 
determination of no adverse effect. The FAA will also adopt all 
measures necessary to assure that the routes developed to implement the 
proposed final rule do not substantially interfere with the use of 
sacred religious sites of the Native American tribes in the vicinity of 
the GCNP.
    As discussed in detail in Chapter 4.2 of the Environmental 
Assessment (EA), the FAA will continue to consult and work with Native 
American Tribes pursuant to Section 106, during development of the air 
tour routes to address any requested measures to minimize noise 
increases over traditional cultural properties as part of the Section 
106 process. This includes areas potentially affected by traffic and 
air tour routes outside the Flight Free Zones, like the 10-12 miles 
radius around the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers 
that was identified by the Hopi Tribe.
    The FAA will protect any confidentiality requested to limit public 
access and preserve the character and integrity of sacred sites. The 
FAA will complete Section 106 consultation before it finalizes and 
permanently implements the air tour routes and will adopt all measures 
necessary to support a determination of no adverse effect. The FAA will 
also adopt all measures necessary to assure that the routes developed 
to implement the proposed final rule do not substantially interfere 
with the religious practices of the Native American tribes.
    On June 28, 1995, the FAA and NPS jointly published a notice 
announcing a public meeting to provide the interested parties with an 
opportunity to comment on improving SFAR 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.
    The FAA sponsored public meetings, in Scottsdale, Arizona, on 
September 16 and Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 19, 1996, to receive 
comments on the NPRM. These meetings were announced in the Federal 
Register on August 30 (61 FR 45921) and in newspapers in Phoenix, 
Flagstaff, and Kingman, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada, on several 
dates in early September.
    On August 27 and 28, 1996, the FAA hosted a meeting in Flagstaff, 
Arizona, at which tribal representatives were given the opportunity to 
express their views on the rule. FAA invited two representatives each 
from the Hualapai, Havasupai, Hopi, San Juan Southern Paiute, Paiute of 
Utah, and Kaibab Piaute Tribes, the Pueblo of Zuni, and the Navajo 
Nation. During the meetings, the Native American representatives were 
given a detailed briefing by the FAA on changes proposed in the NPRM. 
Following the briefing, there was a question-and-answer session where 
FAA and NPS representatives fielded questions on the revised rule. 
Minutes of the meeting were provided to each tribe that was invited.
    Subsequently, from October 14 to 21, 1996, representatives of the 
FAA met on-site in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah with representatives 
of each tribe to further assess the concerns of the Native Americans. 
Each tribe was offered a briefing on the proposed rule and given the 
opportunity to ask questions of the FAA representatives.
    Other opportunities have been provided for the tribes to make their 
views known to the DOT. The Hualapai Tribe submitted comments to the 
Advance Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (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. The Hualapai Tribe commented on the 
need for a socio-economic analysis of the proposed flight restrictions 
on the Hualapai Nation. The Chairman of the Hualapai Tribe spoke at the 
Las Vegas public meeting. Written comments have been received into the 
docket from the Hualapai, Hopi, and Havasupai Tribes.
    Additionally, 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 on several occasions and heard 
first hand many of their specific concerns.

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-2

    Several commenters believe that SFAR 50-2 is working and further 
regulation is not necessary. According to these commenters complaints 
about noise have been practically eliminated and no accidents have 
occurred since the SFAR's implementation. Environmentalist groups, 
however, state that while SFAR 50-2 has improved natural quiet in the 
front country, erosion of natural quiet is occurring in the 
backcountry. According to these commenters, Notice 96-11 does not bring 
GCNP into compliance with Public Law 100-91.
    FAA Response: Notwithstanding the value of SFAR 50-2, this 
regulatory action responds to a clear legislative mandate to 
substantially restore natural quiet, expressed in Public Law 100-91. As 
discussed in Notice 96-11, the NPS Report to Congress was based on a 
number of studies evaluating whether SFAR 50-2 resulted in a 
substantial restoration of natural quiet. NPS found that, while flight-
free zones have helped to limit the areas where aircraft are audible, 
aircraft of all types are still audible for some percentage of the time 
at virtually all areas where sound data were collected. NPS also found 
a correlation between the percentage of time that aircraft are audible 
and how visitors feel about aircraft sound. Even when aircraft are 
audible for relatively low percentages of the time, some visitors 
notice the aircraft and believe that the sound has interfered with 
their appreciation of natural quiet. Finally, in its Report to 
Congress, the NPS indicated that if no changes are made to SFAR 50-2, 
progress to date in the restoration of natural quiet will be lost due 
to an increase in air tour operations. 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. 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. These findings led the NPS to 
conclude that the noise mitigation benefits of SFAR 50-2 are being 
significantly eroded.
    These findings indicate that the current SFAR was not sufficiently 
adequate in substantially restoring the natural quiet to GCNP. The FAA 
believes that further regulatory action is therefore necessary to best 
ensure the substantial restoration of the natural quiet as called for 
by Public Law 100-91. Additionally, substantial restoration of natural 
quiet will be further advanced by the NPRM and Notice of Availability 
of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes for Grand Canyon National Park

[[Page 69308]]

and the Comprehensive Noise Management Plan.

Restoration of Natural Quiet

    While some commenters are concerned that the proposed action goes 
too far in regulating the air tour industry in order to satisfy a small 
group of park users, others believe that it does not go far enough. 
Some commenters state that the proposal, at best, would only modestly 
improve natural quiet. Other comments are concerned that 
``overregulation'' in this instance would set a precedent for national 
parks all over the country.
    Another commenter states that the proposal would not achieve the 
goal of Public Law 100-91 because it would not meet the NPS definition 
of ``natural quiet.'' According to some commenters the NPS definition 
of ``substantial restoration of natural quiet'' is not supported by 
Public Law 100-91 or the Congressional record. According to these 
commenters NPS has separated the concept of ``natural quiet'' from 
complaints from park visitors by making ``natural quiet'' a park 
resource that must be protected whether noise is disturbing park 
visitors or not. These commenters object to the NPS definition and to 
using it as a justification for rulemaking. One commenter states that 
the FAA is on record as having concerns about the NPS definition and 
recommends withdrawal of Notice 96-11 until the FAA develops a proposed 
definition and invites comment.
    One commenter finds the NPS definition too liberal since it allows 
half the park to be noisy 25 percent of the day and the other half 100 
percent of the day. A presenter at the Congressional hearing says that 
the intent of Public Law 100-91 was to restore the natural quiet within 
the flight-free zones only and not the entire park.
    The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (GCATC), which represents a 
number of air tour operators, states that, because the proposed 
restrictions do not apply to NPS-operated and other non-tour aircraft 
(e.g., military, Native American reservations), these aircraft could 
consume the entire 25 percent audible aircraft cap as defined in 
``substantial restoration of natural quiet.'' Thus, air tour operators 
would be even further restricted.
    FAA Response: The NPS defined ``natural quiet'' and identified it 
as a natural resource in its 1986 ``Aircraft Management Plan 
Environmental Assessment for Grand Canyon National Park'' which 
underwent extensive public review in 1986 (i.e., ``the absence of man-
made sounds * * * considered a natural resource''). The term was 
subsequently discussed in numerous public documents, which have also 
undergone public review, including NPS Management Policies (1988), and 
the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning 
Overflights of Units of the National Park System published in the 
Federal Register on March 17, 1994.
    The authority of the NPS to define the ``substantial restoration of 
natural quiet'' is recognized in Public Law 100-91, Public Law 102-581, 
and in the general authorities of the NPS. The NPS's Management 
Policies (1988, page 1:3) states that the terms ``park resources and 
values'' refer to the ``full spectrum of tangible and intangible 
attributes'', including ``intangible qualities'' such as natural quiet, 
for which parks have been established and are being managed. National 
park areas are set aside to preserve their resources as well as their 
special qualities and experiences unimpaired for the enjoyment of 
present and future generations. The NPS has the authority and 
responsibility to manage these areas, including their resources, values 
and visitors.
    The NPS definition of ``substantial restoration of natural quiet'' 
involves time, area, and acoustic components. Because many park 
visitors typically spend limited time in particular sound environments 
during specific park visits, the amount of aircraft noise present 
during those specific time periods can have great implications for the 
visitor's opportunity to experience natural quiet in those particular 
times and spaces. Those visitors with longer exposures, such as 
backcountry and river users, have more opportunity to experience a 
greater variety of natural ambient and aircraft sound conditions, but 
typically they move through a number of sound environments. Based on 
its studies, the NPS concluded that the visitors' opportunity to 
experience natural quiet during their visits and the extent of noise 
impact depends on a number of factors. These factors include the number 
of flights, the sound levels of those aircraft, as well as other sound 
sources at the natural sound environment, and the duration (or amount 
of time) during that visit that aircraft were audible in specific 
locations. Integrated measures of noise (such as DNL and Leq) are 
commonly used to quantify time varying noises such as are described 
above. Most of the FAA's experience has been in assessing noise impacts 
in airport and residential environments where people are exposed to a 
variety of sound conditions in the same basic sound environment over a 
very long period of time. However, because park environments and the 
set of conditions typically experienced by park visitors is completely 
different, the NPS concluded that these integrated measures were, by 
themselves, inadequate to represent the effect of overflights on park 
environments and a person's visit. However, the FAA and the NPS agree 
that Leq integrated over a short time period correlates with park 
visits and can be useful in assessing park noise impacts.
    This action only considers the air tour contribution to the GCNP 
noise. In other words, noise contributed from other sources is treated 
separately for purposes of noise modeling analysis.
    The NPS will continue to strictly control its rescue, law 
enforcement, maintenance and critical resource management overflights 
to minimize their number and effect on park resources and visitors. 
These flights are made for lifesaving and essential management purposes 
and will not be a factor in any restrictions on air tour operations.

Discrimination Against Air Tourists vs. Other Users

    A number of commenters state that SFAR 50-2 and Notice 96-11 
discriminate against air tour visitors to the park, who have little 
environmental impact on the park, while ignoring the noise, litter, and 
pollution problems associated with ground users. A few commenters 
believe that NPS is purposely trying to eliminate air tours from the 
park. Other commenters point out that air tour visitors are not being 
discriminated against since all commercial enterprises that use the 
Grand Canyon are restricted.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree. The actions by the FAA in 
addressing mitigation measures associated with noise from commercial 
air tour operations is additive to actions being taken by the NPS to 
preserve and protect for future generations the resources of GCNP. 
Recent actions include the development of a General Management Plan 
which will greatly restrict automobile use in congested rim areas, 
provide high occupancy public transit, and establish pedestrian and 
bicycle trails. Other actions have included restrictions on the 
operation of diesel buses, on diesel and steam locomotives serving the 
park, and on outboard engines on river rafts. In addition, the NPS has 
a long standing administrative practice in the control and mitigation 
of impacts to resources resulting from visitation through the use of 
reservation systems for campgrounds and other sites both on the rim and 
in the inner canyon, as well as providing for times when use types are 
restricted,

[[Page 69309]]

such as the ``oar only'' season for rafting on the Colorado River. As 
such, use allocation is a common practice within NPS areas in order to 
meet the demands of the general provisions of acts relating to the 
administration of National Park Service Areas (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) as 
well as specific park legislation such as Public Law 100-91.
    Further, it was not the intent of Public Law 100-91 to ban aircraft 
from overflying the Grand Canyon. In this regard, the FAA believes that 
viewing of the canyon from the air is a legitimate and valuable means 
of appreciating the beauty of the Grand Canyon. This policy is 
supported by the legislative history of Public Law 100-91 and the 
objectives states by DOI in its December 1987 recommendations to the 
FAA. The agency further believes that the resources of the canyon can 
be protected without an exclusion of aircraft, which would have a major 
adverse impact on air travel through this area of the southwest. It is 
the intent of the rule adopted to permit the continuation of aerial 
viewing of the canyon, and air travel through the area, in a manner 
consistent with the stated purposes of section 3 of Public Law 100-91 
to substantially restore the natural quiet of the Grand Canyon within 
the boundaries of the national park.
    The NPS has had a consistent position for years regarding air tours 
at the Grand Canyon. As stated on page 184 of the 1994 NPS Report to 
Congress, one of the six management objectives for the park is: 
``Provide a quality aerial viewing experience while protecting park 
resources (including natural quiet) and minimizing conflicts with other 
park visitors.''

Number of Operators and Operator Fees

    An environmentalist group states that one third of the Grand Canyon 
air tour operators dodge fees and that air tour numbers may be twice 
those reported. Another commenter stated that tribes in the GCNP 
vicinity should be able to regulate and collect fees for the airspace 
on their lands as the NPS does.
    FAA Response: Fee collection is beyond the scope of Notice 96-11. 
Through the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Congressional 
action required the NPS to collect a commercial tour use fee of $25 for 
aircraft with 25 seats or less and $50 for aircraft with more than 25 
seats. Collection and enforcement of this fee is the responsibility of 
the NPS and the NPS can use all information available to assure that 
fees are collected in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, payment of 
fees has no direct relationship to this rule. Regarding the collection 
of fees by Native Americans, Congressional action would be required to 
authorize the collection of an overflight fee.

Noise Level Surveys, Monitoring, Studies, and Modeling

    Some commenters state that the NPS overstated the impact of air 
tour overflights on park visitors in its 1992 visitor survey. For 
example, the commenter noted that backcountry users do not venture out 
of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone, and some complaints were 
collected at a time when an aerial search was being made for an escaped 
convict and NPS service flights were on-going. Furthermore, the 
commenters complained that the NPS made no attempt to distinguish what 
type of flights were causing the annoyance.
    Other commenters state that the NPS-solicited surveys show an 
unusually high number of complaints because more complaints are 
received from solicited surveys than from unsolicited reports.
    Another commenter says that some of the survey questions were 
biased because they used the word ``noise'' instead of ``sound'' (e.g., 
visitor perceptions of aircraft noise versus aircraft sound).
    Industry commenters also express doubts about the noise monitoring 
studies contracted by the NPS. Several commenters state that monitoring 
sites were directly under, or in close proximity to, the tour routes 
flown by air tour operators as directed by SFAR 50-2.
    Several commenters state that although Public Law 100-91 directed 
the NPS to distinguish between the impacts caused by sightseeing 
aircraft and other types of aircraft, the noise monitoring results do 
not distinguish the amount of noise attributable to different types of 
aircraft.
    Industry commenters also object to the NPS model for noise. One 
commenter states that the noise model used for establishing predicted 
aircraft noise impacts eliminated the coefficient of lateral over-the-
ground attenuation. BIA states that the NPS established no baseline 
other than ambient sound levels, which does not differentiate among the 
impacts on visitors from different types of flights. Another commenter 
states that the noise analysis is flawed because it was based on NPS 
estimates of fleet sizes, aircraft use levels, and certificated noise 
levels for aircraft in that fleet, which do not necessarily indicate 
the actual noise an aircraft will produce in flight.
    FAA Response: The NPS noise level surveys, dose-response studies, 
and acoustic modeling were conducted by internationally-respected 
acoustical research firms known for the quality of their work. These 
firms advised the agency on the design, analysis, and conduct of these 
surveys and studies. The NPS consulted extensively with these firms to 
ensure that the conclusions in the NPS report to Congress were drawn 
directly from study results. The studies were based on standard 
research methodologies, including statistically valid random samples, 
and have been reviewed by scientists not affiliated with the NPS or the 
FAA. They represent the only large-scale, scientifically sound studies 
of park noise environments and park visitor reactions to aircraft noise 
in outdoor recreation settings.
    Acoustic modeling is the accepted approach for addressing noise 
concerns over large areas such as Grand Canyon. Noise level 
measurements only reflect individual site conditions but can be 
productively used to improve the accuracy of the modeling. Both the FAA 
and NPS used a standard aircraft noise database and made adjustments 
based on actual field measurements. The measured ambient background 
sound levels (the baseline for natural quiet taken from Grand Canyon 
noise level measurements) were factored into FAA and NPS modeling 
efforts, and both models were able to factor in terrain effects, albeit 
to different extents. Finally, data from an FAA survey of air tour 
operators was used by both agencies to provide the aircraft types, 
numbers, and routes used in the acoustic modeling. Although the FAA and 
NPS noise models are quite different, the FAA found sufficient 
convergence in modeling results to suggest that valid conclusions can 
be drawn from both models.
    NPS acoustic measurements found that the sound of aircraft was 
measurable for some part of the time at virtually all areas where sound 
data was collected, including a wide variety of locations and 
environments well within the flight-free zones as well as near the 
flight routes. This is consistent with NPS modeling which suggested 
that aircraft sound can carry 13-16 miles in the eastern end of the 
Canyon and even further on the western end--enough to fully penetrate 
to the center of every flight-free zone created by SFAR 50-2.
    Results from the 1992 survey show that almost 75 percent of fall 
backcountry and river oar visitors who heard aircraft responded that 
they were moderately to extremely annoyed (NPS Report to Congress, Page 
139). The NPS

[[Page 69310]]

did not anticipate this level of annoyance from groups supposedly 
protected by the SFAR and was an important indication to the NPS that 
additional action was needed to protect quiet in the park. For all 
categories of visitors, the stronger category ``interference,'' was 
selected more frequently than the weaker category, ``annoyance.'' Of 
the visitors who heard aircraft, over 90 percent of fall backcountry 
visitors and 100 percent of river oar visitors responded that aircraft 
noise interfered with their appreciation of natural quiet (NPS Report 
to Congress, Page 192). Both the dose-response study and the survey 
found visitor results varied by activity and site.
    Aircraft noise is the subject of the second largest number of 
complaints in the park. Complaints are an indicator that a problem may 
exist, but scientifically valid surveys have been consistently shown to 
be necessary to accurately measure visitor reactions.
    The NPS found that noise from the air tour routes in place under 
SFAR 50-2 is clearly audible (and was measured) from many locations 
within Flight-free zones, accounting for the results cited by some 
commenters. The search for the escaped convict referred to did not 
affect the study which was suspended during that period.
    NPS-contracted acoustic monitoring was conducted with a technician 
recording the type of aircraft observed and measured. The tour flights 
all occurred on standard routes and altitudes and were easy to separate 
from any other aircraft, such as NPS flights and high altitude 
commercial jets. In fact, pages 187-188 of the NPS report to Congress 
provide a breakdown of the amount of time aircraft were audible by 
aircraft type during the study, and also show the variety of sites both 
within flight-free zones and under or near flight corridors.
    In the NPS deliberations that led to development of the survey 
questions the question of inducing bias by the use of terms, or by the 
wording or sequence of questions, was very carefully considered and 
tested before the study. The term ``noise'' was used in the survey 
questionnaires very carefully to allow correlations with the large body 
of aircraft noise research conducted primarily in airport environs. The 
term ``sound'' was used where possible, and the analysis of the 
responses suggested that the terms did not affect the results.
    The data and the modeling on which the proposed rule is based are 
scientifically valid and the best available. The monitoring program 
resulting from this rule will also provide additional data which will 
help to further validate and refine the modeling.
    In formulating the Comprehensive Noise Management Plan for GCNP, 
the FAA and the NPS expect to conduct further research regarding 
visitors' reactions to noise and natural quiet issues to validate the 
current studies and the two agencies' respective modeling systems.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Final Rule

    The following is a brief summary of the major proposals, and the 
comments, received. The FAA's response to those comments and the final 
rule action follow.

Section 93.301 Applicability

    Proposed Sec. 93.301 described the lateral and vertical dimensions 
of the SFRA. Notice 96-11 solicited comments on modifying the 
dimensions of the SFRA by extending the SFRA north-northeast of the 
confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers; extending the 
SFRA southward below the Bright Angel and Desert View Flight-free 
Zones; extending 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; and increasing the altitude of the SFRA ceiling from 
14,499 to 17,999 feet MSL.

Comments

    Heli USA states that the revised SFRA could affect access to the 
Grand Canyon West airport.
    An individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA says that the 
extension of the SFRA to the north-northeast of the Little Colorado and 
Colorado Rivers would introduce air traffic into an area outside the 
current SFRA, over the Marble Canyon and Navajo land, which did not 
have traffic before.
    The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation 
Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association (AOPA) object to the proposed extension of the SFRA 
ceiling. EAA states that the FAA has not presented any information 
showing that any commercial sightseeing aircraft are using or plan to 
use these altitudes. GAMA says that requiring turbo-charged piston-
engine and turboprop turbine-powered aircraft that have optimum 
operating altitudes between 14,500 and 17,000 feet to take alternate 
routes around the SFRA will add considerable costs to implementing the 
rule. AOPA says that the proposed requirement is discriminatory towards 
general aviation because it forces all general aviation flights over 
the Grand Canyon to take place at a higher altitude than flights by 
commercial air tour operators.
    Another commenter says that Notice 96-11 is counter to FAA's 
General Aviation Policy Statement (adopted by the FAA Administrator in 
1995), which calls for fostering general aviation and maintaining 
safety through voluntary compliance and other means to reduce the 
regulatory burden on general aviation.
    Another commenter contends that Notice 96-11 will impact many other 
aircraft who operate across Northern Arizona between 14,500 MSL and the 
base of Class A airspace under VFR. The commenter adds that increasing 
the SFRA altitude would make it impossible to fly over the SFRA without 
obtaining an ATC clearance to operate in Class A airspace.
    The Soaring Society of America, Inc. (SSA) opposes the proposed 
rule as it applies to quiet and unobtrusive civil aircraft such as 
sailplanes and gliders. Since airplane and helicopter sightseeing 
overflights are the perceived cause of the noise problem in the Grand 
Canyon, the SSA believes the regulations should be tailored 
specifically toward such aircraft and the FAA should permit sailplanes 
and gliders to continue to operate under the current SFAR 50-2. SSA 
refers to the Department of the Interior's Report on Effects of 
Aircraft overflights on the National Park System which suggests to that 
society that sailplane ``noise'' is approximately equal to daytime 
ambient noise, therefore nothing will be gained by burdening sailplanes 
and gliders with the proposed rule.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: In 1989, the FAA revised the 
southern boundaries of the SFRA in the West Canyon area to establish a 
corridor to the Grand Canyon West Canyon Airport. This corridor was 
designed to permit access to the airport to assist the economic 
development of the Hualapai tribes. Nothing in this final rule modifies 
the corridor that was established in 1989. The FAA will reserve its 
response to comments regarding specific routes until after the comment 
period closes for the Notice of Proposed Routes.
    Increasing the SFRA ceiling from 14,499 feet MSL upward to but not 
including 18,000 feet MSL is intended to prevent commercial sightseeing 
operators from circumventing the intent of this rule by overflying the 
fly free zones between 14,500 feet MSL and 17,999 feet MSL.

[[Page 69311]]

    The upward expansion of the SFRA does not impose a barrier to 
general aviation aircraft. The effect of the expansion is to regulate 
commercial sightseeing flight operations pursuant to Sec. 93.315 which 
permits only those operations authorized in operations specifications.
    The Grand Canyon attracts an unusual level of air traffic. The FAA 
continues to be concerned that safety could be impacted by the 
concentration of air traffic, including powered and nonpowered aircraft 
over GCNP. Therefore, it opts not to relax SFRA operating requirements 
for sailplanes and gliders. The FAA adopts the SFRA as proposed.

Section 93.305 Flight-Free Zones and Flight Corridors

    Proposed Sec. 93.305 described the lateral and vertical dimensions 
of the proposed flight-free zones; proposed creating two new flight-
free zones: The Sanup Flight-free Zone and the Marble Canyon Flight-
free Zone; proposed merging the Toroweap/Thunder River and Shinumo 
Flight-free Zones and extending this zone to the park boundary; 
proposed expanding Desert View Flight-free Zone to the north and east 
to the GCNP boundary; and proposed extending the current Bright Angel 
Flight-free Zone to the north to the GCNP boundary.
    Proposed Sec. 93.305 also described the five flight corridors that 
allow access through the canyon area for general aviation and transient 
operations and routes for commercial sightseeing flights.
    The FAA proposed to add two new flight corridors in the proposed 
Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone. In addition, the FAA proposed to close 
the Fossil Canyon Corridor, extend the Zuni Point Corridor into a Y-
shape in the north, and shift the southern portion of Dragon Corridor 
to the west. The FAA also proposed that commercial sightseeing aircraft 
would be allowed to operate in only one direction in the Zuni Point 
Corridor.

General Comments on Flight-free Zones and Flight Corridors

    Safety Comments: Several commenters express concerns about safety 
if the proposed rule is implemented. According to these commenters, the 
combination of restricted corridors, changes in route structure, and 
curfews would increase the density of aircraft in the available 
airspace, thereby increasing the potential for a mid-air collision.
    The NTSB commented that the compression of air traffic into smaller 
airspace would limit safe maneuverability in marginal weather 
conditions, funnel air traffic into fewer routes, and in some areas, 
compress slower single-engine airplanes, helicopters, and higher 
performance airplanes into the same airspace. This would increase the 
likelihood of midair collisions in GCNP. The NTSB adds that the FAA 
should systematically analyze the possible effects of the proposed 
changes on air safety and ensure that these results are considered 
before adopting the proposal.
    One commenter disagrees with the claim that the proposed rule would 
create an unsafe environment. The commenter points to the FAA's 1995 
Report to Congress, ``Report on the Study on Increased Air Traffic over 
Grand Canyon National Park,'' which states that it would be highly 
unlikely that operations would ever approach saturation level. The 
commenter also points out that the proposed rule allows pilots to make 
evasive flight maneuvers necessary to maintain safety.
    General Aviation: One commenter objects to the proposed flight-free 
zones because they will effectively ban general aviation from flying 
over the park. The average general aviation aircraft is not equipped to 
operate at the minimum altitudes required by the proposal. According to 
the commenter, the proposed new flight-free areas will prohibit general 
aviation aircraft from flying directly from Las Vegas to either 
Albuquerque or Farmington. The commenter asks that general aviation 
aircraft be allowed to overfly the flight-free areas at altitudes above 
10,499 MSL.
    Native American Tribal Lands: In a statement given at the 
Congressional hearing, representatives of the Havasupai Tribe say that 
a foreseeable result of the proposed changes will push overflights 
south of GCNP resulting in adverse environmental effects. In a comment 
subsequently submitted to the docket, representatives of this Tribe say 
that while reducing the negative impacts of overflights by regulating 
the airspace within the park is worthwhile, the result will be to 
increase aircraft noise outside the park, including the Havasupai 
reservation. The commenter adds that there has been no analysis of the 
environmental effects of these regulations outside the park boundaries 
and that ``the FAA's unjustified rush to action must be slowed.''
    Other General Comments: Two commenters remind the FAA that flight-
free zones are not noise free zones since noise travels 13 to 16 miles; 
nor are they entirely flight free since high flying aircraft still 
overfly them. These commenters point out that while flight corridors 
are necessary, they are not a solution for the noise problem since they 
heavily affect several scenic areas in the park, such as Point 
Imperial, Nankoweap, Cape Final, Unkar, Hermit, Boucher, and Crystal 
Rapids trails.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The comments regarding safety 
express similar concerns: (1) Flight-free zones require changes to 
routes, (2) flight-free zones create smaller available airspace, (3) 
the effect of curfews on the density of air traffic, (4) increased 
possibility of midair collisions because of route changes and combining 
aircraft of differing flight characteristics. Each of these general 
areas of concern will be addressed separately.
    Flight-free zones require changes to routes: The modified and new 
flight-free zones are necessary to comply with the mandate of Public 
Law 100-91 to achieve substantial restoration of the natural quiet in 
GCNP. One of the primary responsibilities of the Las Vegas Flight 
Standards District Office (FSDO), through a special unit, is to provide 
oversight of the commercial sightseeing operators in the Grand Canyon. 
The members of this unit are all highly experienced with this subject 
and have worked closely with the commercial sightseeing operators and 
the NPS. The Notice of Availability of Proposed Air Tour Routes of GCNP 
(Notice of Proposed Routes), which is published simultaneously with 
this final rule, explains how interested persons may obtain detailed 
information on the routes. The FAA will review the comments received 
from the public related to the notice of proposed routes and if 
appropriate, make modifications to the routes.
    Flight free zones create smaller available airspace: The FAA agrees 
with the NTSB that the additional flight-free zones create a smaller 
airspace for air tour aircraft. The NTSB is concerned that the smaller 
airspace may limit ``safe maneuverability in marginal weather 
conditions.'' As in SFAR 50-2, the FAA has specifically included 
language in Sec. 93.305, Flight-free zones, that will allow air tour 
aircraft to fly within the flight-free zones ``in an emergency or if 
otherwise necessary for safety of flight.'' The intent of this language 
is to allow flight into a flight-free zone for any safety reason 
including emergencies. This language will also enable pilots to deviate 
from course to avoid other aircraft and unsafe weather conditions. This 
provision will be liberally construed when applied in the interests of 
safety. This should resolve any concern about the ability of an 
aircraft to maneuver in a smaller available

[[Page 69312]]

airspace. Additionally, the FAA agrees with a commenter that the 
airspace has not approached any unsafe saturation level.
    The effect of curfews on the density of air traffic: The FAA agrees 
that curfews on the west end of GCNP might create a situation whereby 
large numbers of aircraft could attempt to enter the air tour routes at 
the same time and along the same routes. Based on the FAA's safety 
analysis of the air tour flights originating from the Las Vegas area, 
the FAA has decided to exempt the routes beginning on the western end 
of the park from any curfew.
    However, Sec. 93.316(a) prescribes a fixed curfew. Specifically, no 
person shall conduct commercial sightseeing operations within the 
Dragon and Zuni Corridors during the following periods. (1) Summer 
season (May 1-September 30)--6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily; and (2) Winter 
season (October 1-April 30)--5 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily. (See discussion 
later in the document.)
    Increased possibility of midair collisions because of the changes 
and combining aircraft of differing flight characteristics: In light of 
these concerns the FAA will change the flow of traffic along the routes 
on the eastern side of the park (e.g., Dragon corridor) to a clockwise 
direction. This change will prevent conflict with aircraft merging from 
other existing and proposed routes. Also, the clockwise direction was 
designed for other safety reasons. (See discussion/response on Zuni 
Corridor.) More detail is contained in the Notice of Proposed Routes 
that is being published simultaneously with this final rule. Regarding 
combining aircraft of differing flight characteristics, the FAA will 
continue its practice of separating fixed-wing aircraft from rotary-
wing aircraft through altitude restrictions. Experience, cooperation, 
and a proactive partnership developed between the commercial 
sightseeing operators and the FAA resulted in flight procedures that 
are included in the operator's FAA approved operations manual. The FAA 
believes that these established procedures will prevent potential 
conflicts.
    Likewise, for safety, the rule continues to segregate commercial 
sightseeing operations from general aviation/transient operations in 
the SFRA. Commercial operators, under their operations specifications, 
are held to a higher operational proficiency standard that addresses 
the complexities of the route systems, terrain, flight corridors, 
weather norms, etc. It would be unrealistic to impose an equally high 
proficiency standard for the occasional general aviation pilot. 
Therefore, the FAA continues to believe that it is necessary to 
segregate these communities of operators.

General Comments on Commercial Air Tour Routes

    Several commenters state that it is difficult to comment on the 
effects of the proposed changes since the proposed routes are not 
included in Notice 96-11. Nevertheless, the FAA received some general 
comments on potential route changes. Twin Otter says that the FAA has 
not proposed one quieter aircraft route, even though the NPS had 
proposed, in its Report to Congress, that some flight tour routes be 
restricted to ``quiet aircraft only.''
    Southwest Safaris says the helicopter operations have been given 
preferential treatment by the FAA. They are allowed to fly from 500 to 
1,500 feet lower than fixed-wing aircraft and to fly shorter routes in 
the middle of the park. According to the commenter, helicopter tours 
are on the rise and constitute much of the noise problem.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA agrees with the 
comments that the operators should have an opportunity to comment on 
proposed routes. Simultaneously with this final rule, the FAA is 
publishing a Notice of Proposed Routes, which includes the proposed 
tour routes within the Grand Canyon. Operators will have an opportunity 
to comment on the proposed routes. The FAA will reserve its response to 
comments regarding specific routes until after the comment period 
closes for the Notice of Proposed Routes.
    Regarding routes for ``quiet aircraft,'' simultaneously with the 
final rule, the FAA is publishing an NPRM, Noise Limitations for 
Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, 
which proposes certain routes that will be limited to noise efficient 
aircraft only.
    The FAA disagrees with the comment that helicopter operations have 
been given preferential treatment. Regarding altitude, the FAA's long-
standing policy is to separate helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft 
because the two classes of aircraft generally have vastly different 
flight characteristics. Traditionally helicopters, normally slower and 
more maneuverable than fixed-wing aircraft, have been allowed to fly 
lower. The FAA intends to continue this safety rationale.

Comments on Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone--Navajo Bridge and North 
Canyon Corridors

    Three commenters support the Marble Canyon Flight-free Zone. The 
Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter states that the flight-free zone would 
be of particular benefit, particularly to fishers and river runners, 
and believes that the rim rather than the river bank should be the 
eastern boundary of the flight-free zone.
    Another commenter suggests that the proposed Marble Canyon Flight-
free Zone be modified to protect significant locations such as Blue 
Spring or other sacred places in the Little Colorado vicinity. Also, 
according to the commenter, no flights should be allowed over popular 
side canyon attractions such as North Canyon, South Canyon, Silver 
Grotto, and Saddle Canyon.
    EAA states that the top of all three sections of this flight-free 
zone should be reduced from 14,000 to 8,500 feet MSL to allow general 
aviation flights between Las Vegas, Nevada and Farmington, New Mexico.
    Twin Otter states that the flight-free zone is too small to be 
meaningful and would eliminate a popular air tour route.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA has reconsidered its 
proposal for the Marble Canyon flight-free zone in light of the 
comments received. The FAA has determined that the proposed flight-free 
zone would provide only a minimal noise mitigation benefit because of 
the narrow dimensions. In addition, the FAA agrees that the proposed 
zone could have impacted general aviation flights between Las Vegas and 
Farmington. Therefore, the final rule eliminates the Marble Canyon 
Flight-free Zone.
    However, the FAA is modifying the minimum sector altitude for this 
area. (See discussion under Sec. 93.307, Minimum Flight Altitudes.)

Comments on Desert View Flight-free Zone and Zuni Point Corridor

    Several commenters state that making Zuni Point Corridor one-way 
may present safety problems due to inclement weather and unexpected 
weather changes in the north canyon. GCATA states that because of the 
lack of a weather reporting station on the north rim, tour pilots 
proceeding through the Zuni Point Corridor will be required to make 
weather decisions in the vicinity of the ``Y'' on what direction to 
proceed.
    Papillon states that the noise problem over the area between the 
Little Colorado River confluence and Imperial Point has been 
exacerbated by the piston-driven single and multiengine six to nine 
passenger airplanes. To clear the north rim, these airplanes climb. 
When entering the canyon via Zuni Point

[[Page 69313]]

Corridor, these types of airplanes should enter at a higher level, thus 
eliminating the noisy climb configuration.
    The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter supports the enlargement of 
the Desert View Flight-free Zone (as does NPCA) but states that the 
Zuni Northwest Corridor cuts though the Critical Noise Sensitive Area 
that has Point Imperial at its center. This corridor is also a problem 
for users of the Saddle Mountain-Nankoweap Basin area. The Sierra Club-
Angeles Chapter believes that the proposal should close Zuni Point 
Corridor because it impacts at least six trails, four permanent stream 
basins, important archaeological and historical sites, and Papago 
Point, the only major point on the south rim where one could formerly 
find solitude and escape the sounds of auto traffic.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: Concurrent with the publication 
of this final rule, the FAA is publishing a Notice of Proposed Routes 
discussing route structures and directions of flights. The FAA will 
consider pertinent comments received in response to Notice 96-11 
regarding routes, as well as any additional comments submitted in 
response to the Notice of Proposed Routes. In response to the perceived 
safety problems regarding weather, the FAA will route traffic in a 
clockwise fashion through the Dragon and Zuni Corridors. This flow will 
allow operators to better observe weather conditions around the North 
Rim so as to avoid encountering adverse weather condition in the 
vicinity of the North Rim, e.g., high winds, low visibility, 
turbulence, etc. The FAA believes this flow will enhance safety by 
pilots having the opportunity to take appropriate actions to avoid 
these conditions. Noise mitigation will be an additional benefit, as 
aircraft will no longer be climbing as they pass near Point Imperial.

Comments on Bright Angel Flight-free Zone, Zuni Point, and Dragon 
Corridors

    NPCA notes that the NPS has estimated that the one-way 
restructuring of the Zuni Point Corridor will add 3,800 operations into 
the Dragon Corridor. Some commenters object to the northern extension 
of Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. Two other commenters say that the 
northern extension will lengthen the distance of the Grand Discovery 
Tour by 20 percent, which will increase operator costs and require 
operators to fly over the highest points of the north rim, resulting in 
frequent weather cancellations.
    The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter supports the enlargement of 
the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. Twin Otter and Grand Canyon Airlines 
recommend that the Dragon Corridor be converted within 2 years to a 
quiet airplane flight corridor. The commenters also recommend that the 
FAA define what operating characteristics an airplane model must have 
in order for it to conduct round-trip air tours within Dragon Corridor 
and then immediately permit such fixed-wing air tours within this 
corridor (just as the FAA now permits out-and-back helicopter tours).
    Grand Canyon Airlines states that SFAR 50-2 management policies 
have encouraged rotorcraft operators to concentrate on Dragon Corridor 
tours. Since 1994, when helicopter operators began concentrating their 
tours within the Dragon Corridor, Grand Canyon Airlines has conducted 
35 percent fewer air tours in this area. This commenter wants to be 
permitted to conduct similar round-trip Dragon Corridor tours to remain 
competitive if the FAA adopts the extension of the north rim air tour 
route.
    Grand Canyon River Guides believes that the out-and-back helicopter 
route into Dragon Corridor should be abolished. This route allows 
helicopters to offer a shorter trip which is similar in cost to the 
least expensive tour of the larger, quieter fixed wing operators which 
carry more people with much less impact. According to the commenter, 
this shorter route is causing a very negative trend as noticed by the 
increased helicopter traffic on the Dragon Corridor with each passing 
year.
    NATA is pleased that Notice 96-11 establishes the dog-leg within 
the Dragon Corridor because it would route air traffic away from the 
only location on the rim of the canyon where air tours and ground 
visitors interact. Papillon also agrees with the proposed change to 
relocate the south end of Dragon Corridor to the west.
    USATA contends that the current routes that air tour operators fly 
encompass only 17 percent of the entire park. With the Dragon Corridor 
``dog leg,'' the front country areas of the park (where 99 percent of 
all ground users visit) would be 100 percent protected from air tour 
noise. If flights were to double or even quadruple, one could expect 
the number of aircraft seen or heard to remain well within reason at a 
maximum of less than one aircraft per hour.
    The Sierra Club--Grand Canyon Chapter, NPCA, and Grand Canyon River 
Guides do not support the changes to Bright Angel and Toroweap-Shinumo 
Flight-free Zones to accommodate the Dragon Corridor dog leg. They 
argue that these changes would degrade a portion of the park on the 
south rim that is currently relatively quiet. This area includes 
Havasupai Point. The Sierra Club suggests extension of the southwest 
corner of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone (from 36 deg.09'31'' N, 
112 deg.11'15'' W; to approximately 36 deg.02'35'' N, 112 deg.14'30'' 
W; then southeast along the GCNP boundary).
    The Sierra Club also points out that the seventh point 
(36 deg.01'16'' N, 112 deg.11'39'' W) should be approximately 
36 deg.00'58'' N, 112 deg.11'45'' W.
    AOPA says that changes to the Dragon Corridor could make navigation 
extremely difficult and increase the chance that a pilot could 
inadvertently transgress into a flight-free zone.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: Flight-free zones are being 
expanded and/or modified to aid the substantial restoration of the 
natural quiet, as mandated by Public Law 100-91. As stated by Senator 
John McCain in the legislative history of Public Law 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).
    The FAA agrees that there should be incentives for operators to 
convert to noise efficient aircraft in the Dragon Corridor; those 
incentives are addressed in the NPRM being published simultaneously 
with this final rule.
    The FAA agrees with the Sierra Club that the Bright Angel Flight-
free Zone boundary description is incorrect, and corrects it in this 
action.
    The FAA has adopted the proposed shift to the west in the Dragon 
Corridor (the ``dog-leg'') because it provides important noise 
mitigation to the Hermit's Basin Region and presents no safety 
concerns. This action responds to requests made by both the majority of 
the operators and NPS. By leaving the Dragon Corridor open, this action 
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 Public Law 
100-91 indicates that it was not the intent of the legislation to

[[Page 69314]]

ban aircraft from overflying the Grand Canyon.
    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.
    The corridors will remain 2 nautical miles wide for commercial 
sightseeing operations and 4 nautical miles wide for general aviation 
and transient operations. The addition of a bend or ``dog-leg'' in the 
Dragon Corridor will make navigating the corridor a bit more involved 
but will be manageable. The revised Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart 
will contain latitude/longitude and VFR check points to assist pilots 
navigating in the area. Specifically, the corridor centerline and 
``turn-point'' will be identified electronically via latitude/longitude 
coordinates. The ``turn-point'' will be identified by VOR/DME 
information from the Grand Canyon VOR. And the corridor and ``turn-
point'' will be identified by topographic features as well.

Comments on Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone and Tuckup Corridor

    Several commenters state that the extension of the Toroweap/Thunder 
River Flight-free Zone and the merger of Toroweap/Thunder River with 
the Shinumo Flight-free Zone will eliminate certain routes, thus 
reducing scenic viewing while extending tour times. One commenter adds 
that this extension is meaningless because air tour aircraft diverting 
around National Canyon will still be audible since the flight-free 
extension is too small for effective noise attenuation.
    An individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA states that 
the expansion of Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone will block flight 
departures on the Brown 3 route from the Bar 10 airstrip which provides 
river runner support to the Hualapai Tribe.
    Several commenters support expansion of the Toroweap/Shinumo 
Flight-free Zone and recommend that it be extended even farther back 
from the south rim to reduce the visual and noise intrusions from air 
tours. The Sierra Club--Grand Canyon Chapter states this is necessary 
to address the concern that air tours will fly just outside the flight-
free zone boundary over the river corridor. They add that the existing 
flight-free zone located within a 1.5 nautical mile radius of the 
Toroweap overlook is inadequate and should be expanded.
    The Sierra Club points out an error in the flight-free zone: the 
second point (112 deg.3'19'' W) should be 112 deg.13'19'' W and the 
third point (36 deg.02'' N) should be 36 deg.20'02'' N.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: In analyzing the commenters' 
statements on the extension of the southern boundary, the FAA believes 
that the commenters are referring to the Blue 1 route. The FAA is 
soliciting comments in the NPRM that is published simultaneously with 
this rule regarding the feasibility of limiting a portion of the Blue 1 
route in the National Canyon to noise efficient aircraft.
    In response to comments regarding routes, the FAA will consider 
pertinent comments received in response to Notice 96-11, as well as any 
additional comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed 
Routes.
    Any further expansion of the Toroweap Flight-free Zone will need to 
be considered in the context of the Comprehensive Noise Management 
Plan.
    The FAA disagrees that the rule will result in an adverse effect on 
the safe operation of the Bar 10 airstrip or black river runner 
flights.
    The FAA agrees with the Sierra Club that the Toroweap/Shinumo 
Flight-free Zone boundary description is incorrect, and corrects it in 
this action.
    The FAA will reserve its response to comments regarding the Brown 3 
commercial sightseeing tour route until after the comment period closes 
for the Notice of Proposed Routes.

Comments on Sanup Flight-Free Zone

    The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter supports the new Sanup Flight-
free Zone. The chapter suggests that boundaries be changed to give some 
protection to the Shivwits Rim and Sanup Plateau.
    AOPA states that the new Sanup Flight-free Zone would force an 
increase in the minimum enroute altitude for Victor Airway 235 from 
10,000 to 14,500 feet MSL between Peach Springs and Mormon Mesa 
navigational aids; that portion of the airway would be unusable by 
general aviation aircraft. One commenter feels that this increase would 
adversely affect safety and cause burdensome requirements for oxygen 
equipment because of the increased altitude.
    EAA wants the ceiling of the flight-free zone lowered for general 
aviation operations from 14,000 to 8,500 MSL. This change would 
accommodate general aviation flights between Las Vegas and Albuquerque.
    The FAA also received several comments regarding the possible 
impacts of the proposed Sanup Flight-free Zone on commercial 
sightseeing tour routes.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: After analyzing the impact on 
VFR and IFR traffic, the FAA has adopted the Sanup Flight-free Zone. 
However, the vertical limits of the Sanup Flight-free Zone will be at 
7,999 feet MSL. This will accommodate general aviation aircraft 
operations between Las Vegas and Albuquerque. By lowering the vertical 
limit of this flight-free zone, the minimum enroute altitude for V-235 
remains unchanged.
    In response to comments regarding routes, the FAA will consider 
pertinent comments received in response to Notice 96-11, as well as any 
additional comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed 
Routes.

Comments on Elimination of Fossil Corridor

    GCATC states that the closure of the Fossil Canyon Corridor could 
possibly bring an end to Las Vegas-based air tours of GCNP. Although 
the FAA claims that only a low amount of traffic goes through this 
corridor, in fact most Las Vegas-based operators conduct air tours over 
the Blue 1 route which traverses the Fossil Canyon Corridor and 
adjacent lands. If this corridor were to close, the 200-mile air tour 
route from Las Vegas to Tusayan would include only approximately 20 
miles over less striking portions of the Grand Canyon, including only 4 
miles over GCNP. Such a decrease in Grand Canyon overflight would 
virtually eliminate the demand for such flights.
    The individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA says that the 
Hualapai Tribe utilizes the Brown 1A route to support river runner 
traffic across Kaibab Plateau, which will be eliminated by the closure 
of the Fossil Corridor, as will the Blue 1A route be eliminated due to 
closure of the Fossil Corridor.
    The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter and Grand Canyon River Guides 
support closing the Fossil Canyon Corridor.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA recognizes that closing 
Fossil Canyon Corridor will affect some air tour routes. However, this 
action is necessary to aid in the goal of substantially restoring 
natural quiet to the park, as mandated by Public Law 100-91. The FAA 
believes, based on its 1995 survey of air tour operators and the routes 
that they fly, that Fossil Canyon Corridor is not heavily used for 
commercial sightseeing purposes and

[[Page 69315]]

those few operators who use it will have alternate routes available.
    In response to comments regarding routes, the FAA will consider 
pertinent comments received in response to Notice 96-11, as well as any 
additional comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed 
Routes.

Section 93.307  Minimum Flight Altitudes

    Proposed Sec. 93.307 set forth different minimum altitudes in 
sectors and corridors for commercial sightseeing operations and 
transient and general aviation operations to separate these operations 
to the maximum extent practical. Notice 96-11 solicited comments 
concerning minimum altitudes for Navajo Bridge Corridor at 5,000 feet 
MSL for commercial tour operations and 8,000 feet MSL for general 
aviation and transient operations.

Comments on Minimum Flight Altitudes

    The Northern California Aviation Users Working Group (NCAUWG) says 
that the NPS did not comply with Public Law 100-91 because it did not 
establish the ``proper minimum altitude which should be maintained by 
aircraft when flying over units of the National Park System.''
    Kenai Helicopters, Inc. states that although Notice 96-11 does not 
change many of the minimum altitudes through the flight corridors, 
serious consideration for lower altitudes, coupled with noise 
attenuating flight procedures and maneuvers, should be analyzed in 
order to restore quiet in the flight-free zones in the best way.
    The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter states that Notice 96-11 will 
not prevent flights below the canyon rim. This commenter suggests that 
the minimum flight altitude between Boundary Ridge and Supai be raised 
to 10,500 feet MSL to prevent aircraft from flying below the rim at 
Point Imperial, and that the FAA verify minimum flight altitudes for 
the entire SFRA to prevent below rim flights.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA does not agree with 
these comments. The NPS Report to Congress concluded that establishing 
a simple minimum altitude for aircraft overflights over all units of 
the National Park System was neither feasible nor necessary. Instead it 
recommended that all reasonable methods and tools be used in issue 
resolution: voluntary agreements, quiet aircraft incentives, spatial 
zoning, altitude restrictions, operations specifications, and limits on 
time of operation. Public Law 100-91 mandated much more than an 
appropriate minimum overflight altitude for GCNP. Specifically, section 
3 required the FAA to prepare and issue a comprehensive airspace 
management plan, which in part provided for provisions prohibiting 
below rim flights and designation of flight-free zones. Section 3 of 
Public Law 100-91 prohibits the flight of aircraft below the rim of the 
Canyon. Consequently, Kenai Helicopters, Inc.'s suggestion is not 
appropriate. Finally, the FAA believes the clockwise flow through the 
Zuni and Dragon Corridors will preclude aircraft from flying below the 
rim at Point Imperial.
    In order to simplify the northeast sector of the SFRA, the FAA has 
combined the Marble Canyon and the North Canyon sector into one sector 
and renamed this section the Marble Canyon Sector. This sector will 
have a minimum sector altitude of 8,000 MSL.

Section 93.316  Limitations for Commercial Sightseeing Operations

    The FAA proposed several additional methods to help achieve the 
objective of restoring natural quiet. One such method was flight-free 
periods (curfews). Proposed Sec. 93.316(a) provided for both a fixed 
curfew and a variable curfew.

