[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58898-58905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28856]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National
Park
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of clarification; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action sets forth the FAA's reevaluation of the economic
and environmental impacts associated with the Special Flight Rules in
the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Final Rule, published
on December 31, 1996. The Final Rule codifies the provisions of Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-2; modifies the dimension of
the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area; establishes new and modifies
existing flight corridors and flight free zones; establishes reporting
requirements and a curfew over certain areas for commercial sightseeing
companies operating in the GCNP; and limits the number of aircraft that
can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP. After
implementation of certain provisions of the Final Rule, the FAA
discovered that it had significantly underestimated the number of
commercial air tour aircraft operating in GCNP in 1995. The FAA has
reevaluated the economic and environmental analyses completed for the
Final Rule in light of this new information. The FAA has determined
that the changes are not of such magnitude as to affect the Agency's
position on the implementation of the Final Rule.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be mailed in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28537, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments may also be sent
electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet
address: [email protected]. Comments must be marked Docket No.
28537. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on
weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch,
Regulations
[[Page 58899]]
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments on the Notice
Although this action is intended to clarify the Agency's position
and evaluation of the new data, comments are invited on the new
information presented and the corresponding reevaluation of the
economic and environmental analysis. Once the comment period has
closed, the FAA will review the comments and determine whether any
changes to the Final Rule are warranted based on the submitted
comments.
Background
On December 31, 1996, the FAA published a Final Rule amending part
93 of the Federal Aviation Regulations by adding a new subpart to
codify the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No.
50-2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of GCNP; modifying the
dimension of the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area; establishing new and
modifying existing flight corridors and flight free zones; establishing
reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating
in the Special Flight Rules Area; restricting flights in Zuni and
Dragon Corridors during certain time periods (curfews); and limiting
the number of aircraft that can be used for commercial sightseeing
operations in the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area (cap) (69 FR 69302).
The provisions contained in the Final Rule were to become effective on
May 1, 1997.
Published concurrently with the Final Rule on December 31, 1996,
was a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on noise limitations for
aircraft operations in the vicinity of GCNP (Quiet Technology NPRM) and
a Notice of Availability of Proposed Routes. All three of the above
referenced actions comprise an overall strategy to further reduce the
impact of aircraft noise on the park environment and to assist the
National Park Service (NPS) in achieving its statutory mandate, imposed
by Pub. L. 100-91, to provide for the substantial restoration of
natural quiet and visitor experience in GCNP.
On February 21, 1997, the FAA delayed the effective date for the
expansion of the flight free zones, the air tour routes, and the other
related airspace provisions of the Final Rule until January 31, 1998
(62 FR 8861; February 26, 1997). However, this action did not affect or
delay implementation of the curfew, aircraft cap, or the reporting
requirements of the Final Rule, which became effective on May 1, 1997.
In analyzing the economic impact of the Final Rule, the FAA used
data derived from the SFAR 50-2 Air Tour Usage Report (1995 Survey), a
survey designed to assist the NPS in obtaining information to assess
noise impacts of air tour overflights at GCNP. The 1995 Survey,
completed by the FAA's Las Vegas Flight Standards District Office,
requested that air tour operators report the number of operations
conducted along GCNP air tour routes by type of aircraft used. The FAA
believed that the information presented in the survey provided the best
data available to determine the number and type of commercial air tour
aircraft operating in the GCNP. This survey information assisted the
Agency in completing the Regulatory Evaluation.
Specifically, the Regulatory Evaluation matched the number of
aircraft determined from each operator's operations specifications
contained in the FAA`s Vital Information System (VIS) data base with
the type of aircraft reported by the operators in the 1995 Survey to
attribute the estimated cost of the proposed and Final Rule actions to
each of the air tour operators conducting air tours in the Park.
Utilizing data from the 1995 Survey, the FAA estimated that in 1995 the
31 GCNP commercial air tour sightseeing operators flew just over 70,000
commercial sightseeing air tours utilizing 136 aircraft. No comments
were received throughout the rulemaking process that directly
questioned the number of aircraft or the number of air tours. Since
this number of aircraft had been derived from official information
contained in the VIS as well as information reported by the air tour
operators, the FAA was confident in those numbers.
In conducting the analysis for the Final Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the Final Rule, the FAA used modeling input that was based on
information prepared by the NPS in October 1995 to model noise impacts
in the vicinity of the GCNP. The October 1995 modeling input was
prepared using a combination of the 1995 Survey and air traffic counts
prepared by air traffic controllers at the Grand Canyon National Park
Airport traffic control tower. Each of these data sources provided
slightly different perspective on operational levels. The tower count
provides a complete record of air taxi and commuter operations to and
from Grand Canyon National Park Airport. The tower count does not,
however, specifically identify any of the operations other than those
that take off or land at Grand Canyon National Park Airport.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Final Rule, the FAA obtained
additional information suggesting that the number of air tour aircraft
conducting tours in the GCNP identified in the 1995 Survey had not
accounted for the full GCNP air tour fleet that likely operated in
1995. During May 1997, the FAA conducted a voluntary air tour operator
survey and site visitation that detailed identification of the number
and type of aircraft engaged in GCNP air tours during that time period.
As a result of this discovery, on July 9, 1997, the FAA filed a
Motion for Voluntary Remand of the Record and Stay of the Litigation
challenging the Final Rule. The purpose of the request was to permit
the Agency to review the apparent discrepancy in the number of
commercial sightseeing aircraft being operated in the GCNP under the
December 31, 1996, Final Rule, and to determine if further regulatory
action was necessary or appropriate in light of the information
developed as a result of that review.
Although the FAA's motion was denied, the Agency continued its
efforts to verify or correct the number of aircraft operating in the
GCNP between July 31, 1996, and December 31, 1996. Agency personnel met
on-site with each air tour operator in July 1997 to reconcile the May
1997 survey data with the information contained in the 1995 Survey. The
FAA finished the collection of that data in July 1997.
The FAA has reevaluated the economic analysis computed for the
Final Rule and has completed a Written Reevaluation of the
Environmental Assessment for the Final Rule in light of the new
information. A copy of this Written Reevaluation has been included in
the docket.
Summary of Decision
As a result of this reevaluation, the FAA has determined that the
increase in the number of aircraft and air tour operations requires
additional analysis of the Final Rule. In promulgating the Final Rule,
the FAA used the best available data and explicitly stated that the
Final Rule was a single part of an overall strategy to address the
effect of aircraft noise in GCNP. The Final Rule continues to be the
first step in achieving the goal of the substantial restoration of
natural quiet in GCNP. While the benefits of the Final Rule are less
than originally predicted by the FAA, the rule continues to provide
benefits in comparison to withdrawing portions of the rule or the rule
in its
[[Page 58900]]
entirety. Moreover, the result of the FAA's analysis of the additional
information does not affect the Federal government's commitment to
further the above stated policy.
As discussed in the Analysis section below, there is a change in
the economic and environmental analyses due to the additional aircraft.
However, the changes are not of such magnitude as to affect the FAA's
decision concerning the implementation of the Final Rule or the Federal
government's overall policy to address the effects of air tour
operations in GCNP.
Based on the new data, the Final Rule's total costs are now
estimated at $47 million (discounted), originally estimated at $42
million, over the period 1997-2008, while total benefits are now
estimated at $144 million (discounted), originally estimated at $172
million, over the same period.
The FAA believes that the goal of substantially restoring natural
quiet in GCNP will be accomplished after implementation of the revised
air tour routes and completion of the Quite Technology rulemaking.
Therefore, the FAA does not find that these revised conclusions, as set
forth below, warrant any change to the Final Rule as implemented.
However, the FAA is seeking comments on the new information concerning
the number of aircraft operation in GCNP in 1995 and the reevaluation
of the economic and environmental analyses. The FAA will review
comments on these matters and determine whether any changes to the
Final Rule are warranted.
Nothing in this reevaluation has led the FAA to reconsider the
provisions established in the Final Rule. However, following
discussions with the NPS, the FAA and NPS have agreed to delay the
final route selection until the fall of 1998 so that further review and
discussions may be undertaken on the routes through the proposed
National Canyon Corridor. Further, this comment period will provide all
interested parties an opportunity to review this analysis and to assess
the impact of the new information concerning the number of commercial
air tour aircraft being operated in the GCNP, and to provide their
views to the FAA.
Economic Analysis
Written Supplemental Reevaluation of the Regulatory Evaluation and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The FAA has partially revised its regulatory evaluation and
regulatory flexibility analysis of the Final Rule, Special Flight Rules
in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (61 FR 69302; Dec. 31,
1996). The Agency's decision to review and supplement both analyses
stems from the development of more accurate data than those that formed
the basis for the original analyses. Subsequent to issuance of the
Final Rule, the FAA obtained additional information suggesting that the
number of air tour aircraft conducting tours in the GCNP identified in
the 1995 field survey had not accounted for the full GCNP air tour
fleet that likely operated in 1995. During May 1997, the FAA therefore
conducted a voluntary air tour operator survey and site visitation that
detailed identification of the number and type of aircraft engaged in
GCNP air tours during that time period. To confirm the May survey
aircraft count, reconcile the May survey results with the 1995 survey,
and obtain more comprehensive data regarding numbers of air tours
conducted in 1995, the FAA decided to conduct follow-up site visits
with each GCNP air tour operator in July 1997.
During this process, the Agency discovered other data elements or
assumptions that required revision; accordingly, several methodological
changes have been made, however, the FAA has not reprinted the full
regulatory evaluation and regulatory flexibility analysis. The original
documents, as they appear in the docket, combined with this summary of
revisions, constitute the complete economic analysis.
The results of the original analysis have changed somewhat on the
basis of the new data. (See summary table below.) Total costs are now
estimated at $50 million, originally estimated at $42 million
(discounted), over the period 1997-2008, while total benefits are now
estimated at $144 million, originally estimated at $172 million
(discounted), over the same period. Although costs have increased and
benefits have decreased, the FAA concludes that the rule is still cost-
beneficial. The rationale for these changes is described below.
Estimated Benefits and Costs of Final Rule, Original and Revised Totals
Over Period 1997-2008
[In millions of 1995 dollars, discounted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Revised
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.................................. $172 $144
Total Costs..................................... 42 47
Modify SFRA................................... 0 0
Modify FFZs................................... 19 11
Modify Corridors.............................. 10 2
Curfew........................................ 11 34
Reporting..................................... 0.4 0.4
Cap........................................... 3 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum accurately due to rounding.
Methodological Revisions
Based on information collected directly from air tour operators
after publication of the Final Rule, the FAA has revised several
aspects of its methodology. The following sections describe changes to
data and assumptions.
Revisions to Baseline Data Elements
Several baseline data elements have been revised on the basis of a
recent survey and follow-up interviews with tour operators. The reasons
for each change and the impact on the analysis are described below.
Number of aircraft: The estimated total number of aircraft
providing air tours of the Park in 1995 has increased from 136 to 260.
The earlier number was derived from the 1995 Survey, a survey designed
to assist the NPS in obtaining information on the noise impacts of air
tour overflights of GCNP. The 1995 Survey, completed by the FAA's Las
Vegas Flight Standards District Office, requested that air tour
operators report the number of operations conducted along GCNP air tour
routes by type of aircraft used. At the time of the original analysis,
the FAA believed that the survey results, accurately accounted for all
air tour aircraft operated by GCNP tour providers.
After issuing the Final Rule and prior to implementing the aircraft
cap, however, the FAA acquired evidence that the total number of
aircraft appearing on the operator's operations specifications and
available to provide air tours in 1995 was substantially more than
originally estimated. Accordingly, the FAA conducted extensive site
visits with air tour operators and, based on the more complete
information obtained, has determined that the actual number of aircraft
was 260. The impact of this revision is most apparent with respect to
the aircraft cap, the estimated costs of which has decreased
substantially for the reasons discussed in the cost section below.
Number of air tours: The total estimated number of air tours
provided in GCNP in 1995 has been revised upward from 70,076 to
102,794. The
[[Page 58901]]
original number was derived from operations reported on the 1995
Survey. Several months after issuance of the Final Rule, the FAA
discovered that not all operations had been reported in the 1995
Survey. In particular, one large operator had provided the FAA with
data for only one of two operating bases. In addition, the number of
air tours reported by one operator in the 1995 survey was grossly
understated. The increase in air tours is primarily responsible for an
upward adjustment in the estimated cost of the curfew (see cost section
below).
Price of air tours: The method of estimating the price of air tours
has been refined from one average estimate of all operators for each
air tour route to actual prices charged by individual operators based
on 1995 tour brochures. In most cases, the updated prices are lower
than the average estimated in the original analysis.
Aircraft load factor: The original analysis assumed a load factor
of 95 percent for all operators. During recent field interviews,
several operators provided actual load factors. Where provided, the FAA
has incorporated them into the revised analysis. Where load factors
were not explicitly provided, the FAA has assumed a load factor of 90
percent, based on an average of those actually provided to the Agency.
Number of routes analyzed: The original analysis incorporated data
from 8 primary air tour routes. The revised analysis is more
comprehensive, including data from 11 primary routes, based on data
provided by operators. This revision allows for a more comprehensive,
accurate accounting of the cost of the Final Rule.
Revisions to Calculated Data Elements
Based on revisions to baseline data, several data elements have
been recalculated. The reasons for each change are described below.
Number of passengers: The total number of air tour passengers--a
function of the number of air tours, the load factor, and the seating
capacity per aircraft for each route--has been revised from 655,640 to
820,980. Due to the decrease in load factor, the number of passengers
has not increased proportionally as much as the number of air tours.
Total operating revenue: Total operating revenue, defined as the
price of each tour multiplied by the number of passengers on all tour
routes, has been adjusted upward from $113.1 million to $120.6 million.
The relatively small change in total operating revenue is due to the
downward revision in tour prices, the modest increase in passengers
relative to the increase in air tours, and the upward revision in the
number of air tours occurring mainly on one of the lower priced air
tours.
Total variable operating costs: Although hourly variable operating
costs are slightly lower than originally estimated, total variable
operating costs are $27.4 million rather than $36.8 million, because
the number of air tours is greater than originally estimated.
Net operating revenue: Net operating revenue, defined as total
operating revenue less total variable operating costs, has decreased
from $85.7 million to $83.7 million. The decrease results when the
relatively larger increase in total variable operating costs (as a
result of the increase in air tours) is subtracted from the less than
proportionate increase in total operating revenue resulting from lower
load factors.
Peak summer traffic as percent of total: Based on data available at
the time, the FAA estimated that air tours during the peak summer
season accounted for two-thirds of total annual air tours from each
base of operation. Based on revised data from Tusayan operators,
however, the FAA now estimates that air tours provided during the
summer account for 75 percent of annual air tours out of Tusayan.
Revised data from other operators confirm that summer air tours from
other locations account for 67 percent of annual totals. This revision
affects the estimate of curfew-related costs(see cost section below).
Revised Assumptions
Based on new information, the following basic assumption has also
been revised.
Reporting requirements: The original analysis based the cost
estimates associated with reporting requirements on the number of
aircraft. The FAA now believes that the number of air tours is the more
appropriate basis for estimating the cost of reporting requirements for
operators and has made the appropriate changes in the analysis. The
costs of the reporting requirements to the FAA have been revised
upwards but remain a minor part of total costs. The FAA has found that
analyzing and using the operators' reports requires more staff time
than originally estimated.
Revised Cost Estimates
As described below, cost estimates for five of the six provisions
of the Final Rule have been revised based on new data and assumptions.
In total, the discounted costs of the Final Rule have been revised
upward from $42 million to $50 million over the period 1997-2008.
Modification of the Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA): There is no
change in this estimate. As in the analysis of the Final Rule, the FAA
believes that charting costs associated with a change in the Special
Flight Rules Area over the flight-free zones will have no measurable
impact on air tour operators.
Establish/Modify FFZs and Corridors: The FAA has revised its cost
estimates for the changes in flight-free zones and flight corridors.
For the reasons stated in the original analysis, the FAA continues to
predict no costs for four of the alterations in the SFRA. Estimates for
the remaining two have decreased, bringing the average annual costs of
these provisions down from $3.6 million to $2.2 million over the period
1999-2008. The annual costs of the Toroweap FFZ extension and closure
of the National Canyon Corridor have decreased from $2.4 million to
$1.8 million, largely because prices and load factors were adjusted
down by a greater proportion than air tours were increased. For the
same reasons, the annual cost of creating a one-way traffic pattern in
the Zuni Corridor decreased from $1.2 million to $0.4 million. The
total costs of these provisions have decreased somewhat because the FAA
has delayed their implementation until 1999; therefore, they were
analyzed over the period 1999-2008 instead of the standard 1997-2008
used for other cost items in this analysis.
Curfew: The FAA now calculates that the curfew will be the highest
cost provision of the rule. Based on the new data, the calculated
average annual cost of the curfew has increased from $1.4 million to
$4.4 million. The primary reason for this is the large upward revision
in estimated air tours in the east end of the park, the only area where
the curfew applies. The affected operators are unified in the view that
prohibiting early morning and late afternoon air tours will reduce
their business by about 20 percent. They strongly believe that they
cannot accommodate this restriction by activating underutilized
aircraft to increase the number of tours during authorizing times. They
state that their arrangements with tour companies call for the air tour
to be part of a larger tour package to take place at specific times of
the day and that the time cannot be rearranged. The FAA accepts the
operators' strong position on this issue and has recalculated costs
based on the assumption that tours now being carried out during the
curfew periods cannot be rescheduled.
[[Page 58902]]
It may be possible for these operators to reschedule the air tours
affected by the curfew when the tour packages are renegotiated in the
future. If this can be done, then the curfew's impact on operator
revenue would be less in the future. However, since the FAA does not
know the extent to which air tours affected by the curfew can be
rescheduled in the future, the FAA has not adjusted downward the costs
of the curfew to take into account any future rescheduling of air tours
affected by the curfew.
Reporting Requirements: The estimated average annual cost of the
reporting requirements has increased slightly to $77,000 over the five
years that the provision will be in effect (1997-2001). The revised
costs are borne differently than those in the original estimate,
however. The calculated annual cost to operators has been revised
downward from $73,000 to $53,000, due to a change in the basis for the
estimate from aircraft to air tours. The cost to the FAA has been
revised upward from $3,200 to $24,000 because the Agency has found that
additional staff time is necessary to analyze operators' reports.
Aircraft Cap: The calculated cost of the freeze on aircraft has
been revised down from $2.9 million for the first year to zero for all
years. Based on an analysis of the higher aircraft count (260) and
corresponding air tours (102,794), the FAA concludes that there is
enough excess capacity in terms of aircraft numbers for air tours to
increase by 3.3 percent annually for the next twelve years if the
demand exists. In the aggregate, and for most individual operators, the
number of air tours provided can continue to increase while the number
of aircraft remains the same. While the cap could affect a few
individual operators who fully utilize their aircraft, the FAA predicts
that the cap will have no impact on aggregate growth and will impose no
cost in the aggregate over the period of the analysis.
Revised Benefits Estimates
The original benefits analysis was based on an estimate of noise
reduction that would be produced from the provisions of the Final Rule.
The noise reduction estimate, as described in the Written Reevaluation
of the Environmental Assessment of the Final Rule, has changed somewhat
on the basis of the new aircraft numbers. Largely due to the reduced
effectiveness of the aircraft cap, there will be a lesser reduction in
aircraft noise than originally estimated. Accordingly, the estimate of
economic benefits has been reduced from $172 million over 12 years to
$144 million (discounted).
Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
All new data and assumptions, as described above, have been
incorporated into the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The FAA
certifies that the Final Rule will have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small commercial tour operators conducting
flights within GCNP.
The FAA determined that there would be a significant economic
impact on small entities at the time it issued the Final Rule; for that
reason, it prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. However, the
certification statement accompanying the Final Rule incorrectly stated
that there was no significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The FAA is now clarifying that the certification was
erroneous. The new data, however, requires additional analysis. The
impact of each provision on small entities is described below.
Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected: The
Final Rule will affect commercial operators conducting air tours over
GCNP under 14 CFR part 135. Revised FAA data show that there were 22
potentially affected tour operators with 9 or fewer aircraft in 1995.
These operators owned a total of 75 aircraft, and the average fleet
included about 3 aircraft. They conducted about 34,700 air tours, or
about 34 percent of all air tours over the Canyon.
Cost of Compliance to Small Entities
Establish/Modify Flight-Free Zones and Corridors
Merge Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-Free Zones: The merging of the
Toroweap-Thunder River and Shinumo Flight-free Zones and the resulting
closure of the Fossil Canyon Corridor will eliminate tour routes
Blue1A, Brown1A, and Green3A. Newly acquired information from the FAA's
fieldwork in May and July of 1997 shows that this provision would have
affected four small operators providing tours in 1995. Collectively,
these four small operators generated total air tour operating revenues
of approximately $565,000 in 1995 by providing 1,150 air tours that
carried 4,700 passengers. The FAA has also learned, however, that two
of the four operators are no longer in the tour business. Jointly,
these two small operators accounted for $91,000 in air tour revenues in
1995, the loss of which the FAA continues to assume will be absorbed by
other operators. The FAA believes that the two remaining small
operators using the Fossil Canyon Corridor can modify their current
tour packages with minimal cost outlay because they already offer
established air tours along other similar routes. Thus, the FAA
maintains, as in the original analysis, that this modification of the
flight-free zones and corridors will have no cost impact.
Extend Toroweap Flight-Free Zone Southward: The southward extension
of the Toroweap-Thunder River Flight-free Zone and elimination of the
National Canyon corridor will affect small operators who use the Blue 1
route. Based on the FAA's new data, small operators carried 41,600
passengers along the Blue 1 route and generated annual net operating
revenues of $154,800 in 1995. The FAA estimates that any operator
carrying more than 1,300 passengers along the Blue 1 route would incur
significant costs from this provision. Of the small operators affected,
the FAA concludes that four operators (as opposed to zero in the
original analysis) carry more than 1,300 passengers each year on Blue 1
air tours and, therefore, would be significantly affected by the
extension.
Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone: There are 10 small operators with
total revenues of approximately $8.13 million who conducted air tours
along the Black1/1A route (7 fixed wing aircraft operators) and the
Green 1/1A/2 tour route (3 helicopter operators). The three small
helicopter operators also conducted air tours in the Dragon Corridor
along the Green 2 tour route, accounting for an additional $1.45
million in total revenue. The total 1995 revenue potentially affected
by this part of the rule, therefore, is estimated to be about $9.6
million.
The FAA estimates that due to the extension of the Bright Angel
Flight-free Zone and the dog-legging of the southern portion of the
Dragon Corridor there will be modest cost increases as discussed in the
regulatory evaluation. As in the original analysis, the FAA believes
that these modest cost increases can be offset by increased ticket
prices and, therefore, that no net operating losses will be incurred as
a result of the northern extension of the Bright-Angel Flight-free Zone
or the dog-legging of the Dragon Corridor.
Create One-Way Traffic Pattern in Zuni Point Corridor:
Reconfiguring the Zuni Point Corridor and limiting it to one-way
traffic will affect those air tours approaching Grand Canyon Airport in
Tusayan from the north along the Black 1 tour route and all air tours
that depend on the current two-way VFR
[[Page 58903]]
routes to offer a simple fly around type tour of the Zuni Point
Corridor. While there are not small operators with tours approaching
Grand Canyon Airport in Tusayan from the north, two small fixed wing
operators and three small helicopter operators fly a tour loop of the
Zuni Point Corridor.
The two small fixed wing aircraft operators flying a tour loop of
the Zuni Point Corridor generated air tour revenue of approximately
$64,200 from this particular tour in 1995. The alternatives for these
operators will be the Black 1/1A tour route or flying east over the
Painted Desert. These tour route options are expected to increase the
tour price by about $10 per passenger, or about $13,060 total annual
added cost to the air tour consumers based on 1,306 passengers opting
for this tour in 1995. The three small helicopter operators generated
1995 air tour revenue of $370,500 flying 790 tours and 3,100 passengers
over the Green 1 route. Options available to the helicopter operators
include the Green 1/1A/2 tour route or the Painted Desert tour route.
Each of these could increase the tour price by about $35 per passenger
or $108,045 total annual added cost to the commercial air tour
sightseeing consumers based on 3,100 passengers opting for this tour in
1995. For the customers of these small operators, therefore, the total
potential increase in 1995 annual costs of this particular alteration
in the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area will be about $121,105 ($13,060 +
$108,045) because of the elimination of less costly air tour
sightseeing options.
In addition to the consumer costs above, operators will incur
increases in variable operating costs that exceed the additional
revenue. The ticket price increases do not fully cover the increase in
variable operating costs to the tour operators adopting the new Zuni-
Alpha-Dragon Corridors loop. The new operators of this type of tour are
limited to raising tour prices to what is currently charged by
established operators of this type of tour (the incremental $10 and $35
cited above). The difference between what these operators could receive
in additional revenue through price increases ($121,000) and the added
operator costs imposed by this rule (estimated at $199,400) in
increased operating costs) will result in about $78,400 that the small
operators must absorb as losses. Thus, the total 1995 cost to small
operators of making the Zuni Point Corridor one-way with the north
expansion of the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone is $121,100 in increased
consumer costs and $78,400 in operator losses.
The $78,400 in operator losses will be borne by two small fixed
wing aircraft operators ($10,536) and three small helicopter operators
($67,787). Based on the number of air tours conducted, the cost impact
for the two small fixed wing aircraft operators is $34.10 per air tour
($10,536/309 fixed wing air tours), and the cost impact for the three
small helicopter operators is $85.81 per air tour ($67,787/790
helicopter air tours). One of the fixed wing operators conducted 240
air tours and the other conducted 69 air tours. The annual increase to
these two fixed wing tour operators is $8,184 and $2,353, respectively.
For helicopters, the operator conducting 521 helicopter air tours will
incur an annual cost increase of $44,707 and the operator conducting
256 air tours will incur an annual cost increase of $22,053. The third
helicopter operator with 12 air tours will incur an annual cost
increase of $1,030. Based on these numbers, the FAA concludes that one
fixed wing and two helicopter operators will incur significant cost
increases.
Sanup Flight-Free Zone: The creation of the Sanup Flight-free Zone
in the southwest portion of GCNP restricts air traffic to one side of
the Colorado River beyond Separation Canyon. This change will affect
six small fixed wing operators offering tours on the Blue 2 VFR route
and three small helicopter operators offering tours on the Green 4 VFR
route. Combined, these nine small GCNP air tour operators accounted for
approximately $11.8 million total air tour revenue in 1995, flying
nearly 11,000 air tours and approximately 53,900 passengers. Based on
information provided to the FAA by air tour operators and pilots, more
than 95 percent of fixed wing air tours conducted on the Blue 2 route
turn back at either Horse Flat Canyon or Spencer Canyon; the former is
located west of Separation Canyon and the latter is located on the
south side of the Colorado River across from Separation Canyon. Air-
ground helicopter tours conducted along the Green 4 route turn back at
or just beyond Quartermaster Canyon. Air-only helicopter tours along
the ``Green 4'' turn back at or before Spencer Canyon. With the
exception of a limited number of fixed-wing training flights or air
tours along the Blue 2 that are precluded from turning back because of
weather, no flights extend beyond Separation Canyon as far as Diamond
Creek. The FAA therefore concludes, as in the regulatory evaluation,
that there will be no measurable impact associated with the creation of
the Sanup Flight-free Zone.
Desert View Flight-Free Zone: A limited number of air tours are
currently conducted in the vicinity of the Desert View Flight-free
Zone, and these take place along the Black 2 or Black 3 entry routes
linking to the Black 1 and Black 1A routes. As in the regulatory
evaluation, the FAA concludes that the expansion of the Desert View
Flight-free Zone in and of itself will have no known cost impact on
small GCNP commercial sightseeing operators or their tour passengers.
Curfew: The introduction of the new curfew (basic flight-free
periods) for operators conducting air tours at the east end of GCNP
will result in lost revenue for small operators conducting air tours in
the Zuni Point and Dragon Corridors. In 1995, 16.7 percent of daily
tours were offered during the flight-free periods and will no longer be
able to operate during those periods. Based on the reduction in time
available for air tour flights in the Zuni Point and Dragon Corridors,
small entities are expected to lose about $1.07 million annually. This
impact will be spread among a maximum of ten operators who have
recently conducted air tours on the east end of CGNP. Eight of these
operators (as opposed to six in the original analysis) will incur
annual costs exceeding $5,000.
Reporting Requirements: 14 CFR Section 93.917 will establish
operator reporting requirements. All certificate holders operating
within the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area will incur costs from these
reporting requirements during the five years that they will be in
effect (1997 through 2001).
Based on information contained in the regulatory evaluation, it
will cost each operation about $340 ($8.51/hour*40 hours) to establish
and set up the reporting system. The one-time cost for 22 small
operators is expected to be $7,480. To update records regularly, the
FAA estimates that the 22 small operators will incur costs of $14,770
annually (34,711 air tours*3 min./air tour*$8.51/hr). The average
annual cost for each small operator is about $670. The small operator
conducting the fewest tours (36, based on revised 1995 baseline) will
incur recordkeeping costs of about $15 annually. The small operator
conducting the greatest number of air tours (5,600) will incur
recordkeeping costs of $2,380.
Operators will also be required to provide the data 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
[[Page 58904]]
information, 15 minutes for each operator to fill out the generic
information on the report and an additional 15 minutes for the specific
information needed in the report. The FAA estimates that this part of
the recordkeeping requirement will cost operators $562 annually, or
about $26 per operator.
The FAA estimates that the total annualized cost of this
requirement to the 22 small operators will be about $18,170. The FAA
has determined that no (zero in the RFA for the Final Rule) operator
will incur costs exceeding $5,000 per year.
Aircraft Cap: The FAA stated in the regulatory evaluation that most
operators can increase the number of air tours they provide without
increasing the number of aircraft in their tour fleets. However, FAA
estimates that the aircraft cap will immediately restrict the growth of
one small fixed-wing operator operating out of Tusayan. The cap is also
predicted to affect one small helicopter operator within four years and
another small helicopter operator with six years. While the aircraft
cap will have no immediate impact on aggregate growth in the number of
air tours over the GCNP, the aircraft cap will impose a significant
loss of future revenues (expected to exceed $5,000 annually) on these
three operators. (The original analysis assumed that the cap would be
in effect for no more than one year and, as a result, no small operator
would be significantly affected. The revised analysis assumed no
particular end date and estimates impacts over the period 1997-2008.)
Description of Alternative Actions
As stated in the original analysis completed for the Final Rule,
this rule is somewhat unique in that most of the economic impact of the
rule falls upon small businesses. The two primary goals of the Final
Rule continue to be: (1) substantially restore natural quiet, and (2)
preserve the opportunity for the public to enjoy air tours at GCNP.
Consequently, all alternatives considered during the formulation of the
Final Rule to achieve these goals and in this reevaluation focus on
alternatives related to small entities.
In view of the new information and the foregoing analysis, the FAA
has identified the provisions of the Final Rule in which the analysis
of the impacts on air tour operators differs from the original
assessment. As a result of the new analysis, the number of air tour
operators significantly affected has increased. The FAA evaluated new
alternatives, as well as reevaluated a combination of alternatives
suggested to the Agency during its original analysis. These
alternatives included suggestions from the NPS Report to Congress,
Congressional and public meetings, and comments submitted during the
comment period for the NPRM and the Draft EA. As more fully discussed
below, the FAA has concluded that implementing any of the alternatives
to the requirements of the Final Rule for small business entities would
prevent the FAA from achieving its goals for the Final Rule. For that
reason, the FAA determined that there were no feasible alternatives to
the requirements listed in the Final Rule.
Alternatives to the Expansion the Flight-Free Zones
As was mentioned above, the expansion of the Flight-free Zones will
affect certain small entity air tour operators in varying degrees. The
Agency considered several different ways to minimize the impact on the
small entities. One of those ways was to permit the small operators to
navigate within or through the Flight-free Zones. Similar waivers to
the Flight-free Zones based on time of day or area were also
considered. However, the Agency determined that since the vast majority
of the operators are small business entities, the relaxation of the
Flight-free Zones for the operators would defeat the main purpose of
the rule to restore substantially the natural quit within the Park. As
the NPS study mentioned above concluded that compliance with SFAR 50-2
had not achieved an adequate level of natural quiet in GCNP, the
alternative of no action for the small entities cannot be justified.
Therefore, operations within or through the Flight-free Zones by small
business operators by a relaxation of the restrictions or a blanket
approval cannot be considered in light of the goals of the Final Rule.
The FAA also considered corridors or routes through the Flight-free
Zones for the small entities. Those issues dealing with the route
structure and the corridors through the Flight-free Zones are
considered in a separate rulemaking action and were not part of the
analysis of the Final Rule.
Alternatives to the Curfew
The introduction of the curfew at the east end of GVNP is making
significant first steps in achieving the goal of the substantial
restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP. Once again, the FAA
considered ways to minimize the impact on small business operators. And
once again, the alternatives relaxing the restriction for small
entities is not feasible as it would defeat the purpose of the Final
Rule to substantially restore the natural quiet in the Park. The FAA
will consider the use of more quiet aircraft and the use of performance
standards, as suggested by the Small Business Administration, in future
rulemaking. For this Final Rule, however, the use of performance
standards is outside the scope of what was proposed and envisioned by
the current rulemaking.
Alternative to the Cap
The cap on the number of aircraft permitted to conduct air tours
within GCNP has generally been determined not to affect adversely the
industry as a whole. As mentioned above, however, the cap does have an
impact on at least one small operator. The FAA has concluded that it
will need to reevaluate the impact of the cap on the goal of
substantially restoring the natural quiet and its impact on the small
business entities in future rulemaking action. However, for the purpose
of the reevaluation, the FAA reanalyzed its alternatives discussed in
the Final Rule and determined that no alternative discussed or any new
alternative would serve to minimize the impact on the small business
entities and still promote the goals of the Final Rule.
Environmental
Pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1D, a
written reevaluation is appropriated to evaluate the continued validity
of any environmental document when new information becomes available.
The FAA has completed a Written Reevaluation of the findings in the
Final EA and accompanying Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
issued December 31, 1996, to determine whether additional operations in
Marble Canyon, growth in operations under the Proposed Action, and
possible additional operations on the helicopter loop in Dragon
Corridor that were indicated by the 1997 surveys or the minor
adjustments to the proposed air tour routes are so substantial as to
warrant preparation of additional environmental documents.
As discussed in detail in the Economic Analysis section of this
Notice, after the Final EA was published on December 31, 1996, the FAA
obtained additional information suggesting that the number of air tour
aircraft conducting tours in the GCNP identified in the 1995 Survey had
not accounted for the full GCNP air tour fleet that likely operated in
1995. Accordingly, the FAA conducted voluntary air tour operator
surveys in May and July 1997.
[[Page 58905]]
The 1997 surveys suggest that 260 air tour aircraft operated in the
GCNP in 1995, not 136 as premised in the Regulatory Evaluation of the
Final Rule. This new information about the number of aircraft led FAA
to change its assumptions about the effectiveness of the cap on
aircraft to limit growth in operations, but did not otherwise affect
the validity of the noise and air quality analyses in the Final EA,
which depends on the number of flights, not aircraft. In preparing the
Regulatory Evaluation, the FAA derived the 136 aircraft baseline by
comparing data in the 1995 Survey with operations specifications. In
contract, the Final EA used modeling input that was prepared by the NPS
in October 1995 to model noise impacts in the vicinity of the GCNP
(October 1995 NPS modeling input).
The October 1995 NPS modeling input was prepared using a
combination of the 1995 Survey and traffic counts prepared by air
traffic controllers for Grand Canyon National Park Airport. The FAA
selected the October 1995 modeling input to provide the best possible
picture of flights in the vicinity of the GCNP because the GCNP does
not provide the typical data sources used to predict aircraft noise
exposure in an airport environment.
In reevaluating the Final EA, the FAA continued to base its
analysis on the following data and modeling assumptions: (1) the use of
operations in the October 1995 NPS modeling data, incorporating
refinements from the May 1997 Written Reevaluation and the 1997
surveys; (2) the assumption that the curfew would somewhat reduce
operations; and (3) the use of a 3.3 percent compound annual rate of
growth. The 3.3 percent compound annual rate of growth was retained and
used to analyze the Proposed Action because the 1997 surveys show that
caps on numbers of aircraft would only immediately restrict the growth
of a few air tour operators. The 1997 surveys indicate that many
operators use their aircraft in revenue producing endeavors other than
the GCNP air tours and that neither aircraft nor seating capacities are
fully utilized. The baseline defined in the cap on number of aircraft
in the Final Rule allows air tour operators to use aircraft that were
only flown occasionally for CGNP tours in 1995. This means that most
operators can increase their flights to meet demand without increasing
their fleets. For these reasons, the cap does not appear likely to
immediately reduce growth in the number of flights over the CCNP.
The FAA decided to revise its noise analysis to address potential
increases in operations over those modeled in the Final EA and the May
1997 Written Reevaluation. The increase operations are in the Marble
Canyon area (along the Black4 and Black5 routes). The changes in
operational levels modeled were: (1) the addition of 5 daily operations
to the Black4 route and the addition of 6 daily operations to the
Black5 route for the 1997 No Action; (2) the addition of 5 daily
operations to Black4 and 6 daily operations to Black 5 for the 1997
Proposed Action with the curfew applied; and (3) the application of a
3.3 percent annual growth rate to the new 1997 annual No Action
condition for analysis of the 2008 No Action condition.
The Written Reevaluation also included sensitivity analysis
modeling as follows: (1) the addition of 29 daily operations to the
Green 2 route along the Dragon Corridor through the Bright Angel Flight
Free Zone (FFZ) for the 1997 Proposed Action; (2) the addition of 29
daily operations to the Green2 and the placement on the modern most
loop of all Dragon corridor loop traffic for the 1997 Proposed Action;
and (3) the assumption of an earlier turn around location at Separation
Canyon for helicopter traffic on the Green4 route and fixed wing
traffic on the Blue2 route for the return trip to Las Vegas (south of
the Sanup Flight Free Zone) for the 1997 No Action and the 1997
Proposed Action.
As to proposed routes, in addition to the turn around at Separation
Canyon, this Written Reevaluation evaluates minor adjustments in the
National Canyon Corridor route. These adjustments are proposed to
further mitigate Native American concerns. Otherwise, the routes
considered are those evaluated in the May 1997 Written Reevaluation.
The route changes evaluated in the May 1997 Reevaluation are comparable
to the routes modeled in the Final EA.
The noise modeling analysis reveals that the increase in
operations, and the minor air tour route adjustment will not
significantly impact the human and natural environment in the vicinity
of Grand Canyon National Park. More specifically, noise levels
associated with the Final Rule are well below any established
residential or other established threshold of significance in the
Special Flight Rules Area. The new information on number of aircraft
and air tour operations, and the minor air tour route adjustments does
not alter the previous analysis that indicted the Proposed Action
(Final Rule) in the Final EA reduces aircraft noise effects in the
GCNP. The analyses in the Written Reevaluation supports the conclusion
that the Final Rule, even with the new information, does not lead to
significant environmental impacts on historic, archaeological, and
cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, visual resources,
endangered species, DOT Section 4(f) properties, environmental justice,
and air quality. Nor will it result in other significant environmental
impacts such as cumulative, social, or induced socio-economic impacts.
With respect to the achievement of progress toward the substantial
restoration of natural quiet, the impact of increased air tour
operations as analyzed in the Written Reevaluation, serves to reduce
the percentage of the GCNP that will achieve substantial restoration of
natural quiet for more than 25 percent of the time when compared to
what was originally assumed in the Final EA. However, although the GCNP
with the implementation of the Final Rule, will not reach the same
percentage of substantial restoration of natural quiet as had been
originally projected in the Final EA, progress will still be made
toward the goal with the implementation of the Final Rule.
Accordingly, the conclusions of the December 31, 1996, Final EA
FONSI are still substantially valid as indicated in the Written
Reevaluation. No supplemental EA, or further environmental
documentation is required based upon this new information.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 1997.
John S. Walker,
Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 97-28856 Filed 10-28-97; 9:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M