Delayed Implementation of the Airspace Modification Final Rule for the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rule Area and Flight Free Zones, 9439-9441 [06-1759]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
14, 2006.
Michael Zielinski,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06–1595 Filed 2–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. FAA–2001–8690]
RIN 2120–AI71
Delayed Implementation of the
Airspace Modification Final Rule for
the Grand Canyon National Park
Special Flight Rule Area and Flight
Free Zones
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action stays the effective
date for the implementation of the
Airspace Modification final rule for the
east end of the Grand Canyon National
Park (GCNP) until February 20, 2011. In
a case decided in August 2002, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit returned the GCNP
rules to the FAA for further
consideration of ways to ensure the
substantial restoration of natural quiet.
After several attempts in resolving the
routes issue in the east end, in February
2003, the FAA stayed the east end
routes and airspace changes until
February 20, 2006. Because of an
ongoing mediation action, which
involves consideration of the routes in
the east end of the GCNP, the FAA finds
it necessary to extend the date for the
effectiveness of the Airspace
Modification rule for the east end until
February 20, 2011.
DATES: The effective date of sections (a)
and (b) of 14 CFR 93.305, stayed until
February 20, 2006 (68 FR 9496,
February 27, 2003), is further stayed
until February 20, 2011. This rule was
originally published at 61 FR 69330 on
December 31, 1996, and amended April
4, 2000.
ADDRESSES: You can get an electronic
copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of
Transportation’s electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page
(https://dms.dot.gov/search);
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:05 Feb 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
(3) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending 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 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 https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene Kirkendall, Flight Standards
Service (AFS–200), Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591;
Telephone: (202) 267–7701.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 you 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
https://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.cfm.
Background
On April 4, 2000, the FAA published
two final rules, the Modification of the
Dimensions of the Grand Canyon
National Park Special Flight Rules Area
and Flight Free Zones (Airspace
Modification), and the Commercial Air
Tour Limitation in the Grand Canyon
National Park Special Flight Rules Area
(Commercial Air Tour Limitation). See
65 FR 17736 and 65 FR 17708; April 4,
2000. The FAA also published
concurrently a notice of availability of
Commercial Routes for the Grand
Canyon National Park (Routes Notice).
See 65 FR 17698, April 4, 2000. The
Commercial Air Tour Limitations final
rule was implemented, effective May 4,
2000. The Airspace Modification final
rule and the routes set forth in the
Notice of Availability were scheduled to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
9439
become effective December 1, 2000. The
Final Supplemental Environmental
Assessment for Special Flight Rules in
the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National
Park (SEA) was completed on February
22, 2000, and the Finding of No
Significant Impact was issued on
February 25, 2000.
Following the publication of the final
rules, the United States Air Tour
Association (USATA) and seven air tour
operators petitioned the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit to review the rules.
See USATA v. FAA (Docket No. 00–
1201, May 8, 2000). During the course
of this litigation, the USATA raised new
safety concerns regarding the new
routes in the east end of the GCNP
SFRA. To propose a route that would
meet the goal of noise reduction while
providing a safe air tour route, the FAA
first delayed implementation of the
routes until December 28, 2000
(November 20, 2000; 65 FR 69848).
Subsequently, the FAA delayed the
implementation of the routes until April
1, 2001. (66 FR 2001, January 4, 2001).
Finally, the FAA decided to
implement the modifications to the
route structure of the GCNP SFRA in
two phases. First, on April 19, 2001, the
FAA implemented the routes and
airspace in the west-end (defined as all
areas of the SFRA west of the Dragon
corridor) of the GCNP SFRA. Also, on
April 19, 2001, the SFRA boundary in
the eastern part of the GCNP SFRA over
the Navajo Nation lands was extended
5 miles to the east. Second, the route
structure on the east-end (Dragon
Corridor and all airspace east of that
Corridor) in the GCNP SFRA was stayed
until December 1, 2001, to enable the
FAA and NPS to determine what
changes should be made in the east end
of GCNP. In December 2001, the east
end route structure was again stayed
until February 20, 2003 (66 FR 63293,
December 5, 2001), and in February
2003 the route structure was again
stayed until February 20, 2006. Thus,
the routes now flown remain almost
exactly as that shown under Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50–
2, with only slight modification to
certain entry and exit points.
On August 20, 2002, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit concluded that the FAA’s use of
an ‘‘average annual day’’ in lieu of ‘‘any
given day,’’ in measuring substantial
restoration of natural quiet at GCNP
‘‘appears inconsistent with both the
[National] Park Service’s definition of
the term and the premise on which that
definition was based.’’ See USATA v.
FAA, 298 F.3d 997, August 16, 2002 (DC
Circuit, 2002). The court also
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
9440
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
determined that the FAA’s explanation
for excluding non-tour aircraft in its
noise modeling was inadequate and that
the FAA had not provided sufficient
evidence to conclude that noise from
non-tour aircraft did not impact the
calculations of substantial restoration of
natural quiet achieved in GCNP. The
court remanded the matter to the FAA
for further proceedings consistent with
its opinion.
The FAA and NPS now have
established a dispute resolution process
with the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution and
are involving stakeholders of the GCNP
to develop measures to fulfill the
National Park Overflights Act. This
process is not complete, and we believe
it could take some time to resolve all of
the issues and complete the necessary
environmental review and an additional
rulemaking process. Thus it is necessary
to again extend the effective date of the
April 2000 final rule airspace
modifications as they apply to the east
end of the GCNP. That date now is
extended until February 20, 2011.
The FAA notes that the changes to the
routes and airspace in the west-end of
GCNP finalized in the April 2000 rule
have been in effect since April 19, 2001.
Those changes were implemented to
further the goal of substantial
restoration of natural quiet in GCNP.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Immediate Effective Date
The FAA finds that good cause exists
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this rule to
become final upon issuance. The FAA
notes that the delay only affects the east
end of the GCNP SFRA. Changes to the
west end have been in effect since April
19, 2001.
Environmental Review
In March 2001, the FAA completed a
written reevaluation (WR) of the
February 22, 2000 Final Supplemental
Environmental Assessment (FSEA) for
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of
Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP).
The WR examined the potential
environmental impacts associated with
a phased implementation of the
Airspace rule and the Commercial Air
Tour Route Modifications described in
the February 2000 FSEA. This phased
approach involved implementation of
the agency’s ‘‘preferred’’ alternative for
airspace and air tour route structures as
described in the February 2000 FSEA
for the GCNP SFRA west of Dragon
Corridor. Since no changes to the
western portion of the GCNP SFRA as
described in the FSEA occurred, the
impact evaluation for the ‘‘preferred’’
alternative contained in the FSEA
remained valid for the stage-one
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:05 Feb 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
airspace and routes implementation at
the west-end of the GCNP SFRA. The
WR also analyzed the planned
implementation of the stage-one
airspace, routes, and route
modifications on the east-end and
determined that they were not
significant changes from the plans
analyzed under the ‘‘no action’’
alternative in the February 2000 FSEA.
Therefore, the FAA determined that the
proposed route revisions to the SFAR
50–2 route structure conformed to the
‘‘no action’’ alternative analyzed in the
FSEA. The FAA determined that the
data and analyses contained in the
February 2000 FSEA were still
substantially valid and all pertinent
conditions and requirements of the prior
approval have or would be met in the
April 2001 action.
While the delayed implementation of
the east-end route and airspace structure
lessens the percentage of the GCNP
substantially restored to natural quiet, it
is only a temporary delay. In addition,
given that the majority of the revised
routes and airspace for GCNP were
implemented during phase one, the
phased implementation process resulted
in a gain of substantial restoration of
natural quiet for GCNP as described in
the February 2000 FSEA.
Therefore, for the above reasons and
under to FAA Order 1050.1E, Paragraph
515, the FAA determined that the
contents of the Final Supplemental
Environmental Assessment and its
conclusions issued on February 22,
2000 were still valid. Additionally, the
FAA found that the previous Section
106 Determination of No Adverse Effect
to Traditional Cultural Properties
identified by Native Americans issued
for the FSEA was also still valid. Copies
of the written reevaluation were placed
in the public docket for the April 2001
rulemaking, were circulated to
interested parties, and were available for
inspection at the same time and location
as the April 2001 final rule. The
findings of the March 2001 WR remain
valid for this final rule extending the
April 2001 Airspace Rule.
Economic Analysis
The economic analysis completed for
the final rule published April 4, 2000
evaluates the east-end and the west-end
operations separately since these are
distinct markets. This action does not
affect the April 19, 2001
implementation of the west-end
airspace structure, and the economic
analysis from the April 4, 2000 final
rule remains valid. At this time the FAA
is delaying further the implementation
of the east-end routes. The FAA does
not consider that this rulemaking effort
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
imposes any costs on the public since it
merely extends the stay of effective date
for the east end of GCNP. Commercial
air tour operators will continue to use
established air tour routes. Benefits from
reduced aircraft noise in the east-end of
GCNP, however, will be delayed. This
rulemaking is not a final action. If the
agency takes a final action that is
different than that published on April 4,
2000, then it may be necessary to
complete a revised economic
evaluation.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Determination and Assessment
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of 1980 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, organization, and government
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-forprofit 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 final rule will have only a de
minimus cost impact on the certificate
holders. Thus, under to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
Federal Aviation Administration
certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act (TAA) 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
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
considered unnecessary obstacles. The
TAA also requires consideration of
international standards and where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. In addition, consistent
with the Administration’s belief in the
general superiority and desirability of
free trade, it is the policy of the
Administration to remove or diminish
to the extent feasible, barriers to
international trade, including both
barriers affecting the export of American
goods and services to foreign countries
and barriers affecting the import of
foreign goods and services into the
United States. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this final rule under
the above Act and policy, and has
determined that it will have only a
domestic impact and therefore no effect
on any trade-sensitive activity.
Federalism Implications
This amendment will 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 12612,
it is determined that this amendment
would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of
1995 (the Act) 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 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 final rule does not contain such
a mandate. The requirements of Title II
of the Act, therefore, do not apply.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Air traffic control, Airports,
Navigation (air).
Adoption of Amendments
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends 14 CFR
part 93 as follows:
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:05 Feb 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC
RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC
PATTERNS
1. The authority citation for part 93
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120, 44101,44111, 44701, 44709, 44711,
44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,
46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506–46507,
47122, 47508, 47528–47531.
2. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of section
93.305, published on December 31, 1996
(61 FR 69330), then delayed on April 4,
2000 (65 FR 17736), and most recently
stayed until February 20, 2006 (68 FR
9496, February 27, 2003), are further
stayed until February 20, 2011.
I
Issued in Washington, DC on February 17,
2006.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06–1759 Filed 2–21–06; 4:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
15 CFR Parts 742 and 746
[Docket No. 051230351–5351–01]
RIN 0694–AD68
Clarification to the Export
Administration Regulations; General
Order to Implement the Syria
Accountability and Lebanese
Sovereignty Act
Bureau of Industry and
Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and
Security publishes this final rule to
amend the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) by adding two crossreferences to the General Order
Implementing the Syria Accountability
and Lebanese Sovereignty Act (Syria
General Order). This amendment
clarifies that provisions of the Syria
General Order set forth special controls
on exports and reexports to Syria and
supersede other provisions in the EAR
specific to Syria.
