58898 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Interested parties were invited to

participate in the rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal. No

comments were received.

This action is the same as the

proposal except for a typographical

error discovered (and corrected herein)

in the coordinates for the GilletteCampbell County Airport, WY. The

coordinates for this airspace docket are

based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas extending upward

from 700 feet or more above the surface

of the earth are published in Paragraph

6005 of FAA Order 7400.9E, dated

September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document will be

published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71

revises Class E airspace at Gillette, WY.

This amendment provides

approximately 6 nautical miles of

additional airspace to the north, in order

to fully encompass a slightly revised

Localizer/Distance Measuring

Equipment (LOC/DME) SIAP at GilletteCampbell County Airport. Additional

controlled airspace is necessary to

accommodate the procedure turn

portion of this revised SIAP and to

provide for Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR) operations at the airport. The area

would be depicted on aeronautical

charts for pilot reference.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Gillette, WY [Revised]

Gillette-Campbell County Airport, WY

(Lat. 44°20′93′′ N, long. 105°32′36′′ W)

Gillette VOR/DME

(Lat. 44°20′52′′ N, long. 105°32′37′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within 6.1 miles east

and 8.3 miles west of the Gillette VOR/DME

176° and 356° radials extending from 15.3

miles south to 16.1 miles north of the VOR/

DME; that airspace extending upward from

1200 feet above the surface bounded by a line

beginning at lat. 44°47′00′′ N, long.

106°22′32′′ W; to lat. 44°23′00′′ N, long.

106°22′32′′ W; to lat. 44°16′00′′ N, long.

105°58′02′′ W; to lat. 44°05′00′′ N, long.

106°00′02′′ W; to lat. 43°49′15′′ N, long.

106°09′32′′ W; to lat. 43°39′00′′ N, long.

106°00′02′′ W; to lat. 43°39′00′′ N. long.

105°09′02′′ W; to lat. 44°08′00′′ N, long.

105°09′02′′ W; to lat. 44°01′00′′ N, long.

104°51′02′′ W; to lat. 44°30′00′′ N, long.

104°41′02′′ W; to lat. 44°42′19′′ N, long.

105°33′58′′ W; to lat. 44°40′11′′ N, long.

105°40′16′′ W; thence to point of beginning.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October

20, 1997.

Glenn A. Adams III,

Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 97–28956 Filed 10–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135

[Docket No. 28537; Amendment Nos.

91–253, 93–73, 121–262]

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of

Grand Canyon National Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of clarification; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: This action sets forth the

FAA’s reevaluation of the economic and

environmental impacts associated with

the Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity

of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP)

Final Rule, published on December 31,

1996. The Final Rule codifies the

provisions of Special Federal Aviation

Regulation (SFAR) No. 50–2; modifies

the dimension of the GCNP Special

Flight Rules Area; establishes new and

modifies existing flight corridors and

flight free zones; establishes reporting

requirements and a curfew over certain

areas for commercial sightseeing

companies operating in the GCNP; and

limits the number of aircraft that can be

used for commercial sightseeing

operations in the GCNP. After

implementation of certain provisions of

the Final Rule, the FAA discovered that

it had significantly underestimated the

number of commercial air tour aircraft

operating in GCNP in 1995. The FAA

has reevaluated the economic and

environmental analyses completed for

the Final Rule in light of this new

information. The FAA has determined

that the changes are not of such

magnitude as to affect the Agency’s

position on the implementation of the

Final Rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice

should be mailed in triplicate to:

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket (AGC–200), Docket No. 28537,

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591. Comments may

also be sent electronically to the Rules

Docket by using the following Internet

address: nprmcmts@mail.hq.faa.gov.

Comments must be marked Docket No.

28537. Comments may be examined in

the Rules Docket in Room 915G on

weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00

p.m., except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and

Air Traffic Law Branch, Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 58899

Division, Office of the Chief Counsel,

Federal Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments on the Notice

Although this action is intended to

clarify the Agency’s position and

evaluation of the new data, comments

are invited on the new information

presented and the corresponding

reevaluation of the economic and

environmental analysis. Once the

comment period has closed, the FAA

will review the comments and

determine whether any changes to the

Final Rule are warranted based on the

submitted comments.

Background

On December 31, 1996, the FAA

published a Final Rule amending part

93 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

by adding a new subpart to codify the

provisions of Special Federal Aviation

Regulation (SFAR) No. 50–2, Special

Flight Rules in the Vicinity of GCNP;

modifying the dimension of the GCNP

Special Flight Rules Area; establishing

new and modifying existing flight

corridors and flight free zones;

establishing reporting requirements for

commercial sightseeing companies

operating in the Special Flight Rules

Area; restricting flights in Zuni and

Dragon Corridors during certain time

periods (curfews); and limiting the

number of aircraft that can be used for

commercial sightseeing operations in

the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area

(cap) (69 FR 69302). The provisions

contained in the Final Rule were to

become effective on May 1, 1997.

Published concurrently with the Final

Rule on December 31, 1996, was a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

on noise limitations for aircraft

operations in the vicinity of GCNP

(Quiet Technology NPRM) and a Notice

of Availability of Proposed Routes. All

three of the above referenced actions

comprise an overall strategy to further

reduce the impact of aircraft noise on

the park environment and to assist the

National Park Service (NPS) in

achieving its statutory mandate,

imposed by Pub. L. 100–91, to provide

for the substantial restoration of natural

quiet and visitor experience in GCNP.

On February 21, 1997, the FAA

delayed the effective date for the

expansion of the flight free zones, the

air tour routes, and the other related

airspace provisions of the Final Rule

until January 31, 1998 (62 FR 8861;

February 26, 1997). However, this action

did not affect or delay implementation

of the curfew, aircraft cap, or the

reporting requirements of the Final

Rule, which became effective on May 1,

1997.

