26822 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

May 2015. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11311 Filed 5–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Part 620 

RIN 3052–AD02 

Disclosure to Shareholders; Pension 

Benefit Disclosures 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA or we) adopted a 

final rule related to Farm Credit System 

(System) bank and association 

disclosures to shareholders and 

investors of senior officer compensation 

in the Summary Compensation Table 

(Table). Under the final rule, System 

banks and associations are not required 

to report in the Table the compensation 

of employees who are not senior officers 

and who would not otherwise be 

considered ‘‘highly compensated 

employees’’ but for the payments related 

to, or change(s) in value of, the 

employees’ qualified pension plans, 

provided that the plans were available 

to all employees on the same basis at the 

time the employees joined the plans. In 

accordance with the law, the effective 

date of the rule is 30 days from the date 

of publication in the Federal Register 

during which either or both Houses of 

Congress are in session. 

DATES: Effective Date: Under the 

authority of 12 U.S.C. 2252, the 

regulation amending 12 CFR part 620 

published on February 26, 2015 (80 FR 

10325) is effective April 29, 2015. 

Compliance Date: System banks and 

associations must comply with the final 

rule for compensation reported in the 

Table for the fiscal year ending 2015, 

and may implement the final rule 

retroactively for the fiscal years ended 

2014, 2013, and 2012. However, 

retroactive application is not required, 

and we would expect footnote 

disclosure of the change in calculation 

for the fiscal years to which the final 

rule was applied. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Wilson, Policy Analyst, 

Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102– 

5090, (703) 883–4124, TTY (703) 883– 

4056, or Jeff Pienta, Senior Attorney, 

Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102– 

5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883– 

4056. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Farm 

Credit Administration adopted a final 

rule related to System bank and 

association disclosures to shareholders 

and investors of senior officer 

compensation in the Summary 

Compensation Table. Under the final 

rule, System banks and associations are 

not required to report in the Table the 

compensation of employees who are not 

senior officers and who would not 

otherwise be considered ‘‘highly 

compensated employees’’ but for the 

payments related to, or change(s) in 

value of, the employees’ qualified 

pension plans, provided that the plans 

were available to all employees on the 

same basis at the time the employees 

joined the plans. In accordance with 12 

U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the 

final rule is 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register 

during which either or both Houses of 

Congress are in session. Based on the 

records of the sessions of Congress, the 

effective date of the regulations is April 

29, 2015. 

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10)) 

Dated: May 5, 2015. 

Dale L. Aultman, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11286 Filed 5–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. FAA–2003–14766; Amendment 

No. 91–327A; SFAR No. 77] 

RIN 2120–AK60 

Prohibition Against Certain Flights 

Within the Baghdad (ORBB) Flight 

Information Region (FIR) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 

77, ‘‘Prohibition Against Certain Flights 

Within the Territory and Airspace of 

Iraq,’’ which prohibits certain flight 

operations in the territory and airspace 

of Iraq by all United States (U.S.) air 

carriers; U.S. commercial operators; 

persons exercising the privileges of a 

U.S. airman certificate, except when 

such persons are operating a U.S.- 

registered civil aircraft for a foreign air 

carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered 

civil aircraft, except when such 

operators are foreign air carriers. On 

August 8, 2014, the FAA issued a Notice 

to Airmen (NOTAM) prohibiting flight 

operations in the ORBB FIR at all 

altitudes, subject to certain limited 

exceptions, due to the armed conflict in 

Iraq. This amendment to SFAR No. 77 

incorporates the flight prohibition set 

forth in the August 8, 2014, NOTAM 

into the rule. The FAA is also revising 

the approval process for this SFAR for 

other U.S. Government departments, 

agencies, and instrumentalities, to align 

with the approval process established 

for other recently published flight 

prohibition SFARs. This final rule will 

remain in effect for two years. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

11, 2015 through May 11, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions about this action, 

contact Will Gonzalez, Air 

Transportation Division, AFS–220, 

Flight Standards Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202– 

267–8166; email: will.gonzalez@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact: Robert Frenzel, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, AGC–200, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–7638, email: robert.frenzel@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. 

Code, authorizes agencies to dispense 

with notice and comment procedures 

for rules when the agency for ‘‘good 

cause’’ finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ In this instance, 

the FAA finds that notice and public 

comment to this immediately adopted 

final rule, as well as any delay in the 

effective date of this rule, are 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest due to the immediate need to 

address the potential hazard to civil 

aviation that now exists in the ORBB 

FIR, as described in the Background 

section of this rule. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA is responsible for the safety 

of flight in the U.S. and for the safety 

of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered 

civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated 

airmen throughout the world. The 

FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in title 49, U.S. 

Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 26823 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides 

that the Administrator shall consider in 

the public interest, among other matters, 

assigning, maintaining, and enhancing 

safety and security as the highest 

priorities in air commerce. Section 

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

Administrator to exercise his authority 

consistently with the obligations of the 

U.S. Government under international 

agreements. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in title 49, 

subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 

44701, General requirements. Under 

that section, the FAA is charged broadly 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, 

among other things, regulations and 

minimum standards for practices, 

methods, and procedures that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce and national security. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority, because it amends SFAR 

No. 77, § 91.1605, to incorporate the 

prohibition set forth in the August 8, 

2014, NOTAM on flight operations at all 

altitudes in the ORBB FIR due to the 

potential hazard to U.S. civil aviation 

posed by the armed conflict in Iraq. This 

amendment will remain in effect for two 

years. The FAA will continue to actively 

evaluate the area and amendments to 

the SFAR may be appropriate if the risk 

to aviation safety and security changes. 

The FAA may amend or rescind the 

SFAR as necessary prior to its 

expiration date. 

I. Background 

On October 9, 1996 (61 FR 54020 

(October 16, 1996)), the FAA issued 

SFAR No. 77 to prohibit flight 

operations over or within the territory 

and airspace of Iraq by any U.S. air 

carrier or commercial operator; by any 

person exercising the privileges of an 

airman certificate issued by the FAA, 

except persons operating U.S.-registered 

aircraft for a foreign air carrier; or by 

any person operating an aircraft 

registered in the United States, unless 

the operator of such aircraft was a 

foreign air carrier. The prohibition was 

issued in response to concerns for the 

safety and security of U.S. civil flights 

within the territory and airspace of Iraq. 

In the final rule, the FAA cited a threat 

made by then President of Iraq Saddam 

Hussein, who urged his air defense 

forces to ignore both the southern and 

northern no-fly zones that were then in 

place and to attack ‘‘any air target of the 

aggressors.’’ 61 FR 54020. The FAA was 

concerned that this threat could apply 

to civilian as well as to military aircraft, 

and therefore issued SFAR No. 77. 

In early 2003, a U.S.-led coalition 

removed Saddam Hussein’s regime from 

power in Iraq. The FAA anticipated that 

when hostilities ended in Iraq, 

humanitarian efforts would be needed 

to assist the people of Iraq. To facilitate 

those efforts, in April 2003, the FAA 

amended what was then paragraph 3 of 

SFAR No. 77 to clarify the approval 

process for such flights, making clear 

that operations could not be authorized 

by another agency without the approval 

of the FAA. The FAA issued the 

amendment on April 7, 2003 (68 FR 

17870 (April 11, 2003)). 

On November 13, 2003 (68 FR 65382 

(November 19, 2003)), the FAA 

determined that certain limited 

overflights of Iraq could be conducted 

safely, subject to the permission of the 

appropriate authorities in Iraq and in 

accordance with the conditions 

established by those authorities. 

Accordingly, the FAA amended SFAR 

No. 77 to permit overflights of Iraq 

above flight level (FL) 200. That 

amendment also allowed aircraft 

departing from countries adjacent to 

Iraq to operate at altitudes below FL 200 

within Iraq to the extent necessary to 

permit a climb above FL 200 if the climb 

performance of the aircraft would not 

permit operation above FL 200 prior to 

entering Iraqi airspace. 

