This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

18285 

Vol. 74, No. 76 

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0014. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 53, 82, and 94 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0014] 

RIN 0579–AC47 

Importation of Table Eggs From 

Regions Where Exotic Newcastle 

Disease Exists 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to modify the requirements 

concerning the importation of eggs 

(other than hatching eggs) from regions 

where exotic Newcastle disease (END) 

exists. This action is necessary to 

provide a more efficient and equally 

effective testing option for determining 

the END status of flocks producing eggs 

(other than hatching eggs) for export to 

the United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Christopher Robinson, Senior Staff 

Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, 

National Center for Import and Export, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– 

7837. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

certain animals and animal and poultry 

products into the United States to 

prevent the introduction of dangerous 

and destructive diseases of livestock 

and poultry. Section 94.6 contains 

requirements that apply to the 

importation of carcasses, parts or 

products of carcasses, and eggs (other 

than hatching eggs) of poultry, game 

birds, or other birds from regions where 

exotic Newcastle disease (END) or 

highly pathogenic avian influenza 

subtype H5N1 is considered to exist. 

On August 13, 2007, we published in 

the Federal Register (72 FR 45177– 

45181, Docket No. APHIS–2007–0014) a 

proposal 1 to modify the requirements 

concerning the importation of eggs 

(other than hatching eggs) from regions 

where END exists. We proposed this 

action to provide for a more efficient 

and effective testing option for 

determining the END status of flocks 

producing table eggs for export to the 

United States. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending October 

12, 2007. We received four comments by 

that date. They were from a private 

citizen, State agricultural agencies, and 

another agency in the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA). They are 

discussed below. 

One commenter stated that 

commercial poultry farming methods 

were responsible for diseases in poultry. 

The commenter suggested that the 

abolition of these methods would 

remove the need to regulate movement 

of eggs and poultry. 

We disagree. Poultry become infected 

with END when they are exposed to 

Newcastle disease virus (NDV), which 

can be spread by pet and wild birds as 

well as domestic poultry. For example, 

a 1971 outbreak of END started in pet 

birds in California and spread to 

commercial flocks. Wild double-crested 

cormorants were the source of an END 

outbreak in North Dakota in 1992. The 

2002–2003 END outbreak in several 

western States was first detected in 

backyard poultry flocks in California, 

from whence it spread to commercial 

poultry houses. We are making no 

changes in response to this comment. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the proposed testing protocols 

would increase the risk to human 

health. 

There is no public health risk from 

END. Human infection with NDV is rare 

and usually occurs only in people who 

have close direct contact with infected 

birds, such as veterinarians or 

laboratory staff. The resulting disease is 

usually limited to conjunctivitis, and 

recovery is usually rapid. There are no 

known instances of NDV transmission 

to humans through handling or 

consumption of poultry products. In any 

case, as discussed in the proposed rule, 

the testing requirements in this final 

rule are as effective at detecting END as 

the requirements that were previously 

in place. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that some countries may not have 

laboratories that can perform virus 

isolation testing and APHIS did not 

include provisions to ensure that the 

samples be transported and handled 

appropriately. Another commenter 

asked for assurance that the cull birds 

for sampling will be selected, and that 

the samples themselves will be 

collected, by a government salaried 

veterinarian. The commenter also stated 

that the samples should be from birds 

that died, not birds that were killed. 

As we explained in the proposed rule, 

and as is true in the current regulations, 

the laboratory performing the testing 

must be in the region of origin of the 

eggs and must be approved by the 

veterinary services organization of the 

national government of the region. If a 

region lacks the necessary veterinary 

infrastructure to perform the 

appropriate tests and to transport and 

handle samples appropriately, it would 

not be eligible to export eggs to the 

United States. While there is always a 

risk of improperly handled samples 

returning a false negative, we will 

require that the samples be collected 

from cull birds chosen by a salaried 

veterinary officer of the national 

government of the region of origin or by 

a veterinarian accredited by the national 

government of Mexico. We are confident 

that these measures will ensure the 

appropriate handling of the samples. 

It was our intent that samples be 

collected from sick birds or birds that 

died, not healthy birds that were killed. 

We have clarified this in the final rule. 

In addition, to be consistent with the 

other proposed changes, we have also 

made a minor change in our proposed 

regulatory text in paragraph (c)(1)(ix)(C) 

of § 94.6 by replacing the words ‘‘an 

accredited veterinarian’’ with the words 

‘‘a veterinarian accredited by the 

national government of Mexico’’. We 

proposed to recognize only 

accreditation by the national 

government of Mexico, so the more 

specific form is appropriate. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
18286 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2USDA, Chickens and Eggs 2007 Summary. 

Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, Table: Eggs; Production During the Month 

by Type 2006–2007, pg. 8. February 2008. 

3Production statistics for Alaska, Arizona, 

Delaware, Kansas, North Dakota, New Mexico, 

Nevada, and Rhode Island are not separately 

reported to avoid disclosing information on 

individual operations. http:// 

usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/ChickEgg/ 

ChickEgg-02-28-2008.pdf. 

4USDA, Harmonized System 10-Digit Imports. 

Washington, DC: Foreign Agricultural Service, 

2008. Import quantities and cash value estimates of 

table eggs for regions where END is considered to 

exist were approximated by subtracting the quantity 

and value of imports from regions free of END from 

the ‘‘world total’’ query. 

Two commenters stated that the level 

of confidence associated with the 

proposed sampling rate was too low. 

One asked why we were not requiring 

a sampling rate that would detect lowlevel infection with 98 percent 

confidence. 

As we explained in the proposed rule, 

the level of confidence associated with 

the proposed sampling rate is 95 

percent. This is the same level of 

confidence associated with the current 

requirements under which 10 percent of 

the flock must be sampled. Our intent 

is to replace the current testing regimen 

with one that will be both timelier and 

more efficient while maintaining the 

same level of effectiveness. 

We proposed to allow either 

hemagglutination inhibition (HI) or 

embryonated egg inoculation testing to 

be used. One commenter stated that in 

9 CFR 53.1, END is defined as ‘‘any 

velogenic Newcastle disease,’’ and that 

this implies that lentogenic and 

mesogenic strains of NDV do not cause 

END. The commenter expressed concern 

that HI tests conducted on blood 

samples from sick birds would only 

identify whether or not a sample was 

positive or negative for NDV, since there 

is no serological test to detect specific 

strains of the END virus. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

concerns. While the current regulations 

allow for HI testing of sentinel birds, 

this is appropriate because sentinel 

birds are not vaccinated against END. 

For flocks that have been vaccinated 

against END, HI testing is not 

appropriate because it will not be able 

to distinguish between a bird that has 

been vaccinated against END and a bird 

that has died from disease. We have 

revised the risk assessment accordingly 

and will remove references to HI testing 

from the final rule. Embryonated egg 

inoculation testing, one of the options 

available under the current regulations, 

is an accepted diagnostic procedure for 

detecting NDV and will be effective for 

detecting the virus without additional 

HI testing. The revised risk assessment, 

titled ‘‘Justification for the changes to 

the regulations governing the 

importation of table eggs from regions 

where exotic Newcastle disease exists 

into the United States,’’ may be viewed 

on the Regulations.gov Web site (see 

footnote 1 in this document for a link 

to Regulations.gov). In addition, copies 

may be obtained by calling or writing to 

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

The commenter also noted that with 

new knowledge of NDV the 

classification and terminology of END 

has evolved; in fact, in a proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49231–49236, 

Docket No. APHIS–2007–0033), we had 

proposed to change the definition of 

END in the select agent regulations in 9 

CFR part 121 to replace the word 

‘‘velogenic’’ with the word ‘‘virulent.’’ 

We published a final rule adding this 

change to 9 CFR part 121 on October 16, 

2008 (73 FR 61325–61332). The 

commenter stated that if the new 

wording were adopted the definition in 

9 CFR part 53 would have to be 

amended as well. 

We agree with the commenter that 

amending the END definition to be 

consistent with our select agent 

regulations and with the World 

Organization for Animal Health (OIE) 

definition is appropriate. Therefore, we 

are amending the definition of ‘‘exotic 

Newcastle disease’’ in § 53.1, the 

definition of ‘‘END’’ in § 82.1, and the 

definition of ‘‘exotic Newcastle disease 

(END)’’ in § 94.0 to replace the word 

‘‘velogenic’’ with the word ‘‘virulent.’’ 

This will bring those definitions in line 

with the definition of END in our select 

agents regulations in 9 CFR part 121 and 

the OIE definition of END. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. The rule has 

been determined to be not significant for 

the purposes of Executive Order 12866 

and, therefore, has not been reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires agencies to evaluate the 

potential effects of rules on small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

Section 605 of the Act allows the head 

of an agency to certify that a rule will 

not, if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Following is 

the factual basis for such certification of 

this final rule. 

We are amending the regulations 

concerning the importation of eggs 

(other than hatching eggs) from regions 

where exotic Newcastle disease (END) 

exists. This action will provide a more 

efficient testing protocol for determining 

the END status of flocks producing eggs 

(other than hatching eggs) for export to 

the United States. 

The goal of this rule is to make our 

testing requirements more efficient and 

equally effective while continuing to 

protect domestic poultry from END. One 

procedure by which foreign producers 

located in regions affected with END 

can currently export table eggs into the 

United States is to place sentinel birds 

within their flocks and then test these 

birds for presence of the disease. As 

many of these foreign producers 

vaccinate their flocks for END, sentinel 

birds may produce false-positive results 

when tested for END, necessitating 

further testing to differentiate a vaccineinduced response from an actual 

infection. The second procedure 

currently authorized, testing 10 percent 

of the flock, is viewed by foreign egg 

producers as excessive. This final rule 

will replace the current options for flock 

testing with a less costly protocol that 

targets the birds most likely to be 

infected. 

U.S. Table Egg Production and Imports 

The United States is the world’s 

largest producer of poultry meat and the 

second largest egg producer after China. 

Table egg production during the year 

ending November 30, 2007, totaled 77.3 

billion eggs.2 The largest table eggproducing States are Indiana, Iowa, and 

Pennsylvania.3

The cost of complying with flock 

testing requirements for foreign 

suppliers of table eggs from regions 

where END exists will likely decrease 

due to the lower number of birds 

required to be tested to demonstrate 

flock freedom from END. This reduction 

in cost could result in a small increase 

in the volume of table egg imports by 

the United States from END-affected 

regions. In 2007, table eggs were 

imported from two countries free of 

END, Canada and New Zealand. These 

imports totaled 94,241 dozen and were 

valued at $345,000. The only other 

country from which table eggs were 

imported in 2007 was China, where 

END is considered to exist. These 

imports totaled 7,740 dozen and were 

valued at $12,000.4 Between January 

and August of 2008, the United States’ 

only table eggs imports were from 

Canada (60,700 dozen valued at 

$80,020) and New Zealand (21,888 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 18287 

dozen valued at $148,991); no table eggs 

were imported from China or any other 

country where END is considered to 

exist. The 7,740 dozen table eggs 

imported from China in 2007 was a 

negligible quantity compared to the 

number produced domestically (less 

than 100,000, compared to 77.3 billion). 

Any increase in the U.S. supply of table 

eggs attributable to this final rule will 

likely be insignificant. 

Impact on Small Entities 

Companies engaged in chicken egg 

production are classified under the 

North American Industry Classification 

System code 112310. The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) defines 

a chicken egg-producing entity as small 

if it has annual receipts of not more than 

$11.5 million per year. The 2002 Census 

of Agriculture reported that there were 

83,381 domestic poultry and egg farms. 

While their size distribution is 

unknown, the census indicates that 

29,393 of those poultry operations had 

annual sales of $50,000 or more. Thus, 

the majority of operations engaged in 

table egg production are small entities 

by SBA standards. 

As described, recent imports of table 

eggs from regions where END exists 

have come only from China and 

constitute an extremely small share of 

the U.S. supply. While this rule 

provides a more efficient and effective 

testing protocol for determining the 

END status of flocks producing table 

eggs for the United States, any effects on 

the supply of imported eggs will be 

minimal. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) 

has no retroactive effect; and (3) does 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0328. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

Lists of Subjects 

9 CFR Part 53 

Animal diseases, Indemnity 

payments, Livestock, Poultry and 

poultry products. 

