[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5152-5154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2493]



[[Page 5152]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135

[Docket No. 28537; SFAR-50-2; Amendment 93-76]


Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National 
Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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 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 amendment will delay the effective 
date for 14 CFR 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 of the December 31, 1996 
final rule until January 31, 2000. Additionally, this rule will amend 
the expiration date of those portions of SFAR No. 52-2 that were 
reinstated in the February 21, 1997 final rule and extended in the rule 
published on December 17, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1999.

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 
(FFZ's); 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, 1997). Specifically, that action 
delayed the implementation 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 sections 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 
address concerns about the air tour routes possible, implementation was 
delayed to allow the FAA and the Department of the 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 FR 66248; December 17, 1997).
    By Notice No. 98-18 (63 FR 67544; December 7, 1998) the FAA 
proposed to further extend the effective date for certain portions of 
the final rule until January 31, 2000.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received four comments on the proposed extension. The Grand 
Canyon Air Tour Council (GCATC) comments that the rulemaking effort 
would require operators to undertake extensive aerial investigation and 
operational and environmental familiarization, by January 31, 2000, on 
routes that have not yet been announced. For a typical fixed wing 
operator this would require 60 plus training flights. Operators would 
also have to develop and disseminate new marketing information, 
programs, and promotion with little advance notice. GCATC describes the 
FAA's record of rulemaking in GCNP as a ``four year environment of 
regulatory uncertainty and exclusion.'' GCATC recommends that FAA 
reschedule the implementation of the final rule to January 31, 2001, 
and that the FAA undertake a stakeholders' negotiated rulemaking for 
60-90 days.
    United States Air Tour Association (USATA) supports GCATC's 
comments and argues that the FAA and NPS have expended far more 
resources in its patchwork of rulemaking than it would on a 60-90 day 
negotiated rulemaking effort. USATA notes that impending, yet 
unannounced additional rulemaking efforts will force small business 
entities with the choice of meeting impossible time frames for 
readiness and compliance or simply not being able to prepare and face 
serious economic harm to their businesses. USATA recommends that the 
FAA hold in abeyance the implementation of the final rules on the air 
tour routes, flight free zones, and flight corridors, and instead a 
formal Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee process with a limit of 
60-90 days.
    Clark County Department of Aviation and the Las Vegas Convention 
and Visitors Authority (Clark County) comment that a stay of the 
effective date is necessary to ensure that the new flight-free zones 
are implemented without serious risks to aviation safety and the many 
direct and indirect jobs that impact GCNP air tour opportunities. This 
commenter notes that without other proposed routes, the implementation 
of the FFZ's would leave operators only with a choice between the 
unscenic Blue Direct route and the Blue 2 route that will quickly 
become oversaturated. Without a replacement route, Clark County argues 
that the ability of air tour operators to market a product that brings 
millions of dollars to the Las Vegas economy will be seriously reduced.
    Clark County also questions the FAA's ability to validate or 
predict noise levels in the Grand Canyon, saying that the noise 
modeling may do a poor job of reflecting actual conditions. This places 
an uncertainty around the actual need for additional

[[Page 5153]]

control measures. The commenter sees, as essential, the need to possess 
validated noise models prior to promulgating extensive new regulations; 
otherwise, the regulations are at risk for being deemed arbitrary and 
capricious by the courts. Clark County urges that the FAA initiate a 
stakeholder-based negotiated rulemaking, and comments that the FAA's 
excuses for not doing so are neither compelling nor with substance.
    Eagle Jet Charter, Inc. (EJC) supports the 1-year delay in the 
effective date of the final rule. EJC asks that the FAA incorporate its 
comments filed January 23, 1998, that an amendment for operations 
conducted under IFR above 15,000 feet MSL be proposed and adopted 
concurrently with other modifications to the GCNP airspace.

FAA Response

    As stated in the notice, the FAA continues to believe that 
substantial progress has been made in restoring natural quiet to the 
GCNP. This has been accomplished through the curfew and a limit on the 
number of aircraft that can be operated in the SFRA. In addition, the 
reporting requirement has given the FAA and NPS valuable data on the 
actual number of operations that currently exist in GCNP.
    Although commenters suggest that a 60-90 day negotiated rulemaking 
effort would bring about a successful conclusion to the many issues and 
competing interests, it has been the FAA's experience that 
controversial negotiated rulemaking efforts may take years rather than 
months to reach a conclusion. Both the FAA and NPS are unwilling to 
incur this type of additional delay for GCNP. However, if all affected 
parties agree to a proposal, then the proposal should be forwarded to 
FAA and NPS. Although commenters are correct in pointing out that the 
regulatory process for GCNP has been time consuming, the lessons 
learned in the process are not inconsiderable, and should make future 
work efficient.
    It is reasonable for air tour operators to expect that the FAA must 
propose an air tour route system for the west end of GCNP that safely 
replaces the Blue 1 route, and that this must be done in a timely 
manner for purposes of training and marketing. A route proposal and 
corresponding rulemaking effort is underway.
    In response to Clark County's comment on the need for validated 
noise models, the Integrated Noise Model (INM), as refined by FAA to 
reflect the terrain and expanded to reflect the size of the area 
surrounding the Grand Canyon, produces reasonably accurate predictions 
of the aircraft noise exposure in the GCNP. The INM, as refined and 
applied, complies with all recommended practices for the prediction of 
aircraft noise. The FAA verified the reasonableness of the predicted 
noise levels using data obtained from actual measurements in the Grand 
Canyon. See, December 1996 Final Environmental Assessment at p. 4-5 and 
Appendix C. Actual measured data correlated closely with the results 
predicted using the INM.
    NPS, however, uses a newer, different computer model for analyzing 
audibility of aircraft in park environments, called the National Park 
Service Overflight Decision Support System. To address NPS concerns 
about the differences between the two models, both agencies have agreed 
to jointly conduct a noise model validation study. A group of experts 
will be convened to develop a plan for evaluating and validating models 
to be followed by field verification.

Immediate Effective Date

    The FAA finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this 
final rule to become final rule upon issuance. The FAA and NPS must 
implement new air tour routes, flight-free zones, and flight corridors 
at the same time in order to transition to a new operating environment 
in GCNP. Currently, the effective date for the Grand Canyon final rule 
(62 FR 69301; December 31, 1996) is extended until January 31, 1999. If 
this final rule had not been issued, and made effective, by that date, 
the new flight-free zones and flight corridors would go into effect, 
resulting in considerable chaos, as some air tour routes would 
disappear. This would not only be burdensome to air tour operators and 
the traveling public, but it could also impose possible safety problems 
in GCNP. To preclude these conflicts, this amendment is effective upon 
issuance.

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 of 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 temporarily 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.

Federalism Implications

    This amendment will 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 amendment 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 Amendment

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends 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.


[[Page 5154]]


    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 Secs. 93.301, 93.305, 
and 93.307 to be added to 14 CFR Chapter 1, is delayed until 0901 UTC, 
January 31, 2000.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 1999.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-2493 Filed 1-29-99; 11:46 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M