On April 19, 2004 (69 FR 21953 (April 

23, 2004)), the FAA issued an 

interpretation of SFAR No. 77, entitled 

‘‘Prohibition Against Certain Flights 

Within the Territory and Airspace of 

Iraq; Approval Process for Requests for 

Authorization to Operate in Iraqi 

Airspace,’’ (the 2004 Interpretation) in 

the Federal Register. The purpose of the 

2004 Interpretation was to explain how 

the FAA would process and, where 

appropriate, approve requests for 

authorization to operate in Iraqi 

airspace. A copy of the 2004 

Interpretation has been placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

On November 28, 2012 (77 FR 72709 

(December 6, 2012)), the FAA again 

amended SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, 

effective January 7, 2013, to allow U.S. 

civil flight operations to and from points 

outside Iraq, to and from Erbil (ORER) 

and Sulaymaniyah (ORSU) International 

Airports in Northern Iraq by persons 

previously prohibited from conducting 

such operations by SFAR No. 77, 

§ 91.1605, based on results of 

evaluations of the airports. ORER and 

ORSU had supported non-U.S. air 

carrier operations for a number of years 

without incident. Based largely on the 

initiation of those operations and on 

improvements in the operational 

environment, the FAA determined that 

flights by U.S. operators could be 

conducted safely to those two airports 

under certain conditions. Therefore, the 

FAA amended SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, 

to allow certain flights within the 

territory and airspace of Iraq north of 

34°30′ North latitude below FL 200 to 

and from ORER or ORSU, with certain 

conditions and limitations. 

Once the December 2012 amendment 

went into effect, neither an exemption 

nor an approval under paragraph (c) of 

SFAR No. 77 was required for 

operations to or from ORER or ORSU. 

However, paragraph (b)(5) required 

operators flying to or from ORER or 

ORSU to or from points outside Iraq to 

obtain a Letter of Authorization (LOA) 

or Operations Specification (OpSpec), as 

appropriate, from the Director, Flight 

Standards Service, AFS–1, prior to 

conducting such operations. The 

OpSpec or LOA specified the 

limitations and conditions under which 

the operation had to be conducted, to 

address the residual risk associated with 

operating into and out of those two 

airports. 

On July 31, 2014, the FAA issued a 

NOTAM prohibiting flight operations in 

the territory and airspace of Iraq at or 

below FL 300 because of significant 

changes in the operational environment 

for U.S. civil aviation. The recent 

resurgence of groups, such as the 

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 

(ISIL), also known as the Islamic State 

of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and their 

ongoing combat operations against the 

Iraqi government and its allies had led 

to an increased threat to U.S. civil 

aviation in Iraq. ISIL was rapidly 

acquiring weapons from captured Iraqi 

or Syrian stocks and had former military 

personnel to operate those weapons. 

ISIL had shot down Iraqi rotary-wing 

and fixed-wing aircraft flying at low 

altitudes, and also had man-portable air 

defense systems and other anti-aircraft 

weapons that provided the capability to 

target aircraft at higher altitudes. As a 

result, the FAA determined that ISIL 

posed an increased threat to U.S. civil 

aviation operating in Iraqi airspace at or 

below FL 300. 

The July 31, 2014, NOTAM increased 

restrictions on operations in the 

territory and airspace of Iraq beyond the 

restrictions contained in SFAR No. 77, 

§ 91.1605, which remained in effect. 

The following operations that had been 

permitted under SFAR No. 77, 

§ 91.1605, were prohibited by the July 

31, 2014, NOTAM: (1) Overflights of 

Iraq above FL 200 but at or below FL 

300; (2) operations at or below FL 300 

by flights departing from countries 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26824 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

adjacent to Iraq whose climb 

performance would not permit 

operations above FL 300 prior to 

entering Iraqi airspace; and (3) flights 

within the territory of Iraq north of 

34°30′ North latitude originating from or 

destined to areas outside of Iraq to or 

from ORER or ORSU. 

On August 7, 2014, President Obama 

announced that he had authorized 

targeted airstrikes against militants 

associated with ISIL if they moved 

toward the Iraqi city of Erbil, as well as 

targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help 

Iraqi forces as they fought to break the 

siege of Mount Sinjar and to protect the 

civilians trapped there. The President 

also stated that the U.S. was conducting 

humanitarian air drops to aid the 

trapped civilians. U.S. forces began 

conducting airstrikes on August 8, 2014. 

On the same day, the FAA issued a 

NOTAM that prohibited U.S. civil flight 

operations in the ORBB FIR at all 

altitudes due to the potentially 

hazardous situation created by the 

armed conflict between militants 

associated with ISIL and Iraqi security 

forces and their allies. The August 8, 

2014, NOTAM superseded the July 31, 

2014, NOTAM. This amendment to 

SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, revises the rule 

to incorporate the flight prohibition set 

forth in the August 8, 2014, NOTAM. 

Because the circumstances described 

herein warrant immediate action by the 

FAA, I find that notice and public 

comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) are 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. Further, I find that good cause 

exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making 

this rule effective immediately upon 

issuance. I also find that this action is 

fully consistent with the obligations 

under 49 U.S.C. 40105 to ensure that I 

exercise my duties consistently with the 

obligations of the United States under 

international agreements. 

II. Overview of Final Rule 

This action amends SFAR No. 77, 

§ 91.1605, to incorporate the prohibition 

contained in the FAA’s August 8, 2014, 

NOTAM on flight operations at all 

altitudes in the ORBB FIR by all U.S. air 

carriers; U.S. commercial operators; 

persons exercising the privileges of a 

U.S. airman certificate, except when 

such persons are operating a U.S.- 

registered civil aircraft for a foreign air 

carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered 

civil aircraft, except when such 

operators are foreign air carriers. The 

FAA finds this action necessary to 

prevent a potential hazard to persons 

and aircraft engaged in such flight 

operations. 

A. Revised Approval Process Based on 

an Authorization Request From a 

Department, Agency, or Instrumentality 

of the United States Government 

In some instances, U.S. government 

departments, agencies, or 

instrumentalities may need to engage 

U.S. civil aviation to support their 

activities in Iraq. The FAA believes that 

it has provided a more streamlined 

approval processes for other U.S. 

government departments, agencies, and 

instrumentalities in more recent flight 

prohibition SFARs than the 2004 

Interpretation would allow, and that an 

approval process similar to those 

adopted for recent SFARs may be 

instituted for SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, 

while still addressing the threats to U.S. 

civil aviation in the ORBB FIR. 

Therefore, the FAA withdraws the 2004 

Interpretation in its entirety and 

replaces it with the approval process 

described below. 

If a department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the U.S. Government 

determines that it has a critical need to 

engage any person covered under SFAR 

No. 77, § 91.1605, including a U.S. air 

carrier or a U.S. commercial operator, to 

conduct a charter to transport civilian or 

military passengers or cargo, that 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

may request the FAA to approve 

persons covered under SFAR No. 77, 

§ 91.1605, to conduct such operations. 

U.S. Government departments, agencies, 

and instrumentalities may also request 

approval on behalf of subcontractors 

where the prime contractor has a 

contract, grant, or cooperative 

agreement with the U.S. Government 

department, agency, or instrumentality. 

An approval request must be made to 

the FAA in a letter signed by an 

appropriate senior official of the 

requesting department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the U.S. Government. 

The letter must be sent to the Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety 

(AVS–1), Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. 

Electronic submissions are acceptable, 

and the requesting entity may request 

that the FAA notify it electronically as 

to whether the approval request is 

granted. If a requestor wishes to make 

an electronic submission to the FAA, 

the requestor should contact the Air 

Transportation Division, Flight 

Standards Service, at (202) 267–8166, to 

obtain the appropriate email address. A 

single letter may request approval from 

the FAA for multiple persons covered 

under SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, and/or 

for multiple flight operations. To the 

extent known, the letter must identify 

the person(s) expected to be covered 

under the SFAR on whose behalf the 

U.S. Government department, agency, or 

instrumentality is seeking FAA 

approval, and it must describe— 

• The proposed operation(s), 

including the nature of the mission 

being supported; 

• The service to be provided by the 

person(s) covered by the SFAR; 

• To the extent known, the specific 

locations in the ORBB FIR where the 

proposed operation(s) will be 

conducted; and 

• The method by which the 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

will provide, or how the operator will 

otherwise obtain, current threat 

information and an explanation of how 

the operator will integrate this 

information into all phases of its 

proposed operations (e.g., pre-mission 

planning and briefing, in-flight, and 

post-flight).The request for approval 

must also include a list of operators 

with whom the U.S. Government 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

requesting FAA approval has a current 

contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative 

agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has 

a subcontract(s)) for specific flight 

operations in the ORBB FIR. Additional 

operators may be identified to the FAA 

at any time after the FAA approval is 

issued. Updated lists should be sent to 

the email address to be obtained from 

the Air Transportation Division, AFS– 

220, by calling (202) 267–8166. 

If an approval request includes 

classified information, requestors may 

contact Aviation Safety Inspector Will 

Gonzalez for instructions on submitting 

it to the FAA. His contact information 

is listed in the ‘‘For Further Information 

Contact’’ section of this final rule. 

FAA approval of an operation under 

SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, does not relieve 

persons subject to this SFAR of their 

responsibility to comply with all 

applicable FAA rules and regulations. 

Operators of civil aircraft will have to 

comply with the conditions of their 

certificate and OpSpecs. Operators will 

also have to comply with all rules and 

regulations of other U.S. Government 

departments or agencies that may apply 

to the proposed operation, including, 

but not limited to, the Transportation 

Security Regulations issued by the 

Transportation Security Administration, 

Department of Homeland Security. 

B. Approval Conditions 

When the FAA approves the request, 

the FAA’s Aviation Safety Organization 

(AVS) will send an approval letter to the 

requesting department, agency, or 

instrumentality informing it that the 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 26825 

1Section 102 of Division L of the Consolidated 

and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, 

Public Law 113–235, December 16, 2014, inter alia, 

amended 49 U.S.C. 44302(f) and 44310(a) to specify 

the termination dates in those sections as December 

11, 2014. The effect was to terminate coverage 

under FAA’s premium war risk insurance program 

as of December 11, 2014. FAA has decided to leave 

the matter relating to premium insurance in this 

final rule, in order to make clear that the conditions 

relating to insurance, as stated in the final rule, will 

apply in the event that Congress decides to 

reauthorize the premium insurance program under 

chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code. Under 49 U.S.C. 

44310(b) (which was not affected by Pub. L. 113– 

235), FAA’s authority to provide non-premium 

insurance coverage remains in effect through 

December 31, 2018. 

2 If and when, in connection with an operator’s 

contract with a department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the U.S. Government, an 

operation is covered by a non-premium war risk 

insurance policy issued by the FAA under 49 U.S.C. 

44305, coverage under that operator’s FAA 

premium war risk insurance policy, if any, is 

suspended as a condition contained in that 

premium policy. 

FAA’s approval is subject to all of the 

following: 

(1) Any approval will stipulate those 

procedures and conditions that limit, to 

the greatest degree possible, the risk to 

the operator, while still allowing the 

operator to achieve its operational 

objectives. 

(2) Any approval will indicate that the 

operation is not eligible for coverage 

under any premium war risk insurance 

policy issued by the FAA under chapter 

443 of title 49, U.S. Code. 1 2 Each such 

policy excludes coverage for any aircraft 

operations that are intentionally 

conducted into or within geographic 

areas prohibited by an SFAR, such as 

this SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605. The 

exclusion specified in the policy will 

remain in effect as long as this SFAR 

No. 77, § 91.1605, remains in effect, 

notwithstanding the issuance of any 

approval under, or exemption from, this 

SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, (the chapter 

443 premium war risk insurance policy 

refers to such approval as a ‘‘waiver’’ 

and such exemption as an ‘‘exclusion’’). 

(3) Before any approval takes effect, 

the operator must submit to the FAA: 

(a) A written release of the U.S. 

Government (including, but not limited 

to, the United States of America as 

Insurer) from all damages, claims, and 

liabilities, including without limitation 

legal fees and expenses; and 

(b) The operator’s written agreement 

to indemnify the U.S. Government 

(including but not limited to the United 

States of America, as Insurer) with 

respect to any and all third-party 

damages, claims, and liabilities, 

including without limitation legal fees 

and expenses, relating to any event 

arising from or related to the approved 

operations in the ORBB FIR. 

The release and agreement to 

indemnify do not preclude an operator 

from raising a claim under an applicable 

non-premium war risk insurance policy 

issued by the FAA under chapter 443. 

(4) Other conditions that the FAA 

may specify, including those that may 

be imposed in OpSpecs. 

If the proposed operation or 

operations is or are approved, the FAA 

will issue OpSpecs authorizing the 

operation or operations to the certificate 

holder and will notify the department, 

agency, or instrumentality that 

requested FAA approval of such 

operation(s) of any additional 

conditions beyond those contained in 

the approval letter. The requesting 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

must have a contract, grant, or 

cooperative agreement (or its prime 

contractor must have a subcontract) 

with the person(s) described in 

paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, 

on whose behalf the department, 

agency, or instrumentality requests FAA 

approval. 

