Public Notice: Clarifying the Definition Of “Substantial Restoration of Natural Quiet” at Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 19246-19248 [E8-7410]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19246
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Notices
RESPONDENTS’ ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS—Continued
Citation 30 CFR
Reporting and recordkeeping requirement
Total Burden ........................
Hour burden
.........................................................................................................
Average
number of
annual responses
....................
Annual burden hours
1,212
1,969
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Note: The ORA determined that the audit process is not covered by the PRA because MMS staff asks non-standard questions to resolve exceptions.
* Rounded up from 0.25.
Estimated Annual Reporting and
Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-hour’’ Cost
Burden: We have identified no ‘‘nonhour’’ cost burdens.
Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) provides that 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 OMB control
number.
Comments: Before submitting an ICR
to OMB, PRA Section 3506(c)(2)(A)
requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide
notice * * * and otherwise consult
with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information * * *.’’
Agencies must specifically solicit
comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the agency to perform its
duties, including whether the
information is useful; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
The PRA also requires agencies to
estimate the total annual reporting
‘‘non-hour cost’’ burden to respondents
or recordkeepers resulting from the
collection of information. If you have
costs to generate, maintain, and disclose
this information, you should comment
and provide your total capital and
startup cost components or annual
operation, maintenance, and purchase
of service components. You should
describe the methods you use to
estimate major cost factors, including
system and technology acquisition,
expected useful life of capital
equipment, discount rate(s), and the
period over which you incur costs.
Capital and startup costs include,
among other items, computers and
software you purchase to prepare for
collecting information; monitoring,
sampling, and testing equipment; and
record storage facilities. Generally, your
estimates should not include equipment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:06 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
or services purchased: (i) Before October
1, 1995; (ii) to comply with
requirements not associated with the
information collection; (iii) for reasons
other than to provide information or
keep records for the Federal
Government; or (iv) as part of customary
and usual business or private practices.
We will summarize written responses
to this notice and address them in our
ICR submission for OMB approval,
including appropriate adjustments to
the estimated burden. We will provide
a copy of the ICR to you without charge
upon request. The ICR also will be
posted on our Web site at https://
www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/
FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm.
Public Comment Policy: We will post
all comments in response to this notice
on our website at https://
www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/InfoColl/
InfoColCom.htm. We will also make
copies of the comments available for
public review, including names and
addresses of respondents, during regular
business hours at our offices in
Lakewood, Colorado. Before including
your address, phone number, e-mail
address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public view, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
MMS Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202)
208 7744.
Dated: April 2, 2008.
Walter D. Cruickshank,
Acting Associate Director for Minerals
Revenue Management.
[FR Doc. E8–7448 Filed 4–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Public Notice: Clarifying the Definition
Of ‘‘Substantial Restoration of Natural
Quiet’’ at Grand Canyon National Park,
Arizona
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Public Notice: Clarifying the
definition of ‘‘substantial restoration of
natural quiet’’ at Grand Canyon National
Park.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice clarifies the
definition used by Grand Canyon
National Park (GCNP) for achieving
substantial restoration of natural quiet
as mandated by the 1987 Overflights Act
(Pub. L. 100–91) (Overflights Act). This
clarification of the definition is
necessary to address current acoustic
conditions to comply with the intent of
recommendations provided in the 1995
Report to Congress,1 and respond to a
2002 U.S. Court of Appeals decision.
The provisions of the Special Flight
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50–2 have
not resulted in substantial restoration of
natural quiet of GCNP. Given the
volume of high altitude commercial jet
and general aviation traffic overflying
the Grand Canyon above 17,999 feet
Mean Sea Level (MSL) and a recent
court decision, the substantial
restoration goal as currently defined
cannot be attained. This clarification of
the restoration definition, while
focusing on air tour and air tour related
and general aviation aircraft that are
conducting overflights of GCNP at
altitudes at or below 17,999 MSL, also
incorporates measures to address noise
from all aircraft. The 1995 definition of
substantial restoration of natural quiet is
being clarified to distinguish between
aircraft noise generated above and
below 17,999 feet MSL. The Special
Flight Rules Area (SFRA) ceiling was set
at 17,999 MSL to avoid additional
requirements, restrictions and
1 National Park Service, (1995) Report of Effects
of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System,
Report to Congress, July 1995.
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Notices
regulations that occur at or above 18,000
MSL.
GCNP and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) are currently
engaged in the preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
entitled ‘‘Special Flight Rules Area in
the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National
Park.’’ GCNP, in consultation with the
FAA, has determined in the noise
methodology section of the EIS that
aviation noise above 17,999 feet MSL
will be considered as a cumulative
impact for purposes of the EIS, and
aircraft noise generated at or below
17,999 feet MSL, within the Special
Flights Rules Area (SFRA) will be
managed to attain the NPS
recommendations and meet restoration
management objectives consistent with
GCNP management direction, 2006 NPS
Management Policies, and the 1995
Report to Congress.
The NPS proposes the following
clarification to the definition of
substantial restoration of natural quiet.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
(a) Substantial restoration of natural quiet
at GCNP will be achieved when the reduction
of noise from aircraft operations at or below
17,999 feet MSL results in 50% or more of
the park achieving restoration of the natural
quiet (i.e., no aircraft audible) for 75% to
100% of the day, each and every day; and
(b) The NPS defines the substantial
restoration of natural quiet from all aircraft
above 17,999 feet MSL, to mean that there
will be an overall reduction in aviation noise
generated above 17,999 feet MSL above the
park over time through the implementation
of measures in accordance with FAA
commitments.
The NPS also clarifies that 50% of
GCNP is a minimum in the restoration
goal. This includes not only the impacts
of aircraft noise on the soundscape but
the impact of noise on the visitor
experience and natural, cultural and
historic resources for the entire park.
The analysis of noise impacts in the
overflights EIS will be based on the
defined substantial restoration goal,
park values and purposes, and the
GCNP General Management Plan land
zoning objectives and overall park
management objectives.2 NPS has
deferred the assessment of aviation
safety to FAA’s jurisdiction. Both
agencies have agreed to consider the
noise from all aircraft in the ongoing
ETS and planning process. Further, both
agencies have agreed to consider
reducing aircraft noise over the park in
the future from aircraft operating above
17,999 feet MSL over the SFRA, while
removing aircraft operations above
17,999 MSL from direct regulation in
this action. This notice seeks public
2 National Park Service (1995) General
Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:06 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
comment on the clarification of the NPS
definition of substantial restoration.
DATES: This notice will be on public
review for 30 days, May 9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,
you may mail or hand deliver comments
to the name and address below or
comment online via https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/grca (select
‘‘Substantial Restoration Clarification’’).
Comments must be received within 30
days from the date of this printing. You
may also view a copy of this
clarification through the Internet at:
https://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/
soundscape.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
McMullen, Overflights and Natural
Soundscape Program Manager, Grand
Canyon National Park, 823 N. San
Francisco St., Suite B, Flagstaff, Arizona
8600l National Park Service, Grand
Canyon NP, Telephone: (928) 779–2095.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This notice is one of several steps
being taken by the Secretary of the
Interior (SOI), through the NPS, and the
FAA to fulfill the mandate established
by Congress in PL 100–91, the
Overflights Act, to provide for the
substantial restoration of natural quiet
in Grand Canyon National Park. Section
3 of the Overflights Act mandated the
SOI to submit to the Administrator of
the FAA recommendations ‘‘regarding
actions necessary for the protection of
resources in the Grand Canyon from
adverse impacts associated with aircraft
overflights.’’ The express statutory goal
for these recommendations is the
‘‘substantial restoration of natural quiet
and experience of the park and
protection of public health and safety
from adverse affects associated with
aircraft overflight.’’ The Overflights Act
requires the FAA Administrator to
adopt the recommendations of the SOI
‘‘without change unless the
Administrator determines that
implementing the recommendations
would adversely affect aviation safety.’’
Congress did not define natural quiet
or substantial restoration of natural
quiet and, instead, delegated the
interpretation of the statute to the
Secretary. Under well established rules
of statutory construction, the agency’s
interpretation is given deference so long
as it is based on a reasonable
construction of the statute. The D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the
NPS had reasonable justification for its
interpretations of natural quiet and
substantial restoration of natural quiet,
as set forth in the 1995 Report to
Congress. (See Grand Canyon Air Tour
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19247
Coalition v. FAA, 154 F.3d 455 (D.C.
Cir. 1998)).
In its 1995 Report to Congress the
policy decision of the NPS was that
substantial restoration requires that 50%
or more of the park achieve natural
quiet (i.e. no aircraft audible) for 75–
100% of the day. The NPS provided
definitions of terms used, as well as
rationale for its noise impact assessment
methods in ‘‘Review of Scientific Basis
for Change in Noise Impact Assessment
Method Used at Grand Canyon National
Park,’’ 2000.3 In the review, the NPS
defined one parameter of substantial
restoration of natural quiet to be
‘‘* * * a threshold not to be exceeded
on any given day * * * .’’ In 2002, the
definition of substantial restoration of
natural quiet and the FAA’s noise
methodology in the 2000 Final
Supplemental Environmental
Assessment was addressed in litigation
before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,
in the case United States Air Tour
Association v. FAA, 298 F.3d 997 (D.C.
Cir. 2002). In this case, the Court
declared that ‘‘ * * * the Park Service is
entitled to deference for its
interpretation of its own definitions.’’
The Court concluded ‘‘* * * the FAA’s
use of an ‘‘average annual day’’ for
measuring ‘substantial restoration of
natural quiet’ appears inconsistent with
both the Park Service’s definition of the
term and with the premise upon which
that definition was based. * * * We
must therefore remand this issue for
further consideration.’’ In response to
the court decision, the term ‘‘the day’’
was clarified by the NPS in the
November 7, 2003 Federal Register
Notice (68 FR 63129–63130) to mean
‘‘each and every day.’’
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals also
found that the FAA’s noise methodology
was flawed because it only accounted
for noise from commercial air tours,
while ignoring noise from other types of
aircraft (commercial jets, general
aviation, and military flights). The court
further stated that the Overflights Act
did not provide any basis for ignoring
noise caused by such aircraft and in the
absence of any reasonable justification
for excluding non-tour aircraft from its
noise model, the court concluded that
this aspect of the FAA’s methodology
was arbitrary and capricious and
required reconsideration by the agency.
Reasons for the Clarification
Based on the 2002 D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals decision, as well as review
3 National Park Service, (2000) Review of
Scientific Basis For Change in Noise Impact
Assessment Method Used at Grand Canyon
National Park. January 2000.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
19248
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Notices
of Congressional intent, aircraft noise
levels, and national airspace safety and
efficiency, this clarification of the
restoration definition is necessary to
address the noise of all aircraft while
distinguishing how the substantial
restoration of natural quiet will be
achieved at and below 17,999 feet MSL
within the Special Flight Rules Area
(SFRA) and above the SFRA. The NPS
recognizes that due to the impacts of
aviation noise on park resources and the
visitor experience, even with
implementation of quiet technology
aircraft, restoration of the natural quiet
as defined in the 1995 Report to
Congress will not be achieved without
reduction of the sounds produced by jet
traffic above 17,999.
The 1995 Report to Congress
concluded that SFAR 50–2 had not
resulted in substantial restoration of
natural quiet in Grand Canyon National
Park and continued growth in air traffic
may diminish or negate progress to date.
The report looked at air tour, military,
general aviation and high altitude
commercial overflights and found that
the major aircraft noise impacts on
natural quiet came from air tour activity
and high flying commercial jet traffic.
Low flying general aviation and military
overflights were thought to contribute
little to the overall aircraft noise
impacts. As discussed in the Report to
Congress, high altitude jets were known
to be a noise issue that the FAA needed
to address. In particular it was
recommended in the report that (1) FAA
not authorize any deviations from
normal high altitude routes for sightseeing purposes; (2) FAA not authorize
deviations from normal flight plans and
cruising altitudes over the Grand
Canyon for other than safety reasons;
and (3) that FAA conduct a study on
high altitude commercial jet routes that
may also have impacts on natural quiet
in the park. Consequently, subsequent
regulations focused on the regulation of
air tour and related operations.
In 2005 and 2006, the GCNP initiated
a soundscape monitoring and data
collection effort to verify the accuracy of
the earlier acoustic science and
methodologies used since the early
1980’s (see discussion in 64 FR 38006–
38007) and to determine the natural
ambient conditions for most of the park
area. NPS noise modeling results
predicted that over 96% of the park area
had aircraft noise audible for over 25%
of the 12-hour day; however, there were
notable differences between air tour
aircraft flying at lower altitudes within
the SFRA and high altitude (primarily
commercial) aircraft flying above the
SFRA. Low flying air tour aircraft
generated more noise at ground level,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:06 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
but could meet the threshold of the
substantial restoration goal. Higher
altitude aircraft generated lower levels
of noise at ground level, but produced
broader areas of audibility. The broader
geographic coverage of audibility of
high altitude aircraft noise made
achieving the NPS percentage goals of
substantially restoring natural quiet to
the Grand Canyon unattainable from a
practical standpoint, no matter how few
air tour and general aviation operations
occurred within the SFAR and over the
park. GCNP noise monitoring results in
2005 supported the model predictions.
The time jet aircraft (above 17,999 feet
MSL) were audible ranged between 22%
and 35% of the day at four sites in
remote backcountry locations.4 These
results are similar to those reported by
Harris Miller Miller and Hanson, Inc. in
2004 where the average percentages of
time high altitude jet traffic were
audible was 34.4%.5
In 2006, the FAA retained MITRE
Corporation CAASD to conduct a study
on the feasibility of implementing a
flight free zone over the heart of GCNP
for flights above 17,999 feet MSL, and
adjusting traffic routes that would avoid
a large and very important portion of the
Grand Canyon. The unpublished study
titled ‘‘Impact from Restricting Flights
From Grand Canyon Airspace’’ 6
determined that ‘‘routing of commercial
aviation would have a significant
impact on the users of the airspace,
would add thousands of extra miles and
flying minutes to the routes, and safety
of the airspace and operation would be
negatively impacted through increased
complexity and risks.’’ From the results
of the MITRE study, the FAA
determined that a flight free zone for
high altitude aircraft over the Grand
Canyon would adversely affect the
safety and efficiency of the national
airspace system.
Based on the data provided through
the various NPS studies and the MITRE
report, the NPS acknowledges that the
definition of substantial restoration of
natural quiet needs clarification to
distinguish the goals within and above
the SFRA, while at the same time
considering the noise from all aircraft in
4 National Park Service (2007) Report on Winter
Ambient Sound Levels in Grand Canyon National
Park, Report No.GRCA–07–02.
5 Ross, J., Menge, C., and Miller. N.P. (2004)
Percentage of time jet aircraft are audible in Grand
Canyon National Park. Harris Miller Miller and
Hanson, Inc., For NPS–HMMH Job No. 295860.044).
6 Abrahamsen, T.R., Marani. G.F., and Bearer, R.,
(2006) Impact on Restricting Flights From Grand
Canyon Airspace. The MITRE Corporation CAASD
for the Federal Aviation Administration and
National Park Service, Report No. F063–B06–050,
Presented to the Grand Canyon Working Group,
September 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
order to comply with the Overflights
Act and the 2002 D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals decision.
This notice clarifies that through the
application of law and policy, the NPS
is clarifying that ‘‘(a) Substantial
restoration of natural quiet at GCNP is
achieved when the reduction of noise
from aircraft operations at or below
17,999 feet MSL results in 50% or more
of the park achieving restoration of the
natural quiet (i.e., no aircraft audible)
for 75% to 100% of the day, each and
every day; and (b) the NPS defines the
substantial restoration of natural quiet,
from all aircraft above 17,999 feet MSL,
to mean that there will be an overall
reduction in aviation noise generated
above 17,999 feet MSL above the park
over time through the implementation
of specific measures in accordance with
commitments made by FAA to the NPS.
The NPS also clarifies that 50% of the
park is a minimum in the restoration
goal.
Dated: January 16, 2008.
Hal J. Grovert,
Acting Regional Director, Intermountain
Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. E8–7410 Filed 4–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–ED–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
General Management Plan
Amendment, Environmental Impact
Statement, Petrified Forest National
Park, Arizona
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for a
General Management Plan amendment,
Petrified Forest National Park.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National
Park Service is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for a General Management Plan (GMP)
amendment for Petrified Forest National
Park.
The park is currently managed under
a GMP that was completed in 1993. This
plan describes a proposed boundary
expansion for the park of approximately
93,000 acres. However, the 1993 GMP
does not prescribe management for the
proposed addition lands. The GMP was
revised in 2004 to address specific
aspects of the park’s management; this
GMP Revision also does not address
management activities for proposed
addition lands.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19246-19248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7410]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Public Notice: Clarifying the Definition Of ``Substantial
Restoration of Natural Quiet'' at Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Public Notice: Clarifying the definition of ``substantial
restoration of natural quiet'' at Grand Canyon National Park.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice clarifies the definition used by Grand Canyon
National Park (GCNP) for achieving substantial restoration of natural
quiet as mandated by the 1987 Overflights Act (Pub. L. 100-91)
(Overflights Act). This clarification of the definition is necessary to
address current acoustic conditions to comply with the intent of
recommendations provided in the 1995 Report to Congress,\1\ and respond
to a 2002 U.S. Court of Appeals decision. The provisions of the Special
Flight Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50-2 have not resulted in substantial
restoration of natural quiet of GCNP. Given the volume of high altitude
commercial jet and general aviation traffic overflying the Grand Canyon
above 17,999 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) and a recent court decision, the
substantial restoration goal as currently defined cannot be attained.
This clarification of the restoration definition, while focusing on air
tour and air tour related and general aviation aircraft that are
conducting overflights of GCNP at altitudes at or below 17,999 MSL,
also incorporates measures to address noise from all aircraft. The 1995
definition of substantial restoration of natural quiet is being
clarified to distinguish between aircraft noise generated above and
below 17,999 feet MSL. The Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) ceiling was
set at 17,999 MSL to avoid additional requirements, restrictions and
[[Page 19247]]
regulations that occur at or above 18,000 MSL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Park Service, (1995) Report of Effects of Aircraft
Overflights on the National Park System, Report to Congress, July
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCNP and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are currently
engaged in the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS)
entitled ``Special Flight Rules Area in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon
National Park.'' GCNP, in consultation with the FAA, has determined in
the noise methodology section of the EIS that aviation noise above
17,999 feet MSL will be considered as a cumulative impact for purposes
of the EIS, and aircraft noise generated at or below 17,999 feet MSL,
within the Special Flights Rules Area (SFRA) will be managed to attain
the NPS recommendations and meet restoration management objectives
consistent with GCNP management direction, 2006 NPS Management
Policies, and the 1995 Report to Congress.
The NPS proposes the following clarification to the definition of
substantial restoration of natural quiet.
(a) Substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP will be
achieved when the reduction of noise from aircraft operations at or
below 17,999 feet MSL results in 50% or more of the park achieving
restoration of the natural quiet (i.e., no aircraft audible) for 75%
to 100% of the day, each and every day; and
(b) The NPS defines the substantial restoration of natural quiet
from all aircraft above 17,999 feet MSL, to mean that there will be
an overall reduction in aviation noise generated above 17,999 feet
MSL above the park over time through the implementation of measures
in accordance with FAA commitments.
The NPS also clarifies that 50% of GCNP is a minimum in the
restoration goal. This includes not only the impacts of aircraft noise
on the soundscape but the impact of noise on the visitor experience and
natural, cultural and historic resources for the entire park. The
analysis of noise impacts in the overflights EIS will be based on the
defined substantial restoration goal, park values and purposes, and the
GCNP General Management Plan land zoning objectives and overall park
management objectives.\2\ NPS has deferred the assessment of aviation
safety to FAA's jurisdiction. Both agencies have agreed to consider the
noise from all aircraft in the ongoing ETS and planning process.
Further, both agencies have agreed to consider reducing aircraft noise
over the park in the future from aircraft operating above 17,999 feet
MSL over the SFRA, while removing aircraft operations above 17,999 MSL
from direct regulation in this action. This notice seeks public comment
on the clarification of the NPS definition of substantial restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Park Service (1995) General Management Plan for
Grand Canyon National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: This notice will be on public review for 30 days, May 9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may mail or hand deliver
comments to the name and address below or comment online via https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/grca (select ``Substantial Restoration
Clarification''). Comments must be received within 30 days from the
date of this printing. You may also view a copy of this clarification
through the Internet at: https://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/
soundscape.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McMullen, Overflights and Natural
Soundscape Program Manager, Grand Canyon National Park, 823 N. San
Francisco St., Suite B, Flagstaff, Arizona 8600l National Park Service,
Grand Canyon NP, Telephone: (928) 779-2095.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This notice is one of several steps being taken by the Secretary of
the Interior (SOI), through the NPS, and the FAA to fulfill the mandate
established by Congress in PL 100-91, the Overflights Act, to provide
for the substantial restoration of natural quiet in Grand Canyon
National Park. Section 3 of the Overflights Act mandated the SOI to
submit to the Administrator of the FAA recommendations ``regarding
actions necessary for the protection of resources in the Grand Canyon
from adverse impacts associated with aircraft overflights.'' The
express statutory goal for these recommendations is the ``substantial
restoration of natural quiet and experience of the park and protection
of public health and safety from adverse affects associated with
aircraft overflight.'' The Overflights Act requires the FAA
Administrator to adopt the recommendations of the SOI ``without change
unless the Administrator determines that implementing the
recommendations would adversely affect aviation safety.''
Congress did not define natural quiet or substantial restoration of
natural quiet and, instead, delegated the interpretation of the statute
to the Secretary. Under well established rules of statutory
construction, the agency's interpretation is given deference so long as
it is based on a reasonable construction of the statute. The D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the NPS had reasonable
justification for its interpretations of natural quiet and substantial
restoration of natural quiet, as set forth in the 1995 Report to
Congress. (See Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 F.3d 455
(D.C. Cir. 1998)).
In its 1995 Report to Congress the policy decision of the NPS was
that substantial restoration requires that 50% or more of the park
achieve natural quiet (i.e. no aircraft audible) for 75-100% of the
day. The NPS provided definitions of terms used, as well as rationale
for its noise impact assessment methods in ``Review of Scientific Basis
for Change in Noise Impact Assessment Method Used at Grand Canyon
National Park,'' 2000.\3\ In the review, the NPS defined one parameter
of substantial restoration of natural quiet to be ``* * * a threshold
not to be exceeded on any given day * * * .'' In 2002, the definition
of substantial restoration of natural quiet and the FAA's noise
methodology in the 2000 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment was
addressed in litigation before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in
the case United States Air Tour Association v. FAA, 298 F.3d 997 (D.C.
Cir. 2002). In this case, the Court declared that `` * * * the Park
Service is entitled to deference for its interpretation of its own
definitions.'' The Court concluded ``* * * the FAA's use of an
``average annual day'' for measuring `substantial restoration of
natural quiet' appears inconsistent with both the Park Service's
definition of the term and with the premise upon which that definition
was based. * * * We must therefore remand this issue for further
consideration.'' In response to the court decision, the term ``the
day'' was clarified by the NPS in the November 7, 2003 Federal Register
Notice (68 FR 63129-63130) to mean ``each and every day.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Park Service, (2000) Review of Scientific Basis For
Change in Noise Impact Assessment Method Used at Grand Canyon
National Park. January 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals also found that the FAA's noise
methodology was flawed because it only accounted for noise from
commercial air tours, while ignoring noise from other types of aircraft
(commercial jets, general aviation, and military flights). The court
further stated that the Overflights Act did not provide any basis for
ignoring noise caused by such aircraft and in the absence of any
reasonable justification for excluding non-tour aircraft from its noise
model, the court concluded that this aspect of the FAA's methodology
was arbitrary and capricious and required reconsideration by the
agency.
Reasons for the Clarification
Based on the 2002 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, as well
as review
[[Page 19248]]
of Congressional intent, aircraft noise levels, and national airspace
safety and efficiency, this clarification of the restoration definition
is necessary to address the noise of all aircraft while distinguishing
how the substantial restoration of natural quiet will be achieved at
and below 17,999 feet MSL within the Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)
and above the SFRA. The NPS recognizes that due to the impacts of
aviation noise on park resources and the visitor experience, even with
implementation of quiet technology aircraft, restoration of the natural
quiet as defined in the 1995 Report to Congress will not be achieved
without reduction of the sounds produced by jet traffic above 17,999.
The 1995 Report to Congress concluded that SFAR 50-2 had not
resulted in substantial restoration of natural quiet in Grand Canyon
National Park and continued growth in air traffic may diminish or
negate progress to date. The report looked at air tour, military,
general aviation and high altitude commercial overflights and found
that the major aircraft noise impacts on natural quiet came from air
tour activity and high flying commercial jet traffic. Low flying
general aviation and military overflights were thought to contribute
little to the overall aircraft noise impacts. As discussed in the
Report to Congress, high altitude jets were known to be a noise issue
that the FAA needed to address. In particular it was recommended in the
report that (1) FAA not authorize any deviations from normal high
altitude routes for sight-seeing purposes; (2) FAA not authorize
deviations from normal flight plans and cruising altitudes over the
Grand Canyon for other than safety reasons; and (3) that FAA conduct a
study on high altitude commercial jet routes that may also have impacts
on natural quiet in the park. Consequently, subsequent regulations
focused on the regulation of air tour and related operations.
In 2005 and 2006, the GCNP initiated a soundscape monitoring and
data collection effort to verify the accuracy of the earlier acoustic
science and methodologies used since the early 1980's (see discussion
in 64 FR 38006-38007) and to determine the natural ambient conditions
for most of the park area. NPS noise modeling results predicted that
over 96% of the park area had aircraft noise audible for over 25% of
the 12-hour day; however, there were notable differences between air
tour aircraft flying at lower altitudes within the SFRA and high
altitude (primarily commercial) aircraft flying above the SFRA. Low
flying air tour aircraft generated more noise at ground level, but
could meet the threshold of the substantial restoration goal. Higher
altitude aircraft generated lower levels of noise at ground level, but
produced broader areas of audibility. The broader geographic coverage
of audibility of high altitude aircraft noise made achieving the NPS
percentage goals of substantially restoring natural quiet to the Grand
Canyon unattainable from a practical standpoint, no matter how few air
tour and general aviation operations occurred within the SFAR and over
the park. GCNP noise monitoring results in 2005 supported the model
predictions. The time jet aircraft (above 17,999 feet MSL) were audible
ranged between 22% and 35% of the day at four sites in remote
backcountry locations.\4\ These results are similar to those reported
by Harris Miller Miller and Hanson, Inc. in 2004 where the average
percentages of time high altitude jet traffic were audible was
34.4%.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Park Service (2007) Report on Winter Ambient Sound
Levels in Grand Canyon National Park, Report No.GRCA-07-02.
\5\ Ross, J., Menge, C., and Miller. N.P. (2004) Percentage of
time jet aircraft are audible in Grand Canyon National Park. Harris
Miller Miller and Hanson, Inc., For NPS-HMMH Job No. 295860.044).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, the FAA retained MITRE Corporation CAASD to conduct a
study on the feasibility of implementing a flight free zone over the
heart of GCNP for flights above 17,999 feet MSL, and adjusting traffic
routes that would avoid a large and very important portion of the Grand
Canyon. The unpublished study titled ``Impact from Restricting Flights
From Grand Canyon Airspace'' \6\ determined that ``routing of
commercial aviation would have a significant impact on the users of the
airspace, would add thousands of extra miles and flying minutes to the
routes, and safety of the airspace and operation would be negatively
impacted through increased complexity and risks.'' From the results of
the MITRE study, the FAA determined that a flight free zone for high
altitude aircraft over the Grand Canyon would adversely affect the
safety and efficiency of the national airspace system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Abrahamsen, T.R., Marani. G.F., and Bearer, R., (2006)
Impact on Restricting Flights From Grand Canyon Airspace. The MITRE
Corporation CAASD for the Federal Aviation Administration and
National Park Service, Report No. F063-B06-050, Presented to the
Grand Canyon Working Group, September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the data provided through the various NPS studies and the
MITRE report, the NPS acknowledges that the definition of substantial
restoration of natural quiet needs clarification to distinguish the
goals within and above the SFRA, while at the same time considering the
noise from all aircraft in order to comply with the Overflights Act and
the 2002 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
This notice clarifies that through the application of law and
policy, the NPS is clarifying that ``(a) Substantial restoration of
natural quiet at GCNP is achieved when the reduction of noise from
aircraft operations at or below 17,999 feet MSL results in 50% or more
of the park achieving restoration of the natural quiet (i.e., no
aircraft audible) for 75% to 100% of the day, each and every day; and
(b) the NPS defines the substantial restoration of natural quiet, from
all aircraft above 17,999 feet MSL, to mean that there will be an
overall reduction in aviation noise generated above 17,999 feet MSL
above the park over time through the implementation of specific
measures in accordance with commitments made by FAA to the NPS. The NPS
also clarifies that 50% of the park is a minimum in the restoration
goal.
Dated: January 16, 2008.
Hal J. Grovert,
Acting Regional Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. E8-7410 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-ED-M
