1 Sharlene R. Matten, Ph. D., Biologist USEPA/ OPP Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division Matten. sharlene@ epa. gov 703 605 0514 Sharlene R. Matten, Ph. D., Biologist USEPA/ OPP Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division Matten. sharlene@ epa. gov 703 605 0514 WideStrike ( Cry1F + Cry1Ac) Cotton:

Issues Related to Establishing an IRM Plan 2 Purpose

Present various aspects of EPA's analysis of Dow's WideStrike cotton IRM submissions

Dose studies for Heliothis virescens ( TBW, tobacco budworm), Helicoverpa zea ( CBW, cotton bollworm), and Pectinophora gossypiella ( PBW,

pink bollworm)

Pest adaptation likelihood including modeling and IRM Plan

EPA will decide on the acceptability of Dow's WideStrike IRM Plan. 3 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 4 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 5 Key IRM Issues for SAP  Dose  Cross resistance potential ( Cry1F and Cry1Ac)

 Cotton bollworm alternate hosts  Models   tobacco budworm and cotton bollworm  IRM Plan 6 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton?

 Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 7 What is WideStrike Cotton?

 Event 281 24 236 ( Cry1F)) X Event 3006 210

23 ( Cry1Ac)

= Event 281 24 236/ 3006 210 23  WideStrike expresses both Cry1Ac and Cry1F  Cry1Ac expressed in BollgardTM cotton and BollgardTM II  Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab  Cry1F expressed in HerculexTM corn 8 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 9 Key Lepidopteran Pests of Cotton

Major pests:

tobacco budworm ( Heliothis virescens, TBW)

cotton bollworm ( Helicoverpa zea, CBW)

pink bollworm ( Pectinophora gossypiella, PBW)

Secondary pests:

cabbage looper ( Trichoplusia ni, CL)

soybean looper ( Pseudoplusia includens, SL)

beet armyworm ( Spodoptera exigua, BAW)

fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda, FAW)

southern armyworm ( Spodoptera eridania, SAW) 10 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 11 Factors in Pest Adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  IRM Plan must consider all factors 12 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 13 Operational Factors  Mode of action  Target  Larval effects  No adult effects   no insecticidal crystal proteins ( ICPs) expressed in nectar  Dose and functional dominance  Pyramided Toxins  Cry1F + Cry1Ac  Market share 14 ( Bravo, 2004) 15 Cry1Ac and Cry1F Expression N. D., < LOQ, 0.17 0.51, 0.54, 0.88 Roots ( defoliated,

pollination, seedling) 0.64 3.52 Bolls N. D.

1.45 1.83 1.82 1.31 1.82 Cry1Ac Mean Expression ( ng ICP/ mg tissue)

Not Detectable ( N. D.)

Nectar, meal, oil 0.06 (< LOQ)

Pollen 5.44 Flowers 4.88 Squares 8.19 Terminal leaves 6.81 Young leaves Cry1F Mean Expression ( ng ICP/ mg tissue)

Tissue 16 High Dose/ Refuge Assumptions

Single or major resistance gene

Recessive inheritance

RRs are rare

Refuge supplies SS ( unselected source)

Random mating or preferential mating   RR with SS

High dose ( 1998 and 2000 SAP)

25X the dose required to kill 99% of the susceptible insects

> 95% RS will be killed and > 99.9% of the susceptible insects will be killed 17 Methods to demonstrate high dose 1. Serial dilution bioassay with artificial diet containing lyophilized tissues of Bt plants using tissues from non

Bt plants as controls. ( TBW and PBW)

2. Bioassays using plant lines with expression levels approximately 25 fold lower than the commercial cultivar.

3. Survey large numbers of commercial plants in the field to see if Bt plants are at the LD99.9 or higher to assure that 95% of the heterozygotes will be killed. ( CBW   NC) 18 Methods to demonstrate high dose ( cont.)

4. Similar to # 3, but would use controlled infestations with a laboratory strain of the pest that had an LD50 value similar to field strains. ( CBW   MS; PBW;

TBW)

5. Determine if a later instar with an LD50 that was 25X higher than that of the neonate could be tested on Bt plants to determine if 95% or more of the later stage larvae were killed. ( TBW) 19 Dose and Functional Dominance

TBW

High dose for Cry1Ac +

Cry1F( > 99.9%)

High dose for Cry1Ac alone

Nearly high dose for Cry1F alone

PBW

High dose for Cry1Ac (> 99.9%), Cry1F non toxic

Resistance likely to be functionally recessive, RS likely to be killed on WideStrike

CBW

Not a high dose for Cry1Ac + Cry1F (~ 94% mortality   MS +

NC)

Not a high dose for either ICP alone, but Cry1Ac > Cry1F

Resistance less likely to be functionally recessive  SAP Question # 1: dose and functional dominance 20 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 21 Biological Factors  Adult movement and dispersal  Larval movement  Alternate hosts  Population dynamics  Metapopulation dynamics  important consideration for CBW 22 Adult and Larval Movement Mobile*

Extensive ( Fitt, 1989)

CBW Not Mobile Limited ( Tabashnik et al., 1999)

PBW Mobile Moderate ( Fitt, 1989)

TBW Larvae Adult Pest * In absence of a high dose, the consequence of larval movement on the population rate of adaptation is relatively small, since heterozygote survival is already relatively high compared to SS larvae. 23 Alternate Hosts

HOSTS database for Nearctic region ( host plants of the world's Lepidoptera)

TBW:

66 species from 20 families

wild hosts early and late

ability of alternate hosts to support complete insect development during the summer is unclear

PBW:

26 species from 5 families

most closely related to cotton

non cotton hosts not important to adaptation 24 Alternate Hosts  CBW:

108 species from 30 families

Long distance dispersal then host plants outside the immediate cotton growing area act as important sources of non selected populations [ Metapopulation dynamics]

Gould et al. ( 2002)  carbon isotope ratios in CBW adults collected in the mid south and southwest US,

indicate the more insects emerge from alternate hosts than from cotton for most of the year 25 Alternate Hosts

Host data base   extensive alternate hosts

CBW Model

Includes alternate hosts in two agroecosystems ( NC and Delta)

Includes multiple ICPs ( Cry1F, Cry1Ac, Cry2A)

Gould et al. 2002 carbon isotope analysis showing N S movement of CBW and influence of alternate hosts

SAP Question # 3: scientific adequacy of database and whether additional field data are needed 26 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 27 Genetic Factors: Functional Dominance  Functional dominance of R allele ( Is the R allele genetically completely recessive)

TBW and PBW, Dominance = < 0.05,

functionally recessive [ 95% heterozygotes killed]

CBW, Dominance = 0.5, additive 28 Genetic Factors: Initial R Frequency  Initial R frequency is rare

TBW: 0.0015, recessive ( Gould et al. 1997)

CBW: 0.00043, incompletely dominant ( Burd et al. 2001)

PBW: variable, 0 to 0.16 ( Tabashnik et al.

2000); R allele frequency dropped in subsequent years, recessive; fitness costs to resistance  overwintering and survival on non

Bt cotton plants ( Carri  re et al. 2001b and c) 29 Genetic Factors: Cross Resistance  Cross resistance among Bt ICPS

Potential for genes that confer cross resistance by reduced binding

Potential to occur through protein digestion in the midgut, broad cross resistance

SAP Question # 2: cross resistance potential Cry1F and Cry1Ac

Cross resistance between Bt and other control mechanisms ( e. g., pyrethroids, carbamates, spinosad)

Not expected based on mode of action 30 Cross Resistance Potential: Cry1F and Cry1Ac  Resistance to Bt proteins may occur through several different mechanisms.

 Two common Bt resistance mechanisms ( Ferré and Van Rie, 2002; Tabashnik, 1994):

 Detoxification  Receptor binding modification ( most common)

 Loss of function ( i. e., binding), resistance expected to be recessive ( Ferré and Van Rie, 2002)

 Cry1F and Cry1Ac   share binding sites and have unique binding sites in TBW and CBW  Shared binding may lead to cross resistance, enhance survival against both Cry1Ac and Cry1F 31 Cry1Ac and Cry1F Binding Patterns in TBW and CBW  Protein pest specificity is mediated by ICP binding midgut receptors  Cry1F and Cry1Ac:

shared and unique binding sites 260 176/

170 32 Cross Resistance Potential  CBW  Radiolabeled Cry1Ac ( Dow: Sheets and Storer, 2001):

 60% of Cry1Ac binding is to Cry1F receptors, 40% of Cry1Ac binding is to non Cry1F receptors  Incomplete shared receptor binding = incomplete crossresistance when resistance is mediated by receptor changes.

 Thus, a mutation in a gene that codes for a receptor that binds both Cry1Ac and Cry1F will not prevent all binding to either ICP, and thus alone, will not allow high survival of the insect bearing even two copies of it on WideStrike cotton.

 Radiolabeled Cry1F  Problems with radiolabeling affect the Cry1F activity, but expect incomplete shared receptor binding and same conclusions as above 33 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 34  Peck et al. ( 1999) for TBW  Dow ( 2003) for CBW  SAP Questions # 4 and # 5 regarding TBW and CBW models Models 35 Peck et al. ( 1999) TBW Model

Spatially explicit, stochastic model

Examined refuge size and spatial pattern of Bt and non

Bt plants ( such as seed mixes and external refuge) on resistance development, and the effects of varying the spatial pattern each year.

20% refuge delayed resistance.

Greater durability if refuge remains the same from year to year, but localized resistance foci

If structured refuge is moved each year, resistance predicted in approximately 17 years. 36 Peck et al. ( 1999) TBW Model  Durability for WideStrike greater than predicted by Peck et al. ( 1999)  >> 10X

Simulations of pyramided ICPS ( e. g. Roush 1997,

Gould 1998) show that adding an additional ICP to the plant always delays the development of resistance to each ICP individually

Initial R allele frequency of 0.03, value much higher than the frequency of Cry1Ac R alleles in TBW populations, 0.0015 ( Gould et al. 1997) 37  Adapted Storer et al. ( 2003) CBW model for WideStrike  Spatially explicit, stochastic  Alternate hosts  North Carolina and Mississippi Delta agroecosystems  Multiple ICPs: Cry1F, Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab  15 year time horizon Dow CBW Model 38  R allele frequency ( unmutated, no fitness costs) = 0.001  1 in 1,000,000 individuals will be homozygous for the mutated form of one of the receptors.

 4 in 1,000,000 will be heterozygous for the mutated form of two receptors.

 R alleles are assumed to be functionally additive, moderate dose ( i. e., functional dominance = 0.5)

DAS CBW Model cont  39 Agroecosystems in Model North Carolina Mississippi Delta 50% soybean, 25% maize, 25% cotton 62% soybean, 8% maize, 30% cotton Maize 1st two generations; cotton  2nd two generations each year; weeds   1st and last generations; soybeans   2nd and 3rd; 10 X 10 fields modeled ( Storer,

2002) 40 DAS CBW Model: Simplified Binding Map  Simplified possible receptors to 3 ( A, B,

and C) from 6 or more  There are two loci at which R alleles can lead to adaptation to WideStrike; one for receptor A and one for receptor B. Proportion of Cry1Ac binding to Receptor A v. B  binding in the model  binding not included in the model ( Storer, 2002) 41 Impact of Shared Binding on Population Fitness   Sensitivity Analysis

x = 20 60%: Intermediate level crossresistance

Selection at both loci occurs on all Bt cotton and Bt corn, least change in population fitness.

Adaptation to Cry1Ac and Cry1F occurs most slowly.

Selection pressure exerted by Cry1Ac> Cry1F because Cry1Ac in Bollgard, Bollgard II, and WideStrike

Binding data indicate that intermediate levels are appropriate: 60% of Cry1Ac binds to Cry1F receptor  x = 0%: No cross resistance

x = 100%: Complete cross resistance 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Degree of Shared Binding, x ( i. e. relative amount Cry1Ac binds to Cry1F receptor)

Population fitness on Bt cotton MXB 13 MXB 13 initially Bollgard BG initially ( Storer,

2004)

NC Agroecosystem 42 CBW Mortality for Model

Cry1F line alone: 67%

Cry1Ac line alone: 97%

WideStrike ( Cry1Ac + Cry1F): 97.2%, Cry1Ac shared binding = 60%

Bollgard ( Cry1Ac alone): 80% ( Lambert et al. 1997)

Bollgard II ( Cry2Ab2 + Cry1Ac): 96% 43 CBW Fitness Values for Model

To understand mortality of insects carrying one or more Ralleles to understand the durability of WideStrike

Functional dominance of resistance on each Bt cotton type

Degree of shared binding:

60% of Cry1Ac binds to Receptor A, 40% to Receptor B

R alleles are assumed to be functionally additive, functional dominance = 0.5, due to lack of high dose

Two loci at which R alleles lead to adaptation to WideStrike ( A and B)

Cry1Ac fitness depends on genotypes for Receptor A and B.

Cry1F fitness depends on genotype for Receptor A

Cry2 fitness depends on genotype for Receptor C

Calculate fitness values for the model ( 27 possible genotypes)

Values indicate the survival probability of each genotype on each Bt cotton type. 44 CBW Adaptation Assumptions

ICP binding to the individual binding receptors included in the model is all functional and leads to the insecticidal activity.

Adaptation to the ICPs is assumed to be caused by mutations to the midgut receptors and that each receptor requires a different mutation

Complete adaptation to both ICPs: insect would have to be homozygous for two receptor mutations

Heterozygous insects ( functional dominance =

0.5) have a fitness halfway between that of SS and RR insects 45 Market Share of WideStrike Vs. Bollgard or Bollgard II: Impact on Population Fitness ° Complex of ICPs reduces the selection pressure to any one product.

° WideStrike had minimal impact on the rate at which CBW may adapt in the Mississippi Delta and North Carolina agroecosystems.

° Marketshare of WideStrike with Bollgard II results in slower adaptation because insects are faced with 3 ICPs.

° In Delta, population fitness decreases due to influence of immigrants.

( Storer, 2002) 46 Refuge Size Impact on Population Fitness ° Refuge size, whether sprayed or unsprayed, had minimal impact on CBW population fitness on WideStrike after 15 years.

° In the Delta, the immigrating non selected population from alternate hosts further reduces the local rate of adaptation. The local structured refuge only supplies a small proportion of the non selected insects. ( Storer, 2002 50% WideStrike, 25% Bollgard, 25% Bollgard II 47 Sensitivity Analysis

Most important:

Proportion of the landscape planted to soybean

Soybean flowering dates

Immigration of non selected populations

Initial R allele frequency

Fitness costs of R alleles.

Moderate effects:

Functional dominance of R alleles on each crop

Dispersal probability

Larval development duration. 48 WideStrike CBW Adaptation Conclusions

WideStrike durability: Modeling indicates no significant change in population fitness in CBW over 15 year time horizon

Moderate dose for Cry1Ac and Cry1F against CBW

Incomplete cross resistance   60% shared binding

Modeling is conservative; fewer binding receptors

Alternate hosts add to durability; although more field data needed

Durability similar to Bollgard II ( Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab) 49 WideStrike TBW Adaptation Conclusions

WideStrike durability greater than predicted by Peck et al. ( 1999)

Widestrike stack ( 2 ICPs) expresses a high dose against TBW, more durable than high dose single gene product.

TBW exhibits similar patterns in binding studies as does CBW, i. e., some shared and some unique receptors.

Incomplete cross resistance 50 WideStrike PBW Adaptation Conclusions  WideStrike expresses a high dose of Cry1Ac, like Bollgard ( Cry1Ac) cotton.

 Single gene product, Cry1Ac, for PBW  Cry1F is not effective against PBW. 51 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 52 WideStrike IRM Plan: Refuge Options  5% external, unsprayed refuge: Five percent of the cotton fields must be planted to non Bt cotton and not be treated with any lepidopteran control technology. The refuge must be at least 150 ft. wide ( preferably 300 ft.)

and within ½ mile ( preferably adjacent or within 1/ 4 mile or closer) of the Bt cotton.

 20% external, sprayed refuge: Twenty percent of the cotton fields must be planted to non Bt cotton and may be treated with lepidopteran active insecticides ( or other control technology) except for microbial Bt formulations.

The refuge must be within 1 mile ( preferably within ½ mile or closer) of the Bt cotton fields. 53 WideStrike IRM Plan: Refuge Options Cont.

 5% embedded refuge for TBW and CBW: Five percent of a cotton field ( or fields) must be planted with non Bt cotton as a block within a single field, at least 150 ft. wide ( preferably 300 ft. wide) or single field blocks within a one mile squared field unit. The refuge may be treated with lepidopteran active insecticides ( or other control technology) only if the entire field or field unit is treated at the same time.

 For PBW: One single row of a non Bt cotton variety must be planted for every 6 to 10 rows of Bt cotton. This can be treated with lepidopteran active insecticides ( or other control technology) only if the entire field is treated at the same time. 54 WideStrike IRM Plan: Refuge Options Cont.

 Community refuge: Farmers can combine neighboring fields within a one mile squared field unit that act as a 20% sprayable refuge or the 5%

unsprayed refuge. Participants in the community refuge option must have a community refuge coordinator and appropriate documentation is required. 55 WideStrike IRM Plan Cont.

 Grower agreements and annual affirmation  Grower education program  Grower compliance program  Monitoring for insect resistance  Remedial action plans  Additional research   CBW resistant colonies 56 WideStrike IRM Plan Conclusions

Conservative plan for WideStrike:

Pyramided toxins, Cry1Ac and Cry1F, for TBW,

CBW

Incomplete cross resistance

TBW and CBW models predict high durability for at least 15 years

TBW: high dose for WideStrike; high dose for Cry1Ac alone, nearly high dose for Cry1F

CBW: high moderate dose for WideStrike

PBW: high dose Cry1Ac 57 WideStrike IRM Plan Conclusions  Mix of Bt toxins ( Cry1Ac, Cry1F and Cry2Ab) in market place will reduce selection pressure for adaptation  especially for Cry1Ac found in Bollgard, Bollgard II, and WideStrike  Any plan that focuses on TBW, CBW, and PBW should be adequate, to maintain susceptibility in secondary pests, such as armyworms and loopers  Consistency with existing plans, practical and implementable 58 Acknowledgements  Alan Reynolds, M. S., OPP/ BPPD  Hilary Hill, M. S., OPP/ BPPD  Tessa Milofsky, M. S., OPP/ BPPD 59 Outline  Key IRM issues  What is WideStrike cotton  Target pests  Factors in pest adaptation  Operational factors  Biological factors  Genetic factors  Models  Resistance management plan  SAP Questions 60 WideStrike IRM Questions for the SAP 1. Dose TBW, CBW, PBW. The Agency asks the SAP to comment on the Agency's analysis of dose for TBW,

CBW, and PBW, the likelihood that resistance will be inherited as a recessive trait, and its impact on insect resistance management for WideStrike cotton. 61 WideStrike IRM Questions for the SAP 2. Cross resistance.

 The Agency asks the SAP to comment on EPA's conclusion that incomplete shared binding of Cry1Ac and Cry1F receptors, in TBW and CBW, is expected to lead to incomplete cross resistance and thus the likelihood of enhanced survival on WideStrike cotton is expected to be small.

 Please comment on EPA's conclusion that resistance is more likely to be associated with receptor binding modifications rather than other mechanisms of resistance such as detoxification in the midgut lumen by proteases that cleave the insecticidal control protein( s), metabolic adaptations, protease inhibition, gut recovery, and behavioral adaptations. 62 WideStrike IRM Questions for the SAP 3. CBW Modeling. The Agency asks the SAP to comment on the predictions made by the DAS CBW model, i. e.,

the likelihood that the population fitness of CBW on WideStrike cotton in a 15 year time horizon will remain unchanged, even without a high dose for either Cry1Ac or Cry1F and incomplete cross resistance ( 60% of Cry1Ac binds to the Cry1F receptor).

4. TBW Modeling. The Agency asks the SAP to comment on the relative WideStrike cotton durability against TBW using the Peck et al. ( 1999) model. 63 WideStrike IRM Questions for the SAP 5. Alternate hosts. The Agency asks the SAP to comment on:

a) the sufficiency of the WideStrike cotton database to address the issue of CBW alternate hosts as natural refugia, and,

b) whether additional data are needed on the larval and adult production of CBW on each alternate host for each generation relative to cotton and WideStrike cotton and the spatial scale and source of moth production to confirm the effectiveness of CBW alternate hosts as natural refugia. 64 WideStrike IRM Questions for the SAP 6. Refuge requirements. The Agency asks the SAP to comment on the scientific data available to support the proposed IRM plan and whether that data support a delay in resistance of TBW, CBW, and PBW resistance to the Cry1F and Cry1Ac proteins expressed in WideStrike cotton for at least 15 years.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5856-5857]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01717]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of New Approval of Information Collection: Air Traffic Slots
Management

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on August 31, 2012, vol. 77, no. 170, page 53249. The FAA
collects information to allocate slots and maintain accurate record of
slot transfers at slot-controlled airports. The information is provided
by air carriers and other operators at slot controlled airports.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 27, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX.
    Title: Air Traffic Slots Management.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: New clearance of an existing information
collection.
    Background: The FAA has implemented several initiatives to address
congestion and delay issues within the National Airspace System. The
FAA has issued orders limiting operations at John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK), Newark Liberty International Airport
(EWR), and LaGuardia Airport (LGA). The FAA also has designated O'Hare
International Airport (ORD) and San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) as Level 2 airports under the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG).

These orders resulted in part from increasing congestion and delays at
the airports requiring the FAA to allocate arrival and departure slots
at JFK, EWR, and LGA. The designations resulted in part from increasing
congestion and delays at the airports requiring FAA to implement a
voluntary process to manage operational growth at ORD and SFO.
    The information is reported to the FAA by carriers holding a slot
at JFK, EWR, or LGA; by carriers operating at ORD or SFO; or by
operators conducting unscheduled operations at LGA. At JFK and EWR,
carriers must notify the FAA of: (1) Requests for confirmation of
transferred slots; (2) requests for seasonal allocation of historic and
additional available slots; and (3) usage of slots on a seasonal basis.
At LGA, carriers must notify the FAA of: (1) Requests for confirmation
of transferred slots; (2) slots required to be returned or slots
voluntarily returned; (3) requests to be included in a lottery for
available slots; and (4) usage of slots on a bi-monthly basis. At LGA,
unscheduled operators must request and obtain a reservation from the
FAA prior to conducting an operation. At ORD and SFO, carriers must
notify the FAA of their intended operating schedules on a seasonal
basis. The FAA estimates that all information from carriers is
submitted electronically from information stored in carrier scheduling
databases, and that nearly all requests for unscheduled operation
reservations are submitted electronically through either an Internet or
touch-tone system interface.
    Respondents: Approximately 500 carriers and other operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected as needed; some reporting on
bimonthly or semiannual basis.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2 minutes per unscheduled
operation reservation; 6 minutes per notice of slot transfer; 2 hours
per schedule submission or slot request; and 2 hours per slot usage
report.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 7,031.5 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 17, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-01717 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5685-5689]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01807]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0630; Product Identifier 2017-NM-058-AD; Amendment
39-19173; AD 2018-02-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion in the aft
fuselage. This AD requires a one-time review of the operator's
maintenance procedures, repetitive detailed internal and external
inspections for corrosion or cracking, and applicable on-condition
actions. This AD also includes an optional terminating action for the
inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 16, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 16,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0630.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0630; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the

Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2017 (82 FR 32507). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of corrosion in the aft fuselage. The NPRM
proposed to require a one-time review of the operator's maintenance
procedures, repetitive detailed internal and external inspections for
corrosion or cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. The NPRM
also included an optional terminating action for the inspections.
    We are issuing this AD to detect and correct untreated vacuum waste
system spills or leaks, which could cause corrosion of the airplane
structure, which could lead to fatigue cracks, and could ultimately
result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing expressed its support for the NPRM.

Request To Extend the Inspection Compliance Time

    Cathay Pacific expressed concern that it would not be able to
demonstrate that it has performed an acceptable records review, which
is required to demonstrate that all prior vacuum waste system spills or
leaks were cleaned and neutralized using the acceptable procedure.
Cathay Pacific noted that some airplanes in its fleet have been in
service for more than 20 years, so an older record could easily be
missed when doing this review. Cathay Pacific stated that because of
this concern, it has opted to treat all airplanes as having inadequate
records and perform inspections on them. Cathay Pacific stated that the
applicable inspection compliance times do not allow waiting for the
next scheduled maintenance check, leading to additional downtime.
    We infer that Cathay Pacific is requesting that we extend the
compliance time for the initial and repetitive inspections. We disagree
with the commenter's request. We have determined that the compliance
times specified in this AD are necessary to address the identified
unsafe condition. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of
this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC), including extension of the compliance
times, if sufficient data is submitted to substantiate that a different
compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Extend the Compliance Times for Certain Airplanes

    United Airlines (UAL) and Air France (AF) requested that we revise
the compliance times for airplanes on which certain inspections have
been done. UAL requested that the compliance time be extended for
airplanes on which corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP)
inspections have already been done. UAL noted that many operators have
proven corrosion control programs that do not have corrosion findings
greater than CPCP level 1, which mitigates the corrosion risk factor.
UAL suggested that the initial inspection compliance time be extended
for airplanes on which maintenance records show that no corrosion
findings greater than CPCP level 1 have occurred in the inspection area
in the 10 years prior to the effective date of the AD.
    AF requested that the compliance times be extended for airplanes on
which maintenance planning document (MPD) inspections have been done.
AF noted that existing MPD items require general visual inspections of
certain areas below the aft and bulk cargo compartment floor panels. AF
stated that because the majority of its fleet has already been
inspected under the MPD items, the compliance times in the NPRM are too
restrictive. AF noted that the initial compliance times cannot be
accommodated into its 777 C or heavy checks interval. AF suggested
compliance times based on the number of days since the date of issuance
of the original airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness instead of days after the
effective date of the AD as specified in the proposed AD.
    We disagree with the commenters' requests to extend the compliance
times. The CPCP has three different levels of corrosion damage, as
defined within the MPD, based on the severity and frequency of
corrosion findings and requires operators to adjust their individual
programs to limit corrosion findings to level 1 if they have level 2 or
higher findings. However, operators have reported finding recurring
corrosion damage in-between scheduled CPCP or MPD inspections that was
due to untreated vacuum waste system residue. Additionally, we have
reviewed the existing MPD inspections and have determined that the MPD
inspections do not repeat at adequate intervals to address the unsafe
condition. The determinations of the unsafe condition, mitigating
actions, and compliance times were coordinated with the manufacturer.
Under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we will consider
requests for approval of AMOCs, including extensions of the compliance
times, if sufficient data, such as an operator's individual CPCP and
practices for treating vacuum waste system residue, is submitted to
substantiate that a different compliance time will provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Allow the Use of a Different Sodium Bicarbonate Compound

    Japan Airlines (JAL) and AF requested that we revise the NPRM to
allow the use of a different sodium bicarbonate compound than the ASTM
D928 specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated
April 20, 2017. JAL noted it had difficulty finding the specified
sodium bicarbonate compound, but could find an equivalent product. AF
noted that is has a corresponding product.
    We partially agree with the commenters' request. We agree that an
equivalent sodium bicarbonate compound is acceptable. Boeing has issued
Boeing Information Notice 777-53A0083 IN 01, dated September 1, 2017,
to clarify that a commercially available sodium bicarbonate compound is
acceptable for compliance. However, we do not agree to revise this AD
because it does not require the use of ASTM D928 sodium bicarbonate
compound. As indicated in the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 2
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017,
sodium bicarbonate must be used, but a specific compound type is not
identified.

Request To Define a Neutral pH

    American Airlines (AAL) requested that we revise the NPRM to define
a neutral pH as one that has a value between 6.5 and 8.5, to account
for natural variations in tap water. AAL stated that the NPRM does not
define a tolerance from the common definition of neutral pH, which is a
pH of 7.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. Paragraph 3.A., General
Information, Note 19, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083,
dated April 20, 2017, defines neutralization as making the vacuum waste
system spill or leak contents non-acidic or non-corrosive. No specific
pH value is defined in the service information or required by this AD.
Therefore, operators can include tolerances for a neutral pH. One way
for operators to account for pH variances of their local clean water
supply is to measure the pH level of their clean water supply in order
to establish a baseline pH level, that can then be used to compare
against samples taken from the fuselage structure. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.

Request To Define a Standard Litmus Paper

    AAL and Cathay Pacific requested that we revise the NPRM to define
a standard part number for the litmus paper to use in determining if
the acid is neutralized. AAL noted that the NPRM does not specify a
resolution or range for the litmus paper. Cathay Pacific claimed that
because Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20,
2017, does not list a specific litmus paper, the instruction to ``use
litmus paper'' is ambiguous and operators would not be able to
determine if an acceptable litmus paper is used.
    We disagree with the commenters' request. Litmus paper is a
commonly available tool. Accomplishing the cleaning and neutralization
steps in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20,
2017, does not specify the use of a specific brand or type of litmus
paper. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Define the Location and Quantity of Litmus Paper Testing
Points

    AAL and Cathay Pacific requested that we revise the NPRM to define
the locations where litmus paper testing must be done, as well as the
number of samples that must be taken. AAL pointed out that the
structural features that must be chemically neutralized are specified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017,
while the litmus paper testing spots are not. Cathay Pacific suggested
that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017,
implies that operators should do litmus paper testing on all the
structural features in the inspection and neutralization area, but
stated it does not believe this is the intent.
    We agree to provide clarification on the number and location of
litmus paper testing spots and confirm that paragraph (i) of this AD
does not require testing with litmus paper at all structural features
in the neutralization area. However, we do not agree that it is
necessary to provide a specific number of samples or testing locations.
The objective of the litmus paper testing is to verify that there are
no remaining acidic or corrosive substances on the structure. The
appropriate level of testing may vary between airplanes depending on
factors such as maintenance records, previous spills or leaks, or
repairs that obstruct access. Samples should be tested at enough
locations within the affected area of the structure for the operator to
determine that there are no residual acidic or corrosive contents on
primary structural elements in the inspection area, including any
locations where the sodium bicarbonate solution visibly reacted when
applied, which indicates the presence of acidic or corrosive
substances, and any locations where there are signs of corrosion
damage. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Allow the Use of Alternative Corrosion Inhibiting Compounds

    AAL requested that we allow the use of alternative corrosion
inhibiting compounds (which are applied to the cleaned and neutralized
areas as part of the required restoration) as specified in Boeing
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 51-05-01-210-803. AAL noted that
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017,
specifies BMS3-29 compound and does not allow the use of alternative
compounds.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Boeing AMM Task 51-05-01-
210-803 specifies the application of a single coat of water displacing/
anti-corrosion compound BMS3-29 or BMS3-35 at a minimum, with an option
to layer different compounds in areas with high potential for severe
corrosion. We have added paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to specify
acceptable alternative corrosion inhibiting compounds.

Request To Update the Costs of Compliance

    Cathay Pacific requested that we update the work-hours estimate for
cleaning and neutralization in the NPRM. Cathay Pacific stated that the
area to be neutralized covers 13 frames and 15 stringers, so it will
require more work-hours to complete this task.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. The work-hours estimate
is determined by Boeing and provided for informational and planning
purposes only. In addition, Cathay Pacific did not provide any
alternative estimates for the work-hours. We have not changed this AD
in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April
20, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a one-time
review of the operator's maintenance procedures, repetitive detailed
internal and external inspections for corrosion or cracking, cleaning
and neutralization of the internal inspection area (an optional
terminating action), and applicable on-condition actions. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 161 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The cost to review an operator's maintenance procedures varies
depending on the operator's recordkeeping system and fleet size so we
did not include a specific estimate for that action. We estimate the
following costs to comply with the remaining actions of this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                   Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per  product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections...................  75 work-hours x $85               $0  $6,375 per            $1,026,375 per
                                 per hour = $6,375                     inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                 per inspection
                                 cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Estimated Costs for Optional Terminating Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaning and neutralization................  30 work-hours x $85 per hour =                   $0          $2,550
                                              $2,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-02-20 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19173; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0630; Product Identifier 2017-NM-058-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 16, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April
20, 2017.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion in the aft
fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct untreated
vacuum waste system spills or leaks, which could cause corrosion of
the airplane structure, which could lead to fatigue cracks, and
could ultimately result in rapid decompression and loss of
structural integrity.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Except as required by paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this
AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated
April 20, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as ``RC''
(required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
53A0083, dated April 20, 2017.

(h) Exceptions To Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April
20, 2017, uses the phrase ``after the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' for purposes of determining compliance with the
requirements of this AD, the phrase ``after the effective date of
this AD'' must be used.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April
20, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as
RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April
20, 2017, specifies to apply corrosion inhibiting compound BMS3-29
to the cleaned and neutralized area, and specifies that action as
RC: This AD allows operators to apply BMS3-29, BMS3-35, or a base
coat of BMS3-29 or BMS3-35 with a top coat of BMS3-26.

(i) Optional Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    Accomplishment of ``PART 5: CLEANING AND NEUTRALIZATION,'' as
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017, terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this
AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as
Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i)
and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-917-
6590; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20,
2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 19, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-01807 Filed 2-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47160-47162]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18983]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-31199; File No. 812-13970]

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., et al.; Notice of Application and
Temporary Order

August 6, 2014.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order
under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Application:  Applicants have received a temporary order
exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with respect to an
injunction entered against Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (``CGMI'') on
August 5, 2014 by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (``Injunction''), until the Commission takes final
action on an application for a permanent order. Applicants also have
applied for a permanent order.

Applicants:  CGMI, CEFOF GP I Corp. (``CEFOF''), CELFOF GP Corp.
(``CELFOF''), Citibank, N.A. (``Citibank''), Citigroup Alternative
Investments LLC (``Citigroup Alternative''), Citigroup Capital Partners
I GP I Corp. (``CCP I''), Citigroup Capital Partners I GP II Corp.
(``CCP II''), Citigroup Private Equity (Offshore) LLC (``CPE
(Offshore)''), Citigroup First Investment Management Americas LLC
(``CFIMA,'' and along with CGMI, CEFOF, CELFOF, Citibank, Citigroup
Alternative, CCP I, CCP II, and CPE (Offshore), the ``Applicants'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that any relief granted pursuant to the
application also apply to any other company of which CGMI is or may
become an affiliated person within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of
the Act (together with the Applicants, the ``Covered Persons'').

DATES: Filing Date: The application was filed on October 20, 2011 and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amended on August 5, 2014.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on September 2, 2014, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: CGMI, CEFOF, CELFOF,
CCP I, CCP II, CPE (Offshore), CFIMA, 388 Greenwich Street, New York,
NY 10013; Citibank, Citigroup Alternative, 399 Park Avenue, New York,
NY 10043.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6819, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a temporary order and a
summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained
via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each of the Applicants is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Citigroup Inc. (``Citigroup''), a diversified financial services
company. CGMI is a full service investment banking firm that engages in
securities underwriting, sales and trading, investment banking,
financial advisory and investment research services. CGMI is registered
as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(``Advisers Act''). It currently does not serve as principal
underwriter or investment adviser of any Funds, but it may seek to do
so in the future.\2\ CFIMA

is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act and
serves as investment adviser for one or more Funds. CEFOF, CELFOF,
Citibank, Citigroup Alternative, CCP I, CCP II, and CPE (Offshore)
(``ESC Advisers'') serve as investment advisers to certain employees'
securities companies within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act,
which provide investment opportunities for certain eligible employees,
officers, directors and persons on retainer of Citigroup and its
affiliates (``ESCs'' and included in the term ``Funds'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Funds'' refers to any registered investment company,
business development company, or ESC (as defined herein) for which a
Covered Person serves as an investment adviser, sub-adviser, general
partner or depositor, or any registered open-end investment company,
registered unit investment trust or registered face amount
certificate company for which a Covered Person serves as principal
underwriter.
    \3\ Greenwich Street Employees Fund, L.P., et al., Investment
Company Act Release Nos. 25324 (Dec. 21, 2001) (notice) and 25367
(Jan. 16, 2002) (order) (``ESC Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. On August 5, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered a judgment, which included the
Injunction, against CGMI (``Final Judgment'') in a matter brought by
the Commission.\4\ The conduct of CGMI, along with certain of its
affiliates, (together, ``Citi'') alleged in the complaint
(``Complaint'') involved Citi's role in the structuring and marketing
of a largely synthetic collateralized debt obligation (``CDO'') whose
investment portfolio consisted primarily of credit default swaps
referencing other CDO securities with collateral consisting primarily
of residential mortgage-backed securities. The Complaint alleged that
the marketing materials for the CDO were materially misleading because
they suggested that Citi was acting in the traditional role of an
arranging bank, when in fact Citi had allegedly exercised influence
over the selection of the assets and had retained a proprietary short
position of the assets it had helped select, which gave Citi allegedly
undisclosed economic interests adverse to those of the investors in the
CDO. The Final Judgment would restrain and enjoin CGMI from violating
sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. Without
admitting or denying any of the allegations in the Complaint, except as
to personal and subject matter jurisdiction, CGMI consented to the
entry of the Final Judgment and other equitable relief, including
certain undertakings and the payment of a civil penalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., 11-CV-7387 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person
who has been enjoined from engaging in or continuing any conduct or
practice in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, or in
connection with activities as an underwriter, broker or dealer, from
acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor of
any registered investment company or a principal underwriter for any
registered open-end company, registered unit investment trust or
registered face-amount certificate company. Section 9(a)(3) of the Act
makes the prohibition in section 9(a)(2) applicable to a company, any
affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the provisions
of section 9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines ``affiliated
person'' to include, among others, any person directly or indirectly
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other
person. Applicants state that CGMI is an affiliated person of each of
the other Applicants within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act.
Applicants state that the entry of the Injunction results in Applicants
being subject to the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the
Act.
    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant
an application for exemption from the disqualification provisions of
section 9(a) if it is established that these provisions, as applied to
the applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or that the
applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against the public
interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption.
Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a
temporary and permanent order exempting them and other Covered Persons
from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act.
    3. Applicants believe they meet the standard for exemption
specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of
section 9(a) as applied to them would be unduly and disproportionately
severe and that the conduct of the Applicants has been such as not to
make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to
grant the exemption from section 9(a).
    4. Applicants state that the alleged conduct giving rise to the
Injunction did not involve any of the Applicants acting in the capacity
of investment adviser, sub-adviser or depositor for any Fund (including
as general partner providing investment advisory services to ESCs) or
as principal underwriter for any registered open-end company,
registered unit investment trust or registered face-amount certificate
company. Applicants also state that, to the best of their knowledge,
none of the current directors, officers, or employees of the Applicants
that are involved in providing services as investment adviser or sub-
adviser of the Funds (including as general partner providing investment
advisory services to ESCs) or principal underwriter for any registered
open-end company (or any other persons in such roles during the time
period covered by the Complaint) participated in the conduct alleged in
the Complaint to have constituted the violations that provide a basis
for the Injunction. Applicants further represent that the personnel at
CGMI who participated in the conduct alleged in the Complaint to have
constituted the violations that provided a basis for the Injunction
have had no, and will not have any, involvement in providing advisory
or depositary services (including as general partner providing
investment advisory services to ESCs) to the Funds or principal
underwriting services to any registered open-end company, registered
unit investment trust, or registered face-amount certificate company on
the behalf of the Applicants or other Covered Persons. Applicants also
represent that because the personnel of the Applicants (other than
those at CGMI) did not participate in the conduct alleged in the
Complaint to have constituted the violations that provide a basis for
the Injunction, the shareholders of those Funds were not affected any
differently than if those Funds had received services from any other
non-affiliated investment adviser or principal underwriter. Applicants
state that the alleged conduct did not involve any Fund or the assets
of any Fund.
    5. Applicants state that their inability to continue to provide
investment advisory and subadvisory services to the Funds (including as
general partner providing investment advisory services to ESCs) and
principal underwriting services to any registered open-end company
would result in potential hardship for some of the Funds and their
shareholders. Applicants state that they will, as soon as reasonably
practicable, distribute written materials, including an offer to meet
in person to discuss the materials, to the boards of directors of the
Funds (``Boards'') (excluding, for this purpose, the ESCs) for which
the Applicants serve as investment adviser, investment sub-adviser or
principal underwriter, including the directors who are not ``interested
persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of such Funds,
and their independent legal counsel, if any, describing the
circumstances that led to the Injunction

and any impact on the Funds, and the application. Applicants state they
will provide the Boards with the information concerning the Injunction
and the application that is necessary for the Funds to fulfill their
disclosure and other obligations under the federal securities laws.
    6. Applicants also state that, if they were barred from providing
services to the Funds, the effect on their businesses and employees
would be severe. Applicants state that they have committed substantial
resources to establishing an expertise in providing advisory and
distribution services to Funds. Applicants further state that
prohibiting them from providing such services would not only adversely
affect their businesses, but would also adversely affect numerous
employees who are involved in those activities. Applicants also state
that disqualifying the ESC Advisers from continuing to provide
investment advisory services to the ESCs is not in the public interest
or in the furtherance of the protection of investors. Because the ESCs
have been formed for certain key employees, officers and directors of
Citigroup and its affiliates, it would not be consistent with the
purposes of the ESC provisions of the Act or the terms and conditions
of the ESC Order to require another entity not affiliated with
Citigroup to manage the ESCs. In addition, participating employees of
Citigroup and its affiliates likely subscribed for interests in the
ESCs with the expectation that the ESCs would be managed by an
affiliate of Citigroup.
    7. Certain of the Applicants previously have applied for and
received exemptions under section 9(c) as the result of conduct that
triggered section 9(a) of the Act, as described in greater detail in
the application.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:

    Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application
shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's
rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation
of, or administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered
Persons, including, without limitation, the consideration by the
Commission of a permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act
requested pursuant to the application or the revocation or removal
of any temporary exemptions granted under the Act in connection with
the application.

Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants
have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary
exemption.
    Accordingly,
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that
Applicants and any other Covered Persons are granted a temporary
exemption from the provisions of section 9(a), solely with respect to
the Injunction, subject to the condition in the application, from
August 5, 2014, until the Commission takes final action on their
application for a permanent order.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18983 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 10, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-98-4831

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of      Northwest Airlines, Inc.        filed   9/9/04  to:

XX  Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Newark, New Jersey and Houston, Texas, on the one hand, and
Antigua and Barbuda, on the other.  Northwest operates this service
pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Continental Airlines, Inc.

Applicant rep:  Megan Rosia<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Sylvia
Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:    November 10, 2004, through
 November 10, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and the United Kingdom to which Antigua and
Barbuda acceded upon its independence.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________

Conditions:  (1) The code-share operations conducted under this
authority must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendments to the
Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may
be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the
carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon the
requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in the
name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected, and (2) the authority
granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither Northwest
Airlines nor Continental Airlines shall give any force and effect to any
contractual provisions between themselves that are contrary to these
conditions.

(See Reverse Side)

2

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15382-15383]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06042]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Malin Airport, Malin, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at Malin Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century
(AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
    The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, HR 658, section 817,
gave the Secretary of Transportation the authorization to grant an
airport, city, or county release from any of the terms, conditions,
reservations, or restrictions contained in a deed under which the
United States conveyed to the airport, city, or county an interest in
real property for airport purposes pursuant to section 16 of the
Federal Airport Act (60 Stat. 179) or section 23 of the Airport and
Airway Development Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 232).
    On March 7, 2014, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at the Malin Airport submitted by the City of Malin meets the
procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.
    The City of Malin is proposing the release from the terms,
conditions, reservations, and restrictions on a 0.14 acre parcel of
property by an instrument of disposal dated August 16, 1951. The
property was conveyed to the City of Malin under Section 16 of the
Surplus Property Act of 1944 to be used in

developing, improving, operating, or maintaining and operating a public
airport. The parcel is not within the fenced boundary of the airport
and is not needed for aviation purposes and the proceeds from the sale
of the property will be deposited into the airport account and will be
used for airport improvements and maintenance.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Peter Doyle at the
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents are available for review by
appointment by contacting Ms. Kay Neumeyer, P.O. Box 61, Malin, Oregon
97632, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Issued in Renton, Washington on March 7, 2014.
Carol Suomi,
Seattle Airports District Manager.
[FR Doc. 2014-06042 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 49276-49277]
[DOCID:fr28au07-90]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR07-18-000]

American West Airlines, Inc. and US Airway, Inc., Chevron
Products Company, Continental Airlines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., Valero Marketing and Supply Company;
Complainants v. Calnev Pipe Line, L.L.C.; Respondent; Notice of
Complaint

August 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 20, 2007, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules and Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206; the Procedural Rules
Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343; sections 1(4),
1(5), 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act , 49 U.S.C.
App. sections 1(4), 1(5), 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 (2004); and section 1803
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) (Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat.
2772), American West Airlines, Inc. and U.S. Airway, Inc., Chevron
Products Company, Continental Airlines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co. and Valero Marketing and Supply Company,
(Complainants), jointly and individually, filed a formal complaint
against Calnev Pipe Line, L.L.C. (Respondent) alleging that the
respondents rates for transportation and terminalling are just and
unreasonable and therefore request the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to investigate the respondent's rates; set the proceedings
for an evidentiary hearing to determine just and reasonable rates for
the respondent; require the respondent to pay reparations starting two
years before the date of the complaints for all rates; and award such
other relief as is necessary and appropriate under the Interstate
Commerce Act.
    The Complainants state that copies of the complaint have been
served on the respondent.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all
interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be
served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 10, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16949 Filed 8-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47342-47343]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16422]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0523; Airspace Docket No. 22-AEA-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Milford, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace in Milford, PA, as Myer
Airport has been abandoned, and controlled airspace is no longer
required. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled
airspace within the national airspace system.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations, and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
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 removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Myer Airport, Milford, PA, due to the closing of the
airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 29243, May 13, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0523 to
remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Myer Airport, Milford, PA.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations,
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by removing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Myer Airport,
Milford, PA, as the airport has closed. Therefore, the airspace is no
longer necessary. This action enhances the safety and management of
controlled airspace within the national airspace system.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations, and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and
effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Milford, PA [Removed]

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 27, 2022.
Lisa Burrows,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-16422 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P