[Federal Register: March 24, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 56)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14275-14289]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24mr03-28]
[[Page 14275]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 93
Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand
Canyon National Park; Proposed Rule
[[Page 14276]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. FAA 2003-14715; Notice No. 03-05]
RIN 2120-AG34
Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of
Grand Canyon National Park
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) amends
the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 31, 1996
(Noise Limitations NPRM, 61 FR 69334; Notice 96-15), which proposed to
establish noise efficiency limitations for certain aircraft operations
at Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). It proposes standards for quiet
technology that are reasonably achievable, as mandated by Congress. The
standards for quiet technology proposed in this SNPRM will help the
National Park Service (NPS) achieve its statutory mandate to provide
for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in the
GCNP. To meet this mandate, the FAA is proposing to use a noise
efficiency approach (larger aircraft with more passenger seats are
allowed to generate proportionally more noise) to define quiet
technology. This SNPRM does not require any action by operators, as it
is intended solely to make clear what the FAA is proposing as the
standard for quiet technology.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room PL401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify Docket Number FAA-2003-
14715 at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://
dms.dot.gov.
You may review the entire public docket for this SNPRM at
that same site.
You may also review the public docket in person in the Docket
Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Office is on the plaza level.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas L. Connor, AEE-100, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; Telephone: (202) 267-8933.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written
comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public
inspection both before and after the closing date for receiving
comments. Before taking any final action on this proposal, we will
consider all comments made on or before the closing date for comments.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the
postcard and mail it to you.
Availability of the SNPRM
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/
search
).
(2) On the search page type in the last five digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_
docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
Overview
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) amends the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 31, 1996
(Noise Limitations NPRM, 61 FR 69334; Notice 96-15), which proposed to
establish noise efficiency limitations for certain aircraft operations
at Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). It proposes standards for quiet
technology that are reasonably achievable, as mandated by Congress. The
standards for quiet technology proposed in this SNPRM will help the
National Park Service (NPS) achieve its statutory mandate to provide
for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in the
GCNP. To meet this mandate, the FAA is proposing to use a noise
efficiency approach (larger aircraft with more passenger seats are
allowed to generate proportionally more noise) to define quiet
technology. This SNPRM does not require any action by operators, as it
is intended solely to make clear what the FAA is proposing as the
standard for quiet technology. Further, this SNPRM does not relieve
operators of the currently established operational limitations. As this
SNPRM does not require any immediate action by operators, it has
minimal costs or benefits. Any eventual costs and benefits will be
assessed in any later rulemaking recommendations of how the quiet
technology standards are applied. All decisions about implementing
these standards, including possible establishment of quiet technology
routes, incentives to encourage adoption of quiet technology,
imposition of a phase out of aircraft that do not meet the quiet
technology designation or other actions will be dealt with through the
advisory group procedures as directed by the National Park Air Tour
Management Act. This SNPRM, as it disposes of the comments that the FAA
received in response to the Noise Limitations NPRM (95-15), also offers
a short history of the legislative and regulatory actions with respect
to air tour operations in the GCNP.
History
Table 1 provides a timeline of events related to the effort to
designate quiet technology requirements for commercial air tour
operations in GCNP. These events are described in this and succeeding
sections.
Beginning in the summer of 1986, the FAA initiated regulatory
action to
[[Page 14277]]
address increasing air traffic over GCNP. On March 26, 1987, the FAA
issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50 (subsequently
amended on June 15, 1987; 52 FR 22734) establishing flight regulations
in the vicinity of the GCNP. The purpose of the SFAR was to reduce the
risk of midair collisions, reduce the risk of terrain contact accidents
below the rim level, and reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the
park environment.
Table 1.--Timeline of Events Related to the Designation of Quiet Technology for Air Tour Operations in GCNP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Month Event
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987................................... March/June.................................. The FAA publishes SFAR
No. 50 to establish
special flight
regulations in vicinity
of GCNP (52 FR 22734).
August...................................... Congress enacts National
Parks Overflights Act
(Pub. L. 100-91).
December.................................... The DOI transmits ``Grand
Canyon Aircraft
Management
Recommendation'' to the
FAA.
1988................................... May/June.................................... The FAA publishes SFAR
No. 50-2 to revise
flight procedures in
GCNP airspace (53 FR
20264).
1994................................... March....................................... The FAA and NPS issue
ANPRM seeking public
comment on quiet
technology and
incentives (59 FR
12740).
September................................... The DOI submits to
Congress ``Report on
Effects of Aircraft
Overflights on the
National Park Systems''.
1995................................... June........................................ The FAA extends SFAR No.
50-2 until June 15, 1997
(60 FR 31608).
July........................................ The DOI report to
Congress is published.
1996................................... April....................................... The President publishes a
memorandum directing the
substantial restoration
of natural quiet in
GCNP.
July........................................ The FAA publishes NPRM
(Notice 96-11) to amend
14 CFR part 93 to codify
SFAR No. 50-2 (61 FR
40120).
December.................................... The FAA publishes final
rule to codify SFAR No.
50-2 into a new subpart
U of 14 CFR part 93 (61
FR 69302).
December.................................... The FAA publishes NPRM
(Notice 96-15) on noise
limitations for air tour
operations in GCNP (61
FR 69334).
December.................................... The FAA publishes notice
of availability of
proposed commercial air
tour routes (61 FR
69356).
1997................................... February.................................... The FAA delays the
effective date of 14 CFR
sections 93.301, 93.305,
and 93.307 and
reinstates portions of
SFAR No. 50-2 (62 FR
8862).
May......................................... The FAA publishes NPRM
(Notice 97-6) to
establish Bright Angel
incentive corridor and
the National Canyon
corridor for air tour
routes (62 FR 26902).
October..................................... The FAA publishes
clarification of its
reevaluation of the
economic and
environmental impacts of
the final rule published
on 12/31/96 (62 FR
58898).
December.................................... The FAA further delays
the effective date of 14
CFR sections 93.301,
93.305, and 93.307 and
reinstates portions of
SFAR No. 50-2 (62 FR
66248).
1998................................... July........................................ The FAA withdraws the
National Canyon corridor
proposal (63 FR 38232).
July........................................ The FAA also withdraws
Notice 97-6, which
proposed two quiet
technology incentive
corridors (63 FR 38233).
December.................................... The FAA delays the
effective date of 14 CFR
sections 93.301, 93.305,
and 93.307 and
reinstates portions of
SFAR No. 50-2 (63 FR
67544).
1999................................... January..................................... The NPS publishes a
notice of agency policy,
``Evaluation Methodology
for Air Tour Operations
Over Grand Canyon
National Park'' (64 FR
3969).
February.................................... The FAA delays the
effective date of 14 CFR
sections 93.301, 93.305,
and 93.307 and
reinstates portions of
SFAR No. 50-2 (64 FR
5152).
July........................................ The FAA published an NPRM
(Notice 99-11) to modify
the dimensions of the
GCNP SFRA (64 FR 37296).
July........................................ The FAA also published
NPRM (Notice 99-12) to
limit the number of
commercial air tours
conducted in GCNP (64 FR
37304).
July........................................ The NPS evaluation
methodology becomes
effective (64 FR 38006).
2000................................... February.................................... The FAA delays the
effective date of 14 CFR
sections 93.301, 93.305,
and 93.307 and
reinstates portions of
SFAR No. 50-2 (65 FR
5395).
April....................................... The FAA publishes the
commercial air tour
limitations final rule
(65 FR 17708).
April....................................... The FAA publishes the
airspace modification
final rule (65 FR
17736).
April....................................... Congress enacts the
National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000
(Pub. L. 106-181, Title
VIII).
May......................................... The commercial air tour
limitations final rule
becomes effective (14
CFR 93.315, 317, 319,
321, 323, and 325).
November.................................... The FAA delays the
effective date of the
airspace modification
final rule (65 FR
69846).
2001................................... January..................................... The FAA delays the
effective date of the
airspace modification
final rule and
reinstates portions of
SFAR No. 50-2 (66 FR
1002).
March....................................... The FAA and the NPS
jointly issue a notice
establishing the NPOAG
(66 FR 14429).
March....................................... The FAA delays the
effective date of the
airspace modification
final rule (66 FR
16582).
April....................................... The airspace
modifications final rule
becomes effective (14
CFR 93.301, 93.305,
93.307, and 93.309).
June........................................ The FAA and the NPS
announce the National
Parks Overflights
Advisory Group
membership (66 FR
32974).
December.................................... The FAA delays the
effective date of the
airspace modification
final rule (66 FR
63294).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14278]]
In August 1987, Congress enacted Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-91,
commonly known as the National Parks Overflights Act (or the
Overflights Act). The Overflights Act stated, in part, that noise
associated with aircraft overflights at GCNP was causing ``a
significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the
park and current aircraft operations at the Grand Canyon National Park
have raised serious concerns regarding public safety, including
concerns regarding the safety of park users.''
Section 3 of the Overflights Act required the Department of the
Interior (DOI) to submit to the FAA recommendations to protect
resources in the GCNP 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 park
and protection of public health and safety from adverse effects
associated with aircraft overflight; (2) with limited exceptions,
prohibit the flight of aircraft below the rim of the canyon; and (3)
designate flight-free zones except for purposes of administration and
emergency operations.
