[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 4, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17736-17743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7950]



[[Page 17735]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 91, et al.



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 4, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 17736]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-99-5926; Amendment No. 93-80]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends special operating rules and airspace for 
those persons operating aircraft in the area designated as the Grand 
Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). Specifically, 
this action modifies the eastern portion of the SFRA and the Desert 
View Flight-free Zone (FFZ); establishes a corridor through the Bright 
Angel FFZ for future noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft; and 
modifies the Sanup FFZ to provide for a commercial route over the 
northwestern section of the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). In 
addition, this action makes editorial corrections to several previously 
issued special operating rules for this affected area. The FAA is 
taking this action to assist the National Park Service in fulfilling 
the statutory mandate of substantially restoring the natural quiet and 
experience in GCNP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on December 1, 2000.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    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 work with 
the National Park Service (NPS) in achieving its statutory mandate 
imposed by Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-91 of substantially restoring the 
natural quiet and experience in GCNP. The final rule amended Title 14, 
Part 93, of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new Subpart U 
to codify the provisions of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-
2 (SFAR 50-2). Additionally, this rule modified the dimensions of the 
GCNP SFRA, established new and modified existing FFZs; established new 
and modified existing flight corridors; and established reporting 
requirements for commercial air tour operators operating in the SFRA. 
In addition, the final rule prohibited commercial air tours in the Zuni 
Point and Dragon corridors during certain time periods, and placed a 
temporary limit on the number of aircraft that could be used for 
commercial air tour operations in the GCNP SFRA. These provisions 
originally were to become effective on May 1, 1997.
    On February 26, 1997, the FAA published a final rule that delayed 
the implementation of certain sections of the December 31, 1996, final 
rule (62 FR 8862). Specifically, this action delayed the effective 
date, until January 31, 1998, of those sections of the rule that 
address the SFRA, FFZs, and flight corridors, respectively 
Secs. 93.301, 93.305, 93.307. In addition, certain portions of SFAR No. 
50-2 were reinstated and the expiration date extended. Implementation 
was delayed to allow the FAA and the NPS to consider comments and 
suggestions to improve the route structure. On December 17, 1997, the 
FAA took action to delay further the implementation of the above 
mentioned sections of the rule and continued the extension of certain 
portions of SFAR No. 50-2 until January 31, 1999 (62 FR 66248). On 
February 3, 1999, the FAA again took action to further delay 
implementation of the above mentioned sections and continued the 
extension of certain portions of SFAR No. 50-2 until January 31, 2000 
(64 FR 5152). It is noted that these actions did not affect or delay 
the implementation of the curfew, aircraft cap, or reporting 
requirements of the rule, which were effective May 1, 1997.

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 incentive corridors over the GCNP. The first 
corridor, through the Bright Angel FFZ, was planned for quiet 
technology aircraft use only. The second corridor, through National 
Canyon, would be for westbound quiet-technology aircraft after December 
31, 2001. The FAA, in consultation with the NPS and Native Americans, 
determined not to proceed with a corridor through National Canyon. 
Consequently, on July 15, 1998, the FAA withdrew Notice 97-6 (63 FR 
38232) in its entirety.
    On July 9, 1999, the FAA published two NPRMs (Notice 99-11 and 
Notice 99-12) to assist the NPS in achieving the statutory mandate 
imposed by Pub. L. 100-91 to provide for the substantial restoration of 
natural quiet and experience in GCNP by reducing the effect of aircraft 
noise from commercial air tours on GCNP. Notice 99-11, Modification of 
the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules 
Area and Flight Free Zones (64 FR 37296, Docket No. 5962) proposed to 
modify the dimension of the GCNP SFRA. The proposed changes to the SFRA 
would modify the eastern portion of the SFRA, the Desert View FFZ, the 
Bright Angel FFZ and the Sanup FFZ. Notice 99-12, Commercial Air Tour 
Limitations in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules 
Area, (64 FR 37304, Docket No. 5927) proposed to limit the number of 
commercial air torus that may be conducted in the SFRA and to revise 
the reporting requirements for commercial SFRA operations. The specific 
proposals of Notice No. 99-12 are discussed in a final rule found 
elsewhere in this Federal Register.
    On July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38851), the FAA published a notice 
announcing two public meetings on the NPRMs. The meetings, which were 
held on August 17 and 19, 1999, in Flagstaff, Arizona, and Las Vegas, 
Nevada, sought additional comment on the NPRMs and on the associated 
supplemental draft environmental assessment.

Proposed Actions of Notice 99-11

    The airspace modification proposal, Notice No. 99-11, the subject 
of this final rule, proposed to modify the Grand Canyon SFRA and Desert 
View FFZ by moving the respective boundaries five (5) nautical miles to 
the east. The rationale for the proposal was to allow entry and exit to 
routes as well as to curtail travel over several Traditional Cultural 
Properties (TCP) on the eastern side of the GCNP, which concerns the 
Zuni, Hopi, and Navajo Tribes. These sites were identified through 
consultation with affected tribes in accordance with the National 
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). It is noted that specific locations 
of these Traditional Cultural Properties are not identified pursuant to 
section 304 of the NHPA, which provides for confidentiality of cultural 
and religious sites. In the proposed rule, the FAA sought to reduce the 
impact of air tours over these TCPs by the proposed

[[Page 17737]]

modification of the eastern portion of the SFRA and the Desert View 
FFZ.
    In addition, Notice No. 99-11 proposed to establish a provisional 
incentive corridor through the Bright Angel FFZ, one nautical mile in 
width, to be used in the future only by aircraft meeting a noise 
efficiency/quiet technology standard, which has yet to be developed.
    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. Once quiet technology/noise efficient aircraft 
are defined and the Bright Angel FFZ is implemented, the FAA would 
anticipate 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 only to aircraft meeting the noise 
efficiency/quiet technology standard would provide a valuable and 
tangible incentive for the air tour operators to convert to quieter 
aircraft. The Bright Angel Corridor could thereby provide the benefit 
of a reduction in the level of aircraft noise over time.
    Finally, the FAA proposed to modify the Sanup FFZ to provide for a 
route over the northwestern section of the GNCP, and to provide for two 
transportation routes to Tusayan. The elimination of current routes 
Blue 1 and Blue 1A, to be replaced by Blue Direct North and Blue Direct 
South, would cause traffic to transit to over the Sanup FFZ. To 
accommodate these two routes, the FAA proposed to modify the northern 
portion of the Sanup FFZ so that the Blue Direct South does not fly 
over a FFZ. In addition, it was proposed to eliminate a small area in 
the northwestern portion of the Sanup FFZ to accommodate the Blue 2 air 
tour route. The FAA acknowledged that this modification would eliminate 
a small area of previously designated FFZ; however, the elimination of 
the Blue 1 and Blue 1A routes, which transit more pristine areas of the 
SFRA, would have added benefits for the restoration of natural quiet 
and experience in GCNP.

Discussion of Comments

    In response to Notice 99-11, the FAA received more than 1,000 
comments, and 556 comments on Notice 99-12. Many commenters sent the 
identical comments to both dockets. Many of these comments included 
form letters from the air tour industry and supporters of environmental 
groups. Comments were also received from industry associations (e.g., 
Grand Canyon air Tour Council (CGATC); Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association (AOPA); Helicopter Association International (HAI); 
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA); National Air Transportation 
Association (NATA)); an environmental coalition (Sierra Club; Grand 
Canyon Trust; The Wilderness Society; Friends of the Grand Canyon; 
Maricopa Audubon Society; National Parks and Conservation Association; 
Natural Sounds Society; Quiet Skies Alliance); river rafting 
organizations (Arizona Raft Adventures; Grand Canyon River Guides); air 
tour operators (AirStar Helicopters; Sunrise Airlines; Southwest 
Safaris; Grand Canyon Airlines; Papillon Grand Canyon Helicopters; 
Windrock Aviation; Air Vegas; Heli USA; Eagle Jet Charter, Inc.); 
aircraft manufacturers (Twin Otter International, Ltd.; Stemme USA, 
Inc.); tourism organizations (Grand Canyon Air Tourism Association; 
Arizona Office of Tourism); governmental officials (Arizona Speaker of 
the House; Arizona State Legislature; Governor of Arizona; Arizona 
Corporation Commission; Clark County Department of Aviation); and 
Native American tribes (Hualapai; Havasupai; Navajo). Some of the 
substantive comments include commissioned studies, and economic and 
noise impact analyses (J.R. Engineering; Riddel and Schwer).
    The following is an analysis of the pertinent general comments 
received in response to Notice 99-11 by specific proposal and the 
rationale of the final rule.

AOPA Comments/Petition for Reconsideration

    AOPA, on behalf of its members, comments that the FAA should 
clarify the raised floors of the Marble Canyon and North Canyon sectors 
as amended in the 1996 final rule. Further, AOPA states that the FAA 
should include language clarifying that the new ceiling will not impact 
other types of non-commercial general aviation flights. AOPA comments 
that the elimination of the Fossil Canyon Corridor and the raised 
floors of the Marble Canyon and North Canyon sectors unfairly penalizes 
general aviation flights. AOPA recommends restoring the sector 
altitudes for general aviation overflights to the original altitudes of 
5,999' MSL and 4,999' MSL respectively. In its comment, AOPA also 
refers to a January 15, 1997, petition for reconsideration of the 
December 1996 final rule. In that petition, AOPA raised similar issues 
as presented in its comment to the airspace modification proposal. 
Specifically AOPA asks that the FAA reconsider and (1) restore the 
floor of the North Canyon sector to 5,000 feet MSL for general aviation 
overflight; (2) restore the floor for the Marble Creek Canyon sector to 
6,000 feet MSL; (3) establish the Fossil Canyon for general aviation 
overflight; and (4) establish the proposed Tuckup corridor for general 
aviation flight.

FAA response and final rule action:

    In the December 1996 final rule, the FAA took action to prohibit 
air tour operations in the Tuckup Corridor. However, the Tuckup 
Corridor has always been open to general aviation traffic. The FAA 
regrets that this was not made clear when it provided a map for public 
comment on the new routes. General aviation pilots should refer to the 
Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart (General Aviation), which clearly 
shows the Tuckup Corridor and its flight altitudes. The FAA stated that 
it was not modifying the Tuckup Corridor as recently as May 15, 1997, 
when it published Notice 97-6 proposing that certain corridors be 
established for quiet technology aircraft. Comments regarding Marble 
Canyon and Fossil Canyon corridors are addressed below.
    The FAA apologizes for not responding to AOPA's petition earlier, 
but addresses and disposes of that petition in this final rule. The 
December 1996 final rule simplified the northeast sector of the SFRA by 
combining the Marble Canyon and the North Canyon sector into one sector 
and renaming the section the Marble Canyon Sector with the minimum 
sector altitude of 8,000 MSL. The route altitude for commercial air 
tour aircraft, for the most part, in this sector is 7,500 MSL, thus 
allowing for a 500 foot MSL buffer. The FAA is aware that between Cave 
Springs Rapids and Saddle Mountain, air tour operators are climbing so 
as to join the Saddle Mountain and North Rim air traffic (Black 1 
route). Areas for general aviation operations are to be conducted at a 
slightly higher altitude than the commercial air tour routes to 
segregate general aviation operations from the relatively heavy 
commercial air tour operations. While the routes reserve different 
altitudes for different types of operations, they do not in any way 
assure separation of individual aircraft (all pilots flying in the SFRA 
remain fully responsible for seeing and avoiding other aircraft). 
Consequently, it is not feasible to consider lowering the altitude for 
general aviation traffic in

[[Page 17738]]

this sector below 8,000 feet MSL. Therefore, the FAA denies this 
portion of AOPA's petition for reconsideration.
    AOPA also requests that the FAA consider and reopen the Fossil 
Canyon Corridor to general aviation traffic. In promulgating the 
December 1996 final rule, it was the FAA's intention to close the 
Fossil Canyon corridor for commercial air tour flights only. As stated 
in the preamble to that rule, the FAA found that the Fossil Canyon 
corridor was not heavily used for commercial air tour purposes and that 
the operators who do use the corridor will have alternative routes. The 
FAA inadvertently did not include the Fossil Canyon corridor in section 
93.307, Minimum flight altitudes for commercial air tour aircraft and 
transient and general aviation operation. The FAA corrects that error 
in this rulemaking by making the Fossil Canyon Corridor available only 
to transient and general aviation operations at a flight altitude of 
10,500 feet MSL and above.

Delay of Rulemaking

    Twin Otter International, Ltd., and its affiliate, Grand Canyon 
Airlines, comments that the proposals should be withdrawn. These 
commenters state that they are prepared to pursue every remedy 
available to stop these proposals.
    The Arizona Corporation Commission expresses concern over the lack 
of state input into the proposed rules to further restrict the air tour 
industry at GCNP. The Commission expresses that the Grand Canyon is an 
extremely important component of Arizona's tourism industry. It 
believes that the same consideration should be given to Arizona 
officials that the FAA gave to Colorado officials in banning air tours 
over Rocky Mountain National Park.
FAA response and final rule action:
    The FAA believes that Twin Otter's comment is directed to changes 
in the route structure and limitations on operations rather than the 
minor changes to the SFRA and FFZs of this rulemaking.
    In response to the Arizona Commission, the FAA finds that this 
final rule does no harm to the Arizona tourist industry. The 
modification to the Sanup FFZ to accommodate two routes through the 
center of the park and the proposed extension of the SFRA do not 
restrict commercial air tours. The FAA has responded to the issues of 
changed routes and limits on operations in the appropriate documents 
published concurrently in the Federal Register. Thus the FAA does not 
believe it is necessary to delay implementation of this rule other than 
for training purposes.

Modifying the SFRA and FFZs

    Air Vegas comments that it does not matter how the SFRA is 
realigned, because what really matters is how the route system is 
carved out of the SFRA.
    The Maricopa Audubon Society recommends that the FAA close the 
Dragon Corridor (which is located just west of Hermit's Rest); this 
corridor impacts the Hermit, Boucher, Waldron, and Tonto trails. This 
commenter adds that the proposal would wrap tour flights closer around 
the south side of Point Sublime, which is ``an unacceptable way to 
treat visitor experience at such a spectacular and noted backcountry 
vista site.'' Finally, this commenter says that FFZs need to be large 
or they do not work and recommends enlargement of the Marble Canyon 
corridor and Powell Plateau area.
    Clark County Department of Aviation says that Congress did not give 
the FAA the power to arbitrarily limit airspace. Clark County notes 
that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit recently stressed the need for agencies to identify 
``intelligible principles'' guiding their actions under power delegated 
by Congress. American Trucking Assn v. EPA, No. 97-1440 D.C. Cir. 1999. 
Clark County states that the FAA must carefully revisit its decision to 
avoid creating a precedent that could affect flights over thousands of 
sites across the West for which some cultural, historic and/or 
religious claim could be made.
    Arizona Raft Adventures says that there appears to be modest 
improvement on some of the reconfiguration of air tour routes, 
especially as pertains to the Colorado River in Marble Canyon (flights 
would be further away from the rim of the Marble Platform); the route 
which passes between the Bright Angel and Zuni corridors; and the 
National Canyon area (routes have moved south, providing relief to the 
Havasupai). The commenter points out, however, that there are other 
compromises, such as effects on Point Sublime, Point Imperial, and 
Saddle Mountain. This commenter concurs with others who call for the 
elimination of the Dragon corridor.

FAA response and final rule action:

    The route structure for GCNP is being addressed in a separate 
disposition of comments document that is being published concurrently 
with this final rule.
    In response to commenters who want to close the Dragon Corridor to 
aircraft overflights, the FAA did not propose such a change. NPS and 
FAA are seeking to impose the regulations necessary to achieve 
substantial steps towards the statutory mandate. At this time, the 
agencies have decided not to close the Dragon Corridor.
    The FAA disagrees with Clark County that it is arbitrarily limiting 
available airspace in GCNP. Congress mandated the goal of substantial 
restoration of natural quiet in GCNP in Pub. L. 100-91. Pub. L. 
established the process for substantially restoring the natural quiet 
and experience in GCNP. Additionally, Congress granted NPS the 
discretion to use its expertise to establish a definition of the 
substantial restoration of natural quiet. NPS determined that 
substantial restoration of natural quiet required that over 50% of the 
GCNP should be quiet 75-100% of the time. The NPS in its 1994 Report to 
Congress to set forth the methods it would consider to achieve its goal 
of substantial restoration of natural quiet. The FAA, consistent with 
the direction of the statute, implements NPS recommendations unless it 
has safety concerns with the recommendations. Thus the statute and the 
NPS recommendations provide guiding principles for the agencies 
implementing the regulations effecting the statutory goal. 
Additionally, the FAA has developed standards in its relations with the 
Native American Tribes and Nations and, as explained in the Final 
Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Chapter 4 (Sections regarding 
Noise and Department of Transportation Section 4(f)), the FAA has used 
the same criteria in these rulemakings as were used in evaluating the 
expansion of arrivals into Los Angeles International Airport. See 
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1998).

Extending the SFRA East and Modifying the Desert View FFZ

    The FAA received a number of comments opposing the SFRA expansion. 
AOPA also raises the issue that if hazardous weather or flight 
conditions required a route change that might penetrate the boundaries 
or transition area, the GCNP ``has no controlling authority to contact 
for permission.'' This commenter states that general aviation traffic 
will have difficulty safely avoiding the Sunny Military Operations Area 
(MOA) and ``legally avoiding the SFRA when flying from the south to 
destinations such as Tuba City and Page.'' AOPA recommends modifying 
the southeastern boundary ``to allow at least

[[Page 17739]]

