[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16585-16587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7411]



  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 16585]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Commercial Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On December 13, 2000, the FAA published a notice of 
availability and request for comments on modifications to commercial 
air tour routes in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) made final by the 
April 2000 rulemaking. These modifications were proposed in response to 
safety concerns expressed by some commercial air tour operators 
conducting operations in GCNP. The comment period on the modified 
routes closed on January 26, 2001. On January 4, 2001, the FAA further 
delayed the implementation of the route structure to evaluate new 
safety issues. Several new safety issues remain concerning the routes 
proposed on the east-end of the GCNP. The FAA has resolved the safety 
issues on the west-end and has determined that the air tour routes and 
airspace structure on the west-end may be implemented. The FAA is not 
implementing any new air tour routes on the east-end at this time.The 
FAA is not implementing any new air tour routes on the east-end at this 
time. Consequently, the FAA is making available a map depicting final 
routes for GCNP on the west-end only. The FAA also publishes in this 
Federal Register a companion document modifying the airspace in GCNP to 
accommodate the modified route structure. The FAA makes available to 
the public through this notice a copy of the map showing routes that 
will go into effect on the west-end of GCNP on April 19, 2001, as well 
as the SFAR 50-2 route structure that will be retained on the east-end 
of GCNP.

DATES: The commercial air tour route structure depicted on the map made 
available by this notice is effective on April 19, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Nesbitt, Flight Standards 
Service, (AFS-200), Federal Aviation Administration, Room 1205, Federal 
Office Building 10B, Seventh and Maryland Streets, SW, Washington, DC 
20591; Telephone: (202) 493-4981.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of the Proposed Routes

    The FAA is not publishing the commercial air tour routes in today's 
Federal Register because they are on very large and very detailed 
charts that would not publish well in the Federal Register. You may 
obtain a copy of the map depicting commercial air tour routes by 
contacting Denise Cashmere at (202) 267-3717, by faxing a request to 
(202) 267-5229, or by sending a request in writing to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

Background

    On April 4, 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration published two 
final rules, the Modification of the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon 
National Park Special Flight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones (Air 
Space Modification), and the Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the 
Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area (Commercial Air 
Tour Limitation). See 65 FR 17736; 65 FR 17708; April 4, 2000. The FAA 
also published concurrently a notice of availability of Commercial 
Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park (Routes Notice). See 65 FR 
17698, April 4, 2000. The Commercial Air Tour Limitations final rule 
became effective on May 4, 2000. The Air Space Modification final rule 
and the routes set forth in the Routes Notice were scheduled to become 
effective December 1, 2000.
    During the course of litigation, the United States Air Tour 
Association and seven air tour operators raised new safety concerns 
with the air tour routes GCNP. The FAA first delayed implementation of 
the routes until December 28, 2000 (November 20, 2000; 65 FR 69848) in 
order to evaluate and address these new safety concerns. The FAA then 
published a second notice of availability of a map depicting proposed 
changes to routes in the east-end of GCNP on December 13, 2000 (65 FR 
78071), with a comment period that closed on January 26, 2001. 
Following these actions, the FAA conducted an evaluation of the Planned 
Routes in the east-end of GCNP and determined that modifications could 
be made to the routes to enhance safety. However, there were also 
several safety issues raised concerning the routes on the east-end. 
Subsequently, on January 4, 2001, the FAA delayed implementation of the 
routes until April 1, 2001 (66 FR 2001). It also stated that it may 
choose to implement the routes in the western portion of GCNP while 
resolving routes in the east-end.

Agency Action

    During the comment period for the second Notice of Availability of 
air tour routes, additional safety concerns were raised regarding the 
proposed revisions to the routes on the east-end of the Grand Canyon 
National Park (GCNP) Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). Consequently, 
the FAA is implementing the modifications to the route structure of the 
GCNP SFRA in two phases.
    The first phase will implement the routes and airspace on the west-
end of the GCNP SFRA (defined as all areas within the SFRA west of the 
Dragon Corridor). On the east-end (defined as the Dragon corridor and 
all areas within the SFRA to the east), the first phase will implement 
the modification to the SFRA boundary as contained in the April 2000 
final rule. Specifically, the SFRA boundary over the Navajo Nation 
lands is extended five miles to the east. However, during this phase, 
the route structure on the east-end will remain almost exactly as that 
currently flown in the SFRA under Special Federal Aviation Regulation 
(SFAR) 50-2, with only slight modification to certain entry and exit 
points. To accomplish the dual goals of the substantial restoration of 
natural quiet in GCNP and a continued safe operating environment for 
commercial air tour operators, the FAA finds that this combination of 
commercial air tour routes is the most reasonable proposal for the 
Spring 2001 air tour season.
    The second phase of the commercial air tour route structure in GCNP 
is intended to involve implementation of a potentially revised route 
and airspace structure on the east-end of the GCNP SFRA based upon the 
route structure adopted in the April 2000 final rule. Implementation of 
the second phase will be determined after the FAA has evaluated and 
addressed all outstanding safety concerns. Interested persons will be 
afforded the opportunity to comment on final revisions to the route 
structure in the east-end of GCNP. The FAA anticipates that these final 
modifications will be in place for the 2002 commercial air tour season.
    The two-phase implementation process will allow the FAA to move 
toward the mandate for substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP 
with the implementation of the routes and airspace structure in the 
west-end of the GCNP. This will accomplish some goals of the April 2000 
rulemaking in that it will eliminate the Blue 1 and Blue 1A routes. In 
addition, the phased approach will allow the FAA to adequately evaluate 
and address the remaining new safety concerns related to the routes in 
the east-end of GCNP while commercial air tour operators are able to 
train on the revised routes during the off-peak season. This process 
will temporarily maintain the SFAR 50-2 route structure at the east-end 
of the

[[Page 16586]]

SFRA during the first phase. At the same time, the phased process will 
provide for the elimination of overflights of some traditional cultural 
properties identified by Native American Tribes during the National 
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation process.

Comments Received on the December 2000 Notice of Availability of 
Routes

    Comments were received from the Sierra Club, Utah and Toiyabe 
(Nevada) Chapters; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service; Grand Canyon Airlines (GCA); Nancy Christopherson; Helicopter 
Association International (HAI); AirStar Helicopters; United States Air 
Tour Association (USATA); Dennis Brownridge, President, Friends of the 
Grand Canyon; and Jim McCarthy, Designated Editor representing Arizona 
Raft Adventures, Friends of the Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon Chapter of 
the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon River Guides, Grand Canyon Trust, Nature 
Sounds Society, National Parks Conservation Association, and the 
Wilderness Society (Environmental coalition). A majority of the 
comments were pertinent to the proposed routes for the east-end of the 
Grand Canyon, specifically Dragon Corridor, Zuni Corridor, Desert View, 
Marble Canyon and the proposed route over the Saddle Mountain Ridge. 
The FAA has elected to stay the April 2000 routes in the east-end until 
the new safety concerns can be resolved. Any comments pertaining to the 
east-end will be responded to in a future document.
    Comment: The environmental coalition raised the issues of 
congressional intent and legal mandate. The commenter states that Pub. 
L. 100-91 calls for ``appropriate action to protect the park and 
visitors,'' and the NPS plan ``shall provide for substantial 
restoration of natural quiet.'' The commenter states further that 
nowhere did Congress direct the agencies to temper, delay, or 
compromise the mandate according to industry needs. It also states that 
``even with the weak NPS definition, the agencies will not come close 
to achieving the required restoration.''
    FAA response: Federal agencies have discretion to address problems 
using a phased approach. The April 2000 Airspace rule and Notice of 
Availability for commercial air tour routes are steps in a process to 
achieve substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP in accordance 
with Pub. L. 100-91. The FAA and NPS have taken a reasoned and 
incremental approach to assess the steps in the process as they are 
taken, and adjusting as necessary with subsequent steps. Both agencies 
agreed to a logical, incremental process that first mandated 
operational caps, curfews and limitations to routes. To this end, the 
FAA was directed by Congress to implement the recommendations from the 
NPS unless they would aversely affect aviation safety. As the result of 
the ongoing litigation, the air tour operators have raised new aviation 
safety concerns that the FAA must appropriately evaluate and address. 
The delay in implementing the routes and airspace structure on the 
east-end of GCNP will allow the FAA time to adequately evaluate and 
address the new safety concerns. The delay will also provide the 
opportunity for the air tour operators to train on the potentially 
revised routes during the off-peak season. The timing of training is 
also an aviation safety consideration.
    Comment: The environmental coalition states that the plain language 
definition of substantial restoration of natural quiet requires that 
the test be met every day, regardless of season.
    FAA response. Public Law 100-91 and the definition of substantial 
restoration did not specify the time period of interest, other than 
``day''. The NPS definition of ``substantial restoration of natural 
quiet'' involves time, area and acoustic components. Because many park 
visitors typically spend limited time in particular sound environments 
during specific park visits, the amount of aircraft noise present 
during those specific time periods can have great implications for the 
visitor's opportunity to experience natural quiet in those particular 
times and spaces. Based upon noise studies, the NPS has concluded that 
a visitor's opportunity to experience natural quiet during a visit, and 
the extent of noise impact depends upon a number of factors. These 
factors include: the number of flights; the sound levels of those 
aircraft as well as those of other sound sources in the natural 
environment; and the duration of audible aircraft sound experienced by 
a visitor. Effects of different time periods (i.e., annual average, 
shoulder season, summer season, peak day) were evaluated in the Final 
Supplemental Environmental Assessment, February 2000.
    Comments: The environmental coalition, AirStar, and others 
commented that the charts provided with the proposals are helpful but 
have room for improvement. Significant geological and non-physical 
features should be shown.
    FAA response: The FAA works with NOAA to print the reference 
charts. These charts are created to familiarize air tour operators with 
respect to the new routes and the FAA is convinced the charts provide 
sufficient detail for this purpose. The FAA and NPS will work together 
to better identify features, but not to the detriment of safe air 
navigation.
    Comment: The environmental coalition and Friends of Grand Canyon 
state a strong endorsement for the proposed closing of Blue 1 and the 
Fossil Corridor.
    FAA response: The agencies believe the closing of Blue 1 and Fossil 
Corridor will make significant strides in the incremental process of 
substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP.
    Comment: The environmental coalition believes it is time to try a 
different approach--a meeting between the FAA, the NPS and the 
representatives of their organizations.
    FAA response: The FAA and the NPS held a stakeholder meeting which 
was well intentioned, but provided no useful results due to an 
unwillingness of stakeholders to negotiate.
    The FAA and NPS would be willing to try again in the future, if all 
parties are willing to participate in a process that would encourage 
useful negotiation.
    Comment: The Sierra Club of Utah and the Toiyabae Chapter recommend 
a definition of ``below the rim'' as below the elevation of any canyon 
rim or feature within three miles horizontally of the route.
    FAA response: As a general rule, flights do not operate below the 
rim. In certain isolated situations, aircraft being operated on certain 
fixed routes and at fixed altitudes may operate below the ground level 
of the rim temporarily. This occurs because of terrain fluctuations. 
Safety is not compromised by allowing these flights to operate below 
the rim for a short period of time. In Public Law 100-91, Congress 
granted the FAA, in consultation with the NPS, the authority to 
determine rim level because ``delineation of the area needs to be made 
taking into account the varying rim levels of the canyon and the 
potential impact of this provision on flight activities and 
operations.'' S. Rep. 91 (100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)). The specific 
examples provided by this commenter relate to operations in the east-
end of GCNP. These specific comments may be addressed during the east-
end review.
    Comment: Grand Canyon Airlines and USATA commented on the lack of a 
definition of quiet aircraft incentive routes.
    FAA response: The quiet technology working group is currently 
working on

[[Page 16587]]

a rulemaking to designate reasonably achievable requirements for fixed-
wing and helicopter aircraft necessary for such aircraft to be 
considered as employing quiet aircraft technology. Once such a 
designation has been completed, publicly reviewed and issued, the FAA, 
in consultation with the NPS and the advisory group (see Section 805, 
Pub. L. 106-181), shall establish incentive routes for commercial air 
tour operators who employ quiet aircraft technology. In Public Law 106-
181, Congress mandated that the quiet technology incentive routes must 
be located in areas that will not negatively impact the substantial 
restoration of natural quiet, tribal lands, or safety.
    Comment: GCA urges transponders on all air tour aircraft.
    FAA response: Although this comment may have some merit, it is 
beyond the scope of this notice.
    Comment: HAI, USATA and AirStar state that the FAA failed to 
provide sufficient information upon which to base meaningful comments, 
specifically detailed route narrative and arrival descriptions.
    FAA response: The FAA provided a map of the GCNP airspace detailing 
the changes to the east-end that the FAA believed would rectify the 
problems identified by the air tour operators. This map shows the 
proposed route modifications together with the east-end route structure 
as finalized on April 4, 2000, elevations of certain topographic 
features, reporting points, and other topographic features (rivers, 
canyons, etc.). Flight Standards personnel reviewed the map and 
considered it adequate to evaluate the proposed route structure.
    The route narratives and arrival/departure procedures are part of 
Las Vegas Flight Standards District Office (LAS FSDO) Order 1380.2A. 
This is consistent with standard route descriptions that have been 
promoted and distributed since 1987. The Procedures Manual provides 
landmark information, specific route descriptions, altitudes and 
reporting points for each route, in addition to operational and 
training procedures. These items typically are not subject to notice 
and comment because the FAA requires the flexibility to change such 
items in the interest of safety as required, without delay. Notice of 
changes to the Procedures Manual is provided by the LAS FSDO directly 
to authorized certificate holders.
    Comment: HAI and USATA state that connecting proposed routes on the 
west-end to existing SFAR 50-2 routes on the east-end require separate 
evaluations of safety, environmental impact, economic impact, 
feasibility, and noise contribution.
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees that implementing the new west-end 
routes in the GCNP while maintaining the SFAR 50-2 route structure on 
the east-end requires a separate safety and feasibility study together 
with an economic impact analysis. The new west-end routes and the SFAR 
50-2 east-end routes are separate and distinct from each other. The 
only area in which the two route structures begin to come together is a 
Grand Canyon National Airport (GCN) at Tusayan, Arizona. At this point, 
the new routes (Blue Direct North and Blue Direct South) meet outside 
the controlled airspace at GCN at the same points as the current SFAR 
50-2 route system. The safety issues on the new west-end routes have 
already been evaluated by the FAA during the rulemaking process, 
culminating with the Notice of Availability issued April 4, 2000.
    The economic analysis completed for the final rule published April 
4, 2000 evaluates the east-end and west-end operations separately since 
these are distinct markets. This analysis is still valid. The FAA is 
only delaying implementation of the east-end routes, it is not taking a 
final action. If the agency takes a final action that is different than 
that published on April 4, 2000, then it may be necessary to complete a 
revised economic evaluation.
    Comment: AirStar recommends that once an entire proposal is 
developed, the FAA must allow familiarization and evaluation flights 
for the operators to make valid comments.
    FAA response: The FAA agrees that allowing operators to fly 
proposed routes would certainly provide the operators with first-hand 
operational experience with the proposed routes. However, to facilitate 
this, especially in the east-end of the GCNP, the FAA would have to 
shut down the airspace for a period of time since the SFAR 50-2 routes 
and the new route modifications would not be compatible. This would 
cause further economic hardship on the operators, especially the 
smaller operators.
    Comment: AirStar and USATA state that the FAA is moving down an 
ill-advised road. SFAR 50-2 has provided a simple accident-free 
environment for greater than ten-years. AirStar states that they cannot 
understand why the FAA persists in exposing the flying public to 
additional risk. USATA states that any new routes be at least as safe 
as SFAR 50-2.
    FAA response: Public Law 100-91 requires the FAA to develop an air 
tour structure that is both safe and improves the substantial 
restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP. The route structure being 
implemented by this notice is consistent with this statute. The portion 
of the route structure being delayed provides additional gains in 
substantial restoration of natural quiet but has unresolved new safety 
concerns, therefore it is being delayed until those concerns are 
resolved.
    Comment: USATA states that the new Bush Administration should be 
given the opportunity to review all government actions of the previous 
administration.
    FAA response: The new Administration has elected not to further 
delay the implementation of the rules published April 4, 2000. Under 
direction of the new Administration, this action was revised and it was 
determined that this action would not be further reviewed.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 13, 2001.
L. Nicholas Lacey,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 01-7411 Filed 3-21-01; 4:57 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M