DATES: This rule is effective February
24, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
the Paperwork Reduction Act burden
estimates or any other aspect of the
collection of information affected by
this rule to David Rostker, OMB Desk
Officer, by e-mail at
david_rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to
202–395–7285; with a copy to the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
9441
Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of
Industry and Security at one of the
addresses below. Send comments
concerning any other aspect of this rule
via e-mail to rpd2@bis.doc.gov, via fax
to 202–482–3355 or to the Bureau of
Industry and Security, Office of
Exporter Services, Regulatory Policy
Division, Room H2017, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
Please refer to RIN 0694–AD68 in all
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila Quarterman, Bureau of Industry
and Security, Office of Exporter
Services, Regulatory Policy Division, by
phone at 202–482–2440 or by fax 202–
482–3355.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 14, 2004 the Bureau of
Industry and Security issued General
Order Implementing Syria
Accountability and Lebanese
Sovereignty Act of 2003 (Syria General
Order) consistent with Executive Order
13338 of May 11, 2004. Pursuant to the
Syria General Order, exports and
reexports of all items subject to the
Export Administration Regulations
(EAR) (15 CFR 730 et seq.), except food
and medicine classified as EAR99 and
‘‘deemed export’’ and ‘‘deemed
reexport’’ of EAR99 technology or
source code, require a license to Syria
(medicine is defined in Part 772 of the
EAR). All license applications for
exports or reexports to Syria are subject
to a general policy of denial, other than
particular transactions described in the
General Order.
The Syria General Order is set forth in
Supplement No. 1 to Part 736 of the
EAR as General Order No. 2. In response
to a suggestion by exporters, this final
rule clarifies that the Syria General
Order sets forth special controls on
exports and reexports to Syria and
supersedes other provisions in the EAR
specific to Syria by adding two cross
references to the Syria General Order in
parts 742 and 746 of the EAR.
Specifically, this final rule adds a new
paragraph (e) to section 742.9 ‘‘Antiterrorism: Syria’’, and adds new section
746.9, ‘‘Syria,’’ to part 746—Embargoes
and Other Special Controls.
Although the Export Administration
Act expired on August 20, 2001, the
President, through Executive Order
13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001
Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the
Notice of August 2, 2005, 70 FR 45273
(August 5, 2005), has continued the
Export Administration Regulations in
effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act.
E:\FR\FM\24FER1.SGM
24FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9439-9441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1759]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. FAA-2001-8690]
RIN 2120-AI71
Delayed Implementation of the Airspace Modification Final Rule
for the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rule Area and Flight
Free Zones
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action stays the effective date for the implementation of
the Airspace Modification final rule for the east end of the Grand
Canyon National Park (GCNP) until February 20, 2011. In a case decided
in August 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit returned the GCNP rules to the FAA for further consideration of
ways to ensure the substantial restoration of natural quiet. After
several attempts in resolving the routes issue in the east end, in
February 2003, the FAA stayed the east end routes and airspace changes
until February 20, 2006. Because of an ongoing mediation action, which
involves consideration of the routes in the east end of the GCNP, the
FAA finds it necessary to extend the date for the effectiveness of the
Airspace Modification rule for the east end until February 20, 2011.
DATES: The effective date of sections (a) and (b) of 14 CFR 93.305,
stayed until February 20, 2006 (68 FR 9496, February 27, 2003), is
further stayed until February 20, 2011. This rule was originally
published at 61 FR 69330 on December 31, 1996, and amended April 4,
2000.
ADDRESSES: You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending 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 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
https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Kirkendall, Flight Standards
Service (AFS-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-7701.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 you 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 https://
www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.cfm.
Background
On April 4, 2000, the FAA published two final rules, the
Modification of the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National Park
Special Flight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones (Airspace
Modification), and the Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the Grand
Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area (Commercial Air Tour
Limitation). See 65 FR 17736 and 65 FR 17708; April 4, 2000. The FAA
also published concurrently a notice of availability of Commercial
Routes for the Grand Canyon National Park (Routes Notice). See 65 FR
17698, April 4, 2000. The Commercial Air Tour Limitations final rule
was implemented, effective May 4, 2000. The Airspace Modification final
rule and the routes set forth in the Notice of Availability were
scheduled to become effective December 1, 2000. The Final Supplemental
Environmental Assessment for Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of
Grand Canyon National Park (SEA) was completed on February 22, 2000,
and the Finding of No Significant Impact was issued on February 25,
2000.
Following the publication of the final rules, the United States Air
Tour Association (USATA) and seven air tour operators petitioned the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to
review the rules. See USATA v. FAA (Docket No. 00-1201, May 8, 2000).
During the course of this litigation, the USATA raised new safety
concerns regarding the new routes in the east end of the GCNP SFRA. To
propose a route that would meet the goal of noise reduction while
providing a safe air tour route, the FAA first delayed implementation
of the routes until December 28, 2000 (November 20, 2000; 65 FR 69848).
Subsequently, the FAA delayed the implementation of the routes until
April 1, 2001. (66 FR 2001, January 4, 2001).
Finally, the FAA decided to implement the modifications to the
route structure of the GCNP SFRA in two phases. First, on April 19,
2001, the FAA implemented the routes and airspace in the west-end
(defined as all areas of the SFRA west of the Dragon corridor) of the
GCNP SFRA. Also, on April 19, 2001, the SFRA boundary in the eastern
part of the GCNP SFRA over the Navajo Nation lands was extended 5 miles
to the east. Second, the route structure on the east-end (Dragon
Corridor and all airspace east of that Corridor) in the GCNP SFRA was
stayed until December 1, 2001, to enable the FAA and NPS to determine
what changes should be made in the east end of GCNP. In December 2001,
the east end route structure was again stayed until February 20, 2003
(66 FR 63293, December 5, 2001), and in February 2003 the route
structure was again stayed until February 20, 2006. Thus, the routes
now flown remain almost exactly as that shown under Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50-2, with only slight modification to
certain entry and exit points.
On August 20, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit concluded that the FAA's use of an ``average annual
day'' in lieu of ``any given day,'' in measuring substantial
restoration of natural quiet at GCNP ``appears inconsistent with both
the [National] Park Service's definition of the term and the premise on
which that definition was based.'' See USATA v. FAA, 298 F.3d 997,
August 16, 2002 (DC Circuit, 2002). The court also
[[Page 9440]]
determined that the FAA's explanation for excluding non-tour aircraft
in its noise modeling was inadequate and that the FAA had not provided
sufficient evidence to conclude that noise from non-tour aircraft did
not impact the calculations of substantial restoration of natural quiet
achieved in GCNP. The court remanded the matter to the FAA for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The FAA and NPS now have established a dispute resolution process
with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution and are
involving stakeholders of the GCNP to develop measures to fulfill the
National Park Overflights Act. This process is not complete, and we
believe it could take some time to resolve all of the issues and
complete the necessary environmental review and an additional
rulemaking process. Thus it is necessary to again extend the effective
date of the April 2000 final rule airspace modifications as they apply
to the east end of the GCNP. That date now is extended until February
20, 2011.
The FAA notes that the changes to the routes and airspace in the
west-end of GCNP finalized in the April 2000 rule have been in effect
since April 19, 2001. Those changes were implemented to further the
goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP.
Immediate Effective Date
The FAA finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this
rule to become final upon issuance. The FAA notes that the delay only
affects the east end of the GCNP SFRA. Changes to the west end have
been in effect since April 19, 2001.
Environmental Review
In March 2001, the FAA completed a written reevaluation (WR) of the
February 22, 2000 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (FSEA)
for Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park
(GCNP). The WR examined the potential environmental impacts associated
with a phased implementation of the Airspace rule and the Commercial
Air Tour Route Modifications described in the February 2000 FSEA. This
phased approach involved implementation of the agency's ``preferred''
alternative for airspace and air tour route structures as described in
the February 2000 FSEA for the GCNP SFRA west of Dragon Corridor. Since
no changes to the western portion of the GCNP SFRA as described in the
FSEA occurred, the impact evaluation for the ``preferred'' alternative
contained in the FSEA remained valid for the stage-one airspace and
routes implementation at the west-end of the GCNP SFRA. The WR also
analyzed the planned implementation of the stage-one airspace, routes,
and route modifications on the east-end and determined that they were
not significant changes from the plans analyzed under the ``no action''
alternative in the February 2000 FSEA. Therefore, the FAA determined
that the proposed route revisions to the SFAR 50-2 route structure
conformed to the ``no action'' alternative analyzed in the FSEA. The
FAA determined that the data and analyses contained in the February
2000 FSEA were still substantially valid and all pertinent conditions
and requirements of the prior approval have or would be met in the
April 2001 action.
While the delayed implementation of the east-end route and airspace
structure lessens the percentage of the GCNP substantially restored to
natural quiet, it is only a temporary delay. In addition, given that
the majority of the revised routes and airspace for GCNP were
implemented during phase one, the phased implementation process
resulted in a gain of substantial restoration of natural quiet for GCNP
as described in the February 2000 FSEA.
Therefore, for the above reasons and under to FAA Order 1050.1E,
Paragraph 515, the FAA determined that the contents of the Final
Supplemental Environmental Assessment and its conclusions issued on
February 22, 2000 were still valid. Additionally, the FAA found that
the previous Section 106 Determination of No Adverse Effect to
Traditional Cultural Properties identified by Native Americans issued
for the FSEA was also still valid. Copies of the written reevaluation
were placed in the public docket for the April 2001 rulemaking, were
circulated to interested parties, and were available for inspection at
the same time and location as the April 2001 final rule. The findings
of the March 2001 WR remain valid for this final rule extending the
April 2001 Airspace Rule.
Economic Analysis
The economic analysis completed for the final rule published April
4, 2000 evaluates the east-end and the west-end operations separately
since these are distinct markets. This action does not affect the April
19, 2001 implementation of the west-end airspace structure, and the
economic analysis from the April 4, 2000 final rule remains valid. At
this time the FAA is delaying further the implementation of the east-
end routes. The FAA does not consider that this rulemaking effort
imposes any costs on the public since it merely extends the stay of
effective date for the east end of GCNP. Commercial air tour operators
will continue to use established air tour routes. Benefits from reduced
aircraft noise in the east-end of GCNP, however, will be delayed. This
rulemaking is not a final action. If the agency takes a final action
that is different than that published on April 4, 2000, then it may be
necessary to complete a revised economic evaluation.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination and Assessment
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 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, organization, and government 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 final rule will have only a de minimus cost impact on the
certificate holders. Thus, under to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that this
final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act (TAA) 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
[[Page 9441]]
considered unnecessary obstacles. The TAA also requires consideration
of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the
basis for U.S. standards. In addition, consistent with the
Administration's belief in the general superiority and desirability of
free trade, it is the policy of the Administration to remove or
diminish to the extent feasible, barriers to international trade,
including both barriers affecting the export of American goods and
services to foreign countries and barriers affecting the import of
foreign goods and services into the United States. The FAA has assessed
the potential effect of this final rule under the above Act and policy,
and has determined that it will have only a domestic impact and
therefore no effect on any trade-sensitive activity.
Federalism Implications
This amendment will 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 12612, it is determined that this amendment would not have
sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) 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 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 final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air).
Adoption of Amendments
0
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends 14 CFR
part 93 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, 40113, 40120, 44101,44111,
44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,
46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531.
0
2. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 93.305, published on December 31,
1996 (61 FR 69330), then delayed on April 4, 2000 (65 FR 17736), and
most recently stayed until February 20, 2006 (68 FR 9496, February 27,
2003), are further stayed until February 20, 2011.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 17, 2006.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-1759 Filed 2-21-06; 4:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P