In December 1987, the DOI transmitted its ``Grand Canyon Aircraft
Management Recommendation'' to the FAA. The Overflights Act required
the FAA to prepare and issue a final plan for the management of air
traffic above the GCNP, implementing the recommendations of the DOI
without change unless the FAA determined that executing the
recommendations would adversely affect aviation safety.
On May 27, 1988, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50-2 revising the
procedures for operation of aircraft in the airspace above the GCNP (53
FR 20264). SFAR No. 50-2 established a Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)
from the surface to 14,499 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the area
of the GCNP. The SFAR prohibited flight below a certain altitude in
each of five sectors of this area, with certain exceptions. The SFAR
established four flight-free zones from the surface to 14,499 feet MSL
covering large areas of the park. The SFAR provided for special routes
for commercial sightseeing operators. These operators are required to
conduct sightseeing operations under either part 121 or part 135 of
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as specified in their
operations specifications. Finally, SFAR 50-2 contained certain terrain
avoidance and communications requirements for flights in the area.
In March 1994, the two agencies jointly issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on policy
recommendations addressing the effects of aircraft overflights on
national parks, including GCNP (59 FR 12740). The recommendations
presented for comment included: (1) Voluntary measures; (2) altitude
restrictions; (3) flight-free periods; (4) flight-free zones; (5)
allocation of noise equivalencies; and (6) incentives to encourage use
of quiet aircraft technology. In response to the ANPRM, the FAA
received 644 comments that specifically addressed GCNP.
A second major provision of section 3 of the Overflights Act
required the DOI to submit a report to Congress discussing whether SFAR
No. 50 ``has succeeded in substantially restoring the natural quiet in
the park; and such other matters, including possible revisions in the
plan, as may be of interest.'' The report was to include comments by
the FAA ``regarding the effect of the plan's implementation on aircraft
safety.'' The Overflights Act mandated a number of studies related to
the effect of overflights on parks.
On September 12, 1994, the DOI submitted its final report and
recommendations to Congress. This report entitled ``Report on Effects
of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System,'' was published in
July 1995. The report recommended numerous revisions to SFAR No. 50-2
in order to substantially restore natural quiet in GCNP. Recommendation
No. 10, ``Improve SFAR 50-2 to Effect and Maintain the Substantial
Restoration of Natural Quiet at Grand Canyon National Park,'' is of
particular interest to this rulemaking. This recommendation
incorporated the following general concepts: (1) Simplification of the
commercial sightseeing route structure; (2) expansion of flight-free
zones; (3) accommodation of the forecast growth in the air tour
industry; (4) phased-in use of quieter aircraft technology; (5)
temporal restrictions (``flight-free'' time periods); (6) use of the
full range of methods and tools for problem solving; and (7)
institution of changes in approaches to park management, including the
establishment of an acoustic monitoring program by the NPS in
coordination with the FAA. On June 15, 1995, the FAA published a final
rule that extended the provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1997 (60
FR 31608).\1\ This action allowed the FAA sufficient time to review the
NPS recommendations and to initiate and complete appropriate rulemaking
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 have been extended numerous
times (60 FR 31608, 62 FR 8862; 62 FR 66248; 63 FR 67544; 64 FR
5152; 65 FR 5395) with the last extension in January 2001 (66 FR
1002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Memorandum
The President, on April 22, 1996, issued a Memorandum for the Heads
of Executive Departments and Agencies to address the significant
impacts on visitor experience in national parks. Specifically, the
President directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue proposed
regulations for GCNP that would appropriately limit sightseeing
aircraft to reduce the noise immediately and to further restore natural
quiet, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior, while maintaining
aviation safety in accordance with the Overflights Act.
Regulations
On July 31, 1996, the FAA published an NPRM (61 FR 40120; Notice
96-11) to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on GCNP and to assist the
NPS in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by the Overflights Act
to provide for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and
experience in GCNP. A final rule was issued on December 31, 1996 (61 FR
69302) to amend 14 CFR part 93 with a new subpart U (sections 93.301 to
93.317). The amendment adopted the following: (1) Modification of the
dimensions of the GCNP SFRA; (2) establishment of new flight-free zones
and flight corridors, as well as modification of existing flight-free
zones and flight corridors; (3) establishment of flight-free periods
(curfews) in the Dragon and Zuni Point Corridors; and (4) establishment
of reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies
operating in the SFRA. This final rule also placed a temporary limit on
the number of aircraft that could be used for commercial sightseeing
operations in the GCNP SFRA. These provisions were to become effective
on May 1, 1997. Only the reporting requirements, and aircraft cap were
actually implemented. Implementation of the remaining provisions had
been delayed.
Additionally, on December 31, 1996, the FAA published an NPRM on
Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand
Canyon National Park (61 FR 69334; Notice 96-15), and a Notice of
Availability of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes in the Federal
Register (61 FR 69356). These two documents were part of an overall
strategy to reduce further the impact of aircraft noise on the park
environment
[[Page 14279]]
and to assist the NPS in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by the
Overflights Act.
1996 Proposal for Quiet Technology Designation
In the 1996 NPRM (Noise Limitations NPRM), Noise Limitations for
Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park, FAA
proposed to establish noise limitations for certain aircraft operating
in the vicinity of GCNP. The proposed aircraft noise limitations rule
generally would have required air tour aircraft to be categorized
according to each aircraft's noise efficiency. This NPRM sought to
reduce the impact of air tour aircraft noise on GCNP and to assist NPS
in achieving substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. The 1996
proposal had three parts: (1) Provide an incentive flight corridor
through the National Canyon for noise efficient aircraft; (2)
categorize aircraft by noise efficiency; and (3) remove the aircraft
cap for the most noise efficient aircraft.
First, the proposed rule would have implemented incentives to
encourage operators to convert to the most noise efficient category of
air tour aircraft. The NPRM also provided an incentive route for the
use of noise efficient aircraft within the GCNP.
Second, the NPRM proposed to divide air tour aircraft into three
categories according to their level of noise efficiency, as measured by
the relationship between the certificated noise level of the aircraft
and the number of passenger seats on the typical configuration of that
aircraft type. The noise efficiency concept was preferred because it
encouraged the replacement of a tour aircraft with a larger, more noise
efficient aircraft, which would both reduce the noise of each operation
and reduce the number of air tour operations while still accommodating
the same number of passengers. Additionally, the NPRM defined the three
categories of noise efficiency as, Category A, the least noise
efficient; Category B, more noise efficient than Category A; and,
Category C, the most noise efficient. The NPRM proposed phasing-out the
use of the least noise efficient aircraft.
Third, the NPRM proposed removing the temporary cap placed on the
number of aircraft permitted to be used for commercial sightseeing
operations in the GCNP for operators using Category C air tour
aircraft, the most noise efficient air tour aircraft in GCNP.
The FAA's findings and recommendations were presented in full
detail in the publication of the NPRM. Following the publication of the
NPRM, as well as a number of other related rulemakings at the end of
December 1996, the FAA and NPS jointly agreed that the best approach to
substantially restore natural quiet in GCNP was to devote their
resources to the development of those final rules that addressed
critical near-term needs. Thus, priority was given to the promulgation
of final rules on changes to the airspace over GCNP and establishment
of operations limitations for air tour flights. The agencies again
focused on the quiet technology rulemaking as soon as the airspace and
operations limitation final rules were published in April 2000.
Related Federal Rulemaking and Policies Since 1996
On February 26, 1997, the FAA published a final rule (62 FR 8862)
that amended the effective date of modifications to the GCNP SFRA that
were codified in an earlier final rule published on December 31, 1996.
This action delayed the effective date for 14 CFR sections 93.301,
93.305, and 93.307 of the final rule and reinstated portions of SFAR
50-2 and amended the expiration date of that SFAR.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The effective date for 14 CFR 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 was
delayed by subsequent amendments (62 FR 66248; 63 FR 67544; 64 FR
5152; 65 FR 5395; 65 FR 69846; 66 FR 1002, 66 FR 16582) until
finally becoming effective on April 19, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 15, 1997, the FAA published an NPRM (62 FR 26902; Notice 97-
6), which proposed to amend two of the flight-free zones within the
GCNP by establishing two corridors through the flight-free zones. The
first corridor through the Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone would have
been an incentive corridor to be used only by the most noise efficient
air tour aircraft. The second corridor in the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-
Free Zone through the National Canyon area would have created a
marketable air tour route in the central section of the Park while
addressing some concerns of the Native Americans.
After implementation of certain provisions of the final rule, the
FAA discovered that it had underestimated the number of commercial air
tour aircraft operating in GCNP in 1995. The FAA reevaluated the
economic and environmental analyses completed for the final rule in
light of this new information and determined that the changes were not
of such magnitude as to affect the Agency's position on the
implementation of the final rule. On October 31, 1997, the FAA
published a notice of clarification (62 FR 58898) to set forth its
reevaluation of the economic and environmental impacts associated with
the Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park
(GCNP) Final Rule, published on December 31, 1996.
On July 15, 1998, the FAA published an SNPRM (63 FR 38232) to the
Noise Limitations NPRM published on December 31, 1996, removing from
consideration two sections that proposed to establish a corridor in the
Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-Free Zone through the National Canyon area as
an incentive route for quiet technology aircraft. The FAA, in
consultation with the NPS, removed these two sections from the NPRM
because comments submitted by the air tour operators, the
environmentalists, and the Native Americans led the two agencies to
conclude that the National Canyon air tour route was not a viable
option. At the same time, the FAA withdrew NPRM Notice 97-6, which had
proposed quiet technology incentive corridors in the Park (63 FR
38233)-- Bright Angel and the National Canyon corridors.
On January 26, 1999, the NPS published for comment a public notice
of agency policy, ``Evaluation Methodology for Air Tour Operations Over
Grand Canyon National Park'' (64 FR 3969). This noise assessment
methodology became effective on July 14, 1999 (64 FR 38006). The new
policy adopted refinements to NPS' noise evaluation (i.e., impact
assessment) methodology for air tour operations over GCNP.
Specifically, the refinements adopted a two-zone system for assessing
impacts related to substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP. In
Zone One, encompassing about one-third of the Park's area, the
threshold of noticeability previously used in noise modeling for
environmental analyses related to GCNP air tours remains unchanged
(i.e., the level at which people, otherwise preoccupied, would notice
the noise, determined to be the average A-weighted natural ambient
level plus 3 decibels(dB)). In Zone Two, encompassing about two-thirds
of the Park's area, the threshold for the onset of impact is audibility
(i.e., the level at which aircraft can begin to be heard by people with
normal hearing, determined to be 8dB below the average A-weighted
natural ambient level at GCNP). Because the noise model used to assess
air tour overflight noise in the park is based upon A-weighted data,
the adjustments of +3 and -8 dB are the respective conversion factors
related to the thresholds of noticeability and audibility in terms of
the noise frequency on the one-third-octave band.
On July 9, 1999, the FAA published two NPRMs. One proposed to
modify
[[Page 14280]]
the dimensions of the GCNP SFRA (64 FR 37296; Notice 99-11); the other
(64 FR 37304; Notice 99-12) to limit the number of commercial air tours
that could be conducted in the GCNP SFRA and to revise the reporting
requirements for commercial air tours in the SFRA. A final rule on the
latter proposal was published on April 4, 2000 (65 FR 17708). The rule
temporarily limits commercial air tours in the SFRA at the level
reported to the FAA by the operators for the year May 1, 1997-April 30,
1998 (the base year), pending implementation of the comprehensive noise
management plan. During the implementation of the commercial air tour
limitation, the FAA and the NPS will collect further information
regarding commercial SFRA operations and aircraft noise in GCNP. The
NPS and the FAA will use the information collected during this time to
determine whether the ``substantial restoration of natural quiet'' had
been achieved at GCNP. In the event that the agencies determine that
the statutory goal is not met through the various noise mitigation
techniques adopted, the FAA and NPS will need to take further steps to
achieve the substantial restoration of natural quiet. The commercial
air tour limitation replaced the aircraft cap set forth in Sec.
93.316(b).
On April 4, 2000, the FAA also published a final rule (65 FR 17736)
again modifying the airspace in the SFRA. This rule went into effect on
April 19, 2001.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The effective date for the airspace modification rule was
delayed by subsequent amendments (65 FR 69846; 66 FR 1002; 66 FR
16582) until becoming effective on April 19, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Air Tour
Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Title VIII of Public Law 106-181
(Pub. L. 106-181). The Air Tour Act applies to ``commercial air tour
operations'' occurring over a unit of the national park, or within \1/
2\ mile outside the boundary of any national park, or tribal lands
within or abutting a national park. Section 804 of the Air Tour Act
states that ``within 12 months after the date of its enactment [April
5, 2000], the Administrator shall designate reasonably achievable
requirements for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft necessary for such
aircraft to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology for
purposes of this section.'' If the Administrator determines that it is
not possible to make such designation before April 5, 2001, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the reasons for
not meeting such time period and the expected date of such designation.
Additionally, Congress mandated that once such a designation had been
made, those commercial air tour operators who employ quiet aircraft
technology shall not be subject to the commercial air tour operations
flight allocations at GCNP, ``* * * provided that the cumulative impact
of such operations does not increase noise at Grand Canyon.'' Finally,
the Air Tour Act also directs that the Administrator, in consultation
with the Director and the advisory group, shall establish, by rule,
routes or corridors for commercial air tour operations by fixed-wing or
helicopter aircraft that employ quiet aircraft technology at Grand
Canyon National Park, ``* * * provided that such routes or corridors
can be located in areas that will not negatively impact the substantial
restoration of natural quiet, tribal lands, or safety.''
National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG)
On March 12, 2001, the NPS and FAA in accordance with the Air Tour
Act, invited persons interested in participating on the NPOAG to send a
letter to the FAA by April 2, 2001 (66 FR 14429). The NPOAG membership
was announced on June 19, 2001 (66 FR 32974).
In accordance with the Air Tour Act, the advisory group will
provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator
and the Director--
(1) On the implementation of this title [the Air Tour Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
(2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
(3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
(4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.
The Air Tour Act also requires FAA to consult with the advisory
group and the NPS on the establishment of routes or corridors for
commercial air tour operations by fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft
that employ quiet aircraft technology for--
(1) Tours of the Grand Canyon originating in Clark County, Nevada;
and
(2) `Local loop' tours originating at the Grand Canyon National
Park Airport, in Tusayan, Arizona.
GCNP Aircraft Noise Model Validation Study
The noise modeling used in all of the GCNP environmental documents
to date, remains the best science currently available and produces
results consistent with available data. However, as noise modeling is a
constantly evolving technology, both agencies are committed to making
appropriate adjustments to the approaches and methodologies as new
knowledge or science becomes available. In 1999, the NPS and the FAA
jointly funded a noise model validation study to determine the degree
of accuracy and precision of existing computer models. This study
compares the existing candidate models for assessing air tour noise
exposure with noise measurements taken in GCNP.\4\ The ongoing noise
model validation effort is part of the FAA and NPS commitment to work
cooperatively to meet the mandated goal of a substantial restoration of
natural quiet in GCNP. The final results of this project, when they
become available, could have an effect on both the determination of
substantial restoration of natural quiet already achieved and the
evaluation of alternative means of implementing quiet technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The candidate models being validated are:
1. The FAA's Integrated Noise Model, which has been modified to
address air tour aircraft noise exposure in GCNP and is referred to
as the GCNP Integrated Noise Model (GCINM).
2. The National Park Service Overflight Decision Support System
(NODSS) designed and programmed specifically for park applications
to consider audibility, significant changes in terrain elevation,
and shielding due to terrain.
3. NOISEMAP Simulation Model (NMSIM) developed by the U.S. Air
Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
to simulate aircraft single event noise levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Noise Model Validation Study efforts, the agencies
jointly formed the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to review and
comment on various technical issues that may arise related to the
measurement, quantification and analysis of soundscapes. The TRC is
composed of eight acoustics and statistical experts from academia,
private companies, and government agencies.
Environmental Review
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, Appendix 4, Paragraph 4.j,
the FAA has determined that this proposed rulemaking is categorically
excluded from environmental review. The proposed rulemaking establishes
quiet
[[Page 14281]]
technology designations for air tour aircraft operating in GCNP. It
does not impose a phase-out or any alteration of any air tour
operator's fleet of aircraft. In addition, the proposed rulemaking does
not lift the operations limitation, alter any flight corridors through
the Park, or make any change to the SFRA. Finally, the FAA notes that
this proposed rulemaking has no impact on substantial restoration of
natural quiet at GCNP and environmental and economic impacts will
depend upon other future incentives yet to be defined. Accordingly,
this proposed rulemaking will not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment.
Consultation With Affected Indian Tribes
Six Native American communities represented by eight separate
tribal governments have ancestral ties to the Grand Canyon. Three of
these communities have reservations that border the GCNP, the Navajo
Nation to the east, and the Havasupai and Hualapai Tribes to the south.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), FAA, DOI, NPS, Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and
Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) have consulted with
these tribes, on a Government-to-Government basis, according to the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations and other applicable laws and
Executive Orders.
In accordance with section 106 of the NHPA, the FAA issued a
Determination of No Adverse Effect to the Traditional Cultural
Properties (TCPs) for all of the tribes and/or nations, except the
Hualapai Tribe, for the April 2000, rulemaking actions associated with
the SFRA in the vicinity of the GCNP. As to the Hualapai Tribe, the FAA
along with the NPS, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the
Hualapai Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and the Hualapai
Department of Cultural Resources signed a Programmatic Agreement on
January 24, 2000, related to section 106 compliance and their TCPs.
Due to new safety concerns raised by the Air Tour Operators related
to the route and airspace modifications on the East End of the SFRA,
only those modifications from west of the Dragon Corridor were
implemented on April 19, 2001. In accordance with section 106 of the
NHPA, if modifications are proposed for the East End commercial air
tour routes and airspace to address the new safety concerns, the Navajo
Nation and the other interested Native American tribes, specifically
the Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni will be notified.
Public Input
The FAA has reexamined the Noise Limitations NPRM in light of the
direction provided in section 804 of the Air Tour Act. The mandate
requires the Administrator to designate reasonably achievable
requirements for airplanes and helicopters necessary for such aircraft
to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology for purposes of
this section of the Act. The proposed quiet technology designations
require air tour aircraft to be categorized according to each
aircraft's noise efficiency. The eventual goal is to assist the NPS in
achieving its statutory mandate imposed by Pub. L. 100-91 to provide
for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in the
GCNP. This proposed rulemaking is related to and consistent with other
rulemaking actions being implemented by the FAA concerning the GCNP.
In addition, the SNPRM does not propose to implement the provision
of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 that would permit
lifting the cap on commercial air tour operations in the Park. The
implementation of any quiet technology incentive flight corridors and
the removal of operations limitation for quiet technology aircraft will
be the subject of future rulemaking as the FAA, in consultation with
the NPS, works with an advisory group composed of representatives of
general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental
concerns, and Indian Tribes.
The SNPRM also disposes of the comments that were received in
response to the Noise Limitations NPRM (61 FR 69334). That NPRM
proposed to establish noise limitations for certain aircraft operated
in the vicinity of GCNP. The Noise Limitations NPRM had three parts:
(1) Establish incentive flight corridor through the National Canyon;
(2) categorize aircraft by noise efficiency; and (3) remove the
aircraft cap for the most noise efficient aircraft.
Interested persons were invited to participate in the rulemaking
action by submitting written data, views, or comments. The comment
period for the NPRM closed March 31, 1997. The comment period for the
draft Environmental Assessment also closed on March 31, 1997. In
response to the NPRM the FAA received 107 comments. All comments
received were considered before issuing this SNPRM. An analysis of the
comments not previously addressed in other rulemakings is provided
below. The FAA responses take into account related Federal actions
since 1996.
Commenters include air tour operators and their representatives,
environmental groups, sightseeing organizations, Native American
tribes, pilots and pilot associations, and individuals. Most commenters
do not support some or all aspects of the proposal. Generally, air tour
operators who do not currently operate quiet aircraft are against a
phase-out of noisier aircraft as proposed in 1996; one Native American
tribe was against the proposal in the Noise Limitations NPRM to
reintroduce a flight route through the National Canyon; while
environmental organizations argue that by itself the Noise Limitations
NPRM would not adequately restore the natural quiet to GCNP.
1. General Comments on Proposal
The FAA received a number of general comments on the NPRM,
including comments related to statutory issues, procedural complaints,
and environmental concerns. Eagle Canyon Airlines (Eagle) (54), Vision
Air (Vision) (61), and King Airlines, Inc. (King) (56) state that the
Noise Limitations NPRM failed to identify the basis for the FAA's
statutory authority for the proposed rulemaking.
These commenters state that the Overflights Act gave the FAA the
legal authority to issue SFAR 50, but not to take further action beyond
that. These commenters also state that the FAA's reliance on its
general authority, as stated in the FAA Act, for the Noise Limitations
NPRM is misplaced. The FAA Act of 1958 does not give the FAA authority
to protect ``environmental values'' or to promulgate a noise management
plan, according to these commenters.
The Helicopter Association International (HAI) (63) states that the
proposals are arbitrary and capricious because unbiased data
demonstrate that natural quiet has been restored at GCNP and air tour
aircraft currently operating at GCNP are fully certificated by the FAA
and in compliance with all applicable FAA safety and operating
regulations.
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) (64) states
that the NPRM does not contain the necessary scientific data or
substantiation to prove that the proposal will accomplish its goal.
GAMA believes that basing a rulemaking on a broad and indefinite range
of terms and objectives, such as
[[Page 14282]]
``interference'' or ``annoyance'' of visitors and ``substantial
restoration of natural quiet,'' is subjective and arbitrary. GAMA fears
that introducing noise limitations and forced attrition for aircraft
presently operating in the vicinity of GCNP could be the beginning of a
process that could progressively tear down the entire U.S. aviation
system. GAMA believes that, if FAA's strategy were applied to the vast
holding of federal lands, federal parks, state lands and state parks,
it would severely impact the use of general aviation aircraft and some
commercial airliners as well.
Twin Otter (45) believes that quiet technology is the solution to
the problem of achieving substantial restoration of natural quiet to
the GCNP. However, the alternative, caps, curfews, and more limitations
on how air tours can be conducted, is totally unacceptable.
Lake Mead Air (26, 53) suggests that protecting the park experience
from noise will be more effectively accomplished by routing traffic
away from the park visitors than by use of quiet technology and
altitude.
Clark County Department of Aviation and the Las Vegas Convention
and Visitors Authority (Clark County) (62) believe that the piecemeal
nature of the FAA's Grand Canyon rulemaking makes it impossible for the
public to meaningfully comment on the proposals. Clark County suggests
that the FAA propose its entire Grand Canyon strategy--flight-free
zones, tour routes, quiet aircraft requirements, and other measures--as
one package, so that the public can determine the overall program.
The United States Air Tour Association (USATA) (60) states that all
of the various regulatory actions being implemented by the FAA should
be combined into a single rulemaking effort to ensure that all the
relevant issues are addressed as an integrated whole.
Bell Helicopter Textron (91) and the Professional Helicopter Pilots
Association (85) believe that there are substantial issues in
controversy in this proposal, which should necessitate the use of
negotiated rulemaking by means of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) process.
The Sierra Club, Angeles and Grand Canyon Chapters (38, 75, 76),
opposes the permissive growth of the air tour industry in the GCNP. The
level of flight operations should be reduced to the 1975 levels.
The Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, believes that the Noise
Limitations NPRM can be part of an acceptable plan, but would not by
itself substantially restore natural quiet at GCNP. The proposal would
not bring GCNP into compliance with the Overflights Act, nor would it
bring the park into compliance with the management objectives of the
GCNP General Management Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would not
implement the actions directed by President Clinton in his Earth Day
memorandum (April 1996). The Overflights Act directs the FAA to
implement the recommendations of the NPS, revised only for safety. The
FAA has ignored the law in this regard and continues to promote the air
tour industry.
FAA Response
The Overflights Act charged the FAA, in concert with the DOI, to
enact rulemaking and take what action is necessary to substantially
restore the natural quiet and experience of our national parks, and to
protect the public health and safety from adverse effects associated
with overflights. This mandate granted the FAA with the necessary
authority to promulgate any rule recommended by the NPS to effect the
substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience provided
the FAA did not have any safety concerns. The practical effect of this
second requirement is to ensure safe overflight of the GCNP by air tour
aircraft.
With the enactment of the Air Tour Act, the FAA has the authority
to ``preserve, protect, and enhance the environment by minimizing,
mitigating, or preventing the adverse effects of aircraft overflights
on public and tribal lands.'' See section 802 of the Act. Thus, it is
clear that the FAA has the authority to promulgate these rules.
Additionally, in accordance with the Air Tour Act, the FAA has
established the NPOAG to provide advice and counsel on the
implementation of quiet aircraft technology at GCNP.
The FAA notes that in order to accomplish the goal of substantial
restoration of natural quiet, it is necessary to proceed with different
types of regulations: (1) Those rules restricting airspace and limiting
where air tour flights may go; (2) those rules limiting the number of
air tours; and (3) those rules limiting the noise generated by air tour
aircraft. It is for this reason that the FAA has adopted rules to
enhance flight-free zones, modify the route structure, and limit the
number of air tours in GCNP.
2. Natural Quiet
A number of commenters address the question of whether the
proposals would contribute to the substantial restoration of natural
quiet in the GCNP. Grand Canyon Trust (Trust) (72) makes the following
general observations:
(1) Whatever regulatory scheme is ultimately implemented, that
scheme must comply with the Overflights Act, and NPS, not the FAA, must
determine whether and when natural quiet is substantially restored.
(2) The FAA must implement rules that immediately restore natural
quiet to the canyon.
(3) The proposed rule must be substantially revised and
strengthened because it will permit an immediate degradation of natural
quiet.
(4) Any revisions to the proposed rule will have to include an
immediate conversion to the quietest aircraft and a cap on the number
of tour operators at well below the 1987 level.
The Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter (76), states that the
detectability level for defining natural quiet should be less than 5,
rather than 17, which is used by NPS. The higher criterion shows an
unrealistic prevalence of natural quiet. Furthermore, the definition of
``substantial restoration of natural quiet'' is flawed. A more
appropriate definition would require natural quiet all of the time in
most of the park, and would require natural quiet most of the day in
the rest of the park. Congress mandated action to restore natural quiet
and to reduce negative impact from aircraft. The FAA and NPS policy of
ignoring the effects of all aircraft except tour aircraft is
inappropriate.
HAI (63) states that banning some aircraft is not necessary to
achieve ``restoration of natural quiet'' in GCNP, even when natural
quiet is measured in the terms used by the NPS. HAI points out that the
FAA's Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), which accompanied the Noise
Limitations NPRM, states that natural quiet at GCNP is within one
percent of the NPS's goals without the imposition of any aircraft ban.
HAI also believes that, in estimating aircraft operational and
performance data, the FAA used inaccurate data and incorrect
assumptions, thereby substantially overestimating the sound generated
by the aircraft used in tour operations at GCNP. HAI further states
that the FAA substantially underestimated the degree to which natural
quiet has been restored under SFAR 50-2, and that, if the impact of
aircraft overflight sound is measured in terms of visitor experience at
GCNP, the data demonstrate that natural quiet has been restored to the
Park. HAI believes that the FAA's aircraft sound prediction model
substantially underestimates ground attenuation effects and that FAA
[[Page 14283]]
estimates of ambient sound at GCNP are unrealistically low.
Bell Helicopter Textron (91) states that the ambient noise
projections assigned to different areas of the Park are unrealistically
low. This has the resultant effect of greatly overstating how long the
aircraft's sound is detectable. Equally as damaging as this unrealistic
projection is the assumption that there is no lateral attenuation of
aircraft sound in the Grand Canyon. Such false assumptions understate
the substantial restoration of natural quiet that currently exists in
the GCNP.
Clark County (62) comments that the FAA has provided no adequate
basis to demonstrate the reasonableness of the defined ``natural
quiet'' goal. Further, the FAA's ``time audible'' metric does not
reasonably measure natural quiet. Clark County also states that the
models used to estimate aircraft audibility have not been adequately
explained and may overstate the extent to which aircraft can be heard.
FAA Response
Since the issuance of the Noise Limitations NPRM, the NPS published
a public notice of agency policy (64 FR 3969) titled Evaluation
Methodology for Air Tour Operations Over Grand Canyon National Park.
Comments to this notice were solicited and addressed by NPS. The policy
refined the NPS' noise evaluation (i.e., impact assessment) methodology
for air tour operations over GCNP. Specifically, the refinements
included a two-zone system for assessing impacts related to substantial
restoration of natural quiet at GCNP.
The ongoing noise model validation effort is also part of the FAA
and NPS commitment to work cooperatively to meet the mandated goal of
substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. The noise modeling
used in all of the GCNP environmental documents to date, is the best
science currently available. However, as noise modeling is a constantly
evolving technology, both agencies are committed to making appropriate
adjustments to the approaches and methodologies as new knowledge or
science becomes available.
With regard to the ambient noise database and the lateral
attenuation calculation, the GCNP aircraft noise model validation
project will address these facets. All existing evidence, including
field measurements, support both the choice of an ambient noise level
data file for the Park and the decision to suppress INM's lateral
attenuation algorithm for GCNP noise modeling. In accordance with the
Air Tour Act, the implementation of quiet technology is part of the
Advisory Group consultative process. The FAA and NPS recognize that
conversion to quiet technology aircraft in the GCNP will not likely
result in achieving complete substantial restoration of natural quiet
at GCNP.
3. Native American Tribal Concerns
The Hualapai Tribe (52) states that it supports the use of quiet
technology and generally supports the NPRM with the following
exceptions: (1) The FAA has failed to consult with the Hualapai Tribe
on a government-to-government basis as required by federal law; (2) the
multiple rulemakings published by the FAA on the GCNP make the comment
process more cumbersome, more expensive, and obscures the cumulative
impact of the respective parts of the rulemakings; (3) there has been a
double standard with respect to testing noise impact since no on-the-
ground noise testing and modeling has been undertaken with respect to
the Hualapai Reservation, in collaboration with the Tribe; (4) the FAA
needs to look at alternatives to quiet technology such as location of
air tour routes and caps; (5) there need to be ``Tribal Flight Free
Zones'' to protect cultural resources and practices, natural resources,
and tourism industry, as well as limitations on the number of NPS
flights over the Hualapai Reservation; (6) the FAA should delegate to,
or share with, the Hualapai Tribe oversight authority to make sure that
the quiet technology rules are being complied with over the
Reservation; and (7) there should be an exemption from quiet technology
requirements for tribal administrative flights, analogous to the NPS
exemption, to avoid burdening the Tribe's sovereign authority to run
its own government and administer its lands.
FAA Response
The FAA has been consulting with the Hualapai in accordance with
the provisions of the President's April 24, 1994, memorandum on
Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribes, and
section 106 of the NHPA. The FAA has had numerous meetings with
representatives of the Tribe's natural resources and cultural resource
agencies since 1996. Additionally, the Hualapai have been part of the
FAA and the NPS ongoing discussions with the other individual tribes.
The Hualapai have also commented on several issues that have been
addressed in previous rulemakings and were a cooperating agency on the
February 2000 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (FSEA). The
FAA responded to Hualapai comments similar to those noted above in the
2000 FSEA. See Appendix G of the FSEA.
The FAA has moved forward to implement recommendations from the NPS
after completing a safety review of the NPS recommendations. This is
consistent with the provisions of the Overflights Act. In each
rulemaking the FAA attempts to outline the rulemaking history and
economic impact. Some of these recommendations that have been finalized
in the last two years are consistent with the Hualapai's comments on
revising air tour routes and adopting limitations on the number of air
tours in GCNP. See 65 FR 17708 and 65 FR 17736.
In accordance with section 106 of the NHPA, the FAA issued a
Determination of No Adverse Effect to the Traditional Cultural
Properties (TCPs) for all of the tribes and/or nations, except the
Hualapai Tribe, for the rulemaking actions associated with the SFRA in
the vicinity of the GCNP. As to the Hualapai Tribe, the FAA along with
the NPS, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Hualapai
THPO, and the Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources signed a
Programmatic Agreement on January 24, 2000 related to section 106
compliance and their TCPs. The FAA notes that the United States
generally supports leaving the skies open to aviation, with exceptions
primarily for safety and security reasons. Flight-free zones were
created in GCNP to help NPS achieve substantial restoration of natural
quiet, pursuant to the mandates of the Overflights Act.
The FAA notes that the sole purpose of this rule is to define quiet
technology. This rule contains no specific requirements for operators
to convert to quiet aircraft. Thus, the question of which entities are
responsible for oversight of this rule is not relevant.
In response to the request for an exemption to conduct
administrative flights, the FAA reiterates that this and other
rulemakings affect only flights satisfying the definition of a
commercial air tour operation contained in 14 CFR 93.303. Moreover,
this rule does not phase out aircraft that are not designated as quiet
technology.
4. Classification of Aircraft by Noise Characteristics
A number of commenters address the issues related to classification
based on aircraft certification, as well as the three categories of
aircraft classification contained in the Noise Limitations NPRM.
Lake Mead Air (26, 53) believes that the standard for quiet
aircraft should not be linked to the Aircraft Noise
[[Page 14284]]
Certification provisions prescribed in 14 CFR part 36, and listed in AC
36-1F, since it is possible for aircraft to be reconfigured and flown
differently than AC 36-1F. The FAA should make sound measuring
equipment available at Las Vegas and Grand Canyon for determining
actual flyover sound levels in the tour ``cruise configuration.'' If
Category A aircraft can be retrofitted to Category B it should be
encouraged since such a conversion would be more easily implemented
than direct conversion to Category C.
Clark County (62) states that the NPRM will unreasonably and
arbitrarily burden air tour operators and the Las Vegas tourist
economy. However, if the FAA based its categorization of aircraft on
noise performance, rather than on certification, and provided options
for compliance flexibility, there would be significantly less burden on
tour operators, airborne visitors, and the economy of the Las Vegas
area. Clark County states that it conducted a study of actual ambient
and aircraft noise in GCNP in an attempt to validate FAA's methodology
and found that using certification data, as a basis does not accurately
represent aircraft noise levels in the GCNP, because it does not
account for actual atmospheric and operational conditions in the GCNP.
As a result, the FAA has placed aircraft in the noisier A or B
categories that should belong in the B or C categories. Clark County
states that the NPRM provides no means for operators to comply with the
performance standards through the use of retrofitted equipment, quiet
operating procedures, or other enforceable steps to reduce noise. This
is at odds with the federal government's increasing attempt to use
performance standards and provide compliance flexibility to reduce
regulatory burden.
An airline transport pilot (40) states that the noise propagation
of a propeller driven airplane is largely dependent on the design and
speed of its propeller. Design and speed are responsible for a greater
share of the decibel level discernible in the hearing range than
exhaust output, wing shape, loading of the airplane, cowl and airframe
vibration, or accessory operation (e.g., flap extension, gear drag and
parasitic friction). Since the design and speed factors affect all
aircraft operating in the Grand Canyon a simple change, for example,
operating a Cessna 207 at 2300 RPM instead of 2400 or 2500 RPM, can
affect whether an aircraft should be placed in one category or another,
if the categories are defined by noise values.
Lake Mead Air (26, 53) states that the decibel range for quiet
Category C helicopters starts at 80 dB whereas the fixed-wing threshold
is 69 dB. If 80 dB meets Category C standards for helicopters it should
also meet Category C standards for fixed-wing.
Eagle (54) states that its F27 aircraft would not be covered under
the NPRM. Size (48 passenger), noise tests, and decibel adjustments do
not take the F27 into consideration.
Professional Helicopter Pilots Association (85) states that the
existence of aircraft capable of achieving the lower sound levels is
still in the developmental stage such that only one manufacturer has
any such helicopters available which have the performance capability
for air tour operations. As a result the NPRM is premature and should
not be implemented until technology improves.
The Grand Canyon River Guides (GCRG) (50) state that helicopters,
which are generally accepted to be the most obnoxious of aircraft and
carry fewer people, should not fall into Category B, but should be put
into Category A.
Twin Otter (45) states that it is appropriate to take into account
both the flyover sound level and aircraft passenger seating capacity in
establishing which models qualify as Category C aircraft because a
single Vistaliner replaces two flights with the nine passenger Cessna
402/Piper Chieftain, nearly three flights in the seven passenger Cessna
207 and four flights in the 4-5 passenger Bell Jetranger.
Twin Otter adds that the Beechcraft C-99 and the Piper Chieftain
could be retrofitted with four bladed props, as have the Vistaliners,
thus converting them to Category C aircraft.
Air Vegas (57) believes that its 15 Beechcraft C-99 aircraft should
be deemed Category C since it utilizes the same basic power plant, the
PT-6, as the Caravan and the Vistaliner, and has been modified for
sightseeing operations to include extra windows. The average price for
these aircraft, configured to meet Air Vegas specifications, is in
excess of $1,300,000. These aircraft are adequately available and have
proven to be cost effective. Furthermore, the FAA studies, which placed
the Beechcraft C-99 into Category B, were based on max RPM level 2200
RPM. If the RPM is reduced to 1900 (a reduction of 14 percent), there
is an equal reduction of 14 percent in the dB level of the propeller,
thus 68.2 dB. Air Vegas operations specifications require pilots to
maintain propeller RPM at 1900 and with this power setting a Beechcraft
C-99 is well below the Category C cutoff of 78 dB for a 15 passenger
aircraft. Air Vegas believes there should be an incentive for
decreasing the percent of time audible for the aircraft. Because of the
higher speeds achievable by the Beechcraft C-99, as compared to the
Vistaliner, the C-99's have an impact for less time.
Scenic Airlines (74) states that the deHavilland DHC-6-300 Twin
Otter with quiet propellers and the Cessna 208 (A & B models) must be
classified as quiet aircraft technology (Category C). Furthermore, in
developing Sound Exposure Level (SEL) dB limits, consideration must be
given to the speed of an aircraft. Since disruption of natural quiet is
measured in terms of ``Time of exposure'' the faster of two aircraft
with the same dB output should be shown as the quieter.
The Grand Canyon Trust (72) states that by defining the aircraft
categories in terms of sound exposure level per passenger seat, the FAA
obscures the fact that some Category C aircraft (e.g., the Vistaliner)
are noisier than some Category A or B aircraft. The Trust further
states that unless a cap is established on the number of operations
Category C can fly, ultimately there will be no advantage to conversion
to certain Category C aircraft. Therefore, the Trust's additional
comments assume that such a cap will be implemented.
Clark County (62) states that the FAA should set default noise
levels and GCNP noise categories for the aircraft operating in GCNP
using methodologies that accurately reflect conditions in GCNP and
should validate the noise levels through field-testing. If this were
done, some aircraft, such as the Beechcraft C-99 would actually meet
Category C standards.
Eagle (54), King (56), and Vision (61) state that the FAA's
formulation of the aircraft categories in the NPRM is arbitrary and
capricious for the following reasons:
(1) The FAA fails to justify its placement of the dividing line
between categories and has not consulted operators on this issue before
establishing the categories.
(2) Use of part 36 test results is not appropriate.
(3) The proposed 4-dB distinction between Category A and Category C
is inappropriate since it attempts to draw distinctions that cannot be
discerned by most humans.
(4) Distinctions between categories fail to account for the effect
of speed on aircrafts' ``noiseprint.''
(5) Tests that serve as a certification basis do not simulate
actual operating conditions.
(6) Categories discriminate against propeller-driven airplanes.
[[Page 14285]]
(7) Proposed Category C could be met by only two types of existing
aircraft, one of which is unavailable while the other is prohibitively
expensive.
Bell Helicopter Textron (91) states that the FAA's noise analysis
incorrectly assumed that there is no lateral attenuation of aircraft
sound. The effect of this false assumption is great considering that if
the sound exposure levels attributed to aircraft were even 5 dB less,
then up to six additional aircraft would be in compliance with the
proposed Category C noise efficiency criteria.
FAA Response
While this SNPRM replaces the three noise efficiency categories
proposed in the Noise Limitations NPRM, the currently proposed quiet
technology designation is based upon the same rationale and criteria.
The FAA criteria for ``reasonably achievable'' quiet technology
requirements include what is technologically practicable, economically
reasonable, appropriate to the aircraft type design, and, in the final
analysis, environmentally beneficial. The FAA also set forth the
following attributes for any quiet technology designation.
Specifically, the designation should:
[sbull] Be based on aircraft noise certification (14 CFR part 36);
[sbull] Judge fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft on a common basis;
[sbull] Correlate with aircraft performance and operation at GCNP;
[sbull] Offer basis for incentives; and
[sbull] Be manageable.
Noise levels obtained from aircraft noise certification represent
the highest quality of data available. The flight tests are conducted
under controlled conditions with an FAA representative or designee in
attendance to witness the test setup and test activities. Data obtained
during these flight tests are corrected to standard reference
conditions as prescribed in 14 CFR part 36. The certification tests are
designed to acquire noise levels representing the noisiest flight
configurations for small propeller-driven airplanes and helicopters.
FAA believes that this is appropriate for the GCNP situation as the
certification flight configurations are also the noisiest
configurations that could be used over the park. Thus, the sightseeing
aircraft can be judged equally, fairly, and without the concern that
the noise levels are undervalued.
The airport community has many years of experience using the
certificated noise levels. FAA publishes these levels in Advisory
Circular (AC) 36-1, ``Noise Levels for U.S. Certificated and Foreign
Aircraft.'' The current version of this AC is 36-1G, dated August 27,
1997. These data have been used to establish use restrictions, curfews,
and noise budgets at some airports in the country. The certificated
noise levels are not only available in the advisory circulars, which
are updated and published periodically, but the levels are readily
available to the aircraft owners from aircraft flight manuals (AFM).
The quiet technology designation based on certificated noise levels
is proposed not only because of the long-standing precedent, but also
because it eliminates the need for someone to make such measurements in
the field. Years of experience with using data obtained from airport
noise monitoring systems have shown that noise levels obtained under
uncontrolled conditions are highly variable. This problem can only be
overcome by obtaining very large samples of measured data to reduce the
statistical uncertainty. Thus, FAA believes that a quiet technology
designation based on measured data taken at GCNP would be economically
unreasonable and susceptible to statistical error.
Unfortunately, there is no single method applicable to all aircraft
for determining the certificated noise level. Depending on date of
application for type certificate and whether the aircraft is a
helicopter or small propeller-driven airplane, the noise level could
have been obtained from one of four different tests. With measurements
taken for different flight operations, at three different altitudes,
and in three different units of noise, it is not possible to directly
compare certificated noise levels obtained for helicopters with those
of small propeller-driven airplanes. As reported in the study,
``Methodology to Categorize the Noise Efficiency of Air Tour Aircraft
in GCNP,'' FAA developed a procedure for: (1) extrapolating from the
controlled conditions of a certification test to the operating
conditions at GCNP and (2) converting levels to a common noise unit,
thus making it possible to judge airplanes and helicopters on a common
basis under conditions that pertain to air tour operations over GCNP.
As a result of the study, FAA found that it is possible to extrapolate
from the certification conditions applicable to helicopters and small
propeller-driven airplanes to produce a consistent set of noise levels
under conditions similar to those at GCNP.
FAA finds that the noise efficiency concept, which was proposed in
the Noise Limitations NPRM and re-proposed in this SNPRM, albeit
modified to designate quiet technology, exhibits all of the desired
attributes for the quiet technology designation. The concept is
technically sound as it takes into account aircraft design, flight
configuration, acoustic characteristics, productivity, and economic
reasonableness. As the concept is based upon the certificated noise
levels, the FAA is able to judge the noise of the commercial
sightseeing aircraft consistently, fairly, and without the additional
cost and technical problems found in field monitoring. In concert with
related actions with respect to the airspace and air tour operations,
the quiet technology designation can be an effective means toward
substantially restoring natural quiet at GCNP.
The FAA notes that this SNPRM is essentially a definition of quiet
technology taking into account the technological capabilities of
aircraft available in the used marketplace, including the existence of
aircraft type design modifications to reduce noise levels. As this
action merely defines quiet technology but does not impose any
requirements, the FAA does not expect any economic impact on the
operators of GCNP air tours. The FAA seeks comments before moving to
future related rulemaking in consultation with the NPS and in
coordination with an advisory group composed of general aviation,
commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native
American interest.
5. Phase Out of Less Noise Efficient Aircraft
A number of commenters addressed the proposal to phase out noisier
aircraft to further reduce noise impacts in GCNP. As described in the
Noise Limitations NPRM, less noise efficient aircraft would have been
gradually phased out starting in the year 2000 with the phase out of
Category A aircraft and continuing through to the end of 2008 at which
point all Category B aircraft would be phased out and only Category C
aircraft would remain. The phase out would have limited future use of
less noise efficient aircraft in GCNP and would also have provided an
incentive for the use of the most noise efficient aircraft.
This SNPRM only proposes to define the quiet aircraft technology
designation. The quiet technology designation is predicated on the
notion that the use of larger, relatively quieter aircraft (on a per
seat basis) is helpful in reaching the goal of substantial restoration
of natural quiet through a combination of reduction of noise at the
source and reduction in the number of tour operations. Under the
provisions of section 804 of the Air Tour Act, all
[[Page 14286]]
incentives to replace current aircraft with those satisfying the
definition must be recommended by the NPOAG. Thus, any proposals to
encourage the transition to quiet technology will be addressed in
subsequent FAA rulemaking in consultation with the NPS and the NPOAG.
6. Removal of Temporary Cap
A number of commenters addressed the proposal to remove the cap on
air tour aircraft for all Category C aircraft. This change was proposed
as an incentive for conversion to noise efficient aircraft.
Since the Noise Limitations NPRM, the FAA has issued a final rule
that replaced the cap on the number of air tour aircraft with an
operations limitation on the annual number of commercial air tour
operations in the GCNP SFRA (65 FR 17708). Thus, a discussion of the
comments on the removal of the air tour aircraft cap is irrelevant. The
Air Tour Act provides that ``Commercial air tour operations by any
fixed-wing or helicopter aircraft that employs quiet aircraft
technology and that replaces an existing aircraft shall not be subject
to the operational flight allocations that apply to other commercial
air tour operations of the Grand Canyon, provided that the cumulative
impact of such operations does not increase noise at the Grand
Canyon.'' (See section 804(c) of the Act; emphasis added). As discussed
below, the FAA does not foresee at this time that the operations
limitations would be lifted in any meaningful way since once commercial
air tour operations increased, noise would increase, even if all
operators used quiet technology aircraft.
As documented in the February 2000 FSEA accompanying the commercial
air tour limitation final rule, only 44 percent of the Park (on an
annual average day) achieved substantial restoration of natural quiet
upon implementation of the air tour limitations and changes to routes
and airspace adopted in April 2000. The FAA and NPS note that this
percentage may change once the revised east end routes are adopted and
implemented. The FAA has evaluated whether the designation of quiet
technology requirements, contained in this SNPRM, will enable the FAA
to relieve commercial air tour operators from the present commercial
air tour operations limitation. More specifically, the FAA conducted
studies to determine the extent to which use of quiet technology
aircraft could possibly enable air tour operators to increase
operations without increasing cumulative noise levels at GCNP pursuant
to section 804 of the Air Tour Act.
The FAA test was conducted by assessing the sensitivity of the 25%
TA12hr \5\ contour to increases in quiet technology aircraft
operations using the GCINM. The 25% TA12hr contour has been
the measure used in the environmental assessments associated with all
GCNP SFRA rulemaking to assess progress towards the goal of substantial
restoration of natural quiet. The particular GCNP air tour scenario
chosen for this test was the preferred alternative of the February 2000
FSEA that accompanied the April 2000 final rules (65 FR 17708 and 65 FR
17736). Two separate runs of the GCINM were performed; airplane
operations on Zuni Reverse and helicopter operations on the Green 1
loop. The analysis found that adding less than four annual airplane
operations or three annual helicopter operations would increase the 25%
TA12hr contour area by 0.01 sq. mi. FAA chose a hundredth of
a square mile as the threshold of significance because contour areas in
the GCNP EA documents have been reported to that significant digit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The time above (TA) metric provides the duration that
aircraft related noise exceed specified sound threshold. For
assessment of aircraft noise in GCNP, the %TA12h
represents the percentage of time aircraft are audible during the
12-hour daytime period of primary visitor activity. The 25%
TA12h contour (the area where aircraft are audible
greater 25% of the time) measures the extent that the criterion for
substantial restoration of natural quiet is met. When the 25%
TA12h contour for a particular alternative occupies less
than half of the area of GCNP then that alternative has achieved
substantial restoration of natural quiet at the Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above result supports the FAA's preliminary finding that
aircraft that meet the quiet technology designation operating without
operations limitation will likely cumulatively increase noise in the
GCNP. Given that the Air Tour Act only provides relief from the
operations limitation when the cumulative impact of such operations
does not increase noise at GCNP, the FAA would likely be unable to
remove the commercial air tour operations limitation. Removal of the
operations limitation will be addressed in subsequent FAA rulemaking in
consultation with the NPS and the NPOAG as directed by the Air Tour
Act.
7. Other or Alternative Incentives
A number of commenters responded to the FAA's request for comments
regarding alternative or additional incentives for operators to convert
to noise efficient technology.
Lake Mead Air (26, 53) states that with the conversion to ``quieter
aircraft'' several companies will not be able to meet the standard and
will sell or close. Other incentives for quiet aircraft technology
should be considered such as tax credits or subsidies, for example the
FAA could pay the air tour operators not to fly Category A aircraft,
similar to soil banks. Furthermore, more noise efficient aircraft
should be phased in rather than phasing out the less noise efficient
aircraft.
Twin Otter (45) states that it is an oversight that the FAA has not
provided for a quiet aircraft corridor in the eastern section of the
canyon. Twin Otter then comments on routes proposed in 1996 that are no
longer part of this rulemaking.
Twin Otter recommends the following additional incentives for
Category C aircraft: (1) Lift the aircraft cap immediately on the
number of Category C aircraft that may be operated; (2) eliminate the
curfew for Category C aircraft, and if this is not possible, then
permit Category C aircraft to operate one hour before and one hour
later than curfew hours for conventional aircraft (official sunrise at
GCNP is two hours earlier than the curfew permits for most of the
summer); (3) roll back the overflights fee for Category C aircraft as
an additional incentive; and (4) require helicopters to fly at the
highest possible altitude in the Zuni Corridor so that airplanes can
conduct tours at a lower altitude and establish the lowest airplane
tours in the Zuni for Category C qualifying aircraft.
Grand Canyon Airlines (GCA) (46) supports the concept of the
proposed amendment to part 93. GCA also believes that the FAA needs to
provide quiet aircraft incentive routes in the eastern region. Category
B helicopters are permitted to operate at the lowest possible altitude
in the eastern region and they are even encouraged to fly in the most
sensitive Dragon Corridor with the lowest altitudes and shortest direct
routes. This makes the airplane Category C air tours less attractive
than the noisier Category B helicopters in this region. To correct this
disparity the Category C aircraft should be given the lowest possible
routes in the eastern region. GCA makes the following recommendations:
(1) Provide a Category C incentive route over the existing Black 1
route; (2) minimize advantages to Category B helicopter routes by
creating new Category C routes that provide superior tour features; (3)
waive overflight fees to Category C aircraft; and (4) eliminate caps
and curfews on Category C aircraft.
Papillon (55) also supports the timeframe for transition to quiet
technology and the guidelines for qualifying aircraft as quiet
technology,
[[Page 14287]]
but recommends 35 dB as the threshold of substantial natural quiet for
the GCNP. The following incentives for quiet technology should be
implemented for Category C aircraft only: (1) Eliminate the GCNP
overflight fee; (2) create a route across the North Rim (through the
Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone); (3) permit Category C aircraft to use
alternate routes that may enter flight-free zones to show specific
landmarks; (4) establish new curfews of one hour after sunrise and one
hour before sunset; and (5) restore the two-way helicopter loop in the
Zuni Corridor.
An individual commenter (68) states that more incentives need to be
utilized to help air tour operators convert to quiet technology. This
commenter suggests the following incentives: (1) Waiving overflight
fees and park admission fees for passengers; (2) offering and approving
low-cost government loans and tax credits; and (3) establishing new
quality view corridors through which only Category C aircraft could fly
at lower altitudes.
Scenic Airlines (Scenic) (74) states that while 75 percent of the
passengers it flew in 1996 were flown in Category C aircraft about one
half of its air tour fleet are Category A aircraft. While Scenic would
like to convert these Category A to Category C, it must be provided
with incentives, in the form of privileges that operators and
passengers can value, before it would voluntarily do so. Operators have
only invested in Category C aircraft in the past based on the promise
by the NPS that they will be rewarded in the future. If no such rewards
materialize there will be a disincentive to convert to Category C's in
the future.
Scenic states that the following Category C incentives should be
provided: (1) A route through the northern portion of the expanded
Bright Angel Flight-Free Zone using the existing Black 1A and Green 1A
(SFAR 50-2); (2) a route along the current Brown 3 (SFAR 50-2)
departure which goes through the northwest corner of the Toroweap
Flight-Free Zone; (3) waiver of curfews in Dragon and Zuni corridors to
extend the hours of operation to Daylight hours; (4) waiver of
overflight fees; (5) investment tax credits; and (6) low cost
government loans.
AirStar Helicopters, Inc. (AirStar) (84) states that the following
incentives for transition to noise efficient aircraft should be
considered: low cost loans, overflight fee rebates or investment tax
credits. AirStar also states that it has already begun the transition
to quiet technology.
The Grand Canyon Trust (72) proposes the use of Dragon and Zuni
Corridors as quiet aircraft incentives routes for Category C aircraft
only.
FAA Response
This SNPRM only proposes to define quiet aircraft technology. Under
the provisions of section 804 of the Air Tour Act, all incentives to
replace current aircraft with those satisfying the definition must be
developed through the consultative process with the NPOAG. Thus,
proposals to encourage the transition to quiet technology will be
addressed in subsequent FAA rulemaking. The NPOAG will provide advice
and recommendations on, among other things, the establishments of
routes and corridors for the operation of quiet technology aircraft for
tours originating in Clark County, Nevada and for ``local loop'' tours
originating at the GCNP Airport in Tusayan, Arizona. The FAA notes that
section 804(b) of the Air Tour Act allows such incentive routes
``provided that such routes or corridors can be located in areas that
will not negatively impact the substantial restoration of natural
quiet, tribal lands, or safety.''
8. Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA)
In 1996, the DEA analyzed a different Federal action than is now
proposed by the FAA. Therefore, the FAA is not pursuing completion of
that NEPA document for this SNPRM and the comments received on the DEA
are no longer relevant.
Rather, in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, the FAA has
determined that this proposed rulemaking is categorically excluded from
environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed rule is
categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1D, Appendix 4, Paragraph
4.j, which covers regulations ``excluding those that if implemented may
cause a significant impact on the human environment.'' Unlike the DEA
completed with the Noise Limitations NPRM, this proposed rulemaking
simply establishes quiet technology designations for air tour aircraft
operating in GCNP. It does not impose a phaseout or any alteration of
any air tour operator's fleet of aircraft. In addition, the proposed
rulemaking does not lift the operations limitation, alter any flight
corridors through the Park, or make any change to the SFRA. Finally,
the FAA notes that this proposed rulemaking alone has no impact on
substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP and environmental and
economic impacts will depend upon other future incentives yet to be
defined. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking will not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Potential Further Action
As proposed, the FAA would designate a standard for quiet
technology that would apply to certain aircraft in commercial air tour
operations over GCNP. Under the provisions of Section 804 of the Air
Tour Act, the implementation of quiet technology will be addressed in
subsequent FAA rulemaking in consultation with the NPS and the NPOAG.
The NPOAG will provide advice and recommendations on, among other
things, the establishments of routes and corridors for the operation of
quiet technology aircraft for tours originating in Clark County, Nevada
and for ``local loop'' tours originating at the GCNP Airport in
Tusayan, Arizona. The FAA notes that section 804(b) of the Air Tour Act
allows such incentive routes ``provided that such routes or corridors
can be located in areas that will not negatively impact the substantial
restoration of natural quiet, tribal lands, or safety.'' Since the
ultimate objective is to determine the role of quiet technology in
achieving substantial restoration of natural quiet, the FAA is
requesting specific comments to address quiet technology within the
context of the implementation issue:
1. How reasonable is the noise efficiency approach (larger aircraft
with more passenger seats are allowed to generate proportionally more
noise) to define quiet technology and how appropriate is the use of
certificated noise level as the basis?
2. What provisions should be made for changes in technology that
result in source noise reduction and/or increased noise efficient
aircraft designs?
3. What economic and operational incentives should be considered in
order to achieve the transition to quieter aircraft and how should the
quiet technology designation be used in the establishment of the
incentives?
4. Should incentives include a ``flexible'' cap that would permit
increasing operations of aircraft based upon the acquisition of leading
edge noise efficient technology by operators?
5. Should growth be tied to an incentive system for existing
operators to convert their fleet to quiet technology?
6. What operational limitations (phase-out, expanded curfews, noise
budgets, quota system, etc.) should be considered and how should the
quiet
[[Page 14288]]
technology designation be used in the setting of the limitations?
Economic summary
Proposed 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 impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more, in any one year (adjusted for inflation).
However, for regulations with an expected minimal impact the above-
specified analyses are not required. The Department of Transportation
Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification,
analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the
expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full
evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis for it is included
in proposed regulation. Since this SNPRM serves only to refine the
quiet technology definition applied to air tour aircraft operating in
GCNP developed in the Noise Limitations NPRM, and removes all
compliance requirements proposed in that NPRM, the expected outcome is
to have a minimal impact.
The SNPRM retains the ``noise efficiency'' concept defined by the
relationship between the certificated noise level of an aircraft and
the number of passenger seats on the typical configuration of that
aircraft type as initially proposed in the Noise Limitations NPRM.
However, the three principal rulemaking elements of 61 FR 69334 have
been eliminated. The SNPRM replaces the three noise efficiency
categories that were proposed in the Noise Limitations NPRM and
proposes to temporarily continue to rely on the designation of quiet
technology aircraft, those that were formerly described as Category C.
Furthermore, the SNPRM does not propose any phaseout of air tour
aircraft that do not comply with the Category C quiet technology
designation. Nor does it include any incentive flight corridors through
the park as proposed in December 1996. Finally, as noted above, the
SNPRM does not lift the operations limitation on commercial air tour
operations conducted in the Park that has replaced the 1996 aircraft
cap for those aircraft meeting the Category C noise efficiency
standard.
Therefore, this SNPRM is essentially a definition of quiet
technology and has negligible economic impact on the operators of GCNP
air tours. The FAA seeks public comment before moving to future FAA
rulemaking in consultation with the NPS. Future rulemaking would be
coordinated with an advisory group composed of representatives of
general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental
concerns, and Native American interests.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
This action merely defines quiet technology but does not impose any
requirements. Therefore, the FAA does not expect this rule to impose
any cost on small entities. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small air tour operators.
International Trade Impact Analysis
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards.
In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule to be minimal and, therefore,
has determined that this rule will not result in an impact on
international trade by companies doing business in or with the United
States.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as
Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on state,
local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each
Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of
any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result
in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation)
in any one year by state, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a
``significant regulatory action.''
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do
not apply.
Federalism Implications
The regulations herein would not have substantial direct 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 12866, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
[[Page 14289]]
Consultation with Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13084 provides for consultation and coordination
with Indian tribal governments in certain circumstances that are set
forth in the executive order. We have discussed above the ways in which
we have consulted with Indian tribal governments about this proposed
rule and taken their concerns into account. The FAA determined that
additional consultations were not necessary because the proposed rule
is required by statute and would not impose any substantial direct
compliance costs on the communities of Indian tribal governments.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-13), there are no requirements for information collection
associated with the SNPRM.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
For reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend part 93, in Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.
2. Section 93.303 is amended by adding a definition to read as
follows:
Sec. 93.303 Definitions.
* * * * *
Quiet technology aircraft means an aircraft that is subject to
Sec. 93.301 and has been shown to comply with the noise limit
specified in appendix A of this part.
* * * * *
3. Appendix A is added to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 93--GCNP Aircraft Quiet Technology Designation
This appendix contains procedures for determining the quiet
technology status for each aircraft subject to Sec. 93.301
determined during the noise certification process as prescribed
under part 36 of this chapter. Where no certificated noise level is
available, the Administrator may approve an alternative measurement
procedure.
1. Aircraft Noise Limit for Quiet Technology
A. For helicopters with a flyover noise level obtained in
accordance with the measurement procedures prescribed in Appendix H
of 14 CFR part 36, the limit is 80 dB for helicopters having two or
fewer passenger seats, increasing at 3 dB per doubling of the number
of passenger seats for helicopters having three or more passenger
seats. The limit at number of passenger seats of three or more can
be calculated by the formula:
EPNL(H) = 80+10log( PAX seats/2) dB
B. For helicopters with a flyover noise level obtained in
accordance with the measurement procedures prescribed in Appendix J
of 14 CFR part 36, the limit is 77 dB for helicopters having two or
fewer passenger seats, increasing at 3 dB per doubling of the number
of passenger seats for helicopters having three or more passenger
seats. The limit at number of passenger seats of three or more can
be calculated by the formula:
SEL(J) = 77+10log( PAX seats/2) dB
C. For propeller-driven airplanes with a measured flyover noise
level obtained in accordance with the measurement procedures
prescribed in Appendix F of 14 CFR part 36 without the performance
correction defined in Sec. F36.201(c), the limit is 69 dB for
airplanes having two or fewer passenger seats, increasing at 3 dB
per doubling of the number of passenger seats for airplanes having
three or more passenger seats. The limit at number of passenger
seats of three or more can be calculated by the formula:
LAmax(F) = 69+10log( PAX seats/2) dB
D. In the event that a flyover noise level is not available in
accordance with Appendix F of 14 CFR part 36, the noise limit for
propeller-driven airplanes with a takeoff noise level obtained in
accordance with the measurement procedures prescribed in Appendix G
is 74 dB for airplanes having two or fewer passenger seats,
increasing at 3 dB per doubling of the number of passenger seats for
airplanes having three or more passenger seats. The limit at number
of passenger seats of three or more can be calculated by the
formula:
LAmax(G) = 74+10log( PAX seats/2) dB
Issued in Washington, DC on March 18, 2003.
Paul R. Dykeman,
Acting Director, Office of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 03-6918 Filed 3-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P