[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62133-62135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29901]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. 28902; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 97-6]


Establishing of Corridors in the Grand Canyon National Park 
Special Flight Rules Area

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Disposition of comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document summarizes and disposes of comments to a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (Notice 97-6), published May 15, 1997, which 
proposed a National Canyon corridor for an air tour route through the 
central portion of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). The FAA withdrew 
Notice 97-6 because it was considering alternatives to this route. This 
action summarizes and responds to the comments concerning the National 
Canyon corridor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alberta Brown, Air Transportation 
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 
267-3724.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On May 15, 1997, the FAA issued Notice No. 97-6, which proposed a 
modification to the National Canyon corridor that was originally 
proposed in December 1996 in the Notice of Proposing Rulemaking (NPMR) 
addressing the use of quiet technology aircraft in GCNP (61 FR 69334; 
December 31, 1996). Notice No. 97-6 proposed two quiet technology 
corridors: (1) the National Canyon corridor through the central portion 
of the Park; and (2) the Bright Angel corridor in the eastern portion 
of the Park. The FAA received a total of 143 comments on this proposal 
from associations, the air tour industry, and individuals. A summary of 
comments and FAA's response to those comments follows:

Comments

    Clark County comments that the proposed National Canyon route ``* * 
* still fails to provide a sufficient scenic view to support a viable 
air tour.'' Specifically, this commenter finds that air visitors would 
lose the extremely scenic views of the Grand Canyon, Havasu Canyon, and 
Mt. Sinyala that are seen on the current Blue 1. Further, the commenter 
claims that the lack of a viable Blue 1/1A will result in a dangerous 
diversion of traffic to the Blue 2 route, economic injury to the air 
tour industry, and a shift of noise to the Hualapai reservation. It 
also suggests that, given the lack of a scenic air tour, some visitors 
will opt for ground tours by bus, train or car. Clark County believes 
that the Blue 1 route, proposed in above-referenced December 1996 
proposal for quiet technology aircraft, is the best option for viable 
air tour. Clark County continues to endorse the use of quiet technology 
as providing the best opportunity to promote long-term noise reduction 
at the least cost to the air tour industry.
    In a related economic comment, Clark County notes that the current 
Blue 1 generates $97.5 million in operating revenues. This commenter 
finds the FAA's economic analysis flawed in that it assumes that all 
air visitors would take the `unscenic' proposed route, and because it 
assumes that the only loss of revenue from the lose of the scenic 
portions of Blue 1 would be a tiny diminution in ticket prices. 
Finally, Clark County comments that, together, the proposed quiet 
technology route and quiet aircraft will more than meet the Overflight 
Act's mandate to substantially restore natural quiet in the Park. Clark 
County also raises a number of rulemaking issues for GCNP not directly 
related to this rulemaking proposal.
    Lake Mead Air urges the FAA to retain the Blue 1 route as it is 
less offensive to the Native Americans than the proposed route. This 
commenter believes that the FAA should cease all rulemaking until an 
Environmental Impact Statement is completed.
    Eagle Canyon Airlines believes that there is a potential for 
increasing unsafe operating conditions if there is no viable air tour 
route through the National Canyon area. Moreover, this commenter finds 
it appropriate to return to the route structure as it existed before 
December 31, 1996. Rather than change the structure of the National 
Canyon route to accommodate the Havasupai, Eagle Canyon Airlines finds 
that it

[[Page 62134]]