five (5) nautical miles of airspace between the boundary of the SFRA 
and the Sunny MOA.'' Moreover, AOPA also finds that this change is 
outside scope of Pub. L. 100-91 which relates to restoration of natural 
quiet, not protection of Native American Traditional Cultural 
Properties.
    EAA comments that moving the SFRA boundary as well as the Desert 
View FFZ to the east imposes air space regulations on the Navajo Nation 
that did not previously exist. EAA further comments that this proposal 
pushes GA flights too close to the Sunny MOA. Some commenters state 
that this is an unnecessary infringement on the limited National 
Airspace available for public use.
    Comments from general aviation pilots indicate that they do not 
want to see the boundaries of the Desert View FFZ expanded to the east 
because the canyons of the Little Colorado are a de facto flyway, 
serving as the obvious entrance point to Grand Canyon airport from the 
east.
    AirStar Helicopters says that the extension of the Desert View FFZ 
will have a negative economical impact on the Navajo Nation through 
loss of business and will add cost to operators with the additional 
miles being flown. Likewise, a film industry spokesman from Locations 
Southwest comments that he works with the Navajo and Hualapai in 
filming areas outside the jurisdiction of GCNP. His concern is that the 
extension of the Desert view FFZ may adversely affect his ability to 
film and thus affect the income of the two tribes. Papillon Helicopters 
comments that the Navajo tribe will lose fees paid in compensation for 
access to their lands. Such fees would now go to the NPS.
    Sunrise Airlines comments that the proposed easterly expansion does 
not provide a benefit to the GCNP and therefore the boundaries should 
not be moved easterly from its current location. This commenter 
disagrees with the expansion of the Desert View FFZ. Although 
accommodating the concerns of the Native Americans may seem to be ``the 
right thing to do''; it is not consistent with the intent of Pub. L. 
100-91. Expanding the Desert View FFZ does nothing to restore natural 
quiet in the National Park, and the proposed easterly expansion of the 
FFZ is entirely outside the GCNP. This commenter posits that creating 
an FFZ outside the GCNP boundaries will set a very dangerous precedent 
giving implied rights to land owners.
    The environmental coalition supports expanding the SFRA east onto 
the Navajo Nation and extending the Desert View FFZ five miles east 
thus offering some protection to the Little Colorado River and 
important Native American cultural sites.
FAA Response and Final Rule Action:
    The FAA proposed the SFRA and Desert View FFZ expansion to improve 
the safe navigation of general aviation pilots, to realign the Desert 
View FFZ with the GCNP boundaries, and to protect TCPs. The FAA agrees 
that the proposed action could be perceived as forcing general aviation 
traffic closer to the Sunny MOA and compromise safety, especially in 
inclement weather. Further, it was not the intent of the proposal to 
establish a FFZ over non-park land.
    Therefore, in this final rule the Desert View FFZ's eastern 
boundary will be moved back to the GCNP boundary. The SFRA boundary is 
moved 5 miles to the east as proposed. Additionally, the FAA has 
modified the southeastern portion of the SFRA to allow three and a half 
(3\1/2\) nautical miles between the boundary of the SFRA and the Sunny 
MOA. The FAA finds that this action in the final rule both protects the 
confluence of the Little Colorado River and allows for safe general 
aviation transit through the area.
    To operate safely in the vicinity of a MOA, general aviation 
operators should contact the appropriate flight service station to stay 
aware of actions in the MOA. The FAA also reminds general aviation 
visitors to GCNP that a provision for deviations into the SFRA is 
provided in section 93.305 for emergencies and other safety of flight 
situations.

Bright Angel FFZ

    The FAA received several comments from air tour operators who 
maintain that the failure to immediately implement a quiet aircraft 
incentive route creates a disincentive to development of quiet aircraft 
technology and imposes a burden on operators that have already acquired 
quiet aircraft. Furthermore, these commenters state that the Bright 
Angel corridor would improve flight safety by giving air tour operators 
the ability to fly a safer route at a lower altitude. Without the 
Bright Angel corridor operators must fly over Saddle Mountain 
Wilderness Area which is a longer route over higher terrain and 
increases aircraft direct operating costs by 20%.
    The Grand Canyon River Guides Association opposes the proposed 
future incentive route for noise-efficient aircraft through the Bright-
Angel FFZ because FFZs should be flight-free. The FAA and NPS should 
not even consider such routes while the minimum goal of substantial 
restoration of natural quiet still had not been met.
    Sunrise Airlines states that the expansion of the SFRA to the south 
will benefit the Bright Angel FFZ by placing aircraft further from this 
zone and therefore should be adopted west of the Zuni Point Corridor 
but not east of the Zuni Point Corridor where there is no benefit.
    The environmental coalition opposes the addition of an ``incentive 
corridor'' through the Bright Angel FFZ. These associations state that 
rather than allowing quiet aircraft to fly on more routes, quieter 
aircraft should be used to meet the existing substantial restoration 
requirement.

FAA response and final rule action:

    The FAA reiterates its commitment to an incentive corridor as 
stated in NPRM 96-15, Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the 
Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park. Adoption of such a corridor is 
consistent with the Comprehensive Noise Management Plan, which ``will 
address the best available technology, provision of appropriate 
incentives for investing in quieter aircraft, and appropriate treatment 
for operators that have already made such investments.'' (62 FR 69338: 
December 31, 1996) However, the Bright Angel corridor cannot be used 
until the standards for quiet technology are developed.
    In this final rule the FAA retains the Bright Angel Corridor for 
future used by quiet technology aircraft once quiet technology is 
defined in a subsequent final rule. Additionally, the location of this 
incentive corridor would overlie the current location of the Black 1A 
and Green 1A routes. Consequently, the coordinates for this incentive 
corridor have been further defined using North American Datum 83 (NAD 
83) versus NAD 27. This new defined area will place the incentive 
corridor .6 to .8 nautical miles north of the coordinates that were 
proposed in Notice 97-6.

Editorial Corrections

    The FAA corrects an inadvertent error in the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ. 
In SFAR 50-2, a portion of the airspace in the vicinity of the Hualapai 
Reservation was inadvertently included as part of the Toroweap FFZ, 
which was subsequently combined into the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ in the 
1996 final rule (61 FR 69331). The FAA never intended to extend the FFZ 
over the Hualapai Reservation. Therefore, a small circular area in the 
southeast portion of that FFZ, near Toroweap Overlook, is removed. This 
will allow the boundaries of the Toroweap/Shinumo FFZ to

[[Page 17740]]

coincide with the boundaries of the Hualapai Reservation.
    On December 31, 1996 the FAA published the Special Flight Rules in 
the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park final rule. The final rule 
amended part 93 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), by 
adding a new subpart to codify the provisions of Special Federal 
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50-2, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity 
of Grand Canyon National Park, AZ. However, the December 31, 1996 final 
rule contained a typographical error that inadvertently moved a portion 
of the northwestern boundary of the SFRA of the GCNP. This error causes 
a certain air tour route (Green 4) to fall partially outside of the 
SFRA.
    Further, in describing the SFRA around the Peach Springs VORTAC, a 
typographical error of ten seconds in Latitude caused the SFRA not to 
be adjoined in this area.
    The Tuweep Airstrip was unintentionally left out of SFAR 50-2. This 
omission causes the Tuweep Airstrip not to have charted information 
regarding general operating procedures used within 3 nautical miles and 
below 3,000 feet above the airport's elevation. This action corrects 
those errors by revising the legal description of the SFRA boundary as 
described in section 93.301, and adding the Tuweep Airstrip to section 
93.309(f).

SFAR 50-2

    SFAR 50-2 is removed in this final rule as of December 1, 2000. At 
that time the airspace modifications of this final rule will become 
effective to accommodate the new Blue Direct North and Blue Direct 
South routes. The FAA has determined that delaying implementation until 
December 1, 2000, will enable the air tour operators to ensure 
sufficient training on the new routes during a time period outside 
their peak season. Therefore, SFAR 50-2 is removed, effective December 
1, 2000.

Environmental Review

    The FAA, in cooperation with NPS and the Hualapai Indian Tribe, 
prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the 
proposed rules to assure conformance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and other applicable 
environmental laws and regulations. Copies of the Draft SEA were 
circulated to interested parties and placed on the Docket, where it was 
available for review. On July 9, 1999, the Notice of Availability of 
the SEA for the Proposed Actions Relating to the GCNP was published in 
the Federal Register (64 FR 37192). Comments on the Draft SEA were to 
be received on or before September 7, 1999.
    Comments received in response to this Notice of Availability have 
been addressed in the final SEA published concurrently with this final 
rule. Based upon the final SEA and careful review of the public 
comments to the draft SEA, the FAA has determined that a finding of no 
significant impact (FONSI) is warranted. The final SEA and the FONSI 
were issued in February 2000. Copies have been placed in the public 
docket for this rulemaking, have been circulated to interested parties, 
and may be inspected at the same time and location as this final rule.

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 final rule will be ``a significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and the 
Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 
11034; February 26, 1979). The FAA, however, has determined that this 
final rule will 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 will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, 
the final rule will not have a significant impact on international 
trade.

Costs

    The costs associated with the reconfiguration of the Desert View 
and Bright Angel Flight-free Zones (FFZ) as described in 14 CFR 93.305, 
were accounted for in the December 31, 1996 final rule (61 FR 69302). 
This analysis therefore, is concerned only with the costs associated 
with the modifications to the reconfigurations.

Special Flight Rules Area

    The SFAR 50-2 Black 2 and Black 3 routes currently used are the 
only air tour routes that will be affected by the concomitant eastward 
shifts of the SFRA. The Black 2 route extends mostly over plateau, not 
the Canyon, and is utilized as an access route to the Black 1 tour 
route over the Canyon. The Black 2 route is not a prominent feature of 
any air tour. Information provided for the base year indicates that 
only one operator utilized the Black 2 route to conduct air tours of 
the Grand Canyon. Similarly, the Black 3 route is more of an access 
within the SFRA to the more scenic Black 1 air tour route. Operators 
accessing the Grand Canyon via the Black 3 route, however, split south 
at Imperial Point and remain on the Black 1 route through the Zuni 
Point Corridor.
    The FAA believes that a shift in the Black 2 route eastward 
resulting from the eastward shift in the SFRA by five nautical miles 
will serve only to realign the access/approach to the Black 1 tour 
route. It will not alter the tour offerings of the individual operator 
discussed above, and any changes in the operator's variable operating 
costs resulting from adding five nautical miles to the overall air tour 
(about 2-3 minutes) are negligible. Similarly, the FAA believes there 
will be no impact on the operators entering the SFRA on the Black 3 
route to conduct air tours of the Canyon. The eastward extension of the 
SFRA by five nautical miles will not necessarily add distance and time 
to the tours using the Black 3, but rather, it will tend to substitute 
distance and time in controlled airspace for distance and time in 
unrestricted airspace. Therefore, the FAA concludes that the costs for 
this part of the final rule are de minimus. However, as discussed in 
the comments section to the Regulatory Evaluation, Southwest Safaris 
may experience a cost impact due to the SFRA shift and the route 
change. The FAA can not assess the specific impact of the shift because 
it has not received data from Southwest Safaris to document the number 
of air tours conducted during May 1, 1997-April 30, 1998.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone

    The FAA is establishing the Bright Angel corridor for future use by 
quiet technology aircraft. Readers must understand that until a 
standard for quiet technology aircraft is developed

[[Page 17741]]

and adopted, this corridor will not be available for use.
    The Bright Angel incentive corridor is parallel to the route that 
is currently depicted on the Grand Canyon VFR Aeronautical Chart as the 
Green 1A and Black 1A, or Alpha routes. This corridor will be available 
in the future only to noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft. 
Currently, the FAA and the NPS have not defined what is a noise 
efficient/quiet technology aircraft. Consequently, the route will not 
be available for immediate use except in weather emergencies but 
potentially should be available for use in the future.

Other Areas

    The Sanup FFZ will be modified to accommodate the new route system 
contained in the concurrent Notice of Route Availability. No estimated 
costs are associated with this alternative. In addition, no estimated 
costs are associated with reopening the Fossil Canyon Corridor.

Cost Summary

    The FAA estimates that any costs associated with the SFRA expansion 
of five nautical miles to the east will be de minimus, except, 
possibly, in the case of Southwest Safaris, based on the same reasoning 
as previously stated. Also, the FAA determines that the modification to 
the Sanup FFZ, and the reopening of the Fossil Canyon Corridor will 
result in no additional costs. The potential cost of the incentive 
corridor through the Bright Angel FFZ cannot be estimated at this time. 
The potential cost will be estimated in a future regulatory evaluation 
for the rulemaking that defines noise efficient/quiet technology 
aircraft.

Benefits

    The primary benefit associated with this final rule is a reduction 
of circumnavigation costs for general aviation operators. The potential 
benefit of the incentive corridor through the Bright Angel FFZ cannot 
be estimated at this time. The potential benefits will be estimated in 
a future regulatory evaluation for the rulemaking that defines noise 
efficient/quiet technology aircraft.
    The reopening of the Fossil Canyon Corridor will reduce 
circumnavigation costs for GA operators. The expansion of the eastern 
boundary of the SFRA addresses certain concerns of the Native Americans 
in that area while at the same time posing no perceived additional 
costs on operators. Benefits associated with the modification to the 
Sanup FFZ cannot be quantified without additional information regarding 
the air tour route alternative.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 estimates ``as a principle 
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 
the objective of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory 
and informational 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 end 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.
    This final rule will only have a de minimus cost impact on the 
certificate holders for whom cost have been estimated. Accordingly, 
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the 
Federal Aviation Administration certifies that this rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The FAA has determined that the final rule will have no affect on 
non-U.S. operators of foreign aircraft operating outside the United 
States nor will it have an affect on U.S. trade or trade relations.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
Agency, to the extend permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more (when 
adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Section 
204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
(or their designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a 
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal 
agency regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, 
local and tribal governments in the aggregate of $100 million (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 
U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that, before 
establishing any regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall have developed a 
plan, which, among other things, must provide for notice to potentially 
affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful and timely 
opportunity for these small governments to provide input in the 
development of regulatory proposals.
    This final rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or 
private sector mandates. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

International Compatibility

    The FAA has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation 
Organization standards and recommended practices and Joint Aviation 
Authorities requirements and has identified no comparable amendments in 
foreign regulations.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    In accordance with the OMB memorandum dated March 1983, Federal 
agencies engaged in rulemaking activities are required to assess the 
effects of regulatory changes on international trade. The modification 
to the FFZs and SFRA in Grand Canyon National Park of this final rule 
do not impact international trade for the air tour operators, Native 
Americans, and park visitors affected by this final rule.

Federalism Implications

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined 
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

[[Page 17742]]

various levels of government. Therefore, the FAA has determined that 
this final rule will have the sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires that agencies consider 
the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens 
imposed on the public. Under the Act, no person is required to respond 
to a collection of information unless it displays a valid Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    There are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule that would require approval under the Act.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, and 135

     Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety.

14 CFR Part 93

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

Adoption of Amendments

    For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends parts 91, 93, 121, and 135 of Title 14 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, effective December 1, 2000, as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

    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.

PART 121  [AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 444101, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 
44912, 46105.

PART 135  [AMENDED]

    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.


SFAR No. 50-2  [Removed]

    4. In parts 91, 121, and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation 
No. 50-2, the text of which appears at the beginning of part 91, is 
removed.

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.

    6. Section 93.301 is revised to read as follows. This supersedes 
Sec. 93.301 published on December 31, 1996 (61 FR 69330) and delayed 
until January 31, 2001 (65 FR 5397, February 3, 2000).


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.55'30" N., Long. 111 deg.45'00" 
W.; to Lat. 35 deg.59'02" N., Long. 111 deg.36'03" W.; north to Lat. 
36 deg.15'30" N., Long. 111 deg.36'06" W.; to Lat. 36 deg.24'49" 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.38'29" 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.09'30" N., Long. 
114 deg.03'03" W.; southeast to Lat. 36 deg.05'11" N., Long. 
113 deg.58'46" W.; thence south along the boundary of GCNP to Lat. 
35 deg.58'23" N., Long. 113 deg.54'14" W.; north to Lat. 36 deg.00'10" 
N., Long. 113 deg.53'48" W.; northeast to Lat. 36 deg.02'14" N., Long. 
113 deg.50'16" W.; to Lat. 36 deg.02'17" N., Long. 113 deg.53'48" W.; 
northeast to Lat. 36 deg.02'14" N., Long. 113 deg.50'16" W.; to Lat. 
36 deg.02'17" N., Long. 113 deg.49'11" W.; southeast to Lat. 
36 deg.01'22" N., Long. 113 deg.48'21" W.; to Lat. 35 deg.59'15" N., 
Long. 113 deg.47'13" W.; to Lat. 35 deg.57'51" N., Long. 113 deg.46'01" 
W.; to Lat. 35 deg.57'45" N., Long. 113 deg.45'23" 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. 
36 deg.38'53" 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.
    7. Sections 93.305 and 93.307 published on December 31, 1996 (61 FR 
69330), corrected at 62 FR 2445 (January 16, 1997), and delayed at 65 
FR 5397 (February 3, 2000) becomes effective December 1, 2000.
    8. Section 93.305 is amended by revising paragraph (a), by revising 
the last sentence and adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph 
(b), by revising paragraph (c), and by revising paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:


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.; thence 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.'' This 
corridor is 2 nautical miles wide for commercial air tour flights and 4 
nautical miles wide for transient and general aviation operations.
    (b) * * * This corridor is 2 nautical miles wide for commercial air 
tour flights and 4 nautical miles wide for transient and general 
aviation operations. 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.14'57" N., Long. 112 deg.08'45" W. and Lat. 36 deg.15'01" 
N., Long. 111 deg.55'39" W.
    (c)Toroweap/Shinumo 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. 36 deg.05'44" N., Long. 
112 deg.19'27" W.; north-northeast to Lat. 36 deg.10'49" N., Long. 
112 deg.13'19" W.; to Lat. 36 deg.21'02" N., Long. 112 deg.08'47" W.; 
thence west and south along the GCNP boundary to Lat 36 deg.10'58" N., 
Long. 113 deg.08'35" W.; south to Lat. 36 deg.10'12" N., Long. 
113 deg.08'34" W.;

[[Page 17743]]

thence in an easterly direction along the park boundary to the point of 
origin; but not including the following airspace designated as the 
``Tuckup Corridor'': at or above 10,500 feet MSL within 2 nautical 
miles either side of a line extending between Lat. 36 deg.24'42" N., 
Long. 112 deg.48'47" W. and Lat. 36 deg.14'17" N., Long. 112 deg.48'31" 
W. The airspace designated as the ``Fossil Canyon Corridor'' is also 
excluded from the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone at or above 10,500 
feet MSL within 2 nautical miles either side of a line extending 
between Lat. 36 deg.16'26" N., Long. 112 deg.34'35" W. and Lat. 
36 deg.22'51" N., Long. 112 deg.18'18" W. The Fossil Canyon Corridor is 
to be used for transient and general aviation operations only.
    (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.
* * * * *
    9. Section 93.307 is amended by revising the heading for paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (b)(1) and adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 93.307  Minimum flight altitudes.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Commercial air tours--
* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Commercial Air tours-- * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Fossil Canyon Corridor. 10,500 feet MSL.
    10. Section 93.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 93.309  General operating procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) Unless necessary to maintain a safe distance from other 
aircraft or terrain, proceed through the Zuni Point, Dragon, Tuckup, 
and Fossil Canyon Flight Corridors described in Sec. 93.305 at the 
following altitudes unless otherwise authorized in writing by the 
Flight Standards District Office:
    (1) Northbound. 11,500 or 13,500 feet MSL.
    (2) Southbound. 10,500 or 12,500 feet MSL.
* * * * *
    (f) Is conducted within 3 nautical miles of Grand Canyon Bar Ten 
Airstrip, Pearce Ferry Airstrip, Cliff Dwellers Airstrip, Marble Canyon 
Airstrip, or Tuweep Airstrip at an altitude less than 3,000 feet above 
airport elevation, for the purpose of landing at or taking off from 
that facility; or
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2000.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-7950 Filed 3-28-00; 4:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M