In analyzing the economic impact of

the Final Rule, the FAA used data

derived from the SFAR 50–2 Air Tour

Usage Report (1995 Survey), a survey

designed to assist the NPS in obtaining

information to assess noise impacts of

air tour overflights at GCNP. The 1995

Survey, completed by the FAA’s Las

Vegas Flight Standards District Office,

requested that air tour operators report

the number of operations conducted

along GCNP air tour routes by type of

aircraft used. The FAA believed that the

information presented in the survey

provided the best data available to

determine the number and type of

commercial air tour aircraft operating in

the GCNP. This survey information

assisted the Agency in completing the

Regulatory Evaluation.

Specifically, the Regulatory

Evaluation matched the number of

aircraft determined from each operator’s

operations specifications contained in

the FAA‘s Vital Information System

(VIS) data base with the type of aircraft

reported by the operators in the 1995

Survey to attribute the estimated cost of

the proposed and Final Rule actions to

each of the air tour operators conducting

air tours in the Park. Utilizing data from

the 1995 Survey, the FAA estimated that

in 1995 the 31 GCNP commercial air

tour sightseeing operators flew just over

70,000 commercial sightseeing air tours

utilizing 136 aircraft. No comments

were received throughout the

rulemaking process that directly

questioned the number of aircraft or the

number of air tours. Since this number

of aircraft had been derived from official

information contained in the VIS as well

as information reported by the air tour

operators, the FAA was confident in

those numbers.

In conducting the analysis for the

Final Environmental Assessment (EA)

for the Final Rule, the FAA used

modeling input that was based on

information prepared by the NPS in

October 1995 to model noise impacts in

the vicinity of the GCNP. The October

1995 modeling input was prepared

using a combination of the 1995 Survey

and air traffic counts prepared by air

traffic controllers at the Grand Canyon

National Park Airport traffic control

tower. Each of these data sources

provided slightly different perspective

on operational levels. The tower count

provides a complete record of air taxi

and commuter operations to and from

Grand Canyon National Park Airport.

The tower count does not, however,

specifically identify any of the

operations other than those that take off

or land at Grand Canyon National Park

Airport.

Subsequent to the issuance of the

Final Rule, the FAA obtained additional

information suggesting that the number

of air tour aircraft conducting tours in

the GCNP identified in the 1995 Survey

had not accounted for the full GCNP air

tour fleet that likely operated in 1995.

During May 1997, the FAA conducted a

voluntary air tour operator survey and

site visitation that detailed

identification of the number and type of

aircraft engaged in GCNP air tours

during that time period.

As a result of this discovery, on July

9, 1997, the FAA filed a Motion for

Voluntary Remand of the Record and

Stay of the Litigation challenging the

Final Rule. The purpose of the request

was to permit the Agency to review the

apparent discrepancy in the number of

commercial sightseeing aircraft being

operated in the GCNP under the

December 31, 1996, Final Rule, and to

determine if further regulatory action

was necessary or appropriate in light of

the information developed as a result of

that review.

Although the FAA’s motion was

denied, the Agency continued its efforts

to verify or correct the number of

aircraft operating in the GCNP between

July 31, 1996, and December 31, 1996.

Agency personnel met on-site with each

air tour operator in July 1997 to

reconcile the May 1997 survey data with

the information contained in the 1995

Survey. The FAA finished the collection

of that data in July 1997.

The FAA has reevaluated the

economic analysis computed for the

Final Rule and has completed a Written

Reevaluation of the Environmental

Assessment for the Final Rule in light of

the new information. A copy of this

Written Reevaluation has been included

in the docket.

Summary of Decision

As a result of this reevaluation, the

FAA has determined that the increase in

the number of aircraft and air tour

operations requires additional analysis

of the Final Rule. In promulgating the

Final Rule, the FAA used the best

available data and explicitly stated that

the Final Rule was a single part of an

overall strategy to address the effect of

aircraft noise in GCNP. The Final Rule

continues to be the first step in

achieving the goal of the substantial

restoration of natural quiet in GCNP.

While the benefits of the Final Rule are

less than originally predicted by the

FAA, the rule continues to provide

benefits in comparison to withdrawing

portions of the rule or the rule in its
58900 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

entirety. Moreover, the result of the

FAA’s analysis of the additional

information does not affect the Federal

government’s commitment to further the

above stated policy.

As discussed in the Analysis section

below, there is a change in the economic

and environmental analyses due to the

additional aircraft. However, the

changes are not of such magnitude as to

affect the FAA’s decision concerning the

implementation of the Final Rule or the

Federal government’s overall policy to

address the effects of air tour operations

in GCNP.

Based on the new data, the Final

Rule’s total costs are now estimated at

$47 million (discounted), originally

estimated at $42 million, over the

period 1997–2008, while total benefits

are now estimated at $144 million

(discounted), originally estimated at

$172 million, over the same period.

The FAA believes that the goal of

substantially restoring natural quiet in

GCNP will be accomplished after

implementation of the revised air tour

routes and completion of the Quite

Technology rulemaking. Therefore, the

FAA does not find that these revised

conclusions, as set forth below, warrant

any change to the Final Rule as

implemented. However, the FAA is

seeking comments on the new

information concerning the number of

aircraft operation in GCNP in 1995 and

the reevaluation of the economic and

environmental analyses. The FAA will

review comments on these matters and

determine whether any changes to the

Final Rule are warranted.

Nothing in this reevaluation has led

the FAA to reconsider the provisions

established in the Final Rule. However,

following discussions with the NPS, the

FAA and NPS have agreed to delay the

final route selection until the fall of

1998 so that further review and

discussions may be undertaken on the

routes through the proposed National

Canyon Corridor. Further, this comment

period will provide all interested parties

an opportunity to review this analysis

and to assess the impact of the new

information concerning the number of

commercial air tour aircraft being

operated in the GCNP, and to provide

their views to the FAA.

Economic Analysis

Written Supplemental Reevaluation of

the Regulatory Evaluation and

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The FAA has partially revised its

regulatory evaluation and regulatory

flexibility analysis of the Final Rule,

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of

Grand Canyon National Park (61 FR

69302; Dec. 31, 1996). The Agency’s

decision to review and supplement both

analyses stems from the development of

more accurate data than those that

formed the basis for the original

analyses. Subsequent to issuance of the

Final Rule, the FAA obtained additional

information suggesting that the number

of air tour aircraft conducting tours in

the GCNP identified in the 1995 field

survey had not accounted for the full

GCNP air tour fleet that likely operated

in 1995. During May 1997, the FAA

therefore conducted a voluntary air tour

operator survey and site visitation that

detailed identification of the number

and type of aircraft engaged in GCNP air

tours during that time period. To

confirm the May survey aircraft count,

reconcile the May survey results with

the 1995 survey, and obtain more

comprehensive data regarding numbers

of air tours conducted in 1995, the FAA

decided to conduct follow-up site visits

with each GCNP air tour operator in July

1997.

During this process, the Agency

discovered other data elements or

assumptions that required revision;

accordingly, several methodological

changes have been made, however, the

FAA has not reprinted the full

regulatory evaluation and regulatory

flexibility analysis. The original

documents, as they appear in the

docket, combined with this summary of

revisions, constitute the complete

economic analysis.

The results of the original analysis

have changed somewhat on the basis of

the new data. (See summary table

below.) Total costs are now estimated at

$50 million, originally estimated at $42

million (discounted), over the period

1997–2008, while total benefits are now

estimated at $144 million, originally

estimated at $172 million (discounted),

over the same period. Although costs

have increased and benefits have

decreased, the FAA concludes that the

rule is still cost-beneficial. The rationale

for these changes is described below.

ESTIMATED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF

FINAL RULE, ORIGINAL AND REVISED

TOTALS OVER PERIOD 1997–2008

[In millions of 1995 dollars, discounted]

Original Revised

Total Benefits ........ $172 $144

Total Costs ............ 42 47

Modify SFRA ..... 0 0

Modify FFZs ...... 19 11

Modify Corridors 10 2

Curfew ............... 11 34

Reporting ........... 0.4 0.4

ESTIMATED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF

FINAL RULE, ORIGINAL AND REVISED

TOTALS OVER PERIOD 1997–

2008—Continued

[In millions of 1995 dollars, discounted]

Original Revised

Cap .................... 3 0

Note: Totals may not sum accurately due to

rounding.

Methodological Revisions

Based on information collected

directly from air tour operators after

publication of the Final Rule, the FAA

has revised several aspects of its

methodology. The following sections

describe changes to data and

assumptions.

Revisions to Baseline Data Elements

Several baseline data elements have

been revised on the basis of a recent

survey and follow-up interviews with

tour operators. The reasons for each

change and the impact on the analysis

are described below.

Number of aircraft: The estimated

total number of aircraft providing air

tours of the Park in 1995 has increased

from 136 to 260. The earlier number was

derived from the 1995 Survey, a survey

designed to assist the NPS in obtaining

information on the noise impacts of air

tour overflights of GCNP. The 1995

Survey, completed by the FAA’s Las

Vegas Flight Standards District Office,

requested that air tour operators report

the number of operations conducted

along GCNP air tour routes by type of

aircraft used. At the time of the original

analysis, the FAA believed that the

survey results, accurately accounted for

all air tour aircraft operated by GCNP

tour providers.

After issuing the Final Rule and prior

to implementing the aircraft cap,

however, the FAA acquired evidence

that the total number of aircraft

appearing on the operator’s operations

specifications and available to provide

air tours in 1995 was substantially more

than originally estimated. Accordingly,

the FAA conducted extensive site visits

with air tour operators and, based on the

more complete information obtained,

has determined that the actual number

of aircraft was 260. The impact of this

revision is most apparent with respect

to the aircraft cap, the estimated costs of

which has decreased substantially for

the reasons discussed in the cost section

below.

Number of air tours: The total

estimated number of air tours provided

in GCNP in 1995 has been revised

upward from 70,076 to 102,794. The
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 58901

original number was derived from

operations reported on the 1995 Survey.

Several months after issuance of the

Final Rule, the FAA discovered that not

all operations had been reported in the

1995 Survey. In particular, one large

operator had provided the FAA with

data for only one of two operating bases.

In addition, the number of air tours

reported by one operator in the 1995

survey was grossly understated. The

increase in air tours is primarily

responsible for an upward adjustment in

the estimated cost of the curfew (see

cost section below).

Price of air tours: The method of

estimating the price of air tours has been

refined from one average estimate of all

operators for each air tour route to

actual prices charged by individual

operators based on 1995 tour brochures.

In most cases, the updated prices are

lower than the average estimated in the

original analysis.

Aircraft load factor: The original

analysis assumed a load factor of 95

percent for all operators. During recent

field interviews, several operators

provided actual load factors. Where

provided, the FAA has incorporated

them into the revised analysis. Where

load factors were not explicitly

provided, the FAA has assumed a load

factor of 90 percent, based on an average

of those actually provided to the

Agency.

Number of routes analyzed: The

original analysis incorporated data from

8 primary air tour routes. The revised

analysis is more comprehensive,

including data from 11 primary routes,

based on data provided by operators.

This revision allows for a more

comprehensive, accurate accounting of

the cost of the Final Rule.

Revisions to Calculated Data Elements

Based on revisions to baseline data,

several data elements have been

recalculated. The reasons for each

change are described below.

Number of passengers: The total

number of air tour passengers—a

function of the number of air tours, the

load factor, and the seating capacity per

aircraft for each route—has been revised

from 655,640 to 820,980. Due to the

decrease in load factor, the number of

passengers has not increased

proportionally as much as the number

of air tours.

