Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106301 

United States Government for a civil 

penalty of not more than $75,541 for 

each violation. 

(e) Country of origin content labeling. 

A manufacturer of a passenger motor 

vehicle distributed in commerce for sale 

in the United States that willfully fails 

to attach the label required under 49 

U.S.C. 32304 to a new passenger motor 

vehicle that the manufacturer 

manufactures or imports, or a dealer 

that fails to maintain that label as 

required under 49 U.S.C. 32304, is liable 

to the United States Government for a 

civil penalty of not more than $2,224 for 

each violation. Each failure to attach or 

maintain that label for each vehicle is a 

separate violation. 

(f) Odometer tampering and 

disclosure. (1) A person that violates 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 327 or a regulation in 

this chapter prescribed or order issued 

thereunder is liable to the United States 

Government for a civil penalty of not 

more than $13,676 for each violation. A 

separate violation occurs for each motor 

vehicle or device involved in the 

violation. The maximum civil penalty 

under this paragraph (f)(1) for a related 

series of violations is $1,364,624. 

(2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 327 or a regulation in this 

chapter prescribed or order issued 

thereunder, with intent to defraud, is 

liable for three times the actual damages 

or $13,676, whichever is greater. 

(g) Vehicle theft protection. (1) A 

person that violates 49 U.S.C. 

33114(a)(1)–(4) is liable to the United 

States Government for a civil penalty of 

not more than $2,998 for each violation. 

The failure of more than one part of a 

single motor vehicle to conform to an 

applicable standard under 49 U.S.C. 

33102 or 33103 is only a single 

violation. The maximum penalty under 

this paragraph (g)(1) for a related series 

of violations is $749,432. 

(2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 

33114(a)(5) is liable to the United States 

Government for a civil penalty of not 

more than $222,609 a day for each 

violation. 

(h) Automobile fuel economy. (1) A 

person that violates 49 U.S.C. 32911(a) 

is liable to the United States 

Government for a civil penalty of not 

more than $52,468 for each violation. A 

separate violation occurs for each day 

the violation continues. 

(2) Except as provided in 49 U.S.C. 

32912(c), a manufacturer that violates a 

standard prescribed for a model year 

under 49 U.S.C. 32902 is liable to the 

United States Government for a civil 

penalty of $17 (for model years before 

model year 2019, the civil penalty is 

$5.50; for model years 2019 through 

2021, the civil penalty is $14; for model 

year 2022, the civil penalty is $15; for 

model year 2023, the civil penalty is 

$16; for model year 2024, the civil 

penalty is $17), multiplied by each .1 of 

a mile a gallon by which the applicable 

average fuel economy standard under 

that section exceeds the average fuel 

economy— 

* * * * * 

(3) If a higher amount for each .1 of 

a mile a gallon to be used in calculating 

a civil penalty under paragraph (h)(2) of 

this section is prescribed pursuant to 

the process provided in 49 U.S.C. 

32912(c), the amount prescribed may 

not be more than $33 for each .1 of a 

mile a gallon. 

(i) Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle 

fuel efficiency. The maximum civil 

penalty for a violation of the fuel 

consumption standards of 49 CFR part 

535 is not more than $51,668 per 

vehicle or engine. The maximum civil 

penalty for a related series of violations 

shall be determined by multiplying 

$51,668 times the vehicle or engine 

production volume for the model year 

in question within the regulatory 

averaging set. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on December 

18, 2024. 

Subash Iyer, 

Acting General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30608 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

Docket No. FAA–2015–8672; Amdt. No. 91– 

340E] 

RIN 2120–AL96 

Extension of the Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights in Specified Areas of 

the Sanaa Flight Information Region 

(FIR) (OYSC) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action extends the 

prohibition against certain flight 

operations in specified areas of the 

Sanaa Flight Information Region (FIR) 

(OYSC) 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 three years, from 

January 7, 2025, until January 7, 2028. 

The FAA finds this action necessary to 

address significant, unacceptable safetyof-flight risks to U.S. civil aviation 

operations in the specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC) stemming from 

heightened regional tensions associated 

with Houthi weapons employment and 

operational activities. Most recently, 

Houthi forces have engaged in increased 

weapons employment and operational 

activities related to the Israel-Gaza 

Conflict, leading in some cases to air 

defense responses. The FAA also takes 

into account the Houthis’ recent history 

of having conducted long-range attacks 

emanating from the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) 

in other directions, notably against 

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab 

Emirates (UAE) in 2022. 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 30, 2024. 

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. 115, title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 91.1611, 

from January 7, 2025, until January 7, 

2028. SFAR No. 115 prohibits certain 

flight operations in the specified areas 

of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) 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. 

Since the start of the Israel-Gaza 

Conflict, Houthi forces have launched 

numerous long-range weaponized 

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), 

missiles, and rockets out of Houthicontrolled territories in Yemen toward 

intended targets in Israel, the Red Sea, 

the Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea. 

These attacks have been likely attempts 

to strike Israel and hold maritime 

shipping in the Red Sea, the Gulf of 

Aden, and the Arabian Sea at risk. Prior 

to the 2022 UN brokered ceasefire, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106302 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

which has expired, the Houthis 

conducted similar long-range attacks 

against Saudi Arabia and the UAE. 

Additionally, Houthi forces armed with 

advanced anti-aircraft weapons systems 

capable of targeting aircraft at or above 

standard cruising altitudes have 

successfully engaged Western 

intelligence and surveillance aircraft 

operating over Houthi-controlled 

territory in Yemen and over the Red 

Sea. 

Consistent with other recently 

published flight prohibition SFARs, this 

action also republishes the approval 

process and exemption information for 

this flight prohibition SFAR. 

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. Section 

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

subtitle I, establishes 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. 

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 

U.S. 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. 

115, § 91.1611, from conducting flight 

operations in the specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC) due to the continuing 

significant hazards to the safety of U.S. 

civil flight operations, as described in 

the preamble to this final rule. 

B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

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

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 specified areas of 

the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). 

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 information or controlled 

unclassified information not authorized 

for public release 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. 

It would also be contrary to the public 

interest, as the FAA cannot protect 

classified information and controlled 

unclassified information not authorized 

for public release 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106303 

1Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain 

Flights in Specified Areas of the Sanaa Flight 

Information Region (FIR) (OYSC) final rule, 86 FR 

69167 (Dec. 7, 2021). 

2Subsequent to the publication of the 2021 final 

rule, the FAA became aware the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Middle East Air 

Navigation Planning and Implementation Regional 

Group approved an update to the Regional Air 

Navigation Plan to amend certain waypoints. Some 

of the amendments affected waypoints used by the 

FAA to demarcate the boundary between the 

airspace in which U.S. operators are prohibited 

from conducting operations and the airspace in 

which U.S. operators are permitted to operate. To 

address the amendments of waypoints, on 

September 22, 2023, the FAA published a technical 

amendment in the Federal Register identifying the 

new waypoint names and locations to clarify where 

U.S. operators are prohibited from conducting 

operations due to flight safety risks associated with 

the conflict in Yemen and where they are permitted 

to operate. 88 FR 65319. 

Accordingly, the FAA finds good 

cause exists to forgo notice and 

comment and any delay in the effective 

date for this rule. 

III. Background 

In its most recent extension of the 

prohibition against certain flights in 

specified areas of the Sanaa FIR 

(OYSC),1 2 the FAA continued to assess 

the situation in the specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC) as presenting 

significant, continuing safety-of-flight 

risks for U.S. civil aviation due to the 

ongoing conflict between the Saudi-led 

Coalition (SLC) and Houthi forces and 

the enduring extremist or militant threat 

to U.S. civil aviation operations in those 

areas. Houthi forces had continued to 

develop, acquire, and employ advanced 

weapons capabilities, including and 

nontraditional air defense capabilities, 

UAS, and missile capabilities. 

Collectively, such capabilities posed 

risks to U.S. civil aviation operations at 

all altitudes in the specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC) and at airports in 

Yemen. 

Houthi forces operated multiple air 

defense systems capable of targeting 

aircraft at various altitudes. They had 

employed increasingly capable Iraniansupplied surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) 

and electro-optical/infrared seeker airto-air missiles modified for use as SAMs 

to engage aircraft. Houthi air defense 

capabilities posed an inadvertent risk to 

U.S. civil aviation operations due to the 

potential for misidentification or 

miscalculation by irregular forces using 

advanced air defense capabilities for 

which they may not have received 

adequate training and may not have had 

adequate air surveillance information to 

distinguish accurately between civil 

aircraft and potential airborne threats. In 

the preamble to the December 2021 final 

rule, the FAA stated that it continued to 

assess, at that time, that Houthi forces 

in Yemen did not possess functional 

medium-/long-range strategic SAM 

capabilities. Houthi forces have 

subsequently acquired longer range antiaircraft weapon systems. 

Additionally, as described in the 

preamble to the December 2021 final 

rule, Houthi forces had targeted 

international airports in the region using 

weaponized UAS, ballistic, and cruise 

missiles. Although the FAA noted that 

some Houthi offensive weapons systems 

had range capabilities that would allow 

them to reach the limited areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC) in which the FAA 

permits U.S. civil aviation to operate, 

Houthi forces had not demonstrated an 

intent to conduct weaponized UAS or 

missile attacks in those areas. Instead, 

they had focused these types of attacks 

primarily on targets in Saudi Arabia and 

in contested areas of Yemen. In 

addition, in the preamble to the 

December 2021 final rule, the FAA 

assessed Houthi weaponized UAS 

operations would only present a safetyof-flight hazard to civil aircraft 

operating off the Yemeni coast if such 

aircraft were operating below cruising 

altitudes. 

Besides the safety-of-flight risks 

associated with the SLC-Houthi conflict, 

in the preamble to the December 7, 2021 

final rule, the FAA assessed extremist or 

militant groups operating in Yemen 

likely had access to anti-aircraft-capable 

weapons, including man-portable air 

defense systems (MANPADS), which 

pose risks up to 25,000 feet. Al-Qa’ida 

in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) 

continued to operate in Yemen and 

historically had attempted to attack 

Western civil aviation through novel 

improvised explosive devices, including 

the failed 2009 underwear bombing 

attempt on a U.S.-bound flight and the 

2010 printer cartridge plot that targeted 

U.S.-bound cargo flights. Additionally, 

Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham 

(ISIS) cells remained active in Yemen. 

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The FAA has assessed the situation in 

the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR 

(OYSC) and determined that it 

continues to be hazardous for U.S. civil 

aviation. Since the beginning of the 

Israel-Gaza Conflict in October 2023, 

Houthi forces have launched numerous 

attacks likely targeting Israel and 

maritime shipping in the Red Sea, the 

Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea using 

a variety of weapons including cruise 

missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, and 

weaponized UAS. Such attacks present 

significant risks to safety-of-flight of 

U.S. civil aviation in the specified areas 

of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) addressed by 

this flight prohibition SFAR. Although 

the majority of these attacks primarily 

pose low-altitude risks, Houthilaunched ballistic missiles pose risks to 

aircraft operating at or above standard 

cruising altitudes, as ballistic missile 

trajectories may ascend through or over 

established air routes. Additionally, 

ballistic missile operations can 

negatively affect flight safety in the 

event of a missile failure, as falling 

debris may descend through air routes. 

Houthi forces are also equipped with 

a variety of advanced anti-aircraft 

weapons—including various 

MANPADS, SAMs, and Iranianproliferated loitering munition 

systems—capable of targeting aircraft at 

or above standard cruising altitudes. In 

2023 and 2024, the Houthis used these 

systems to successfully intercept 

multiple U.S. intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance UAS over Yemen 

and the Red Sea. These weapon systems 

pose risks to civil aviation operations 

over Houthi-controlled territory in 

Yemen, with ranges extending beyond 

the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR 

(OYSC). For example, in November 

2023, the Houthis claimed 

responsibility for having allegedly shot 

down a MQ–9 Reaper off the western 

coast of Yemen. Additionally, in late 

May 2024, the Houthis claimed 

responsibility for shooting down 

another MQ–9 near Marib, Yemen. 

Houthi air defense operations have 

continued over Houthi-controlled 

territory in Yemen and off Yemen’s west 

coast, in likely attempts to intercept 

Western military reconnaissance 

operations. The FAA remains concerned 

that Houthi forces operating advanced 

anti-aircraft weapons may not have 

adequate training or adequate air 

surveillance information to distinguish 

accurately between civil aircraft and 

potential airborne threats. There are 

concerns that Houthi forces may now 

possess functional medium-range 

SAMs. These circumstances present an 

unacceptable inadvertent risk of aircraft 

misidentification, which could result in 

the accidental shoot down of a civil 

aircraft, in the specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC). 

Additionally, AQAP and ISIS have 

remained active in Yemen and likely 

have access to a variety of weapons, 

including small arms; small 

commercially-available UAS, which can 

be weaponized; and potentially legacy 

MANPADS, posing risks to aircraft up to 

25,000 feet. 

Collectively, the various threat actors’ 

existing capabilities, coupled with their 

demonstrated intent to use these 

weapons, presents a continued, 

significant, and unacceptable level of 

risk to U.S. civil aviation operations at 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106304 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 in the 

area in which this SFAR would prohibit their 

operations in the absence of specific FAA approval. 

all altitudes in the specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC). Houthi cross-border 

attacks into Saudi Arabia and the UAE 

ceased following an April 2022 United 

Nations (UN)-brokered temporary 

ceasefire between the Houthis and the 

SLC, even though the temporary 

ceasefire expired in the fall of 2022 

without the Houthis and the SLC 

agreeing to a longer-term formal 

ceasefire. However, SLC-Houthi crossborder attacks could resume with little 

or no warning—a risk that has 

significantly increased since the start of 

the Israel-Gaza Conflict in October 2023 

due to increased regional volatility. 

Therefore, the FAA extends the 

expiration date of SFAR No. 115, 

§ 91.1611, from January 7, 2025, until 

January 7, 2028, without any changes to 

the boundaries of the SFAR. 

If the risk to U.S. civil aviation safety 

and security decreases to an acceptable 

level, then further amendments to SFAR 

No. 115, § 91.1611, might be 

appropriate. 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 specified areas 

of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). 

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. 115, § 91.1611. 

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 specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC). If a department, 

agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. 

Government determines that it has a 

critical need to engage any person 

described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 

115, § 91.1611, including a U.S. air 

carrier or commercial operator, to 

transport civilian or military passengers 

or cargo or conduct other operations in 

the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR 

(OYSC), that department, agency, or 

instrumentality may request the FAA to 

approve persons described in paragraph 

(a) of SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to 

conduct such operations. 

The requesting U.S. Government 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

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 

U.S. Government department, agency, or 

instrumentality. In addition, the senior 

official signing the letter requesting 

FAA approval must be sufficiently 

positioned within the requesting 

department, agency, or instrumentality 

to demonstrate that the organization’s 

senior leadership 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, requesting U.S. 

Government departments, agencies, or 

instrumentalities must submit requests 

for approval to the FAA no less than 30 

calendar days before the date on which 

the requesting department, agency, or 

instrumentality wishes the operator(s) to 

commence the proposed operation(s). 

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 request 

for approval. 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 Operations Center will 

refer the requestor to an appropriate 

staff member of the Flight Standards 

Service for further assistance. 

A single letter may request approval 

from the FAA for multiple persons 

described in SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, 

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 the person(s) covered 

by the SFAR will provide; 

• To the extent known, the specific 

locations in the specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC) 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 specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC) and the airports, 

airfields, or landing zones at which the 

aircraft will take off and land; and 

• The method by which the 

requesting 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 specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC). 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 specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC). The approval 

conditions discussed below apply to all 

operators. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106305 

operators the requestor 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 Operations Center will refer 

the requestor to an appropriate staff 

member of the 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. 115, § 91.1611, 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, 

agencies, or instrumentalities 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 

U.S. Government 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 specified areas of the Sanaa FIR 

(OYSC); and 

(b) The operator’s written agreement 

to indemnify the U.S. Government with 

respect to any and all third-party 

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 specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC). 

(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. 115, 

§ 91.1611. A petition for exemption 

must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The 

FAA will consider whether exceptional 

circumstances exist beyond those 

described in the approval process in the 

previous section. To determine whether 

a petition for exemption from the 

prohibition this SFAR establishes 

fulfills the standards described in 14 

CFR 11.81, the FAA consistently finds 

necessary the following information: 

• The proposed operation(s), 

including the nature of the operation; 

• The service the person(s) covered 

by the SFAR will provide; 

• The specific locations in the 

specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) 

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 specified 

areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) 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 support the 

relief sought and demonstrate that 

granting such relief 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. 115, § 91.1611. 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. 115, § 91.1611. 

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 is listed 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 Operations Center will 

refer the requestor to the appropriate 

staff member of the Flight Standards 

Service or the Office of Rulemaking for 

further assistance. 

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider the impacts 

of regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866, Executive Order 13563, and 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
106306 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (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 that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. The current threshold after 

adjustment for inflation is $183 million 

using the most current (2023) 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)(4) of Executive 

Order 12866 as amended by Executive 

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 rule prohibits U.S. civil flights in 

the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR 

(OYSC) due to the significant hazards to 

U.S. civil aviation described in this 

preamble. The alternative flight routes 

result in some additional fuel and 

operations costs to the operators, as well 

as some costs attributed to passenger 

time. Accordingly, the incremental costs 

of the extension of this flight 

prohibition SFAR are minimal. By 

prohibiting unsafe flights, the benefits of 

this rule will exceed the minimal flight 

deviation costs. Therefore, the FAA 

finds that the incremental costs of 

extending SFAR No. 115, 14 CFR 

91.1611, will be minimal and are 

exceeded by the benefits of avoided 

risks of deaths, injuries, and property 

damage that could occur if a U.S. 

operator’s aircraft were shot down (or 

otherwise damaged) while operating in 

the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR 

(OYSC). 

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 specified areas of the 

Sanaa FIR (OYSC), 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 $183 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 106307 

In accordance with FAA Order 

1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8– 

6(c), the 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. 

VIII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132. The agency has 

determined 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. 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. 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. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609 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. 

IX. 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 https://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, 

Yemen. 

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), 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); Sec. 828 of Pub. L. 118– 

63, 138 Stat. 1330 (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 § 91.1611 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 91.1611 Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 115—Prohibition against 

certain flights in specified areas of the 

Sanaa Flight Information Region (FIR) 

(OYSC). 

* * * * * 

(e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain 

in effect until January 7, 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), 

40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 

44701(a)(5). 

Michael G. Whitaker, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31188 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 107 

[Docket No. FAA–2024–2403] 

Accepted Means of Compliance for 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Category 2 

and Category 3 Operations Over 

Human Beings; Virginia Tech MidAtlantic Aviation Partnership (VT 

MAAP) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notification of availability. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

acceptance of a means of compliance 

with FAA regulations for small 

unmanned aircraft (sUA) Category 2 and 

Category 3 operations over human 

beings. The Administrator finds that VT 

MAAP’s ‘‘Operation of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over 

People,’’ version 2.1, dated August 9, 

2024, provides an acceptable means, but 

not the only means, of showing 

compliance with FAA regulations. 

DATES: Effective December 30, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

FAA Contact: Kimberly Luu, Cabin 

Safety Section, AIR–624, Technical 

Policy Branch, Policy and Standards 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 

South 216th Street, Des Moines, 

Washington 98198; telephone and fax 

206–231–3414; email Kimberly.H.Luu@

faa.gov. 

VT MAAP Contact: Robert Briggs, 

UAS Chief Engineer, 1991 Kraft Drive, 

Suite 2018, Blacksburg, VA 24061, (540) 

231–9373; rcbriggs@vt.edu. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1