Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59661 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4119; fax: (816) 329– 

4090. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer or other source, 

use these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Special Flight Permit 

(j) We are allowing permission to ferry an 

airplane to a maintenance location to 

accomplish actions required by paragraph (1) 

of this AD provided that the air conditioning 

is switched off during the entire flight 

duration. 

Related Information 

(k) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2010– 

0130, dated June 29, 2010; and SOCATA 

Service Bulletin SB 70–176, amendment 1, 

dated February 2010, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

September 22, 2010. 

Patrick R. Mullen, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24248 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 187 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0326; Notice No. 10– 

12] 

RIN 2120–AJ68 

Update of Overflight Fees 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to adjust 

existing Overflight Fees by using current 

FAA cost accounting data and air traffic 

activity data. This action is necessary 

because operational costs for providing 

air traffic control and related services 

for Overflights have increased steadily 

since the fees were established in 2001. 

The adjustment of Overflight Fees 

would result in an increased level of 

cost recovery for the services being 

provided. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0326 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 our 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, go 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact David Lawhead, 

Office of Financial Controls, Financial 

Analysis Division (AFC 300), Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–9759 facsimile (202) 267–5271, 

e-mail to Dave.Lawhead@FAA.gov. For 

legal questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Michael Chase, 

AGC–240, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Regulations Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–3110; e-mail to 

michael.chase@faa.gov. 

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’s authority to establish these 

fees is found in Title 49 of the United 

States Code. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Chapter 453, Section 45301 

et seq. Under that Chapter, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations for 

the collection of fees for air traffic 

control and related services provided to 

aircraft, other than military and civilian 

aircraft of the United States government 

or a foreign government, that transit 

U.S.-controlled airspace, but neither 

take off from nor land in the United 

States (‘‘Overflights’’). This proposed 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority. 

I. Background 

The FAA’s Overflight Fees were 

initially authorized in the Federal 

Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 

(Pub. L. 104–264, enacted October 9, 

1996). Overflight Fees are charges for 

aircraft flights that transit U.S.- 

controlled airspace, but neither land in 

nor depart from the United States. 

Following enactment of the initial fee 

authority, and as mandated by that 

authority, the FAA issued an Interim 

Final Rule (IFR), ‘‘Fees for Air Traffic 

Services for Certain Flights through U.S. 

Controlled Airspace’’ (62 FR 13496), on 

March 20, 1997. Under the terms of the 

IFR, the FAA sought public comment on 

the IFR while concurrently beginning to 

assess Overflight Fees 60 days after its 

publication, on May 19, 1997. 

On July 17, 1997, petitions for judicial 

review of the IFR were filed in the U.S. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

59662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia (the Court) by the Air 

Transport Association of Canada 

(ATAC) and seven foreign air carriers. 

Those petitions were consolidated into 

a single case (Asiana Airlines v. FAA, 

134 F.3d 393 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). The 

litigation proceeded throughout the 

remainder of 1997 while the FAA 

continued to collect fees pursuant to the 

statute. 

On January 30, 1998, the Court issued 

a decision, upholding the FAA on three 

process and procedure issues, but 

vacating the Rule because the Court 

found that the methodology the FAA 

used to allocate costs did not conform 

to the statute. The FAA immediately 

suspended billing operations, and 

eventually refunded nearly $40 million 

in fees that had then been collected. 

Although the 1997 IFR (62 FR 13496) 

had been set aside by the Court, the 

statutory requirement that the FAA 

establish Overflight Fees through an IFR 

remained in effect. One of the principal 

criticisms the FAA had received from 

the public commenters on its 1997 IFR 

concerned the quality of the cost 

information upon which the Overflight 

Fees were based. The FAA had already 

begun developing a new Cost 

Accounting System (CAS) in 1996. Early 

data from the new CAS was becoming 

available in 1998. Thus, when the FAA 

decided, following the initial litigation, 

to issue a new IFR, a key element of that 

decision was that the fees would be 

derived from cost data from the new 

CAS. 

A new IFR was published in the 

Federal Register on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 

36002), with fees scheduled to go into 

effect on August 1, 2000. This new IFR 

was challenged in court by the ATAC 

and a slightly different group of seven 

foreign air carriers. The FAA began 

assessing and collecting the new 

Overflight Fees as scheduled on August 

1, 2000, while public comments were 

still being received by the FAA on its 

second IFR. The litigation proceeded 

concurrently, with oral arguments held 

on May 14, 2001. 

On July 13, 2001, the Court again 

vacated the FAA’s IFR, this time 

because the Court believed the FAA had 

failed to explain a key assumption in its 

costing methodology. (Air Transport 

Association of Canada v. FAA; 00–1344, 

July 13, 2001). Under the Court’s order, 

there were 45 days before the IFR was 

to be vacated. As noted above, the FAA 

had solicited public comment on the 

IFR at the time it was published. The 

FAA had received many comments on 

the several issues raised in the 

litigation. At the time the Court’s 

decision was issued, the FAA was 

nearing completion of a Final Rule that 

would address these issues in the 

disposition of public comments section 

of its preamble. 

The FAA therefore proceeded on two 

fronts. It successfully petitioned the 

Court not to vacate the IFR while it 

proceeded concurrently with issuance 

of the Final Rule (‘‘Fees for FAA 

Services for Certain Flights,’’ 66 FR 

43680) on August 20, 2001, with revised 

fees effective immediately. In addition 

to addressing the public comments 

received on the IFR, the Final Rule 

reduced fees by about 15 percent due to 

adjustments in the original cost data. A 

new challenge to the revised fees was 

brought after the issuance of the Final 

Rule by ATAC and the same group of air 

carriers. The two cases, one challenging 

the IFR (65 FR 36002) issued in 2000 

and the other challenging the Final Rule 

(66 FR 43680) issued in 2001, were 

combined by the Court into a single 

case. 

While the litigation was still pending, 

on November 19, 2001, Congress 

enacted the Aviation and Transportation 

Security Act (ATSA), which included a 

provision that amended the Overflight 

Fee authorization (1) To require that the 

fees be ‘‘reasonably’’ (rather than 

‘‘directly’’) related to costs, (2) to clarify 

that the Administrator has sole 

authority to determine the costs upon 

which the fees are based, and (3) to state 

explicitly that such cost determinations 

by the Administrator are not subject to 

judicial review. Meanwhile, the 

litigation proceeded into 2003, with the 

FAA continuing to collect the fees as 

required by statute. 

On April 8, 2003, the Court issued a 

decision setting aside the Final Rule and 

remanding it back to the FAA, finding 

that the agency had not adequately 

explained its handling of controller 

labor costs in deriving the fees. Air 

Transport Association of Canada v. 

FAA, 323 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 

The Court also found that the Overflight 

Fees amendments in the ATSA statute 

were inapplicable because of a generic 

‘‘savings’’ provision in the ATSA 

legislation that stated that nothing 

enacted in ATSA was applicable to any 

litigation ongoing prior to the date of 

enactment of ATSA. Fee collections 

were immediately suspended. 

On December 12, 2003, Congress 

enacted VISION 100—CENTURY OF 

AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT, 

(Vision 100). Section 229 of that Act 

explicitly ‘‘adopted, legalized, and 

confirmed’’ both the IFR published in 

2000 and the Final Rule published in 

2001. In addition, the FAA was directed 

to hold a consultation meeting with 

users (those who pay the Overflight Fees 

to the FAA) and to submit a report to 

Congress addressing the issues that had 

been in dispute in the litigation before 

resuming the billing and collection of 

the Overflight Fees. 

Because there were ambiguous and 

potentially conflicting provisions in 

Vision 100 concerning Overflight Fees, 

the Administrator issued an Order on 

July 21, 2004, that set forth her 

interpretation of the language of the 

statute and, based on that interpretation, 

made determinations as to the ultimate 

disposition of Overflight Fees collected 

by the FAA under both the 2000 IFR 

and the 2001 Final Rule. The FAA 

retained a portion of the funds collected 

under the Final Rule, while either 

refunding or providing credits to the 

airlines for all of the fees collected 

under the IFR and a portion of the fees 

collected under the Final Rule. A copy 

of that Order, ‘‘Order Directing the 

Disposition of Certain Fees Collected by 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 45301,’’ 

has been placed in the docket. 

The FAA met with users in September 

2004 and submitted a report to Congress 

at the same time, as mandated by the 

Vision 100 statute. This cleared the way 

for the FAA to resume the billing and 

collection of Overflight Fees. In most 

cases, amounts previously collected by 

the FAA under the IFR and under the 

Final Rule up until the date of the 

ATSA enactment were provided as 

credits to frequent payers. These 

amounts were, in most cases, roughly 

offset by amounts owed by the carriers 

and other users for the one-year period 

from March 2003 through February 

2004. The carriers had not been billed 

for this period while the litigation was 

ongoing, but were ultimately 

determined by the Administrator to be 

liable for those fees. 

Since that time, the FAA has followed 

the normal process of issuing monthly 

bills for the services provided to 

Overflights. The fees currently being 

charged were derived from cost and 

activity data for FY 1999. This NPRM 

proposes to update the existing fees by 

using cost and activity data for FY 2008 

to derive the fees. The cost methodology 

applied in this NPRM is applied in the 

same manner as in 2001, except that 

overhead has been included in the cost 

base for the fees this time as a direct 

result of the ATSA amendment that 

changed the previous statutory 

requirement that fees be ‘‘directly’’ 

related to costs to a less stringent 

requirement that the fees be 

‘‘reasonably’’ related to costs. 

The FAA’s CAS has been evolving 

and improving over time. The CAS has 

always relied on the best available data, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59663 

and as new systems and techniques 

have evolved, the quality and accuracy 

of the data has improved. There are 

areas, such as the reporting of labor 

costs, where costs were allocated or 

assigned in the past based on estimates, 

but today are determined by actual data. 

This is not a difference in how the data 

is gathered, but rather an improvement 

in the quality and accuracy of the basic 

data. A detailed explanation of how the 

CAS data was assembled can be found 

in the ‘‘Costing Methodology Report, FY 

2008,’’ which has been placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

Overflight Fees Aviation Rulemaking 

Committees (ARC) 

In 2004, the FAA established an 

Overflight Fees ARC. That Committee 

held two meetings in early 2005, but 

never issued a report or made a 

recommendation to the FAA before its 

Charter expired. Subsequently, on 

December 17, 2008, the FAA issued a 

new Charter for an Overflight Fees ARC 

to advise and make recommendations to 

the FAA on the updating of its 

Overflight Fees. The Overflight Fees 

ARC met several times in 2009 and 

issued its report and recommendations 

to the FAA on August 26, 2009. A copy 

of this report has been placed in the 

docket. The report contains three 

principal recommendations: 

1. That the FAA pursue the updating 

of its Overflight Fees through the 

normal notice and comment type of 

rulemaking, rather than through the 

interim final rule process previously 

mandated by Congress; 

2. That, in updating the fees, the FAA 

abide by the policies of the International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 

whereby the principle of gradualism is 

applied so that any substantial fee 

increase (as in this case where a 9-year 

update is involved) is spread over 

several years; and 

3. That, in this instance, the specific 

increases be accomplished over 4 

increments, on October 1st of each year 

from 2011 through 2014, with annual 

increases of 14% for Enroute and 8% for 

Oceanic. 

The FAA believes that the ARC 

recommendations are a reasonable 

approach to move forward on a 

consensus basis to update its Overflight 

Fees. This NPRM proposes to 

implement the recommendations of the 

ARC. It should be noted that the annual 

increases recommended by the ARC 

(14% for the Enroute fee and 8% for the 

Oceanic fee) were derived from 

information presented to the ARC by the 

FAA. The FAA had shown the ARC 

that, in order for the FAA to approach 

the cost recovery called for by Federal 

policy guidance on user fees, based on 

actual cost and activity data for FY 

2008, fee increases of approximately 

69% and 36%, respectively, for Enroute 

and Oceanic, would be necessary. 

Spreading this increase over 4 years 

produces the recommended levels of 

14% per year, compounded, for Enroute 

and 8% per year, compounded, for 

Oceanic. 

The actual dollar amounts of each fee 

as of each of the four October 1st fee 

revision dates would be as follows: 

Time period 

Enroute 

(per 100 

nautical 

miles) 

Oceanic 

(per 100 

nautical 

miles) 

October 1, 2011 ............................................................................................................................................................... $38.44 $17.22 

October 1, 2012 ............................................................................................................................................................... 43.82 18.60 

October 1, 2013 ............................................................................................................................................................... 49.95 20.09 

October 1, 2014 ............................................................................................................................................................... 56.86 21.63 

II. Discussion of the Proposal 

The proposed rule would update the 

FAA’s existing Overflight Fees, which 

are presently based on Fiscal Year (FY) 

1999 cost and activity data. The fees 

have not been updated since they were 

initially established on August 20, 2001. 

The current fees are derived 

arithmetically from final FAA CAS data 

for FY 1999 and from the Enhanced 

Traffic Management System (ETMS) 

data for the same year. The updated fees 

would be derived using basically the 

same methodology as in 2001, but 

would be derived from final, audited 

CAS data and ETMS data for FY 2008. 

The only difference would be that the 

updated fees would include overhead in 

the cost base. Overhead originally was 

excluded from the cost base for the 

existing fees, but would be included in 

the derivation of the updated fees as the 

result of the previously discussed 

change in the applicable statutory 

authority (changing the requirement that 

fees be ‘‘directly’’ related to costs to a 

requirement that the fees be 

‘‘reasonably’’ related to costs). 

Separate overflight fees have been 

established, and are currently in effect, 

for flights that transit U.S.-controlled 

airspace in each of two operational 

environments—Enroute and Oceanic— 

without either taking off from or landing 

in the United States. The updated 

Enroute fee would be derived by taking 

(from CAS) the total costs incurred in 

the Enroute environment in FY 2008 

and dividing that number by the 

number of miles flown in U.S.- 

controlled Enroute airspace in FY 2008. 

This would produce a per-mile cost that 

would be levied as a charge per 100 

nautical miles flown, using Great Circle 

Distance (GCD), from point of entry into, 

to point of exit from, U.S.-controlled 

airspace. The separate Oceanic fee is 

determined in precisely the same 

manner, by dividing total Oceanic costs 

for FY 2008 by the total number of 

Oceanic miles flown in FY 2008. The 

actual step-by-step derivation of these 

fees, using actual numbers for FY 2008, 

is shown in the ‘‘Overflight Fee 

Development Report’’ which is included 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

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. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. The FAA information used to track 

and bill overflights (including the 

information collection necessary to 

implement this proposal) is accessed 

from flight plans filed with the FAA. 

The collection of Domestic and 

International Flight Plans is approved 

under OMB collection Control # 2120– 

0026. The FAA seeks comment on 

whether a revision to this information 

collection would be necessary as a 

result of this proposal. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

59664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, 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 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 to 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: 

Benefit 

The benefit of this proposed rule 

would be that the overflight fees will be 

more closely related to the actual costs 

of providing FAA’s services for these 

flights. 

Costs 

Taxes and government fees are a 

transfer payment, and, by OMB 

directive, transfers are not considered a 

societal cost. Therefore, this rule 

imposes no costs. We do provide an 

estimate of the transfers. There would 

be a 4-year phase-in of fees with yearly 

increases (14% Enroute and 8% 

Oceanic). Increases would begin in 2011 

and end in 2014. We have determined 

that approximately 80% of Overflight 

Fees for domestic operators would be 

Enroute and 20% would be Oceanic. 

(See Table 1.) 

Most of the transfers from this 

proposed rule would be borne by 

foreign operators. The estimated 

transfers from foreign operators to the 

FAA are about $73 million ($52 million, 

present value). (See Table 2.) 

Using the preceding information, the 

FAA estimates that the total transfers 

resulting from this proposed rule from 

U.S. entities to the FAA over 5 years 

would be about $1.1 million ($0.8 

million, present value). Again, 

government fees and taxes are 

considered transfers and not societal 

costs, so this proposed rule does not 

increase society’s costs. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this proposed rule is not an 

economically ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’, but is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ for other reasons as defined in 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28SE10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59665 

and is ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. 

The FAA ranked in descending order 

all domestic entities based on their 

Overflight Fees. Then we identified 5 

small entities having publicly-available 

financial information (using a size 

standard of 1,500 or fewer employees) 

in the top 20 percent of the ranking. We 

retrieved their annual revenue from 

World Aviation Directory and compared 

it to their annualized compliance costs. 

Of these 5 entities, all of them have 

annualized compliance costs as a 

percentage of annual revenues lower 

than 0.1 percent. We believe this 

economic impact is not significant. 

Consequently, the FAA certifies that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312d and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

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 regulatory action’’ under the 

executive order because, while it is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures, it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Plain English 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993) requires each agency to 

write regulations that are simple and 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed regulations contain 

unnecessary technical language or 

jargon that interferes with their clarity? 

• Would the regulations be easier to 

understand if they were divided into 

more (but shorter) sections? 

• Is the description in the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

regulations? 

Please send your comments to the 

address specified in the Addresses 

section of this preamble. 

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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

59666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 

Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of the Dodd-Frank Act 

may be accessed at http://www.cftc.gov./ 

LawRegulation/OTCDERIVATIVES/index.htm. 

2Pursuant to § 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title 

VII may be cited as the ‘‘Wall Street Transparency 

and Accountability Act of 2010.’’ 

3 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 

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 number 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 187 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air transportation. 

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 187—FEES 

1. The authority citation for part 187 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 49 U.S.C. 

106(g), 49 U.S.C. 106(l)((6), 40104–401–5, 

40109, 40113–40114, 44702. 

2. In part 187, Appendix B is 

amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to 

read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 187—Fees for FAA 

Services for Certain Flights 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) A User (operator of an Overflight) is 

assessed a fee for each 100 nautical miles (or 

portion thereof) flown in each segment and 

type of U.S.-controlled airspace. Separate 

calculations are made for transiting Enroute 

and Oceanic airspace. The total fee charged 

for an Overflight between any entry and exit 

point is equal to the sum of these two 

charges. This relationship is summarized as: 

Rij = X*DEij + Y*DOij,

Where: 

Rij = the fee charged to aircraft flying 

between entry point i and exit point j, 

DEij = total great circle distance traveled in 

each segment of U.S.-controlled Enroute 

airspace expressed in hundreds of 

nautical miles for aircraft flying between 

entry point i and exit point j for each 

segment of Enroute airspace. 

DOij = total great circle distance traveled in 

each segment of U.S.-controlled Oceanic 

airspace expressed in hundreds of 

nautical miles for aircraft flying between 

entry point i and exit point j for each 

segment of Oceanic airspace. 

X and Y = the values respectively set forth 

in the following schedule: 

Time period X (Enroute) Y (Oceanic) 

Through September 30, 2011 ......................................................................................................................... $33.72 $15.94 

October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012 ............................................................................................... 38.44 17.22 

October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013 ............................................................................................... 43.82 18.60 

October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014 ............................................................................................... 49.95 20.09 

October 1, 2014 and beyond ........................................................................................................................... 56.86 21.63 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

22, 2010. 

Carl W. Burrus, 

Director, Office of Financial Controls. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24342 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 35 

Agricultural Swaps 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) is charged with proposing rules 

to implement new statutory provisions 

enacted by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’). 

Section 723(c)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act 

provides that swaps in an ‘‘agricultural 

commodity’’ (as defined by the 

Commission) are prohibited unless 

entered into pursuant to a rule, 

regulation or order of the Commission 

adopted pursuant to section 4(c) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’ or 

‘‘Act’’). This advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘ANPRM’’) requests 

comment on the appropriate conditions, 

restrictions or protections to be 

included in any such rule, regulation or 

order governing the trading of 

agricultural swaps. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 28, 2010. The 

Commission is not inclined to grant 

extensions of this comment period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified with ‘‘Agricultural Swaps 

ANPRM’’ in the subject line, by any of 

the following methods: 

• E-mail for comments: 

agswapsANPR@cftc.gov. 

• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of 

the Commission, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mail above. 

All comments must be submitted in 

English, or if not, accompanied by an 

English translation. All comments 

provided in any electronic form or on 

paper will be published on the CFTC 

Web site, without review and without 

removal of personally identifying 

information. All comments are subject 

to the CFTC privacy policy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Heitman, Senior Special 

Counsel, (202) 418–5041, 

dheitman@cftc.gov, or Ryne Miller, 

Attorney Advisor, (202) 418–5921, 

rmiller@cftc.gov, Division of Market 

Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama 

signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act.1

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act 2

amended the CEA3 to establish a 

comprehensive new regulatory 

framework for swaps and security-based 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS