22862 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601– 

612) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601 requires administrative 

agencies to consider the effect of their 

actions on small entities, including 

small businesses. 

According to the RFA, when an 

agency issues a rule, the agency must 

prepare an analysis to determine 

whether the impact of the rule will have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

However, the RFA requires such 

analysis only where notice and 

comment rulemaking is required. Rules 

are exempt from the APA notice and 

comment requirements when the agency 

for good cause finds that notice and 

public procedure thereon is 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. SBA has 

determined that there is good cause to 

adopt this interim final rule without 

prior public participation; therefore, the 

rule is also exempt from the RFA 

requirements. SBA invites comments on 

this determination. 

List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 123 

Disaster assistance, Loan programsbusiness, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Small businesses, 

Terrorism. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

SBA amends 13 CFR part 123 as 

follows: 

PART 123—DISASTER LOAN 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 123 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b) (6), 

636(b), 636(d), 657n; Pub. L. 102–395, 106 

Stat. 1828, 1864; Pub. L. 103–75, 107 Stat. 

739; and Pub. L. 106–50, 113 Stat. 245. 

■ 2. Amend § 123.6 by revising the first 

sentence to read as follows: 

§ 123.6 What does SBA look for when 

considering a disaster loan applicant? 

There must be reasonable assurance 

that you can repay your loan based on 

SBA’s analysis of your credit or your 

personal or business cash flow, and you 

must also have satisfactory 

character.* * * 

■ 3. Amend § 123.11 as follows: 

■ a. Remove the introductory text and 

paragraph (c); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) 

as (c) and (d) 

■ c. Add new paragraphs (a) and (b); 

and 

■ d. Revise the second sentence of 

newly redesignated paragraph (c) to 

read as follows. 

§ 123.11 Does SBA require collateral for 

any of its disaster loans? 

(a) When collateral is not required: 

(1) Economic injury disaster loans. 

Generally, SBA will not require that you 

pledge collateral to secure an economic 

injury disaster loan of $25,000 or less. 

(2) Physical disaster home and 

physical disaster business loans. SBA 

will not require that you pledge 

collateral to secure a physical disaster 

home or physical disaster business loan 

of $14,000 or less. In addition, under a 

Major Disaster, SBA generally will not 

require that you pledge collateral to 

secure a physical disaster home or 

physical disaster business loan of 

$25,000 or less. 

(3) IDAP loans. Collateral 

requirements for IDAP loans are set 

forth in Subpart H of this part. 

(4) Military Reservist EIDL. For the 

purposes of the Military Reservist EIDL 

only, as described in section 123.513, 

SBA will not generally require that you 

pledge collateral to secure a loan of 

$50,000 or less. 

(b) For loans larger than the amounts 

outlined in paragraph (a) of this section, 

you will be required to provide 

available collateral such as a lien on the 

damaged or replacement property, a 

security interest in personal/business 

property, or both. 

(c) * * * In deciding whether 

collateral is required, SBA will add up 

all physical disaster loans to see if they 

exceed the applicable unsecured 

threshold outlined in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section and all economic injury 

disaster loans to see if they exceed 

$25,000. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 16, 2014. 

Maria Contreras-Sweet, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09183 Filed 4–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

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

91–331] 

RIN 2120–AK50 

Prohibition Against Certain Flights in 

the Simferopol (UKFV) Flight 

Information Region (FIR) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Immediately adopted final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action prohibits certain 

flight operations in a portion of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) Flight Information 

Region (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 

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 prevent a potential 

hazard to persons and aircraft engaged 

in such flight operations. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 25, 2014, and remains in effect 

through April 27, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Will Gonzalez, Air 

Transportation Division, 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 

Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) 

§ 553(b)(3)(B) 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 potential hazard to civil aviation 

that now exists in a portion of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, as described in 

the Background section of this notice. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA is responsible for the safety 

of flight in the United States (U.S.) and 

for the safety of U.S. civil operators, 

U.S.-registered aircraft, and U.S.- 

certificated airmen throughout the 

world. The FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety is found in 49 

U.S.C. Subtitle I, section 106(f), 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. Section 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22863 

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 the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce and national security. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it prohibits the 

persons subject to paragraph (a) of this 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) from conducting flight 

operations in a portion of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR due to the 

potential hazard to the safety of such 

persons’ flight operations described in 

the Background section of this 

document. 

I. Overview of Immediately Adopted 

Final Rule 

This action prohibits flight operations 

in a portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) 

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 

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. 

II. Background 

The FAA has safety and national 

security concerns regarding flight 

operations in a portion of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR. On March 28, 

2014, the Russian Federation issued a 

Notice-to-Airmen (NOTAM) purporting 

to establish unilaterally a new FIR, 

effective April 3, 2014, in a significant 

portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR. 

The affected airspace includes sovereign 

Ukrainian airspace over the Crimean 

Peninsula and the associated Ukrainian 

territorial sea, as well as international 

airspace managed by Ukraine over the 

Black Sea and the Sea of Azov under a 

regional air navigation agreement 

approved by the Council of the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO). This action by the 

Russian Federation contradicts 

international law, including provisions 

of the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation, done at Chicago, December 7, 

1944 (also known as the ‘‘Chicago 

Convention’’) and the standards 

established in Annex 11 to the Chicago 

Convention. Ukraine has rejected the 

Russian Federation’s purported 

establishment of a new FIR within the 

existing Simferopol (UKFV) FIR and 

continues to provide air traffic control 

services in both Ukrainian territorial 

airspace and international airspace 

assigned to Ukraine. 

In response to the Russian 

Federation’s actions, Ukraine 

established a prohibited area over the 

Crimean Peninsula for flight operations 

below flight level 290 by means of a 

NOTAM and closed various air traffic 

services (ATS) route segments. The 

Russian Federation further responded 

by the issuance of a NOTAM that 

rejected and directly conflicts with 

Ukrainian NOTAMs concerning the 

establishment of the prohibited area and 

the route segment closures. On April 2, 

2014, ICAO’s Regional Director for 

Europe and the North Atlantic Regions 

issued a state letter to countries and 

their civil aviation authorities 

highlighting the possible existence of 

serious risks to the safety of 

international civil flights. ICAO stated 

that, due to the unsafe situation where 

more than one ATS provider may be 

controlling flights within the same 

airspace from April 3, 2014, 0600 

Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) 

onwards, consideration should be given 

to implementing measures to avoid the 

airspace and to circumnavigate the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR with alternative 

routings. 

In the FAA’s view, the potential for 

civil aircraft to receive confusing and 

conflicting air traffic control 

instructions from both Ukrainian and 

Russian ATS providers while operating 

in the portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) 

FIR covered by this SFAR is unsafe and 

presents a potential hazard to civil flight 

operations in the disputed airspace. In 

addition, political and military tension 

between Ukraine and the Russian 

Federation remains high, and 

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. 

This SFAR will remain in effect for 

one year. During this period, the FAA 

will continue to actively evaluate the 

area and the airports in the region to 

determine to what extent U.S. civil 

operators may be able to safely operate 

in the region. Adjustments 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 the 

expiration date. 

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. However, we will accept any 

comments regarding the impact of this 

action for consideration in future 

rulemaking action to amend or rescind 

this SFAR. 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. 

Approval Based on Authorization 

Request of an Agency of the United 

States Government 

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. 113, § 91.1607, including a U.S. air 

carrier or a U.S. commercial operator, to 

conduct a charter to transport civilian or 

military passengers or cargo through the 

portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR 

covered by this SFAR, that department, 

agency, or instrumentality may request 

the FAA to approve persons covered 

under SFAR No.113, § 91.1607, to 

conduct such operations. An approval 

request must be made 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 an 

electronic copy of the FAA’s response. 

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 for 

the appropriate email address, as the 

division anticipates an email system 

change in the near future that would 

likely make any email address 

published here outdated. A single letter 

may request approval from the FAA for 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

22864 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1 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 FAA under 49 U.S.C. 

44305, coverage under that operator’s FAA 

premium war risk insurance policy is suspended as 

a condition of that premium policy. 

multiple persons covered under SFAR 

No. 113, § 91.1607, 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 within the portion of the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR covered by this 

SFAR 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, including 

subcontractors, with whom the U.S. 

Government department, agency, or 

instrumentality requesting FAA 

approval has a current contract(s), 

grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) for 

specific flight operations in the 

Simferopol (UKFV) FIR. Additional 

such 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 specified by the Air 

Transportation Division, (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 the operation under 

SFAR No. 113, § 91.1607, 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 Operations Specifications 

(OpSpecs). In addition, operators will 

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. 

Approval Conditions 

When the FAA approves the request, 

the FAA’s Aviation Safety Organization 

(AVS) will send a letter to the 

requesting department, agency, or 

instrumentality confirming that the 

FAA’s approval is subject to all of the 

following conditions: 

(1) The 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 specify that the 

operation is not eligible for coverage 

under a premium war risk insurance 

policy issued by the FAA under chapter 

443 of title 49, U.S. Code.1

(3) If the proposed operation would 

have been covered by a premium war 

risk insurance policy issued by the 

FAA, but for SFAR No. 113, § 91.1607, 

the FAA will issue an endorsement to 

that premium policy that specifically 

excludes coverage for any operations 

into, out of, within, or through the 

portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR 

covered by this SFAR, including 

operations under a flight plan that 

contemplates landing in or taking off 

from Crimea. The endorsement to the 

premium policy will take effect before 

the approval’s effective date. The 

operator must further establish that it 

has obtained substitute commercial war 

risk coverage for operations in the 

portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR 

covered by this SFAR or that the 

operation would be covered by an 

effective non-premium war risk 

insurance policy issued by the FAA 

under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code. 

The exclusion specified in the 

endorsement remains in effect 

notwithstanding the issuance of any 

approval under, or exemption from, this 

SFAR (the chapter 443 premium policy 

refers to such approval as a ‘‘waiver’’ 

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

Additionally, before any approval takes 

effect, the operator must submit to the 

FAA 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 the 

operator’s 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 portion of 

the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR covered by 

this SFAR. This waiver of claims does 

not preclude an operator from raising a 

claim under an applicable non-premium 

war risk insurance policy issued by the 

FAA. 

(4) Other conditions determined by 

the FAA, including those that may be 

imposed in OpSpecs. 

If the proposed operation or 

operations are approved, the FAA will 

issue OpSpecs to the certificate holder 

authorizing these operations. The FAA 

will notify the departments, agencies, or 

instrumentalities that request FAA 

approval of civil flight operations to be 

conducted by one or more persons 

described in paragraph (a) of this SFAR 

of any additional conditions beyond 

those contained in the approval letter, if 

the operations are approved. The 

requesting department, agency, or 

instrumentality must have a contract 

(includes subcontracts), grant, or 

cooperative agreement with the 

person(s) described in paragraph (a) of 

this SFAR on whose behalf the 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

requests FAA approval. 

Request for Exemptions 

Any operations not conducted under 

the approval process discussed above 

must be conducted under an exemption 

from this SFAR. A request by any 

person covered under SFAR No. 113, 

§ 91.1607, for an exemption must 

comply with 14 CFR part 11, and will 

require exceptional circumstances 

beyond those contemplated by the 

approval process set forth in this SFAR. 

In addition to the information required 

by 14 CFR § 11.81, as a minimum, the 

petitioner must describe in its 

submission to the FAA— 

• The proposed operation(s), 

including the nature of the operation; 

• The service to be provided by the 

person(s) covered by the SFAR; 

• The specific locations within the 

portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR 

covered by this SFAR 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., 

pre-mission planning and briefing, inflight, and post-flight). 

Additionally, the endorsement of any 

premium war risk insurance policy 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22865 

issued under chapter 443 of title 49, 

U.S. Code, and a waiver and 

indemnification agreement, all as 

referred to above, will also be required 

as a condition of any exemption issued 

under SFAR No. 113, § 91.1607. The 

FAA recognizes that there may be 

operations conducted for the 

governments of other countries with the 

support of the U.S. Government that 

may be affected by this SFAR. 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. 

IV. 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. 603, requires agencies to 

analyze the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 

1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as codified in 19 

U.S.C. 2532, 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. 1532, 

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. 

Department of Transportation Order 

(DOT) 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This rule prohibits flights in an area 

of airspace over the Crimean Peninsula, 

the associated Ukrainian territorial sea, 

and adjacent international airspace 

assigned to Ukraine where both the 

Ukrainian and Russian air traffic 

services claim jurisdiction. This 

situation could result in confusing or 

conflicting instructions to operators of 

civil aircraft, creating a potentially 

unsafe operating environment. The 

alternative flight routes result in some 

additional fuel and operations costs to 

the operators, as well as some costs 

attributed to passenger time. By 

prohibiting unsafe flights, the benefits of 

this rule will exceed the minimal flight 

deviation costs. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined this final rule 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. 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

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 

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. 

U.S. certificate holders affected by 

this final rule are predominately large 

passenger and all-cargo carriers. There 

are some small entity operators flying 

under U.S. government contract and 

some operators providing flights that 

support oil operations that the FAA 

anticipates will also be affected. Many 

of these operations are conducted by 

small entities, but due to the immediacy 

of the potential harm to U.S. certificate 

holders, their passengers, crew, and 

cargo, there is not a sufficient amount of 

time to ascertain exact numbers. There 

are likely to be enough such operators 

to be considered a substantial number of 

small entities. While we have not 

performed a full cost benefit analysis of 

this rule, we estimate that 

approximately 10 to 12 U.S. carrier 

operations per day will be impacted by 

this rule, and that the average cost of 

avoiding the disputed air space is 

approximately $2,000 per flight, 

equating to a cost estimate to U.S. 

carriers of $8.8–11 million, annually. 

This estimate does not include 

additional operations costs and time 

costs. However, the $2,000 per flight 

estimate includes impacts on U.S. air 

carriers, including charter operations. 

The $2,000 per flight estimate is 

calculated using an air carrier-provided 

average additional fuel burn estimate for 

the deviation of 4,000 pounds of fuel, at 

the total system average fuel price for 

U.S. air carriers, $3.05 per gallon (‘‘Fuel 

Cost and Consumption,’’ US DOT 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

Monthly report Jan. 2014), and a 

conversion factor of 6.84 pounds of fuel 

per gallon (Air BP Handbook of 

Products, Air BP Ltd 2000). Therefore, 

as provided in section 605(b), the head 

of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

B. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

22866 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that its purpose is to protect 

the safety of U.S. civil aviation from a 

potential hazard outside the U.S. 

Therefore, the rule is in compliance 

with the Trade Agreements Act. 

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 

(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. 

E. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

(1) In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under 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 these 

proposed regulations. 

(2) Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

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 Russian Federation’s 

unilateral attempt to establish a new FIR 

in Ukrainian territorial airspace and 

international airspace managed by 

Ukraine threatens to undermine the 

framework for international regulatory 

cooperation in civil aviation established 

under the Chicago Convention. This 

action by the FAA contributes to the 

international community’s efforts to 

uphold that framework. 

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) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(f) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has reviewed the 

implementation of the proposed SFAR 

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 EA or EIS in 

accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA, Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA 

Order 1050.1E. 

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 

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. 

VI. 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 Printing 

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) 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 

section 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. 

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, 

40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 

44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 

44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22867 

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. Add new § 91.1607 to subpart M to 

read as follows: 

§ 91.1607 Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 113—Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) 

Flight Information Region (FIR). 

(a) Applicability. This Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 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 U.S.-registered 

civil aircraft, except where the operator 

of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. 

(b) Flight prohibition. Except as 

provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section, no person described in 

paragraph (a) of this section may 

conduct flight operations in the portion 

of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR within 

the following lateral limits: 454500N 

0345800E–460900N 0360000E–460000N 

0370000E–452700N 0364100E–452242N 

0364100E–451824N 0363524E–451442N 

0363542E–451218N 0363200E–450418N 

0363418E–445600N 0363700E–443100N 

0364000E–424400N 0361600E–424700N 

0340000E–424800N 0304500E–434100N 

0303200E–441500N 0302400E–444600N 

0300900E–455400N 0322500E–454900N 

0324700E–455400N 0330600E–455600N 

0332700E–455900N 0332900E—then 

along the Crimea border to 454500N 

0345800E. See Figure 1 below for a 

depiction of the affected airspace. 

(c) Permitted operations. This section 

does not prohibit persons described in 

paragraph (a) of this section from 

conducting flight operations in the 

portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section, 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 

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 

an 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 14 CFR 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 April 27, 2015. The FAA 

may amend, rescind, or extend this 

SFAR as necessary. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

22868 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 


WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULESER25AP14.030</GPH>

Figure 1: Depiction of Airspace Covered by SF AR 113 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22869 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

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

44701(a)(5), in Washington, DC, on April 23, 

2014. 

Michael G. Whitaker, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09545 Filed 4–23–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2014–0236] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, 

Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor 

(East Channel); Baltimore, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone 

encompassing certain waters of the 

Patapsco River. This action is necessary 

to provide for the safety of life on 

navigable waters during a fireworks 

display launched from a barge located 

adjacent to the East Channel of 

Northwest Harbor at Baltimore, MD on 

May 8, 2014. This safety zone is 

intended to protect the maritime public 

in a portion of the Patapsco River. 

DATES: This rule is effective from April 

25, 2014 through May 9, 2014 and 

enforceable from 7:30 p.m. on May 8, 

2014 through 9:30 p.m. on May 9, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble are part of docket [USCG– 

2014–0236]. To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type the docket 

number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. You may also visit the 

Docket Management Facility in Room 

W12–140 on the ground floor of the 

Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector Baltimore, MD; telephone 

410–576–2674, email Ronald.L.Houck@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

(202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Regulatory History and Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this final 

rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule due to the short 

time period between event planners 

notifying the Coast Guard of details 

concerning the event, on March 25, 

2014, and publication of this safety 

zone. As such, it is impracticable to 

provide a full comment period due to 

lack of time. Furthermore, delaying the 

effective date of this safety zone would 

be contrary to the public interest given 

the high risk of injury and damage from 

the potential hazards associated with a 

fireworks display, such as the accidental 

discharge of fireworks, dangerous 

projectiles, and falling hot embers or 

other debris. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Due to the need for immediate 

action, the restriction of vessel traffic is 

necessary to protect life, property and 

the environment; therefore, a 30-day 

notice is impracticable. Delaying the 

effective date would be contrary to the 

safety zone’s intended objectives of 

protecting persons and vessels, and 

enhancing public and maritime safety. 

The permanent safety zones listed in the 

Table to 33 CFR 165.506 do not apply 

to this event. 

B. Basis and Purpose 

Under Armour, Inc., and InVNT, LLC 

of New York, NY, will sponsor a 

fireworks display launched from a barge 

located adjacent to the East Channel of 

Northwest Harbor in Baltimore, MD, 

scheduled on May 8, 2014 at 8:30 p.m. 

If necessary due to inclement weather, 

the fireworks display will be 

rescheduled to May 9, 2014. 

Fireworks displays are frequently 

held from locations on or near the 

navigable waters of the United States. 

The potential hazards associated with 

fireworks displays are a safety concern 

during such events. The purpose of this 

rule is to promote public and maritime 

safety during a fireworks display, and to 

protect mariners transiting the area from 

the potential hazards associated with a 

fireworks display, such as the accidental 

discharge of fireworks, dangerous 

projectiles, and falling hot embers or 

other debris. This rule is needed to 

ensure safety on the waterway before, 

during and after the scheduled event. 

C. Discussion of the Final Rule 

Through this regulation, the Coast 

Guard will establish a safety zone. The 

temporary safety zone will be enforced 

from 7:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on 

May 8, 2014, and if necessary due to 

inclement weather, from 7:30 p.m. 

through 9:30 p.m. on May 9, 2014. The 

safety zone will encompass all waters of 

the Patapsco River, within a 200 yards 

radius of a fireworks discharge barge in 

approximate position latitude 39°15′55′′ 

N, longitude 076°34′33′′ W, located 

adjacent to the East Channel of 

Northwest Harbor at Baltimore, 

Maryland, MD. This location is entirely 

within the Area of Responsibility of the 

Captain of the Port Baltimore, as set 

forth at 33 CFR 3.25–15. 

The effect of this temporary safety 

zone will be to restrict navigation in the 

regulated area immediately before, 

during, and immediately after the 

fireworks display. Vessels will be 

allowed to transit the waters of the 

Patapsco River outside the safety zone. 

This rule requires that entry into or 

remaining in this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

Baltimore. All vessels underway within 

this safety zone at the time it is 

implemented are to depart the zone. To 

seek permission to transit the area of the 

safety zone, the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore can be contacted at telephone 

number 410–576–2693 or on Marine 

Band Radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing the 

safety zone can be contacted on Marine 

Band Radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). Federal, state, and local agencies 

may assist the Coast Guard in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. The 

Coast Guard will issue notices to the 

maritime community to further 

publicize the safety zone and notify the 

public of changes in the status of the 

zone. Such notices will continue until 

the event is complete. 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES