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
58906 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Programs, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 1999 Broadway,

Suite 3390, Denver, CO; telephone (303)

675–1600 (voice) or 1–800–877–8339

(TTY for speech or hearing impaired

individuals). These are not toll-free

numbers.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Paperwork Burden

The information collection

requirements contained in §§ 954.106,

954.505, 954.506, 954.507 of this rule

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget in accordance

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and

assigned OMB control number 2577–

0191. An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless the collection displays a valid

control number.

II. Background

On June 21, 1996, at 61 FR 32292,

HUD published an interim rule to move

the Indian HOME Program from 24 CFR

part 92 to part 954. The interim rule also

included clarifications and

simplifications intended to facilitate the

use of the rule by interested parties,

increase similarity with the Indian

Community Development Block Grant

(ICDBG) program, and simplify

administration of Native American

Tribal Programs.

Comments were solicited on the

interim rule for a period of 60 days. No

public comments were received, and

HUD has determined to promulgate the

June 21, 1996 interim rule without any

changes as a final rule. Although section

505 of the Native American Housing

Assistance and Self-Determination Act

of 1996 (NAHASDA) (Pub. L. 104–330,

approved October 26, 1996) ends the

Indian HOME Program in Fiscal Year

(FY) 1998, which begins on October 1,

1997, this final rule is being issued to

provide for the administration of any

Indian HOME funds and Indian HOMEassisted projects that will continue

beyond the date when new funding

under the program will no longer be

made available.

III. Findings and Certifications

Regulatory Flexibility Act—Impact on

Small Entities

The Secretary, in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), has reviewed this rule before

publication and by approving it certifies

that this rule does not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The rule

promulgates as final the interim rule

revisions to the existing Indian HOME

program under which Indian tribes

receive grant assistance from HUD to

increase the number of housing

opportunities for low-income and very

low-income people. HUD does not

anticipate a significant economic impact

on small entities since Indian tribes will

continue to carry out their Indian

HOME program activities as they now

do.

Environmental Review

At the time of publication of the

interim rule, a Finding of No Significant

Impact with respect to the environment

was made in accordance with HUD

regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that

implement section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The interim rule

is adopted by this final rule without

significant change. Accordingly, the

initial Finding of No Significant Impact

remains applicable, and is available for

public inspection between 7:30 a.m. and

5:30 p.m. weekdays in the office of the

Rules Docket Clerk at the above address.

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

This rule will not pose an

environmental health risk or safety risk

on children.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Secretary has reviewed this rule

before publication and by approving it

certifies, in accordance with the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(2 U.S.C. 1532), that this rule does not

impose a Federal mandate that will

result in the expenditure by state, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Number for the HOME Program is

14.239.

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 954

Grant programs—housing and

community development, Manufactured

homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in

the preamble, title 24 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended by

adopting the interim rule published in

the Federal Register on June 21, 1996

(61 FR 32292) as final without change.

Dated: October 22, 1997.

Kevin Emanuel Marchman,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and

Indian Housing.

[FR Doc. 97–28855 Filed 10–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD

29 CFR Part 102

Post-employment Restrictions on

Agency Employees

AGENCY: National Labor Relations

Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The National Labor Relations

Board (NLRB) is repealing its current

Agency-specific regulations which

restrict practice before the Agency by

former NLRB employees and

substituting therefor a new rule which

references the executive branch-wide

post-employment restrictions imposed

by 18 U.S.C. 207.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John J. Toner, Executive Secretary,

National Labor Relations Board, 1099

14th Street, NW, Room 11600,

Washington, DC 20570. Telephone:

(202) 273–1940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive

Order 12674 (April 12, 1989), as

modified by Executive Order 12731

(October 17, 1990), authorizes the Office

of Government Ethics (OGE), in

consultation with the Attorney General

and the Office of Personnel

Management, to issue regulations that

‘‘establish a single, comprehensive, and

clear set of executive-branch standards

of conduct that shall be objective,

reasonable, and enforceable.’’ The

Executive Order further authorizes OGE,

with the concurrence of the Attorney

General, to issue regulations

interpreting 18 U.S.C. 207–209.

Pursuant to this authority and similar

authority granted OGE by the Ethics

Reform Act 1989, on August 7, 1992,

OGE published new Standards of

Ethical Conduct for Employees of the

Executive Branch (Standards). See 57

FR 35006–35067, as corrected at 57 FR

48557, 57 FR 52583, and 60 FR 51667,

and amended at 61 FR 42965–42970 (as

corrected at 61 FR 48733) and 61 FR

50689–50691, with additional grace

period extensions at 59 FR 4779–4780,

60 FR 6390–6391, 60 FR 66857–66858,

and 61 FR 40950–40952. The Standards,

codified at 5 CFR part 2635, became

effective February 3, 1993, and

established uniform standards of ethical

conduct that apply to all executive

branch personnel, superseding most

agency-specific standards of conduct.

Accordingly, on July 21, 1994, the NLRB

issued a final rule repealing certain

provisions of its own regulations

governing employee responsibilities and

conduct codified at 29 CFR part 100