Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42015 

1Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the 

Territory and Airspace of Afghanistan: 75 FR 29466; 

May 26, 2010. 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it modifies 

controlled airspace at the airport. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR Part 71.1 of the FAA Order 

7400.9T, Airspace Designations and 

Reporting Points, signed August 27, 

2009, and effective September 15, 2009 

is amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace 

Designated as an Extension to a Class D 

Surface Area. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E4 San Clemente, CA [Modified] 

San Clemente Island NALF (Fredrick 

Sherman Field), CA 

(Lat. 33°01′22′′ N., long. 118°35′19′′ W.) 

San Clemente Island TACAN 

(Lat. 33°01′37′′ N., long. 118°34′46′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within 2.6 miles each side of the San 

Clemente Island TACAN 334° radial 

extending from the 4.3-mile radius of San 

Clemente Island NALF (Fredrick Sherman 

Field) to Control 1177L, and within 1.8 miles 

each side of the 064° bearing from the San 

Clemente Island NALF (Fredrick Sherman 

Field) Airport, extending from the 4.3-mile 

radius to 9 miles northeast. This Class E 

airspace area is effective during the specific 

dates and times established in advance by a 

Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time 

will thereafter be continuously published in 

the Airport/Facility Directory. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 1, 

2010. 

John Warner, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17625 Filed 7–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0289; SFAR No. 

110] 

RIN 2120–AJ69 

Prohibition Against Certain Flights 

Within the Territory and Airspace of 

Afghanistan; Supplemental Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of 

availability and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of and request for comments 

on the Supplemental Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis for the previously 

published proposed rule entitled, 

Prohibition Against Certain Flights 

Within the Territory and Airspace of 

Afghanistan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0289 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 Additional 

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: 

Michael Lukacs, APO–300, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20591; telephone number: (202) 

267–9641. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this action 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. 

Background 

On May 26, 2010, the FAA published 

in the Federal Register the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled 

Prohibition Against Certain Flights 

Within the Territory and Airspace of 

Afghanistan.1 The comment period for 

the NPRM closed on June 10, 2010. The 

FAA received several comments about 

the agency’s economic assessment of the 

proposed rule. Specifically, some 

commenters did not agree with the 

FAA’s determination that the NPRM 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. To address these concerns, the 

FAA is publishing the below 

Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis for comment. 

Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
42016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Based on the comments received 

following publication of the NPRM, we 

have re-evaluated our certification 

under the RFA that the proposed rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on our re-evaluation, we have 

determined that the proposed rule will, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Consequently, 

we have completed a Supplemental 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and 

request comments from affected small 

entities. The purpose of this analysis is 

to identify the number of small entities 

affected, assess the economic impact of 

the proposed regulation on them, and 

consider less burdensome alternatives 

and still meet the agency’s statutory 

objectives. Under Section 603(b) and 

603(c) of the RFA, the analysis must 

address: 

1. A description of the reasons why 

the action by the agency is being 

considered. 

2. A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule. 

3. A description—and, where feasible, 

an estimate of the number—of small 

entities to which the proposed rule will 

apply. 

4. A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities that will be 

subject to the requirement and the types 

of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record. 

5. An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

6. Significant alternatives. 

1. Description of the reasons why the 

action by the agency is being 

considered. 

This action would permit certain U.S. 

civil flight operations below flight level 

(FL) 160 within the territory and 

airspace of Afghanistan, when approved 

by the FAA or when authorized by 

exemption by the FAA. Otherwise, 

flight operations below FL 160 within 

the territory and airspace of Afghanistan 

would be prohibited for all U.S. air 

carriers; U.S. commercial operators; 

persons exercising the privileges of a 

U.S. airman certificate, except when 

that person is operating a U.S.-registered 

aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and 

operators of U.S.-registered aircraft, 

except when such operators are foreign 

air carriers. 

The FAA is considering this action 

because insurgent activity in 

Afghanistan has increased and threatens 

the safety of U.S. civil aircraft and 

operators operating within Afghan 

airspace and overflying the territory of 

Afghanistan. This insurgent activity has 

adversely affected the safety of airfield 

operations for these flights. The Afghan 

insurgents, armed with various 

weapons, pose a serious threat to U.S. 

civil aircraft and operators at local 

airports and to these aircraft on 

approach to and departing from these 

airports. Insurgents with small arms fire 

capabilities have been targeting airfields 

with rockets and have fired on aircraft 

at these airfields. While U.S. civil 

aircraft have not yet specifically been 

targeted, there have been several 

reported events of these aircraft being 

hit by small arms fire. Also, foreign civil 

aircraft that support the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) have been 

shot down by small arms and rocketpropelled grenade fire. 

2. Objectives and legal basis for the 

proposed rule. 

The FAA is responsible for the safety 

of flight in the United States and for the 

safety of U.S.-registered aircraft and U.S. 

operators throughout the world. Also, 

the FAA is responsible for issuing rules 

affecting the safety of air commerce and 

national security. The FAA’s authority 

to issue the rules on aviation safety is 

found in Title 49 of the United States 

Code. Subtitle I, Section 106(g), 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. Section 

40101(d)(1) provides that the 

Administrator shall consider in the 

public interest, among other matters, 

assigning, maintaining, and enhancing 

safety and security as the highest 

priorities in air commerce. Section 

40105(b)(1)(A) requires the 

Administrator to exercise his authority 

consistently with the obligations of the 

United States Government under 

international agreements. Further, the 

FAA has broad authority under section 

44701(a)(5) to prescribe regulations 

governing the practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce and 

national security. 

The FAA finds the proposed rule 

necessary to prevent a potential hazard 

to persons and aircraft engaged in 

Afghanistan flight operations. The 

nature of the hazard that the FAA seeks 

to address is described in the preceding 

section, ‘‘Description of the reasons why 

the action by the agency is being 

considered.’’ 

3. Description and Estimate of small 

entities. 

There are currently no operational 

restrictions in Afghanistan. The 

proposed rule would affect U.S. 

operators, operators of U.S.-registered 

aircraft (except foreign air carriers), and 

U.S-certificated airmen (except those 

U.S. certificated airmen engaged in the 

operation of U.S.-registered aircraft for 

foreign air carriers) who operate in 

Afghanistan below FL 160. 

In view of the threat escalation in the 

territory and airspace of Afghanistan, 

and in furtherance of the FAA 

Administrator’s responsibilities to 

promote the safe flight of U.S. civil 

aircraft in air commerce and to issue 

aviation rules in the interest of national 

security of the United States, the 

Administrator has determined that the 

potential hazard to U.S-registered 

aircraft and U.S.-certificated airmen 

must be mitigated. Therefore, the FAA 

proposes to issue an SFAR to restrict 

flight below FL 160 within the airspace 

and territory of Afghanistan, except in 

compliance with the procedures set 

forth in the proposed rule. 

We expect as many as 25 small 

entities would seek authorization from 

the FAA to operate in Afghanistan 

under this proposed rule. Depending on 

the characteristics of the existing flight 

operations, the number of flights could 

be affected. The operators currently 

operating are all-cargo, and all have less 

than 1,500 employees. Generally, these 

operators provide niche market services 

and have available capacity to provide 

military support. We are unable from 

the comments we received to the NPRM 

to determine the magnitude of the 

economic impact of the proposed rule 

on these operators. Separately, we are 

also unable to document and publish 

the revenue and number of operations 

per operator. 

4. Compliance requirements. 

The proposed rule would allow flights 

below FL 160 in the territory or airspace 

of Afghanistan only with the approval of 

the FAA or by an exemption issued by 

the FAA. The required documentation 

for the affected entities to be in 

compliance with this proposed rule 

would take each operator one hour to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42017 

fill out, endorse and file the required 

paperwork. As such, the cost for a oneyear period would be $94 (1 hour × $94 

per hour). 

In addition to the paperwork that 

would be required as a result of this 

proposal, it is expected that some flight 

operations would not be authorized. 

Without authorization from the FAA to 

conduct these flights, the operator’s 

inability to conduct such operations 

would result in a significant economic 

impact. 

The FAA has used Department of 

Transportation Form 41 data for the 

total operating revenue per flight for 

international cargo operations of U.S. 

Operators. In 2009, the reported median 

revenue estimate was approximately 

$70,000 per flight, although the profit 

would be substantially less. As the 

number of flights currently operating 

would continue for the foreseeable 

future, operators who eliminate flights 

as a result of the proposed rule would 

incur a significant economic loss. The 

proposal would affect ‘‘more than just a 

few’’ operators who fly in Afghanistan. 

As such, we believe flights would be 

eliminated for a substantial number of 

operators. 

The requirements of this proposal 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

5. Relevant federal rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

proposed rule. 

The FAA is unaware that the rule 

would overlap, duplicate, or conflict 

with existing federal rules. 

6. Significant Alternatives 

Considered. 

Maintain the status quo: Continue to 

allow all flights to occur without 

requiring steps to manage the risks to 

these operations from insurgent activity 

or an approval or exemption from the 

FAA. 

The FAA is responsible for both the 

safety of flight in the United States and 

for the safety of U.S.-registered aircraft 

and U.S. operators throughout the 

world. The FAA rejected this alternative 

and has not identified any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule which 

accomplish the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes and which minimize 

any significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

The FAA has determined that the 

proposed rule would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, we 

have prepared the above Supplemental 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. We 

solicit comments on this determination. 

We also solicit comments on the 

analysis of the number of small entities 

that would be affected, the economic 

impact of the proposed regulation on 

these small entities, and whether there 

are any less burdensome alternatives 

that still meet the agency’s statutory 

objectives. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The most helpful comments will 

reference a specific portion of the 

Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis or related rulemaking 

document, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please submit a single copy of your 

written or electronic comments only one 

time. 

All comments we receive will be filed 

in the docket, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

the proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on the 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 make changes 

to the 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 SFAR number of 

this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing the 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 15, 

2010. 

Pamela Hamilton-Powell, 

Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17762 Filed 7–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1218 

RIN 3041–AC81 

Safety Standard for Bassinets and 

Cradles 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is reopening the comment period for its 

proposed rule on the Safety Standard for 

Bassinets and Cradles. The reopened 

comment period will expire on 

September 10, 2010. 

DATES: Written comments in response to 

this document must be received by the 

Commission no later than September 10, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0028, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: Federal eRulemaking 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1