[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18670-18672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8952]




[[Page 18669]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 91 and 135



Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules 
[[Page 18670]] 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91 and 135

[Docket No. 25149, Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-2]


Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National 
Park

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to extend, for 2 years, the effectiveness 
of SFAR No. 50-2, which contains procedures governing the operation of 
aircraft in the airspace above Grand Canyon National Park. SFAR No. 50-
2 which originally established the flight regulations for a period of 4 
years, has previously been extended to allow the National Park Service 
(NPS) time to complete studies concerning aircraft overflight impacts 
on the Grand Canyon, and to forward its recommendations to the FAA. The 
NPS study, completed in September 1994, recommended alternatives, such 
as use of quiet aircraft, additional flight-free zones, altitude 
restrictions, operating specifications, noise budgets, and time limits. 
This proposal would allow the FAA sufficient time to review thoroughly 
the NPS recommendations as to their impact on the safety of air traffic 
at the Grand Canyon National Park, and to initiate any appropriate 
rulemaking action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this NPRM should be mailed, in triplicate to: 
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 25149, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments also may be submitted 
electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4cad4d6c9c7c9d0d7e4c9c5cdc88accd58ac2c5c58ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4aab4b6a9a7a9b0b784a9a5ada8eaacb5eaa2a5a5eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>. The official docket may be 
examined in the Rules Docket, Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 916, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, weekdays, except Federal 
holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mrs. Ellen Crum, Air Traffic Rules Branch, ATP-230, Airspace-Rules and 
Aeronautical Information Division, Air Traffic Rules and Procedures 
Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed 
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they 
may desire. Comments are also invited relating to the aeronautical, 
environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that might result 
from adopting the proposals in this notice. Substantive comments should 
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the 
regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in triplicate to 
the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments received on or 
before the specified closing date for comments will be considered by 
the Administrator before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. The 
proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments 
received. All comments received will be available, both before and 
after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for 
examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this 
rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this 
notice must include a readdressed, stamped postcard on which the 
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 25149.'' The 
postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, APA-
220, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 
(202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the docket number of this 
rule. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future 
rules should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular 
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which 
describes the application procedure.

Background

    On March 26, 1987, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50 (subsequently amended 
on June 15, 1987; 52 FR 22734) establishing flight regulations in the 
vicinity of the Grand Canyon. The purpose of the SFAR was to reduce the 
risk of midair collision, reduce the risk of terrain contact accidents 
below the rim level, and reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the 
park environment.
    On August 18, 1987, Congress enacted legislation that required a 
study of aircraft noise impacts at a number of national parks and 
imposed flight restrictions at three parks: Grand Canyon National Park 
in Arizona, Yosemite National Park in California, and Haleakala 
National Park in Hawaii (Pub. L. 100-91).
    Section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91 required that the Department of the 
Interior (DOI) submit to the FAA recommendations to protect resources 
in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with aircraft 
overflights. The law mandated that the recommendations (1) provide for 
substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the 
Grand Canyon; (2) with limited exceptions, prohibit the flight of 
aircraft below the rim of the Canyon; and (3) designate zones that were 
flight free except for purposes of administration of underlying lands 
and emergency operations.
    Further, Pub. L. 100-91 required the FAA to prepare and issue a 
final plan for the management of air traffic above the Grand Canyon. It 
also required that the plan establish a means to implement the 
recommendations of the DOI without change unless the FAA determined 
that executing the recommendations would adversely affect aviation 
safety. In that event, the FAA was required to revise the DOI 
recommendations to resolve the safety concerns and to issue regulations 
implementing the revised recommendations in the plan.
    In December 1987, the DOI transmitted to the FAA preliminary 
recommendations for an aircraft management plan at the Grand Canyon. 
The recommendations included both rulemaking and nonrulemaking actions.
    On May 27, 1988, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50-2 revising the 
procedures for operation of aircraft in the airspace above the Grand 
Canyon (53 FR 20264, June 2, 1988). The rule implemented DOI's 
preliminary recommendations for an airspace management plan with some 
modifications that the FAA initiated in the interest of aviation 
safety.
    Pub. L. 100-91 also required the DOI to conduct a study, with DOT 
technical assistance, to determine the proper minimum altitude to be 
maintained by aircraft when flying over units of the National Park 
System. The research was to include an evaluation of the noise levels 
associated with overflights. It required that before submission to 
Congress, the DOI provide a draft report (containing the results of its 
studies) and recommendations for legislative [[Page 18671]] and 
regulatory action to the FAA for review. The FAA is to notify the DOI 
of any adverse effects these recommendations may have on the safety of 
aircraft operations. Additionally, section 3 of Pub. L. 100-91, 
required DOI to submit a report to Congress regarding the success of 
the Grand Canyon airspace management plan, and any necessary revisions, 
within 2 years of the effective date of the plan. The FAA was to report 
whether any of these recommendations would have an adverse effect on 
safety. On June 15, 1992, because of a delay in the completion of the 
DOI study, the FAA promulgated a final rule to extend the expiration 
date of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1995 (57 FR 26766).
    On September 12, 1994, the DOI submitted its final report and 
recommendations to Congress. The report recommends numerous revisions 
to the current flight restrictions contained in SFAR No. 50-2. In 
addition, the report recommends the use of quiet aircraft, additional 
flight-free zones, altitude restrictions, operating specifications, 
noise budgets, and time limits for flight in the vicinity of the Grand 
Canyon.
    Upon completing a review of the NPS congressional report, the FAA 
may amend SFAR No. 50-2 through the rulemaking process. However, at the 
present time, the FAA is reviewing and analyzing these recommendations 
to determine an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the FAA is 
proposing to extend the provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 for 2 years from 
the June 15, 1995, expiration date to allow sufficient time to 
determine if there is a need to adjust SFAR No. 50-2.

Environmental Review

    As discussed above, Pub. L. 100-91 required the DOI to submit a 
report to Congress within 2 years of implementation regarding the 
success of the final airspace management plan for the Grand Canyon, 
including possible revisions. Now that this report has been forwarded 
to both Congress and the FAA, the FAA is required to comment on whether 
any of these revisions would have an adverse effect on aircraft safety.
    Pub. L. 100-91 essentially reflects a decision by Congress that a 
final airspace management plan, currently set forth in SFAR No. 50-2, 
should continue permanently with any appropriate modifications 
developed as a result of the follow-on study. The statute and its 
legislative history show that Congress considered the environmental and 
economic concerns inherent in regulating the navigable airspace over 
the Grand Canyon. Since Congress, and not the FAA, determined to make 
permanent an airspace management plan as delineated in SFAR No. 50-2, 
this extension of SFAR No. 50-2 does not require compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the FAA has discretion to 
terminate SFAR No. 50-2, the proposal to extend its effectiveness for 2 
more years is categorically excluded from the requirements of the NEPA. 
(See FAA Order 1050.1D, Par. 31(a)(4), ``Policies and Procedures for 
Considering Environmental Impacts.'') A documented categorical 
exclusion has been placed in the docket.
    Alternately, the analysis in the 1988 Environmental Assessment (EA) 
and the Finding of No Significant Impact remain valid and support a 
determination that this extension is not likely to significantly impact 
the environment. The proposed extension will not cause significant 
environmental impacts because it will not change the volume of traffic, 
the altitude of flight routes, or the noise characteristics of the 
aircraft typically used in canyon flights between now and 1997.
    This extension will enable the FAA to consider recommendations that 
the DOI forwarded in September 1994 to enhance the effectiveness of the 
SFAR. Based upon its studies, the DOI has concluded that the SFAR has 
significantly reduced noise impacts in areas of the Grand Canyon. 
However, the DOI believes that benefits may be lost unless additional 
restrictions are adopted.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect 
of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these 
analyses, the FAA has determined that this NPRM is not ``a significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and the 
Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This 
NPRM would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities and would not constitute a barrier to international 
trade.
    SFAR No. 50-2 was justified based on DOI's December 1987 benefit-
cost analysis. This analysis stated that 40 to 45 operators conducted 
air tours over the Grand Canyon with an estimated revenue of $30 to $50 
million per year. The number of operations over the Grand Canyon was 
growing, with operations at Grand Canyon National Park Airport 
increasing 300 percent from 1974 to 1980.
    The establishment of large flight-free zones was expected to 
roughly double the time for Tusayan-based operators to reach the canyon 
rim. The DOI analysis assumed that these operators could adjust for the 
increased travel time by increasing the overall tour length and passing 
on any additional costs to the consumer. While the percent of tour time 
spent over the canyon would decrease, small price increases or slightly 
decreased flight time over the canyon was not expected to result in a 
decreased ridership. In addition, even though Tusayan-based companies 
would incur costs to modify advertising literature and tour narrations 
due to route change requirements, the DOI analysis assumed that these 
costs would likely be part of the normal operating program. The 
benefits to the park resources (natural quiet, wildlife, archeological 
features, etc.) and the more than 3,315,000 visitors (about 3 million 
front-country users and over 90 percent of the 350,000 back-country 
below rim users each year) would accrue primarily from the increased 
quiet resulting from noise reduction. Thus, DOI concluded that this 
NPRM would be cost-beneficial because cost to air tour operators would 
be minimal and the benefits to park resources and visitors would be 
significant.
    For the purpose of this proposal, the FAA updated the DOI's 
December 1987 data as follows: (1) There are still 40 to 45 air tour 
operators; (2) the estimated revenue generated by the industry is now 
over $100 million each year; and (3) the number of ground visitors has 
increased to almost 5 million. The FAA believes that the proposal to 
extend the current SFAR No. 50-2 would not alter current industry 
practices in the Grand Canyon special flight rules area and would not 
affect growth in air traffic. Additionally, the proposal would not 
cause significant economic impact because it would not change the 
volume of traffic, the altitude of flight routes, or the noise 
characteristics of the aircraft typically used in canyon flights 
between now and 1997. Therefore the FAA has determined that the 
proposed extension would not result in additional costs to the air tour 
operators. Since the rule was first promulgated in 1987, the number of 
[[Page 18672]] ground visitors increased by 50 percent. During this 
period, the estimated number of air tour operators remained unchanged, 
while the estimated revenue generated by the air tour industry has 
doubled.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or 
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule will have ``a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' FAA Order 
2100.14A outlines the FAA's procedures and criteria for implementing 
the RFA. Small entities are independently owned and operated small 
businesses and small, not-for-profit organizations. A substantial 
number of small entities is defined as a number that is 11 or more and 
which is more than one-third of the small entities subject to this 
direct final rule. The FAA determined that this NPRM will not result in 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    This NPRM is expected to have neither an adverse impact on the 
trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business abroad nor on foreign 
firms doing business in the United States. This assessment is based on 
the fact that part 135 air tour operators potentially impacted by this 
NPRM do not compete with similar operators abroad. That is, their 
competitive environment is confined to the Grand Canyon National Park.

Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the FAA has determined that this 
NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this NPRM, if adopted, would 
not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a 
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This NPRM is not considered significant 
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This notice contains no information collection requests requiring 
approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 91 and 135

    Aircraft, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

    For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend SFAR No. 50-2 (14 CFR parts 91 and 
135) as follows:

PART 91--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1301(7), 1303, 1344, 1348, 1352 through 
1355, 1401, 1421 through 1431, 1471, 1472, 1502, 1510, 1522, and 
2121 through 2125; Articles 12, 29, 31, and 32(a) of the Convention 
on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180); 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902; 49 
U.S.C. 106(g).

PART 135--[AMENDED]

    2. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355(a), 1421 through 1431, and 
1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

    3. In parts 91 and 135, Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-
2, the text of which appears at the beginning of part 91, is amended by 
revising Section 9 to read as follows:

SFAR No. 50-2 Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon 
National Park, AZ

* * * * *
    Section 9. Termination date. This Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation expires on June 15, 1997.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 6, 1995.
Harold W. Becker,
Manager, Airspace--Rules and Aeronautical Information Division.
[FR Doc. 95-8952 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>