Total operating revenue: Total

operating revenue, defined as the price

of each tour multiplied by the number

of passengers on all tour routes, has

been adjusted upward from $113.1

million to $120.6 million. The relatively

small change in total operating revenue

is due to the downward revision in tour

prices, the modest increase in

passengers relative to the increase in air

tours, and the upward revision in the

number of air tours occurring mainly on

one of the lower priced air tours.

Total variable operating costs:

Although hourly variable operating

costs are slightly lower than originally

estimated, total variable operating costs

are $27.4 million rather than $36.8

million, because the number of air tours

is greater than originally estimated.

Net operating revenue: Net operating

revenue, defined as total operating

revenue less total variable operating

costs, has decreased from $85.7 million

to $83.7 million. The decrease results

when the relatively larger increase in

total variable operating costs (as a result

of the increase in air tours) is subtracted

from the less than proportionate

increase in total operating revenue

resulting from lower load factors.

Peak summer traffic as percent of

total: Based on data available at the

time, the FAA estimated that air tours

during the peak summer season

accounted for two-thirds of total annual

air tours from each base of operation.

Based on revised data from Tusayan

operators, however, the FAA now

estimates that air tours provided during

the summer account for 75 percent of

annual air tours out of Tusayan. Revised

data from other operators confirm that

summer air tours from other locations

account for 67 percent of annual totals.

This revision affects the estimate of

curfew-related costs(see cost section

below).

Revised Assumptions

Based on new information, the

following basic assumption has also

been revised.

Reporting requirements: The original

analysis based the cost estimates

associated with reporting requirements

on the number of aircraft. The FAA now

believes that the number of air tours is

the more appropriate basis for

estimating the cost of reporting

requirements for operators and has

made the appropriate changes in the

analysis. The costs of the reporting

requirements to the FAA have been

revised upwards but remain a minor

part of total costs. The FAA has found

that analyzing and using the operators’

reports requires more staff time than

originally estimated.

Revised Cost Estimates

As described below, cost estimates for

five of the six provisions of the Final

Rule have been revised based on new

data and assumptions. In total, the

discounted costs of the Final Rule have

been revised upward from $42 million

to $50 million over the period 1997–

2008.

Modification of the Special Flight

Rules Area (SFRA): There is no change

in this estimate. As in the analysis of the

Final Rule, the FAA believes that

charting costs associated with a change

in the Special Flight Rules Area over the

flight-free zones will have no

measurable impact on air tour operators.

Establish/Modify FFZs and Corridors:

The FAA has revised its cost estimates

for the changes in flight-free zones and

flight corridors. For the reasons stated in

the original analysis, the FAA continues

to predict no costs for four of the

alterations in the SFRA. Estimates for

the remaining two have decreased,

bringing the average annual costs of

these provisions down from $3.6

million to $2.2 million over the period

1999–2008. The annual costs of the

Toroweap FFZ extension and closure of

the National Canyon Corridor have

decreased from $2.4 million to $1.8

million, largely because prices and load

factors were adjusted down by a greater

proportion than air tours were

increased. For the same reasons, the

annual cost of creating a one-way traffic

pattern in the Zuni Corridor decreased

from $1.2 million to $0.4 million. The

total costs of these provisions have

decreased somewhat because the FAA

has delayed their implementation until

1999; therefore, they were analyzed over

the period 1999–2008 instead of the

standard 1997–2008 used for other cost

items in this analysis.

Curfew: The FAA now calculates that

the curfew will be the highest cost

provision of the rule. Based on the new

data, the calculated average annual cost

of the curfew has increased from $1.4

million to $4.4 million. The primary

reason for this is the large upward

revision in estimated air tours in the

east end of the park, the only area where

the curfew applies. The affected

operators are unified in the view that

prohibiting early morning and late

afternoon air tours will reduce their

business by about 20 percent. They

strongly believe that they cannot

accommodate this restriction by

activating underutilized aircraft to

increase the number of tours during

authorizing times. They state that their

arrangements with tour companies call

for the air tour to be part of a larger tour

package to take place at specific times

of the day and that the time cannot be

rearranged. The FAA accepts the

operators’ strong position on this issue

and has recalculated costs based on the

assumption that tours now being carried

out during the curfew periods cannot be

rescheduled.
58902 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

It may be possible for these operators

to reschedule the air tours affected by

the curfew when the tour packages are

renegotiated in the future. If this can be

done, then the curfew’s impact on

operator revenue would be less in the

future. However, since the FAA does

not know the extent to which air tours

affected by the curfew can be

rescheduled in the future, the FAA has

not adjusted downward the costs of the

curfew to take into account any future

rescheduling of air tours affected by the

curfew.

Reporting Requirements: The

estimated average annual cost of the

reporting requirements has increased

slightly to $77,000 over the five years

that the provision will be in effect

(1997–2001). The revised costs are

borne differently than those in the

original estimate, however. The

calculated annual cost to operators has

been revised downward from $73,000 to

$53,000, due to a change in the basis for

the estimate from aircraft to air tours.

The cost to the FAA has been revised

upward from $3,200 to $24,000 because

the Agency has found that additional

staff time is necessary to analyze

operators’ reports.

Aircraft Cap: The calculated cost of

the freeze on aircraft has been revised

down from $2.9 million for the first year

to zero for all years. Based on an

analysis of the higher aircraft count

(260) and corresponding air tours

(102,794), the FAA concludes that there

is enough excess capacity in terms of

aircraft numbers for air tours to increase

by 3.3 percent annually for the next

twelve years if the demand exists. In the

aggregate, and for most individual

operators, the number of air tours

provided can continue to increase while

the number of aircraft remains the same.

While the cap could affect a few

individual operators who fully utilize

their aircraft, the FAA predicts that the

cap will have no impact on aggregate

growth and will impose no cost in the

aggregate over the period of the analysis.

Revised Benefits Estimates

The original benefits analysis was

based on an estimate of noise reduction

that would be produced from the

provisions of the Final Rule. The noise

reduction estimate, as described in the

Written Reevaluation of the

Environmental Assessment of the Final

Rule, has changed somewhat on the

basis of the new aircraft numbers.

Largely due to the reduced effectiveness

of the aircraft cap, there will be a lesser

reduction in aircraft noise than

originally estimated. Accordingly, the

estimate of economic benefits has been

reduced from $172 million over 12 years

to $144 million (discounted).

Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis

All new data and assumptions, as

described above, have been

incorporated into the Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis. The FAA certifies

that the Final Rule will have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small commercial

tour operators conducting flights within

GCNP.

The FAA determined that there would

be a significant economic impact on

small entities at the time it issued the

Final Rule; for that reason, it prepared

a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

However, the certification statement

accompanying the Final Rule

incorrectly stated that there was no

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The FAA is

now clarifying that the certification was

erroneous. The new data, however,

requires additional analysis. The impact

of each provision on small entities is

described below.

Description and Estimated Number of

Small Entities Affected: The Final Rule

will affect commercial operators

conducting air tours over GCNP under

14 CFR part 135. Revised FAA data

show that there were 22 potentially

affected tour operators with 9 or fewer

aircraft in 1995. These operators owned

a total of 75 aircraft, and the average

fleet included about 3 aircraft. They

conducted about 34,700 air tours, or

about 34 percent of all air tours over the

Canyon.

Cost of Compliance to Small Entities

Establish/Modify Flight-Free Zones and

Corridors

Merge Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-Free

Zones: The merging of the ToroweapThunder River and Shinumo Flight-free

Zones and the resulting closure of the

Fossil Canyon Corridor will eliminate

tour routes Blue1A, Brown1A, and

Green3A. Newly acquired information

from the FAA’s fieldwork in May and

July of 1997 shows that this provision

would have affected four small

operators providing tours in 1995.

Collectively, these four small operators

generated total air tour operating

revenues of approximately $565,000 in

1995 by providing 1,150 air tours that

carried 4,700 passengers. The FAA has

also learned, however, that two of the

four operators are no longer in the tour

business. Jointly, these two small

operators accounted for $91,000 in air

tour revenues in 1995, the loss of which

the FAA continues to assume will be

absorbed by other operators. The FAA

believes that the two remaining small

operators using the Fossil Canyon

Corridor can modify their current tour

packages with minimal cost outlay

because they already offer established

air tours along other similar routes.

Thus, the FAA maintains, as in the

original analysis, that this modification

of the flight-free zones and corridors

will have no cost impact.

Extend Toroweap Flight-Free Zone

Southward: The southward extension of

the Toroweap-Thunder River Flight-free

Zone and elimination of the National

Canyon corridor will affect small

operators who use the Blue 1 route.

Based on the FAA’s new data, small

operators carried 41,600 passengers

along the Blue 1 route and generated

annual net operating revenues of

$154,800 in 1995. The FAA estimates

that any operator carrying more than

1,300 passengers along the Blue 1 route

would incur significant costs from this

provision. Of the small operators

affected, the FAA concludes that four

operators (as opposed to zero in the

original analysis) carry more than 1,300

passengers each year on Blue 1 air tours

and, therefore, would be significantly

affected by the extension.

Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone: There

are 10 small operators with total

revenues of approximately $8.13 million

who conducted air tours along the

Black1/1A route (7 fixed wing aircraft

operators) and the Green 1/1A/2 tour

route (3 helicopter operators). The three

small helicopter operators also

conducted air tours in the Dragon

Corridor along the Green 2 tour route,

accounting for an additional $1.45

million in total revenue. The total 1995

revenue potentially affected by this part

of the rule, therefore, is estimated to be

about $9.6 million.

The FAA estimates that due to the

extension of the Bright Angel Flight-free

Zone and the dog-legging of the

southern portion of the Dragon Corridor

there will be modest cost increases as

discussed in the regulatory evaluation.

As in the original analysis, the FAA

believes that these modest cost increases

can be offset by increased ticket prices

and, therefore, that no net operating

losses will be incurred as a result of the

northern extension of the Bright-Angel

Flight-free Zone or the dog-legging of

the Dragon Corridor.

Create One-Way Traffic Pattern in

Zuni Point Corridor: Reconfiguring the

Zuni Point Corridor and limiting it to

one-way traffic will affect those air tours

approaching Grand Canyon Airport in

Tusayan from the north along the Black

1 tour route and all air tours that

depend on the current two-way VFR
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 58903

routes to offer a simple fly around type

tour of the Zuni Point Corridor. While

there are not small operators with tours

approaching Grand Canyon Airport in

Tusayan from the north, two small fixed

wing operators and three small

helicopter operators fly a tour loop of

the Zuni Point Corridor.

The two small fixed wing aircraft

operators flying a tour loop of the Zuni

Point Corridor generated air tour

revenue of approximately $64,200 from

this particular tour in 1995. The

alternatives for these operators will be

the Black 1/1A tour route or flying east

over the Painted Desert. These tour

route options are expected to increase

the tour price by about $10 per

passenger, or about $13,060 total annual

added cost to the air tour consumers

based on 1,306 passengers opting for

this tour in 1995. The three small

helicopter operators generated 1995 air

tour revenue of $370,500 flying 790

tours and 3,100 passengers over the

Green 1 route. Options available to the

helicopter operators include the Green

1/1A/2 tour route or the Painted Desert

tour route. Each of these could increase

the tour price by about $35 per

passenger or $108,045 total annual

added cost to the commercial air tour

sightseeing consumers based on 3,100

passengers opting for this tour in 1995.

For the customers of these small

operators, therefore, the total potential

increase in 1995 annual costs of this

particular alteration in the GCNP

Special Flight Rules Area will be about

$121,105 ($13,060 + $108,045) because

of the elimination of less costly air tour

sightseeing options.

In addition to the consumer costs

above, operators will incur increases in

variable operating costs that exceed the

additional revenue. The ticket price

increases do not fully cover the increase

in variable operating costs to the tour

operators adopting the new Zuni-AlphaDragon Corridors loop. The new

operators of this type of tour are limited

to raising tour prices to what is

currently charged by established

operators of this type of tour (the

incremental $10 and $35 cited above).

The difference between what these

operators could receive in additional

revenue through price increases

($121,000) and the added operator costs

imposed by this rule (estimated at

$199,400) in increased operating costs)

will result in about $78,400 that the

small operators must absorb as losses.

Thus, the total 1995 cost to small

operators of making the Zuni Point

Corridor one-way with the north

expansion of the Bright Angel Flightfree Zone is $121,100 in increased

consumer costs and $78,400 in operator

losses.

The $78,400 in operator losses will be

borne by two small fixed wing aircraft

operators ($10,536) and three small

helicopter operators ($67,787). Based on

the number of air tours conducted, the

cost impact for the two small fixed wing

aircraft operators is $34.10 per air tour

($10,536/309 fixed wing air tours), and

the cost impact for the three small

helicopter operators is $85.81 per air

tour ($67,787/790 helicopter air tours).

One of the fixed wing operators

conducted 240 air tours and the other

conducted 69 air tours. The annual

increase to these two fixed wing tour

operators is $8,184 and $2,353,

respectively. For helicopters, the

operator conducting 521 helicopter air

tours will incur an annual cost increase

of $44,707 and the operator conducting

256 air tours will incur an annual cost

increase of $22,053. The third helicopter

operator with 12 air tours will incur an

annual cost increase of $1,030. Based on

these numbers, the FAA concludes that

one fixed wing and two helicopter

operators will incur significant cost

increases.

Sanup Flight-Free Zone: The creation

of the Sanup Flight-free Zone in the

southwest portion of GCNP restricts air

traffic to one side of the Colorado River

beyond Separation Canyon. This change

will affect six small fixed wing

operators offering tours on the Blue 2

VFR route and three small helicopter

operators offering tours on the Green 4

VFR route. Combined, these nine small

GCNP air tour operators accounted for

approximately $11.8 million total air

tour revenue in 1995, flying nearly

11,000 air tours and approximately

53,900 passengers. Based on

information provided to the FAA by air

tour operators and pilots, more than 95

percent of fixed wing air tours

conducted on the Blue 2 route turn back

at either Horse Flat Canyon or Spencer

Canyon; the former is located west of

Separation Canyon and the latter is

located on the south side of the

Colorado River across from Separation

Canyon. Air-ground helicopter tours

conducted along the Green 4 route turn

back at or just beyond Quartermaster

Canyon. Air-only helicopter tours along

the ‘‘Green 4’’ turn back at or before

Spencer Canyon. With the exception of

a limited number of fixed-wing training

flights or air tours along the Blue 2 that

are precluded from turning back

because of weather, no flights extend

beyond Separation Canyon as far as

Diamond Creek. The FAA therefore

concludes, as in the regulatory

evaluation, that there will be no

measurable impact associated with the

creation of the Sanup Flight-free Zone.

Desert View Flight-Free Zone: A

limited number of air tours are currently

conducted in the vicinity of the Desert

View Flight-free Zone, and these take

place along the Black 2 or Black 3 entry

routes linking to the Black 1 and Black

1A routes. As in the regulatory

evaluation, the FAA concludes that the

expansion of the Desert View Flight-free

Zone in and of itself will have no

known cost impact on small GCNP

commercial sightseeing operators or

their tour passengers.

Curfew: The introduction of the new

curfew (basic flight-free periods) for

operators conducting air tours at the

east end of GCNP will result in lost

revenue for small operators conducting

air tours in the Zuni Point and Dragon

Corridors. In 1995, 16.7 percent of daily

tours were offered during the flight-free

periods and will no longer be able to

operate during those periods. Based on

the reduction in time available for air

tour flights in the Zuni Point and

Dragon Corridors, small entities are

expected to lose about $1.07 million

annually. This impact will be spread

among a maximum of ten operators who

have recently conducted air tours on the

east end of CGNP. Eight of these

operators (as opposed to six in the

original analysis) will incur annual

costs exceeding $5,000.

Reporting Requirements: 14 CFR

Section 93.917 will establish operator

reporting requirements. All certificate

holders operating within the GCNP

Special Flight Rules Area will incur

costs from these reporting requirements

during the five years that they will be

in effect (1997 through 2001).

Based on information contained in the

regulatory evaluation, it will cost each

operation about $340 ($8.51/hour*40

hours) to establish and set up the

reporting system. The one-time cost for

22 small operators is expected to be

$7,480. To update records regularly, the

FAA estimates that the 22 small

operators will incur costs of $14,770

annually (34,711 air tours*3 min./air

tour*$8.51/hr). The average annual cost

for each small operator is about $670.

The small operator conducting the

fewest tours (36, based on revised 1995

baseline) will incur recordkeeping costs

of about $15 annually. The small

operator conducting the greatest number

of air tours (5,600) will incur

recordkeeping costs of $2,380.

Operators will also be required to

provide the data to the Las Vegas FSDO

three times in each of the years 1997

through 2001. The FAA assumes that

this will take about one-half of an hour

for each operator to compile the
58904 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

information, 15 minutes for each

operator to fill out the generic

information on the report and an

additional 15 minutes for the specific

information needed in the report. The

FAA estimates that this part of the

recordkeeping requirement will cost

operators $562 annually, or about $26

per operator.

The FAA estimates that the total

annualized cost of this requirement to

the 22 small operators will be about

$18,170. The FAA has determined that

no (zero in the RFA for the Final Rule)

operator will incur costs exceeding

$5,000 per year.

Aircraft Cap: The FAA stated in the

regulatory evaluation that most

operators can increase the number of air

tours they provide without increasing

the number of aircraft in their tour

fleets. However, FAA estimates that the

aircraft cap will immediately restrict the

growth of one small fixed-wing operator

operating out of Tusayan. The cap is

also predicted to affect one small

helicopter operator within four years

and another small helicopter operator

with six years. While the aircraft cap

will have no immediate impact on

aggregate growth in the number of air

tours over the GCNP, the aircraft cap

will impose a significant loss of future

revenues (expected to exceed $5,000

annually) on these three operators. (The

original analysis assumed that the cap

would be in effect for no more than one

year and, as a result, no small operator

would be significantly affected. The

revised analysis assumed no particular

end date and estimates impacts over the

period 1997–2008.)

Description of Alternative Actions

As stated in the original analysis

completed for the Final Rule, this rule

is somewhat unique in that most of the

economic impact of the rule falls upon

small businesses. The two primary goals

of the Final Rule continue to be: (1)

substantially restore natural quiet, and

(2) preserve the opportunity for the

public to enjoy air tours at GCNP.

Consequently, all alternatives

considered during the formulation of

the Final Rule to achieve these goals

and in this reevaluation focus on

alternatives related to small entities.

In view of the new information and

the foregoing analysis, the FAA has

identified the provisions of the Final

Rule in which the analysis of the

impacts on air tour operators differs

from the original assessment. As a result

of the new analysis, the number of air

tour operators significantly affected has

increased. The FAA evaluated new

alternatives, as well as reevaluated a

combination of alternatives suggested to

the Agency during its original analysis.

These alternatives included suggestions

from the NPS Report to Congress,

Congressional and public meetings, and

comments submitted during the

comment period for the NPRM and the

Draft EA. As more fully discussed

below, the FAA has concluded that

implementing any of the alternatives to

the requirements of the Final Rule for

small business entities would prevent

the FAA from achieving its goals for the

Final Rule. For that reason, the FAA

determined that there were no feasible

alternatives to the requirements listed in

the Final Rule.

Alternatives to the Expansion the FlightFree Zones

As was mentioned above, the

expansion of the Flight-free Zones will

affect certain small entity air tour

operators in varying degrees. The

Agency considered several different

ways to minimize the impact on the

small entities. One of those ways was to

permit the small operators to navigate

within or through the Flight-free Zones.

Similar waivers to the Flight-free Zones

based on time of day or area were also

considered. However, the Agency

determined that since the vast majority

of the operators are small business

entities, the relaxation of the Flight-free

Zones for the operators would defeat the

main purpose of the rule to restore

substantially the natural quit within the

Park. As the NPS study mentioned

above concluded that compliance with

SFAR 50–2 had not achieved an

adequate level of natural quiet in GCNP,

the alternative of no action for the small

entities cannot be justified. Therefore,

operations within or through the Flightfree Zones by small business operators

by a relaxation of the restrictions or a

blanket approval cannot be considered

in light of the goals of the Final Rule.

The FAA also considered corridors or

routes through the Flight-free Zones for

the small entities. Those issues dealing

with the route structure and the

corridors through the Flight-free Zones

are considered in a separate rulemaking

action and were not part of the analysis

of the Final Rule.

Alternatives to the Curfew

The introduction of the curfew at the

east end of GVNP is making significant

first steps in achieving the goal of the

substantial restoration of natural quiet

in the GCNP. Once again, the FAA

considered ways to minimize the impact

on small business operators. And once

again, the alternatives relaxing the

restriction for small entities is not

feasible as it would defeat the purpose

of the Final Rule to substantially restore

the natural quiet in the Park. The FAA

will consider the use of more quiet

aircraft and the use of performance

standards, as suggested by the Small

Business Administration, in future

rulemaking. For this Final Rule,

however, the use of performance

standards is outside the scope of what

was proposed and envisioned by the

current rulemaking.

Alternative to the Cap

The cap on the number of aircraft

permitted to conduct air tours within

GCNP has generally been determined

not to affect adversely the industry as a

whole. As mentioned above, however,

the cap does have an impact on at least

one small operator. The FAA has

concluded that it will need to reevaluate

the impact of the cap on the goal of

substantially restoring the natural quiet

and its impact on the small business

entities in future rulemaking action.

However, for the purpose of the

reevaluation, the FAA reanalyzed its

alternatives discussed in the Final Rule

and determined that no alternative

discussed or any new alternative would

serve to minimize the impact on the

small business entities and still promote

the goals of the Final Rule.

Environmental

Pursuant to Federal Aviation

Administration Order 1050.1D, a

written reevaluation is appropriated to

evaluate the continued validity of any

environmental document when new

information becomes available. The

FAA has completed a Written

Reevaluation of the findings in the Final

EA and accompanying Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) issued

December 31, 1996, to determine

whether additional operations in Marble

Canyon, growth in operations under the

Proposed Action, and possible

additional operations on the helicopter

loop in Dragon Corridor that were

indicated by the 1997 surveys or the

minor adjustments to the proposed air

tour routes are so substantial as to

warrant preparation of additional

environmental documents.

As discussed in detail in the

Economic Analysis section of this

Notice, after the Final EA was published

on December 31, 1996, the FAA

obtained additional information

suggesting that the number of air tour

aircraft conducting tours in the GCNP

identified in the 1995 Survey had not

accounted for the full GCNP air tour

fleet that likely operated in 1995.

Accordingly, the FAA conducted

voluntary air tour operator surveys in

May and July 1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 58905

The 1997 surveys suggest that 260 air

tour aircraft operated in the GCNP in

1995, not 136 as premised in the

Regulatory Evaluation of the Final Rule.

This new information about the number

of aircraft led FAA to change its

assumptions about the effectiveness of

the cap on aircraft to limit growth in

operations, but did not otherwise affect

the validity of the noise and air quality

analyses in the Final EA, which

depends on the number of flights, not

aircraft. In preparing the Regulatory

Evaluation, the FAA derived the 136

aircraft baseline by comparing data in

the 1995 Survey with operations

specifications. In contract, the Final EA

used modeling input that was prepared

by the NPS in October 1995 to model

noise impacts in the vicinity of the

GCNP (October 1995 NPS modeling

input).

The October 1995 NPS modeling

input was prepared using a combination

of the 1995 Survey and traffic counts

prepared by air traffic controllers for

Grand Canyon National Park Airport.

The FAA selected the October 1995

modeling input to provide the best

possible picture of flights in the vicinity

of the GCNP because the GCNP does not

provide the typical data sources used to

predict aircraft noise exposure in an

airport environment.

In reevaluating the Final EA, the FAA

continued to base its analysis on the

following data and modeling

assumptions: (1) the use of operations in

the October 1995 NPS modeling data,

incorporating refinements from the May

1997 Written Reevaluation and the 1997

surveys; (2) the assumption that the

curfew would somewhat reduce

operations; and (3) the use of a 3.3

percent compound annual rate of

growth. The 3.3 percent compound

annual rate of growth was retained and

used to analyze the Proposed Action

because the 1997 surveys show that

caps on numbers of aircraft would only

immediately restrict the growth of a few

air tour operators. The 1997 surveys

indicate that many operators use their

aircraft in revenue producing endeavors

other than the GCNP air tours and that

neither aircraft nor seating capacities are

fully utilized. The baseline defined in

the cap on number of aircraft in the

Final Rule allows air tour operators to

use aircraft that were only flown

occasionally for CGNP tours in 1995.

This means that most operators can

increase their flights to meet demand

without increasing their fleets. For these

reasons, the cap does not appear likely

to immediately reduce growth in the

number of flights over the CCNP.

The FAA decided to revise its noise

analysis to address potential increases

in operations over those modeled in the

Final EA and the May 1997 Written

Reevaluation. The increase operations

are in the Marble Canyon area (along the

Black4 and Black5 routes). The changes

in operational levels modeled were: (1)

the addition of 5 daily operations to the

Black4 route and the addition of 6 daily

operations to the Black5 route for the

1997 No Action; (2) the addition of 5

daily operations to Black4 and 6 daily

operations to Black 5 for the 1997

Proposed Action with the curfew

applied; and (3) the application of a 3.3

percent annual growth rate to the new

1997 annual No Action condition for

analysis of the 2008 No Action

condition.

The Written Reevaluation also

included sensitivity analysis modeling

as follows: (1) the addition of 29 daily

operations to the Green 2 route along

the Dragon Corridor through the Bright

Angel Flight Free Zone (FFZ) for the

1997 Proposed Action; (2) the addition

of 29 daily operations to the Green2 and

the placement on the modern most loop

of all Dragon corridor loop traffic for the

1997 Proposed Action; and (3) the

assumption of an earlier turn around

location at Separation Canyon for

helicopter traffic on the Green4 route

and fixed wing traffic on the Blue2 route

for the return trip to Las Vegas (south of

the Sanup Flight Free Zone) for the 1997

No Action and the 1997 Proposed

Action.

As to proposed routes, in addition to

the turn around at Separation Canyon,

this Written Reevaluation evaluates

minor adjustments in the National

Canyon Corridor route. These

adjustments are proposed to further

mitigate Native American concerns.

Otherwise, the routes considered are

those evaluated in the May 1997 Written

Reevaluation. The route changes

evaluated in the May 1997 Reevaluation

are comparable to the routes modeled in

the Final EA.

The noise modeling analysis reveals

that the increase in operations, and the

minor air tour route adjustment will not

significantly impact the human and

natural environment in the vicinity of

Grand Canyon National Park. More

specifically, noise levels associated with

the Final Rule are well below any

established residential or other

established threshold of significance in

the Special Flight Rules Area. The new

information on number of aircraft and

air tour operations, and the minor air

tour route adjustments does not alter the

previous analysis that indicted the

Proposed Action (Final Rule) in the

Final EA reduces aircraft noise effects in

the GCNP. The analyses in the Written

Reevaluation supports the conclusion

that the Final Rule, even with the new

information, does not lead to significant

environmental impacts on historic,

archaeological, and cultural resources,

wild and scenic rivers, visual resources,

endangered species, DOT Section 4(f)

properties, environmental justice, and

air quality. Nor will it result in other

significant environmental impacts such

as cumulative, social, or induced socioeconomic impacts.

With respect to the achievement of

progress toward the substantial

restoration of natural quiet, the impact

of increased air tour operations as

analyzed in the Written Reevaluation,

serves to reduce the percentage of the

GCNP that will achieve substantial

restoration of natural quiet for more

than 25 percent of the time when

compared to what was originally

assumed in the Final EA. However,

although the GCNP with the

implementation of the Final Rule, will

not reach the same percentage of

substantial restoration of natural quiet

as had been originally projected in the

Final EA, progress will still be made

toward the goal with the

implementation of the Final Rule.

Accordingly, the conclusions of the

December 31, 1996, Final EA FONSI are

still substantially valid as indicated in

the Written Reevaluation. No

supplemental EA, or further

environmental documentation is

required based upon this new

information.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27,

1997.

John S. Walker,

Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace

Management.

[FR Doc. 97–28856 Filed 10–28–97; 9:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 954

[Docket No. FR–3567–F–02]

RIN 2577–AB35

Indian HOME Program

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule adopts as final the

interim rule for the Indian HOME

Program at 24 CFR part 954, published

on June 21, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce Knott, Office of Native American