[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 131 (Friday, July 9, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37296-37301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17320]



[[Page 37295]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 93



Modification of the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park 
Special Flight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 1999 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 37296]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. FAA-99-5926; Notice No. 99-11]
RIN 2120-AG74


Modification of the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park 
Special Flight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the special operating rules and 
airspace for all persons operating aircraft in the airspace designated 
as the Grand Canyon Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). Specifically, 
this action proposes to modify the eastern portion of the SFRA and the 
Desert View Flight-free Zone (FFZ) to address concerns raised by Native 
Americans; modify the Bright Angel FFZ to provide a provisional 
corridor to be available at a future date for noise efficient/quiet 
technology aircraft; modify the Sanup FFZ to provide for a planned 
revision to a commercial route over the northwestern section of the 
Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP); and provide for an additional 
commercial route over the northern section of the Sanup plateau for 
those aircraft transiting between Las Vegas, Nevada and Tusayan, 
Arizona. The FAA is taking this action as part of a continuing effort 
to assist the National Park Service in fulfilling its statutory mandate 
of providing for the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and 
experience in GCNP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this NPRM should be mailed in triplicate to: 
U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, Docket No. [FAA99-5926] 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC, 20590. Comments may also be sent 
electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet 
address: [email protected]. Comments must be marked Docket No. FAA-
99-5926]. Comments may be filed and examined in Room Plaza 401 on 
weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph C. White, Airspace and Rules 
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. For the draft Environmental 
Assessment contact Tina Hunter, Environmental Affairs Division, ATA-
300, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-7685.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed 
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they 
may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, federalism, 
or economic impact that may result from adopting the proposals in this 
notice are also invited. Comments that provide the factual basis 
supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful 
in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. 
Communications should identify the regulatory docket number and be 
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. All communications 
and a report summarizing any substantive public contact with FAA 
personnel on this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. The docket is 
available for public inspection both before and after the closing date 
for receiving comments.
    Before taking any final action on this proposal, the Administrator 
will consider all comments made on or before the closing date for 
comments, and the proposal may be changed in light of the comments 
received. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent possible 
without incurring expense or delay.
    The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter 
includes a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the comment. The 
postcard should marked ``Comments to Docket No. [    ].'' When the 
comment is received, the postcard will be date stamped and mailed to 
the commenter.

Availability of This NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded, using a 
modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations 
section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 
(703) 321-3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: (202) 512-1661). Internet users may reach the FAA's 
web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Federal 
Register'12s web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs for access 
to recently published rulemaking documents.
    Any person may also obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a 
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 
267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. 
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs 
should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the 
application procedure.

Public Meetings

    The FAA intends to hold two public meetings to provide interested 
persons an additional opportunity to comment on this proposal. The 
details pertaining to the public meetings will be announced in the 
notice section of the Federal Register. For more information, contact 
Linda Williams at (202) 267-9685 or by email at 
[email protected]

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 SFRA; establishing new and modifying existing 
flight corridors and FFZs; establishing reporting requirements for 
commercial sightseeing companies operating in the SFRA; restricting 
flights in the Zuni Point 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 SFRA (aircraft cap) 
(61 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 (noise efficient/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 Public Law 100-91, to provide for the substantial 
restoration of natural quiet and experience in GCNP.

[[Page 37297]]

    On February 21, 1997, the FAA delayed the effective date for the 
expansion of the FFZs, the air tour routes, and other related airspace 
provisions of the 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.
    On December 17, 1997, the FAA took action to further delay the 
implementation of the above mentioned sections of the final rule and to 
further extend certain portions of SFAR 50-2 until January 31, 1999 (62 
FR 66248). On December 7, 1998, the FAA again took action to further 
delay implementation of the above mentioned sections and to extend 
certain portions of SFAR 50-2 until January 31, 2000 (63 FR 67544).

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 noise efficient/quiet technology incentive corridors over the GCNP 
(62 FR 26901). The first corridor, through the Bright Angel FFZ, was 
planned for use by noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft use only. 
The second corridor, through National Canyon, was planned for use by 
noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft westbound after December 31, 
2001. The FAA, in consultation with the NPS, determined not to proceed 
with a corridor through National Canyon. The FAA received suggestions 
for alterations and refinements from officials of the GCNP and NPS that 
could potentially produce noise reductions. Based on comments from 
environmentalists, Native Americans, and air tour operators, the FAA 
was led to conclude that the National Canyon air tour route was not a 
viable option. This proposal was subsequently withdrawn in July 1998, 
along with the quiet technology NPRM's proposal for a route through the 
central portion of GCNP. Due to resource constraints, the FAA has not 
been able to prepare a disposition of the comments received in response 
to Notice 97-6. The FAA plans to summarize those comments and publish a 
disposition of comments document in the Federal Register.

The Proposal

Special Flight Rules Area and Desert View FFZ

    In this action, the FAA is proposing to modify the Grand Canyon 
SFRA by moving the eastern boundary five (5) nautical miles to the 
east. The FAA is also proposing to modify the Desert View FFZ by moving 
the eastern boundary five (5) nautical miles to the east.
    The current design of the eastern portion of the SFRA and the 
Desert View FFZ allows entry and exit as well as travel over several 
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) on the eastern side of the Grand 
Canyon National Park, of importance to the Zuni, Hopi, and Navajo 
Tribes. These sites were identified through consultation with affected 
tribes in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA). The specific locations of the TCP are not 
identified pursuant to section 304 of the NHPA which provides for 
confidentiality of cultural and religious sites. The proposed expansion 
of the Desert View FFZ and associated proposed changes to the SFRA 
would provide mitigation of impacts on the TCP in accordance with 
Section 106 requirements.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone

    The FAA is proposing to reinstate the provisional incentive 
corridor, one nautical mile in width, through the Bright Angel FFZ to 
be used at some future date only by aircraft meeting a noise 
efficiency/quiet technology standard. The FAA acknowledges that 
currently no standard for noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft 
exists. Both the FAA and NPS are anticipating, however, that such a 
standard will be developed in the future. Readers must understand that 
until such a standard is developed and adopted, that the Bright Angel 
incentive corridor will not be available for commercial operations. The 
FAA and NPS find that it is of value, however, for commenters to have 
the opportunity to comment on the merit of this specific proposal.
    This proposed incentive corridor would pass through the Bright 
Angel FFZ along the northern boundary of the current Bright Angel FFZ 
as defined in SFAR 50-2. Even without a standard, it is intuitively 
clear that the proposed Bright Angel Corridor would have a three-fold 
benefit. First, fewer aircraft would be flying over the northern rim of 
the canyon along the Saddle Mountain Wilderness Area, where the NPS and 
U.S. Forest Service have indicated that noise-sensitive activity 
regularly occurs. Second, noise from the air tour aircraft would be 
dispersed between the northern boundary of the Bright Angel FFZ and the 
proposed incentive corridor, thereby reducing the level of concentrated 
aircraft noise along any one route. Third, opening this corridor to 
aircraft that could meet the noise efficiency/quiet technology 
standard, yet to be developed, would provide a valuable and tangible 
incentive for the air tour operators to convert to quieter aircraft. 
The GCNP could thereby experience the benefit of a reduction in the 
level of aircraft noise over time.

