Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29471 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by—Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (http://

www.regulations.gov); Visiting the 

FAA’s Regulations and Policies Web 

page at: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_

policies or Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at: http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

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 docket or notice number of 

this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, 

Afghanistan. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709, 

44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 

46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 

47122, 47508, 47528–47531; articles 12 and 

29 of the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 

2. In part 91, Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) No. 110 is added to 

read as follows: 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. 110—Prohibition Against Certain 

Flights Within the Territory and 

Airspace of Afghanistan 

1. Applicability. This rule applies to 

the following persons: 

(a) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. 

commercial operators; 

(b) All persons exercising the 

privileges of an airman certificate issued 

by the FAA, except such persons 

operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a 

foreign air carrier; and 

(c) All operators of U.S.-registered 

aircraft, except where the operator of 

such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. 

2. Flight prohibition. Except as 

provided below, or in paragraphs 3 and 

4 of this SFAR, no person described in 

paragraph 1 may conduct flight 

operations within the territory and 

airspace of Afghanistan below FL 160. 

This rule permits U.S. civil aircraft 

operations by persons described in 

paragraph 1 below flight level (FL) 160 

within the territory and airspace of 

Afghanistan, only when approved by 

the FAA as provided herein. 

(a) Overflights of Afghanistan may be 

conducted at or above FL 160 subject to 

the approval of, and in accordance with 

the conditions established by, the 

appropriate authorities of Afghanistan. 

(b) Flights departing from countries 

adjacent to Afghanistan whose climb 

performance will not permit operation 

at or above FL 160 prior to entering 

Afghan airspace may operate at altitudes 

below FL 160 within Afghanistan to the 

extent necessary to permit a climb above 

FL 160, subject to the approval of, and 

in accordance with the conditions 

established by, the appropriate 

authorities of Afghanistan. 

3. Permitted operations. This SFAR 

does not prohibit persons described in 

section 1 from conducting flight 

operations within the territory and 

airspace of Afghanistan below FL 160 

when such operations are authorized 

either by another agency of the United 

States Government with the approval of 

the FAA or by an exemption issued by 

the Administrator. 

4. Emergency situations. In an 

emergency that requires immediate 

decision and action for the safety of the 

flight, the pilot in command of an 

aircraft may deviate from this SFAR to 

the extent required by that emergency. 

Except for U.S. air carriers and 

commercial operators that are subject to 

the requirements of Title 14 CFR parts 

119, 121, or 135, each person who 

deviates from this rule must, within 10 

days of the deviation, excluding 

Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal 

holidays, submit to the nearest FAA 

Flight Standards District Office a 

complete report of the operations of the 

aircraft involved in the deviation, 

including a description of the deviation 

and the reasons for it. 

5. Expiration. This Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation will remain in 

effect for 5 years from the effective date. 

The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend 

the SFAR as necessary. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 

2010. 

Raymond Towles, 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service, 

Aviation Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12670 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0302; Notice No. 10– 

08] 

RIN 2120–AJ75 

The New York North Shore Helicopter 

Route 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This proposed action would 

require helicopter operators to use the 

New York North Shore Route when 

operating in that area of Long Island, 

New York. The North Shore Route was 

added to the New York Helicopter Route 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29472 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Chart in 2008 and the use of that route 

is currently voluntary. New York public 

officials have continued to receive 

complaints regarding the adverse impact 

of helicopter noise on their 

communities. The intended effect of this 

proposal is to maximize utilization of 

the existing route flown by helicopter 

traffic along the north shore of Long 

Island and reduce the noise impact on 

nearby communities. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before June 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0302 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the rulemaking 

process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of the docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Ellen Crum, 

Airspace and Rules Group, AJR–33, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8783. For legal questions 

concerning this proposed rule contact 

Lorelei Peter, AGC–220, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone 202–267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Later in this preamble under the 

Additional Information section, we 

discuss how you can comment on this 

proposal and how we will handle your 

comments. Included in this discussion 

is related information about the docket, 

privacy, and the handling of proprietary 

or confidential business information. 

We also discuss how you can get a copy 

of related rulemaking documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA has broad authority and 

responsibility to regulate the operation 

of aircraft and the use of the navigable 

airspace and to establish safety 

standards for and regulate the 

certification of airmen, aircraft, and air 

carriers. (49 U.S.C. 40104 et seq., 

§ 40103(b). The FAA’s authority for this 

proposed rule is contained in 49 U.S.C. 

40103 and 44715. Under § 40103, the 

Administrator of the FAA has authority 

to ‘‘prescribe air traffic regulations on 

the flight of aircraft (including 

regulations on safe altitudes) for * * * 

(B) protecting individuals and property 

on the ground. (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2)). 

In addition, § 44715(a), provides that to 

‘‘relieve and protect the public health 

and welfare from aircraft noise,’’ the 

Administrator of the FAA, ‘‘as he deems 

necessary, shall prescribe * * * (ii) 

regulations to control and abate aircraft 

noise * * *’’ 

Background 

In response to numerous complaints 

regarding helicopter noise received by 

New York public officials, including 

Senator Schumer and former Senator 

Clinton, the FAA began working with 

stakeholders and industry groups to 

address the issue. Senator Charles 

Schumer and Representative Tim 

Bishop conducted a meeting in October 

2007 with the FAA, local helicopter 

operators and the airport proprietors to 

specifically address the noise 

complaints stemming from the north 

shore of Long Island. As a result of this 

meeting, a visual flight rules (VFR) 

helicopter route, the North Shore route, 

was designed for helicopters to use 

when transiting the area in order to 

lessen the noise impact on populated 

areas by remaining offshore and over the 

water. As this route was developed for 

VFR flight, use of it is voluntary. The 

route was published on the Helicopter 

Route Chart for New York, effective May 

8, 2008. 

The Helicopter Route Chart program 

was established by the FAA to enhance 

helicopter access into, egress from, and 

operation within high density traffic 

areas by depicting discrete and/or 

common use helicopter routes. 

Guidance and procedures for this 

program are contained in FAA Order 

7210.3, Facility Operation and 

Administration, Chapter 11. The use of 

these routes is voluntary, unless air 

traffic control assigns the charted routes 

to pilots for purposes of addressing 

traffic density or safety. 

New York elected officials have 

advised the FAA the noise complaints 

continue in this area notwithstanding 

the North Shore route. The local FAA 

Flight Standards Division has also 

received the same complaints. 

The New York Long Island airspace, 

like many other areas in the U.S., 

presents competing interests. The 

geographic area is not vast but supports 

a highly congested populated area that 

is surrounded by traffic operating into 

and out of LaGuardia Airport, John F. 

Kennedy International Airport, Republic 

Airport and a multitude of both public 

and private heliports. 

This proposed action would require 

civil helicopters along Long Island, New 

York’s northern shoreline to follow the 

published New York North Shore Route 

between the fixed waypoint VPLYD and 

Orient Point. The FAA is aware that 

several conditions may exist for which 

helicopter operators would need to 

deviate from the route. Therefore, 

provisions are included that take into 

consideration the wide variety of 

helicopters, their associated 

performance and mission profiles, the 

dynamic weather environment along the 

route, and the pilot’s responsibility to 

maintain safe operations at all times. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

associated with this proposed rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29473 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

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 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the 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 (Pub. L. 

104–4) 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 annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

This proposed action is not expected 

to result in additional costs on the 

affected helicopters because those 

operators that cannot comply with the 

route as published due to operational 

limitations, performance factors, 

weather conditions or safety 

considerations are allowed to deviate 

from the provisions of Subpart H. 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ 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 rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the agency 

determines that it will, the agency must 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

as described in the RFA. However, if an 

agency determines that a 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 proposed rule would impact 

several small entities. For aircraft 

operators these include all firms with 

less than 1,500 employees. There are 5 

small entities in the New York market 

for part 135 sightseeing helicopter tours. 

However, the rule does not require the 

purchase of additional equipment and 

allows pilots to deviate from the 

proposed provisions if necessary, due to 

operational limitations of the helicopter, 

performance factors, weather conditions 

or safety considerations. Therefore the 

rule imposes only minimal operating 

cost. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA solicits comments regarding 

this determination. 

International Trade Impact Analysis 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standards have a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety and do not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. As the proposed rule 

would have only a domestic impact, the 

Trade Agreement Act does not apply. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

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 (in 

1995 dollars) 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 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action would not 

have a substantial direct effect 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, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

Under regulations issued by the 

Council on Environmental Quality, 

federal agencies are required to establish 

procedures that, among other things, 

identify agency actions that are 

categorically excluded from the 

requirement for an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

because they do not have a significant 

effect on the human environment. See 

40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii), 1508.4. The 

required agency procedures must also 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29474 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘provide for extraordinary 

circumstances in which a normally 

excluded action may have a significant 

environmental effect.’’ 40 CFR 1508.4. 

For FAA actions, these ‘‘categorical 

exclusions’’ and ‘‘extraordinary 

circumstances’’ are listed in Chapter 3 of 

FAA Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures.’’ 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed rulemaking action qualifies for 

the categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f of FAA Order 1050.1E. 

That categorical exclusion applies to 

‘‘[r]egulations, standards, and 

exemptions (excluding those which if 

implemented may cause a significant 

impact on the human environment).’’ 

The existing New York North Shore 

Route is a visual flight rules (VFR) 

route, use of which is voluntary. 

Additionally, the route is located 

entirely over water and away from 

noise-sensitive locations. Therefore, 

implementation of this proposed rule is 

not expected to result in significant 

adverse impacts to the human 

environment. Moreover, 

implementation of the proposed rule 

would not involve any of the 

extraordinary circumstances listed in 

Section 304 of FAA Order 1050.1E. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://www.faa.

gov/regulations_policies; 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 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 docket or notice number of 

this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93 

Air traffic control, Airspace, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC 

RULES 

1. The authority citation for part 93 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 

40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 

46301. 

2. Amend part 93 by adding subpart 

H to read as follows: 

Subpart H—Mandatory Use of the New 

York North Shore Helicopter Route 

§ 93.101 Applicability. 

§ 93.103 Helicopter operations. 

Subpart H—Mandatory Use of the New 

York North Shore Helicopter Route 

§ 93.101 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes a special air 

traffic rule for civil helicopters 

operating VFR along the North Shore, 

Long Island, New York. 

§ 93.103 Helicopter operations. 

(a) Unless otherwise authorized, each 

person piloting a helicopter along Long 

Island, New York’s northern shoreline 

between the VPLYD waypoint and 

Orient Point, shall utilize the North 

Shore Helicopter route, as published. 

(b) Pilots may deviate from the 

requirements of paragraph (a) when 

required for safety, weather conditions 

or transitioning to or from a destination 

or point of landing. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 

2010. 

Edie Parish, 

Acting Director, Systems Operations, 

Airspace and Aeronautical Information 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12606 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1