[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67544-67546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32406]



[[Page 67543]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 91 et al.



Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grant Canyon National Park; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 67544]]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135

[Docket No. 28537; SFAR 50-2; Notice No. 98-18]


Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National 
Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On December 31, 1996, the FAA published a final rule that 
codified the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 
No. 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National 
Park (GCNP); modified the dimensions of GCNP Special Flight Rules Area 
(SFRA); established new and modified existing flight-free zones; 
established new and modified existing flight corridors; established 
reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating 
in the SFRA; prohibited commercial sightseeing operations during 
certain time periods; and limited the number of aircraft that can be 
used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP SFRA. On 
February 21, 1997, the FAA delayed the implementation of certain 
portions of that final rule. Specifically, that action delayed the 
effective date for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 of the 
final rule and reinstated portions of and amended the expiration date 
of SFAR No. 50-2. However, that action did not affect or delay the 
implementation of the curfew, aircraft restrictions, reporting 
requirements or the other portions of the rule. This proposal would 
delay the effective date for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 
of the December 31, 1996 final rule until January 31, 2000. 
Additionally, this proposal would amend the expiration date of those 
portions of SFAR No. 50-2 that were reinstated in the February 21, 1997 
final rule and extended in the rule published on December 17, 1997.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 6, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed, in triplicate to: Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules 
Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28537, 800 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20591. Comments may 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:
Ellen Crum, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic 
Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 31, 1996, the FAA published three concurrent actions (a 
final rule, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and a Notice of 
Availability of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes) in the Federal 
Register (62 FR 69301) as part of an overall strategy to further reduce 
the impact of aircraft noise on the GCNP environment and to assist the 
National Park Service (NPS) in achieving its statutory mandate imposed 
by Public Law 100-91. The final rule amended part 93 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations and added a new subpart to codify the provisions 
of SFAR No. 50-2, modified the dimensions of the GCNP Special Flight 
Rules Area; established new and modifies existing flight-free zones; 
established new and modifies existing flight corridors; and established 
reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating 
in the Special Flight Rules Area. In addition, to provide further 
protection for park resources, the final rule prohibited commercial 
sightseeing operations in the Zuni and Dragon corridors during certain 
time periods, and placed a temporary limit on the number of aircraft 
that can be used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP 
Special Flight Rules Area. These provisions originally were to become 
effective on May 1, 1997.
    On February 21, 1997, the FAA issued a final rule and request for 
comments that delayed the implementation of certain sections of the 
final rule (62 FR 8862; February 26,1 997). Specifically, that action 
delayed the effective date, until January 31, 1998, of those sections 
of the rule that address the Special Flight Rules Area, flight-free 
zones, and flight corridors, respectively Secs. 93.301, 93.305, and 
93.307. In addition, certain portions of SFAR No. 50-2 were reinstated 
and the expiration date was extended. With the goal to produce the best 
air tour routes possible, implementation was delayed to allow the FAA 
and the Department of Interior (DOI) to consider comments and 
suggestions to improve the proposed route structure. This latter action 
did not affect or delay the implementation of the curfew, aircraft cap, 
or reporting requirements of the rule. This delay was subsequently 
extended until January 31, 1999 (62 FGR 66248; December 17, 1997).

Discussion of Comments

    Eleven comments were submitted in response to the December 17, 
1997, final rule that extended the implementation date of certain 
provisions of the final rule issued on December 31, 1996.
    The Hualapai nation applauded the delay, saying that the FAA should 
reconsider what the Tribe considers the double standard used for 
measuring noise in the GCNP versus the Hualapai reservation. The 
Hualapai urged the FAA to develop an appropriate noise measurement 
standard for its religious sites and ceremonies. The nation also 
repeated its admonition to the FAA to be considered as a sovereign 
nation with incumbent rights therein.
    The Sierra Club generally criticized the FAA and NPS for not making 
greater progress in the overall reduction of noise in GCNP. It also 
urged that the Zuni and Dragon corridors be closed to air tour traffic.
    The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (GCATC) was critical of the FAA 
for issuing a final rule with comment instead of a proposal, stating 
that there is no incentive for FAA to respond to comments after the 
fact and that such action without notice created `discriminatory 
uncertainty'. GCATC also urged the FAA to delay implementation of the 
December 1996 final rule until the Air Tour Management Plan is 
completed.
    Likewise, the Wilderness Society was critical of the FAA for not 
seeking comment on a proposal rather than publishing a final rule 
extension. The Society also commented that the delay was not warranted, 
that there has been little progress since the legislation 10 years ago, 
and that the FAA should cap operations now. National Parks and 
Conservation Society filed a similar comment, objecting to the delay 
and calling for a cap on operations.
    The Grand Canyon Trust's comment incorporated its comments from 
previously filed comments on the July 1, 1996, notice.
    A number of comments were submitted by individuals; the majority of 
these persons regretted the delay as being a setback for enjoyment of 
the park.

FAA's Response

    The FAA agrees that the proper procedure for the delay in 
implementation of a final rule is

[[Page 67545]]

through notice and comment. The FAA and NPS have expended substantial 
resources on trying to determine the most appropriate air tour route 
through the SFRA in GCNP. These expenditures include noise modeling, 
interagency discussions, consultations with Native Americans, 
clarification of comments made on the various rulemakings, and 
preliminary development of the Comprehensive Noise Management Plan. To 
the extent that time permitted, the agencies would have sought comment 
prior to issuing a final decision to extend the effective date for the 
1996 final rule. However, the FAA is responding to previously filed 
comments and now seeks comments from affected parties before further 
delaying those portions of the 1996 final rule pertaining to FFZs and 
flight corridors.
    In response to those comments that nothing has been accomplished 
since the Overflights Act was enacted, the FAA and NPS disagree. The 
number of air tour operations in the GCNP have decreased in the past 
year. There is a cap on the number of aircraft permitted to operate in 
the Park, which prevents the addition of new aircraft into the SFRA. 
The curfew has been effective in removing both very early morning and 
late afternoon noise during peak tourist seasons for covered areas. The 
reporting requirement has provided the agencies with valuable 
information on how many operations there are, where they are occurring, 
and definitive noise footprints for most areas of the GCNP. In 
addition, valuable information has been gained through public meetings 
with the interested parties, through open forums exploring additional 
routes, and through consultations with the Native Americans.

Recent Actions

    On May 15, 1997, the FAA published a Notice of Availability of 
Proposed Routes and a companion NPRM, Notice No. 97-6, that proposed 
two quiet technology corridors in GCNP. The first corridor, through the 
Bright Angel flight-free zone, would be used for quiet technology 
aircraft only. The second corridor, through National Canyon, would be 
for quiet technology aircraft for westbound traffic after December 21, 
2001. The FAA, in consultation with the National Park Service (NPS), 
has determined to not proceed with the proposals set forth in Notice 
No. 97-6. The two agencies are considering alternatives to the National 
canyon area for air tour routes. Consequently, the FAA withdrew Notice 
No. 97-6 and amended the proposed rule, Notice No. 96-15, to remove the 
two sections that first proposed a National Canyon corridor through the 
Torroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone (FR 63 38232; July 15, 1998).
    In addition, on April 28, 1998, the FAA convened interested parties 
for a public meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona to discuss yet another 
possible air tour route that is being considered by the FAA and NPS.
    Most recently, by petition dated September 22, the Clark County 
Department of Aviation (Clark County) requests that the FAA delay the 
current January 31, 1999, effective date for the airspace portions of 
the final rule to January 31, 2001, to avoid unnecessary impacts to 
aviation safety and the Grand Canyon air tour industry. Petitioner also 
asks that the FAA initiate a stakeholder-based cooperative process to 
complete the Grand Canyon overflight regulatory structure in a coherent 
and timely fashion. Specific to this proposal, Clark County points out 
that it is too late for the FAA to promulgate a safe and defensible set 
of air tour routes prior to the January 31, 1999, effective date. The 
petitioner notes that the closing of the current tour route, Blue 1, by 
making the FFZ's effective, would divert an immense quantity of traffic 
onto other routes, such as Blue 2 and Blue Direct. Clerk County cites 
the significant economic impact that the lack of safe and viable air 
tour routes would effect; not only would air tour operators be 
affected, but there would be impacts on the ability of the region to 
attract both American and foreign tourists and on the ability of the 
Clark County airport system to support Southern Nevada aviation needs. 
Petitioner states that it does not seek an extension for the sake of 
delay; rather the uncertainty of the regulatory environment is harmful 
to air tour operators, local governments operating airports, Native 
Americans, and investors. For this reason, Clark County encourages a 
concerted effort whereby all stakeholders will negotiate long-term 
workable rules.
    In response to Clark County's petition, the FAA finds that, because 
of the need to meet the legislative mandate to work toward the 
substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP, it cannot extend the 
effective date of the final rule as it relates to flight corridors and 
flight-free zones beyond January 31, 2000. Based on a substantial 
dedication of resources, in cooperation with NPS, the FAA believes that 
an acceptable route structure may be established by January 2000. In 
addition, while the FAA commends Clark County for its interest in a 
negotiated rulemaking effort to meet the needs of all stakeholders, it 
lacks the resources to direct this effort. Accordingly, the FAA must 
deny Clark County's petition. However, if the stakeholders can 
negotiate GCNP issues successfully, the FAA would be willing to accept 
a recommendation that it then could publish for comment.

Proposal

    As of this date, the FAA is still working with the NPS to determine 
a route through the western portions of the Park that will provide air 
tour operators with a safe, viable air tour route while at the same 
time moving toward the legislatively mandated goal of the substantial 
restoration of natural quiet in Grand Canyon National Park. Because the 
air tour routes, flight free zones, and flight corridors are 
intrinsically related and thus must be implemented at the same time, 
the FAA proposes to extend the effective date of these portions of the 
December 1996 final rule until January 31, 2000. Although Clark County 
Department of Aviation requests that this date be extended to January 
31, 2001, the FAA and NPS are optimistic that prior work done on 
proposed routes in the western portion of the GCNP will assist them in 
making a final determination in order to accommodate a January 31, 
2000, effective date.

Economic Evaluation

    In issuing the final rule for Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity 
of the GCNP, the FAA prepared a cost benefit analysis of the rule. A 
copy of the regulatory evaluation is located in docket Number 28537. 
That economic evaluation was later revised based on new information 
received on the number aircraft being operated in the SFRA. The 
reevaluation of the economic data, including alternatives considered, 
was published in the Notice of Clarification (62 FR 58898). In the 
notice, the FAA concluded that the rule is still cost beneficial. This 
extension of the effective date for the final rule will not affect that 
reevaluation, although the delay in the implementation of the FFZs will 
be cost relieving for air tour operators.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 
the FAA completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis of the final 
rule. This analysis was also reevaluated and revised findings were 
published in the Notice of Clarification referenced above, as a 
Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This extended delay of 
the compliance date will not affect that supplemental analysis.

[[Page 67546]]

Federalism Implications

    The regulation proposed herein would not have substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this 
proposed regulation would not have sufficient Federalism implications 
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Air traffic control, Aviation safety, Noise 
control.

14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air).

14 CFR Part 121

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety, 
Transportation.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Proposal

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to 
amend 14 CFR parts 91, 93, 121, and 135 as follows:

PARTS 91, 121 AND 135--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(G), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 
44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 
46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531.

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

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

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

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

    4. In parts 91, 121, and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation 
No. 50-2, Section 9 is revised to read as follows:

SFAR 50-2--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon 
National Park, AZ

* * * * *
    Sec 9. Termination date. Sections 1. Applicability, Section 4. 
Flight-free zones, and Section 5. Minimum flight altitudes, expire 
on 0901 UTC, January 31, 2000.

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS

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

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

    The effective date of May 1, 1997, for new Sections 93.301, 93.305, 
and 93.307 to be added to 14 CFR Chapter I, is delayed until 0901 UTC, 
January 31, 2000.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 1998.
William J. Marx,
Acting Program Director, Air Traffic Airspace Management Program.
[FR Doc. 98-32406 Filed 12-2-98; 3:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M