[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17698-17700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7951]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Commercial Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of routes in grand Canyon National Park; 
disposition of comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice disposes of comments made on a notice of 
availability of routes in the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Special 
Flights Rules Area (SFRA) published July 9, 1999, and makes available 
the final map depicting those routes. The commercial routes are not 
being published in the Federal Register because they are depicted on 
large, detailed charts that would be difficult to read if published in 
the Federal Register. The modifications of certain commercial routes 
require airspace changes in the GNCP SFRA that are contained in a final 
rule being published concurrently in this Federal Register. The 
airspace modification and the modification to the route structure 
support the National Park Service mandate to provide for the 
substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience in GNCP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The routes depicted on the map made available by this 
notice are effective on December 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Davis, Air Transportation 
Division, AFS-200, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
Telephone (202) 267-8166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The final commercial routes are not being published in the Federal 
Register because they are on very large and detailed charts that would 
not publish well in the Federal Register. The Grand Canyon Visual 
Flight Rules (VFR) Chart can be purchased from National Ocean service 
(NOS) authorized chart agents throughout the world, or directly from 
NOS with a credit card on (800) 638-8972. The cost of the chart is 
$3.35. Please specify 3rd edition.

Discussion

    On July 9, 1999, the FAA published a notice of availability of 
routes in GNCP and request for comments (64 FR 37191). The FAA, in 
consultation with the National Park Service (NPS), developed the routes 
based on safety considerations, economic considerations, consultation 
with Native American tribes, airspace configurations, the need to 
substantially restore natural quiet and experience in the GNCP, and 
comments received in response to the notice of availability of routes. 
The FAA, in consultation with the NPS, also has modified the existing 
airspace in the SFRA to accommodate these route changes in a companion 
final rule (Docket No. FAA-99-5926) published elsewhere in this Federal 
Register.
    In developing the routes for GNCP, the FAA has consulted with 
Native American tribes, on a government-to-government basis, in 
accordance with the Presidential Memorandum on Government-to-Government 
Consultation with Native American Tribal Governments. This consultation 
was designed to assess potential effects on tribal trust resources and 
to assure that tribal government rights and concerns are considered in 
the decisionmaking process. The FAA also has consulted with Native 
American Tribes pursuant to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act 
and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act concerning potential effects 
of the routes on sacred sites. In accordance with Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act, the FAA has consulted with Native 
American tribes, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested parties 
concerning potential effects on historic sites, including traditional 
cultural properties and Native American sacred sites.

Disposition of Comments on Routes

    The FAA received more than 100 comments on the notice of 
availability published July 9, 1999. Comments were submitted by air 
tour operators (Air Vegas, Southwest Safaris, Grand Canyon Airlines); 
industry associations (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, National 
Air Transportation Association, Helicopter Association International); 
aircraft manufacturers (Twin Otter International, Ltd.); environmental 
groups (Arizona Raft Adventures, Friends of Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon 
River Guides, Grand Canyon Trust, Mariposa Audubon Society, Nature 
Sounds Society, National Parks and Conservation Association, Quiet 
Skies Alliance, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society); private 
individuals, and government and public officials.

General Comments on Routes

    Helicopter Association International says that, because of noise 
considerations, it has consistently objected to implementation of air 
tour routes that place air tour operations repetitively over or very 
near areas in which large numbers of persons on the ground congregate. 
Instead, HAI believes that air tour routes should be designed to avoid 
the largest number of park ground visitors practicable, consistent with 
the right of air tour visitors to experience their national park from 
an aerial perspective. The routes also need to support the safe arrival 
and departure procedures to facilities on the ground where air tour 
visitors can safely and conveniently board air tour aircraft.
    HAI adds that human activity on the ground has characteristics that 
may influence acceptable overflight noise thresholds, and that the 
presence or absence of such activity should be taken into account. For 
example, automobile traffic and crowd noise in areas frequented by park 
ground visitors may mask aircraft overflight sound. It may be 
reasonable, therefore, to permit more such sound in these areas than in 
areas where automobile traffic and crowd noise are absent.
    FAA Response: The NPS has advised the FAA that the noise concerns 
are less over the highly populated areas of the park, such as Grand 
Canyon Village, where there are other noise sources, such as buses, and 
large crowds. The NPS is particularly concerned with protecting the 
natural quiet that exists on back country trails and on the quiet river 
waters where park visitors go to experience nature. Thus where 
possible, the FAA has structured the routes to be consistent with this 
concern. The FAA

