94958 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2016–25–29 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–18755; Docket No. 

FAA–2016–8850; Directorate Identifier 

2016–NM–031–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective January 31, 2017. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 767–200 and –300 series airplanes, 

certificated in any category, as identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

767–25–0550, dated January 30, 2015. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 25; Equipment/furnishings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of a fire 

in the bilge area of the cargo compartment 

that burned through the insulation blankets 

that were intended to prevent smoke from 

migrating behind the cargo compartment 

sidewall liners and upward into the main 

cabin. We are issuing this AD to prevent a 

fire in the bilge area of the cargo 

compartment burning through the insulation 

blankets and consequently allowing smoke to 

migrate behind the cargo compartment 

sidewall liners and upward into the main 

cabin. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Insulation Blanket Replacement 

Within 36 months after the effective date 

of this AD: Replace the cargo compartment 

insulation blankets on the left and right sides 

between stringers 29 and 33 with new 

insulation blankets that incorporate fire 

stops, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 767–25– 

0550, dated January 30, 2015. For Groups 1 

through 4, Configurations 1 and 2, airplanes 

identified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 767–25–0550, dated January 

30, 2015, no action is required by this AD. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. To be 

approved, the repair method, modification 

deviation, or alteration deviation must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii) of this AD 

apply. 

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including 

substeps under an RC step and any figures 

identified in an RC step, must be done to 

comply with the AD. An AMOC is required 

for any deviations to RC steps, including 

substeps and identified figures. 

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be 

deviated from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s maintenance 

or inspection program without obtaining 

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified figures, can 

still be done as specified, and the airplane 

can be put back in an airworthy condition. 

(i) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety & Environmental Control 

Systems, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6596; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: francis.smith@faa.gov. 

(j) 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) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 767–25–0550, dated January 30, 

2015. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., 

MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(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 Renton, Washington, on 

December 9, 2016. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–30278 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0708; Amendment 

No. 91–334A] 

RIN 2120–AK93 

Extension of the Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights Within the Damascus 

(OSTT) Flight Information Region (FIR) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action extends the 

prohibition of certain flight operations 

in the Damascus (OSTT) 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 that this action continues to 

be necessary to address a potential 

hazard to persons and aircraft engaged 

in such flight operations. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 30, 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 

against certain flight operations in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 94959 

Damascus (OSTT) 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 

necessary to address a continuing 

hazard to persons and aircraft engaged 

in such flight operations. This rule 

extends SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, 

(SFAR 114) from December 30, 2016, to 

December 30, 2018. 

II. Authority and Good Cause 

A. Legal Authority 

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 of the 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 SFAR 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 continues the 

prohibition against certain flight 

operations in the OSTT FIR due to the 

hazard to persons and aircraft engaged 

in such flight operations that is 

described in the Background section of 

this final 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 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 Damascus (OSTT) FIR, 

as described in the Background section 

of this final rule. 

III. Background 

The significant threat identified when 

the FAA first published SFAR 114 to 

civil aviation operating in the Damascus 

(OSTT) FIR continues due to the 

presence of anti-aircraft weapons 

controlled by non-state actors, threats 

made by the extremist groups, deconfliction concerns, and ongoing 

military fighting. Flight safety risks 

associated with a lack of de-confliction 

between various military forces 

conducting operations in Syria and civil 

aviation, as identified in the original 

prohibition, also continue unabated. 

Due to the presence of foreign 

national military forces and non-state 

actors operating in Syria, the FAA has 

determined that safety of flight 

continues to be a serious safety concern 

for U.S. civil aviation flight operations 

in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR. There are 

multiple extremist groups, known to be 

equipped with a variety of anti-aircraft 

weapons including radar-guided 

surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and manportable air defense systems 

(MANPADs), which have the capability 

to threaten civil aircraft. Syrian and 

Russian military aircraft have been shot 

down during the course of the current 

conflict and these groups have 

previously warned civilian air carriers 

against operating within (or providing 

service to) Syria. 

In 2015 and in support of the Asad 

regime, Russia began conducting 

military operations using fighter and 

bomber aircraft and employed advanced 

cruise missiles. These operations further 

increase the risk to civilian flight 

operations within the Damascus (OSTT) 

FIR. 

The FAA continues to assess the 

situation in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR 

and believes there is a significant threat 

to civil aviation operating in the 

Damascus (OSTT) FIR at all altitudes 

due to the presence of anti-aircraft 

weapons controlled by non-state actors, 

threats made by the extremist groups, 

de-confliction concerns, and ongoing 

military fighting. 

Due to the continuation of the 

previously described hazards to U.S. 

civil aviation operations, the FAA is 

extending the expiration date of SFAR 

No. 114, § 91.1609, from December 30, 

2016 to December 30, 2018, to maintain 

the prohibition on flight operations in 

the Damascus (OSTT) 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 will continue to actively 

monitor the situation and, based on 

evaluations, determine the extent U.S. 

civil operators may be able to safely 

operate in the Damascus (OSTT) FIR in 

the future. Amendments to this SFAR 

No. 114, § 91.1609, may be appropriate 

if the risk to aviation safety and security 

changes. Thus, the FAA may amend or 

rescind this SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, as 

necessary prior to its expiration date. 

Because the circumstances described 

herein warrant a continuation of the 

flight restrictions imposed by SFAR 114, 

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 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
94960 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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, as it raises novel policy 

issues contemplated under that 

Executive Order; further, this rule is 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

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. 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Department of Transportation (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. 

For SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, the FAA 

determined that incremental costs were 

minimal for U.S. operators of large 

transport category airplanes (four part 

121 operators and two part 125M 

operators) because they had voluntarily 

ended their overflights in March, 2011, 

before the FAA’s August 18, 2014 

issuance of FDC NOTAM 4/4936. The 

FAA also determined that the 

incremental costs of SFAR No. 114 were 

minimal for about 15 ‘‘on-demand’’ 

large carriers (part 121 and part 121/ 

135) and about 75 small ‘‘on-demand’’ 

operators (parts 135, 125, 125M, and 

91K). These operators had previously 

flown into and out of Syria or 

conducted overflights in the OSTT FIR. 

But because of sanctions imposed by the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office 

of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and 

the ongoing conflict, the FAA believed 

that few, if any, of these ‘‘on-demand’’ 

operators were still operating in the 

OSTT FIR immediately before the FAA 

issued FDC NOTAM 4/4936. 

Due to significant and increased 

hostilities, and because the OFAC 

sanctions remain in place, the reasons 

for the FAA’s previous finding of 

minimal cost for SFAR No. 114 remain 

unchanged. Therefore, the FAA finds 

that the incremental cost of the SFAR 

No. 114 extension will be minimal. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354, ‘‘RFA’’), 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, 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) provides that the head of 

the agency may so certify and a 

regulatory flexibility analysis will not be 

required. The certification must include 

a statement providing the factual basis 

for this determination, and the 

reasoning should be clear. 

Prior to the hostilities leading to the 

earlier published SFAR No. 114, 

§ 91.1609, there were many small 

entities conducting operations through 

the now restricted airspace. After the 

FAA published SFAR No. 114, 

§ 91.1609, the FAA received no request 

to use this airspace. Given no requests 

have occurred, the FAA believes the 

earlier determination of minimal cost is 

accurate. Thus, extending the airspace 

restriction will not impose a significant 

economic impact. 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. 3501(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 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 94961 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to this regulation. 

While the FAA’s flight prohibition 

does not apply to foreign air carriers, 

DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit 

foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. 

codeshare partner’s code on a flight 

segment that operates in airspace for 

which the FAA has issued a flight 

prohibition. Further, following the 

downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 

17, there is increased attention in the 

international community and ICAO to 

conflict-related threats to civil aircraft. 

Foreign air carriers and other foreign 

operators may choose to avoid, or be 

advised/directed by their civil aviation 

authorities to avoid, airspace for which 

the FAA has issued a flight prohibition. 

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 will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

The agency has determined that it is not 

a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order, and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and 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 a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

• 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

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, Syria. 

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 § 91.1609, paragraph (e), to 

read as follows: 

§ 91.1609 Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 114—Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights in the Damascus (OSTT) 

Flight Information Region (FIR). 

* * * * * 

(e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain 

in effect until December 30, 2018. The 

FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this 

SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, 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 

December 19, 2016. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–31237 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES