Jump to main content.

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

 

[Federal Register: June 15, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 115)]
[Rules and Regulations ]               
[Page 31607-31610]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]





[[Page 31607]]






Part V







Department of Transportation












Federal Aviation Administration










14 CFR Parts 91 and 135





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



[[Page 31608]] 



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION



Federal Aviation Administration



14 CFR Parts 91 and 135



[Docket No. 25149, Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-2]
RIN 2120-AF60

 


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



agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.



action: Final rule.






summary: This action continues, for an additional 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, had 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 rule allows the FAA sufficient 
time to review thoroughly the NPS recommendations as to their impact on 
the safety of air traffic over the Grand Canyon National Park, and to 
initiate and complete any appropriate rulemaking action.



dates: Effective date. June 15, 1995. Expiration date. SFAR 50-2 
expires June 15, 1997.



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:



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 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 the 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 to SFAR No. 50-2 
to June 15, 1995 (57FR 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 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 50-2 through the rulemaking process. On April 12, 1995, 
the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed 
to extend the provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 for 2 years from the June 15, 
1995, expiration date (60 FR 18700). This action extends the 
effectiveness of the rule, allowing the FAA sufficient time to 
determine if there is a need to adjust SFAR No. 50-2 in accordance with 
the NPS recommendations and to make any necessary changes.



Discussion of Comments



    The FAA received nine comments in support of, and one comment in 
opposition to, this action. Commenters included the Aircraft Owners and 
Pilots Association (AOPA); the Las Vegas Department of Aviation; the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); the U.S. Department of 
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); environmental associations 
and air tour operators.

    AOPA supports extension of the rule; however, it states that the 
rule is ``inherently discriminatory'' to many general aviation (GA) 
aircraft due to their operating characteristics. AOPA contends that 
this rule restricts many GA overflights to a narrow corridor and 
strongly opposes any similar overflight restrictions at any other 
national parks.

    The Las Vegas Department of Aviation supports extension of the rule 
in order to allow the FAA sufficient time to study the NPS report. 
However, the [[Page 31609]] commenter is concerned with several 
recommendations in the report and encourages the Department of 
Transportation to carefully consider the evidence, believing that there 
can be a balance among the air tour industry, the NPS, the FAA, and 
environmental groups.

    The NTSB supports extending the SFAR for 2 years. However the NTSB 
believes that a permanent nationwide policy for air tour operators 
should be implemented.

    The BIA states that, if the FAA extends the SFAR, it should consult 
with various Indian tribes residing within or having ties to the Grand 
Canyon area during the 2-year extension period concerning potential 
impact to their reservation environment.
    Several commenters support extension of the current rule; however, 
they request an adjustment to the tour route known as the Dragon 
Corridor. The commenters believe that adjustment to this corridor would 
lessen the noise impact on visitors to the heavily used Hermit's Rest 
overlook and trail.

    One commenter ``strongly opposes'' the SFAR in its present form, 
given the NPS report. The commenter recommends prohibiting an increase 
in the number of Grand Canyon tour flights from 1988 levels and 
requiring tour operators to provide the FAA with sufficient information 
to monitor the number of tour operations.
    The FAA has determined that comments requesting amendments to the 
current rule are beyond the scope of the NPRM. The NPRM did not 
recommend any changes to the current SFAR; it merely proposed extending 
the rule in its existing form. The FAA is currently reviewing and 
analyzing the NPS report and recommendations as to the impact on the 
safety of air traffic at the Grand Canyon. The FAA has determined that 
any substantive change at this point will be inappropriate. Upon 
completing the review and analysis of the NPS report, the FAA may amend 
SFAR No. 50-2 through the rulemaking process.



The Rule



    This rule amends the expiration date of the current SFAR 50-2 from 
June 15, 1995, to June 15, 1997. The airspace restrictions and 
operating procedures for the airspace over the Grand Canyon are not 
altered by this action. In consideration of the need to avoid confusion 
on the part of pilots operating in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon, 
the FAA finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d), for making 
this action effective in less than 30 days to promote the safe and 
efficient operation of aircraft in the airspace above the Grand Canyon.



Environmental Review



    As discussed above, Pub. L. 100-91 required the DOI to submit a 
report to Congress with 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 statue 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, this action 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.
    Alternatively, 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 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 the 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 rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and the 
Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This 
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities and will not constitute a barrier to international 
trade.

    SFAR No. 50-2 was justified based on the 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 [[Page 31610]] the benefits to park resources and 
visitors would be significant.

    For the purpose of this rule, 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 extending the current SFAR 
No. 50-2 will not alter current industry practices in the Grand Canyon 
special flight rules area and will not affect growth in air traffic. 
Additionally, the rule will not cause significant economic impact 
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. Therefore, the FAA has 
determined that the extension will not result in additional costs to 
the air tour operators.

    Since the rule was first promulgated in 1987, the number of 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. Therefore, the 
FAA has determined that any costs incurred by the air tour operators 
are not overly burdensome.



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 rule will not result in 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.



International Trade Impact Analysis



    This action 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 
rule do not compete with similar operators abroad. That is, their 
competitive environment is confined to the Grand Canyon National Park.
Federalism Implications



    This action will not have substantial effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is 
determined that this action will not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.



International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation 
Regulations



    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended 
Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent practicable. For this action, 
the FAA has reviewed the SARP of Annex 10. The FAA has determined that 
this amendment will not present any differences.



Paperwork Reduction Act



    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this rule.



Conclusion



    For the reasons set forth above, the FAA has determined that this 
rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this action will 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 rule is not considered significant under DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.



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 is amending 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. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40105, 44113, 44701-
44705, 44707-44717, 44722, and 45303.


    
    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


      

    •  * * * *
      
    Sec. 9. Termination date. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation 
expires on June 15, 1997.
      

    •  * * * *
      
    Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 9, 1995.
David R. Hinson,
      
Administrator.
      
[FR Doc. 95-14649 Filed 6-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.