[[Page 17699]]

has determined that route changes contained in this notice provide safe 
transit through the SFRA and support safe arrival and departure 
procedures to local airports.

Eastern Expansion of Desert View (Black 2, Green 3 and Black 2X-4)

    Southwest Safaris says that flexibility of route structure is 
critical. This commenter also notes that weather and lighting changes 
in GCNP from hour to hour, day to day, and season to season. In order 
to provide park visitors with the best air tour possible, air tour 
operators must be able to fly the Canyon both south to north and north 
to south, as well as in a counterclockwise direction. This commenter 
believes that some tours need to be longer than others for reasons of 
price as well as safety.
    Southwest Safaris also states that the newly proposed air tour 
routes in the eastern end of the Park totally destroy an air tour 
operator's flexibility to design tours appropriate to changing 
conditions in the Park. Finally, this commenter finds that the newly 
proposed air tour routes make no reasonable provision for entering and 
exiting the Park from the east or the northeast. Air tour operators 
approaching the Canyon from Tuba City and/or Monument Valley will be 
negatively impacted.
    FAA Response: The routes map depicts a modification in the Desert 
View FFZ moving it back to the GCNP boundary. This modification from 
the proposed change to the Desert View FFZ is addressed in the final 
rule, Modification of the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park 
Special Flight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones, which appears in this 
issue of the Federal Register. This change will not affect the proposed 
Green 3 or Black 2 routes and the SFRA boundary will be depicted as it 
was on the proposed map.
    The FAA added the Zuni turnaround to provide some counterclockwise 
flexibility. It is not revising the entry point at 2X-4 due to altitude 
congestion. The entrance points to Black 2 and Green 3 located near the 
Reservation have been modified to provide easier entry onto the routes.

Zuni Corridor (Black 2, Green 1)

    Southwest Safaris states that the proposed routes over the canyons 
of the Little Colorado River are of negative value. Passengers pay to 
see the Grand Canyon, not the lesser canyons of the Little Colorado 
River or even the Painted Desert. This commenter states that any air 
tour operator who diverts east to avoid weather over Saddle Mountain 
will be compelled to refund the entire money paid for the air tour 
because this would fly out over the desert where there is nothing to 
see. Southwest Safaris states that as soon as this financial reality 
becomes generally known, air tour operators will feel that they 
``must'' fly the longer, higher routes ``over the top'' of the Canyon 
(through the extended Dragon Corridor) even in the face of bad weather. 
This commenter believes that the FAA is forcing air tour operators into 
a safety risk to the extent that once inside the Canyon airspace there 
will be no way out.
    Grand Canyon Airlines states that the Black 1 route over Saddle 
Mountain forces air tour operators to fly a longer route over higher 
terrain. This increases the cost of the air tour without providing any 
additional benefit to air tour passengers.
    FAA Response: The FAA has modified the Zuni Point Corridor routes 
to permit two-way fixed wing traffic in response to comments. The FAA 
has concluded that a turnaround at Gunthers Castle is necessary to 
provide operators with a safe and economic alternative to the Saddle 
Mountain routes. Additionally, the FAA estimates that with the cap on 
commercial air tours the noise impact on the park will be improved if 
air tour operators are permitted shorter flights. For example, if an 
air tour operator is given only 10 allocations they will produce less 
noise by conducting 10 half hour air tours rather than 10 one hour air 
tours. By using the two-way flights in the Zuni Point Corridor, air 
tours will avoid the much longer flight around Saddle Mountain and 
through the Dragon Corridor. The FAA believe this change serves three 
beneficial ends: (1) it improves safety by permitting air tours to use 
the Zuni Point Corridor as an alternative to flying over Saddle 
Mountain during bad weather, (2) it decreases air tour noise in the 
park, and (3) it alleviates economic concerns.

Bright Angel

    Grand Canyon Airlines requests that an air tour route be added 
through the Bright Angel Corridor so that air tour operators will have 
a safe alternative to flying over Saddle Mountain.
    Several environmentalist commenters state that Bright Angel 
Corridor should never be opened to air tour traffic.
    FAA Response: The FAA is not currently implementing a route for all 
aircraft in the Bright Angel Corridor. The route map shows a future 
Bright Angel Corridor. The Bright Angel Corridor is reserved as a 
future incentive route for noise efficient/quiet technology aircraft. 
However, the FAA notes that in a weather emergency, an operator can use 
the Bright Angel Corridor to escape weather over Saddle Mountain.

Marble Canyon (Black 4, Black 5)

    Southwest Safaris states that the FAA has reversed the route 
structure in the Marble Canyon Sector. Black 4 and Black 5 have been 
swapped, with no justification for the needless confusion this will 
cause air tour operators.
    Both Southwest Safaris and Sunrise Airlines state that Black 4 and 
Black 5 routes should remain as currently depicted under SFAR 50-2. 
Additionally, Southwest Safaris notes that the FAA proposal 
unnecessarily and unfairly forces commercial air tour traffic away from 
the canyon taking away the quality air tour from the entire Marble 
Canyon.
    FAA Response: The FAA and NPS during the 1996 rulemaking process 
decided to redesign the Marble Canyon Sector to reduce the impact of 
aircraft noise on the Colorado River. To accomplish this reduction, the 
FAA eliminated one of two air tour crossovers and the routes were moved 
further from the river. The elimination resulted in the reversal of the 
entry and exit points of Black 4 and Black 5. The FAA believes this is 
a training issue and it is providing a training period, 45 days from 
publication of the airspace final rule, before these routes will be 
implemented.

Dragon Corridor (Black 1, Green 1, Green 2)

    Several environmental organizations (Arizona Raft Adventures, 
Friends of Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon River Guides, Grand Canyon Trust, 
Maricopa Audubon Society, Nature Sounds Society, National Parks and 
Conservation Association, Quiet Skies Alliance, Sierra Club, The 
Wilderness Society) oppose the dog-leg in the Dragon Corridor and 
recommend that the Dragon Corridor be closed to all aviation traffic.
    Twin Otter International recommends that the Dragon Corridor be 
converted within years to a quiet airplane flight corridor. 
Furthermore, this commenter suggests that the FAA define the operating 
characteristics an airplane must have in order for it to conduct round-
trip air tours within the Dragon Corridor, and immediately permit such 
fixed-wing air tours in the Dragon Corridor as are currently permitted 
for helicopter tours.
    FAA Response: The FAA is retaining the air tour routes through the 
Dragon Corridor as proposed and as depicted. The dog-leg contained in 
the Dragon Corridor route structure moves the route

[[Page 17700]]

away from Hermit's Rest and significantly lessens the impact of 
aircraft noise on those visitors. The necessity for a total closing of 
the Dragon corridor was considered and rejected since the agencies doe 
not believe it is necessary to achieve the statutory mandate.
    The FAA is not considering the TOIL request to convert the Dragon 
Corridor to quiet aircraft at this time. The FAA and NPS have not yet 
defined the characteristics that qualify as quiet technology. Thus, any 
request to convert to quiet technology at this time is premature.

Sanup FFZ (Blue Direct North, Blue Direct South)

    Clark County Department of Aviation says that the FAA's failure to 
provide sufficient explanation or support for its decision to drop any 
version of a Blue 1 route creates another dangerous precedent for 
western aviation. The FAA proposes to eliminate the most-used and 
highest-revenue tour route on the basis of concerns about possible 
impacts to Native American cultural or religious sites. However, the 
FAA does not identify with any specificity what resources are affected 
by Blue 1, how they are affected or the applicable standard of impact. 
Without this information, Clark County notes that the public has no 
ability to assess whether FAA's decision is justified or arbitrary.
    National Air Transportation Association objects to the elimination 
of a vital air tour route from Las Vegas, Nevada. Transferring this 
corridor to a less scenic ``transportation corridor'' severely 
restricts the air tour experience from Las Vegas.
    Air Vegas states that with the elimination of the Blue 1 route 
there needs to be an extended ``sightseeing'' flight available to Las 
Vegas fixed wing operators in the western portion of the park. There is 
also no reverse air tour. Without some changes to the proposed route 
system there will not be a viable air tour system out of Las Vegas.
    Twin Otter International, Ltd., (TOIL) suggests that the existing 
north rim fixed-wing air tour route and the existing Blue 1 (Las Vegas 
to Grand Canyon) be limited to quite aircraft in 2 years.
    FAA Response: The route map remains as originally set forth in the 
notice with respect to Blue Direct North and Blue Direct South.
    The Blue 1 was severed by the southward extension of the Toroweap-
Thunder River FFZ, which was adopted in the 1996 final rule. Since this 
section of the 1996 final rule has not been implemented yet, air tour 
operators have continued to operate on the Blue 1. The FFZ extension is 
due to be implemented on January 31, 2000. Thus, at that time, the Blue 
1 would have to be modified in order to be used as a tour route.
    In order for the FAA to meet the goal of substantial restoration of 
natural quiet, decisions had to be made as to how to reduce the current 
level of noise impacting on GCNP. The Blue 1 air tour route passed over 
some of the most sensitive backcountry habitat in the GCNP as well as 
raising significant controversy with some Native American tribes 
residing under or near the flight path for Blue 1. The FAA decided to 
keep the east and west end air tours, which would still allow operators 
transiting from Las Vegas to Tusayan a flight path that offered GCNP 
vistas while transiting to and from the Park.
    TOIL's recommendation for a quit technology route along the 
existing Blue 1 is premature given that a final rule implementing a 
quiet technology standard has not yet been adapted.

Grand Canyon West Vicinity (Blue 2, Green 4)

    The Hualapai Nation (hereafter the Hualapai Tribe) states that the 
routes flown by transport flights have served as de facto Brown routes 
for the Hualapai Tribe comparable to the route proposed to serve the 
Havasupai Tribe. The Hualapai Tribe would like an officially designated 
Brown route created that would not be subject to caps, consistent with 
Congress' intent not to interfere with transportation flights to the 
Park or tribal lands. To ensure that the Hualapai Tribe's Brown route 
is used only by flights transporting persons to and from the Hualapai 
Reservation, the FAA could specify that all flights utilizing the route 
must have the permission of the Hualapai Tribe to land on the Hualapai 
Reservation.
    FAA Response: The FAA has addressed the Hualapai Tribe's concerns 
in the final rule, Commercial Air Tour Limitations in the Grand Canyon 
National Park Special Flight Rules Area, also published in this Federal 
Register. Thus, there is no need to create a Brown route to service the 
Hualapai Reservation.

General Aviation

    Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) recommends that the 
FAA identify and chart VFR waypoints and latitude and longitude 
coordinates for the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors as both have 
difficult dog-leg course changes. AOPA's other comments, related to 
flight-free zones and corridors, are addressed in the final rule on 
airspace modification in GCNP published concurrently in this Federal 
Register.
    FAA Response: The General Aviation commenters are reminded that the 
proposed route map only depicted the air tour routes and corridors and 
not the general aviation corridors. The general aviation corridors, 
when published as part of the official map, will contain the necessary 
latitude and longitude coordinates for navigation.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has prepared a final supplemental environmental assessment 
and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for this action to ensure 
conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Copies 
of the EA have been circulated to interested parties and placed in the 
docket, where it is available for review.

    Dated: Issued in Washington, DC on March 28, 2000.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-7951 Filed 3-28-00; 4:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M