Sanup Flight-Free Zone

    The FAA is proposing to modify the Sanup FFZ to continue to provide 
for a commercial route over the northwestern section of the GCNP and to 
provide for an additional commercial route between the vicinity of Las 
Vegas, Nevada and Tusayan, Arizona. As discussed in the preamble to the 
December 1996 final rule (61 FR 69302), the Blue 1 and Blue 1A routes 
were eliminated due to environmental and Native American concerns. 
Concurrently, the noise limitations NPRM included a corridor to permit 
routes through National Canyon to continue with noise efficient/quiet 
technology aircraft. Since the FAA did not finalize the NPRM and 
delayed the effective date for the December 1996 final rule and 
extended certain portions of SFAR 50-2 until January 31, 2000, they are 
still in use. With the elimination of the Blue 1 and Blue 1A, the FAA 
anticipates that aircraft operating on these routes would move to the 
Blue Direct, which may be renamed Blue Direct North (BDN), thus 
increasing operations on the route. The Blue Direct South (BDS) route 
was eliminated from the December 1996 and April 1997 route maps. 
Therefore, to accommodate safely the expected increase in operations 
moving from the Blue 1 and Blue 1A, the FAA plans to restore and modify 
the BDS route. The FAA recognizes that increased aircraft operations on 
BDS would be over the northern portion of the newly created Sanup FFZ 
(December 1996 final rule), at altitudes less than 3,000 feet above the 
elevation of some areas of the Sanup plateau. At this altitude, these 
aircraft operations may have a noise impact. It is with this in mind 
that the FAA believes that the northern portion of the Sanup FFZ, that 
would lie beneath BDS, should be eliminated from the FFZ to accommodate 
safely an additional route between Tusayan, Arizona and Las Vegas, 
Nevada. Therefore, the FAA is proposing to modify the Sanup FFZ by 
moving the northern portion of the FFZ south approximately one mile 
south of the BDS route.
    Additionally, to provide for a proposed revision of the current 
Blue 2 commercial route over the northwestern portion of the GCNP, the 
FAA is proposing to modify the Sanup FFZ by moving the northwestern 
portion of the

[[Page 37298]]

FFZ east approximately one mile east of the Blue 2 route.
    Information on the proposed commercial routes for the Grand Canyon 
SFRA can be obtained through instructions in a Notice of Availability 
that will be published concurrently with this proposed rulemaking 
effort. In addition, the alternatives considered are more fully 
discussed in the Environmental Assessment for these rulemaking/
nonrulemaking efforts.

Economic Summary

    Any changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect 
of regulatory changes on international trade. A regulatory evaluation 
of the proposal is in the docket.
    Because of the continued high public interest surrounding GCNP 
regulations and the potential implications within a small locality, the 
FAA has determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is 
considered a significant regulatory action under 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866 and, therefore, is subject to review by the Office of 
Management and Budget. This notice is considered significant under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The FAA, however, has determined that 
this NPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities (commercial air tour operators conducting 
flights within Grand Canyon National Park), and does not warrant 
further regulatory flexibility action. Accordingly, pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation 
Administration certifies that this rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This NPRM would not have a significant impact on international 
trade.

Introduction

    The FAA proposes to modify the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) 
Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) and three Flight-free Zones (FFZs). 
The eastern boundaries of the SFRA and the Desert View FFZ would each 
be moved five (5) nautical miles to the east, respectively. The FAA 
also proposes to modify the Bright Angel FFZ to provide an incentive 
corridor, one nautical mile in width, for use at some time in the 
future by only the most noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft. 
Finally, the FAA proposes to modify the Sanup FFZ to continue to 
provide for a commercial air tour route over the northwestern section 
of the GCNP.

Costs

    Costs associated with the reconfiguration of the Desert View and 
Bright Angel FFZs, as described in 14 CFR Sec. 93.305, were accounted 
for in the December 31, 1996 final rule (61 FR 69302), hereafter 
referred to as the Final Rule. This analysis, therefore, is concerned 
only with the costs associated with the currently proposed 
modifications to the reconfigurations.
    14 CFR Sec. 93.317 requires each operator (effective May 1, 1997) 
to report to the FAA the following commercial air tour activity for 
each flight conducted in the Grand Canyon SFRA: (1) routes flown; (2) 
departure airport, date and time; and (3) aircraft registration number. 
Based on the operator reports, the FAA has developed a database for the 
time period May 1997 through April 1998, the first full year of 
operator reporting. The information developed in the database forms the 
basis, or baseline, for the following economic analysis.

Special Flight Rules Area and Desert View Flight-Free Zone

    The Black 2E and Green 3E routes are the only air tour routes that 
would be affected by the eastward shifts of the SFRA and the Desert 
View FFZ. During the baseline period, three operators conducted 577 air 
tours that would likely use the Black 2E route. The combined estimated 
gross operating revenue of these three operators for tours which would 
use the Black 2E route was about $825,000; net operating revenue 
adjusted for variable operating costs was $496,000.
    The FAA believes that a shift in the Black 2E route eastward 
resulting from the eastward shift in the SFRA and Desert View FFZ by 5 
nautical miles would serve only to realign the access/approach to the 
Black 2 tour route. It would not alter the tour offerings of the 
individual operator, and any changes in the operator's variable 
operating costs resulting from adding 5 nautical miles to the overall 
air tour (about 2-3 minutes) are small. Similarly, the FAA believes 
there will be little impact on the three operators entering the SFRA on 
the Black 2E route to conduct air tours of the Canyon. Therefore, the 
FAA concludes that this part of the proposed rulemaking is non-
significant and requests comments.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone

    In the Final Rule, the FAA determined that the increase in average 
annual variable operating costs associated with the expansion of the 
Bright Angel FFZ was just over $1 million. FAA argued that these costs 
could be passed onto the consumer as higher ticket prices so long as 
all operators were similarly confronted by higher variable operating 
costs. The FAA concluded, therefore, that no net operating losses would 
be borne by GCNP air tour operators. The full societal cost of the 
increase in variable operating costs would be reflected in higher 
commercial air tour prices and would be borne by the consumer.
    This NPRM proposes to re-open a provisional flight corridor 
(incentive corridor) along the routes that are currently depicted on 
the Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart as the Green 1A and Black 1A, 
or Alpha routes. This corridor would be available at some future date 
only to noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft. Currently, the FAA 
and the NPS have not defined a standard for what is a noise efficient/
quiet technology aircraft. Consequently, the route will not be 
available for immediate use. However, for the purpose of this cost 
analysis, the FAA has assumed that one or more operator(s) may use 
aircraft that meet the above standard, and that this (these) 
operator(s) could use the corridor and thereby benefit from no increase 
in variable operating costs.
    The FAA believes that the operator(s) assumed to be permitted to 
conduct air tours on the incentive route would continue to conduct air 
tours along the Black 1A route or Green 1A route as per usual business 
practice, and thus would avoid the higher variable operating costs 
facing competitors. The FAA assumes cost relief would accrue to the 
operator(s) conducting air tours in noise efficient/quiet technology 
aircraft. By holding constant the price of the ``Black 1, 1A'' air tour 
or ``Green 1, 1A'' air tour, this (these) operator(s) could become the 
price setter(s), and some of their competitors conducting commercial 
air tours along other, longer tour routes may be required to absorb the 
increased variable operating costs to remain price competitive. The FAA 
estimates, however, that only one (or two) of these operators would 
have to maintain the current price in the face of rising variable 
operating costs. The amount of cost transfer from consumers of air 
tours

[[Page 37299]]

to this operator over the 1999-2008 time period would depend on which 
operator (or operators) ultimately introduce quiet aircraft. A 
discussion of this expectation is presented in a section summarizing 
the ``Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis'' below.

Sanup Flight-Free Zone

    The Sanup FFZ would be altered to accommodate other proposed FAA 
action contained in the concurrent Notice of Route Availability, 
thereby providing current commercial air tour traffic using the Blue 1, 
Blue Direct and Blue Direct South routes a commercial air tour route. 
The FAA has identified no costs associated with the alteration of the 
Sanup FFZ.

Cost Summary

    The FAA estimates that any costs associated with the eastward 
expansion of the SFAR and Desert View FFZ 5 nautical miles would be 
non-significant. Also, the FAA determines that the proposed 
modification to the Sanup FFZ would result in no additional costs. 
However, the FAA estimates the cost impact of the proposed Bright Angel 
FFZ incentive corridor could result in some reduction in average annual 
variable operating costs and accompanying price increases previously 
estimated in the Final Rule. In addition, some of the remaining cost 
burden previously estimated in the Final Rule would shift from air tour 
consumers to one or two air tour operators.

Benefits

    The benefits associated with this NPRM include the following:
    (1) The potential reduction in the impact of air tours over 
Traditional Cultural Properties as a result of the proposed 
modification of the eastern portion of the SFRA and the Desert View 
FFZ; (2) a reduction in the number of aircraft flying over the northern 
rim of the canyon along Saddle Mountain as a consequence of the 
proposed incentive corridor, which could result in some dispersal of 
noise from air tour aircraft over an area the NPS has pointed out as 
noise sensitive; and (3) the provision of an incentive for the air tour 
operators to convert to quieter aircraft. The particular groups that 
would benefit most from this rulemaking action are Native Americans and 
some of the operators and consumers of GCNP commercial air tours.
    The establishment of the proposed corridor for noise efficient/
quiet technology aircraft through the Bright Angel FFZ along the 
``Alpha'' routes would mitigate some of the potential adverse effects 
created by the consolidation of aircraft overflight noise at the 
northern edge of the expanded FFZ as described in the Final Rule. 
Furthermore, to the extent the consumer perceives the current shorter, 
more established commercial air tour through the proposed incentive 
corridor as having a greater value, then demand for these tours 
conducted in the more noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft would 
increase. Concurrently, demand for the longer commercial air tours that 
are conducted in less noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft could 
decrease. In combination, the two potential outcomes of this proposed 
rulemaking could create a significant incentive for operators of non-
qualifying aircraft to convert to quieter aircraft.
    the expansion of the eastern boundary of the SFRA and the Desert 
View FFZ redress certain concerns of the Native Americans in that area 
while at the same time imposing no perceived additional costs on 
operators.

Benefit/Cost Comparison

    The FAA has determined that the three proposed modifications could 
result in net cost savings for some commercial air tour operators while 
one or two operators could be forced to absorb cost increases 
associated with the Final Rule. However, there will be no significant 
net increase in societal costs, only redistribution between producers 
and consumers of Grand Canyon air tours. This rulemaking would result 
in a potential reduction of noise over Native American Traditional 
Cultural Properties and a potential reduction of noise over the 
sensitive northern rim of the Canyon along Saddle Mountain, and would 
provide an incentive for air tour operators to convert to quieter 
aircraft.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle 
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 
the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory 
and information requirements to the scale of the business, 
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' 
To achieve that principal, the Act requires agencies to solicit and 
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rational for 
their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including 
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as 
described in the Act. However, if an agency determines that a proposed 
or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act 
provides that the head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    Ten operators (7 fixed-wing; 3 helicopter) conducted air tours 
during the base period of May 1997-April 1998 along routes that would 
be affected by the proposed incentive corridor modification to the 
Bright Angel FFZ. In the regulatory evaluation, the FAA assumed that 
one or more operators of aircraft that qualified for operating on the 
incentive route might avoid the estimated increase in variable 
operating costs determined in the Final Rule, and therefore, would not 
have to raise ticket prices to offset higher costs.
    The FAA believes that if the above qualifying operators use fixed-
wing aircraft and operate out of Tusayan, then the helicopter operators 
at Tusayan could continue to pass the increase in variable operating 
costs resulting from the expansion of the Bright Angel FFZ accounted 
for in the Final Rule onto the consumer as higher prices, and would not 
be impacted by the proposed rulemaking. The three helicopter operators 
have been able to maintain their air tour fares twice that of the 
fixed-wing operators in a declining market for East-end air tours. This 
suggests that helicopters and fixed-wing operators are not close 
competitors in the East-end GCNP market.
    Of the fixed-wing operators conducting air tours in non-qualifying 
aircraft in competition with the above qualifying fixed-wing operators, 
two ceased operating as Grand Canyon air tour operators during the 
baseline period May 1997-April 1998. Therefore, this rulemaking would 
no longer be applicable to them. A third operator conducted 10 ``Black 
1, 1A'' air tours during the baseline period, but this accounted for 
only one one-thousandth of this operator's total Grand Canyon air tour 
business. The FAA believes that this operator would not be affected by 
this rulemaking. Another operator, originating out of Phoenix, AZ, is 
the only remaining operator providing a Grant Canyon air tour service 
from the Phoenix market. Furthermore, this operator includes the 
``Black 1, 1A'' tour

[[Page 37300]]

only as a part of a more comprehensive air tour, the price for which is 
3 to 4 times the ``Black 1, 1A'' air tour as offered by the other 
operators. Therefore, this operator, because of a captured market and 
exclusive tour offering, would likely be able to pass on the increase 
in variable operating costs to customers without consequence, and thus, 
would not be impacted by this NPRM, either.
    One fixed-wing aircraft operator also conducts helicopter tours in 
the East-end of the Canyon in addition to the fixed-wing ``Black 1, 
1A'' tour during the baseline period. The price of this operator's 
helicopter tours, however, are at the low end ($150) of the price 
range, and the portion of his total air tour business represented by 
his fixed-wing ``Black 1, 1A'' tour is only about 17 percent. If this 
operator were to redistribute the per passenger increase in variable 
operating costs for this fixed-wing customers to his helicopter 
customers (cross-subsidy), it would add about $1.35 to the ticket price 
of the helicopter air tour, and this operator would still be a below 
market price for a helicopter air tour on the East-end.
    The remaining fixed-wing operator(s) conducting ``Black 1, 1A'' air 
tours in non-qualifying aircraft on the East-end of the Canyon, could 
be significantly affected by the introduction of quiet aircraft by a 
competitor, in that the increased operating costs imposed by the Final 
rule may no longer be passed onto the customers because of the 
operator(s) who may be able to operate in the incentive corridor 
established by this proposal. This cost could be as much as $7 per 
passenger. The FAA does not consider one or two small operators to be a 
substantial number of small operators significantly impacted by this 
proposed rule.
    The FAA believes that if the qualifying operator(s) use helicopters 
and operate out of Tusayan, then the fixed-wing operators could 
continue to pass the increase in variable operating costs resulting 
from the expansion of the Bright Angel FFZ in the Final Rule onto the 
consumer as higher prices, and the (these) remaining helicopter 
operator(s) would not be impacted by the proposed rulemaking (in the 
East-end market, helicopter operators and fixed-wing operators are not 
close competitors). The remaining non-qualifying helicopter operator(s) 
at Tusayan could be significantly affected by competition from the 
qualifying helicopter operator(s) in that the increased operating costs 
imposed by the 1996 final rule may no longer be passed onto the 
customers. The FAA does not consider one or two small operators to be a 
substantial number of small operators significantly impacted by this 
proposed rule.
    Last, the FAA believes that if a qualifying operator operates from 
an airport other than Tusayan, the remaining East-end operators could 
continue to pass the increase in variable operating costs resulting 
from the expansion of the Bright Angel FFZ accounted for in the Final 
Rule onto the consumer. The remaining operators are located at 
different airports and would not be in direct competition with the 
qualifying operator.
    Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that this rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The FAA solicits comments from affected entities with 
respect to this finding and determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The FAA has determined that the proposed rulemaking would have no 
affect on non-U.S. operators of foreign aircraft operating outside the 
United States nor would it have an affect on U.S. trade to trade 
relations. However, because the proposed rulemaking has been determined 
to be cost beneficial to commercial air operators and a large 
proportion of GCNP commercial air tour passengers are foreign, it could 
have a positive affect on foreign tourism in the U.S. The FAA cannot 
put a dollar value on the potential gain in commercial air tour revenue 
associated with possible increases in foreign tour dollars.

Environmental Review

    The FAA is preparing a draft supplemental environmental assessment 
(EA) for this proposed action to ensure conformance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other applicable environmental 
laws. The draft supplemental EA indicates that this NPRM, the companion 
air tour limitation NPRM, and revised air tour routes on the western 
and of the Sanup would result in 41.3% of the GCNP achieving natural 
quiet 75% of the time by 2008.
    Copies of the draft supplemental EA will be circulated to 
interested parties and placed in the docket, where it will be available 
for review.
    The proposed rule is premised on the National Park Service's noise 
evaluation methodolology for GCNP, which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3969). The NPS is reviewing 
comments submitted in response to that notice. If, on completion of 
that review, the NPS determines not to adopt the methodology described 
in the notice (such as the two-zone system and accompanying noise 
thresholds), the FAA will reevaluate the proposal and draft 
Supplemental Environmental Assessment in light of whatever final action 
is taken by the NPS.

Federalism Implications

    This proposed rule would not have substantial effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive 
Order 12866, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-13), there are no requirement for information collection associated 
with the proposed regulation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airports, Naviagtion (air), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 93 of Title 14, Chapter 1, Code 
of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

    1. 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.

    2. Section 93.301 is revised as follows:

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


Sec. 93.301   Applicability.

    This subpart prescribes special operating rules for all persons 
operating aircraft in the following airspace, designated as the Grand 
Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area: That airspace extending 
from the surface up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL within an area 
bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.55' 12'' N., Long. 
112 deg.04' 05'' W.; east to Lat. 35 deg.55'38'' N., Long. 
111 deg.36'03'' W.;

[[Page 37301]]

north to Lat. 36 deg.15'30'' N., Long. 111 deg.36'06'' W.; to Lat. 
36 deg.24 deg.49'' N., Long. 111 deg.47'45'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.52'23'' 
N., Long. 111 deg.33'10'' W.; west-northwest to Lat. 36 deg.53'37'' N., 
Long. 111 deg.38 deg.29'' W.; southwest to Lat. 36 deg.35'02'' N., 
Long. 111 deg.53'28'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.21'30'' N., Long. 
112 deg.00'03'' W.; west-northwest to Lat. 36 deg.30'30'' N., Long. 
112 deg.35'59'' W.; southwest to Lat. 36 deg.24'46'' N., Long. 
112 deg.51'10'' W.; thence west along the boundary of Grand Canyon 
National Park (GCNP) to Lat. 36 deg.14'08'' N., Long. 113 deg.10'07'' 
W.; west-southwest to Lat. 36 deg.09'50'' N., Long 114 deg.01'53'' W.; 
southeast to Lat. 36 deg.06'24'' N., Long. 113 deg.58'46'' W.; thence 
south along the boundary of GCNP to Lat. 36 deg.00'23'' N., Long. 
113 deg.54'11'' W.; northeast to Lat. 36 deg.02'14'' N., Long 
113 deg.50'16'' W.; to Lat. 36 deg.02'16'' N., Long. 113 deg.48'08'' 
W.; thence southeast along the boundary of GCNP to Lat. 35 deg.58'09'' 
N., Long. 113 deg.45'04'' W.; southwest to Lat. 35 deg.54'48'' N., 
Long. 113 deg.50'24'' W.; southeast to Lat. 35 deg.41'01'' N., Long. 
113 deg.35'27'' W.; thence clockwise via the 4.2-nautical mile radius 
of the Peach Springs VORTAC to Lat. 35 deg.28'53'' N., Long. 
113 deg.27'49'' W.; northeast to Lat. 35 deg.42'58'' N., Long. 
113 deg.10'57'' W.; north to Lat. 35 deg.57'51'' N., Long. 
113 deg.11'06'' W.; east to Lat. 35 deg.57'44'' N.; Long. 
112 deg.14'04'' W.; thence clockwise via the 4.3-nautical mile radius 
of the Grand Canyon National Park Airport reference point (Lat. 
35 deg.57'08'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'49'' W.) to the point of origin.
    3. Section 93.305 is amended by revising paragrpah (a), by adding a 
new sentence to the end of paragraph (b), and by revising paragraph (d) 
to read as follows: (Note: All instructions in this amendment refer to 
Sec. 93.305 as it currently exists. But if adopted, these changes would 
be made in addition to the changes in Notice No. 99-12 published 
elsewhere in this issue):


Sec. 93.305  Flight-free zones and flight corridors.

* * * * *
    (a)  Desert View Flight-free Zone. That airspace extending from the 
surface up to but not including 14,500 feet MSL within an area bounded 
by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.59'58'' N., Long. 111 deg.52'47'' 
W.; thence east to Lat. 36 deg.00'00'' N., Long. 111 deg.51'04'' W.; 
thence north to 36 deg.00'24'' N.; Long. 111 deg.51'04'' W.; thence 
east to 36 deg.00'24'' N., Long. 111 deg.45'44'' W.; continue east to 
36 deg.00'24'' N., Long. 111 deg.39'34'' W.; thence north to 
36 deg.12'35'' N., Long. 111 deg.39'33'' W.; thence west to 
36 deg.12'35'' N., Long. 111 deg.45'44'' W.; thence west and north 
along the GCNP boundary to Lat. 36 deg.14'05'' N., Long. 
111 deg.48'34'' W.; thence southwest to Lat. 36 deg.12'06'' N., Long. 
111 deg.51'14'' W.; to the point of origin; but not including the 
airspace at and above 10,500 feet MSL within 1 nautical mile of the 
western boundary of the zone. The corridor to the west between the 
Desert View and Bright Angel Flight-free Zones, is designated the 
``Zuni Point Corridor.'' * * *
    (b) * * * The Bright Angel Flight-free Zone does not include the 
following airspace designated as the Bright Angel Corridor: That 
airspace one-half nautical mile on either side of a line extending from 
Lat. 36 deg.14'21.24'' N., Long. 112 deg.08'57.54'' W. and Lat. 
36 deg.14'15.32'' N., Long. 111 deg.55'07.32'' W.
* * * * *
    (d) Sanup Flight-free Zone. That airspace extending from the 
surface up to but not including 8,000 feet MSL within an area bounded 
by a line beginning at Lat. 35 deg.59'32'' N., Long. 113 deg.20'28'' 
W.; west to Lat. 36 deg.00'55'' N., Long. 113 deg.42'09'' W.; southeast 
to Lat. 35 deg.59'57'' N., Long. 113 deg.41'09'' W., to Lat. 
35 deg.59'09'' N., Long. 113 deg.40'53'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.58'45'' N., 
Long. 113 deg.40'15'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.57'52'' N., Long. 
113 deg.39'34'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.56'44'' N., Long. 113 deg.39'07'' 
W.; to Lat. 35 deg.56'04'' N., Long. 113 deg.39'20'' W.; to Lat. 
35 deg.55'02'' N., Long. 113 deg.40'43'' W.; to Lat. 35 deg.54'47'' N., 
Long.113 deg.40'51'' W., southeast to Lat. 35 deg.50'16'' N., Long. 
113 deg.37'13'' W.; thence along the park boundary to the point of 
origin.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 1999.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Acting Program Director, Air Traffic Airspace Management Program.
[FR Doc. 99-17320 Filed 7-6-99; 12:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M