9 CFR Part 82 

Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry 

products, Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

9 CFR Part 94 

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, 

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry 

and poultry products, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

parts 53, 82, and 94 as follows: 

PART 53—FOOT-AND-MOUTH 

DISEASE, PLEUROPNEUMONIA, 

RINDERPEST, AND CERTAIN OTHER 

COMMUNICABLE DISEASES OF 

LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 53 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

§ 53.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 53.1, the definition for ‘‘Exotic 

Newcastle Disease (END)’’ is amended 

by removing the word ‘‘velogenic’’ and 

adding the word ‘‘virulent’’ in its place. 

PART 82—EXOTIC NEWCASTLE 

DISEASE (END) AND CHLAMYDIOSIS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

§ 82.1 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 82.1, the definition for ‘‘END’’ 

is amended by removing the word 

‘‘velogenic’’ and adding the word 

‘‘virulent’’ in its place. 

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, EXOTIC 

NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN 

SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE 

FEVER, SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, 

AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED 

AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781– 

7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.4. 

■ 6. The heading of part 94 is revised to 

read as set forth above. 

§ 94.0 [Amended] 

■ 7. In § 94.0, the definition of ‘‘Exotic 

Newcastle disease (END)’’ is amended 

by removing the word ‘‘velogenic’’ and 

adding the word ‘‘virulent’’ in its place. 

■ 8. In § 94.6, the introductory text of 

paragraph (c)(1), paragraph (c)(1)(v), 

paragraph (c)(1)(viii), the introductory 

text of paragraph (c)(1)(ix), paragraph 

(c)(1)(ix)(C), and the OMB citation at the 

end of the section are revised, and a 

new paragraph (c)(1)(ix)(D) is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 94.6 Carcasses, parts or products of 

carcasses, and eggs (other than hatching 

eggs) of poultry, game birds, or other birds; 

importations from regions where Exotic 

Newcastle disease or highly pathogenic 

avian influenza subtype H5N1 is considered 

to exist. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) With a certificate. The eggs may be 

imported if they are accompanied by a 

certificate signed by a salaried 

veterinary officer of the national 

government of the region of origin or, if 

exported from Mexico, accompanied 

either by such a certificate or by a 

certificate issued by a veterinarian 

accredited by the national government 

of Mexico and endorsed by a full-time 

salaried veterinary officer of the 

national government of Mexico, thereby 

representing that the veterinarian 

issuing the certificate was authorized to 

do so, and: 

* * * * * 

(v) The certificate states that no more 

than 90 days before the certificate was 

signed, a salaried veterinary officer of 

the national government of the region of 

origin or, if exported from Mexico, by a 

veterinarian accredited by the national 

government of Mexico, inspected the 

flock of origin and found no evidence of 

communicable diseases of poultry. 

* * * * * 

(viii) Before leaving the premises of 

origin, the cases in which the eggs were 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
18288 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 22, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

packed were sealed with a seal of the 

national government of the region of 

origin by the salaried veterinarian of the 

national government of the region of 

origin who signed the certificate or, if 

exported from Mexico, by the 

veterinarian accredited by the national 

government of Mexico who signed the 

certificate. 

(ix) In addition, if the eggs were laid 

in any region where END is considered 

to exist (see paragraph (a) of this 

section), the certificate must also state: 

* * * * * 

(C) The eggs are from a flock of origin 

found free of END as follows: On the 

seventh and fourteenth days of the 21- 

day period before the certificate is 

signed, at least 1 cull bird (a sick or 

dead bird, not a healthy bird that was 

killed) for each 10,000 live birds 

occupying each poultry house certified 

for exporting table eggs was tested for 

END virus using embryonated egg 

inoculation technique. The weekly cull 

rate of birds of every exporting poultry 

house within the exporting farm does 

not exceed 0.1 percent. The tests present 

no clinical or immunological evidence 

of END by embryonated egg inoculation 

technique from tissues of birds that 

were culled and have been collected by 

a salaried veterinary officer of the 

national government of the region of 

origin or by a veterinarian accredited by 

the national government of Mexico. All 

examinations and embryonated egg 

inoculation tests were conducted in a 

laboratory located in the region of 

origin, and the laboratory was approved 

to conduct the examinations and tests 

by the veterinary services organization 

of the national government of that 

region. All results were negative for 

END. 

(D) Egg drop syndrome is notifiable in 

the region of origin and there have been 

no reports of egg drop syndrome in the 

flocks of origin of the eggs, or within a 

50 kilometer radius of the flock of 

origin, for the 90 days prior to the 

issuance of the certificate. 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control numbers 

0579–0015, 0579–0245, and 0579–0328) 

§ 94.8 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 94.8 in the introductory text 

and paragraph (a)(4) introductory text 

footnotes 8 and 9 are redesignated as 

footnotes 7 and 8 respectively. 

§ 94.9 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 94.9 (a), (c)(3), and (e)(2) 

introductory text footnotes 10 through 

12 are redesignated as footnotes 9 

through 11 respectively. 

■ 11. Section 94.12 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B), by 

redesignating footnote 13 as footnote 12. 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(3), by 

redesignating footnote 14 as footnote 13 

and revising newly redesignated 

footnote 13 to read as set forth below. 

§ 94.12 Pork and pork products from 

regions where swine vesicular disease 

exists. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 13

13See footnote 9 in § 94.9. 

§ 94.16 [Amended] 

■ 12. In § 94.16 (b)(2) footnote 15 is 

redesignated as footnote 14. 

■ 13. Section 94.17 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (e), by redesignating 

footnote 16 as footnote 15. 

■ b. In paragraph (p)(1)(i), by 

redesignating footnote 17 as footnote 16 

and revising newly redesignated 

footnote 16 to read as set forth below. 

§ 94.17 Dry-cured pork products from 

regions where foot-and-mouth disease, 

rinderpest, African swine fever, classical 

swine fever, or swine vesicular disease 

exists. 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 16

16See footnote 15 in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

§ 94.18 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 94.18 in paragraphs (c)(2) and 

(d)(1) footnotes 18 and 19 are 

redesignated as footnotes (17) and (18) 

respectively. 

§ 94.24 [Amended] 

■ 15. In § 94.24 in paragraphs (a)(5) and 

(b)(6) footnotes 20 and 21 are 

redesignated as footnotes 19 and 20 

respectively. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

April 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–9102 Filed 4–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–1259; Airspace 

Docket No. 08–ASO–1] 

Modification of the Atlantic High and 

San Juan Low Offshore Airspace 

Areas; East Coast, United States 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action will amend the 

boundaries of the Atlantic High and San 

Juan Low Offshore Airspace Areas 

located off the east coast of the United 

States. The implementation of the West 

Atlantic Route System Plus (WATRS 

Plus) project modified the boundaries of 

the Miami Control Area (CTA)/Flight 

Identification Region (FIR), the San Juan 

CTA/FIR, and the New York Oceanic 

CTA/FIR. This action modifies the 

Atlantic High and San Juan Low 

Offshore Airspace Area boundaries to 

coincide with the CTA/FIR changes. 

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 2, 

2009. 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 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace and Rules Group, 

Office of System Operations Airspace 

and AIM, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On Thursday January 15, 2009, the 

FAA published in the Federal Register 

a notice of proposed rulemaking to 

modify the Atlantic High and San Juan 

Low Offshore Airspace Areas, East 

Coast, United States (74 FR 2427). 

Interested parties were invited to 

participate in this rulemaking effort by 

submitting written comments on the 

proposal. No comments were received. 

With the exception of editorial changes, 

this amendment is the same as that 

proposed in the NPRM. 

High offshore airspace areas are 

published in paragraph 2003, and low 

offshore airspace areas are published in 

paragraph 6007, of FAA Order 7400.9S 

signed October 3, 2008, and effective 

October 31, 2008, which is incorporated 

by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The 

offshore airspace areas listed in this 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES