89294 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

for Thomasville Regional Airport, 

Thomasville, GA, by updating the 

airport name (formerly Thomasville 

Municipal Airport). Also, the radius is 

increased to 7 miles (previously 6.5 

miles), and an extension to the northeast 

is added. Controlled airspace is 

necessary for the area’s safety and 

management of instrument flight rules 

(IFR) operations. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore, (1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 5–6.5a. 

This airspace action is not expected to 

cause any potentially significant 

environmental impacts, and no 

extraordinary circumstances warrant the 

preparation of an environmental 

assessment. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11H, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 11, 2023, and 

effective September 15, 2023, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO GA E5 Thomasville, GA [Amended] 

Thomasville Regional Airport, GA 

(Lat. 30°54′05′′ N, long. 83°52′53′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius 

of Thomasville Regional Airport and within 

3.5 miles on each side of the 040° bearing of 

the airport, extending from the 7-mile radius 

to 9.7 miles northeast of the airport. 

* * * * * 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on 

December 20, 2023. 

Andreese C. Davis, 

Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28406 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No.: FAA–2017–0768; Amdt. No. 

91–348D] 

RIN 2120–AL91 

Extension of the Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights in the Damascus Flight 

Information Region (FIR) (OSTT) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action extends the 

prohibition against certain flight 

operations in the Damascus Flight 

Information Region (FIR) (OSTT) by all: 

U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial 

operators; persons exercising the 

privileges of an airman certificate issued 

by the FAA, except when such persons 

are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for 

a foreign air carrier; and operators of 

U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except 

when the operator of such aircraft is a 

foreign air carrier, for an additional five 

years, from December 30, 2023, until 

December 30, 2028. The FAA finds this 

action necessary to address significant 

safety-of-flight risks to U.S. civil 

aviation associated with the enduring 

complex conflict in Syria. The FAA also 

republishes the approval process and 

exemption information for this Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), 

consistent with other recently published 

flight prohibition SFARs. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 27, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Petrak, Flight Standards Service, 

through the Washington Operations 

Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3203; email 9-FAAOverseasFlightProhibitions@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

This action extends the expiration 

date of SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609 of title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

from December 30, 2023, to December 

30, 2028. SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, 

prohibits certain flight operations in the 

Damascus FIR (OSTT) by all: U.S. air 

carriers; U.S. commercial operators; 

persons exercising the privileges of an 

airman certificate issued by the FAA, 

except when such persons are operating 

U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air 

carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered 

civil aircraft, except when the operator 

of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. 

The FAA finds this action necessary to 

address significant safety-of-flight risks 

to U.S. civil aviation in the Damascus 

FIR (OSTT) associated with the 

enduring complex conflict in Syria. The 

FAA also republishes the approval 

process and exemption information for 

this flight prohibition SFAR, consistent 

with other recently published flight 

prohibition SFARs. 

II. Authority and Good Cause 

A. Authority 

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. Sections 

106(f) and (g) of title 49, U.S. Code 

(U.S.C.), subtitle I, establish the FAA 

Administrator’s authority to issue rules 

on aviation safety. 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 this authority 

consistently with the obligations of the 

U.S. Government under international 

agreements. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 89295 

1Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain 

Flights in the Damascus Flight Information Region 

(FIR) (OSTT) final rule, 85 FR 75840, (Nov. 27, 

2020). 

2 Id. at 75841. 

The FAA is promulgating this rule 

under the authority described in 49 

U.S.C. 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 

the FAA’s authority because it 

continues to prohibit the persons 

described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 

114, § 91.1609, from conducting flight 

operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) 

due to the significant safety-of-flight 

risks to U.S. civil flight operations in 

that airspace, as described in the 

preamble to this final rule. 

B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

Section 553(b)(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.’’ Also, section 

553(d) permits agencies, upon a finding 

of good cause, to issue rules with an 

effective date less than 30 days from the 

date of publication. In this instance, the 

FAA finds good cause to forgo notice 

and comment and the delayed effective 

date because they would be 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. 

Providing notice and the opportunity 

for the public to comment here would 

be impracticable. The FAA’s flight 

prohibitions, and any amendments 

thereto, need to include appropriate 

boundaries that reflect the agency’s 

current understanding of the risk 

environment for U.S. civil aviation. This 

allows the FAA to protect the safety of 

U.S. operators’ aircraft and the lives of 

their passengers and crews without 

over-restricting or under-restricting U.S. 

operators’ routing options. However, the 

risk environment for U.S. civil aviation 

in airspace managed by other countries 

with respect to safety of flight is fluid 

in circumstances involving fighting, 

violent extremist and militant activity, 

or periods of heightened tensions, 

particularly where weapons capable of 

targeting or otherwise negatively 

affecting U.S. civil aviation are or may 

be present. This fluidity, and the 

potential for rapid changes in the risks 

to U.S. civil aviation, significantly limits 

how far in advance of a new or amended 

flight prohibition the FAA can usefully 

assess the risk environment. The delay 

that would be occasioned by providing 

an opportunity to comment on this 

action would significantly increase the 

risk that the resulting final action would 

not accurately reflect the current risks to 

U.S. civil aviation associated with the 

situation and thus would not establish 

boundaries for the flight prohibition 

commensurate with those risks. 

While the FAA sought and responded 

to public comments, the boundaries of 

the area in which unacceptable risks to 

the safety of U.S. civil aviation existed 

might change due to: evolving military 

or political circumstances; violent 

extremist and militant group activity; 

the introduction, removal, or 

repositioning of more advanced antiaircraft weapon systems; or other 

factors. As a result, if the situation 

improved while the FAA sought and 

responded to public comments, the rule 

the FAA finalized might be overrestrictive, unnecessarily limiting U.S. 

operators’ routing options and 

potentially causing them to incur 

unnecessary additional fuel and 

operations-related costs, as well as 

potentially causing passengers to incur 

unnecessarily some costs attributed to 

their time. Conversely, if the situation 

deteriorated while the FAA sought and 

responded to public comments, the rule 

the FAA finalized might be underrestrictive, allowing U.S. civil aviation 

to continue operating in areas where 

unacceptable risks to their safety had 

developed. Such an outcome would 

endanger the safety of these aircraft, as 

well as their passengers and crews, 

exposing them to unacceptable risks of 

death, injury, and property damage that 

could occur if a U.S. operator’s aircraft 

were shot down (or otherwise damaged) 

while operating in the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT). 

Alternatively, if the FAA made 

changes to the area in which U.S. civil 

aviation operations would be prohibited 

between a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and a final rule due to 

changed conditions, the version of the 

rule the public commented on would no 

longer reflect the FAA’s current 

assessment of the risk environment for 

U.S. civil aviation. 

In addition, seeking comment would 

be contrary to the public interest 

because some of the rational basis for 

the rulemaking is based upon classified 

information and controlled unclassified 

information not authorized for public 

release. In order to meaningfully 

provide comment on a proposal, the 

public would need access to the basis 

for the agency’s decision-making, which 

the FAA cannot provide. Disclosing 

classified or controlled unclassified 

information in order to seek meaningful 

comment on the proposal would harm 

the public interest. Accordingly, the 

FAA meaningfully seeking comment on 

the proposal is contrary to the public 

interest. 

Therefore, providing notice and the 

opportunity for comment would be 

impracticable as it would hinder the 

FAA’s ability to maintain appropriate 

flight prohibitions based on up-to-date 

risk assessments of the risks to the 

safety of U.S. civil aviation operations 

in airspace managed by other countries, 

and contrary to the public interest, as 

the FAA cannot protect classified and 

controlled unclassified information and 

meaningfully seek public comment. 

For the same reasons discussed above, 

the potential safety impacts and the 

need for prompt action on up-to-date 

information that is not public would 

make delaying the effective date 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. 

Accordingly, the FAA finds good 

cause exists to forgo notice and 

comment and any delay in the effective 

date for this rule. 

III. Background 

On December 30, 2020, the FAA 

amended SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, to 

extend the expiration date of the flight 

prohibition for U.S. operators and 

airmen in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) 

from December 30, 2020, to December 

30, 2023.1 In issuing the 2020 final rule, 

the FAA determined the situation in the 

Damascus FIR (OSTT) remained 

hazardous for U.S. civil aviation due to 

a variety of aviation safety risks 

associated with the ongoing conflict in 

Syria.2

In 2020, the FAA determined the 

presence of third parties conducting 

independent military operations in 

Syria against pro-Assad regime forces, 

opposition groups, and violent extremist 

elements presented an unacceptable 

level of risk to U.S. civil aviation 

operations. Third-party airstrikes in 

Syria often resulted in Syrian military 

air defense responses. Syrian authorities 

did not adequately de-conflict these air 

defense activities, which included 

indiscriminate surface-to-air missile 

(SAM) fire, with civil aviation 

operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), 

including, but not limited to, civil flight 

operations in close proximity to 

international airports in Syria. In late 

February 2020, Syrian air defense 

activities forced a commercial Cham 

Wings Airbus 320 passenger flight on 

final approach to Damascus 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
89296 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

International Airport (ICAO code: OSDI) 

to divert to an alternate airfield in Syria. 

The lack of de-confliction of Syrian 

air defense activity with civil air traffic 

was just one of the risks to U.S. civil 

aviation operations in the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT) emanating from third-party 

involvement in Syria. Russia, Iran, and 

the Lebanese terrorist organization, 

Hizballah, all of which are Syrian 

regime allies, continued to conduct 

military operations in Syria and had 

deployed significant air defense and 

electronic warfare capabilities, 

including Global Positioning System 

(GPS) jammers, which presented a risk 

to U.S. civil aviation operations in the 

Damascus FIR (OSTT). In March 2020, 

Russian, Turkish, and Syrian forces 

clashed in Idlib Province. During these 

clashes, fighter aircraft and possible 

SAMs shot down several manned and 

unmanned aircraft. 

In addition to the hazards associated 

with third-party involvement in the 

Syrian conflict, violent extremist threats 

to civil aviation safety existed in Syria. 

Terrorist groups, including the Islamic 

State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS) and alQaida-aligned entities, possessed or had 

access to a wide array of anti-aircraft 

weapons that posed a risk to civil 

aviation operations in the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT). Anti-regime forces, violent 

extremists, and militants had 

successfully shot down multiple 

military aircraft using man-portable air 

defense systems (MANPADS) during the 

Syrian conflict. Additionally, various 

elements had successfully targeted 

military aircraft using advanced antitank guided missiles (ATGMs). ATGMs 

primarily pose a risk to civil aircraft 

operating near, or parked at, an airport. 

Finally, various groups had employed 

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to 

surveil and attack Syrian and Syrianallied fielded forces and airfields. 

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA has determined the 

enduring complex conflict in Syria 

continues to present an unacceptable 

level of risk for U.S. civil aviation safety 

in the entirety of the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT) at all altitudes. Various third 

parties, including but not limited to 

Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Israel, 

continue to conduct uncoordinated 

military operations in Syria, resulting in 

various risks to U.S. civil aviation 

operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). 

Such military operations include 

tactical crewed aircraft and UAS 

intelligence collection and strike 

operations, electronic warfare 

operations, indirect fire attacks, 

missiles, and potential anti-aircraft 

weapons use that may not be deconflicted adequately with civil aviation 

operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). 

Recent third-party military operations 

have resulted in damage and operational 

disruptions at Damascus International 

Airport (ICAO code: OSDI) and Aleppo 

International Airport (ICAO code: 

OSAP). In mid October 2023, third party 

attacks resulted in cratering of the 

runways at both Damascus International 

Airport (OSDI) and at Aleppo 

International Airport (OSAP) resulting 

in operational disruptions and at least 

one civil aircraft changing its routing 

out of Syrian airspace. Previous attacks 

on Syrian airports had occurred in early 

January 2023, third-party attacks in 

Damascus caused damage and 

operational disruptions at Damascus 

International Airport (OSDI). Thirdparty airstrikes also had targeted 

Damascus International Airport (OSDI) 

in June and September 2022. In March 

2023 and in early May 2023, third-party 

airstrikes on Aleppo International 

Airport (OSAP) occurred. The early May 

2023 airstrikes against military targets at 

the airport resulted in a temporary 

shutdown of airport operations. Past 

Syrian air defense responses to thirdparty missile attacks and airstrikes in 

Syria have included indiscriminate 

surface-to-air missile (SAM) fire not 

adequately de-conflicted with civil 

aviation operations in the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT). Additionally, Russia, Iran, and 

the Lebanese terrorist organization 

Hizballah, have deployed significant air 

defense and electronic warfare 

capabilities in Syria, including GPS 

jammers, which also may not be deconflicted adequately with civil aviation 

operations, further contributing to the 

inadvertent risks to the safety of U.S. 

civil aviation operations in the 

Damascus FIR (OSTT). The FAA 

remains concerned about the potential 

for inadvertent damage to or destruction 

of civil aircraft operating in the 

Damascus FIR (OSTT) and while on the 

ground at or near targeted locations in 

Syria. 

In addition to the continued hazards 

associated with third-party involvement 

in the Syrian conflict, violent extremist 

threats to civil aviation safety continue 

to exist in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). 

Anti-regime forces, violent extremists, 

and militants have successfully shot 

down multiple crewed military aircraft 

using man-portable air defense systems 

(MANPADS) during the Syrian conflict, 

as well as multiple UAS. In addition, in 

early 2023, Iranian-aligned militia 

groups (IAMGs) increased their targeting 

of U.S. forces in Syria with rockets and 

weaponized UAS, as demonstrated by a 

January 2023 UAS attack on U.S. 

interests at Al-Tanf and a March 2023 

UAS attack on U.S. forces located in 

northeastern Syria. UAS attack 

operations present increased safety-offlight risks to civil aircraft operating at 

low altitudes in the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT) and at targeted locations in 

Syria. 

Open-source reporting also indicates 

that Iran has discussed deploying 

advanced air defense capabilities to 

Syria, and potentially proliferating these 

capabilities to IAMGs, to counter thirdparty airstrikes in Syria. If confirmed, 

the proliferation of advanced air defense 

capabilities to IAMGs would likely 

increase risk concerns for U.S. civil 

aviation in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) 

due to the potential for uncoordinated 

SAM launches by operators who would 

likely lack adequate training and a 

complete airspace picture. 

As a result of the significant, 

continuing, unacceptable risks to the 

safety of U.S. civil aviation operations 

in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), the FAA 

extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 

114, § 91.1609, from December 30, 2023, 

until December 30, 2028. 

Further amendments to SFAR No. 

114, § 91.1609, might be appropriate if 

the risk to U.S. civil aviation safety and 

security changes. In this regard, the 

FAA will continue to monitor the 

situation and evaluate the extent to 

which persons described in paragraph 

(a) of this rule might be able to operate 

safely in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). 

The FAA also republishes the details 

concerning the approval and exemption 

processes in Sections V and VI of this 

preamble, consistent with other recently 

published flight prohibition SFARs, to 

enable interested persons to refer to this 

final rule for comprehensive 

information about requesting relief from 

the FAA from the provisions of SFAR 

No. 114, § 91.1609. 

V. Approval Process Based on a 

Request From a Department, Agency, or 

Instrumentality of the United States 

Government 

A. Approval Process Based on an 

Authorization Request From a 

Department, Agency, or Instrumentality 

of the United States Government 

In some instances, U.S. government 

departments, agencies, or 

instrumentalities may need to engage 

U.S. civil aviation to support their 

activities in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). 

If a department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the U.S. Government 

determines that it has a critical need to 

engage any person described in SFAR 

No. 114, § 91.1609, including a U.S. air 

carrier or commercial operator, to 

transport civilian or military passengers 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 89297 

3This approval procedure applies to U.S. 

Government departments, agencies, or 

instrumentalities; it does not apply to the public. 

The FAA describes this procedure in the interest of 

providing transparency with respect to the FAA’s 

process for interacting with U.S. Government 

departments, agencies, or instrumentalities that 

seek to engage U.S. civil aviation to operate within 

the area in which this SFAR would prohibit their 

operations in the absence of specific FAA 

authorization. 

or cargo or conduct other operations in 

the Damascus FIR (OSTT), that 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

may request the FAA to approve 

persons described in paragraph (a) of 

SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, to conduct 

such operations. 

The requesting department, agency, or 

instrumentality of the U.S. Government 

must submit the request for approval to 

the FAA’s Associate Administrator for 

Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an 

appropriate senior official of the 

requesting department, agency, or 

instrumentality.3 The FAA will not 

accept or consider requests for approval 

from anyone other than the requesting 

department, agency, or instrumentality. 

In addition, the senior official signing 

the letter requesting FAA approval on 

behalf of the requesting department, 

agency, or instrumentality must be 

sufficiently positioned within the 

organization to demonstrate that the 

senior leadership of the requesting 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

supports the request for approval and is 

committed to taking all necessary steps 

to minimize aviation safety and security 

risks to the proposed flights. The senior 

official must also be in a position to: (1) 

attest to the accuracy of all 

representations made to the FAA in the 

request for approval, and (2) ensure that 

any support from the requesting U.S. 

Government department, agency, or 

instrumentality described in the request 

for approval is in fact brought to bear 

and is maintained over time. Unless 

justified by exigent circumstances, 

requests for approval must be submitted 

to the FAA no less than 30 calendar 

days before the date on which the 

requesting department, agency, or 

instrumentality wishes the proposed 

operation(s) to commence. 

The requestor must send the request 

to the Associate Administrator for 

Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. 

Electronic submissions are acceptable, 

and the requesting entity may request 

that the FAA notify it electronically as 

to whether the FAA grants the approval 

request. If a requestor wishes to make an 

electronic submission to the FAA, the 

requestor should contact the 

Washington Operations Center by 

telephone at (202) 267–3203 or by email 

at 9-FAA-OverseasFlightProhibitions@

faa.gov for submission instructions. The 

requestor must not submit its letter 

requesting FAA approval or related 

supporting documentation to the 

Washington Operations Center. Rather, 

the Washington Operation Center will 

refer the requestor to an appropriate 

staff member of the Air Transportation 

Division, Flight Standards Service, for 

further assistance. 

A single letter may request approval 

from the FAA for multiple persons 

described in SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, 

or for multiple flight operations. To the 

extent known, the letter must identify 

the person(s) the requester expects the 

SFAR to cover on whose behalf the U.S. 

Government department, agency, or 

instrumentality seeks FAA approval, 

and it must describe— 

The proposed operation(s), including 

the nature of the mission being 

supported; 

The service that the person(s) covered 

by the SFAR will provide; 

To the extent known, the specific 

locations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) 

where the proposed operation(s) will 

occur, including, but not limited to, the 

flight path and altitude of the aircraft 

while it is operating in the Damascus 

FIR (OSTT) and the airports, airfields, or 

landing zones at which the aircraft will 

take off and land; 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 the proposed operations (i.e., the premission planning and briefing, in-flight, 

and post-flight phases). 

The request for approval must also 

include a list of operators with whom 

the U.S. Government department, 

agency, or instrumentality requesting 

FAA approval has a current contract(s), 

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

its prime contractor has a 

subcontract(s)) for specific flight 

operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). 

The requestor may identify additional 

operators to the FAA at any time after 

the FAA issues its approval. Neither the 

operators listed in the original request, 

nor any operators the requestor 

subsequently seeks to add to the 

approval, may commence operations 

under the approval until the FAA issues 

them an Operations Specification 

(OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization 

(LOA), as appropriate, for operations in 

the Damascus FIR (OSTT). The approval 

conditions discussed below apply to all 

operators, whether included in the 

original list or subsequently added to 

the approval. Requestors should contact 

the Washington Operations Center by 

telephone at (202) 267–3203 or by email 

at 9-FAA-OverseasFlightProhibitions@

faa.gov for instructions on how to 

submit the names of additional 

operators it wishes to add to an existing 

approval to the FAA. The requestor 

must not submit the names of additional 

operators it wishes to add to an existing 

approval to the Washington Operations 

Center. Rather, the Washington 

Operation Center will refer the requestor 

to an appropriate staff member of the 

Air Transportation Division, Flight 

Standards Service, for further 

assistance. 

If an approval request includes 

classified information or controlled 

unclassified information not authorized 

for public release, requestors may 

contact the Washington Operations 

Center for instructions on submitting it 

to the FAA. The Washington Operations 

Center’s contact information appears in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this final rule. 

FAA approval of an operation under 

SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, does not 

relieve persons subject to this SFAR of 

the responsibility to comply with all 

other applicable FAA rules and 

regulations. Operators of civil aircraft 

must comply with the conditions of 

their certificates, OpSpecs, and LOAs, 

as applicable. Operators must also 

comply with all rules and regulations of 

other U.S. Government departments or 

agencies that may apply to the proposed 

operation(s), including, but not limited 

to, regulations issued by the 

Transportation Security Administration. 

B. Approval Conditions 

If the FAA approves the request, the 

FAA’s Aviation Safety organization will 

send an approval letter to the requesting 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

informing it 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) Before any approval takes effect, 

the operator must submit to the FAA: 

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

Government from all damages, claims, 

and liabilities, including without 

limitation legal fees and expenses, 

relating to any event arising out of or 

related to the approved operations in 

the Damascus FIR (OSTT); and 

(b) The operator’s written agreement 

to indemnify the U.S. Government with 

respect to any and all third-party 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
89298 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Damascus FIR (OSTT). 

(3) Other conditions the FAA may 

specify, including those the FAA might 

impose in OpSpecs or LOAs, as 

applicable. 

The release and agreement to 

indemnify do not preclude an operator 

from raising a claim under an applicable 

non-premium war risk insurance policy 

the FAA issues under chapter 443 of 

title 49, U.S. Code. 

If the FAA approves the proposed 

operation(s), the FAA will issue an 

OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the 

operator(s) identified in the original 

request, and any operators the requestor 

subsequently adds to the approval, 

authorizing them to conduct the 

approved operation(s). In addition, as 

stated in paragraph (3) of this section 

V.B., the FAA notes that it may include 

additional conditions beyond those 

contained in the approval letter in any 

OpSpec or LOA associated with a 

particular operator operating under this 

approval, as necessary in the interests of 

aviation safety. U.S. Government 

departments, agencies, and 

instrumentalities requesting FAA 

approval on behalf of entities with 

which they have a contract or 

subcontract, grant, or cooperative 

agreement should request a copy of the 

relevant OpSpec or LOA directly from 

the entity with which they have any of 

the foregoing types of arrangements, if 

desired. 

VI. Information Regarding Petitions for 

Exemption 

Any operations not conducted under 

an approval the FAA issues through the 

approval process set forth previously 

may only occur in accordance with an 

exemption from SFAR No. 114, 

§ 91.1609. A petition for exemption 

must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The 

FAA will consider whether exceptional 

circumstances exist beyond those the 

approval process described in the 

previous section contemplates. To 

determine whether a petition for 

exemption from the prohibition this 

SFAR establishes fulfills the standard of 

14 CFR 11.81, the FAA consistently 

finds necessary the following 

information: 

The proposed operation(s), including 

the nature of the operation(s); 

The service the person(s) covered by 

the SFAR will provide; 

The specific locations in the 

Damascus FIR (OSTT) where the 

proposed operation(s) will occur, 

including, but not limited to, the flight 

path and altitude of the aircraft while it 

is operating in the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT) and the airports, airfields, or 

landing zones at which the aircraft will 

take off and land; 

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 (i.e., 

the pre-mission planning and briefing, 

in-flight, and post-flight phases); and 

The plans and procedures the 

operator will use to minimize the risks, 

identified in this preamble, to the 

proposed operations, to establish that 

granting the exemption would not 

adversely affect safety or would provide 

a level of safety at least equal to that 

provided by this SFAR. The FAA has 

found comprehensive, organized plans 

and procedures of this nature to be 

helpful in facilitating the agency’s safety 

evaluation of petitions for exemption 

from flight prohibition SFARs. 

The FAA includes, as a condition of 

each such exemption it issues, a release 

and agreement to indemnify, as 

described previously. 

The FAA recognizes that, with the 

support of the U.S. Government, the 

governments of other countries could 

plan operations that may be affected by 

SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609. While the 

FAA will not permit these operations 

through the approval process, the FAA 

will consider exemption requests for 

such operations on an expedited basis 

and in accordance with the order of 

preference set forth in paragraph (c) of 

SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609. 

If a petition for exemption includes 

information that is sensitive for security 

reasons or proprietary information, 

requestors may contact the Washington 

Operations Center for instructions on 

submitting it to the FAA. The 

Washington Operations Center’s contact 

information appears in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

final rule. Requestors must not submit 

their petitions for exemption or related 

supporting documentation to the 

Washington Operations Center. Rather, 

the Washington Operation Center will 

refer the requestor to the appropriate 

staff member of the Air Transportation 

Division, Flight Standards Service, or 

the Office of Rulemaking for further 

assistance. 

VII. Severability 

Congress authorized the FAA by 

statute to promote 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. 

49 U.S.C. 44701. Consistent with that 

mandate, the FAA is prohibiting certain 

persons from conducting flight 

operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) 

due to the continuing hazards to the 

safety of U.S. civil flight operations. The 

purpose of this rule is to operate 

holistically in addressing a range of 

hazards and needs in the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT). However, the FAA recognizes 

that certain provisions focus on unique 

factors. Therefore, the FAA finds that 

the various provisions of this final rule 

are severable and able to operate 

functionally if severed from each other. 

In the event a court were to invalidate 

one or more of this final rule’s unique 

provisions, the remaining provisions 

should stand, thus allowing the FAA to 

continue to fulfill its Congressionally 

authorized role of promoting safe flight 

of civil aircraft in air commerce. 

VIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider impacts of 

regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review’’), 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify the costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal Governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year. 

The current threshold after adjustment 

for inflation is $177 million using the 

most current (2022) Implicit Price 

Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

In conducting these analyses, the 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 amended by Executive 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 89299 

Order 14094. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not 

require notice and comment for this 

final rule, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not 

require regulatory flexibility analyses 

regarding impacts on 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 previously. 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

This action extends the expiration 

date of the SFAR prohibiting certain 

flight operations in the Damascus FIR 

(OSTT) for an additional five years due 

to the significant, continuing risks to 

U.S. civil aviation detailed in the 

preamble of this final rule. The FAA 

acknowledges this flight prohibition 

might result in additional costs to some 

U.S. operators, such as increased fuel 

costs and other operational-related 

costs. However, the FAA expects the 

benefits of this action to exceed the 

costs because it will result in the 

avoidance of risks of fatalities, injuries, 

and property damage that could occur if 

a U.S. operator’s aircraft were shot 

down (or otherwise damaged) while 

operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to 

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis describing impacts on small 

entities whenever 5 U.S.C. 553 or any 

other law requires an agency to publish 

a general notice of proposed rulemaking 

for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 

U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare 

a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

when an agency issues a final rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 553, after that section or 

any other law requires publication of a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking. 

The FAA concludes good cause exists to 

forgo notice and comment and to not 

delay the effective date for this rule. As 

5 U.S.C. 553 does not require notice and 

comment in this situation, 5 U.S.C. 603 

and 604 similarly do not require 

regulatory flexibility analyses. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) 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 potential 

effect of this final rule and determined 

that its purpose is to protect the safety 

of U.S. civil aviation from risks to their 

operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), 

a location outside the U.S. Therefore, 

the rule complies with the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979. 

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 $177 

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 the FAA to 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens it 

imposes on the public. The FAA has 

determined no new requirement for 

information collection is associated 

with this final rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, the FAA’s policy is to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined no ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices correspond to 

this regulation. The FAA finds this 

action is fully consistent with the 

obligations under 49 U.S.C. 

40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure the FAA 

exercises its duties consistently with the 

obligations of the United States under 

international agreements. 

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 for U.S. civil aviation. In 

addition, foreign air carriers and other 

foreign operators may choose to avoid, 

or be advised or directed by their civil 

aviation authorities to avoid, airspace 

for which the FAA has issued a flight 

prohibition for U.S. civil aviation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

The FAA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 12114, 

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major 

Federal Actions, and DOT Order 

5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 

12114 requires the FAA to be informed 

of environmental considerations and 

take those considerations into account 

when making decisions on major 

Federal actions that could have 

environmental impacts anywhere 

beyond the borders of the United States. 

The FAA has determined this action is 

exempt pursuant to Section 2–5(a)(i) of 

Executive Order 12114 because it does 

not have the potential for a significant 

effect on the environment outside the 

United States. 

In accordance with FAA Order 

1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8– 

6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum 

for the record stating the reason(s) for 

this determination and has placed it in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

IX. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism. The Agency 

has determined 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. Therefore, this 

rule will not have federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. The Agency has 

determined it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under the Executive 

order and will not be likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
89300 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

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 FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609 and has determined that 

this action will have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

X. Additional Information 

A. Electronic Access 

Except for classified and controlled 

unclassified material not authorized for 

public release, all documents the FAA 

considered in developing this rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the internet through the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Those documents may be viewed 

online at https://www.regulations.gov 

using the docket number listed above. A 

copy of this rule will be placed in the 

docket. Electronic retrieval help and 

guidelines are available on the website. 

It is available 24 hours each day, 365 

days each year. An electronic copy of 

this document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at https:// 

www.federalregister.gov and the 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may 

also be found at the FAA’s Regulations 

and Policies website at https:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

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

a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) 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 

persons 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, 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), 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, Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615 

(49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of 

the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

■ 2. Amend § 91.1609 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 91.1609 Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 114—Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights in the Damascus Flight 

Information Region (FIR) (OSTT). 

* * * * * 

(e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain 

in effect until December 30, 2028. 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) and (g), 

40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5). 

Michael Gordon Whitaker, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28502 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Office of the Secretary 

15 CFR Part 6 

[Docket No. 231129–0280] 

RIN 0605–AA66 

Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for 

Inflation 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer and Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule is being issued 

to adjust for inflation each civil 

monetary penalty (CMP) provided by 

law within the jurisdiction of the United 

States Department of Commerce 

(Department of Commerce). The Federal 

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

of 1990, as amended by the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act of 1996 

and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 

2015, required the head of each agency 

to adjust for inflation its CMP levels in 

effect as of November 2, 2015, under a 

revised methodology that was effective 

for 2016 which provided for initial 

catch up adjustments for inflation in 

2016, and requires adjustments for 

inflation to CMPs under a revised 

methodology for each year thereafter. 

The Department of Commerce’s 2024 

adjustments for inflation to CMPs apply 

only to CMPs with a dollar amount, and 

will not apply to CMPs written as 

functions of violations. The Department 

of Commerce’s 2024 adjustments for 

inflation to CMPs apply only to those 

CMPs, including those whose associated 

violation predated such adjustment, 

which are assessed by the Department of 

Commerce after the effective date of the 

new CMP level. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 15, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen M. Kunze, Deputy Chief 

Financial Officer and Director for 

Financial Management, Office of 

Financial Management, at (202) 482– 

1207, Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Room D200, 

Washington, DC 20230. The Department 

of Commerce’s Civil Monetary Penalty 

Adjustments for Inflation are available 

for downloading from the Department of 

Commerce, Office of Financial 

Management’s website at the following 

address: http://www.osec.doc.gov/ofm/ 

OFM_Publications.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101– 

410; 28 U.S.C. 2461), as amended by the 

Debt Collection Improvement Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104–134), provided for 

agencies’ adjustments for inflation to 

CMPs to ensure that CMPs continue to 

maintain their deterrent value and that 

CMPs due to the Federal Government 

were properly accounted for and 

collected. 

A CMP is defined as any penalty, fine, 

or other sanction that: 

1. Is for a specific monetary amount 

as provided by Federal law, or has a 

maximum amount provided for by 

Federal law; and, 

2. Is assessed or enforced by an 

agency pursuant to Federal law; and, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1