55130 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

1National Park Service. 1995. Report of Effects of 

Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System, 

Report to Congress, July. 

2United States Air Tour Association, et al., 

Petitioners v. Federal Aviation Administration, et 

al., Respondents; Grand Canyon Trust, et al., 

Intervenors, 353 U.S. App. D.C. 213; 298 F.3d. 997; 

2002. U.S. App. 

3National Park Service. 2001. Director’s Order 

#12 and Handbook: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision 

Making, January. 

The application will be processed in 

accordance with the regulations set 

forth in 43 CFR part 2300. 

Fred O’Ferrall, 

Chief, Branch of Lands and Mineral 

Resources. 

[FR Doc. E8–22347 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Public Notice: Clarifying the Definition 

of ‘‘Substantial Restoration of Natural 

Quiet’’ at Grand Canyon National Park, 

AZ 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Disposition of Public 

Comments and Adoption of 

Clarification. 

SUMMARY: On April 9, 2008, the National 

Park Service (NPS) published a Public 

Notice of agency policy in the Federal 

Register with the above title (73 FR 

19246–19248), clarifying the NPS 

definition of substantial restoration of 

natural quiet at Grand Canyon National 

Park (GCNP) to distinguish between 

aircraft noise generated above and 

below 17,999 feet mean sea level (MSL), 

and requesting comments on the 

proposed clarification. Specifically, the 

NPS proposed the following 

clarification: 

(a) Substantial restoration of natural 

quiet at GCNP will be achieved when 

the reduction of noise from aircraft 

operations at or below 17,999 feet MSL 

results in 50% or more of the park 

achieving restoration of the natural 

quiet (i.e., no aircraft audible) for 75% 

to 100% of the day, each and every day; 

and 

(b) The NPS defines the substantial 

restoration of natural quiet from all 

aircraft above 17,999 feet MSL to mean 

that there will be an overall reduction 

in aviation noise generated above 17,999 

feet MSL above the park over time 

through implementation of measures in 

accordance with Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) commitments. 

The NPS also clarified that 50% of the 

park is a minimum in the restoration 

goal. 

The public comment period was open 

from April 9 to May 9, 2008. The NPS 

received and analyzed 127 comments in 

response to the Public Notice. 

Comments were received from the 

National Air Transportation 

Association; environmental groups (e.g., 

Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and 

Grand Canyon Trust); air tour operators; 

and the general public. Comments 

beyond the scope of this clarification 

may be considered in the development 

of the Environmental Impact Statement 

for Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity 

of Grand Canyon National Park (EIS). 

DATES: The clarification as published on 

April 9, 2008, is effective immediately. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

McMullen, Grand Canyon National 

Park, 823 N. San Francisco St., Suite B, 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001, Telephone (928) 

779–2095. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In response to the comments received 

pursuant to the publication of the NPS 

Public Notice in the April 9, 2008 

Federal Register, the NPS explains the 

reasons for and the expected effects of 

the proposed clarification below and in 

the Discussion of Comments to follow. 

Reasons for the Clarification 

The notice published on April 9, 2008 

in the Federal Register clarifies the 

definition used by GCNP for achieving 

substantial restoration of natural quiet 

as mandated by the 1987 Overflights Act 

(Pub. L. 100–91) (Overflights Act). This 

clarification of the definition is 

necessary to address current aircraft 

noise impacts, to comply with the intent 

of recommendations provided in the 

1995 Report to Congress 1, and to 

respond to a 2002 U.S. Court of Appeals 

decision.2 The provisions of Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50– 

2 have not resulted in substantial 

restoration of natural quiet at GCNP. 

Given the volume of high altitude 

commercial jet and general aviation 

traffic overflying the Grand Canyon 

above 17,999 feet MSL, the substantial 

restoration goal as previously defined 

cannot be attained. 

Discussion of Comments 

The NPS received 127 comments 

regarding the clarification of the 

definition of the ‘‘substantial restoration 

of natural quiet’’ at GCNP. Of those, 40 

comments were substantive in nature 

while 87 were not substantive. NPS 

Directors Order 12, Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decision Making,3 defines 

substantive comments as those that 

raise, debate, or question a point of fact 

or policy. Comments solely in favor of 

or against the proposed action are not 

considered substantive. Also, a large 

number of comments were received that 

did not address the proposed 

clarification regarding 17,999 feet MSL; 

many addressed other issues that 

commentors said should be addressed 

in the EIS. While such comments are 

not substantive for this clarification, 

they will be considered as the EIS is 

developed. Substantive comments about 

the clarification are summarized and 

responded to below. 

1. One commentor suggested the 

addition of the word ‘‘such’’ for clarity, 

so that Part (a) would read: ‘‘Substantial 

restoration of natural quiet at GCNP is 

achieved when the reduction of noise 

from aircraft operations at or below 

17,999 feet MSL results in 50% or more 

of the park achieving restoration of 

natural quiet (i.e., no such aircraft 

audible) for 75% to 100% of the day 

* * *’’ 

NPS Response: The NPS believes that 

Part (a) of the clarification as stated in 

73 FR 19246–19248 is sufficiently clear 

to address only those aircraft at or below 

17,999 feet MSL. Therefore, the 

suggested change is not made. 

2. Comments were received urging 

NPS to clarify that Part (b) is not a 

definition of the statutory term, but 

rather policy goals based upon FAA 

commitments. Two commentors stated 

that the FAA commitments are alluded 

to but not specified. 

NPS Response: Part (b) of 73 FR 

19246–19248 clarifies but does not 

redefine the NPS goal for substantial 

restoration of natural quiet from all 

aircraft above 17,999 feet MSL above the 

park. This goal is supported by FAA 

policy commitments to: (1) Actively 

pursue efforts to continue to reduce 

aircraft source noise throughout the 

aviation system. The recently 

introduced NextGen Aviation Reform 

Act strengthens the FAA’s research and 

development capability and includes a 

performance objective for lower noise 

aircraft technology; (2) when the FAA is 

engaged in airspace redesign that affects 

a national park and there are alternative 

choices consistent with safety, 

operational, and environmental 

parameters, the FAA will give favorable 

consideration to alternative routes away 

from sensitive park resources; and, (3) 

as the FAA transitions to a more 

dynamic, satellite-based technology, 

future navigational flexibility will allow 

the FAA to reconsider opportunities to 

reduce national park overflights that are 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55131 

4Elwell, D. 2007. Personal communication with 

D. Verhey, letter dated March 6. U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 

5Sierra Club. Independent Review: Study for 

Grand Canyon Working Group (MITRE report 

critique). 2007. September. 

6Abrahamsen, T.R., G.F. Marani, and R. Bearer. 

2006. Impact on Restricting Flights from Grand 

Canyon Airspace. The MITRE Corporation CAASD 

for the Federal Aviation Administration and 

National Park Service, Report No. F063–B06–050, 

presented to the Grand Canyon Working Group, 

September. 

not possible today without severe 

airspace impacts.4

3. Several commentors disagreed with 

including or excluding flights above 

17,999 feet MSL in the clarification or 

implied that the Notice misstates and 

overstates the consideration of high 

altitude overflights in the 1995 Report to 

Congress. One said that clarification on 

high-altitude flights is needed from 

Congress rather than from the NPS; 

another stated that rerouting 

commercial overflights (nonsightseeing) above 17,999 feet MSL is 

not covered by the Overflights Act and 

is an otherwise impractical solution for 

reducing aviation noise. 

NPS Response: Consistent with the 

Overflights Act and a 2002 U.S. Court of 

Appeals decision, the impacts of all 

aircraft overflights need to be analyzed. 

This clarification does not dismiss the 

impacts of any type of overflight, but it 

does remove flights above 17,999 feet 

MSL from consideration when 

determining the percentage of the park 

achieving substantial restoration of 

natural quiet. The Grand Canyon 

Working Group (GCWG) recommended 

that the FAA and NPS work together to 

address these high altitude issues in a 

manner consistent with the proposed 

clarification to allow the EIS to proceed. 

All aircraft noise will be considered in 

the EIS analysis. The primary effect of 

the clarification is that aircraft noise 

from above 17,999 feet MSL will be 

analyzed in the EIS as part of 

cumulative effects, while the aircraft 

noise at and below that level will be 

analyzed as part of the direct effects of 

the actions proposed in the EIS 

alternatives. 

4. Two comments were received 

suggesting that Congress did not intend 

for the NPS or the FAA to impose 

regulations on high-altitude flights in 

order to achieve substantial restoration 

of natural quiet. 

NPS Response: The Overflights Act 

required a study of all aircraft 

overflights at GCNP in part to 

distinguish between the noise impacts 

produced by various types of aircraft, 

including commercial aviation. The 

study resulted in the 1995 Report to 

Congress which recommended an 

analysis of how to reduce other adverse 

impacts from overflights, such as 

protection of the park experience and 

public health and safety. Because high 

altitude commercial aviation overflights 

make noise and cause impacts to park 

resources such as the natural 

soundscape and visitor experience, the 

GCWG recommended that the FAA and 

NPS work together to address the high 

altitude noise separately from low-level 

air tour, air tour-related, military, and 

general aviation aircraft overflights (at 

and below 17,999 feet MSL). The NPS 

determined that addressing aircraft 

noise in this manner is consistent with 

the law, and allows the EIS to proceed. 

The FAA has jurisdiction over highaltitude flights and has committed to the 

management actions described above in 

the NPS Response to Comment #1. In 

addition, the NPS has the responsibility 

to manage all park resources, including 

the natural soundscape. 

5. Ten comments were received 

suggesting that the minimum of 50% of 

the park that will achieve restoration of 

natural quiet was too low and should be 

increased. Additional comments suggest 

that NPS should maintain the original 

definition for substantial restoration of 

natural quiet. Several commentors 

appeared to be under the impression 

that NPS was changing the definition of 

substantial restoration of natural quiet. 

NPS Response: NPS is not changing 

the definition, but merely clarifying it in 

the Notice. In addition to the 

clarification related to 17,999 feet MSL, 

the Notice also clarifies that 50% of the 

park is a minimum in the restoration 

goal. The definition of substantial 

restoration of natural quiet remains as 

defined in the 1995 NPS Report to 

Congress. The Notice simply clarifies 

how the definition will be applied in 

environmental analysis related to FAA 

rulemaking actions at GCNP. 

6. One comment was received stating 

that the Notice did not discuss, cite or 

otherwise disclose the professionally 

prepared September 2007 analysis/ 

critique of the MITRE Report.5

NPS Response: The MITRE report 6

was a key factor in requiring the NPS to 

clarify the definition to address flights 

above 17,999 feet MSL, as discussed at 

73 FR 19246–19248. The conclusion of 

the report was that it was unsafe, at the 

time, to modify national airspace over 

the park or divert commercial jet traffic 

off of existing routes that cross over the 

park and the Special Flight Rules Area 

(SFRA). FAA made the decision to 

accept the MITRE report outcome, and 

to maintain existing national airspace 

structure and operation over the park 

and the SFRA. Though the critique and 

the report itself arrived at different 

conclusions, the NPS deferred to the 

FAA as the jurisdictional authority and 

their decision to support the MITRE 

study conclusions, and to continue 

FAA’s airspace policies. 

7. One comment was received that a 

change in the definition with regard to 

high-altitude aircraft noise was 

unwarranted and imprudent given the 

current issues facing the aviation 

industry (i.e., rising fuel prices, climate 

change concerns). 

NPS Response: The NPS is 

implementing a clarification to the 

existing definition. Although the larger 

aviation industry issues are beyond the 

scope of the Federal Register Notice, if 

appropriate, they will be considered in 

the EIS impact analysis. 

Conclusion 

The NPS is not changing the 

definition of substantial restoration of 

natural quiet, but merely clarifying the 

scope and intent of the original 

definition. This clarification is 

necessary for the NPS and the FAA to 

meet the goals of the Overflights Act, 

and to proceed with assessing aircraft 

noise impacts in the EIS. 

As discussed above, the National Park 

Service has carefully considered and 

responded to the comments received. 

Based on this consideration, the NPS 

decision is to adopt the clarification of 

the NPS definition of substantial 

restoration of natural quiet at Grand 

Canyon National Park as published at 73 

FR 19246–19248. 

Dated: July 31, 2008. 

Anthony J. Schetzsle, 

Deputy Director, Intermountain Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22343 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–622] 

In the Matter of Certain Base Plugs; 

Notice of Commission Decision Not to 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES