[Federal Register: March 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 59)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16083-16093]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29mr05-25]
[[Page 16083]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 93
Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand
Canyon National Park; Rule
[[Page 16084]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. FAA-2003-14715; Amendment No. 93-83]
RIN 2120-AG34
Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of
Grand Canyon National Park
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action classifies aircraft used in commercial sightseeing
flight operations over Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) by the noise
they produce. This amendment of 14 CFR part 93 is necessary to
establish reasonably achievable requirements for aircraft operating in
the GCNP to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology. The
FAA now refers to the designation as ``GCNP quiet aircraft technology''
rather than ``quiet technology'' to clarify that the scope of this rule
is limited to aircraft operating in the GCNP. The FAA and NPS will use
the GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation to consider establishing
routes and corridors and in future actions to achieve substantial
restoration of natural quiet and visitor experience in the GNCP. This
rule does not require any action by commercial air tour operators, as
it simply identifies which aircraft meet or do not meet the GCNP quiet
aircraft technology designation. Further, this rule does not relieve
GCNP commercial air tour operators of their operational limitations.
Section 804(b) of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act directs
the FAA, in consultation with the NPS and the Advisory Group (now known
as the National Park Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking
Committee or NPOAG ARC) to consider establishing the GCNP quiet
aircraft technology aircraft routes and corridors consistent with
certain requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Connor; (AEE-100); Office of
Environment and Energy; Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-8933.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search); (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm
; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find
out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.cfm
.
Background
Regulatory History
On December 31, 1996, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (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). The FAA proposed to establish noise
limitations for certain aircraft operating in the vicinity of GCNP. The
proposed aircraft noise limitations rule generally would have
categorized air tour aircraft according to each aircraft's noise
efficiency and mandated a conversion date to aircraft meeting the GCNP
quiet aircraft technology designation. Additionally, the FAA proposed
an incentive flight corridor through Grand Canyon for quiet technology/
noise efficient aircraft. The NPRM sought to reduce the impact of air
tour aircraft noise on GCNP and to make progress in achieving
substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. The FAA received many
comments in opposition to this NPRM, primarily because of the impact of
the mandatory conversion date. After the comment period closed on the
1996 NPRM, the FAA and NPS began reconsidering GCNP quiet aircraft
technology requirements and reaching consensus upon other steps that
should be initiated to achieve the statutorily mandated goal of
substantial restoration of natural quiet and to improve visitor
experience in the GCNP. The FAA and NPS agreed to proceed with
rulemakings to limit the number of commercial air tours in the GCNP and
to modify the airspace and route system in the area. The agencies
realized that the achievement of substantial restoration of natural
quiet requires a multi-phased regulatory plan to control noise.
Implementation of GCNP quiet aircraft technology alone would not
suffice.
The agencies concentrated their efforts upon resolving issues
presented in comments on the 1996 NPRM and finalizing the GCNP quiet
aircraft technology rulemaking, once the FAA issued the airspace and
operations limitation final rules in April 2000.
On April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century was signed into law as Public Law 106-
181. Among other provisions the law enacted the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000 (the Air Tour Act). Section 804(a) of the Air
Tour Act directed the FAA Administrator to designate reasonably
achievable quiet technology requirements for fixed-wing airplanes and
helicopters for purposes of commercial air tour operations over the
GCNP. If the FAA determined that it would not be able to make the
designation within twelve months of the enactment of the Air Tour Act,
then the FAA was required to transmit a report to Congress stating the
reasons the FAA would not be able to make such a designation within
that period and the expected date of such designation.
Section 804(b) of the Air Tour Act also directed the FAA
Administrator, in consultation with the NPS Director and the NPOAG ARC,
to establish GCNP quiet aircraft technology routes or corridors for
commercial air tour operations at GCNP, provided that such routes or
corridors will not negatively impact tribal lands, safety, or the
substantial restoration of natural quiet.
[[Page 16085]]
Recommendations and requirements for use of GCNP quiet aircraft
technology in air tour management plans for national parks other than
the GCNP pursuant to other provisions of the Air Tour Act will be
subject to separate rulemaking and are not addressed by this final rule
for GCNP. For example, Section 805 of the Air Tour Act requires the
NPOAG ARC to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the
FAA and NPS 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 air tour management plans.
While the NPOAG ARC may consider this final rule in making
recommendations on commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use
at other national parks, pursuant to Section 805 of the Air Tour Act,
this final rule is limited to fulfilling the requirements under Section
804 of the Air Tour Act for the GCNP.
In October 2001, the FAA submitted a report to Congress on Quiet
Aircraft Technology for the Grand Canyon, as required under Section 804
of the Air Tour Act. The report indicated that, while substantive
progress had been made on the GCNP quiet aircraft technology
rulemaking, the FAA would not be able to make a designation within the
12 months of enactment of the Air Tour Act because of the need to
resolve some key technical issues. These issues included the then-
ongoing GCNP Noise Model Validation project, a study regarding the
correlation between aircraft certification noise levels and aircraft
audibility, and how changes to the GCNP SFRA affected substantial
restoration of natural quiet. The report also stated that the FAA
planned to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
in early 2002. The FAA and the NPS required more time than expected to
resolve the technical issues, which delayed the publication of the
SNPRM for another year.
On March 24, 2003, the FAA published the SNPRM Notice No. 03-05
entitled ``Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of
Grand Canyon National Park'' (68 FR 14276). The FAA solicited comments
on the proposal, which are discussed in the following section. This
final rule is based on the SNPRM Notice No. 03-05.
Discussion of Comments
Seventeen commenters responded to the supplemental Notice No. 03-05
regarding the proposed designation for quiet technology aircraft
operating in the GCNP (hereinafter GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation). While one commenter believes that the FAA should scrap
the whole project, the other commenters offered a range of opinions and
recommendations on the proposal. These comments and the FAA responses
are discussed below. The docket also contains 111 comments that had
been submitted to the original 1996 NPRM Notice No. 96-15. The FAA
responded to these comments on the 1996 NPRM in the 2003 SNPRM.
Noise Efficiency
Lighter than Air Solar International, LLC and an anonymous
commenter recommended that the GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation should be based upon an absolute noise limit rather than a
noise value as a function of the number of passenger seats. Operators
should not be given an ``efficiency bonus'' for aircraft that are
capable of carrying more passengers.
FAA Response
The FAA finds that the noise efficiency concept (larger aircraft
with more passenger seats are allowed to generate more noise per
aircraft, but less noise per passenger) exhibits all of the desired
attributes for the designation of reasonably achievable requirements
for aircraft to be considered as employing GCNP quiet aircraft
technology for purposes of Section 804(a) of the Air Tour Act. The
concept is technically sound, as it takes into account aircraft design,
flight configuration, acoustic characteristics, productivity, and
economic reasonableness. The FAA believes that this GCNP quiet aircraft
technology standard, used in conjunction with other future actions,
will contribute towards substantial restoration of natural quiet at
GCNP.
Helicopter Noise Annoyance
The Sierra Club contends that helicopter noise is more annoying
than noise from fixed-wing aircraft and recommends that such noise
effects be considered.
FAA Response
Given that the objective is not to have audible aircraft noise in
large areas of the GCNP, the FAA finds the GCNP quiet aircraft
technology designation appropriately reflects the audibility of
commercial sightseeing operations using the different aircraft types.
For example, low frequency pressure pulses created by the spinning
motion of the rotor blades characterize helicopter noise. Audibility is
the ability of the human observer to detect an acoustic signal in the
presence of noise. For the GCNP setting, audibility is quantified by
the summation of the signal-to-noise ratios over the entire bandwidth
representing the range of human hearing. Thus, the method used to
measure advancement towards the goal of substantial restoration of
natural quiet is already very sensitive to the distinctive acoustic
characteristics of different aircraft types.
Airships
Lighter than Air Solar International, LLC recommends that the
definition for ``quiet technology aircraft'' be expanded to include
airships. An airship is defined in 14 CFR part 1 is ``an engine-driven
lighter than air aircraft that can be steered.'' This commenter asks
the FAA to afford airship operators the same opportunities as heavier-
than-air operators by enacting a more flexible and inclusive definition
of GCNP quiet aircraft technology.
FAA Response
The FAA sees no need to expand the definition, since it now simply
refers to ``aircraft subject to Sec. 93.301'', which includes
airships. Introducing airships for commercial air tour operations would
raise issues related to both noise characterization and operational
compatibility.
While there are presently no airship tour operations being
conducted over the Grand Canyon, the FAA does not intend to prohibit
this category of aircraft from due consideration, provided such
operations could be accommodated safely within the SFRA. As a matter of
policy, the FAA encourages industry to pursue research and development
of newer, innovative technology applications where possible. With
regard to this proposal, the FAA acknowledges that the application of
certain airship technologies might conceivably contribute toward the
goal of restoring natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. Although special
operational protocols would have to be developed to integrate airship
operations in the GCNP SFRA, it is feasible that such operations could
be safely accommodated in much the same manner as in other high-density
environments.
The FAA does not have noise certification requirements for
airships. Thus, FAA-approved noise data for these aircraft types do not
exist. The FAA has provided for this contingency both in the rule and
in an Advisory Circular (AC) that will accompany the promulgation of
this rule. The draft FAA AC-GCNP-1, ``Noise Levels for Aircraft used
for Commercial Operations in Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight
Rules Areas,'' states that where noise certification under 14 CFR part
36 was not required due to applicability, the noise level could be
provided to the FAA by the operator or
[[Page 16086]]
owner and considered to be an estimated noise certification level, as
long as the FAA can sufficiently substantiate that the noise level is
representative of the subject aircraft.
The scope of this rule does not include issues associated with any
potential change to commercial sightseeing flight protocols in the SFRA
with the introduction of airships. The FAA would thoroughly investigate
those operational issues if and when it receives an application for
operational specifications for an airship.
Relationship Between Audibility and Certificated Noise Levels
The NPS recommends that the FAA perform an analysis to ensure that
aircraft that the FAA has classified as GCNP quiet aircraft technology
based upon certificated noise levels are less audible than aircraft not
so classified. The NPS included with its comment a technical
memorandum, ``Relationship Between Audibility of Tour Aircraft and
Certification Data,'' prepared by the aviation environmental consulting
firm, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. (HMM&H).
FAA Response
To address the NPS concern, the FAA performed a comprehensive
assessment of the subject relationship utilizing the capabilities of
the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.2. The FAA finds that
the designation of reasonably achievable GCNP quiet aircraft technology
correlates sufficiently with audibility to assist the FAA and NPS in
fulfilling the National Park Overflights Act (Pub. L. 100-91).
INM 6.2 is the latest advancement in the FAA standard tool for the
calculation of aircraft noise. The shortcomings of the previous INM
version in predicting audibility became the impetus behind its
development. These shortcomings were discovered in the joint FAA and
NPS GCNP noise model validation study (``Aircraft Noise Validation
Study,'' HMM&H Report No. 295860.29, January 2003). The validation
study was described in the SNPRM Notice No. 03-05, and an electronic
copy is available through the NPS Web page at http://www.nps.gov/grca/overflights/documents/anmvs/index.htm.
The model improvements include:
(1) More aircraft types that are used in commercial sightseeing
operations; (2) spectral-based method for signal detection prediction;
and (3) a high-resolution terrain database to better address the effect
of terrain features on sound propagation. All of these improvements are
intended to improve the accuracy of the audibility calculations.
Audibility is defined as the ability for an attentive listener to
hear aircraft noise. Detectability is based on signal detection theory,
and depends on both the actual aircraft sound level (``signal'') and
the ambient sound level (background or ``noise''). As such, audibility
is based on many factors, including the listening environment one is
in. Conversely, detectability is a theoretical formulation based on a
significant body of research. For the purposes of INM modeling the
terms ``audibility'' and ``detectability'' are used interchangeably.
The detectability level (d') calculated in INM 6.2 is based on the
signal-to-noise ratio within one-third octave-band spectra for both the
signal and noise, using a 10log(d') value of 7 dB. There are three
parts to the calculation of audibility in INM 6.2: (1) Calculate the
detectability level for each one-third octave band of the signal for a
single contributing flight path segment; (2) Calculate the
detectability level for the overall signal for a single contributing
flight path segment; and (3) Calculate absolute or percentage of time a
signal is audible for a flight path.
In addition to using the improved INM 6.2, this assessment used the
aircraft operations from the aforementioned GCNP aircraft noise model
validation study. Time audible predictions were generated for all
aircraft types measured during the validation study, using operations
and one-third octave band spectral data consistent with the validation
study. The aircraft taken from the original validation study include
the Aerospatiale AS350, Bell B206B and Bell B206L helicopters, as well
as the Cessna C182, Cessna C207, and Vistaliner (DHC-6QP) propeller-
driven aircraft. For the purposes of this assessment, operational and
acoustic data were added for some GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation helicopters not operating at the time of the model
validation study. These include the MD600, MD900 and Eurocopter EC-130.
Predictions were summarized for all validation study measurement sites
and relationships between predicted time audible and noise
certification levels derived.
Just as was done by the consultant (HMM&H) for the preparation of
the NPS comment to the SNPRM Notice No. 03-05, the FAA evaluated the
ranking of aircraft audibility duration per available passenger seat
against the ranking of the noise certification level in A-weighted
decibels per available passenger seat. The FAA performed this
evaluation at the 39 measurement sites in the GCNP noise model
validation study (labeled as `1A', `2A', * * * to `9F' in the study).
Similar to what the NPS's consultant had done, the FAA generated
figures that compare the aircraft's margin of compliance with the GCNP
quiet aircraft technology designation to the length of time the
aircraft is audible, adjusting for the number of available passenger
seats.
The margin of compliance is the difference in decibels between the
aircraft's certificated noise level and the GCNP quiet aircraft
technology designation noise limit, using the appropriate equation in
the proposed rule. A negative margin of compliance means that the
certificated noise level is below the noise limit designating that
aircraft as GCNP quiet aircraft technology. In this evaluation, the
Vistaliner, EC-130, MD600 and MD900 all have negative margins of
compliance (GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation); while the
C182, C207, AS350, B206B, and B206L all have positive margins of
compliance (not GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation).
Figure 1 compares the margins of compliance to the average length
of time audible for the sample of aircraft at validation measurement
Site 7. While Site 7 has been singled out for display, the findings are
comparable to the other validation measurement sites. Site 7 included 6
microphone locations along Tanner Trail in the GCNP. The average
audibility duration value at the 6 microphone locations is plotted for
each of the aircraft types. The helicopters and fixed wing aircraft
that meet the GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation are less
audible than those aircraft that do not meet the designation.
[[Page 16087]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR05.004
The FAA analysis found that the GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation aircraft are less audible at all of the other model
validation measurements sites. Table 1 summarizes the findings. The
column on the far left of Table 1 contains the identity of the site
groups used in the model validation study. That study grouped the 39
microphone locations according to common geographic characteristics
that could lead to common levels of aircraft noise exposure. The
remaining columns group the average time audible values by aircraft
category (fixed wing or helicopter) and by compliance with the GCNP
quiet aircraft technology designation. A range of average audible
duration values is given when there is more than one aircraft model in
that specific category. For example, this analysis includes 2 fixed
wing aircraft that would not meet the GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation (C182 and C207), 3 helicopters that would not meet the
designation (AS350, B206B, and B206L), 3 GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation helicopters (EC130, MD600, and MD900), and one GCNP quiet
aircraft technology designation fixed wing aircraft (Vistaliner or
DHC6QP).
Table 1.--Comparison of Average Time Audible Per Seat (Minutes, Minimum-Maximum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed wing Helicopters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCNP quiet GCNP quiet
aircraft aircraft
Site group technology Other technology Other
designation designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1All............................................ No aircraft audible
-------------------------------------------------
2All............................................ No aircraft audible
-------------------------------------------------
3North.......................................... 0.0 0.5-0.8 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.1
3South.......................................... 0.0 0.3-0.5 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.2
4North.......................................... 0.1 0.7-1.4 0.5-0.6 0.6-1.0
4South.......................................... 0.0 0.6-1.1 0.3-0.4 0.4-1.1
5Rim............................................ 0.3 1.9-3.6 1.1-1.4 1.4-2.6
5Interior....................................... 0.1 1.0-2.0 0.2-0.5 0.2-1.4
6All............................................ 0.2 1.2-2.2 0.9-1.0 1.2-1.6
7All............................................ 0.2 1.2-2.1 0.9-1.0 1.2-1.8
8Mtn............................................ 0.1 1.3-2.3 0.8-0.9 0.9-1.7
8Ridge.......................................... 0.2 0.9-1.6 0.6-0.6 0.8-1.3
-------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16088]]
9Far............................................ No aircraft audible
-------------------------------------------------
9Near........................................... 0.3 1.8-3.2 1.0-1.2 1.4-2.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS's consultant also expressed concern that the A-weighting
used for the certification and the GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation may not correlate with time audible. The FAA examination
indicates there is some validity to this concern. In particular, the
Cessna 182 aircraft (C182), which has a relatively low certification
level but a high audible duration, seems to be an exception to the
relationships derived between time audible and certification level.
This is especially the case when considering the time audible on a per
seat basis. A possible reason for this is that the C182 has a lower
Blade Passage Frequency (BPF) than the other fixed wing aircraft. The
BPF of the C182 is 80 Hz, the BPF of the C207 is 125 Hz, and the BPF of
the DHC-6QP is 100 Hz. These low frequency tones have little influence
on the A-weighted levels, but propagate through the atmosphere without
significant reduction from atmospheric attenuation.
Since the helicopters in this evaluation have dominant main rotor
BPF tones even lower in frequency than does the C182, one would expect
to find a lack of correlation between the A-weighted noise levels for
these helicopters and their values of audibility duration. However this
does not seem the case as shown in the linear relationships derived by
the NPS's consultant. The reason is likely the auditory masking of
these lower frequency tones by the threshold of human hearing, which
slopes up significantly in the lower frequencies. Thus, even though the
helicopters generate a substantial amount of energy at the very low
frequencies, a large amount of that energy is below the threshold of
hearing.
The FAA concludes that while the correlation between ranking of
certification noise levels and ranking of audibility duration is
inexact, aircraft that meet the GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation are consistently less audible than those that do not.
Therefore it is reasonable to expect that replacing non-compliant
aircraft with larger, GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation
aircraft (e.g., replace a Cessna 207 with a Vistaliner or replace a
B206L with an EC-130) should produce marked improvement toward
substantial restoration of natural quiet.
Addressing Selectable Noise Reduction Technologies
The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) raised concerns that
since the FAA first proposed basing the GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation upon noise certification data, manufacturers have
introduced new selectable (or automated) helicopter noise reduction
technologies. AIA is concerned that exclusive use of only the reference
noise conditions will discourage the application of helicopter noise
reduction innovations gained through these new selectable technologies.
FAA Response
The FAA envisions that it could accept noise levels derived from
selectable noise reduction technologies in the event that the noise
certification regulations are amended to accommodate such a concept.
The noise certification regulations, 14 CFR part 36, are based on
standard reference conditions designed to acquire noise levels
representing the noisiest flight configurations. Technical procedures
do not currently exist that address selectable noise reduction
technologies. A technical working group on aircraft noise under the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is addressing
selectable noise reduction technology. This technical group, which is
made up of international regulators, aircraft manufactures and the
airline industry, will explore concepts that may lead to changes in the
noise certification scheme. The work program for such an activity under
ICAO usually takes 3-6 years to bring to fruition.
Economic Consequences to Indirect Entities
AIA and the Helicopter Association International (HAI) expressed a
concern that the proposed rule applies to a very narrow application of
commercialized air tour operators in the GCNP, but that it has broader
implications upon helicopter manufacturing and operating industries.
AIA and HAI claims that local jurisdictions, both domestic and foreign,
could attempt to apply the quiet technology designation as criteria for
use restriction. Such restrictions could result in significant costs to
aircraft operators not linked in any way to the air tour industry. AIA
and HAI recommend that the FAA should assess these costs.
Alternatively, AIA and HAI recommend that the FAA adopt terminology
that specifically narrows the quiet technology designation to that
subset of aircraft for which it is intended. Both recommend replacing
``quiet technology designation'' with ``GCNP aircraft quiet air tour
designation.'' AIA suggests that without this terminology change the
potential for economic implications could be ``both substantial and
adverse to the helicopter manufacturing and operating industries.''
FAA Response
The FAA appreciates the concerns expressed by AIA and HAI, but
questions the likelihood that non-airport proprietor State and local
governments would assert such authority. It is well settled that the
FAA has exclusive sovereignty over and authority to regulate use of the
navigable air space. Actions by State and local governments to use
their police powers to regulate aircraft overflights would be federally
preempted. Nonetheless, to minimize any possible unintended adverse
consequences that could result from the proposed ``quiet technology
designation'' terminology the FAA has changed the phrase ``quiet
technology designation'' to ``GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation'' in all places that it is used in the rule. This
terminology change will correctly limit the scope of the rule to air
tour aircraft operating over GCNP, in accordance with the plain
language of Section 804 of the Air Tour Act, and eliminate any need to
analyze the costs of possible unintended adverse consequences. This
more precise terminology will also help to emphasize the scope of this
final rule
[[Page 16089]]
and its relationship to quiet technology requirements at other national
parks under other provisions of the Air Tour Act.
Helicopter Quiet Air Tour Designation Correspondence to the Flyover
Condition
AIA states that the U.S. helicopter industry is disadvantaged by
the exclusive use of the flyover certification condition as the flight
profile for gauging the GCNP quiet aircraft technology. AIA claims that
U.S. noise research has not concentrated on this flight condition for
achieving noise reduction and thus makes this approach inappropriate.
FAA Response
The FAA finds the use of the flyover condition from noise
certification best matches the primary flight operation by helicopters
in commercial sightseeing operations in the Grand Canyon. The flyover
condition is the most basic reference flight profile for helicopters as
defined in both 14 CFR part 36 Appendix H and Appendix J (equivalent to
ICAO Annex 16 Chapters 8 and 11 helicopter noise certification
standards, respectively). Since the establishment of the Appendix J
(Chapter 11) noise certification procedures for helicopters under 7000
pounds, numerous helicopters have been certificated at only the flyover
condition, including most U.S. manufactured small helicopters.
Therefore, the FAA believes it is appropriate that such an openly
available and highly reliable noise data source be utilized and
incorporated into the GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation
helicopter limits.
Definition of ``Passenger Seat''
AIA and HAI find that the proposed rule does not define ``number of
passenger seats.'' These commenters recommend that FAA define the
number of passenger seats to mean the maximum number of passenger seats
for which the individual aircraft is certified.
FAA Response
The FAA agrees to define the number of passenger seats as the
``number of passenger seats for which an individual aircraft is
configured.''
Helicopter Weight Scaling
AIA, HAI, and AgustaWestland state that the proposed helicopter
noise limit does not appropriately reflect the scaling of noise levels
with weight when considering helicopter technology that is reasonably
achievable. These commenters recommend that the slope of 12 log should
be incorporated rather than the 10 log to account for higher seating
capacity and growth versions of existing helicopter designs.
FAA Response
The FAA finds the proposed GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation for helicopters to be appropriate. It was derived from the
generally accepted common scaling with maximum gross weight, such that
noise level increases 3 decibels for every doubling of aircraft weight
(equating to 10 log slope). For example, the ICAO and FAA helicopter
noise certification requirements for the takeoff, flyover, and approach
noise conditions all use 3 decibels per doubling of weight to define
the noise limits. The commenters' proposal to change it to 12 log seems
designed to classify a certain helicopter, which is not currently used
for commercial sightseeing, as meeting the GCNP quiet aircraft
technology designation. Although the AgustaWestland EH-101 helicopter
may have been built with some noise reduction technology, there is no
evidence to show that it was built with the aim of meeting the rigorous
standard needed to assist in the substantial restoration of natural
quiet in GCNP. As such, the FAA rejects the recommendation, as it would
weaken the effort towards the restoration of natural quiet.
Noise Limits for Fixed Wing Aircraft
AIA noted that the GCNP quiet aircraft technology limits for fixed
wing aircraft do not account for changes to the small propeller-driven
airplane noise certification scheme as found in the latest amendments
to Appendix F and Appendix G of 14 CFR part 36.
FAA Response
The FAA agrees with AIA to update the appropriate rule language to
reflect the technical changes made in 14 CFR part 36 amendment 22
(October 13, 1999). Amendment 22 replaced the 4-foot height microphone
with a ground plane installation for small propeller-driven airplane
noise certification tests. The change in microphone height affects the
signal received. As such, the rule language of Part 93, Appendix A
should be revised to account for the part 36 amendment noise level and
to read as follows (added text is underlined):
``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 or 77 dB, depending on the 14 CFR part 36 amendment noise level,
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 noise limit for propeller-driven
airplanes with three or more passenger seats can be calculated by the
formula:
LAmax(G) = 74 + 10log( PAX seats/2) dB for certifications
obtained under 14 CFR part 36 Amendment 21 or earlier;
LAmax(G) = 77 + 10log( PAX seats/2) dB for certifications
obtained under 14 CFR part 36 Amendment 22 or later.''
Comments on Implementation
Through this action, the FAA designates a standard for GCNP quiet
aircraft technology that applies to certain aircraft in commercial air
tour operations over GCNP. Under the provisions of Section 804 of the
Air Tour Act, the FAA will address the establishment of routes or
corridors for commercial air tour operations that employ quiet aircraft
technology in subsequent rulemaking in consultation with the NPS and
the NPOAG ARC. Since the ultimate objective is to determine the role of
the GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation in achieving substantial
restoration of natural quiet, the FAA requested specific comments to
six questions. This section summarizes the specific comments made in
response to each question below. These comments will be considered in
subsequent rulemaking in consultation with the NPS and the NPOAG ARC,
as provided in Section 804.
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?
The NPS believes that the implementation of noise efficient
aircraft alone will not achieve substantial restoration of natural
quiet. Achieving the goal will require some type of use restriction.
Since audibility is the measure of natural quiet in GCNP, the NPS
recommends that the sound levels produced by quiet technology aircraft
be analyzed in terms of audibility, rather than certificated noise
levels, to ensure that the aircraft is less audible than non-quiet
technology aircraft.
Lighter Than Air Solar International, LLC suggests that an absolute
noise level be used rather than noise efficiency.
[[Page 16090]]
AIA, HAI, and the United States Air Tour Association (USATA)
support the proposed noise efficiency approach and the use of
certificated noise levels. AIA and HAI also recommended some technical
changes to this aspect of the rule. The FAA addressed these technical
recommendations in the previous section of this document.
The Sierra Club acknowledges that the noise efficiency approach
makes sense, i.e. to allow aircraft that give more passengers tour
rides to make more noise, as long as larger quieter aircraft lead to
fewer flights. The Sierra Club also acknowledges that certificated
noise levels are the most readily available substantiated data but
questions whether the ranking of certification noise data will give the
same results in the rank of audibility.
The Friends of Grand Canyon support the proposed noise efficiency
approach only if it will substantially reduce the number of flights.
2. What provisions should be made for changes in technology that
result in source noise reduction and/or increased noise efficient
aircraft designs?
Lighter Than Air Solar International, LLC suggests that the
definition of quiet technology aircraft be expanded to include airships
to accommodate for future innovations in both noise reduction
technology and noise efficient aircraft designs.
AIA, HAI, and USATA recommend that incentives for research and
development into source noise reduction technologies be made available
to both manufacturers and others for developing Supplemental Type
Certificates (STC). The incentives could take the form of research
grants or directed appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). As modifications and STCs are developed that
reduce source noise and/or increase noise efficient aircraft designs,
operators of the modified aircraft would be allowed increased
operations within the GCNP.
The Sierra Club comments that some incentive is appropriate for
retrofitting existing aircraft if it does not compromise the
restoration of natural quiet.
3. What economic and operational incentives should be considered in
order to achieve the transition to quieter aircraft and how should be
the quiet technology designation be used in the establishment of
incentives?
AIA favors direct U.S. government support for research and
development of flyover source noise reduction technologies to assist
U.S. manufacturers in developing new helicopters or modifying current
helicopters.
HAI recommends tax incentive to operators who purchased quiet
technology equipment, exemption to all caps and curfews, and route
expansions for all quiet technology aircraft. Similarly, USATA and
Lighter Than Air Solar International, LL recommend relief from all caps
and curfews, incentive routes, low-cost federal loans, over fee rebates
or investment tax credits or elimination of overflight fees altogether.
The Sierra Club opposes opening incentive routes through existing
flight free zones. This commenter supports operational incentives that
allocate larger numbers of flights to aircraft that have lower noise
signatures without increasing the overall number of flights, unless the
flights are substantially quieter.
The Grand Canyon National Park Service (GCNPS) opposes any increase
in the total number of operations as an incentive for conversion to
noise-efficient aircraft. Such an incentive would be counterproductive
to the efforts to achieve the mandate of substantial restoration of
natural quiet.
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?
USATA and Lighter Than Air Solar International, LLC support a
``flexible'' cap that would include no cap for quiet technology
designation aircraft. USATA also suggests that the cap should be raised
for operators who use approved noise abatement flight procedures.
The Sierra Club objects to the idea of ``flexible'' cap that may
allow an increase in number of flights with the introduction of quiet
technology designation aircraft. This commenter does not believe there
is any reason to treat the GCNP overflights differently from other park
limits, such as number of rooms, parking places, modes of
transportation, access to trails, and boating permits, which are all
capped.
The GCNPS endorses noise budgets as one form of ``flexible'' cap.
Under a noise budget, operators would be allocated a quantity of noise
(``decibel-minutes'') equivalent to the amount and duration of noise
each operation created during the 1997-98 base year, which they can use
according to their operational needs.
One commenter suggested that rather than phasing out louder
aircraft, the FAA should let the operators phase in the quieter ones.
5. Should growth be tied to an incentive system for existing
operators to convert their fleet to quiet technology?
Grand Canyon Trust (The Trust) and Friends of the Grand Canyon do
not support the use of incentives, nor do they believe that there
should be any allowances for air tour operational growth. The Trust
opposes duplicate routes connecting the same two points (with one
incentive route and one non-incentive route), as this would spread the
noise over a wider area.
Sierra Club supports growth tied to conversion to quiet aircraft as
long as aircraft noise continues to fall below the 1975 levels.
HAI and USATA believe that the mechanisms they had suggested in
response to Question 4 should provide the affected operators with the
necessary incentives to convert to quieter aircraft.
Lighter Than Air Solar International, LLC favors incentives for
operators' investment in quiet technology in the form of expanded
operational rewards (allocations). The criteria for such rewards should
also be based on decreased noise levels and not other, non-related
criteria, such as seniority or company size.
The NPS and GCNPS both believe that growth incentives at the
expense of substantial restoration of natural quiet are contrary to the
mandate. Some limited growth in number of operations might be possible
under a system of partial redistribution of reverted allocations.
6. What operational limitations (phase-out, expanded curfews, noise
budgets, quota system, etc.) should be considered, and how should the
quiet technology designation be used in the setting of the limitations?
The Trust and the Sierra Club support phase-out, expanded curfews,
and an added noise cap approach for operational limitations. The Trust
recommends that the caps for the number of aircraft should also apply
to the number of flights. The Trust suggests that the annual number of
flights decline until they are stabilized at the 1975 levels. This
could be achieved by a 5% decline in flights per year over the next 15
or 20 years in the Dragon Corridor. The Trust supports the quiet
technology designation as the noise standard to be applied to all
commercial tour aircraft at the Grand Canyon. The Trust wants it
instituted for the east end of the GCNP by 2007 and the entire GCNP by
2010. The Trust seeks to abolish the Dragon Corridor and asks that the
Zuni Corridor become ``quiet aircraft only.'' In addition, the Sierra
Club suggests a sliding scale
[[Page 16091]]
incentive to reward incremental noise reduction efforts.
The Friends of the Grand Canyon seek a cap on the number of
passengers to assure the noise benefit and gains from reduced flights
materialize. Such visitor caps have existed for 3 decades for ground
visitors.
HAI and USATA endorse the elimination of all caps and curfews for
quiet technology operators. HAI finds that a phase-out is unnecessary,
as other operational incentives will cause an increase in quiet
technology aircraft. HAI supports tax relief for the development of
noise abatement techniques and low noise operational techniques that
can be incorporated into the aircraft flight manual.
Lighter Than Air Solar International, LLC (11) support a
``gradual'' phase-out and continuing periodic FAA noise reviews.
The NPS and GCNPS have concluded that substantial restoration of
natural quiet requires supplemental operational limitations, i.e.,
reduced flights, quieter equipment for the total passenger carrying
capability and accountability for number of flights. The NPS and GCNPS
support a market-based flight allocation system for the benefit of
natural quiet.
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. section 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. 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).
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule:
(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, is not economically
significant under Executive Order 12866, and is significant as defined
in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(3) will not reduce barriers to international trade; and (4) does not
impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or
on the private sector.
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 the regulation.
This final rule does not require any action by operators, as it
simply identifies which aircraft meet or do not meet the GCNP quiet
aircraft technology designation. Further, this rule does not relieve
operators of the currently established operational limitations. The
expected outcome is to have a minimal impact.
Comments
Two commenters, AIA and HAI, submitted comments on the economic
consequences to the proposal that have been discussed earlier in this
final rule.
The FAA agrees with AIA and HAI and has changed the phrase ``quiet
technology designation'' to ``GCNP quiet aircraft technology
designation'' in all places that it is used in the rule. This change
will eliminate any need to analyze the costs of possible unintended
adverse consequences to entities not subject to this action and clarify
how this final rule relates to quiet technology requirements under
Section 805 and other sections of the Air Tour Act applicable to
national parks other than GCNP.
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 designation for
aircraft use in GCNP air tour operations but does not impose any
requirements. This action does not impose any requirements to use
aircraft that meet the GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation. This
action does not grant any relief from current GCNP air tour
requirements if an operator uses aircraft that meets the designation.
Therefore, the FAA does not expect this rule to have any cost impact on
small entities that provide GCNP air tours. Consequently, the FAA
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entity GCNP 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 determined that
this action will have a minimal impact and, therefore, has determined
that this rule will not result in any unnecessary obstacles to the
foreign commerce of 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
[[Page 16092]]
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 an expenditure of $100 million or more (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.'' The FAA currently uses an
inflation-adjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu of $100 million.
This action 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 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment.
Environmental Review
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, the FAA has determined that
this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under
section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This
action was categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1D, Appendix 4,
Paragraph 4.j (now Paragraph 312d in FAA Order 1050.1E), which covers
regulations ``excluding those which if implemented may cause a
significant impact on the human environment.'' This rule establishes
quiet technology designations for aircraft operating in GCNP. It does
not impose a phase-out or any alteration of any air tour operator's
fleet of aircraft. It 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 action alone has no impact on
substantial restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP. Any environmental
and economic impacts will depend on other future actions yet to be
defined. Accordingly, this action will not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. In addition, the
FAA has determined that there are no ``extraordinary circumstances''
associated with the proposed action that would otherwise require the
preparation of an EA or EIS.
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. The SNPRM Notice No. 03-05 described
consultations with Indian tribal governments about this rule and taken
their concerns into account. The FAA determined that additional
consultations were not necessary because this action 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 this action. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
0
For reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation Administration amends
part 93, in chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS
0
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.
0
2. Section 93.303 is amended to add the definitions in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 93.303 Definitions.
* * * * *
GCNP quiet aircraft technology designation 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.
Number of passenger seats means the number of passenger seats for
which an individual aircraft is configured.
* * * * *
0
3. Appendix A is added to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart U of Part 93--GCNP Quiet Aircraft Technology
Designation
This appendix contains procedures for determining the GCNP quiet
aircraft technology designation 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.
Aircraft Noise Limit for GCNP Quiet Aircraft Technology
Designation
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 a
seating configuration of two or fewer passenger seats, increasing at
3 dB per doubling of the number of passenger seats for helicopters
having a seating configuration of three or more passenger seats. The
noise limit for helicopters with three or more passenger seats 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 a
seating configuration of two or fewer passenger seats, increasing at
3 dB per doubling of the number of passenger seats for helicopters
having a seating configuration of three or more passenger seats. The
noise limit for helicopters with three or more passenger seats 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. F35.201(c), the limit is 69 dB for
airplanes having a seating configuration of two or fewer passenger
seats, increasing at 3 dB per doubling of the number of passenger
seats for airplanes having a seating configuration of three or more
passenger seats. The noise limit for propeller-driven airplanes with
three or more passenger seats 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 or 77 dB, depending on 14 CFR part 36 amendment level, for
airplanes having a seating configuration of two or fewer passenger
seats, increasing at 3 dB per doubling of the number of passenger
seats for airplanes having a seating configuration of three or more
passenger seats. The noise limit for propeller-driven airplanes with
three or more passenger seats can be calculated by the formula:
[[Page 16093]]
LAmax(G) = 74 + 10log( PAX seats/2) dB for certifications
obtained under 14 CFR part 36, Amendment 21 or earlier;
LAmax(G) = 77 + 10log( PAX seats/2) dB for certifications
obtained under 14 CFR part 36, Amendment 22 or later.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 22, 2005.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-6074 Filed 3-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P