View Rule

Printer-Friendly Version Download RIN Data in XML

DOT/FAA

RIN: 2120-AF93

Publication ID: Fall 1996

Title: Airspace Management: Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon
Abstract: In l987, the Congress enacted P.L. 100-91, commonly known as the National Parks Overflights Act, which stated that noise associated with aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon National Park was causing "a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park and current aircraft operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have raised serious concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the safety of park users." The law mandated a number of studies and required that subsequent recommendations provide for the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park and protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated with overflights. ^PIn March l994, the FAA and the National Park Service issued an ANPRM seeking public comment on policy recommendations addressing the effects of aircraft overflights on National parks, including Grand Canyon National Park. The FAA received more than 30,000 comments. ^POn April 22, l996, the President issued a memorandum directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue within 90 days; proposed regulations to place appropriate limits on sightseeing aircraft over the Grand Canyon National Park to reduce the noise immediately and make further substantial progress toward restoration of the natural quiet. The memorandum further directed that action on this rulemaking be completed by the end of 1996. ^POn July 31, l996, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to provide a variety of options for the continued elimination of noise in the Grand Canyon National Park. The comment period on the proposal closed September 30, 1996. In addition, public meetings were held in September 1996. ^PThe Department of Transportation has been working with the Department of Interior to address the issue of reducing noise from aircraft overflights of the national parks and restoring the national quiet. In addition to this rule on the Grand Canyon, there are two other significant rulemaking actions which are included in the overall regulatory effort. They are a rule on Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Rocky Mountain National Park (RIN 2120-AG11) and Overflights of Units of the National Park System (RIN 2120-AF46).
Agency: Department of Transportation(DOT)	Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda	Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No	Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 14 CFR 91 14 CFR 93 14 CFR 121 14 CFR 135
Legal Authority: 49 USC 106(g) 49 USC 40103 49 USC 40113 49 USC 40120 49 USC 44101 49 USC 44111 49 USC 44701 49 USC 44709 49 USC 44711 49 USC 44712 49 USC 44715 49 USC 44716 49 USC 44717 49 USC 44722 49 USC 46306

Statement of Need: As pointed out in the referenced Presidential memorandum, aircraft flying at low altitudes can mar the natural beauty of the parks and present considerable problems to the environment. If not monitored, aircraft noise can interfere with wildlife, cultural resources and visitors' enjoyment of the park.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 41103, Title 49 of the United States Code states that the Administrator shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and shall assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.

Alternatives: In addition to the basic proposal for more restrictions and flight-free zones, the proposed rulemaking contains two principal alternatives to further protect park resources: a moratorium or immediate cap on flights and an operational curfew on when flights could be conducted. Another alternative, although very costly, might be an allocation of slots.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The FAA estimates that the annual cost of establishing and modifying the flight-free zones and corridors and adding the new reporting requirement is approximately $1.3 million in potential operator revenue losses and added consumer costs. The FAA also estimates that, with the introduction of the variable flight-free periods for the 3-year timeframe 1999-2001, the average annual cost would rise to about $11.0 million for variable and fixed curfews. The estimated cost of the proposed alternative to flight-free periods (a cap) would have slightly lower costs. Benefits are measured by an estimated 38 percent increase of the park experiencing a substantial restoration of the natural quiet.

Risks: The alternative of not doing rulemaking, or the destruction of the natural quiet, has been determined to be a greater risk than the rulemaking, especially as the FAA has stated in the proposal that any combination of the proposals may be adopted.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite
NPRM	07/31/1996	61 FR 40120
Correction	08/07/1996	61 FR 41040
NPRM Comment Period End	09/30/1996
Final Action	12/00/1996

Additional Information: Project Number: ATP-95-236R. ^PANALYSIS: Regulatory Evaluation, 07/31/96, 61 FR 40120
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes	Government Levels Affected: None
Small Entities Affected: Businesses
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes
Agency Contact: Neil Saunders Air Traffic Rules Branch, Air Traffic Rules and Procedures Service Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591 Phone:202 267-9241