Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15887 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a rule 

that has a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, small businesses, or small 

organizations must include an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis describing 

the rule’s impact on small entities. Such 

an analysis need not be undertaken if 

the agency has certified that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). FHFA has 

considered the impact of the final rule 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

FHFA certifies that the final rule is not 

likely to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

business entities because the rule is 

applicable only to the Enterprises, 

which are not small entities for 

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1251 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Capital Magnet Fund, 

Government-sponsored enterprises, 

Housing Trust Fund, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority and Issuance 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the Supplementary Information, under 

the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4567, the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency adopts 

as final the interim final rule published 

at 79 FR 74595, December 16, 2014, 

without change 

Dated: March 18, 2015. 

Melvin L. Watt, 

Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06724 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–70–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–0190; Amdt. No. 

91–337] 

RIN 2120–AK69 

Prohibition of Fixed-Wing Special 

Visual Flight Rules Operations at 

Washington-Dulles International 

Airport 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This action prohibits fixedwing special visual flight rules 

operations at Washington-Dulles 

International Airport. This action is 

necessary to support aviation safety and 

the efficient use of the navigable 

airspace by managing operations in the 

busy and complex airspace around the 

airport. 

DATES: This action becomes effective 

May 26, 2015. 

Submit comments on or before April 

27, 2015. If the FAA receives an adverse 

comment or notice of intent to file an 

adverse comment, the FAA will publish 

a document in the Federal Register 

before the effective date of the direct 

final rule that may withdraw it in 

whole, or in part. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by docket number FAA– 

2015–0190 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 (DOT), 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. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

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

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact David Maddox, Airspace 

Policy and Regulation Group, AJV–113, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8783; email david.maddox@

faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Robert Hawks, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, AGC–200, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3073; email rob.hawks@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

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, Sovereignty and use of airspace, 

and Subpart III, Section 44701, General 

requirements. Under section 40103, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations to ensure the safety of 

aircraft and the efficient use of the 

navigable airspace. Under section 

44701, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to ensure safety 

in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

sections 40103 and 44701 because 

prohibiting fixed-wing SVFR operations 

in busy and complex airspace supports 

aviation safety and the efficient use of 

navigable airspace. 

The Direct Final Rule Procedure 

The FAA is adopting this direct final 

rule without prior notice and public 

comment because it formalizes current 

FAA practice at Washington-Dulles 

International Airport (IAD). Given the 

volume and complexity of instrument 

flight rules (IFR) traffic, a request to 

operate special visual flight rules 

(SVFR) would be denied. However, no 

such clearances have been requested for 

at least several years. Therefore, the 

FAA does not anticipate any negative 

comments to this direct final rule. 

The Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11034; 

Feb. 26, 1979) provide that to the 

maximum extent possible, operating 

administrations for DOT should provide 

an opportunity for public comment on 

regulations issued without prior notice. 

Accordingly, the FAA invites interested 

persons to participate in this rulemaking 

by submitting written comments, data, 

or views. The Agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15888 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1FAA Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS) traffic 

count, OPSNET (extracted Jan. 23, 2014). 

impacts that might result from adopting 

this direct final rule. 

A direct final rule will take effect on 

a specified date unless the FAA receives 

an adverse comment or notice of intent 

to file an adverse comment within the 

comment period. An adverse comment 

explains why a rule would be 

inappropriate, or would be ineffective or 

unacceptable without a change. It may 

challenge the rule’s underlying premise 

or approach. Under the direct final rule 

process, the FAA does not consider the 

following types of comments to be 

adverse: 

(1) A comment recommending 

another rule change, in addition to the 

change in the direct final rule at issue. 

The comment is adverse, however, if the 

commenter states why the direct final 

rule would be ineffective without the 

change. 

(2) A frivolous or insubstantial 

comment. 

If the FAA receives an adverse 

comment or notice of intent to file an 

adverse comment, it will publish a 

document in the Federal Register before 

the effective date of the direct final rule 

that may withdraw it in whole, or in 

part. If the FAA withdraws a direct final 

rule because of an adverse comment, the 

commenter’s recommendation may be 

incorporated into another direct final 

rule, or the FAA may publish a notice 

of proposed rulemaking. 

If the FAA receives no adverse 

comments or notices of intent to file an 

adverse comment, it will publish a 

confirmation document in the Federal 

Register, generally within 15 days after 

the comment period closes. The 

confirmation document tells the public 

the effective date of the direct final rule. 

See the ‘‘Additional Information’’ 

section for information on how to 

comment on this direct final rule and 

how the FAA will handle comments 

received. The ‘‘Additional Information’’ 

section also contains related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. In 

addition, there is information on 

obtaining copies of related rulemaking 

documents. 

I. Overview of the Direct Final Rule 

This direct final rule prohibits fixedwing SVFR operations at IAD, one of the 

busiest airports in the United States. 

The FAA has determined this action is 

necessary due to the volume and 

complexity of IFR traffic in the IAD 

surface area of the Washington Tri-Area 

Class B airspace. 

II. Background 

SVFR operations are defined in the 

Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) 

as aircraft operating in accordance with 

air traffic control (ATC) clearances in 

Class B, C, D, and E surface areas in 

conditions less than the basic VFR 

weather minimums of three miles and 

1,000 feet. Such operations are 

requested by pilots and approved by 

ATC. Pilots operating under SVFR must 

have at least one mile of flight visibility 

and remain clear of clouds. ATC 

predicate separation of aircraft on 

known performance and expected 

routes of flight. Since controllers do not 

know the exact weather conditions 

where an SVFR pilot is operating, they 

generally do not issue control 

instructions to the SVFR pilot so that 

the aircraft is not inadvertently placed 

in clouds. ATC often will increase 

standard separation distances for other 

aircraft operating in proximity, which 

can result in a loss of efficiency and 

capacity at airports. 

The FAA previously has prohibited 

fixed-wing SVFR operations at airports 

with high traffic volumes. Section 3 of 

part 91, Appendix D, lists the locations 

where these operations are prohibited. 

The FAA first prohibited the operation 

of fixed-wing aircraft under SVFR 

weather minimums within specifically 

designated control zones (now 

designated as surface areas) in 1968. See 

33 FR 4096 (Mar. 2, 1968). The FAA 

determined that increased aircraft 

operations in the vicinity of airports 

serving large population centers created 

conditions that required imposition of 

restrictions and priorities with respect 

to airspace and services associated with 

those operations, including the 

establishment of procedures giving 

priority to IFR traffic. Thirty-three major 

airports were specified as locations 

where the SVFR minimums would not 

apply to fixed-wing aircraft operations. 

The FAA stated that ‘‘based upon 

changing conditions involving safety 

considerations additional airports may 

be designated in the future.’’ Id. 

The volume and complexity of IFR 

operations at IAD now indicate that use 

of SVFR operations can potentially 

affect the safe and efficient movement of 

traffic in the IAD Class B surface area. 

IAD is located within the Washington 

Tri-Area Class B airspace. In that same 

airspace, Baltimore/Washington 

International Thurgood Marshall 

Airport (BWI), Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport (DCA), 

and Andrews Air Force Base (ADW) are 

included in section 3 of Appendix D. 

From January 1 to December 31, 2013, 

there were 329,910 IFR operations at 

IAD, which included: 162,730 air 

carrier; 128,636 air taxi; and 38,236 

general aviation operations.1 This 

volume of instrument operations and 

instrument approaches justifies 

elimination of SVFR operations. In 

addition to meeting the criteria for 

elimination, the bulk of instrument 

operations are air carrier and corporate 

turbojet aircraft flights. 

Aircraft intending to enter the IAD 

surface area under SVFR would 

sometimes be operating at altitudes used 

by IFR arrivals to and departures from 

IAD. This interference can cause delays 

for IFR operations. 

In addition to its location in the Class 

B airspace, IAD is also located within 

the Washington Special Flight Rules 

Area (SFRA) and is adjacent to the 

Washington Flight Restricted Zone 

(FRZ), both of which were established 

after September 11, 2001, and severely 

limit flexibility for VFR and SVFR 

operations to the east of IAD. 

Although IAD has experienced 

increasing volume and complexity of 

IFR operations since opening, and has 

been acknowledged on numerous 

occasions as qualifying for inclusion in 

section 3, no rulemaking action has 

been completed prior to this direct final 

rule. The FAA believes that the volume 

and complexity of IFR traffic, along with 

the safety implications of these 

situations, require the prohibition of 

SVFR operations in the IAD Class B 

Surface Area. 

III. Discussion of the Direct Final Rule 

The FAA is amending part 91, 

Appendix D, section 3, to add 

Washington-Dulles International Airport 

to an existing list of airports for which 

fixed-wing SVFR operations are 

prohibited. Currently, air traffic 

controllers at IAD deny requests for 

SVFR transitions through Class B 

airspace due to the volume and 

complexity of IFR traffic around IAD. 

This direct final rule formalizes the 

current practice. 

The FAA has determined this action 

is necessary because of the increasing 

volume and complexity of IFR 

operations at IAD. Fixed-wing SVFR 

operations may interfere with the safe, 

orderly, and expeditious flow of aircraft 

operating under IFR in the IAD surface 

area. This prohibition also improves 

efficient use of airspace by reducing 

workload for air traffic controllers 

during IFR conditions and reducing 

delays for IFR operations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15889 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Public Law 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Public Law 96–39) prohibits 

agencies from setting standards that 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

In developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 

Law 104–4) requires agencies to prepare 

a written assessment of the costs, 

benefits, and other effects of proposed 

or final rules that include a Federal 

mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

direct final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this direct final rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

This direct final rule formalizes and 

codifies current FAA practice at IAD. 

Since this direct final rule merely 

clarifies and codifies existing FAA 

procedures, the expected outcome will 

be a minimal impact with positive net 

benefits, and a full regulatory evaluation 

was not prepared. Any comments 

concerning the FAA determination 

should include supporting justification. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

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

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Public Law 96–354) (RFA) establishes 

‘‘as a principle of regulatory issuance 

that agencies shall endeavor, consistent 

with the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

This direct final rule merely 

formalizes and codifies existing FAA 

procedures; the expected outcome will 

have only a minimal impact on any 

small entity affected by this final rule. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b), the head of 

the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Public Law 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public 

Law 103–465), prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this direct final 

rule and determined that it will have 

only a domestic operational impact and 

therefore will not affect international 

trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

direct final rule does not contain such 

a mandate; therefore, the requirements 

of Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this direct 

final rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to this regulation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15890 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609 and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the rulemaking action in this document. 

The most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the rulemaking 

action, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this rulemaking. The FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. 

As stated earlier, if the FAA receives 

an adverse comment or notice of intent 

to file an adverse comment, it will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register before the effective date of the 

final rule. If the FAA receives no 

adverse comments or notices of intent to 

file an adverse comment, it will publish 

a confirmation document in the Federal 

Register, generally within 15 days after 

the comment period closes. The 

confirmation document tells the public 

the effective date of the rule. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Do not file proprietary or 

confidential business information in the 

docket. Such information must be sent 

or delivered directly to the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document, and marked as proprietary or 

confidential. If submitting information 

on a disk or CD–ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM, and identify 

electronically within the disk or CD– 

ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from 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.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained 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. Commenters 

must identify the docket or amendment 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this rulemaking action, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

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

40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 

44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 

44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 

46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 

47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the 

Convention on International Civil Aviation 

(61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

■ 2. Amend section 3 of Appendix D to 

Part 91 by adding in alphabetical order 

‘‘Chantilly, VA (Washington-Dulles 

International Airport)’’ to read as 

follows: 

Appendix D to Part 91—Airports/Locations: 

Special Operating Restrictions 

* * * * * 

Section 3. * * * 

Chantilly, VA (Washington-Dulles 

International Airport) 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40103(b), and 44701(a) in 

Washington, DC, on March 17, 2015. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06895 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES