![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Commercial Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: March 26, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 16585-16587]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr01-124]
[[Page 16585]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Commercial Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 13, 2000, the FAA published a notice of
availability and request for comments on modifications to commercial
air tour routes in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) made final by the
April 2000 rulemaking. These modifications were proposed in response to
safety concerns expressed by some commercial air tour operators
conducting operations in GCNP. The comment period on the modified
routes closed on January 26, 2001. On January 4, 2001, the FAA further
delayed the implementation of the route structure to evaluate new
safety issues. Several new safety issues remain concerning the routes
proposed on the east-end of the GCNP. The FAA has resolved the safety
issues on the west-end and has determined that the air tour routes and
airspace structure on the west-end may be implemented. The FAA is not
implementing any new air tour routes on the east-end at this time.The
FAA is not implementing any new air tour routes on the east-end at this
time. Consequently, the FAA is making available a map depicting final
routes for GCNP on the west-end only. The FAA also publishes in this
Federal Register a companion document modifying the airspace in GCNP to
accommodate the modified route structure. The FAA makes available to
the public through this notice a copy of the map showing routes that
will go into effect on the west-end of GCNP on April 19, 2001, as well
as the SFAR 50-2 route structure that will be retained on the east-end
of GCNP.
DATES: The commercial air tour route structure depicted on the map made
available by this notice is effective on April 19, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Nesbitt, Flight Standards
Service, (AFS-200), Federal Aviation Administration, Room 1205, Federal
Office Building 10B, Seventh and Maryland Streets, SW, Washington, DC
20591; Telephone: (202) 493-4981.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of the Proposed Routes
The FAA is not publishing the commercial air tour routes in today's
Federal Register because they are on very large and very detailed
charts that would not publish well in the Federal Register. You may
obtain a copy of the map depicting commercial air tour routes by
contacting Denise Cashmere at (202) 267-3717, by faxing a request to
(202) 267-5229, or by sending a request in writing to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Background
On April 4, 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration published two
final rules, the Modification of the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon
National Park Special Flight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones (Air
Space Modification), and the Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the
Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area (Commercial Air
Tour Limitation). See 65 FR 17736; 65 FR 17708; April 4, 2000. The FAA
also published concurrently a notice of availability of Commercial
Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park (Routes Notice). See 65 FR
17698, April 4, 2000. The Commercial Air Tour Limitations final rule
became effective on May 4, 2000. The Air Space Modification final rule
and the routes set forth in the Routes Notice were scheduled to become
effective December 1, 2000.
During the course of litigation, the United States Air Tour
Association and seven air tour operators raised new safety concerns
with the air tour routes GCNP. The FAA first delayed implementation of
the routes until December 28, 2000 (November 20, 2000; 65 FR 69848) in
order to evaluate and address these new safety concerns. The FAA then
published a second notice of availability of a map depicting proposed
changes to routes in the east-end of GCNP on December 13, 2000 (65 FR
78071), with a comment period that closed on January 26, 2001.
Following these actions, the FAA conducted an evaluation of the Planned
Routes in the east-end of GCNP and determined that modifications could
be made to the routes to enhance safety. However, there were also
several safety issues raised concerning the routes on the east-end.
Subsequently, on January 4, 2001, the FAA delayed implementation of the
routes until April 1, 2001 (66 FR 2001). It also stated that it may
choose to implement the routes in the western portion of GCNP while
resolving routes in the east-end.
Agency Action
During the comment period for the second Notice of Availability of
air tour routes, additional safety concerns were raised regarding the
proposed revisions to the routes on the east-end of the Grand Canyon
National Park (GCNP) Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). Consequently,
the FAA is implementing the modifications to the route structure of the
GCNP SFRA in two phases.
The first phase will implement the routes and airspace on the west-
end of the GCNP SFRA (defined as all areas within the SFRA west of the
Dragon Corridor). On the east-end (defined as the Dragon corridor and
all areas within the SFRA to the east), the first phase will implement
the modification to the SFRA boundary as contained in the April 2000
final rule. Specifically, the SFRA boundary over the Navajo Nation
lands is extended five miles to the east. However, during this phase,
the route structure on the east-end will remain almost exactly as that
currently flown in the SFRA under Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) 50-2, with only slight modification to certain entry and exit
points. To accomplish the dual goals of the substantial restoration of
natural quiet in GCNP and a continued safe operating environment for
commercial air tour operators, the FAA finds that this combination of
commercial air tour routes is the most reasonable proposal for the
Spring 2001 air tour season.
The second phase of the commercial air tour route structure in GCNP
is intended to involve implementation of a potentially revised route
and airspace structure on the east-end of the GCNP SFRA based upon the
route structure adopted in the April 2000 final rule. Implementation of
the second phase will be determined after the FAA has evaluated and
addressed all outstanding safety concerns. Interested persons will be
afforded the opportunity to comment on final revisions to the route
structure in the east-end of GCNP. The FAA anticipates that these final
modifications will be in place for the 2002 commercial air tour season.
The two-phase implementation process will allow the FAA to move
toward the mandate for substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP
with the implementation of the routes and airspace structure in the
west-end of the GCNP. This will accomplish some goals of the April 2000
rulemaking in that it will eliminate the Blue 1 and Blue 1A routes. In
addition, the phased approach will allow the FAA to adequately evaluate
and address the remaining new safety concerns related to the routes in
the east-end of GCNP while commercial air tour operators are able to
train on the revised routes during the off-peak season. This process
will temporarily maintain the SFAR 50-2 route structure at the east-end
of the
[[Page 16586]]
SFRA during the first phase. At the same time, the phased process will
provide for the elimination of overflights of some traditional cultural
properties identified by Native American Tribes during the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation process.
Comments Received on the December 2000 Notice of Availability of
Routes
Comments were received from the Sierra Club, Utah and Toiyabe
(Nevada) Chapters; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service; Grand Canyon Airlines (GCA); Nancy Christopherson; Helicopter
Association International (HAI); AirStar Helicopters; United States Air
Tour Association (USATA); Dennis Brownridge, President, Friends of the
Grand Canyon; and Jim McCarthy, Designated Editor representing Arizona
Raft Adventures, Friends of the Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon Chapter of
the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon River Guides, Grand Canyon Trust, Nature
Sounds Society, National Parks Conservation Association, and the
Wilderness Society (Environmental coalition). A majority of the
comments were pertinent to the proposed routes for the east-end of the
Grand Canyon, specifically Dragon Corridor, Zuni Corridor, Desert View,
Marble Canyon and the proposed route over the Saddle Mountain Ridge.
The FAA has elected to stay the April 2000 routes in the east-end until
the new safety concerns can be resolved. Any comments pertaining to the
east-end will be responded to in a future document.
Comment: The environmental coalition raised the issues of
congressional intent and legal mandate. The commenter states that Pub.
L. 100-91 calls for ``appropriate action to protect the park and
visitors,'' and the NPS plan ``shall provide for substantial
restoration of natural quiet.'' The commenter states further that
nowhere did Congress direct the agencies to temper, delay, or
compromise the mandate according to industry needs. It also states that
``even with the weak NPS definition, the agencies will not come close
to achieving the required restoration.''
FAA response: Federal agencies have discretion to address problems
using a phased approach. The April 2000 Airspace rule and Notice of
Availability for commercial air tour routes are steps in a process to
achieve substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP in accordance
with Pub. L. 100-91. The FAA and NPS have taken a reasoned and
incremental approach to assess the steps in the process as they are
taken, and adjusting as necessary with subsequent steps. Both agencies
agreed to a logical, incremental process that first mandated
operational caps, curfews and limitations to routes. To this end, the
FAA was directed by Congress to implement the recommendations from the
NPS unless they would aversely affect aviation safety. As the result of
the ongoing litigation, the air tour operators have raised new aviation
safety concerns that the FAA must appropriately evaluate and address.
The delay in implementing the routes and airspace structure on the
east-end of GCNP will allow the FAA time to adequately evaluate and
address the new safety concerns. The delay will also provide the
opportunity for the air tour operators to train on the potentially
revised routes during the off-peak season. The timing of training is
also an aviation safety consideration.
Comment: The environmental coalition states that the plain language
definition of substantial restoration of natural quiet requires that
the test be met every day, regardless of season.
FAA response. Public Law 100-91 and the definition of substantial
restoration did not specify the time period of interest, other than
``day''. The NPS definition of ``substantial restoration of natural
quiet'' involves time, area and acoustic components. Because many park
visitors typically spend limited time in particular sound environments
during specific park visits, the amount of aircraft noise present
during those specific time periods can have great implications for the
visitor's opportunity to experience natural quiet in those particular
times and spaces. Based upon noise studies, the NPS has concluded that
a visitor's opportunity to experience natural quiet during a visit, and
the extent of noise impact depends upon a number of factors. These
factors include: the number of flights; the sound levels of those
aircraft as well as those of other sound sources in the natural
environment; and the duration of audible aircraft sound experienced by
a visitor. Effects of different time periods (i.e., annual average,
shoulder season, summer season, peak day) were evaluated in the Final
Supplemental Environmental Assessment, February 2000.
Comments: The environmental coalition, AirStar, and others
commented that the charts provided with the proposals are helpful but
have room for improvement. Significant geological and non-physical
features should be shown.
FAA response: The FAA works with NOAA to print the reference
charts. These charts are created to familiarize air tour operators with
respect to the new routes and the FAA is convinced the charts provide
sufficient detail for this purpose. The FAA and NPS will work together
to better identify features, but not to the detriment of safe air
navigation.
Comment: The environmental coalition and Friends of Grand Canyon
state a strong endorsement for the proposed closing of Blue 1 and the
Fossil Corridor.
FAA response: The agencies believe the closing of Blue 1 and Fossil
Corridor will make significant strides in the incremental process of
substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP.
Comment: The environmental coalition believes it is time to try a
different approach--a meeting between the FAA, the NPS and the
representatives of their organizations.
FAA response: The FAA and the NPS held a stakeholder meeting which
was well intentioned, but provided no useful results due to an
unwillingness of stakeholders to negotiate.
The FAA and NPS would be willing to try again in the future, if all
parties are willing to participate in a process that would encourage
useful negotiation.
Comment: The Sierra Club of Utah and the Toiyabae Chapter recommend
a definition of ``below the rim'' as below the elevation of any canyon
rim or feature within three miles horizontally of the route.
FAA response: As a general rule, flights do not operate below the
rim. In certain isolated situations, aircraft being operated on certain
fixed routes and at fixed altitudes may operate below the ground level
of the rim temporarily. This occurs because of terrain fluctuations.
Safety is not compromised by allowing these flights to operate below
the rim for a short period of time. In Public Law 100-91, Congress
granted the FAA, in consultation with the NPS, the authority to
determine rim level because ``delineation of the area needs to be made
taking into account the varying rim levels of the canyon and the
potential impact of this provision on flight activities and
operations.'' S. Rep. 91 (100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)). The specific
examples provided by this commenter relate to operations in the east-
end of GCNP. These specific comments may be addressed during the east-
end review.
Comment: Grand Canyon Airlines and USATA commented on the lack of a
definition of quiet aircraft incentive routes.
FAA response: The quiet technology working group is currently
working on
[[Page 16587]]
a rulemaking to designate reasonably achievable requirements for fixed-
wing and helicopter aircraft necessary for such aircraft to be
considered as employing quiet aircraft technology. Once such a
designation has been completed, publicly reviewed and issued, the FAA,
in consultation with the NPS and the advisory group (see Section 805,
Pub. L. 106-181), shall establish incentive routes for commercial air
tour operators who employ quiet aircraft technology. In Public Law 106-
181, Congress mandated that the quiet technology incentive routes must
be located in areas that will not negatively impact the substantial
restoration of natural quiet, tribal lands, or safety.
Comment: GCA urges transponders on all air tour aircraft.
FAA response: Although this comment may have some merit, it is
beyond the scope of this notice.
Comment: HAI, USATA and AirStar state that the FAA failed to
provide sufficient information upon which to base meaningful comments,
specifically detailed route narrative and arrival descriptions.
FAA response: The FAA provided a map of the GCNP airspace detailing
the changes to the east-end that the FAA believed would rectify the
problems identified by the air tour operators. This map shows the
proposed route modifications together with the east-end route structure
as finalized on April 4, 2000, elevations of certain topographic
features, reporting points, and other topographic features (rivers,
canyons, etc.). Flight Standards personnel reviewed the map and
considered it adequate to evaluate the proposed route structure.
The route narratives and arrival/departure procedures are part of
Las Vegas Flight Standards District Office (LAS FSDO) Order 1380.2A.
This is consistent with standard route descriptions that have been
promoted and distributed since 1987. The Procedures Manual provides
landmark information, specific route descriptions, altitudes and
reporting points for each route, in addition to operational and
training procedures. These items typically are not subject to notice
and comment because the FAA requires the flexibility to change such
items in the interest of safety as required, without delay. Notice of
changes to the Procedures Manual is provided by the LAS FSDO directly
to authorized certificate holders.
Comment: HAI and USATA state that connecting proposed routes on the
west-end to existing SFAR 50-2 routes on the east-end require separate
evaluations of safety, environmental impact, economic impact,
feasibility, and noise contribution.
FAA response: The FAA disagrees that implementing the new west-end
routes in the GCNP while maintaining the SFAR 50-2 route structure on
the east-end requires a separate safety and feasibility study together
with an economic impact analysis. The new west-end routes and the SFAR
50-2 east-end routes are separate and distinct from each other. The
only area in which the two route structures begin to come together is a
Grand Canyon National Airport (GCN) at Tusayan, Arizona. At this point,
the new routes (Blue Direct North and Blue Direct South) meet outside
the controlled airspace at GCN at the same points as the current SFAR
50-2 route system. The safety issues on the new west-end routes have
already been evaluated by the FAA during the rulemaking process,
culminating with the Notice of Availability issued April 4, 2000.
The economic analysis completed for the final rule published April
4, 2000 evaluates the east-end and west-end operations separately since
these are distinct markets. This analysis is still valid. The FAA is
only delaying implementation of the east-end routes, it is not taking a
final action. If the agency takes a final action that is different than
that published on April 4, 2000, then it may be necessary to complete a
revised economic evaluation.
Comment: AirStar recommends that once an entire proposal is
developed, the FAA must allow familiarization and evaluation flights
for the operators to make valid comments.
FAA response: The FAA agrees that allowing operators to fly
proposed routes would certainly provide the operators with first-hand
operational experience with the proposed routes. However, to facilitate
this, especially in the east-end of the GCNP, the FAA would have to
shut down the airspace for a period of time since the SFAR 50-2 routes
and the new route modifications would not be compatible. This would
cause further economic hardship on the operators, especially the
smaller operators.
Comment: AirStar and USATA state that the FAA is moving down an
ill-advised road. SFAR 50-2 has provided a simple accident-free
environment for greater than ten-years. AirStar states that they cannot
understand why the FAA persists in exposing the flying public to
additional risk. USATA states that any new routes be at least as safe
as SFAR 50-2.
FAA response: Public Law 100-91 requires the FAA to develop an air
tour structure that is both safe and improves the substantial
restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP. The route structure being
implemented by this notice is consistent with this statute. The portion
of the route structure being delayed provides additional gains in
substantial restoration of natural quiet but has unresolved new safety
concerns, therefore it is being delayed until those concerns are
resolved.
Comment: USATA states that the new Bush Administration should be
given the opportunity to review all government actions of the previous
administration.
FAA response: The new Administration has elected not to further
delay the implementation of the rules published April 4, 2000. Under
direction of the new Administration, this action was revised and it was
determined that this action would not be further reviewed.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 13, 2001.
L. Nicholas Lacey,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 01-7411 Filed 3-21-01; 4:57 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M