Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 74671 

(2) The airplanes identified in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this AD had passenger seats installed 

at manufacturer as listed in Embraer S.A. 

Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 500–25–0016, 

dated December 8, 2015; or Embraer S.A. SB 

No.: 505–25–0020, dated December 8, 2015. 

Since these are line replaceable units and the 

unsafe condition of this AD was originated 

during manufacturing, any passenger seat 

replaced with another one during routine 

maintenance is not affected by the actions of 

this AD. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 25: Equipment/Furnishing. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of another 

country to identify and correct an unsafe 

condition on an aviation product. The MCAI 

describes the unsafe condition as incorrect 

installation of passenger seat attachment 

fittings. We are issuing this proposed AD to 

detect and correct improperly installed seat 

attachment fittings, which could result in 

seat damage causing injury to occupants 

during an emergency landing condition. 

(f) Actions and Compliance 

Unless already done, do the following 

actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD 

following the Accomplishment Instructions 

in Embraer S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 

500–25–0016, dated December 8, 2015; or 

Embraer S.A. SB No.: 505–25–0020, dated 

December 8, 2015, as applicable: 

(1) Within the next 30 months after 

December 1, 2016 (the effective date of this 

AD), inspect each applicable passenger seat 

for the correct installation of attachment 

fittings. 

(2) If any discrepancy is found during the 

inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

AD, before further flight, correct the 

discrepancy following the applicable service 

information or using FAA-approved 

procedures. 

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; email: jim.rutherford@faa.gov. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, only use 

these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

(h) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI Ageˆncia Nacional de 

Aviac ̧a ̃o Civil (ANAC) AD No.: 2016–05–01, 

dated May 27, 2016, for related information. 

You may examine the MCAI in the AD 

docket on the Internet at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA2016-8160-0001. 

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Embraer S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 

500–25–0016, dated December 8, 2015. 

(ii) Embraer S.A. SB No.: 505–25–0020, 

dated December 8, 2015. 

(3) For Embraer S.A. service information 

identified in this AD, contact Embraer—S.A., 

Phenom Maintenance Support, Avenida 

Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, Sa ̃o Jose ́ dos 

Campos—SP—12227–901, P.O. Box 36/2, 

Brasil; phone: +55 12 3927 1000; fax: +55 12 

3927–2619; email: phenom.reliability@

embraer.com.br; Internet: http://

www.embraer.com.br/en-US/Pages/ 

home.aspx. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. In 

addition, you can access this service 

information on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for and 

locating Docket No. FAA–2016–8160. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 17, 2016. 

Pat Mullen, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–25660 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0225; Amdt. No. 

91–331D] 

RIN 2120–AK92 

Extension of the Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights in the Simferopol 

(UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) 

Flight Information Regions (FIRs) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action extends the 

prohibition against certain flight 

operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) 

and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) flight 

information regions (FIRs) 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 

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 

to be necessary to address a continuing 

hazard to persons and aircraft engaged 

in such flight operations. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 27, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Filippell, Air Transportation 

Division, AFS–220, Flight Standards 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: 202–267–8166; email: 

michael.e.filippell@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

This action continues the prohibition 

on flight operations in the Simferopol 

(UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) 

FIRs 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 

aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and 

operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
74672 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

except when such operators are foreign 

air carriers. The FAA finds this action 

necessary to address a continuing 

hazard to persons and aircraft engaged 

in such flight operations. 

II. Legal Authority and Good Cause 

A. 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), 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. 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 continues to 

prohibit the persons subject to 

paragraph (a) of Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 113, 

§ 91.1607, from conducting flight 

operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) 

and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs due to 

the hazard to the safety of such persons’ 

flight operations, as described in the 

Background section of this rule. 

B. 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 contrary 

to the public interest due to the 

immediate need to address the 

continuing hazard to civil aviation that 

exists in the Simferopol (UKFV) and 

Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, as 

described in the Background section of 

this final rule. 

III. Background 

The threat to safety in existence when 

the FAA first published SFAR No. 113, 

§ 91.1607 on April 25, 2014 (79 FR 

22862) has not abated. At that time, the 

FAA viewed the possibility of civil 

aircraft receiving confusing and 

conflicting air traffic control 

instructions from both Ukrainian and 

Russian air traffic service providers 

when operating in the portion of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR covered by 

SFAR No. 113, § 91.1607, as an unsafe 

condition that presented a potential 

hazard to U.S. civil flight operations in 

the disputed airspace. Because political 

and military tensions between Ukraine 

and the Russian Federation remained 

high, the FAA was also concerned that 

compliance with air traffic control 

instructions issued by the authorities of 

one country could result in a civil 

aircraft being misidentified as a threat 

and intercepted or otherwise engaged by 

air defense forces of the other country. 

The FAA continues to have these 

concerns. 

On July 18, 2014, the FAA issued a 

Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) FDC 4/ 

2182, expanding the flight prohibition 

to the entire Simferopol (UKFV) and 

Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, primarily 

as an immediate response to the shoot 

down of Malaysia Airlines MH17 on 

July 17, 2014, while flying over Ukraine 

at 33,000 feet just west of the Russian 

border. Two hundred ninety eight 

passengers and crew perished. In 

addition, there were other attacks on 

fixed-wing and rotary-wing Ukrainian 

military aircraft flying at lower 

altitudes, such as the shoot down of a 

Ukrainian An-26 flying at 21,000 feet 

southeast of Luhansk on July 14, 2014. 

As a result of these events, the FAA 

determined that the ongoing conflict in 

the region posed a significant threat to 

U.S. civil aviation operations in these 

FIRs. The use of weapons capable of 

targeting and shooting down aircraft 

flying on civil air routes at cruising 

altitudes posed a significantly 

dangerous threat to civil aircraft flying 

in the Simferopol (UKFV) and 

Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. The FAA 

published a final rule incorporating the 

expanded flight prohibition into SFAR 

No. 113, § 91.1607, on December 29, 

2014 (79 FR 77857). The FAA extended 

this flight prohibition in a final rule 

published October 27, 2015 (80 FR 

65621). 

The State Aviation Administration of 

Ukraine conducted and completed an 

airspace restructuring that went into 

effect in the late 2014 timeframe. The 

new configuration altered both the 

Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk 

(UKDV) Flight Information Region (FIR) 

altitude structures. To address the 

Ukraine airspace restructuring and 

provide additional clarity, on July 22, 

2016, the FAA published a technical 

amendment to specifically identify the 

prohibited airspace in which SFAR No. 

113, § 91.1607, applies, with inclusive 

altitudes and lateral limitations (latitude 

and longitude coordinates). 81 FR 

47699. 

The FAA has continued to evaluate 

the situation in the Simferopol (UKFV) 

and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs and 

has determined there is a continuing 

significant flight safety hazard to U.S. 

civil aviation. Although the European 

Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) 

published a Safety Information Bulletin 

(SIB) on February 17, 2016, indicating 

that ATS routes L851 and M856 could 

be considered for planning flights in the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, there is 

continuing concern over the hazard to 

U.S. civil aviation from possible 

conflicting air traffic control 

instructions from Ukrainian and 

Russian air traffic service providers. 

Shortly following the EASA bulletin, 

the Russian Federal Air Transport 

Agency responded with a press release 

in which it again asserted that it was 

responsible for air traffic services in a 

portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR. 

The Russian circular (from Feb 21, 

2016) further stated, ‘‘The Russian 

Federation does not bear the 

responsibility for the provision of safety 

to those flights, which will be operated 

within Simferopol FIR under control of 

ATC unit other than Simferopol Air 

Traffic Management Centre.’’ Russia 

contended that EASA’s decision was 

politically motivated and ‘pose[d] a 

threat to aviation safety in the region.’ 

In addition, there have been reported 

incidents of purposeful interference, 

including GPS jamming, in the 

Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk 

(UKDV) FIRs. Based on this information, 

the FAA continues to assess that there 

is a significant flight safety hazard to 

U.S. civil aviation in the Simferopol 

(UKFV) FIR. 

In the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR, 

there is an ongoing risk of skirmishes in 

the area and a potential for larger-scale 

fighting in eastern Ukraine involving 

combined Russian-separatist forces, 

which could result in civil aircraft being 

misidentified as a threat and then 

intercepted or otherwise engaged, as 

demonstrated by the shoot down of 

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 

2014. These combined forces have 

access to a variety of anti-aircraft 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 74673 

weapons, to include man-portable air 

defense systems (MANPADS) and 

possibly more advanced surface-to-airmissiles (SAMs) that have the capability 

to engage aircraft at higher altitudes. 

Separatists have demonstrated their 

ability to use these anti-aircraft weapons 

by successfully shooting down a 

number of aircraft during the course of 

the fighting in eastern Ukraine in 2014. 

More recently, Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 

Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine 

(SMM) unmanned aerial systems (UASs) 

also have been shot down by surface-toair missiles and small arms ground fire, 

and brought down with GPS jamming in 

the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR. 

Due to the previously described 

continuing hazards to U.S. civil aviation 

operations, the FAA is extending the 

expiration date of SFAR No. 113, 

§ 91.1607, to continue the prohibition 

on flight operations in the Simferopol 

(UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) 

FIRs 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 

aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and 

operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, 

except when such operators are foreign 

air carriers. This rule extends the 

expiration date of SFAR No. 113, 

§ 91.1607, from October 27, 2016, to 

October 27, 2018. 

The FAA will continue to actively 

evaluate the area to determine to what 

extent U.S. civil aviation may be able to 

safely operate therein. Adjustments to 

this SFAR may be appropriate if the risk 

to aviation safety and security changes. 

The FAA may amend or rescind this 

SFAR as necessary prior to its 

expiration date. 

Because the circumstances described 

herein warrant a continuation of the 

flight restrictions imposed by SFAR No. 

113, I find that notice and public 

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

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. 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. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Orders 12866 and 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. 603 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), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 

25, 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 final rule. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined this final rule has 

benefits that justify its costs. This rule 

is a significant regulatory action as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 or as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, as it 

raises novel policy issues. This final 

rule merely extends an existing flight 

prohibition without change. This rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This rule will not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. This 

rule will not impose an unfunded 

mandate on State, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. 

DOT Order 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 a statement to that effect and 

the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. 

This rule extends the existing 

prohibition against U.S. civil flight 

operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) 

and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. As 

we noted in the most recent previous 

amendment to SFAR No. 113, § 91.1607 

(80 FR 65621, October 27, 2015), almost 

all U.S. operators already had 

voluntarily ceased their operations in 

these FIRs prior to the issuance of the 

FAA NOTAM on July 18, 2014 (UTC), 

which prohibited U.S. civil flight 

operations in these two FIRS in their 

entirety. Prior to the issuance of the July 

18, 2014 (UTC) NOTAM, the FAA had 

already prohibited U.S. civil flight 

operations in a portion of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR due to a dispute 

between Ukraine and the Russian 

Federation over which country is 

responsible for providing air navigation 

services in the area, first via NOTAM 

and subsequently when the FAA 

initially published SFAR No. 113, 

§ 91.1607, on April 25, 2014. 

Consequently, no U.S. operators were 

operating in that portion of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR at the time of 

the December 29, 2014 amendment to 

the rule. 

Because of the continuing significant 

hazards to U.S. civil aviation discussed 

in the Background section of this final 

rule, the FAA believes that few, if any, 

U.S. operators presently wish to 

conduct operations in either of these 

two FIRS. Moreover, both the 

amendment published on December 29, 

2014, and this rule, permit a U.S. 

Government department, agency, or 

instrumentality to request FAA approval 

on behalf of a person described in 

paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 113, 

§ 91.1607, to conduct operations under 

a contract (or subcontract), grant, or 

cooperative agreement with that 

department, agency, or instrumentality. 

As no U.S. Government department, 

agency, or instrumentality has requested 

such approval since December 29, 2014, 

there is apparently little demand for 

such approvals. Finally, the possibility 

of obtaining an approval, should one be 

requested, lowers the expected cost of 

the extended rule. Accordingly, the 

FAA believes the incremental costs of 

this final rule will be minimal. These 

minimal costs will be exceeded by the 

benefits of avoiding the deaths, injuries, 

and/or property damage that would 

result from a U.S. operator’s aircraft 

being shot down (or otherwise damaged) 

while operating in either or both of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk 

(UKDV) FIRs. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
74674 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

As described in the Regulatory 

Evaluation section of this preamble, the 

incremental costs of this rule are 

minimal. Therefore, as provided in 

§ 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 

(Pub. L. 96–39), 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 has assessed the effect of 

this final rule and determined that its 

purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. 

civil aviation from a hazard outside the 

U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance 

with the Trade Agreements Act. 

D. 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 

$155.0 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. 

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 

immediately adopted 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 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f of this order and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

The FAA has reviewed the 

implementation of this SFAR and 

determined it is categorically excluded 

from further environmental review 

according to FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ paragraph 5–6.6f. The 

FAA has examined possible 

extraordinary circumstances and 

determined that no such circumstances 

exist. After careful and thorough 

consideration of the action, the FAA 

finds that this Federal action does not 

require preparation of an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact 

Statement in accordance with the 

requirements of NEPA, Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F. 

V. 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 would 

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, 

would 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 would not be a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and would not be 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. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 74675 

• Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

• Accessing the Government Publishing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.fdsys.gov 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by docket 

or amendment number of the rule) to 

the Federal Aviation Administration, 

Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–9677. 

Except for classified material, all 

documents the FAA considered in 

developing this rule, including 

economic analyses and technical 

reports, may be accessed from the 

Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced above. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) 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 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit 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, 

Ukraine. 

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 § 91.1607 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 91.1607 Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 113—Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) 

and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight 

Information Regions (FIRs). 

* * * * * 

(e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain 

in effect until October 27, 2018. The 

FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this 

SFAR as necessary. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), 

40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on October 

21, 2016. 

Victoria B. Wassmer, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–25962 Filed 10–24–16; 4:20 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Part 11 

[178A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 

A0A501010.999900 253G] 

RIN 1076–AF33 

Addition of the Wind River Indian 

Reservation to the List of Courts of 

Indian Offenses 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: This interim final rule 

establishes a Court of Indian Offenses 

(also known as CFR Court) for the Wind 

River Indian Reservation until the 

agency can promulgate a final rule that 

considers comments received. 

DATES: This interim final rule is 

effective on October 27, 2016. Submit 

comments by November 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal rulemaking portal 

www.regulations.gov. The rule is listed 

under the agency name ‘‘Bureau of 

Indian Affairs.’’ 

• Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Ms. 

Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory 

Affairs & Collaborative Action, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street 

NW., Mail Stop 3642, Washington, DC 

20240. 

• We cannot ensure that comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) will be included in 

the docket for this rulemaking and 

considered. Comments sent to an 

address other than those listed above 

will not be included in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of 

Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative 

Action—Indian Affairs, (202) 273–4680; 

elizabeth.appel@bia.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of Rule 

II. Procedural Requirements 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 

12866) 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Takings (E.O. 12630) 

F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 

13175 and Departmental policy) 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

J. National Environmental Policy Act 

K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 

13211) 

L. Clarity of This Regulation 

M. Public Availability of Comments 

N. Determination To Issue an Interim Final 

Rule With Immediate Effective Date 

I. Summary of Rule 

Courts of Indian Offenses operate in 

those areas of Indian country where 

tribes retain jurisdiction over Indians 

exclusive of State jurisdiction, but 

where tribal courts have not been 

established to fully exercise that 

jurisdiction. The Eastern Shoshone 

Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe 

have a joint interest in the Wind River 

Indian Reservation, however the current 

tribal court operating on the reservation, 

the Shoshone & Arapaho Tribal Court, is 

currently operating without the support 

of both tribes, and with such limited 

resources, that it may cease operations 

without notice. To ensure the continued 

administration of justice on the 

Reservation, the BIA is taking steps to 

ensure that judicial services will 

continue to be provided if the Shoshone 

& Arapaho Tribal Court ceases 

operations. Therefore, this rule revises a 

section of 25 CFR part 11 to add the 

Wind River Indian Reservation in 

Wyoming to the list of areas in Indian 

Country with established Courts of 

Indian Offenses (also known as CFR 

Courts). This rule inserts the Wind River 

Indian Reservation into a new paragraph 

(d) in 25 CFR 11.100. 

Adding this reservation will allow for 

BIA to constitute a Court of Indian 

Offenses that can provide for the 

administration of justice until such time 

as the Northern Arapaho and Eastern 

Shoshone Tribes put into effect a court 

system that meets regulatory 

requirements and is capable of serving 

the entire reservation. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES