[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26909-26914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12746]



  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 1997 / 
Notices  

[[Page 26909]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Air Tour Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of commercial air tour routes for the 
Grand Canyon National Park and disposition of comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of commercial air tour 
routes for the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) and disposes of 
comments received in response to a previous notice of availability and 
request for comments that was published on Dec. 31, 1996. The 
commercial air tour routes are not being published in today's Federal 
Register because they are depicted on large and very detailed charts 
that would be difficult to publish in the Federal Register. The new 
routes, or modifications of existing commercial air tour routes, are 
related to airspace changes contained in a final rule affecting the 
special flight rules in the vicinity of GCNP (GCNP final rule) that 
were published on December 31, 1996. The commercial air tour routes are 
also related to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing the 
phase out of noisy aircraft operating in the vicinity of GCNP (noise 
NPRM), also published on December 31, 1996.

DATES: Comments on the routes must be received on or before May 27, 
1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel V. Meier, Jr., Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-220, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-
3749, or Dave Metzbower, Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-220, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-
3724.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The commercial air tour routes are not being 
published in today's Federal Register because they are on very large 
and very detailed charts that would not publish well in the Federal 
Register. A copy of the air tour routes may be obtained by contacting 
Denise Cashmere at (202) 267-3717, by faxing a request to (202) 267-
5229, or by sending a request in writing to the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

Discussion

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in consultation with the 
National Park Service (NPS), has proposed new air tour routes and has 
proposed to modify existing air tour routes to accommodate airspace 
changes included in the final rule concerning GCNP. Certain parts of 
the final rule become effective May 1, 1997. The GCNP final rule, in 
part, modifies the dimensions of the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area 
(SFRA); establishes new and modifies existing flight-free zones (FFZ); 
establishes new and modifies existing flight corridors; and establishes 
reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating 
in the SFRA. The noise NPRM proposed to phase out noisier aircraft 
operating in the vicinity of GCNP.
    The proposed new and modified routes were developed on the basis of 
airspace configurations, safety considerations, the goal of substantial 
restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP, economic considerations, 
consultation with Native American tribes, and comments received in 
response to the previous notice of availability.
    In developing the proposed new and modified air tour routes for 
GCNP, the FAA has been consulting with Native American tribes on a 
government-to-government basis. This consultation is required under the 
Presidential Memorandum on Government-to-Government Consultation with 
Native American Tribal Governments to assess potential effects on 
tribal trust resources and to assure that tribal government rights and 
concerns are considered in decisionmaking. The FAA has also been 
consulting with these tribes pursuant to the American Indian Religious 
Freedom Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act concerning 
potential effects of the proposed routes on sacred sites. In addition, 
the FAA has been consulting with these tribes, the Arizona State 
Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation, and other interested parties under Sec. 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act concerning potential effects on 
historic sites, including traditional cultural places and Native 
American sacred sites.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received more than 100 comments in response to the previous 
notice of availability. Comments were received from industry 
associations (e.g., Grand Canyon Air Tour Council, United States Air 
Tour Association, Helicopter Association International); environmental 
groups (e.g., Sierra Club, National Parks and Conservation 
Association); air tour operators; and government officials. The 
overwhelming majority of commentaries recommended changes to the 
proposed routes.

General Safety Concerns

    Many commenters state that the proposed routes will reduce aviation 
safety by increasing the density of aircraft in the corridors, where 
radar traffic control is not available. This increase in complexity and 
density of air tour routes will alter the ``see and avoid'' air traffic 
environment over the canyon in a manner that could adversely affect and 
compromise air safety. Commenters also state that the expansion of FFZs 
concentrates more traffic on fewer routes thus increasing the potential 
collision hazard.
    One commenter is concerned about the congestion at the Grand Canyon 
Airport for aircraft heading for airspace northwest of the airport. The 
most critical issue is the large number of aircraft in different 
categories that will occupy this airspace. The commenter states that 
the preferred runway at the Grand Canyon Airport is runway 21 and 
estimates that 90 percent of the time runway 21 is in use. The result 
is several single engine Cessnas and Twin Otters climbing northwest 
bound to 10,000 MSL on Black 1 route, while the head-on traffic off of 
the Blue 1, and Blue Direct routes are heading for the right downwind 
for runway 21. In addition, helicopters are also climbing northwest 
bound to 9500 MSL to join the Green 1.
FAA Response
    The redesign of routes to allow air traffic to flow counterclock 
wise around the Bright Angel FFZ and clockwise around the Desert View 
FFZ is expected to reduce the complexity of air traffic control. 
Maintaining the high level of safety for traffic control at the Grand 
Canyon Airport is critical. The FAA believes that proper compliance 
with Letters of Agreement (LOA) and air traffic sequencing procedures 
will maintain this level of safety. The FAA has, given the requirements 
concerning noise mitigation and intrusion over Native American 
historical or cultural sites and the needs of the air tour industry, 
structured routes and procedures to provide a safe aviation 
environment.
    The FAA realizes that changes to a structured environment, such as 
those made in the GCNP, will cause concerns among aviation users of the 
park; nevertheless, the governing principles for air operations in the 
GCNP are based upon visual flight rules. Under these rules the pilot-
in-command has the responsibility for the safe operation of his/her 
aircraft. The FAA recognizes

[[Page 26910]]

that under VFR an increase in the number of operations in a limited 
amount of airspace may alter the balance of safety; however, the FAA 
cannot presently determine, quantitatively, when that balance reaches a 
critical level of safety. To preclude the development of an 
unacceptable level of safety, the FAA has included certain reporting 
requirements in the final rule of December 31, 1996, that are intended 
to provide additional data which will be used to aid in future safety 
analysis.

Sanup FFZ

    General: One commenter points out that the proposed routes in the 
vicinity of the Sanup FFZ will eliminate important safety features of 
the current routes. Such safety features, which are not provided by the 
FAA's proposed routes, are (1) both lateral and vertical separation 
between routes, and (2) prominent landmarks and visual checkpoints 
along the routes to provide course guidance. By relocating Green 4 
northbound, Blue 2 southbound, and Blue 2 northbound, these three major 
routes exist with only altitude separation. Similar problems occur with 
the portions of Blue 2 and Green 4 routes between Quartermaster Canyon 
and Spender Canyon.
    Blue 1/Blue Direct: One commenter requests that on an emergency 
basis and until further discussion and planning can take place, the old 
Blue 1 route should remain open to prevent traffic compression and a 
significant safety hazard.
    Some commenters state that, with the changes to the Blue 1 route, 
operators may not be able to sell it as an air tour, which would result 
in spillover to other routes, increasing congestion and possible 
accidents.
    One commenter argues that if Blue 1 were to be eliminated they 
would be forced to engage in air tours based on the Black routes, thus 
contributing to a potentially serious and unintended impact on eastern 
Grand Canyon airspace and environment.
    Several commenters have suggested that the Las Vegas to Tusayan 
flights should be routed to north of Mount Dellenbaugh, thus 
eliminating the Blue 1 route with its traffic rerouted to the Blue 
Direct route. Furthermore, one commenter states that, where possible, 
the FAA should use two-way return routes, which affect a much smaller 
area than loop routes.
    An airline commenter states that, as proposed, Blue 1 is not an air 
tour. Blue 1 should be able to go to the southern tip of the Toroweap/
Shinumo FFZ encompassing National Canyon, then to Yumathiska Point, 
Little Coyote Canyon, Mt. Sinyala, Towago Pt, Topocoba Hilltop, 
Havatagvitch, then the 20 mile fix. Noise efficient aircraft could 
descend to 6500 MSL. If, under the proposed routes, Blue 1 traffic were 
rerouted onto Blue 2, then Blue 2 would become a hazardous condition 
(with only vertical separation). This commenter believes that the route 
structure should keep Blue 2 as it currently exists for safety reasons.
    Blue 2: Several commenters argue that the Blue 2 route is 
inherently dangerous because it uses staking of aircraft as the only 
means to separate traffic. Both the eastbound and westbound portions 
are located south of the Colorado River, eliminating the convenient 
landmark which served as a horizontal separation between the two 
routes. These commenters believe that aircraft operating at different 
speeds need both horizontal and vertical separation due to the extreme 
up and down drafts that are present in the Grand Canyon.
    Blue 3: Several commenters state that combining Blue 2A and Blue 2B 
into the proposed Blue 3 eliminates the use of the Colorado River as a 
defined landmark to allow horizontal separation. Therefore the risk of 
collision increases greatly. One commenter suggests redividing Blue 3 
into Blue 2A and Blue 2B. Another commenter states that the present 
minimum altitude of Blue 3 route should be maintained.
    Green 4: One air tour company which uses the present Green 4 argues 
that the new changes will dump so much traffic into this airspace that 
passenger and flight crew safety will be seriously compromised. This 
commenter's helicopters use Green 4 which shares this airspace with 
Blue 2 airplane traffic. These two routes are separated by altitude 
(500 feet) and horizontally by as little as 1 mile in some areas and 
zero horizontal separation in places where the routes cross each other. 
This system has worked in the past partly because there is not much 
usage. The existing traffic is able to hear each other's radio 
transmission and easily able to see and avoid the other users.
FAA Response
    On the western end of the Sanup, the Blue 2 (B2) and Green 4 (G4) 
remain essentially unchanged from the current chart until Separation 
Canyon. From Separation Canyon to Diamond Creek, these routes have been 
moved to the south side of the river for noise mitigation purposes. The 
FAA believes that adequate vertical and horizontal separation has been 
maintained. The FAA eliminated the Blue 2A (B2A) based on its best 
information that this route, although previously considered a weather 
route, is seldom used for that purpose. To allow for weather related 
emergencies, the FAA included language in the final GCNP rule that 
permits pilots to take any appropriate action to preserve the safety of 
flight.
    In the central portion of the canyon, the FAA has altered the 
previously proposed B1A and Blue 1 (B1). To provide an optimum route 
which offers the best alternatives between noise mitigation, 
overflights over Native American cultural sites, and a viable air tour 
route, the FAA is proposing that the B1A remain unchanged until it 
crosses the northern part of national canyon, as shown on the map of 
April 1997, then turn southeast to avoid Supai Point and continue until 
it rejoins B1.
    The Blue 3 (B3) will allow air tour transit between the routes in 
the central part of the canyon. The B1 route segment north of the Sanup 
FFZ has been moved north of Mount Dellenbaugh to within one-half mile 
of the SFRA to reduce aircraft noise at the Shivwits fire camp. Blue 
Direct (BD) was not relocated north of Mount Dellenbaugh. Such a 
relocation would not have placed the BD far enough away from Mount 
Dellenbaugh to mitigate appreciably air traffic noise and would have 
exposed air traffic on this route and B1 to an unnecessary level of 
safety risk. The FAA will continue to consider if route changes should 
be made in the area north of Mount Dellenbaugh.

Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ

     General: Some commenters have raised concerns that by extending 
the Toroweap Flight Free Zone south of the Colorado River most of Las 
Vegas airplane traffic will be forced into Blue 2 and 3. Commenters 
believe that this compression of traffic will result in a mid air 
accident sooner or later.
     Blue 1A: Several commenters request the deletion of the proposed 
Blue 1A route through Toroweap-Shinumo FFZ. No air tour routes should 
be permitted through this FFZ, even for less noisy (``Class C'') 
aircraft. The river corridor from National Canyon to Havasu Creek 
should receive maximum protection from air tour noise. The addition of 
the National Canyon to the Toroweap-Shinumo FFZ was critically needed 
for the SFAR and its operating procedures. Furthermore, this route is 
non-essential since most of the Las Vegas-Tusayan flights are shuttles 
to the Canyon and are not solely air tours.
    Brown 2: Brown 2 should allow descent to 6500 off the Shivwits 
Plateau.
    Brown 3: Brown 3 departure on the map is unrealistic. Route must be 
able

[[Page 26911]]

to exit by flying south of Paws Pocket and Northbound through expanded 
FFZ. Brown 3 arrival is not necessary.
    Brown 4: Brown 4 should be called Brown 1 reverse.
FAA Response
    The best information that the FAA has indicates that if the B1A is 
not maintained as a viable air tour route, approximately 40 percent of 
the Las Vegas air tour operations will shift to the B2. The FAA 
believes that this occurrence would increase the air traffic density on 
the western Sanup and increase the risk to safety above the current 
level. By locating the B1A as shown on the map of April 1997, the FAA 
has attempted to meet its responsibility to restore substantially the 
natural quiet and at the same time maintain a viable air tour industry 
in the Park with minimum intrusion over Native American historical and 
cultural sites.
    The Brown routes are used by commercial operations in support of 
the river rafting industry. Some of these commercial operators may also 
have air tour operating authority; nevertheless, the authority given to 
operate on the brown routes is entirely separate from that given to 
operate air tours. Operations on the brown routes are conducted in 
accordance with an approved procedures manual or, as is the case with 
more flexible helicopter operations, with a form 7711 issued by the Las 
Vegas FSDO.

Bright Angel and Desert View FFZ

    General: One commenter states that the northbound route around 
Bright Angel FFZ should turn east to Saddle Mountain at a point 5 miles 
further south. GCNP should be willing to absorb some of the effects of 
enlarging quieter areas within the park instead of exporting effects.
    Other commenters state that the entire area of Saddle Mountain 
Wilderness should be designated as a ``Noise Sensitive Area'' per FAA 
regulations.
    One commenter states that there is the potential for a mid-air 
collision just south of Saddle Mountain. Another commenter is concerned 
about the letdown areas between Bear's Ridge and Saddle Mountain, and 
between Saddle Mountain and Gunthers Castle.
    In both of these letdown areas, the fixed wing and rotary wing 
aircraft are only 500 feet apart. Commenters state that this is awfully 
close for mixed categories and classes of aircraft, especially with 
added distractions of aircraft merging from Black 5, Black 3, Black 2 
and Green 2 routes. There needs to be some lateral separation between 
the airplanes and helicopters.
    Different routes proposed: One commenter proposed the following 
alternative routes through Dragon corridor:
    Alternative 1: Dragon Corridor should be designed like an upside 
down funnel-shaped TCA, horizontally sliced into three altitude 
segments: the lowest portion (7,500 MSL) to be reserved for the 
quietest or category C airplanes and helicopters performing an out and 
back short tour (Green 1R). The next or center segment (8,500 MSL) 
would be reserved for category B helicopters. Only the 7,500 segment 
and the 8,500 segment would permit out and back Dragon Corridor tours. 
The full loop tour (Black 1 and Green 1) should be counter clockwise 
and restricted to airplanes only with the noise efficient aircraft 
utilizing the route and altitudes of the proposed Green 1 helicopter 
route and the other less noise efficient aircraft using Black 1.
    Alternative 2: Routes in the Dragon Corridor should be restricted 
to one way Southbound traffic. Helicopter Route Green 1R should be 
eliminated. The corridor should be horizontally sliced as in 
Alternative 1. The lowest portion (7,500 MSL) should be reserved for 
the quietest or category C airplanes and helicopters. The next or 
center segment 8,500 MSL should be reserved for Category B helicopters, 
and the third and highest segment (10,000 MSL) reserved for the 
category A airplanes. The Zuni Corridor should remain open in both 
directions as it is today for short airplane and helicopter tours, but 
structured so noise efficient aircraft use the lower sectors.
    Counter Clockwise Rotation: Many commenters questioned the prudence 
of reversing east end of the Canyon local tour routes from counter 
clockwise to clockwise. Such change would negatively impact safety from 
weather and congestion standpoints. Another commenter provides a 
detailed description of suggested route changes for Bright Angel and 
Marble Canyon areas. These commenters note that proposed route changes 
are less safe and less effective in mitigating sound impact in the 
Grand Canyon and that it is much safer to approach the North Rim from 
the east because you have lower terrain, should weather be a problem. 
When approaching from the west, you are surrounded by high terrain and 
are forced even farther north, or forced to reverse course and fly into 
oncoming traffic.
    One commenter requests that should the route change back to counter 
clockwise on Black 1 and 2, the new altitude should be 9,500 MSL from 
the Zuni Alpha to just north of Saddleback Mountain, then climb to 
10,000 MSL. The effect of this change would be to reduce the noise 
level within the GCNP by not carrying a higher power setting on fully 
loaded aircraft within this area of the Canyon. Since the area from 
just north of Saddleback Mountain to crossing the North Rim is not 
within the GCNP, the aircraft would not be climbing within the park. 
The main concern of this commenter is the elderly and physically 
handicapped customers they carry who would be more comfortable below 
10,000 feet. Also by having a slow descent at the north end of Dragon 
Canyon to the Colorado River from 10,000 feet MSL down to 9,500 feet 
MSL, aircraft could reduce engine power and lower noise levels.
    Another commenter states that, in addition to Dragon Corridor 
flowing counter clockwise, it should also accept traffic from the North 
entering from Kanab. Traffic could either maintain 10,000 MSL, overfly 
the airport and return to Kanab via Zuni on Black 2, or descend to land 
at Grand Canyon Airport.
    A helicopter air tour operator comments that the assigned 
helicopter altitude in Dragon Corridor for proposed Green route should 
be 7,500. If helicopters must be at 9,500 for a significant portion of 
proposed Green 1 route, then have helicopters leave the airport 
eastbound, climb to 9,500 through Zuni Corridor and over North Rim. 
Upon entering the Dragon Corridor, traffic should merge, as it does 
now, when the terrain permits at 7,500.
    Name Change of Routes: Several commenters have requested that the 
FAA keep the same naming conventions as are currently used under SFAR 
50-2. This will avoid confusion among experienced Canyon pilots and 
make training easier.
    Green 1 and Black 1: Same commenters request that all tour routes 
through the Dragon Corridor be deleted.
    Green 2 and Black 2: One commenter recommends deleting the proposed 
Black/Green 2. This commenter argues that the route is too long (80 
miles), with far too small a fraction over the Canyon (23%), to be 
economically viable. If it were used, it would impact a larger proposed 
rim wilderness in the park (east of the Palisades), a section of the 
Navajo Reservation that is currently free of air tour noise, and sacred 
Hopi sites near the Little Colorado Confluence.
    Another commenter, who supports counterclockwise traffic flow, 
states that it would be helpful if the lowest possible altitudes could 
be allowed for

[[Page 26912]]

Black 2. This is a bad weather return route from Black 1. Helicopters 
could return to the little Colorado River at 7,000 MSL and aircraft at 
7,500 MSL or if the ceiling is below 8,500 MSL on Black 2, could 
descend to 7,500 MSL for aircraft and 7,000 MSL for helicopters on 
Black 3, exit the SFAR to the east, and return to the airport outside 
the SFAR.
    Green 1R: One commenter states that Green 1 return route should be 
deleted, and helicopter routes should not be more than 500 feet lower 
than fixed wing routes. This commenters argues that helicopter 
operators are able to match, or even undercut, the price of a fixed 
wing tour. In addition, this route allows them to fly 2,500 feet below 
fixed wing aircraft, providing them a clear marketing advantage. Since 
the NPRM commenters considered helicopters to be the most obnoxious 
aircraft, there is no justification for giving them such an advantage 
over less invasive aircraft.
    One commenter made the following recommendations for routes around 
the Bright Angel FFZ:
    Single and twin engine piston driven propeller aircraft should 
enter the Zuni Point Corridor at 10,000 ft as to not require a noisy 
climbout to clear the terrain at Saddle Mountain and Bears Ridge. These 
aircraft should descend to 8,500 ft. when entering Dragon Corridor.
    Reverse course would avoid airplanes and helicopters flying at 
9,500 and 10,000 in the Dragon Corridor.
    A route should be designed to exit Green 2 in vicinity of Little 
Colorado flag. (Commenter attached a revised map.)
    The commenter also requests to exit from Northern portion of Green 
route in vicinity of Dragon B flag to the North, and request to enter 
Green 1R at the Dragon A flag to include the Dragon Corridor on the 
Havasupai flight. (Commenter attached revised maps.)
FAA Response
    In response to the comments and additional information received by 
the FAA, the flow of traffic around the Bright Angel and Desert View 
FFZ's has been reversed to allow traffic to move counterclock wise 
around the Bright Angel FFZ and clockwise around the Desert View FFZ. 
The G1 and Black 1 (BK1) have been moved farther east to reduce noise 
impacts around Saddle Mountain and the effects of turbulence during 
high wind conditions in that location. This relocation also eliminates 
a convergence point where each converging aircraft would have had to 
make turns to the west that would have reduced visual contact between 
these aircraft. The FAA also plans to propose a route through the 
northern part of the Bright Angel FFZ in the same location as the 
present GIA and Black 1A (BK1A). This route will be for Category C 
aircraft.
    The FAA agrees that reversing the air traffic flow round Bright 
Angel and Desert View FFZ's will offer a weather escape route to the 
east as well as allow for entry into B2 and G3. The FAA established the 
altitudes as shown on the April 1997 map to allow for safe vertical and 
horizontal terrain clearance and to mitigate for noise where current 
noise modeling indicates that terrain shielding would be preferable to 
higher altitudes. In cases where terrain shielding does not offer 
protection from noise, the FAA established the highest altitude 
possible. The difference in altitudes also reflect the differences in 
the performance requirements between fixed wing and helicopters and is 
not the result of favorable treatment for any operator.
    The FAA determined that closing the Dragon Corridor would be 
economically harmful to air tour operators in the east end of the 
canyon and would not be in compliance with the intention of Pub. L. 
100-91.

Marble Canyon FFZ

    Black 4 & Black 5: Several commenters argue that Black 4 and 5 are 
redundant. It is not necessary to have aircraft on both sides of the 
Canyon, thus spreading the noise over a wider area. Either Black 4 or 5 
should be deleted, making the remaining route two-way. Two commenters 
suggest that Black 5 should be eliminated and Black 4 should be two-
way. One commenter states that the tour routes in the Marble Canyon 
should be moved as far as possible from rims of Marble Canyon, either 
to the outer edges of the SFRA or outside the SFRA boundary.
FAA Response
    In the development of air tour routes in the Marble Canyon, Black 4 
and 5 emerged as viable scenic routes, since different perspectives of 
view are obtained from the two flight paths. Noise modeling in the 
Canyon, based on these two separate routes, demonstrated that there 
would be no adverse impacts. Although a two-way route for Black 4 was 
not modeled, the FAA acknowledges that such considerations may be made 
in the future.

Legal Authority

    Some commenters state that the uncertainty around the final rule 
makes consideration of new routes premature.
    Others question the legality/procedure of notice of proposed 
routes, saying that they should be part of Notice No. 96-15. One person 
comments that the rulemaking violates Sec. 11.65 of the FAR, and 
contradicts FAA's procedures to employ negotiated rulemaking or the 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Several commenters state that 
the 3 actions should be combined into one, that rules shouldn't be 
adopted in piecemeal fashion, and that other comments should be 
incorporated by reference since all matters are related. Another states 
that these rules could have a significant impact on small businesses 
and could be contrary to law.
    Several commenters point out that the FAA training of pilots will 
require delaying implementation of new routes until check rides can be 
completed. Another urges that implementation be delayed until the end 
of the tour season for safety reasons. Major modifications to existing 
routes should be implemented November-February for adequate retraining 
time. Commenters note that the new routes could not be flown in a 
training/check environment without shutting down existing flight 
companies, and operators will be forced to train pilots twice--once on 
old routes and again on new routes. This places a financial burden on 
operators. These operators urge that implementation be delayed until 
December 1, 1997, or January 1998.
    Another commenter urges the FAA to consider concerns of tribal 
governments.
FAA Response
    The FAA currently maintains a degree of flexibility and control 
over air tour routes by authorizing use of the routes in the operations 
specifications of individual air tour operators. The authorizations 
include descriptions of the routes to be flown and are tailored to 
individual operators, taking into account several factors including the 
route to be used, the type of equipment to be used, frequency of 
operations, and qualifications of pilots. This method of establishing 
air tour routes provides the FAA with flexibility to modify the routes 
as necessary in order to provide a safe and efficient operating 
environment, and to aid the NPS in its efforts to substantially restore 
the natural quiet of the GCNP. The FAA believes that it will maintain 
the necessary flexibility by authorizing the use of routes through 
operations specifications.
    The FAA intends that the proposed air tour routes and the GCNP 
final rule become effective simultaneously. The FAA originally 
published the GCNP final rule with an effective date of May 1, 1997. 
However, the FAA subsequently revised the effective date

[[Page 26913]]

of several provisions of the rule to January 31, 1998, in part to 
provide sufficient off-peak time for air tour operators to conduct 
necessary route training, and in part to give the FAA adequate time to 
consider and accommodate several concerns raised in consultations with 
the NPS and the Native American tribes and in comments to the previous 
notice of availability by air tour operators and the general public.

Economic Impact

    Commenters state that proposed air tour routes would cause 
significant and irreparable harm to the economic viability of air tour 
operators and other dependent businesses, as well as the local economy.
    The Havasupai voiced concerns about potential effects on their 
tribal tourist enterprise which is a major source of income to the 
tribe. The recreational activities are constrained by both statute and 
the geography of the reservation, including the relative isolation of 
the reservation such that the primary type of recreation is primitive 
or semiprimitive hiking, camping, hunting, and pack trips which could 
be affected by the present Blue 1A.
    Several commenters state that the proposed routes deprive Las 
Vegas-based tour operators of the most important air tour route in the 
Grand Canyon (Blue 1), which will result in economic injuries to the 
Las Vegas Community. FAA should make proposed Blue 1A route available 
to tour operators until the effective date of the noise efficient 
aircraft NPRM.
    Consumer protection laws, strictly enforced in Europe and Japan, 
allow passengers to receive part or all of their money back if a tour 
is not offered precisely as advertised. Any major changes in a tour 
route (such as elimination of National Canyon Segment in Blue 1 route) 
could have disastrous economic and legal impacts.
    Another commenter states that the majority of air tour operators 
have pre-sold their 1997 season based on existing tour routes. Proposed 
routes are longer and would take additional time and fuel to complete. 
This would also require operators to reschedule tours that have been 
pre-sold.
    One commenter suggests that during the winter months from October 
to May, when the North Rim is closed to the public each year, operators 
be allowed to fly old SFAR 50-2, or slightly modified routes, to recoup 
lost revenues resulting from the new curfews and caps.
FAA Response
    As discussed above, the FAA delayed the effective date for certain 
sections of 14 CFR part 93 that were affected by the Grand Canyon final 
rule. Delaying implementation of section 93.305, which deals with the 
reconfiguration of flight-free zones and flight corridors, will permit 
commercial air tour operators to continue using the current air tour 
routes over GCNP through January 30, 1998. Thus, the FAA has addressed 
GCNP operator concerns with regard to route changes that could impact 
the commercial sightseeing offerings for the 1997 season.
    The FAA continues to review the actions impacting the Blue 1 and 
the Blue 1A tour routes from Las Vegas to Tusayan and seeks comments on 
this route and route segment as indicated on the map made available by 
this notice.
    In response to the Havasupai's concerns about the potential effects 
on their tourist trade, the FAA, for this reason and reasons related to 
historic sites and culture resources found in the northern part of the 
reservation, has rerouted Blue 1A of the south of the trailhead at 
Hualapai Hilltop.

Noise

    Commenters state that proposed routes offer no reduction of 
aircraft sound in Eastern and most sensitive sector of GCNP.
    Higher flight altitudes will not necessarily reduce aircraft noise. 
Commenters also state that, as proposed, Black and Green routes will 
unnecessarily create more noise. Others state that there should be 
route incentives for noise efficient airplanes.
FAA Response
    The FAA agrees that redesigning routes in the GCNP will not, as a 
single action, reach the stated goal of substantially restoring the 
natural quiet within the park. To reach this goal, the FAA and NPS 
established, in the final rule of December 31, 1996, the first step 
which set operational curfews and caps on the number of aircraft 
employed in air tours. Additionally, the FAA has issued an NPRM 
proposing a planned phase out of ``noisy'' aircraft used in commercial 
air tour operations by the year 2008. Along with the Notice of 
Availability or Routes, the FAA is planning to propose an NPRM to 
establish a corridor through the northern part of the Bright Angel FFZ 
to be used only by aircraft equipped with quiet technology.
    The FAA also agrees that higher flying aircraft are not necessarily 
quieter. As a result, the FAA has placed some of the routes at lower 
altitudes to take advantage of terrain shielding where ever possible.
    The FAA and NPS are working together to develop a long-term 
Comprehensive Noise Management Plan for the GCNP that will achieve 
substantial restoration of natural quiet in the park as mandated under 
Pub. L. 100-91 while considering the best available technology, 
provision of appropriate incentives for investing in quieter aircraft, 
and appropriate treatment for operators that have already made such 
investments.
    Route changes: Scenic Airlines recommends the following route 
changes: Counter-clockwise rotation around the Bright Angel FFZ.
    Green 1: Enter Zuni corridor northbound at 7,500 MSL. From Gunthers 
Castle to Petes Corner, move the route to pass just east of Saddle 
mountain, enough that helicopters can maintain 7,500 feet MSL until 
north of the national park boundary. North of Saddle mountain outside 
of the Grand Canyon National Park, climb to 9,500 MSL. Maintain 300 
feet agl over the Kaibab plateau until reaching the Little Dragon. Fly 
southbound through the Dragon corridor and when able, descend on the 
east side of the corridor to 7,500 MSL.
    Green 2: Maintain 7,500 MSL. Exit from route should be the same as 
the Black 2 exits
    Black 1: If transitioning to the Black 2 route, enter the Zuni 
corridor northbound at 8,000 MSL. Enter at 9,500 MSL if remaining on 
Black 1. From Gunthers Castle, the route should continue directly over 
the Green 1 route with a climb from 9,500 MSL to 10,000 MSL beginning 
northeast of Saddle Mountain and outside of the park. When possible, 
the climb should be accomplished without increasing propeller speed. 
Upon passing Tower of Ra in the Dragon corridor, descend to reach an 
altitude of 8,500 MSL when crossing the South rim.
    Black 2: Route begins on the north end of the Zuni corridor at 
Gunthers Castle and rotates clockwise around the Zuni FFZ at 8,000 MSL. 
Climb to 8,500 after passing south of the Little Colorado. The first 
exit from SFRA on the Black 2 is to turn eastbound at 8,000 MSL after 
crossing the Little Colorado river. The second exit will be to continue 
southbound at 8,500 MSL leaving the southeast corner of the SFRA at 
Zuni Charlie.
    Black 3: This entry is required to provide an entry point for 
airplanes inbound from the east and to reduce the volume of traffic 
entering at the south end of Zuni corridor. The route should

[[Page 26914]]

enter at 9,500 MSL directly over the eastbound exit of Black 2. 
Continue to follow the Black 2 westbound until joining the Black 1 at 
9,500 MSL just north of Gunthers Castle.
    Black 4: After crossing the East Rim of Grand Canyon on the Black 
2, the route begins by turning northbound then descending to 7,500 MSL. 
Remain east of the Colorado River until crossing the river at Cave 
Springs rapids. After crossing the Western rim of the canyon, either 
descend to 5,500 MSL or remain at 7,500 MSL. Continue northbound 
remaining west of the river until crossing northeast bound at Soap 
Creek rapids. Must be at 5,500 or 7,500 MSL prior to crossing the 
River. Exit the SFRA northbound while remaining east of the river. An 
alternate exit may be accomplished when abeam President Harding rapid 
by turning northeast bound at 7,500 MSL. A second exit is to continue 
westbound at 7,500 MSL after passing Cave springs rapid.
    Black 5: Enter the north end of the SFRA at 5,000 or 6,500 MSL. 
Remain west of the river, until crossing the river at Soap Creek 
rapids. It at 5,000 MSL begin climb to 6,500 MSL after crossing the 
east rim of the canyon. Stay east of the River until crossing at Cave 
Springs rapid at 6,500 MSL then begin a climb to 10,000 MSL after 
crossing the west rim of canyon. Remain west of National Park boundary 
while at climb power settings. Turn westbound when east-northeast of 
Petes corner so as to join the Black 1 at 1,000 MSL.
    Brown 7: Enter the SFRA at or below 7,000 MSL northbound over 
highway 89A. Remain over or slightly east of the highway until within 3 
miles of destination airport. Departures should climb out west of the 
highway until leaving the SFRA. Brown routes were developed to allow 
airplane operations that support river runners. These routes are not 
for commercial air tour traffic.
    Brown 1: Drop the 7,000 MSL option.
    Brown 2: This route begins by exiting the Blue 1 route. Allow a 
descent on the Blue 1 in order to be at 6,500 MSL at Twin Peaks. The 
Brown 2 then begins at Twin Peaks at 6,500 MSL, the same as SFAR 50-2.
    Brown 3: The Brown 3 departure route needs to allow for a safe 
departure through the newly expanded FFZ. The Brown 3 arrival route 
could remain outside of the SFRA and therefore may be deleted.
    Brown 4: Change to Brown 1 Reverse route. This would be at 7,000 
and then 7,500 MSL on a reverse course of the proposed Brown 1. Allow a 
southbound exit from the SFRA through Mohawk Canyon at 7,000 or 7,500 
MSL.
    Blue 1: The 9,500 MSL altitude conflicts with the Blue 1 reverse 
when descending through 8,500 near Hagatagvich. This has not been a 
problem due to very little traffic using the 9,500 MSL option; however, 
it is a potential problem area.
    Blue Direct: Since this is not an air tour route, 7,500 MSL should 
not be allowed.
    Blue 1A: Route should be identical to today's Blue 1 route using an 
altitude of 6,500 MSL. Should be allowed to reverse course to the Blue 
1 Reverse at 8,500 or to the Blue direct at 10,500 MSL.
    Blue 3: From the Blue Direct at 7,500 MSL, allow a transition to 
the Blue 3 southbound at 6,500 MSL.
    Blue 4: Needs a provision to allow joining the Blue 1A as well as 
the Blue 1.
    Black 1: Same as SFAR 50-2.
    Black 1A: Same as SFAR 50-2 except climb to Split West must be 
limited to avoid the new Black 1.
    Black 3: Same as SFAR 50-2.
FAA Response
    In redesigning the routes in the GCNP the FAA considered all the 
factors necessary to meet the requirements and intentions of Pub. L. 
100-91 while still maintaining safety of flight in the GCNP. The 
changes represented in the new route structure represent a safe ``see 
and avoid'' environment for the canyon. With it, the FAA has created 
flight patterns and altitudes in which air tour operations may be 
conducted safely. However, as with any VFR operation, the ultimate 
responsibility for control and safety of flight remains with the 
pilots. The FAA believes that with proper training, adherence to 
procedures and compliance with the regulations, air tours can be 
conducted within the new route structure with an adequate degree of 
safety.

Environmental Review

    The FAA is reevaluating the Final Environmental Assessment dated 
December 24, 1996, for the Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the 
GCNP to determine whether the proposed changes in this second Notice of 
Availability of Proposed Routes are substantial so as to warrant 
preparation of additional environmental documents. This reevaluation is 
being done in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 and other applicable environmental requirements. Copies of the 
written reevaluation will be circulated to interested parties and 
placed in the docket. For those unable to view the document in the 
docket, the written reevaluation can be obtained from Mr. William J. 
Marx, Division Manager, ATA-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC, 20591, Telephone: (202) 267-
3075. Comments concerning the environmental impacts of finalizing these 
routes or the relevant portions of the written reevaluation should be 
submitted to the docket before the comment period for this notice 
closes on May 27, 1997. Based on any comments and the written 
reevaluation, the FAA will determine whether any further environmental 
review is warranted.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 12, 1997.
W. Michael Sacrey,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 97-12746 Filed 5-12-97; 4:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M