would be more beneficial for the air tour operations if the FAA shifted 
the route slightly to the north. Eagle reiterates that an air tour must 
have at least 40 miles of canyon overflight to justify an air tour sold 
as such.
    Southwest Safaris comments that the FAA has failed to consider air 
tour operations approaching from the south and east and suggests some 
modifications of routes to avoid congestion and possible safety 
problems. In a second comment, Southwest Safaris comments that the FAA 
should not allow any operator to use the Bright Angel corridor until 
all operators have had the opportunity to convert to quiet technology 
aircraft; 3 years should be sufficient for this conversion. This 
commenter also cites competition problems since other companies are 
unwilling to lease quiet technology aircraft to small operators who 
might compete with them for tour business.
    Airstar Helicopters commends the FAA for responding to the safety 
concerns generated by Notice 96-15 (Noise Limitations for Aircraft 
Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park) with a 
recommendation that the FAA convene a panel of affected parties to 
reach a consensus on the GCNP.
    Scenic Airlines encourages the FAA to adopt the December 1996 
proposal for quiet technology aircraft and finds that the proposal in 
notice 97-6 contains no incentives for operators to convert to quieter 
aircraft. Scenic finds that the National Canyon route as proposed does 
not provide a `quality aerial tour experience' and instead proposes a 
corridor that would run north of Havasupai tribal lands while remaining 
south of the Colorado river. This commenter also suggested other route 
options.
    Air Vegas commends the FAA for the reasoned decision to amend two 
of the flight-free zones with corridors, but finds that the National 
Canyon route does not provide a viable air tour. Air Vegas believes 
that Special Federal Aviation Regulation 50-2 has been successful in 
meeting the goals of substantially restoring the natural quiet in GCNP. 
The commenter also suggests a slight alternate to the National Canyon 
route.
    The Sierra Club comments that the proposal to establish two routes 
through flight-free zones is a move away from the goal of Public Law 
100-91 to restore the natural quiet in GCNP. While it supports the use 
of quiet technology aircraft, this commenter believes that methods such 
as creating corridors through flight-free zones are counterproductive. 
Sierra Club finds that the National Canyon route provides some relief 
for the Havasupai reservation; however, it does not provide enough 
protection for the river corridor. It also finds that a 4-mile width is 
excessive; if safety is a concern, the number of flights should be 
reduced. Sierra Club believes that a cap on operations is the only 
solution to the noise problem in GCNP.
    Friends of Grand Canyon states that the proposed routes will 
actually make noise levels worse in the eastern portion of the Canyon. 
This commenter finds that the proposed National Canyon modification 
would bring little relief to the Havasupai, while providing continuous 
noise to the central portion of the GCNP. In addition, unlimited noise 
would continue to permeate the entire park since there is no 
restriction on non-tour aircraft at elevations of 1300 to 9500 feet. 
This association finds that the NPS and FAA have failed in their 
responsibility to restore natural quiet to the park.
    The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) supports the 
two corridors, saying that they will harm no entity and will have a 
positive benefit for air tour operators. However, GAMA states that 
limiting the use of one corridor to Category C aircraft is arbitrary 
and subjective. Additionally, GAMA comments that the December 31, 2001 
date does not provide sufficient time for industry to have new noise 
reduction technologies available.
    The Navajo Nation reminds the FAA of its Section 106 
responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act and its 
position that no flights be conducted over the ``salt trail'' and 
``Blue Springs'' area. The FAA notes that these two areas are not 
affected by the Notice 97-6 proposal.
    Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (CGATC) comments that the National 
Canyon route, as proposed, is not a viable air tour route. The Council 
believes that the two goals of SFAR 50-2 have been met: to increase 
safety and to substantially restore the natural quiet. AGATC notes that 
visitor complaints constitute only .0001% of all visitors.
    Twin Otter International (TOIL) comments that the FAA has exceeded 
its statutory authority with the new GCNP rules and that it has 
incorrectly applied the intent of Congress. Moreover, it has applied a 
flawed NPS noise model to justify the rules. TOIL finds that there is 
insufficient incentive for converting to the new technology. Moreover, 
limiting west-bound traffic to quiet technology after December 2201 is 
only symbolic since only 2-3% of the air tours from Las Vegas to 
Tusayan are flown in reverse. In addition, this proposal reduces the 
viewing time by about 40%. TOIL recommends maintaining a 40-minute 
canyon viewing experience and further urges the FAA to limit it to 
quiet technology only.
    Grand Canyon Airlines (GCA) comments that there should be more 
incentive routes for quiet technology aircraft. GCA urges FAA and NPS 
to work together in a common sense approach, adding that the value in 
knowing that there is quiet though no one is there is `elitist 
hogwash'. GCA believes that FAA discriminated in favor of helicopters 
by giving them the lowest altitudes and preferred routes.
    Sierra Club--Grand Canyon Chapter comments that NPS modeling shows 
that eliminating all aircraft from National Canyon corridor is an 
important step in restoring natural quiet to GCNP. Likewise, the Sierra 
Club--Los Angeles Chapter opposes the proposal to allow a National 
Canyon route through a flight free zone.
    Grand Canyon River Guides comments that there should be no flights 
through flight free zones. This commenter notes that the Havasupai also 
want these flights removed. The Guides believe that this is a non-
essential route and that people will still book tours, regardless of 
the location of the route.
    The Havasupai Indian Tribe comments that only through government to 
government negotiations should any aircraft be able to fly over their 
reservation. They suggest a route through the Sanup flight-free zone 
that could avoid their reservation. The Havasupai also find the 
Environmental Assessment insufficient.
    More than 100 comments were received from individuals who enjoy the 
GCNP as ground visitors. The majority of these comments state that 
routes through flight-free zones defeated the purpose of the final 
rule. Many of these commenters want no flights over GCNP, even by quiet 
technology aircraft.

The FAA's response

    As stated in the withdrawal of Notice No. 97-6, the FAA, in 
consultation with the NPS, had determined to not proceed with the 
proposals set forth in that notice. Following the withdrawal, the FAA 
continued to search for a route through the GCNP that would provide a 
viable air tour while at the same time contributing to the restoration 
of natural quiet in the Park.
    The focus of this search for a new air tour route changed 
significantly with the publication in the Federal Register of NPS's 
policy dressing a dual noise

[[Page 62135]]

standard for GCNP (64 FR 38006; July 14, 1999). NPS's policy revised 
the noise evaluation methodology and established a dual noise level 
mapping of GCNP. The methodology effectively devised a two zone system 
for assessing the impacts related to the substantial restoration of 
natural quiet in GCNP. Zone One is based on the standard of 
noticeability, which was used previously for noise assessments in GCNP 
and is determined to be three decibels above the A-weighted natural 
ambient level. Zone Two is based on the standard of audibility, which 
is determined to be eight decibels below the average A-weighted natural 
ambient level. The National Canyon corridor proposed in Notice 97-6 
would have passed through Zone 2. Consequently, application of the 
audibility standard to the National Canyon area precludes this area 
from consideration as a possible air tour route. The FAA recently has 
proposed two air tour routes through the central portion of the GCNP, 
which do not infringe on Zone Two. Notice No. 99-11, Modification of 
the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules 
Area and Flight Free Zones (64 FR 37296; July 9, 1999) and a companion 
Notice of availability on routes in Grand Canyon National Park (64 FR 
37191; July 9, 1999) both had a 60-day comment period that closed on 
September 7, 1999.
    The FAA appreciates the comments that the public provided on the 
proposals in Notice 97-6. Commenters provided valuable insights into 
what constitutes a viable air tour route. Other commenters expressed 
the value of restoring natural quiet in GCNP. Native American tribes 
took this opportunity to express their concerns for any air tour route 
that could affect their sacred properties. These comments assist the 
FAA and NPS in their continuing efforts to develop air tour routes in 
GCNP.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 5, 1999.
L. Nicholas Lacey,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 99-29901 Filed 11-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M