Comments on Fixed and Variable Curfews

    A number of commenters (e.g., Twin Otter, HAI, Kenai Helicopters, 
an individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA) say that curfews 
could create significant congestion and safety problems as air tour 
operators reschedule aircraft to arrive at the edge of the SFRA at the 
same time.
    GCATA states that GCNP Airport will have a major traffic problem 
with all Las Vegas operators arriving at the same time for one runway 
of operations. Also, since all helicopter operators have moved to the 
Airport, they will be ready for their initial launch of the business 
day. GCATA asks which operator will get priority, and says that the 
number of flights could create havoc for the tower operators at the 
Airport. Another problem is that all airplanes arrive from the west and 
helicopters will be departing on the east side. GCATA asks how the 
tower operators would handle this. The commenter believes that the 
curfews will push airports to their maximum operation and questions if 
this is safe.
    According to Las Vegas McCarran Airport, the majority of air tour 
operators operate by ``banking'' Grand Canyon air tour flights. In 
other words, based on passenger demand during a given period, each 
operator departs a number of aircraft more or less simultaneously from 
an origin airport to perform Grand Canyon air tours.
    This commenter states that, under the fixed curfew, peak operations 
in the SFRA are anticipated to occur between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. Under 
the variable curfew, total operations are anticipated to increase 
substantially from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. In addition, for airports in 
the Las Vegas region, a total of 60 Grand Canyon air tour operations 
would be affected by the proposed fixed curfew, and 99 by the proposed 
variable curfew. These aircraft operations would be required to alter 
the existing times of operations to non-curfew hours, or operate on the 
Blue Direct route, which is not considered an air tour route and not 
subject to the restrictions proposed in either curfew alternative.
    Several commenters are concerned about the economic impact of 
curfews. Heli USA states that the proposed curfews would eliminate 20 
percent of its flights and cause severe economic problems.
    GCATC says that the FAA's estimate of $6.6 million in annual loss 
of revenue, as a result of fixed curfews, is underestimated because: 
(1) The FAA states that all losses would be incurred in the summer 
season (May 1-September 30), wrongly assuming that all flights during 
the winter season (October 1-April 30) can be rescheduled. Although 
rescheduling of some winter flights may be possible, the flexibility of 
both air tour operators and passengers is limited and, consequently, 
not all passenger groups can be accommodated under FAA's proposed 
restricted operating hours. (2) The proposed fixed curfew forces air 
tour operators to begin tours substantially later and end them 
substantially earlier than under the dusk-to-dawn flight period 
currently allowed. For some months, the FAA's proposal may shorten 
available flight time by 25 to 33 percent, causing operators to lose 
multiple flights on a daily basis.
    Comments from the Grand Canyon Trust state that the FAA's 
assessment of the costs of basic curfews is fundamentally flawed in 
that it makes no attempt to anticipate how mismatches between supply 
and demand are likely to be resolved in the marketplace. Given that 
Grand Canyon tours are once-in-a-lifetime experiences, and that roughly 
60 percent of all visitors are foreigners for whom sightseeing tours 
are only one part of a more extensive vacation package, consumers are 
more likely to be relatively price insensitive, particularly at the 
margin. This implies that operators will likely be able to more

[[Page 69316]]

than offset revenue losses resulting from the flight curfews proposed 
by the FAA. The commenter suggests that the near-term response of air 
tour operators to the regulation is likely to be a modest shift in 
prices upward which will allow them to recover the revenues lost due to 
canceled flight operations. Over the longer term, operators will be 
able to replace their existing aircraft with larger, higher capacity 
aircraft, thereby restoring the balance between supply and demand, 
gradually bringing down prices and restoring market equilibrium. The 
overall impact on the industry will likely be negligible, the commenter 
suggests. GCATA states that variable curfews will be unworkable because 
operators will not be able to handle advance reservations without 
knowing if a corridor will be open or shut.
    Papillon states that variable flight-free periods would be 
unacceptable because most air tour passengers must fly in the early or 
late part of the day and most book their flights 3 to 6 months in 
advance. The variable flight-free periods would eliminate approximately 
80 percent of the flight revenue of operations originating at the GCNP 
Airport.
    An individual from the Navajo Area Office of the BIA says that 
curfews could create negative impacts to all three Native American 
tribes in the GCNP vicinity and recommends a specific exemption to 
Native American tribes for any flights sanctioned by such Native 
American tribes over their own lands. Alternatively, if tribes' 
commercial operations are considered as governmental flights, they 
should be exempted from the SFAR restrictions.
    The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter states that intrusive noise is 
particularly annoying during the morning and evening hours and that 
flight-free hours should not be considered a substitute for actual 
restoration of natural quiet. This commenter recommends flight-free 
months as well as flight-free periods that would coincide with engine-
free raft periods on the river.
    Another commenter states that curfew times should be adjusted 
monthly or on a seasonal basis, and that a time of 2 or 3 hours before 
sunset would be a better compromise, because tourists particularly 
enjoy the canyon rims and along the river in the late afternoon and 
evening light.
    Two commenters recommend fixed curfews over variable curfews. Grand 
Canyon River Guides states that, since the variable curfews would 
require further data and analysis that could not be accomplished before 
the end of 1996, the proposed rule should focus on fixed curfews. NPCA 
believes that variable curfews will take too long to implement. If some 
tour operators opt for quiet technology while the monitoring is being 
conducted, it will skew the monitoring results and reward those 
operators that did not upgrade their equipment. NPCA still supports 
noise monitoring in consideration of possible curfews for the 
Comprehensive Noise Management Plan. The NPCA thus recommends the 
seasonal fixed curfew.
    Papillon states that air tours originating in the east end of the 
canyon normally commence one hour after sunrise and terminate 
approximately one hour before sunset. The commenter states that present 
operations basically comply with the proposed fixed curfews and that 
for 6 months of the year, there are no flights for more than 80 percent 
of the time. Thus, Papillon recommends no fixed curfews for flights 
originating out of GCNP airport to the east end of the canyon.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: The FAA agrees that curfews on 
the west end of GCNP might create a situation whereby large numbers of 
aircraft attempt to enter the air tour routes at the same time and 
along the same routes. Based on the FAA's safety analysis of the air 
tour flights originating from the Las Vegas area, the FAA has decided 
to exempt the routes beginning on the western end of the park from any 
curfew. This should eliminate any impacts on Native American tribes.
    However, Sec. 93.316(a) of the final rule prescribes a fixed 
curfew. Specifically, no person shall conduct commercial sightseeing 
operations within the Dragon and Zuni Corridors during the following 
periods. (1) Summer season (May 1-September 30)--6 p.m. to 8 a.m. 
daily; and (2) Winter season (October 1-April 30)--5 p.m. to 9 a.m. 
daily.
    The FAA has determined that the curfew will increase natural quiet 
during sunset and sunrise in the most heavily visited portions of GCNP, 
in the eastern portion of the park. The NPS identified these areas as 
among the most sensitive parts of the park and these times as when 
visitors are especially sensitive to noise impacts. Consequently, the 
fixed curfew makes an important contribution to substantially restoring 
natural quiet on a daily basis and mitigating noise impacts on the 
experience of the park visitors in this portion of the Canyon.
    This section of the final rule also responds to the President's 
Memorandum of April 22, 1996, charging the Secretary of Transportation 
to issue regulations for GCNP that immediately reduce noise and make 
further substantial progress toward the restoration of natural quiet, 
as defined by the Secretary of the Interior.
    The FAA does not agree that the imposition of a curfew will unduly 
impact air traffic operations at Grand Canyon National Park Airport. 
The FAA believes that there are sufficient air traffic control (ATC) 
procedures to manage those aircraft operating to and from the Grand 
Canyon National Park Airport, as well as those aircraft transiting the 
Class D airspace area. These aircraft will continue to receive ATC 
service on a first-come-first-served basis and, if needed, traffic 
management procedures will be developed and instituted.

Cap on Commercial Sightseeing Operations

Proposed Cap

    Proposed Sec. 93.316(b) set forth a temporary moratorium on 
increased commercial sightseeing flights. The proposal limited each 
operator in 1997 and 1998 to the number of monthly operations equal to 
the monthly operations in the base year August 1, 1995, through July 
31, 1996.

Comments on the Proposed Cap

    GCATA states that basing the number of monthly operations on the 
period August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996 may not work since some 
operators may have encountered a down year; rather an average of the 
last three years should be used.
    Papillon, Twin Otter, and Grand Canyon Airlines state that capping 
flights regardless of type of aircraft would not provide an incentive 
to convert to quiet technology, and that caps should only apply to 
aircraft of conventional sound signature.
    The NTSB says that the proposed caps are discussed almost 
exclusively from the perspective of aircraft noise. The NTSB says that 
the FAA must also analyze the possible safety impacts of the caps.
    GCATC responds to the FAA's suggestions on measures to offset 
revenue losses from caps, i.e., using larger aircraft; raising 
commercial sightseeing tour prices; rescheduling flights; and diverting 
some aircraft to other revenue producing uses. GCATC says that the 
operations cap will provide no incentive for operators to invest in 
larger aircraft because it will prevent operators from recouping their 
investment in an economically feasible time period; operators are 
constrained in their ability to raise prices because the demand for 
GCNP air tour operators is relatively elastic; rescheduling flights

[[Page 69317]]

has no effect on increasing revenue when the number of flights an 
operator may fly is limited artificially by regulation; and air tour 
operators would already be using their aircraft for other purposes if 
it were economically worthwhile to do so.
    A number of commenters (e.g., NPCA, Sierra Club-Grand Canyon 
Chapter, Wilderness Society, Grand Canyon Trust) say that basing the 
caps on the number of flights in 1995-96 will not restore the natural 
quiet and that the caps are too temporary. These commenters recommend 
that, since Congress identified the overflight problem in 1987, and the 
flight rate since then has dramatically increased, the FAA should use 
the 1987 operation levels to determine the caps. In addition, the 
maximum caps should be permanent. The Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter 
and NPCA also recommend that the flight caps be in effect until 
completion and implementation of the comprehensive noise management 
plan.
    Comments from the Grand Canyon Trust state the FAA's assumptions 
that any type of cap, whether it is on operators, aircraft, passengers, 
or air tours, will have identical effect is erroneous. Air tour 
operators can be expected to adjust their pricing structures, aircraft 
fleets, and tour offerings to maximize net operating revenues under 
whichever system of caps is adopted. Consequently, the commenter 
suggests that the actual economic cost of caps to the industry is 
likely to be small.
    Grand Canyon River Guides says that since tour operators were 
mandated to report and pay for their use of airspace during the base 
year, those figures should be used by the NPS and the FAA to determine 
the allocation levels; operators who may have been avoiding user fees 
by underreporting their operations should not receive any special 
consideration. This commenter recommends that, once operational 
limitations are in place, the FAA should require that any new aircraft 
be quieter than those being replaced, and that, as this shift occurs, 
the number of aircraft should not be allowed to increase.
    Kenai Helicopters proposes that any cap on air tour operators 
should grandfather the current operators, of whom many have made 
sizable investments in aircraft and facilities to meet the market 
demand. Many of these facilities are located on lands with long term 
(20-25 years) leases that necessitate long term operation potential to 
stay in business.
    Heli USA states that since a large majority of the air carriers 
operating tours in GCNP are either new or have not reached the capacity 
of business to pay for their investment, caps based on historical 
records would be unfair.
    Twin Otter and Grand Canyon Airlines state that setting operations 
caps raises serious administrative problems. For example, Twin Otter 
says that the ``use or lose'' rules which apply to air carrier slots 
would not work at the Grand Canyon since air tour schedules are 
seasonal and subject to revisions and cancellations for weather. This 
commenter says that the only fair alternative would be a slot market 
mechanism like that used to allocate restricted capacity at the High 
Density Rule airports.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: In the final rule 
Sec. 93.316(b) establishes a cap on commercial sightseeing aircraft 
that can operate in the SFRA. Specifically, this section states that no 
person may operate more commercial sightseeing aircraft in the Special 
Flight Rules Area than the highest number of aircraft that appeared on 
the certificate holder's operations specifications, and that were used 
for commercial sightseeing operations in the Grand Canyon Special 
Flight Rules Area, between July 31, 1996 and December 31, 1996.
    NPS modeling suggested that between 1988 and 1994, that part of the 
park experiencing a substantial restoration of natural quiet declined 
from 43 to 31 percent. The modeling further suggested that by 2010 this 
area would decline to about only 10 percent of the park. Because the 
FAA and NPS concur that the best way to address the current erosion of 
natural quiet and achieve the substantial restoration of natural quiet 
is through reducing noise at the source (i.e. quieter aircraft), a cap 
is an interim measure needed to prevent a worsening of the situation 
prior to implementation of the noise limitations proposed in the NPRM 
published simultaneously with this final rule. The combination of the 
final rule and the noise limitations in the NPRM will make possible the 
substantial restoration of natural quiet mandated by Public Law 100-91.
    This section of the final rule also responds to the President's 
Memorandum of April 22, 1996, charging the Secretary of Transportation 
to issue regulations for GCNP that place appropriate limits on 
sightseeing aircraft over GCNP to reduce the noise immediately and make 
further substantial progress toward restoration of natural quiet, as 
defined by the Secretary of Interior.

Section 93.317  Commercial Sightseeing Flight Reporting Requirements

    Proposed Sec. 93.317 established commercial sightseeing flight 
reporting requirements. As proposed, during the 5-year period following 
May 1, 1997, each certificate holder would 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.

Comments on Commercial Sightseeing Flight Reporting Requirements

    Two operators state that the reporting requirements would be 
oppressive and burdensome, and the costs associated with this 
requirement would be passed on to air tour customers. One of these 
commenters recommends that if a report is necessary, it should only 
require date, departure point, and total number of operations by route.
    Grand Canyon River Guides says that, compared with the paperwork 
already necessary to keep pilots and aircraft current, the additional 
burden of recordkeeping in Notice 96-11 is minor, particularly since 
operators probably already are keeping track of such things.
    FAA Response and Final Rule Action: Commercial tour operators were 
required by SFAR 50-1 to obtain a Part 135 air carrier operating 
certificate. The existing reporting requirements under Part 135 for 
operators using multiengine aircraft would capture the information 
required by this rule. The FAA believes that any recordkeeping burden 
imposed by this rule will be minor and related to copying the 
information into an FAA format. The required information is needed to 
provide accurate information on GCNP overflights for noise and safety 
management purposes, to help validate noise models, to determine where 
noise mitigation is needed, and to provide the basis for more flexible 
noise management system. The recordkeeping requirements in the final 
rule therefore are as proposed.

Environmental Review

    The FAA conducted an abbreviated scoping process and prepared a 
Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed rule to assure 
conformance with the National Environmental Policy

[[Page 69318]]

Act of 1969 and all applicable environmental laws. Copies of the Draft 
EA were circulated to interested parties and placed in the Docket, 
where it was available for review. The Notice of Availability of the 
Draft EA was issued on August 21, 1996. The original 45-day comment 
period, which was scheduled to close on October 4, was extended until 
November 18, 1996. Based upon the Draft EA and careful review of the 
public comments, the FAA has determined that a finding of no 
significant impact (FONSI) is warranted. The final EA and the FONSI 
were issued on December 24, 1996. Copies have been placed in the public 
docket for this rulemaking, have been circulated to interested parties, 
and may be inspected at the same time and location as the final rule.
    This final rule constitutes final agency action under 49 U.S.C. 
46110. Any party to this proceeding, having a substantial interest may 
appeal the order to the courts of appeals of the United States or the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upon 
petition, filed within 60 days after entry of this Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Any changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect 
of regulatory changes on international trade. A regulatory evaluation 
of the proposal is in the docket.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
Final Rule will be ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
the Executive Order and the Department of Transportation Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. However, this rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The final rulemaking will not have a significant impact on 
international trade. There may be some increase in the U.S. balance-of-
payments account as a result of a decrease in foreign expenditures on 
GCNP tours.

Introduction

    To assist the NPS effort to measure aircraft noise levels in GCNP, 
the Las Vegas Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) conducted a field 
survey of all operators certificated to provide commercial sightseeing 
air 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 air tour route within the GCNP SFRA. This 
information was further broken down for each type of commercial air 
tour 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 air 
tour sightseeing operators as routes flown.
    To determine the different kinds of commercial sightseeing air 
tours as well as to estimate the total number of commercial sightseeing 
air tours, commercial air tour sightseeing passengers, and commercial 
air tour sightseeing revenue for GCNP, the FAA, utilizing known 
passenger seating capacities of each type of aircraft used by GCNP 
commercial air tour sightseeing operators, cross referenced the Las 
Vegas FSDO field survey detail with tour and cost information as 
provided in Grand Canyon commercial air tour sightseeing brochures. The 
estimates derived from this cross referencing form the basis from which 
the FAA developed the cost estimates for this final rulemaking.

Response to Comments on the Original Regulatory Evaluation

    The FAA held public meetings in September 1996 at Scottsdale, AZ 
and Las Vegas, NV where additional comments were offered and later 
submitted to the docket. These comments have also been included in the 
following discussion.
    In addition to the individual comments, the FAA received 
approximately 60 comments from industry and tourism associations (e.g., 
the Grand Canyon Air Tour Council, Grand Canyon Air Tourism 
Association, National Air Transportation Association, and the United 
States Air Tour Association); environmental groups (e.g., Grand Canyon 
Trust and the Sierra Club); major GCNP air tour operators; certain 
Federal Agencies (National Park Service, Small Business 
Administration); and Indian Tribes (Hualapai and Havasupai). Some of 
the more substantive comments also include commissioned studies in 
support of their position. Many of the comments with more substantive 
economic and analytical content however, were also offered by the 
associations and operators as testimony at the public hearings, and are 
summarizes below. A full summary of all the comments can be found in 
the Preamble.
    Typically, the comments from GCNP air tour operators and associated 
trade associations emphasized the negative economic impact the FAA NPRM 
would have on the overall GCNP air tour industry. Of particular note, 
several commenters took exception to the FAA assumption that GCNP air 
tour operators' capital and labor resources were relatively mobile, 
i.e., the GCNP air tour operator could readily relocate his business to 
another area of the United States. This concept unfortunately, was 
poorly worded and misconstrued. The FAA has some information that some 
commercial air tour sightseeing operators, SFAR 50-2 Tour Route Usage 
Report, reported such a small volume of commercial air tour sightseeing 
operations in GCNP as to indicate that the conducting of commercial 
sightseeing air tours in GCNP was only a part of their overall 
business. The implication was intended to convey mobility between the 
operators' GCNP commercial sightseeing air tours and their operations 
in other non-GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing ventures, presumably 
while remaining within the GCNP environs. It was not intended to 
suggest that GCNP operators in general, or in total, could simply start 
up their commercial air tour sightseeing ventures elsewhere in the 
United States. The FAA has refined this assumption in the final 
regulatory evaluation.
    Comments were received with regard to certain general economic 
issues such as (1) locality or market differentiation (e.g., the Las 
Vegas/Southern Nevada economy as compared with the Tusayan/Northern 
Arizona economy); (2) the ``trickle-down'' or multiplier effect; and 
(3) the internationalism of GCNP tourism. Several commenters note that 
the NPRM neglected to take into consideration that the majority of the 
growth associated with GCNP commercial sightseeing air tours derives 
from the significant growth of Las Vegas, and that the West and East 
ends of GCNP are analytically distinguishable. The FAA notes that the 
growth rate utilized in the NPRM regulatory evaluation was derived from 
a composite of the tower operations of four Las Vegas vicinity airports 
and

[[Page 69319]]

those of Tusayan as reported in the 1994 Tower Activity Forecast (TAF). 
The compound annual rate of growth of 3.3 percent, therefore, accounts 
for the different rates of growth at the West and East ends of GCNP. 
The FAA believes this growth rate is representative of the growth rate 
of GCNP. Nevertheless, the FAA has incorporated the concept of 
different rates of growth between the West-end and the East-end in the 
final rule.
    With regard to the concept of the ``trickle-down'' or multiplier 
effects of this rule, the Western States Coalition states that the air 
tour industry is very important to the rural economies of the states 
surrounding the Grand Canyon and asks the FAA not to further restrict 
flights in the canyon. Cruise America, Inc., notes that the negative 
economic impact will trickle down from a reduction in passengers 
visiting the canyon to a reduction in income for local populations 
surviving off tourism revenue. Additionally, bus tour companies and 
European travel wholesalers would be forced to reroute their organized 
tours, resulting in a detrimental effect of inbound tourism to America, 
and the efforts of private air carriers who promote North America via 
operations in the Canyon would also be hurt.
    The Grand Canyon Air Tourism Association (GCATA) states that 
Northern Arizona and its small towns along Rt. 40 are very dependent on 
the tourist trade, and that any regulation that will have an adverse 
economic impact or cost an American his or her job must be taken only 
when there is overwhelming and compelling evidence to support the 
action. (Air Star Helicopters states that the NPRM would create a loss 
of pilot and administrative jobs; decrease aircraft, parts and fuel 
sales; and cause an unnecessary loss of tax revenue). GCATA further 
notes that the air tour industry is a viable business, both in Las 
Vegas and Arizona, and contributes an annual input of approximately 
$250 million. The commenter concludes with the example of Eagle 
Airlines, a GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operator located in 
Las Vegas which currently is building a $40 million dollar complex 
which will include a Grand Canyon terminal and hanger/office facilities 
for several operators.
    The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (GCATC) cites the same $250 
million revenue base, noting that 1,400 direct jobs are involved, and 
criticizes the FAA economic impact numbers as seriously understated. 
GCATC references a study being conducted by the University of Nevada at 
Las Vegas (UNLV), Center for Business and Economic Research, as support 
for this position. The draft UNLV study in its submission entitled 
``The Economic Impact of the Nevada Air Tour Industry: Work-to-Date'' 
estimates an economic impact of the air tour operators to the Grand 
Canyon on the Clark County (Las Vegas) economy as in excess of $500 
million, assuming a loss of 436,925 visitors expected to travel from 
Las Vegas by air to visit the Grand Canyon in 1996. Clark County air 
tour operators alone could be expected to lose revenue in the range of 
$81 million to $117 million, and non-aviation losses were estimated to 
be in excess of $400 million. Extensive detail of the individual 
components making up the indirect economic impact, inclusive of 
individually calculated multipliers for each impact, was also 
submitted.
    In the full regulatory evaluation accompanying the NPRM, the FAA 
states that its cost estimates and economic analysis are limited to the 
direct economic impacts on commercial sightseeing air tour operators 
and customers. The FAA also clearly identifies the generally accepted 
multiplier of 2.5 in its discussions of costs. The FAA appreciates the 
detailed information provided by UNLV in its preliminary findings. 
However, the UNLV results are predicated on the following two somewhat 
dire assumptions: (1) All Las Vegas GCNP commercial air tour 
sightseeing operations will cease as a result of this rulemaking; and 
(2) all Las Vegas tourists who planned to take an air tour of the 
Canyon as part of their visit to Las Vegas will no longer come to Las 
Vegas. Furthermore, by incorporating unadjusted input-output 
coefficients as the individual multiplier factors used to assess the 
economic impact of this rulemaking, a chain of double counting was 
introduced that resulted in a total impact far in excess of even the 
most severe predictions offered in other comments.
    Comments were received regarding the importance of foreign 
commercial air tour sightseeing passengers and foreign tour dollars. 
The United States Air Tour Association (USA) included statistics 
indicating that foreign air tour passengers constitute 60 percent of 
all air tour passenger in the United States. Other commenters estimate 
a higher percentage of foreign air tour passengers to GCNP, and Heli 
USA notes that the Grand Canyon is the major reason most international 
visitors come to Las Vegas. The foreign tourist as a group averages a 
two-night stay in Las Vegas spending millions of dollars yearly in 
hotels, restaurants, casinos, and shops.
    A representative of Cruise America, Inc., specializing in the 
rental and sale of recreational vehicles, draws a clear distinction 
between the Japanese and other Asian tourists who typically travel in 
large tour groups and German and other European tourists who tend to 
travel as small family groups and are referred to as ``RV Travelers''. 
The former group make up the majority of foreign tourists flying 
commercial sightseeing air tours out of Las Vegas most of which connect 
with bus tours of the South Rim; the latter group tend to drive to the 
Canyon and take the commercial sightseeing air tours originating out of 
Tusayan. With both groups, the majority typically advance book (or 
reserve) their activities 3-6 months in advance, and the commenter 
notes that the inability to pre-reserve the Grand Canyon portion of 
their trip could potentially remove Arizona and/or Nevada from their 
planned tour. The FAA appreciates the additional information regarding 
international tourism to GCNP.
    To a lesser extent, commenters also addressed the importance of 
providing the opportunity to view the Canyon to the physically 
challenged and otherwise physically unfit to hike, raft or even access 
the viewer areas of the South Rim. The generally held estimate of the 
proportion of physically challenged commercial air tour sightseeing 
passengers is 20 percent or more (Eagle Canyon Airlines). Papillon, 
however, suggests that while the real estimate of physically challenged 
commercial air tour sightseeing passengers is closer to 3 percent, a 
more notable statistic is that fully 80 percent of commercial air tour 
sightseeing passengers are physically unfit to see the Canyon in any 
other manner, including the visitor viewing areas of the South Rim. The 
FAA noted the physically challenged passengers constitute a significant 
portion of GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing passengers in its NPRM 
assessment.
    Comments addressing the economic impact of the rulemaking on the 
Native American tribes of the GCNP area were also received by the FAA. 
Heli USA notes that the combined helicopter industry of Las Vegas 
yearly pays around $360,000 to the Hualapai Tribe for landing rights in 
conjunction with the popular commercial sightseeing air tours out of 
Las Vegas using the Green 4 tour route which also includes the Hualapai 
River Runners white water rafting program. The commenter also notes 
that new programs are being introduced with the River Runners and Heli 
programs with Grand Canyon West which could gross revenues in excess of 
$1 million in the forthcoming year.

[[Page 69320]]

Comments of the Havasupai Tribe also address the economic impact of 
lost revenue if the tours conducted along the Green 3 helicopter tour 
route (Papillon) are impacted by the rulemaking. The Havasupai also 
note that the current change in the Blue 1 commercial sightseeing air 
tour route resulting from the merging of the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-
free Zone could have serious adverse affects on Havasupai lands as a 
prominent tourist attraction. Other issues concerning the impact of 
this rulemaking on Native American Tribes and their properties are 
addressed elsewhere in the final rule.
    The FAA also received comments regarding the business operations of 
the commercial air tour sightseeing industry. Alan R. Stephen, 
President of Twin Otter International (TOIL) on behalf of Grand Canyon 
Airlines (GCA) states that the FAA's economic analysis demonstrates 
little understanding of business decision-making. The commenter notes 
that profits rather than revenues normally drive business investment 
decisions, and that the relationship between retained earnings 
(profits) and changes in revenue is best described by the 80-20 
principle--a 20 percent reduction in revenue results in an 80 percent 
reduction in profits. The commenter adds that these profits are highly 
leveraged by load factor, e.g., operating costs are the same regardless 
of the number of commercial air tour sightseeing passengers on a tour 
and the revenue per passenger (ticket price) over break-even 
constitutes the bottom line profit. (The commenter does not indicate 
what the minimum break-even number of passengers per commercial 
sightseeing air tour is). Finally, the commenter notes the high capital 
intensity of airlines such as Grand Canyon Airlines (GCA), and GCA 
investment in facilities and equipment is the same regardless of the 
percentage of its air tour potential is actually flown. GCA also notes 
increased utilization as the single most important incentive for 
operators to invest in quiet aircraft technologies.
    Further comments on commercial air tour sightseeing profitability 
were offered by Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters which notes that the 
industry is economically fragile and capital intensive, and must stay 
fully staffed even during the slow season. The result is a significant 
loss to be overcome at the beginning of each tourist season. The 
commenter estimates there are 30 to 45 days of potential profit for the 
year's work and to operate successfully in the aviation business 
requires optimum utilization of aircraft.
    Another determining factor of profitability cited in the comments 
is the number of commercial sightseeing air tours that can be conducted 
in a given day. Comments were submitted in reference to the serious 
potential economic consequences of placing curfews on commercial 
sightseeing air tours. Heli USA, which offers Las Vegas originating 
helicopter tours along the Green 4 tour route, states that at least 
four round trips (turns) must be flown per day per helicopter to enable 
a company to be financially stable, let alone profitable.
    Sundance helicopters, which also offers Las Vegas originating 
helicopter tours along the Green 4 tour route, confirms four trips as 
the break-even level of daily operations per helicopter and cites the 
obvious consequence of the NPRM curfew eliminating the day's final (5 
p.m.) commercial sightseeing air tour. Air Vegas Airlines, which flies 
Beech C-99 (15-seat) fixed-wing aircraft commercial sightseeing air 
tours along the Blue 1 commercial sightseeing air tour route, indicates 
that approximately 25 percent of the Air Vegas total revenue is 
generated by its 7:30 a.m. departure from Las Vegas; elimination of 
this tour would result in annual revenue losses of approximately $4 
million. Air Vegas Airlines also notes that it has invested in excess 
of $10 million in its fleet of Beech C-99 aircraft and a minimum 
average of three revenue trips per day is necessary to amortize the 
acquisition costs.
    The FAA appreciates all comments regarding the derivation of 
business profits for GCNP commercial sightseeing air tour operators. 
Without accessibility to individual operators' books, the FAA relied on 
operating revenue, and, to a lesser extent, net operating revenues, and 
the concomitant changes therein, as proxies for changes in the 
profitability of commercial air tour sightseeing operations.
    Travel time, or its alteration from current practices, was also 
cited by commenters as a contributing cost of this rulemaking. McCarran 
International Airport (Las Vegas), through a commissioned study, 
developed an airspace simulation analysis to estimate the potential 
effects of the NPRM on aircraft delays, travel times, and operating 
costs. According to the study, the major contributing factor to 
increased aircraft delays is contained in the NPRM curfews which will 
result in higher demand during already congested peak hours at Grand 
Canyon Airport. The variable curfew would have a much more significant 
effect on aircraft delays (as much as 4 to 6 minutes per aircraft 
operation) than the fixed curfew (up to 2 minutes per operation). Some 
of these delays could be reduced to about one minute per operation (or 
less) by changing air tour operating strategies to fly non-curfew 
affected routes during curfew periods. It is not known if flying non-
curfew routes would be a viable option for an operator. Air Vegas 
Airlines comments that the average time to fly the Blue 1 route from 
Las Vegas to Tusayan takes about 55 minutes; the return on the Blue 
Direct passenger route requires about 45 minutes.
    The rerouting of aircraft onto modified air tour routes results in 
increases in aircraft travel time of approximately 1 to 2 minutes per 
aircraft operation depending on the air tour routing alternatives 
implemented. The operating cost penalty includes the costs of both 
increased travel times and increased aircraft delays. GCATC adds that, 
even if some operators could adapt to the new restriction, neither the 
FAA nor the GCATC has any reason to believe that passengers would be 
willing to pay more to fly over tightly restricted (and therefore, less 
desirable) routes. TOIL/GCA note that restricting the Zuni Corridor to 
one-way traffic would eliminate GCA's important east Canyon air tour 
(Black 1) which is flown when poor weather conditions otherwise 
preclude operating GCA's primary ``Grand Discovery'' air tour, which 
flies up the Zuni, over the north rim, and back down the Dragon 
Corridor. (This was also alluded to at the Las Vegas portion of the 
public meetings by Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters which notes that 
the restrictions placed on the Zuni Corridor with a fly-out to the NE 
over the Painted Desert, provides about 9 minutes of Canyon viewing for 
a 50-minute Grand Canyon air tour). Finally, TOIL/GCA indicates that 
with the extension of the Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone to the GCNP 
boundary, the distance of the Grand Discovery air tour is lengthened by 
about 20 percent and, therefore, would increase GCA's operating costs 
by a corresponding 20 percent.
    The FAA appreciates the comments relating to curfews and their 
impact on travel times and alternate tour options. The FAA has taken 
these comments into consideration from a safety aspect, and refined 
certain of its originally proposed changes to flight corridors and 
flight-free zones.
    Another major issue raised in the comments received by the FAA 
concerns the adoption of quiet technology as an alternative means to 
restore natural quiet. While this issue is addressed elsewhere in the 
final rule, certain costs associated with this option

[[Page 69321]]

are noted. In general, according to TOIL/GCA comments, ``quiet'' 
aircraft models tend to be larger in passenger seating capacity than 
the conventional aircraft they replace and also more expensive. With 
regard to fixed-wing aircraft, TOIL/GCA identified the Cessna-208 
Caravan (9 passenger seats) and the deHaviland DHC-6-300 Vistaliner (19 
passenger seats) as the primary quiet replacements for the current, 
predominately flown Cessna C-207 (6 passenger seats) and C-402/Piper 
Navajo (9 passenger seats). However, the cost of a new Caravan is 
approximately $1.3 million and about $1.4 million to purchase a DHC-6-
300 Twin Otter, convert and refurbish to the Vistaliner configuration. 
Alternatively, TOIL/GCA suggests that twelve Cessna C-207's or nine C-
402/Piper Navajos could be purchased for the price of one Caravan or 
one Vistaliner. Scenic Airlines, Inc., offers corresponding prices for 
the Cessna C-208 Caravan and C-402/Piper Navajo of $1.25 million and 
$200,000, respectively. Air Vegas Airlines, which operates a fleet of 
Beech C-99 turbo-props (15 passenger seats), notes that the Beech C-99 
is a faster aircraft than most currently operating in the Canyon and 
that its power settings could be set to reduce noise.
    With regard to helicopters, Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters notes 
that only the McDonnell Douglas MD500 (MD 520-N, or NOTAR) is certified 
and qualifies as a ``quiet'' aircraft. However, Heli USA comments that 
the NOTAR cannot even perform; tests at the Canyon showed it could only 
carry 3 passengers on a hot day (the MD 520-N is designed for 4 
passengers). This was confirmed by Air Star Helicopters, Inc. which had 
attempted to operate the MD 520-N as part of its commercial air tour 
sightseeing fleet. Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters and McDonnell 
Douglas both note that McDonnell Douglas has developed the MD600 (6/7 
passenger seats) which meets the criteria for quiet aircraft and will 
be available for delivery in early 1997. (Papillon has one on order and 
Air Star Helicopters has two on order, all of which are scheduled for 
delivery in 1997.) The MD600 costs between $1.25 million and $1.5 
million depending on cost items over base. Finally, Papillon Grand 
Canyon Helicopters also notes in its comments that they are developing 
a 9-passenger seat helicopter (Whisper Jet S55-QT) which is equally as 
quiet as the MD600 and costs approximately the same making it about 50 
percent more cost efficient than the MD600 because of its expanded 
seating capacity. Delivery of these aircraft are expected within the 
forthcoming year.
    The FAA appreciates the expanded information on ``quiet 
technology'' aircraft provided by the commenters, all of whom have 
taken an advocacy position for these type of aircraft with respect to 
GCNP commercial sightseeing air tours. The FAA notes, however, that all 
commenters in support of ``quiet technology'' aircraft either currently 
maintain fleets, made up of ``quieter aircraft'' or are in the process 
of taking delivery on new quiet aircraft within the year. Quiet 
technology is addressed elsewhere in this final rule and is the subject 
of a concurrent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking effort underway.
    The above summary of comments reflect the economic issues arising 
more often from the commenters; the FAA also received occasional 
comment addressing other economic concerns, as well. Comments by the 
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) on the 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) challenge the initial RFA 
findings on the impact on small tour operators because revenue losses 
were assessed at the aggregate level. The SBA also suggests that a 
different compliance and reporting requirement or timetables for small 
entities should be explored, possibly even an exemption from these 
parts of the rule. Air Vegas Airlines also notes the added cost 
associated with the training (retraining) of pilots which will be 
required as a result of the elimination or restructuring of present 
routes; the commenter uses an example to illustrate his point which 
suggests that training costs will be burdensome.
    The FAA has carefully reviewed the SBA comment and, based on the 
data available, has analyzed the regulatory flexibility impact using 
reasonable assumptions--including analyzing revenue losses at the 
aggregate level. Different compliance and reporting requirements for 
the smaller entities were also considered.
    The SBA had suggested that it would be appropriate to use 
elasticity of demand information to calculate the extent to which small 
businesses will recoup costs by increasing fares. The data for this 
segment of the population, however, are not available. In another 
example, the SBA had suggested that the FAA evaluate data on profits 
which ``may be available from Dun and Bradstreet.'' Data on profits 
from very small entities that would be affected by this proposal are 
also not available from the recommended source or within the public 
docket. The SBA also believes that the FAA has not fully addressed 
significant options for consideration. Given both the qualitative and 
quantitative costs and benefits, the FAA believes that the best option 
that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits was chosen. With regard to 
other concerns made by the SBA and Air Vegas Airlines, the FAA has 
taken these comments into consideration in producing the final RFA and 
in estimating costs associated with this rulemaking. (See the 
accompanying Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for a more complete 
discussion regarding the alternatives considered to reduce the cost 
impact of this rulemaking on small entities.)

Costs

    The total cost impact of this rulemaking will depend to a large 
extent on the response to the changes on the part of commercial air 
tour sightseeing operators. Under a worst case scenario, GCNP 
commercial air tour sightseeing operators directly impacted by the 
reconfiguration of the GCNP SFRA could cease commercial air tour 
sightseeing operations altogether in the Canyon; this essentially would 
mean the complete elimination of the GCNP commercial air tour 
sightseeing industry. However, it is expected that the affected 
commercial air tour sightseeing operators will adapt to the modified 
routes resulting from the new GCNP SFRA changes by redesigning or 
offering new commercial sightseeing air tours. The estimated cost 
impact of the adjustments suggests a continued viable commercial air 
tour sightseeing industry.
    With regard to the consumers of commercial sightseeing air tours, 
the altered commercial air tour sightseeing routes resulting from the 
new changes to the GCNP SFRA, will, in some instances, shorten the 
length of a commercial sightseeing air tour currently offered. In other 
instances, it will prolong the time a commercial air tour sightseeing 
passenger spends on a commercial sightseeing air tour, but it will not 
necessarily prolong the time available to the passenger to view the 
more prominent features of the Grand Canyon. In still other instances, 
it will eliminate the most prominent feature of the commercial 
sightseeing tour. Certain redesigned commercial sightseeing air tours 
are likely to increase in price to cover the commercial air tour 
sightseeing operator's added operating costs.
    To the extent a commercial sightseeing air tour of GCNP is 
perceived to be a devaluation in the current service offered, or its 
value is perceived to be less than its price, commercial air tour 
sightseeing could be

[[Page 69322]]

impacted adversely. However, consumption of goods and services such as 
commercial sightseeing air tours are typically one-time only events and 
not repeated by the same consumer. Therefore, the tourist is more 
likely to be concerned with the current commercial air tour sightseeing 
offering, and not its perceived loss of value in comparison to previous 
years.
    The preceding paragraph relates to the concept of consumer surplus 
and the perceived loss thereof. Inherently, there will be a loss of 
consumer surplus when currently existing GCNP commercial sightseeing 
air tours are degraded as in the case of eliminating the National 
Canyon portion of what the FAA refers to as the ``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' 
tour. Similarly, with the Zuni Point Corridor becoming one-way, 
consumers taking an abridged commercial sightseeing air tour which 
substitutes the Painted Desert to the east of the Canyon for the lost 
viewing minutes of the Canyon itself, will likely also experience some 
loss of satisfaction. The FAA, however, is unable to quantitatively 
estimate these losses in consumer surplus because no consumer surplus 
valuation of commercial sightseeing air tours is available, and the 
comparison of the consumer surplus derived from slightly different 
goods among different individuals (e.g., interpersonal comparisons) can 
be very misleading. Thus, the FAA is only able to discuss the consumer 
losses associated with this rulemaking in general terms.
    In this analysis, the FAA has assumed that commercial air tour 
sightseeing operators could recover any increase in operating cost due 
to this rulemaking by charging their customer more for air tours of 
GCNP. In fact, it may not always be possible for these operators to 
recover all the cost increases imposed on them by this rulemaking by 
raising prices of air tours. Customers are sensitive, in varying 
degrees, to price increases and react by buying less of those goods and 
services when their prices are increased. Customers tend to be 
insensitive to very small increases in prices on goods and services 
that are infrequently purchased (a one cent increase on the price of a 
new car is not likely to have any impact on any potential customer's 
purchasing behavior). Buyers do tend to be very sensitive to large 
increases on goods and services that are frequently purchased (a one 
dollar increase in the price of a gallon of milk will result in people 
buying less milk). At this time, the FAA does not have adequate data to 
estimate how sensitive customers are to noticeable price increases for 
air tours of the Grand Canyon. However, the FAA believes that 
commercial air tour sightseeing operators will be able to recover most 
of the increased costs imposed by this rule, because the price 
increases will usually be relatively small (compared to the price of a 
air tour) so that most potential customers will continue to purchase 
air tours of the Grand Canyon.
    The following discusses the potential cost impact of each change:
(1) Modification of the Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)
    The extension of the GCNP SFRA, which effectively increases the 
lateral dimensions of the existing SFRA by approximately 2.8 percent, 
will result in only those costs associated with revising and publishing 
a new Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart. Similarly, the increase in 
altitude of the SFRA ceiling from 14,499 to 17,999 feet msl, which is 
intended to protect GCNP from the impact of commercial air tour 
sightseeing aircraft overflying the flight-free zones, will have 
minimal impact on GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators. Its 
cost will be included under the revision and publishing costs noted 
above. The FAA considers chart revision to be a part of normal, on-
going administrative costs, not costs incurred as a result of this 
rulemaking action. Neither the chart revision nor the cost associated 
with a change in altitude over the flight-free zone will have a 
measurable impact on GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators.
(2&3) Modification of existing and establishment of new flight-free 
zones and flight corridors
    The reconfiguration of GCNP flight-free zones and flight corridors 
will impact all commercial air tour sightseeing routes, and 
consequently, all revenue ($113.1 million) received by the GCNP 
commercial air tour sightseeing industry. Approximately $92.5 million, 
or about 82 percent, of the total revenue generated by the GCNP 
commercial air tour sightseeing industry is derived from the commercial 
sightseeing air tours offered on the ``Blue 1'' tour route. The FAA 
estimates that the cost impact associated with the elimination of the 
National Canyon portion of this tour route will be about $2.4 million 
average annual reduction in net operating revenue (1997-2008) with a 
likely greater loss of consumer surplus. There will also be some 
further reduction in net operating revenue associated with the 
remaining $20.6 million in total commercial air tour sightseeing 
revenue; most of this will result from the change to one-way traffic in 
the Zuni Corridor.
    A more detailed breakdown of the commercial sightseeing air tour 
routes effected by this change and an assessment of the potential 
losses are as follows:

Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone

    (a) The merging of the Toroweap-Thunder River and Shinumo Flight-
free Zones and the resulting closing of the Fossil Canyon Corridor will 
eliminate tour routes ``Blue 1A'', ``Brown 1A'', and ``Green 3A''. In 
response to the Las Vegas FSDO SFAR 50-2 Tour Route Usage Report, no 
operators indicated use of the ``Green 3A'' route, only one operator 
reported use of the ``Brown 1A'' route and four operators reported use 
of the ``Blue 1A'' route. The merging of the two flight-free zones and 
resulting elimination of the Fossil Canyon Corridor will only impact 
the tour offerings of these five operators, only one of which, however, 
utilizes a single aircraft and offers only the one type of tour in 
GCNP.
    All of these commercial sightseeing air tour packages are part of a 
larger group designated as ``miscellaneous'' tours; collectively, they 
generated total commercial air tour sightseeing revenues of 
approximately $724,000 in 1995 by providing approximately 1200 tours 
that carried 6,500 passengers. However, only the one single tour/single 
aircraft operator with 1995 annual revenue of approximately $9,000 (the 
forecast annual average for the 12 year period 1997-2008, is $11,500) 
will be required to develop and competitively offer a completely new 
tour. The other four operators can readily modify their current tour 
packages with minimal cost outlay because they already offer 
established commercial sightseeing air tours along other similar 
routes.
    The single tour/single aircraft operation likely provides 
transportation to river rafting tours, a ``tour'' endeavor which can be 
modified. The only alternative for this operator is elimination as a 
GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operator concomitant with the loss 
of an average annual revenue stream of $11,500 over the 1997-2008 time 
frame. However, the FAA believes that if this particular operator was 
unable to adapt, his tour business will not be lost, but rather it will 
be taken over by another similar operator. Thus, the FAA estimates the 
cost of this change will be zero revenue loss, but possibly, will lead 
to the elimination of a single commercial air tour sightseeing operator 
doing a relatively small amount of business in GCNP.
    (b) The southward extension of the Toroweap-Thunder River Flight-
free

[[Page 69323]]

Zone and concomitant elimination of commercial air tour sightseeing 
access to the National Canyon portion of what is referred to as the 
``Blue 1, Blue Direct'' commercial sightseeing air tour will result in 
an estimated average annual reduction of net operating revenue in 
excess of $2.4 million from 1997 through 2008. The source of this 
revenue loss is the anticipated reduction in ticket prices. Reduced 
ticket prices can be expected because commercial air tour sightseeing 
operators will no longer be offering an aerial tour of the Grand 
Canyon. Instead they will merely offer a commuter flight to Tusayan as 
a result of being precluded from offering the National Canyon aerial 
portion of their former commercial sightseeing air tour.
    The estimated average annual reduction in net operating revenue of 
$2.4 million was derived by subtracting the estimated reduction of $2.5 
million in average annual variable operating costs from a total average 
annual revenue loss of $4.9 million.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone

    (a) In 1995, according to the SFAR No. 50-2 Air Tour Route Usage 
Report, 13 operators (fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter) with total 
revenues of approximately $9.3 million conducted commercial sightseeing 
air tours along the ``Black 1, 1A'' and the ``Green 1, 1A, 2'' tour 
routes and another five operators with total revenue of approximately 
$1.4 million conducted helicopter commercial sightseeing air tours in 
the Dragon Corridor. The total 1995 revenue potentially impacted by 
this part of the rule is estimated to be about $10.7. The FAA 
estimates, however, that the average annual increase in variable 
operating costs resulting from an approximate 20 percent increase in 
duration of the commercial sightseeing air tours operating on the 
``Green 1, 1A & 2'' will be offset by increased ticket prices. Thus, 
the FAA estimates no net operating losses associated with the north 
extension of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone.
    (b) The reconfiguration of the Zuni Point Corridor and the limiting 
of it to one-way traffic will impact all commercial sightseeing air 
tours that depend on the current two-way VFR routes to offer a simple 
fly around type tour of the Zuni Point Corridor. This includes one 
fixed-wing aircraft and four helicopter GCNP commercial air tour 
sightseeing operators. The fixed-wing aircraft operator generated 
commercial air tour sightseeing revenue of approximately $13,000 from 
this particular tour in 1995, a tour part of the larger group of 
``miscellaneous'' tours. The substitutes for this operator will be the 
``Black 1, 1A'' tour route or flying out to the east over the Painted 
Desert as a tour route option. Both of these tour route options are 
expected to increase the tour price by about $10 per passenger, or 
about $2,600 total annual added cost to the commercial air tour 
sightseeing consumers based on 260 passengers opting for this tour in 
1995.
    The four helicopter operators generated 1995 commercial air tour 
sightseeing revenue of just under $1.5 million flying the ``Green 1'' 
commercial air tour sightseeing route in conducting over 3,700 
commercial sightseeing air tours with more than 12,800 passengers. 
Similar options are also available to GCNP commercial air tour 
sightseeing helicopter operators, i.e., the ``Green 1, 1A & 2'' (``Zuni 
Point NW'') tour route or the Painted Desert tour route option. Each of 
these will increase the tour price per passenger by about $45 or 
$574,400 total annual added cost to the commercial air tour sightseeing 
consumers based on the 12,800 passengers opting for this tour in 1995.
    The total potential increase in 1995 annual costs of this 
particular alteration in the GCNP SFRA will be about $577,000 ($2,600 
plus $574,400) in added consumer costs (increased commercial air tour 
sightseeing prices) because of the elimination of less costly 
commercial air tour sightseeing options. The forecast annual average 
cost for the 12 year period 1997-2008, is just over $740,700 per year. 
However, adaptation on the part of commercial air tour sightseeing 
operators to the changes in the Zuni Point Corridor could result in the 
possible addition of one commercial air tour sightseeing flight per 
hour through the Dragon Corridor. This will be the outcome if the five 
affected operators choose the ``Zuni Point NW'' option as their 
commercial air tour sightseeing substitute.
    There is another cost associated with the one-way limitation of the 
Zuni Point Corridor in conjunction with the north expansion of the 
Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. The ticket price increases resulting in 
added consumer costs detailed above do not fully cover the increase in 
variable operating costs of the commercial air tour sightseeing 
operators adopting the new Zuni-Alpha-Dragon Corridors loop. The five 
new operators of this kind of tour are limited to raising their tour 
prices to only what is currently being charged the tour consumer by the 
already established commercial air tour sightseeing operators of this 
kind of tour. This is captured in the price increases of $10 and $45 
for fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter tours, respectively. The 
difference between what these operators could receive in additional 
revenue through price increases and the added costs imposed by this 
rule will result in about $383,000 that the operators must absorb as 
losses in increased aircraft operating costs. Thus, the full cost of 
making the Zuni Point Corridor one-way with the north expansion of the 
Bright Angel Flight-free Zone is $577,000 in increased consumer costs 
and $383,000 in operator losses.
    As previously discussed, while the FAA does not have adequate data 
to estimate how sensitive customers are to noticeable price increases 
for air tours of the Grand Canyon, the FAA does believe that commercial 
air tour sightseeing operators will be able to recover most of the 
increased costs imposed by this rule, because the price increases will 
usually be relative small (compared to the price of a air tour) so that 
most potential customers will continue to purchase air tours of the 
Grand Canyon. A $10 price increase a relatively small price increase 
probably will not have a noticeable impact demand for above fixed wing 
air tours. However, a $45 price increase is a large price increase and 
could result in a reduction in the demand for the above helicopter air 
tours. Therefore, the above the estimate for increased revenue from 
price increases ($577,000) may be an over estimate, and the estimated 
loss ($383,000) may be an under estimate.

Sanup Flight-free Zone

    The creation of the Sanup Flight-free Zone in the southwest portion 
of GCNP restricts air traffic to one side only of the Colorado River 
beyond Separation Canyon. This change will effect seven fixed-wing 
aircraft operators offering commercial sightseeing air tours on the 
``Blue 2'' VFR route and three helicopter operators offering commercial 
sightseeing air tours on the ``Green 4'' VFR route. Combined, these 10 
GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators accounted for 
approximately $7.7 million total commercial air tour sightseeing 
revenue in 1995, flying approximately 16,800 commercial sightseeing air 
tours and 92,800 passengers.
    Based on information from the Las Vegas FSDO, 90 percent of GCNP 
commercial sightseeing air tours conducted on the ``Blue 2'' and the 
``Green 4'' VFR commercial air tour sightseeing routes turn back at or 
before Separation Canyon and will therefore, not be directly impacted 
by this change. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the 
remaining 10 percent of the commercial sightseeing air tours that fly 
beyond Separation Canyon charge a

[[Page 69324]]

premium which would result in proportionately greater potential revenue 
losses. Nor is there substantiated evidence to suggest that the 
helicopter tours that include ground excursions inside the Hualapai 
Indian Reservation (a major source of revenue for this Native American 
tribe derived from landing rights agreements contracted with commercial 
air tour sightseeing operators) will be impacted because these tours 
typically extend only as far as Quartermaster Canyon, a point located 
west of Separation Canyon. The FAA therefore, concludes that this 
alteration to the GCNP SFRA will have neither a measurable impact on 
the 10 percent of commercial sightseeing air tours that fly beyond 
Separation Canyon nor any significant probable loss of consumer 
surplus.

Desert View Flight-free Zone

    No commercial sightseeing air tours are currently conducted in the 
vicinity of the Desert View Flight-free Zone such that its extension to 
the north and east will have a direct cost impact on the GCNP 
commercial air tour sightseeing operators or their passengers. Costs 
associated with the elongation of the Zuni Point Corridor as a result 
of the simultaneous extensions of both the Desert View and Bright Angel 
Flight-free Zones have already been accounted for. Likewise, the costs 
have been discussed which might be associated with a commercial 
sightseeing air tour option which exists GCNP to the east flying over 
the Painted Desert made necessary by limiting Zuni Point Corridor 
traffic to one-way. The FAA concludes that the expansion of the Desert 
View Flight-free Zone in and of itself will have no known cost impact 
on GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators or their tour 
passengers other than what has already been discussed in the context of 
other modifications.
(4) New Curfew (Basic Fixed Flight-free Period)
    The introduction of the new curfew (basic fixed flight-free 
periods) for commercial air tour sightseeing operations conducted at 
the East-end of GCNP will result in lost revenue for those operators 
conducting commercial sightseeing air tours in the Zuni Point and 
Dragon Corridors. The reduction in time available for commercial air 
tour sightseeing flights in the Zuni Point and Dragon Corridors as a 
result of the basic fixed flight-free periods will impact just over 
20.0 percent of the daily commercial sightseeing air tours offered in 
the summer season between May 1 and September 30, and approximately 
one-third of the daily commercial sightseeing air tours offered in the 
winter season. (The final rule defines a winter season inclusive of the 
month of October which, in practice, is a part of the GCNP commercial 
sightseeing air tour industry's summer season.)
    The impact of the basic fixed flight-free periods is most likely to 
be realized by GCNP operators during the summer season because, as 
noted previously, commercial air tour sightseeing aircraft are utilized 
at full operational capacity during the summer season. With the 
introduction of a temporary freeze on the number of GCNP commercial air 
tour sightseeing aircraft, however, the only alternative available to 
GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators during the summer season 
will be to eliminate commercial sightseeing air tours which currently 
occur during hours included in the basic fixed flight-free period. The 
FAA expects that some of this loss of revenue could be recovered 
through ticket price increases, and some of it will be offset as a 
result of lower variable operating costs due to the reduced number of 
commercial sightseeing air tours being conducted in the summer. During 
the winter season, however, the FAA assumes there will be sufficient 
operational underutilization of aircraft such that GCNP operators will 
reschedule commercial sightseeing air tours currently operating during 
the basic fixed flight-free period into non flight-free times.
    Based on 1995 estimates, the potential loss of revenue resulting 
from the summer curfew is nearly $1.8 million or 14.9 percent when 
compared with the GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing revenue of $12.3 
million derived from commercial sightseeing air tours conducted on the 
East-end of GCNP. (When compared with the total GCNP commercial air 
tour sightseeing revenue of $113.1 million generated in 1995, the 
potential loss is 1.6 percent). The estimated amount of average annual 
commercial air tour sightseeing revenue for the 10-year time period 
1997-2008, that could be potentially effected during the summer season, 
is about $2.4 million (total revenue net of variable aircraft operating 
cost is $1.4 million).
    The FAA estimates that just under 2400 commercial sightseeing air 
tours will be rescheduled during the rule's basic fixed flight-free 
period winter season. (Comments offered by commercial sightseeing 
operators who addressed the curfew issue at the Scottsdale/Las Vegas 
public hearings, generally maintained that a curfew during the winter 
season would cause minimal disruption to commercial sightseeing tour 
schedules.) The resulting air traffic compression during non-curfew 
times, however, will result in some increase in aircraft activity with 
a corresponding increase in noise levels in GCNP during the time 
periods that commercial air tour sightseeing aircraft are permitted to 
operate.
(5) Reporting Requirements
    Section 93.917 will establish operator reporting requirements. All 
certificate holders operating within the GCNP SFRA will incur costs due 
to this section during the 5-year time frame (1997 through 2001) that 
these reporting requirements will be in effect.
    The reporting requirements for Sec. 93.917 include:
    (a) Each certificate holder will have to establish a system to 
codify the required information and then update this system (there are 
no existing reporting requirements).
    (b) Three times a year, within 30 days after April 30, August 31, 
and December 31, each certificate holder will have to submit in writing 
specific information to the Las Vegas FSDO.
    The FAA estimates that it will take each certificate holder one 
week to establish and set up the reporting system. Thereafter, each 
operator could use a spreadsheet program to maintain and update daily 
information; accordingly, a computer specialist will not be needed to 
set up an operator's report system. The FAA estimates that the total 
one-time cost in 1995 dollars for all GCNP certificated operators will 
be approximately $10,550 or about $340 for each operator.
    After the initial set up of task `a' above has been accomplished, 
updating will be required throughout the entire 5-year time frame of 
this recordkeeping requirement. The total amount of time needed to 
update this information will be a function of the number of aircraft 
that each operator has. The FAA assumes that it will take each operator 
about 10 minutes per aircraft per day to record the updated information 
onto a master spreadsheet. The FAA estimates the total annual cost in 
1995 dollars for this task for the time period 1997-2001, will be about 
$70,200, or about $515 per aircraft each year.
    Task `b' above requires written information to be provided to the 
Las Vegas FSDO three times in each of the years 1997 through 2001. The 
FAA assumes this will take about one-half of an hour for each operator 
to compile the information, 15 minutes for each operator to fill out 
the generic information on the report, and an additional 5 minutes per 
aircraft for the specific information needed in the

[[Page 69325]]

report. The FAA estimates the total annual cost in 1995 dollars for 
this task for the time period 1997-2001, will be about $900, or about 
$30 per operator each year.
    In addition to the above detailed operator costs, the FAA will 
incur costs as well. FAA costs will result from the recording and 
tracking of the information provided by the operators. The FAA assumes 
this task will be handled by a GS-13 inspector (paid at the full wage, 
including all fringe benefits, of $34.29/hr) located at the Las Vegas 
FSDO; thus, no outside contractor will be needed. This inspector will 
need about one hour to review each operator's report or about 93 hours 
total each year. The FAA estimates that the total cost to the FAA of 
this component of the reporting requirement will be approximately 
$16,000, or about $3,200 annually.
    For the operators, total costs sum to approximately $366,000 while 
the total costs for the FAA sum to approximately $16,000. The total 
average annual cost of the reporting requirements for the 5-year period 
1997 through 2001 is about $76,400 ($73,200 for operators, $3,200 for 
the FAA).

Temporary Freeze on Number of Aircraft

    Assuming the temporary freeze on the number of aircraft introduced 
with this final rule will conclude with the publication date of the 
final rule on GCNP Noise Limitations, the FAA estimates the potential 
impact will be a loss of operator total revenue of approximately $3.9 
million ($2.9 million, net of variable aircraft operating costs) owing 
to the cancellation of nearly 2400 commercial sightseeing air tours 
carrying 22,350 passengers. These estimates reflect the 3.3 percent 
compound annual rate of growth in GCNP commercial sightseeing activity. 
If certain larger, more quiet aircraft are permitted to be substituted 
such that the total GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing fleet remains 
unchanged from the level imposed by the freeze, much of this loss of 
revenue could be negated.

Cost Summary

    The FAA estimates that the average annual costs of the six changes 
contained in the final rule ((1) modification of the SFRA dimensions; 
(2) establishment of new and modification of existing flight-free 
zones; (3) establishment of new and modification of existing flight 
corridors; (4) institution of a curfew (flight-free period) on the East 
end of GCNP; (5) addition of reporting requirements for commercial air 
tour sightseeing companies operating in the SFRA; and (6) a temporary 
freeze on the number of aircraft) is approximately 8.0 million in 
potential operator revenue losses net of variable aircraft operating 
costs, added consumer costs, and added federal administrative costs. 
The breakdown by final rulemaking change(s) is as follows: 1-3) $2.9 
million loss of operator revenue net of variable aircraft operating 
costs with an additional cost to the consumer of $740,700 in increased 
ticket prices associated with the establishment and modification of 
flight-free zones and corridors; (4) $76,000 for new operator and FAA 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements; (5) $1.4 million in revenue 
loss net of variable aircraft operating costs for the introduction of 
the basic fixed flight free periods; and 6) $2.9 million in potential 
revenue loss net of variable aircraft operating costs resulting from 
the temporary freeze on the number of aircraft.

Benefits

    The benefits of noise reduction attributable to this rulemaking can 
be broadly categorized as use and non-use benefits. Use benefits are 
the benefits perceived by individuals from the direct use of a resource 
such as hiking, rafting, or sightseeing. Non-use benefits are the 
benefits perceived by individuals from merely knowing that a resource 
is preserved in a given state. The use benefits of this rulemaking have 
been estimated and are presented below. The non-use benefits 
attributable to this rulemaking have not been estimated, but are 
qualitatively discussed.
    Economic studies have not been conducted specifically to estimate 
benefits for this rulemaking. Benefits, are therefore, estimated by 
combining analogous situations (with value estimates) from existing 
economic studies with site-specific information related to GCNP and 
other information to estimate benefits. Certain criteria should be 
applied to ensure that appropriate studies are selected for purposes of 
benefits estimation. The criteria used in this rulemaking are listed 
below.
    Selected economic studies must reasonably represent the resources 
to be valued in terms of physical characteristics, service flows, user 
characteristics, and available substitutes.
    Selected economic studies must be scientifically sound. Studies 
that are either published in peer-reviewed academic journal or are 
conducted by a recognized university-associated researcher or 
established consulting firm are considered to be scientifically sound.
    Selected economic studies must use appropriate valuation 
methodologies. The studies selected to estimate the benefits of this 
rulemaking conform to each of these criteria.
    The site-specific information used in the benefit estimation 
includes visitation data for GCNP and a visitor survey conducted to 
document the visitor impacts of aircraft noise within GCNP. The 
available visitation data for GCNP permits the categorization of 
visitors into the following groups: back country users (115,500 visitor 
days), river users, and other visitors (5,801,800 visitor days).
    The GCNP visitor survey indicates that these different visitor 
groups are variously affected by aircraft noise (HBRS, Inc. and Harris 
Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. 1993). This survey asked respondents to 
classify the interference of aircraft noise with their appreciation of 
the natural quiet of GCNP as either ``not at all,'' ``slightly,'' 
``moderately,'' ``very much,'' or ``extremely.''
    The FAA used three economic studies in estimating recreational 
benefits in terms of consumer surplus. Consumer surplus is the 
difference between the maximum amount a consumer is willing to pay and 
what the consumer actually pays. It is a measure of the increase in 
well being gained by individuals through participation in recreational. 
The three studies valued recreation activities in or near GCNP as 
hiking: $43.16 per visitor day; multi-day rafting: $128.21; and other 
ground sightseeing: $39.71. It is assumed that these values represent 
the value of participating in the indicated activities at GCNP absent 
any impact from aircraft noise.
    These data and assumptions imply the following total lost values 
from all aircraft noise in 1995. The total lost value of $29.7 million 
was calculated as the product of the number of visitor-days, the 
proportion of visitors affected by aircraft noise, the visitor-day 
value, and the assumed proportional reduction in the visitor-day value. 
(See Regulatory Evaluation for details).
    The benefit of this rulemaking is that portion of the total lost 
value that is associated with the resulting noise reduction. The 
indicated percent reduction in aircraft noise for each year was applied 
to the total lost value from all aircraft noise to yield the current 
use benefit for that year. Linear interpolation was used to estimate 
benefits between the years 1997 to 2000, and 2001 to 2008. A 3 percent 
discount rate was then applied to calculate the present value of use 
benefits over the 12 year regulatory evaluation period. Using

[[Page 69326]]

a 7 percent discount rate, the present value of the benefits is $136.2 
million.
    The FAA and the NPS believes that the true representation of 
benefits from the rule are reflected by the 3 percent discount rate 
with a resulting value of $172,416,000. Economics literature supports a 
3 percent discount rate for natural resource valuation (e.g., Freeman 
1993), and recent Federal rulemaking also support a 3 percent discount 
rate for natural resource valuation (61 FR 453; 61 FR 20584).
    Summarizing the above results, the FAA estimates the discounted use 
benefits of this final rulemaking during the 12-year period 1997-2008 
to be $172 million discounted at three percent. In addition to these 
use benefits, this rulemaking would likely generate non-use benefits. 
The FAA does not have adequate data to estimate non-use benefits of 
aircraft noise reduction at the Grand Canyon. However, there are other 
studies that do suggest the possible existence of significant non-use 
benefits that can be attributed to this rulemaking.

Benefit/Cost Comparison

    The total present value cost (operator revenue loss net of variable 
aircraft operating costs, ticket price increases, and recording costs) 
of the final rule will be $42.1 million. The total present value of 
benefits are $172.0 million. Since the total costs are less than the 
total benefits, the FAA contends that the final rule will be cost 
beneficial.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    By both law and executive order, Federal regulatory agencies are 
required to consider the impact of final 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), as amended, requires 
Federal agencies to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis of 
each final rule that will have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The definition of small entities 
and guidance material for making determinations required by the RFA are 
contained in the Federal Register [47 FR 32825, July 29, 1982].
    With respect to this final rule, a ``small entity'' essentially is 
a commercial sightseeing air tour operator owns or operates nine or 
fewer aircraft. A significant economic impact on a small entity is 
defined as an annualized net compliance cost to such a small commercial 
air tour sightseeing operator. In the case of scheduled operators of 
aircraft for hire having fewer than 60 passenger seats, a ``significant 
economic impact'' or cost threshold, is defined as an annualized net 
compliance cost level that exceeds $69,800; for unscheduled operators 
the threshold is $4,900. A substantial number of small entities is 
defined as a number that is more than one-third of the small commercial 
sightseeing operators (but not less than eleven operators) subject to 
the final rule.
    The Federal Aviation Administration has determined that this final 
rule and the NPRM that is being published simultaneously, will have a 
significant economic impact on all commercial sightseeing operators 
conducting flights within Grand Canyon National Park, and, therefore, 
has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis of the final 
rule. A separate regulatory flexibility analysis of the NPRM is 
contained in that document. The analysis, structured in accordance with 
section 604 of the RFA as amended requires the following:
    1. A succinct statement of the need for and objectives of the final 
rule;
    2. A summary of the significant issues raised by public comments in 
response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a summary of 
the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any 
changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
    3. A description of and an estimate of the number of small entities 
in which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate 
is available;
    4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the 
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and 
the type of professional skills necessary for the report or record; and
    5. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected.
    Why FAA Action is Being Considered: The final rule to establish 
noise limitations for certain aircraft operations in the vicinity of 
the Grand Canyon National Park stems from the need to further 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 the Grand Canyon National Park.
    Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments: Only one commenter 
specifically addressed the impact on small businesses. The Small 
Business Administration (SBA) questioned the findings of the regulatory 
flexibility analysis contained in the NPRM with respect to the impact 
on small tour operators because revenue losses were assessed at the 
aggregate level. The SBA also suggested that a different compliance and 
reporting requirement or different timetables for small entities should 
be explored, that the FAA propose performance rather than design 
standards, and that small entities be considered for exemption from all 
or part of the rule requirements. The FAA has reviewed the SBA's 
comment and, they are discussed in the alternatives section of this 
analysis.
    The SBA also suggested that it would be appropriate to use 
elasticity of demand information to calculate the extent to which small 
businesses will recoup costs by increasing fares. The data for this 
segment of the population, however, are not available, but this issue 
is discussed in the full regulatory analysis of the final rule. The SBA 
also had suggested that the FAA evaluate data on profits which ``may be 
available from Dun and Bradstreet.'' However, data on actual profits 
from very small entities that would be affected by this proposal are 
not publicly available from the recommended source or within the public 
docket. In addition, the SBA believes that the FAA has not fully 
considered other significant options. Given both the qualitative and 
quantitative costs and benefits, the FAA believes that the best option 
that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits was chosen. With regard to 
other concerns made by the SBA, the FAA has taken these comments into 
consideration in producing the final RFA and in estimating costs 
associated with this rulemaking.
    Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Effected: The 
rulemaking will affect commercial air tour sightseeing operators 
conducting flights

[[Page 69327]]

over the Grand Canyon National Park under 14 CFR part 135. FAA data 
shows that in 1995, there were 26 potentially affected small commercial 
sightseeing operators, each owning, but not necessarily operating 9 or 
fewer aircraft. These operators owned a total of 70 aircraft and the 
average fleet consisted of about 3 airplanes. The FAA estimates that 
these 26 operators, will be impacted by the final rule.

Cost of Compliance to Small Entities

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 
of the Proposed Rule
    Section 93.917 will establish operator reporting requirements. All 
certificate holders operating within the GCNP SFRA will incur costs due 
to this section during the five-year time frame (1997 through 2001) 
that these reporting requirements will be in effect.
    The reporting requirements for section 93.917 include:
    (a) Each certificate holder will have to establish a system to 
codify the required information and then update this system.
    (b) Three times a year, within 30 days after April 30, August 31, 
and December 31, each certificate holder will have to submit in writing 
specific information to the Las Vegas FSDO.
    In developing these costs, the FAA assumes that each operator 
maintains an existing list of what each one of his/her aircraft is 
doing each day. The operators require this information for maintenance 
planning purposes, and such a list will include how many hours are left 
before the next scheduled inspection and how many flights can be flown 
before it is due. Since the operators already have this information, 
the FAA assumes that it could be loaded into a spreadsheet program. The 
FAA also assumes that the total amount of time needed to process and 
compile the information is a function of the number of airplanes that 
the operator has. This work could most likely be performed by a flight 
dispatcher.
    The FAA estimates that it will take each certificate holder one 
week to establish and set up the reporting system. Thereafter, each 
operator could use a spreadsheet program to maintain and update daily 
information; accordingly, a computer specialist will not be needed to 
set up an operator's reporting system.
    The recordkeeping requirement described above will have to be 
updated throughout the entire five-year time frame. The total amount of 
time needed to update this information will be a function of the number 
of aircraft that each operator has. The FAA assumes that it will take 
each operator about 10 minutes per day to record the updated 
information onto a master spreadsheet.
    In addition, the required information is to be provided to the Las 
Vegas FSDO three times in each of the years 1997 through 2001. The FAA 
assumes that this will take about one-half of an hour for each operator 
to compile the information, 15 minutes for each operator to fill out 
the generic information on the report and an additional 5 minutes per 
aircraft for the specific information needed in the report.
    The FAA estimates that compliance with the final rule's 
recordkeeping requirements will impose an additional 61 hours of labor 
per aircraft each year once the initial set-up of a reporting system 
had been accomplished. The average annual cost per aircraft will be 
about $515, but the average annual cost per affected operator will 
depend on an operator's fleet size. The one-time initial set-up cost 
for each operator regardless of fleet size will be about $340.
    All commercial air tour sightseeing operators will be subject to 
the recordkeeping requirement costs. The FAA estimates that the maximum 
annual cost of this requirement will 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 
will be about $4,860, which is about $40 below the thresholds for 
significant cost for scheduled and unscheduled operators.

Zuni Point Corridor

    Of the final rule changes, one of the most costly--in terms of 
increased tour lengths, increased consumer prices, and increased 
traffic in the Dragon Corridor--will be the restriction of one-way 
traffic in the Zuni Point Corridor. This change, however, will only 
impact at most five operators currently offering a two-way tour of the 
Zuni Point Corridor. The number of operators affected by this 
requirement is less than one-third of all GCNP commercial air tour 
sightseeing operators. Thus, a substantial number of small operators 
will not be significantly impacted.

Basic Fixed Flight-Free Periods

    Only the commercial air tour sightseeing operators based in Tusayan 
or those who have flights entering the GCNP SFRA from the east end of 
the Grand Canyon will be subject to the basic fixed flight-free 
periods. The FAA estimates that the average annual cost of this 
requirement to these operators will be about $30,500 in net operating 
revenue loss per aircraft on average. Any operator with 9 or fewer 
aircraft will incur costs that exceed the threshold for significant 
costs for unscheduled ($4,900) operators, and any operator with from 4 
to 9 aircraft will exceed the threshold for significant costs for 
scheduled ($69,800) operators. Five of the 31 operators conducting 
commercial sightseeing air tours of GCNP own more than 9 aircraft and 
will not be considered a ``small entity''. Six operators own between 
four and nine aircraft. Thus, this final requirement will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
because only a maximum of six operators out of 31 will be significantly 
impacted.
    The final rule will affect certain operators who conduct air tours 
between Las Vegas and Tusayan. Currently, these operators follow the 
Colorado River inside the GCNP during part of that flight. All these 
operators will no longer be allowed to conduct this flight along the 
Colorado River, as a result of this final rule. This rule changes these 
12 operators from airtour operators to commuter operators.
    The FAA estimates that using 1995 as a baseline, the above 12 
operators with 82 aircraft will incur average annual revenue losses, 
net of variable operating costs, of $2,397,900. Therefore, the net 
impact per aircraft will be about $29,200 ($18,900 discounted). 
Assuming as a worse case, that all of these operators are unscheduled 
(which they are not), then the threshold for significant costs would be 
$4,900. Therefore, all of the operators would suffer a significant 
economic impact. However, there are only nine small operators (29 
percent) that will be adversely affected. The FAA concludes that a 
substantial number of small entities will not be significantly 
impacted.

Description of Alternative Actions

    This rule is somewhat unique in that most of the economic impact of 
the rule falls upon small businesses. Consequently, all alternatives 
considered during formulation of this final rule are actually 
alternatives related to small entities. Numerous alternatives have been 
suggested and considered by the many forums that have studied the issue 
since 1986 when the FAA issued SFAR No. 50 that established flight 
regulations in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon. In 1994, the DOI 
submitted a report to Congress containing recommendations for restoring 
natural quiet in the park. Alternatives that were recommended to be 
considered, separately or in concert, included simplification of the

[[Page 69328]]

commercial air tour sightseeing route structure, expansion of the 
flight free zones, phased-in use of quieter aircraft, technology, 
separation of park ground visitors and air tour overflights, exploiting 
natural attenuation, reducing duration of noise intrusions, and 
encouraging use of greater payload aircraft. Many combinations of all 
of these alternatives or recommendations were considered in developing 
this rule. The NPRM, inviting public comment was published July 31, 
1996. The following month, on August 21, the NPRM Draft Environmental 
Assessment was published in the Federal Register inviting further 
public comment. Public hearings were held September 16-20 in 
Scottsdale, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada to obtain additional public 
comment on the NPRM and the draft environmental assessment. Finally, 
Congressional hearings were held on the issue October 10-11, 1996.
    To recount all the alternatives and combination of alternatives 
that were considered as a result of these actions is beyond the scope 
of this analysis. Clearly, however, the two primary goals of this rule 
are to (1) restore natural quiet, and (2) preserve the opportunity for 
the public to enjoy air tours at GCNP. Integrally connected with the 
second goal is preservation of the air tour industry serving the park, 
which is primarily composed of small entities.
    Probably the only alternative not considered was to extend the 
compliance period beyond the year 2008. This alternative was rejected 
because the President's Memorandum dated April 22, 1996 directed that 
restoration of the natural quiet be accomplished by 2008. The FAA 
believes that the least burdensome way for small entities to accomplish 
restoration of natural quiet by 2008 is through the requirements of 
this final rule and the NPRM being published at the same time. A brief 
discussion of specific alternatives to reduce the impact on small 
entities suggested by the SBA in that agency's comments on the NPRM is 
as follows:

Lessen Projected Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The FAA considered several ways to lessen the impact of these 
requirements on small entities. The first way was to not require any 
reporting by small entities. Another was to require the identical 
reporting requirements on each firm, regardless of the size of that 
firm. The third was to tailor the reporting to the size of the firm.
    The FAA rejected the first alternative because the vast majority of 
the firms are small entities. Collecting the information from only 
large entities would not be useful to establish accurate information on 
GCNP overflights for noise and safety management purposes. In addition, 
the FAA would not be able to validate FAA and NPS noise models for use 
in noise mitigation studies or determine with precision when and where 
noise mitigation is required. Finally, the FAA would have no basis for 
creating a more flexible and adaptable noise management system.
    The second alternative was to require identical reporting 
requirements regardless of firm size. This alternative was also 
rejected because larger firms with more aircraft are likely to create 
more noise than smaller firms with fewer aircraft. The FAA does not 
believe that it is reasonable to burden all firms with the identical 
requirements. The FAA also believes that some information would be lost 
(if the reporting requirements were made too lenient) or too much 
unnecessary information would be obtained if all operators had the 
identical requirements.
    The third (chosen) alternative tailored the recordkeeping 
requirements to the size of the firm. As documented in the regulatory 
evaluation, much of the information that is being requested is based on 
the number of aircraft an operator owns or operates. That is, a smaller 
firm with fewer aircraft would be burdened less than a larger firm with 
more aircraft.

Propose Performance Based Standards

    The SBA suggested that the FAA consider the use of performance 
rather than design standards as applied to small entities. The FAA is 
interested in taking advantage of the benefits of performance 
standards. The agency completed a major study in April, 1996 called 
``Challenge 2000'' to serve as a guide for a comprehensive change 
program for the FAA to provide essential regulation and enforcement 
services. These services would be provided with expected levels of 
resources into the next century. One recommendation of that study was 
for the agency to evolve performance based regulations. Although the 
FAA did not identify an opportunity to implement any performance 
regulations in the final rule, some evolution in that direction is 
contained in the NPRM being issued simultaneously with this final rule. 
In the NPRM, aircraft are categorized in accordance with their noise 
performance, and the noisier performers are proposed to be phased out 
of air tour service in the vicinity of GCNP.

Exempt Small Entities From Some Provisions of the Rule

    The SBA commented that the FAA should explore a much more 
aggressive approach in considering this alternative. The FAA has 
attempted to minimize the economic impact of restoring quiet to the 
park on air tour operators, most of which are the small entities 
impacted by this rule. But if small entities, which comprise 26 of the 
31 operations impacted were exempted from any operational provisions of 
the rule, the goal of restoring natural quiet to the Grand Canyon would 
not be achieved. Based on the above discussion, the FAA sees no 
practical way to exempt small entities from any of the provisions of 
the final rule.

Statement of Legal and Policy Reasons for Adopting the Rule

    The FAA is directed to promote the safe flight of civil aircraft in 
air commerce by Subtitle VII Part A of Title 49, United States Code. As 
such, it is the only agency empowered to control aircraft flight in 
U.S. airspace. Further, Section 3 of Public Law 100-91, commonly known 
as the National Park Overflight Act, mandated 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.
    The primary policy reason for adopting this rule, is that it is the 
best compromise the FAA has been able to formulate to achieve the 
mandate of Public Law 100-91 and maintain a viable air tour industry 
serving GCNP. Further, the President published a memorandum in the 
Federal Register on April 22, 1996 requiring that the goal of 
restoration of natural quiet as defined by the Secretary of the 
Interior in accordance with the Overflights Act be completed in the 
park no later than April 22, 2008.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The FAA has determined that the rulemaking will 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 air tour 
sightseeing at GCNP, much of which is foreign.
    These changes will effectively reconfigure GCNP flight-free zones 
and flight corridors, reduce the time available for commercial 
sightseeing air tours to be conducted and in some cases, prolong the 
time a commercial air tour sightseeing passenger spends in an airplane 
not necessarily sightseeing. To the extent a commercial sightseeing air

[[Page 69329]]

tour of GCNP is perceived to be a devaluation in the current service 
offered, commercial air tour 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 air 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 air tour 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 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 submitted a copy of this section to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for its review, and has received a 1-year clearance to 
obtain this information (OMB Control No. is 2121-0602).

Conclusion

    This rule will reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the park 
environment in the Grand Canyon. The combination of expanded flight-
free zones and closure of the Fossil Corridor will make significant 
progress toward achieving the NPS's goal of substantial restoration of 
natural quiet. The NPRM being published today would further assist in 
accomplishing this goal by a combination of requirements that would 
limit future use of noisier aircraft and that would provide incentives 
for the use of quieter aircraft. The initial aircraft phaseout proposed 
in the accompanying notice, in conjunction with this rule, would 
provide a significant reduction in noise and make a major contribution 
toward achieving the Congressional mandate of substantial restoration 
of natural quiet by the year 2000. Modeling shows that, if the phaseout 
is adopted as proposed, the substantial restoration objective would be 
exceeded by 2008. The phase out of noisier aircraft would ensure 
substantial restoration of natural quiet under conditions where 
additional noise efficient aircraft are added to the commercial 
sightseeing fleet as predicted in forecasting models.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the 
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the 
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this 
final rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this final rule 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 final rule is considered significant 
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Other Actions

Comprehensive Noise Management Plan

    The rule reflects the understanding of the FAA and NPS that the 
conversion of the commercial sightseeing aircraft fleet operating in 
the SFRA to a more noise efficient fleet is the most promising approach 
to providing for the substantial restoration of natural quiet mandated 
by Public Law 100-91 and allowing for some measure of growth in the 
commercial sightseeing industry. To ensure that the rule provides the 
fairest solution for all parties involved, the FAA and NPS are 
committed to the joint development of a noise management plan no later 
than five years after May 1, 1997, the effective date of this rule. It 
will provide for a more adaptive management system, full resolution of 
all monitoring and modeling issues, additional public input, and the 
provision of improved incentives to invest in noise efficient aircraft. 
The purpose is to further refine the proposal (proposed Sec. 93.319) in 
the NPRM regarding Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the 
Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park, published concurrently with 
this final rule, with the intent of providing for substantial 
restoration of natural quiet mandated by Public Law 100-91. To ensure 
development of a flexible and adaptive approach to noise mitigation and 
management, this plan will, at a minimum, (1) address development of a 
reliable aircraft operations and noise database, (2) validate and 
document the most effective uses for FAA and NPS noise models in GCNP, 
(3) explore how the conversion to a noise efficient fleet can most 
effectively contribute to the substantial restoration of natural quiet 
while allowing for growth in the industry, and how, in this context, 
incentives can best be provided to promote this conversion. The FAA and 
NPS are committed to an open process that will provide for full public 
involvement and consultation with Native American tribes.

Park Air Operations

    GCNP has one of the most strictly regulated aviation programs 
within the NPS and the DOI. 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 will convert 
to the quietest aircraft available that would also meet mission 
requirements.

Route Design and Modification

    Recognizing that the design/location of tour routes within the SFRA 
is another critical component in achieving the substantial restoration 
of natural quiet in GCNP, the FAA, after consultation with the NPS, has 
proposed air tour routes in a separate notice issued concurrently with 
this final rule. These routes were designed in light of safety, noise 
mitigation, and economic considerations. The FAA welcomes and will 
consider any and all comments regarding these proposed routes, 
including those received through government-to-government consultation 
with Native American tribes. Any subsequent modifications to these 
routes would entail a similar process utilizing the same 
considerations.

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.

[[Page 69330]]

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

Adoption of Amendments

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends 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.

PART 121--[AMENDED]

    2. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 
44912, 46105.

PART 135--[AMENDED]

    3. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

SFAR No. 50-2 [Removed]

    4. 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

    5. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

    6. 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  Commercial sightseeing limitations.
93.317  Commercial sightseeing flight reporting requirements.
Appendix to Subpart U--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the 
Grant Canyon National Park, AZ

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 
from the surface up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL within an area 
bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.55'12'' N., Long. 
112 deg.04'05'' 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.21'30'' N., 
Long. 112 deg.00'03'' 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 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.41'01'' N., Long. 
113 deg.35'27'' W.; thence clockwise via the 4.2-nautical mile radius 
of the Peach Springs VORTAC to Lat. 35 deg.28'53'' N., Long. 
113 deg.27'49'' W.; northeast to Lat. 35 deg.42'58'' 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.57'44'' N., Long. 
112 deg.14'04'' 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 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 93.309, no person may operate an 
aircraft in the Special Flight Rules Area within the following flight-
free zones:
    (a) Desert View Flight-free Zone. That airspace extending from the 
surface up to but not including 14,500 feet MSL 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 western boundary of the zone. The corridor to the 
west, between the Desert View and Bright Angel Flight-free Zones, is 
designated the ``Zuni Point Corridor.'' This corridor is 2 nautical 
miles wide for commercial sightseeing flights and 4 nautical miles wide 
for transient and general aviation operations.
    (b) Bright Angel Flight-free Zone. That airspace extending from the 
surface up to but not including 14,500 feet MSL 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.01'54'' N., 
Long. 112 deg.11'24'' 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.59'37'' N., 
Long. 112 deg.04'29'' 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 Corridor.'' The corridor to the west, between the Bright 
Angel and Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zones, is designated the

[[Page 69331]]

``Dragon Corridor.'' This corridor is 2 nautical miles wide for 
commercial sightseeing flights and 4 nautical miles wide for transient 
and general aviation operations.
    (c) Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone. That airspace extending from 
the surface up to but not including 14,500 feet MSL 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.13'19'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.21'02'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'47'' 
W.; thence west and south 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 to Lat. 36 deg.11'51'' N., Long. 113 deg.04'44'' 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.13'46'' N., Long. 113 deg.01'54'' 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.
    (d) Sanup Flight-free Zone. That airspace extending from the 
surface up to but not including 8,000 feet MSL within an area bounded 
by a line beginning at Lat. 36 deg.02'38'' N., Long. 113 deg.21'11'' 
W.; west to Lat. 36 deg.06'20'' N., Long. 113 deg.51'40'' 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.43'00'' 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 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 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) Marble Canyon Sector. Lees Ferry to Boundary Ridge: 6,000 feet MSL.
    (ii) Supai Sector. Boundary Ridge to Supai Point: 7,500 feet MSL.
    (iii) Diamond Creek Sector. Supai Point to Diamond Creek: 6,500 
feet MSL.
    (iv) Pearce Ferry Sector. Diamond Creek to the Grand Wash Cliffs: 
5,000 feet MSL.
    (2) Transient and general aviation operations. (i) Marble Canyon 
Sector. Lees Ferry to Boundary Ridge: 8,000 feet MSL.
    (ii) Supai Sector. Boundary Ridge to Supai Point: 10,000 feet MSL.
    (iii) Diamond Creek Sector. Supai Point to Diamond Creek: 9,000 
feet MSL.
    (iv) Pearce Ferry Sector. Diamond Creek to the Grand Wash Cliffs: 
8,000 feet MSL.
    (b) Minimum corridor altitudes.
    (1) Commercial sightseeing flights. (i) Zuni Point Corridors. 7,500 
feet MSL.
    (ii) Dragon Corridor. 7,500 feet MSL.
    (2) Transient and general aviation operations. (i) Zuni Point 
Corridor. 10,500 feet MSL.
    (ii) Dragon Corridor. 10,500 feet MSL.
    (iii) 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 
Sec. 91.119 of this chapter.):

    (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 Zuni Point, Dragon, and Tuckup 
Flight Corridors described in Sec. 93.305 at the following altitudes 
unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Flight Standards District 
Office:
    (1) Northbound. 11,500 or 13,500 feet MSL.
    (2) Southbound. 10,500 or 12,500 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

[[Page 69332]]

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  Commercial sightseeing limitations.

    (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Flight Standards District 
Office, no person shall conduct commercial sightseeing operations in 
the Dragon and Zuni Corridors during the following fixed flight-free 
periods:
    (1) Summer season (May 1-September 30)--6 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily; and
    (2) Winter season (October 1-April 30)--5 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily.
    (b) No person may operate more commercial sightseeing aircraft in 
the Special Flight Rules Area than the highest number of aircraft that 
appeared on the certificate holder's operations specifications, and 
that were used for commercial sightseeing operations in the Grand 
Canyon Special Flight Rules Area, between July 31, 1996 and December 
31, 1996.


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.
    These reporting requirements continue through May 31, 2002.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

Appendix to Subpart U--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the 
Grand Canyon National Park, AZ

[[Page 69333]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE96.000



    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 24, 1996.
Linda Hall Daschle,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-33146 Filed 12-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C