C. Requests for Exemption 

Any operation not conducted under 

the approval process set forth above 

must be conducted under an exemption 

from SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605. A request 

by any person covered under SFAR No. 

77, § 91.1605, for an exemption must 

comply with 14 CFR part 11, and will 

require exceptional circumstances 

beyond those contemplated by the 

approval process set forth above. In 

addition to the information required by 

14 CFR 11.81, the requestor must 

describe in its submission to the FAA, 

at a minimum— 

• The proposed operation(s), 

including the nature of the operation; 

• The service to be provided by the 

person(s) covered by SFAR No. 77, 

§ 91.1605; 

• The specific locations in the ORBB 

FIR where the proposed operation(s) 

will be conducted; and 

• The method by which the operator 

will obtain current threat information, 

and an explanation of how the operator 

will integrate this information into all 

phases of its proposed operations (e.g., 

the pre-mission planning and briefing, 

in-flight, and post-flight phases). 

Additionally, the release and 

agreement to indemnify, as referred to 

above, will be required as a condition of 

any exemption issued under SFAR No. 

77, § 91.1605. 

The FAA recognizes that operations 

that may be affected by SFAR No. 77, 

§ 91.1605, including this amendment, 

may be planned for the governments of 

other countries with the support of the 

U.S. Government. While these 

operations will not be permitted 

through the approval process, the FAA 

will process exemption requests for 

such operations on an expedited basis 

and prior to any private exemption 

requests. 

III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

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 (Pub. L. 96–354), as codified in 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to 

analyze the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 96–39, as amended, 19 U.S.C. Chapter 

13) prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, the Trade Agreements 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 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995; 

currently $151 million). This portion of 

the preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

final rule. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined this final rule has 

benefits that justify its costs and is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, because it raises novel 

policy issues contemplated under that 

Executive Order. The rule is also 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 

final rule, if adopted, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

will not create unnecessary obstacles to 

international trade, and will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26826 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of 

Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System Codes, 

page 26, http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ 

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

Total annual costs to airlines are 

estimated to be approximately $14 

million. The benefits of this final rule 

are the avoided deaths that might result 

from a U.S. operator’s aircraft being shot 

down (or otherwise damaged) amidst 

the armed conflict in Iraq. Since each 

fatality is valued at $9.2 million, the 

benefits of this final rule will exceed the 

costs if just two such deaths are averted. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

1. All U.S. air carriers and U.S. 

commercial operators; 

2. All persons exercising the 

privileges of an airman certificate issued 

by the FAA, except such persons 

operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a 

foreign air carrier; and 

3. All operators of aircraft registered 

in the United States, except where the 

operator of such aircraft is a foreign air 

carrier. 

Assumptions 

• Calendar Year 2013 data. 

• Schedule P–10 from Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) to obtain 

number of employees at a carrier. 

• Schedule P–1.2 from BTS to obtain 

Total Operating Revenues at a carrier. 

• U.S. Block Hour Operating Costs by 

Aircraft Type and Airline, from The 

Airline Monitor Commercial Aircraft 

Database. 

• Number of flights affected and 

additional flying time provided by air 

carriers. 

• Value of Statistical Life (VSL) of 

$9.2 million for 2013. 

Costs of This Rule 

By prohibiting flights from operating 

in the ORBB FIR, flights that would 

overfly the ORBB FIR in the absence of 

this rule will have to fly additional time 

to avoid the area. The FAA requested 

flight and cost information from some 

U.S. air carriers who indicated to the 

FAA they would be affected by the 

prohibition. The FAA received 

responses from those U.S. air carriers, 

most of whom reported additional flying 

time and its associated costs. The 

additional reported flying time was 

multiplied by the operating cost per 

block hour by airline and aircraft type 

to obtain an estimate of the cost of this 

final rule. Total annual costs are 

estimated at $14 million. 

This rule imposes no reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements. The FAA is unaware of 

any Federal rules that duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this rule. 

Benefits of This Rule 

The benefits of this final rule are the 

avoided deaths (or other losses) that 

might have resulted from a U.S. 

operator’s aircraft being shot down (or 

otherwise damaged) amidst the armed 

conflict in Iraq. The benefits of this final 

rule will exceed the costs if just two 

such deaths do not occur (where each 

averted fatality is valued at $9.2 

million). 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (‘‘RFA’’), as codified in 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 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. 

Reasons the FAA Considered the Rule 

The FAA remains committed to 

continuously improving civil aviation 

safety. The FAA finds that this final rule 

is in the public interest due to the 

immediate need to address the potential 

hazard to civil aviation that now exists 

in the ORBB FIR, as described in this 

Notice. 

The Objectives of and the Legal Basis for 

the Rule 

The FAA is responsible for the safety 

of flight in the United States and for the 

safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.- 

registered civil aircraft, and U.S.- 

certificated airmen throughout the 

world. The FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety is found in title 

49, U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides 

that the Administrator shall consider in 

the public interest, among other matters, 

assigning, maintaining, and enhancing 

safety and security as the highest 

priorities in air commerce. Section 

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

Administrator to exercise his authority 

consistently with the obligations of the 

U.S. Government under international 

agreements. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 

44701, General requirements. Under 

that section, the FAA is charged broadly 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, 

among other things, regulations and 

minimum standards for practices, 

methods, and procedures that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce and national security. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority, because it amends SFAR 

No. 77, § 91.1605, to incorporate the 

August 8, 2014, NOTAM’s prohibition 

on U.S. civil flight operations at all 

altitudes in the ORBB FIR due to the 

potential hazard to U.S. civil aviation 

posed by the armed conflict in Iraq. This 

amendment also changes the approval 

process and adds an expiration date. 

A Description of and an Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of 

Why No Such Estimate Is Available 

The Small Business Administration 

defines a small entity in the Air 

Transportation business as having less 

than 1,500 employees.3 There are over 

10 small entities identified as being 

affected by this final rule. Only two 

provided information relating to costs. 

The FAA Believes That This Final Rule 

Would Not Have a Significant Impact on 

a Substantial Number of Small Entities 

for the Following Reason 

The additional reported flying time by 

operators was multiplied by the 

operating cost per block hour by small 

airline and by aircraft type to obtain an 

estimate of the cost of this final rule. 

The small entities’ operation costs 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 26827 

compared to their revenue is estimated 

at less than 1 percent. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b) of the RFA, 

the Administrator of the FAA certifies 

that this rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

B. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13), as 

amended, 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 this Act, 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 assessed the 

potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it will not create an 

unnecessary obstacle to the foreign 

commerce of the United States, because 

the regulation has a legitimate domestic 

objective, the protection of safety. 

C. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

as amended, 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 immediately 

adopted final rule. 

E. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation (the ‘‘Chicago 

Convention’’), it is FAA policy to 

conform to 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 proposed 

regulation. 

F. 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 (‘‘NEPA’’) 

(Pub. L. 91–190, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 55) 

in the absence of extraordinary 

circumstances. The FAA has 

determined this rulemaking action 

qualifies for the categorical exclusion 

identified in paragraph 312(f) of FAA 

Order 1050.1E and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has reviewed the 

implementation of the proposed 

amendment to SFAR No. 77, § 91.1605, 

and determined it is categorically 

excluded from further environmental 

review according to FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ paragraph 312(f). The FAA 

has examined possible extraordinary 

circumstances and determined that no 

such circumstances exist. After careful 

and thorough consideration of the 

proposed action, the FAA finds that the 

proposed federal action does not require 

preparation of an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) or an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance 

with the requirements of NEPA, Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations, 

and FAA Order 1050.1E. 

IV. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

The FAA has analyzed this 

immediately adopted final rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ The agency 

has 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 immediately 

adopted 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 to 

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. 

V. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) Portal 

(http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Publishing 

Office’s Web page at: http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104–121) (set forth as 

a note to 5 U.S.C. 601), as amended, 

requires FAA to comply with small 

entity requests for information or advice 

about compliance with statutes and 

regulations within its jurisdiction. A 

small entity with questions regarding 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26828 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section at the beginning of the preamble. 

You can find out more about SBREFA 

on the Internet at: http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Iraq. 

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. Revise § 91.1605 to read as follows: 

§ 91.1605 Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 77—Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights in the Baghdad (ORBB) 

Flight Information Region (FIR) 

(a) Applicability. This rule applies to 

the following persons: 

(1) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. 

commercial operators; 

(2) All persons exercising the 

privileges of an airman certificate issued 

by the FAA, except such persons 

operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a 

foreign air carrier; and 

(3) All operators of aircraft registered 

in the United States, except where the 

operator of such aircraft is a foreign air 

carrier. 

(b) Flight prohibition. No person may 

conduct flight operations in the 

Baghdad (ORBB) Flight Information 

Region (FIR), except as provided in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

(c) Permitted operations. This section 

does not prohibit persons described in 

paragraph (a) of this section from 

conducting flight operations in the 

ORBB FIR, provided that such flight 

operations are conducted under a 

contract, grant, or cooperative 

agreement with a department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the U.S. government 

(or under a subcontract between the 

prime contractor of the department, 

agency, or instrumentality, and the 

person described in paragraph (a)), with 

the approval of the FAA, or under an 

exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA 

will process requests for approval or 

exemption in a timely manner, with the 

order of preference being: First, for 

those operations in support of U.S. 

government-sponsored activities; 

second, for those operations in support 

of government-sponsored activities of a 

foreign country with the support of a 

U.S. government department, agency, or 

instrumentality; and third, for all other 

operations. 

(d) Emergency situations. In an 

emergency that requires immediate 

decision and action for the safety of the 

flight, the pilot in command of an 

aircraft may deviate from this section to 

the extent required by that emergency. 

Except for U.S. air carriers and 

commercial operators that are subject to 

the requirements of parts 119, 121, 125, 

or 135, each person who deviates from 

this section must, within 10 days of the 

deviation, excluding Saturdays, 

Sundays, and Federal holidays, submit 

to the nearest FAA Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) a complete report 

of the operations of the aircraft involved 

in the deviation, including a description 

of the deviation and the reasons for it. 

(e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain 

in effect until May 11, 2017. The FAA 

may amend, rescind, or extend this 

SFAR as necessary. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), 

and 44701(a)(5), in Washington, DC, on May 

1, 2015. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11284 Filed 5–6–15; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 181 

[CBP Dec. 15–07] 

RIN 1515–AE04 

Technical Corrections to the North 

American Free Trade Agreement 

Uniform Regulations 

AGENCIES: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document sets forth 

amendments to the Customs and Border 

Protection regulations that implement 

the preferential tariff treatment and 

other customs-related provisions of the 

North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA) entered into by the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. The 

amendments reflect technical 

rectifications to the NAFTA Uniform 

Regulations agreed upon by the three 

NAFTA Parties, as well as corrections 

necessitated by changes to the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States. The conforming 

amendments are required to maintain 

the United States’ obligations under the 

NAFTA and to ensure that NAFTA 

traders operate under a uniform tariff 

and rules of origin regime. The 

amendments set forth in this document 

involve no substantive interpretation of 

the NAFTA or change in policy. 

DATES: The corrections are effective July 

10, 2015. 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig T. 

Clark, Director, Textile and Trade 

Agreements Division, Office of 

International Trade, Customs and 

Border Protection, Tel. (202) 863–6657. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

North American Free Trade Agreement 

On December 17, 1992, the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico entered into 

the North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA) which, among 

other things, provides for preferential 

duty treatment on goods of those three 

countries. The North American Free 

Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 

Public Law 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057, 

was signed into law by the United States 

on December 8, 1993. For purposes of 

administration of the NAFTA 

preferential duty provisions, the three 

countries agreed to the adoption of 

verbatim NAFTA Rules of Origin 

Regulations and additional uniform 

regulatory standards to be followed by 

each country in promulgating NAFTA 

implementing regulations under its 

national law. 

NAFTA Rules of Origin Regulations 

The regulations implementing the 

NAFTA preferential duty and related 

provisions under United States law are 

set forth in part 181 of title 19 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 

part 181) which incorporates, in the 

Appendix, the verbatim NAFTA Rules 

of Origin Regulations. The NAFTA rules 

of origin are structured primarily in 

terms of prescribed changes in tariff 

classification, with some goods also 

subject to a content requirement. 

Technical Rectifications to the NAFTA 

Rule of Origin Regulations Agreed to by 

the United States, Canada, and Mexico 

On April 9, 2009, the United States 

Trade Representative, the Canadian 


Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES