Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Rulemaking Procedure III. Background IV. Discussion of Changes V. Voluntary Consensus Standards VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Plain Writing VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality XIII. Congressional Review Act XIV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0216 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2024-0216. Address questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang, telephone: 301-415-3228, email: Helen.Chang@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2024-0216 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 15 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 and does not include other aspects of the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” for this rule because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing certificate of compliance that is expected to be non-controversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be reasonably assured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on June 3, 2025. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment by April 21, 2025, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register or as otherwise appropriate. In general, absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, certificate of compliance, or technical specifications.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), that approved the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” as Certificate of Compliance No. 1031.

On August 29, 2023, NAC International, Inc. submitted a request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1031. NAC International, Inc. supplemented its request on October 26, 2023, October 8, 2024, and December 9, 2024. Amendment No. 15 revises the certificate of compliance as follows:

1. Add a new variation of the Lightweight MAGNASTOR® Transfer Cask (LMTC) “Reduced Width LMTC.”

2. Add a new concrete cask design known as CC8. The CC8 is based on the CC7 configuration and uses high density concrete for enhanced shielding.

3. Increase the maximum system heat load capacity.

4. Add new pressurized-water reactor (PWR) loading patterns L, M and N (pattern N is a short loading pattern).

5. Add a “thermal shunt” to allow for short loading patterns.

6. Add new boiling water reactor loading patterns E and F.

7. Remove the 5 percent burnup “penalty.”

8. Increase the Passive MAGNASTOR® Transfer Cask (PMTC) heat load (30 kilowatt (kW) to 35.5 kW including preferential loading pattern B).

9. Revise previously approved drawings for the concrete cask for CC8, PMTC, and LMTC.

10. Revise Technical Specifications, Appendix A to include increased heat loads and loading patterns.

11. Revise Technical Specifications, Appendix B to include increased heat loads and loading patterns and removal of cool-time tables B2-13 through B2-43.

12. Add two new PWR fuel types to support future site operations, resulting in revisions to structural, thermal, shielding, and criticality chapters of the final safety analysis report.

13. Modify the transportable storage canister lid to allow additional clearance near the top center of the basket.

14. Revise license drawings 71160-584, -585, -684, and -685.

15. Correct and clarify the principal design criteria, operating procedures, and the acceptance criteria and maintenance program.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety evaluation of the proposed certificate of compliance amendment request. The NRC determined that this amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Specifically, the NRC determined that the design of the cask would continue to maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of each evaluated accident condition. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 15 would remain well within the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Therefore, the NRC found there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

The NRC determined that the amended NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the certificate of compliance, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210, “General license issued,” may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, “Conditions of general license issued under § 72.210,” load spent nuclear fuel into NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 15 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC revises the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage Cask System design listed in § 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category NRC—Areas of Exclusive NRC Regulatory Authority. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR chapter I. Therefore, compatibility is not required for program elements in this category.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on this direct final rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment. This environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact can be tracked with identification number CEQ ID EAXX-429-00-000-1737689343.

The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 15 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031.

This direct final rule amends the certificate of compliance for the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks with the approved modifications under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 15 revises the certificate of compliance as follows:

1. Add a new variation of the LMTC “Reduced Width LMTC.”

2. Add a new concrete cask design known as CC8. The CC8 is based on the CC7 configuration and uses high density concrete for enhanced shielding.

3. Increase the maximum system heat load capacity.

4. Add new PWR loading patterns L, M and N (pattern N is a short loading pattern).

5. Add a “thermal shunt” to allow for short loading patterns.

6. Add new boiling water reactor loading patterns E and F.

7. Remove the 5 percent burnup “penalty.”

8. Increase the PMTC heat load (30 kW to 35.5 kW including preferential loading pattern B).

9. Revise previously approved drawings for the concrete cask for CC8, PMTC, and LMTC.

10. Revise Technical Specifications, Appendix A to include increased heat loads and loading patterns.

11. Revise Technical Specifications, Appendix B to include increased heat loads and loading patterns and removal of cool-time tables B2-13 through B2-43.

12. Add two new PWR fuel types to support future site operations, resulting in revisions to structural, thermal, shielding, and criticality chapters of the final safety analysis report.

13. Modify the transportable storage canister lid to allow additional clearance near the top center of the basket.

14. Revise license drawings 71160-584, -585, -684, and -685.

15. Correct and clarify the principal design criteria, operating procedures, and the acceptance criteria and maintenance program.

On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 15 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

The NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, can include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 15 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. The NRC has also determined that the design of the cask as modified by this rule would maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary safety evaluation report.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 15 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 15 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. The environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action.

Approval of Amendment No. 15 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 would result in no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 15,” will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and NAC International, Inc. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if (1) it notifies the NRC in advance; (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's certificate of compliance; and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On August 29, 2023, and as supplemented on October 26, 2023, October 8, 2024, and December 9, 2024, NAC International, Inc. submitted a request to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 15 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 15 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory; therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the regulations in 10 CFR 72.62, “Backfitting,” do not apply to this direct final rule. This direct final rule revises Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 for the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System, as currently listed in § 72.214. The revision consists of the changes in Amendment No. 15 previously described, as set forth in the revised certificate of compliance and technical specifications.

Amendment No. 15 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 for the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System was initiated by NAC International, Inc. and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 15 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 15. These changes do not affect existing users of the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System, and the current Amendment No. 14 continues to be effective for existing users. While current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 15, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.

For these reasons, Amendment No. 15 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2024-0216. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2024-0216); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued the “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2025 (90 FR 8249). This presidential action ordered all executive departments and agencies to consider postponing for 60- days the effective date of certain rules published in the Federal Register for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise. Additionally, executive departments and agencies were to consider opening a comment period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rules postponed under the memorandum.

Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) delayed the effective date of its final rule amending the test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps (CAC/HP) published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2025 (90 FR 1224) to March 21, 2025. 90 FR 9001 (Feb. 5, 2025). DOE also requested comments on the impacts of a further delay of the test procedures as well as legal, factual, or policy issues raised by the rule.

DOE received comments in response to the February 2025 delay of effective date from the interested parties listed in Table 1.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 1

Several commenters, including CAC/HP manufacturers, stated that DOE should not delay the effective date of test procedure. 2 Specifically, these commenters note that the test procedures incorporate latest industry standards, which were developed by a broad group of stakeholders. Additionally, these commenters assert that the test procedure is reasonable designed to measure energy efficiency without being unduly burdensome to conduct.

However, other commenters, also including CAC/HP manufacturers, supported delaying the effective date of the test procedure or delaying in the enforcement of a specific aspect of the test procedure, the controls verification procedure (CVP). These commenters note that the CVP is new and that manufacturers need additional time to determine whether the tests are accurate and repeatable, as well as not unduly burdensome to conduct. (JCI, Doc. No. 52 at 1-2; Bosch, Doc. No. 51 at 2; LG, Doc. No. 54 at 1). AHRI, the organization that adopted an industry standard that included the CVP, recommends that DOE defer the effective date of the CVP enforcement provisions until after finalized tolerances have been supported by test data. (AHRI, Doc. No. 48 at 2). AHRI reports that it is currently analyzing CVP test data collected by third-party test laboratories and will work to collect additional data during the 2025 certification year. AHRI and others recommend that DOE defer enforcing the CVP provisions until after this analysis is complete (estimated to be July 2026). ( Id.; Bosch, Doc. No. 51 at 2; Daikin, Doc. No. 57 at 3; Rheem, Doc. No. 53 at 2). In the alternative, commenters suggested that DOE exercise enforcement discretion to delay the CVP enforcement provisions. (Daikin, Doc No. 57 at 2; GE, Doc. No. 50 at 3).

In addition to concerns related to the consistency and repeatability of the CVP test, commenters also expressed concern related to the potential regulatory burden. Specifically, Daikin stated that, after it tested several models, it determined that CVP will require re-design of some existing products. (Daikin, Doc No. 57. at 4). Daikin also asserted that the cost of conducting CVP tests is a heavy burden on manufacturers. ( Id.; see JCI, Doc. No. 52 at 2; Mitsubishi, Doc. No. 47 at 2).

DOE is still in the process of reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy for this rule. Further, DOE has received significant comment related to the accuracy and burden of the test procedure. As such, and consistent with the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, DOE further delays the effective date of this rule another 60-days to May 20, 2025.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for which no notice of hearing is required by statute. Further, the delay of the effective date to May 20, 2025, does not affect the compliance date for this rule, which remains July 7, 2025. As such, this action is not a “substantive rule” for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 13, 2025, by Louis Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued the “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum, published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2025 (90 FR 8249). The Presidential Memorandum ordered all executive departments and agencies to consider postponing for 60-days the effective date of certain rules published in the Federal Register for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise. Additionally, executive departments and agencies were to consider opening a comment period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rules postponed under the memorandum.

Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) delayed the effective date of the final rule amending energy conservation standards for gas-fired instantaneous water heaters published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2024, to March 21, 2025. 90 FR 9951 (Feb. 20, 2025). DOE also sought comment on any further delay of the effective date, including the impacts of such delay, as well as comment on the legal, factual, or policy issues raised by the rule. DOE received several comments from stakeholders related to the legal, factual, and policy issues raised by the final rule.

DOE is still in the process of reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy for this rule and comment received on the rule. As such, and consistent with the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, DOE further delays the effective date of this rule another 60-days to May 20, 2025.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) for which no notice or hearing is required by statute. Further, the delay of the effective date to May 20, 2025, does not affect the compliance date for this rule, which remains December 26, 2029. As such, this action is not a “substantive rule” for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 13, 2025, by Lou Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued the “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum, published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2025 (90 FR 8249). This presidential action ordered all executive departments and agencies to consider postponing for 60 days the effective date of certain rules published in the Federal Register for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise. Additionally, executive departments and agencies were to consider opening a comment period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rules postponed under the memorandum.

Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) delayed the effective date of its final rule adopting amended energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers (“walk-ins” or “WICFs”) published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2024 (89 FR 104616) and an accompanying correction document published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2025 (90 FR 1029) to March 21, 2025. 90 FR 9951 (Feb. 20, 2025). DOE also sought comment on any further delay of the effective date, including the impacts of such delay, as well as comment on the legal, factual, or policy issues raised by the rule.

DOE is still in the process of reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy for this rule and comment received on the rule. As such, and consistent with the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, DOE further delays the effective date of this rule another 60-days to May 20, 2025.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for which no notice or hearing is required by statute. Further, the delay of the effective date to May 20, 2025, does not affect the compliance date for this rule, which remains December 23, 2027, for walk-in non-display doors and December 31, 2028, for walk-in refrigeration systems. As such, this action is not a “substantive rule” for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 13, 2025, by Lou Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to 14 CFR 11.38(b), that new comments are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are unnecessary.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about these special conditions.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to these special conditions contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and the indicated comments will not be placed in the public docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to the individual listed in the For Further Information Contact section above. Comments the FAA receives, which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for these special conditions.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.

On April 15, 2024, Canard applied for a supplemental type certificate to install a digital systems architecture on the DeHavilland Model DHC-8-400 series airplane that will allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources ( e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, internet connectivity, service provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the airplane's previously isolated electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases). The DeHavilland Model DHC-8-400 series airplane is a twin-engine airplane with a passenger capacity of 68 and a maximum takeoff weight of 61,700 pounds.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Canard must show that the Model DeHavilland DHC-8-400 series airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A13NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the listed airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the DeHavilland DHC-8-400 series airplane must comply with the exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Model DeHavilland DHC-8-400 series airplane, as modified by Canard, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature(s):

The installation of a digital systems architecture that will allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources, ( e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, internet connectivity, service provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the airplane's previously isolated electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases).

The DeHavilland Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes electronic system architecture and network configuration change is novel or unusual for commercial transport airplanes because it may allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources, airline operations, and maintenance networks, to the airplane control domain, and airline information services domain. The airplane's control domain and airline information-services domain perform functions required for the safe operation and maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited connectivity with external network sources. This data network and design integration creates a potential for unauthorized persons to access the airplane's control domain and airline information-services domain and presents security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of computer viruses and worms, user errors, and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases) critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing FAA regulations did not anticipate these networked airplane-system architectures. Furthermore, these regulations and the current guidance material do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special conditions ensure that the security ( i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of the airplane's systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections. This includes ensuring that the security of the airplane's systems is not compromised during maintenance of the airplane's electronic systems. These special conditions also require the applicant to provide appropriate instructions to the operator to maintain all electronic-system safeguards that have been implemented as part of the original network design so that this feature does not allow or introduce security threats.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the DeHavilland DHC-8-400 series airplane, as modified by Canard. Should Canard apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A13NM to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature for the DeHavilland Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes, modified by Canard. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the DeHavilland DHC-8-400 series airplanes, as modified by Canard.

1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane electronic system security is protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.

2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.

3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post type certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2194 in the Federal Register (88 FR 77238; November 9, 2023), proposing to amend VOR Federal Airways V-5, V-47, V-97, V-128, V-275, and V-517, and U.S. RNAV Route T-315; and revoke VOR Federal Airway V-19 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent the NPRM, the FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2023-1737 in the Federal Register (89 FR 42795; May 16, 2024), amending VOR Federal Airway V-128 by removing the airway segment between the Cincinnati, KY (reflected as OH in that final rule), VORTAC and the Charleston, WV, VORTAC. Additionally, that final rule amended U.S. RNAV Route T-315 by extending the route westward from the JARLO, WV, Waypoint (WP) to the JIMUR, KY, Fix and included the CALIF, KY, Fix and the ILILE, OH, WP in the extension. Those route amendments were effective July 11, 2024, and are included in this final rule.

Additionally, subsequent the NPRM, the FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2024-1848 in the Federal Register (90 FR 9216; February 10, 2025), amending VOR Federal Airway V-97 by removing the airway segment between the Dolphin, FL, VORTAC and the St. Petersburg, FL, VORTAC. That airway amendment is effective April 17, 2025, and is also included in this final rule.

Finally, the NPRM addressed the VOR Federal Airway V-97 proposed airway amendments in the preamble, but the “as amended” airway information did not match the description in the regulatory text for the airway. The proposed amendments to V-97 removed the airway segment between the Lexington, KY, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and DuPage, IL, VOR/DME 101° radials (NILES Fix). As amended, the correct V-97 airway description in the NPRM should have reflected the airway would extend between the Dolphin VORTAC and the intersection of the Pecan, GA, VOR/DME 357° and Vienna, GA, VORTAC 300° radials (PRATZ Fix); between the intersection of the Rome, GA, VORTAC 060° and Volunteer, TN, VORTAC 197° radials (NELLO Fix) and the Lexington VOR/DME; and between the Nodine, MN, VORTAC and the Gopher, MN, VORTAC. In light of the V-97 amendment made by Docket No. FAA-2024-1848 and the editorial correction noted in this paragraph, the V-97 description in the preamble discussion and the V-97 description in the regulatory text of this final rule include both differences.

VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and United States Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airways V-5, V-47, V-97, V-128, V-275, and V-517, and U.S. RNAV Route T-315; and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-19 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC. The ATS route actions are described below.

V-5: Prior to this final rule, V-5 extended between the Pecan, GA, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Athens, GA, VOR/DME; and between the New Hope, KY, VOR/DME and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Louisville, KY, VORTAC and the Appleton VORTAC is removed due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Cincinnati, OH, VORTAC. Additionally, the airway segment between the New Hope VOR/DME and the Louisville VORTAC is removed due to that airway segment overlapping V-513 that will remain charted and provide navigational guidance between the two NAVAIDs. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Pecan VOR/DME and the Athens VOR/DME.

V-19: Prior to this final rule, V-19 extended between the Cincinnati, KY (reflected as OH in the current description), VORTAC and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC. The airway is revoked in its entirety.

V-47: Prior to this final rule, V-47 extended between the Cunningham, KY, VOR/DME and the Pocket City, IN, VORTAC; and between the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC and the Flag City, OH, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Cincinnati VORTAC and the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC is removed due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Cincinnati VORTAC. Additionally, the airway segment between the Cunningham VOR/DME and the Pocket City VORTAC is removed due to that airway segment overlapping both V-11 and V-305 that will remain charted and provide navigational guidance between the two NAVAIDs. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Rosewood VORTAC and the Flag City VORTAC.

V-97: Prior to this final rule, V-97 extended between the St. Petersburg, FL, VORTAC and the intersection of the Pecan, GA, VOR/DME 357° and Vienna, GA, VORTAC 300° radials (PRATZ Fix); between the intersection of the Rome, GA, VORTAC 060° and Volunteer, TN, VORTAC 197° radials (NELLO Fix) and the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and DuPage, IL, VOR/DME 101° radials (NILES Fix); and between the Nodine, MN, VORTAC and the Gopher, MN, VORTAC. The airspace below 2,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) outside the United States is excluded. The airway segment between the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME and the Shelbyville, IN, VOR/DME is removed due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Cincinnati VORTAC. Additionally, the airway segment between the Shelbyville VOR/DME and the Chicago Heights VORTAC is also removed due to that airway segment overlapping V-51 that will remain charted and provide navigational guidance between the two NAVAIDs. Lastly, the airway segment between the Chicago Heights VORTAC and the intersection of the Chicago Heights VORTAC 358° and DuPage VOR/DME 101° radials (NILES Fix) is removed due to that airway segment overlapping V-7 that will remain charted and provide navigational guidance between the Chicago Heights VORTAC and the NILES Fix. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the St. Petersburg VORTAC and the intersection of the Pecan VOR/DME 357° and Vienna VORTAC 300° radials (PRATZ Fix), between the intersection of the Rome VORTAC 060° and Volunteer VORTAC 197° radials (NELLO Fix) and the Lexington VOR/DME, and between the Nodine VORTAC and the Gopher VORTAC.

V-128: Prior to this final rule, V-128 extended between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the Cincinnati, KY (reflected as OH in the current description), VORTAC; and between the Charleston, WV, VORTAC and the Casanova, VA, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Brickyard VORTAC and the Cincinnati VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Charleston VORTAC and the Casanova VORTAC.

V-275: Prior to this final rule, V-275 extended between the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC and the intersection of the Dayton, OH, VOR/DME 007° and Flag City, OH, VORTAC 313° radials (KLOEE Fix). The airway segment between the Cincinnati VORTAC and the Dayton VOR/DME is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Dayton VOR/DME and the intersection of the Dayton VOR/DME 007° and Flag City VORTAC 313° radials (KLOEE Fix).

V-517: Prior to this final rule, V-517 extended between the Snowbird, TN, VORTAC and the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Falmouth, KY, VOR/DME and the Cincinnati VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Snowbird VORTAC and the Falmouth VOR/DME.

T-315: Prior to this final rule, T-315 extended between the JIMUR, KY, Fix and the Burlington, VT, VORTAC. The route is extended westward from the JIMUR Fix to the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC. As amended, T-315 is changed to now extend between the Brickyard VORTAC and the Burlington VORTAC. The amended T-315 provides mitigation for the V-128 airway segment removed between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC addressed above. The full T-315 route description is listed in the regulatory text of this final rule.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal Airway descriptions in the regulatory text of this final rule are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

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 so 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.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal Airways V-5, V-47, V-97, V-128, V-275, and V-517, and U.S. RNAV Route T-315, and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-19, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-2268 in the Federal Register (89 FR 80157; October 2, 2024), to revoke Alaskan VOR Federal Airways V-447 and Jet Route J-155 and amend Jet Route J-115 in Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Alaskan VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010 and Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to revoke Alaskan (VOR) Federal Airway V-447 and Jet Route J-155 and amend Jet Route J-115 in Alaska. These proposed actions are due to the decommissioning of the Chandalar Lake NDB in Alaska.

V-447: This action revokes V-447 in its entirety.

J-155: This action revokes J-155 in its entirety.

J-115: As amended, Jet Route J-115 extends between the Shemya, AK, NDB via the Mount Moffett, AK, NDB, Dutch Harbor, AK, NDB, Cold Bay, AK, VORTAC, King Salmon, AK, VORTAC, the intersection of the King Salmon 053° and Kenai, AK, VOR/DME 239° radials, Kenai, AK, VOR/DME, Anchorage, AK, VOR/DME, Big Lake, AK, VORTAC; to Fairbanks, AK, VORTAC.

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 so 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.

The FAA has determined that this action of revoking Federal Airway V-447 and Jet Route J-155, and amending Jet Route J-115 in qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sunbury Fire Department Heliport, Sunbury, NC.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2024-2710 in the Federal Register (90 FR 4682; January 16, 2025), proposing to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Sunbury Fire Department Heliport, Sunbury, NC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received in favor of the proposal. The commenter articulated the improved safety of flight related to the establishment of this airspace. The commenter also expressed that this airspace would improve the accessibility of medevac helicopter operations for this community, improving their overall access to healthcare. The FAA finds that establishing class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface will improve both safety and accessibility for medevac helicopter operations at this heliport.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the Sunbury Fire Department Heliport, Sunbury, NC. This amendment provides the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in the area.

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 so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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 exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Stanford/Biggerstaff Field, Stanford MT.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-2391 in the Federal Register (89 FR 99172; December 10, 2024), proposing to establish Class E airspace at Stanford/Biggerstaff Field, Stanford MT. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E5 airspace areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Stanford/Biggerstaff Field, Stanford, MT.

Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is established within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport to contain departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface on the Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) runway (RWY) 12 and the ODP RWY 30 departures and arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface on the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) RWY 30 approach. Additionally, the Class E airspace should extend to the northwest to contain arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface on the RNAV RWY 12 approach.

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 so 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.

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 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2024-2352 in the Federal Register (89 FR 85455; October 28, 2024), proposing to establish RNAV Route Q-161 and amend RNAV Routes Q-97, Q-133, Q-437, Q-439, Q-445, and Q-481 in the eastern United States. Additionally, The FAA published a supplemental NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2024-2352 in the Federal Register (89 FR 103717; December 19, 2024), adding to the proposal the amendment of RNAV Route Q-409 and the correction to the state designation of the OYVAY, DE, waypoint (WP). Interested parties were invited to participate in these rulemaking efforts by submitting written comments on each proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

United States Area Navigation routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV Route Q-161 and amending RNAV Routes Q-97, Q-133, Q-409, Q-437, Q-439, Q-445, and Q-481 in the eastern United States. This action supports the NEC ACR Optimization Project to improve the efficiency of the NAS. The amendments are described below.

In place of a two-letter state abbreviation for multiple listed route points in route descriptions the “OA” means “Offshore Atlantic”.

Q-97: Prior to this final rule, Q-97 extended between the TOVAR, FL, WP and the Presque Isle, ME (PQI), Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The FAA removes the BYSEL, MD, WP from the route description as it is a turn of less than one degree. Additionally, the FAA adds six route points between the ZJAAY, MD, WP and the Calverton, NY (CCC), VOR/DME. The route points added are the PAJET, DE, WP; CAANO, DE, WP; TBONN, OA, WP; ZIZZI, NJ, WP; YAZUU, NJ, WP; and HEADI, NJ, WP. The route modification moves RNAV Route Q-97 to the east to eliminate traffic conflicts between aircraft flying southbound on RNAV Route Q-97 and aircraft flying northbound on RNAV Route Q-439 descending into the New York and Connecticut areas. As amended, the route continues to extend between the TOVAR WP and the Presque Isle VOR/DME.

Q-133: Prior to this final rule, Q-133 extended between the CHIEZ, NC, WP and the PONCT, NY, WP. The FAA removes the airway segments between the CHIEZ WP and the CONFR, MD, WP and replace them with the airway segment between the JAMIE, VA, Fix and the CONFR WP. The route segment between the CHIEZ WP and the KALDA, VA, WP is still needed for navigation, and this action continues to provide this RNAV connectivity to the KALDA WP as new RNAV Route Q-161 also in this action. Additionally, the FAA removes the airway segment between the Kennedy, NY (JFK), VOR/DME and the PONCT WP and replaces it with the airway segments between the Kennedy VOR/DME and the PBERG, NY, WP. These changes improve the connectivity of multiple airports along the east coast of the United States to the Montreal-Trudeau Airport, Canada, where the preferred arrival route is over the PBERG WP. As amended, the route extends between the JAMIE Fix and the PBERG WP.

Q-161: Q-161 is a new RNAV route that extends between the CHIEZ, NC, WP and the KALDA, VA, WP. This new RNAV route overlays a portion of RNAV Route Q-133, also amended in this action, and provides additional efficiency by becoming its own distinct route. The new proposed route provides RNAV connectivity between the CHIEZ WP and the KALDA WP.

Q-409: Prior to this final rule, Q-409 extended between the ENEME, GA, WP and the WHITE, NJ, Fix. The FAA changes the geographic coordinates of the OYVAY, DE, WP from “lat. 39°02′18.85″ N, long. 075°26′18.04″ W” to “lat. 39°01′03.58″ N, long. 075°26′28.07″ W” in the route description. Additionally, the FAA removes the SESUE, SC, WP and the CRPLR, VA, WP from the route description as they are a turn of less than one degree. Lastly, the FAA updates the geographic coordinates for the VILLS, NJ, WP to match the geographic coordinates listed in the NASR database. The VILLS WP geographic coordinates are changed from “lat. 39°18′03.87″ N, long. 075°06′37.89″ W” to “lat. 39°18′03.87″ N, long. 075°06′37.90″ W”. As amended, the route continues to extend between the ENEME WP and the WHITE Fix.

Q-437: Prior to this final rule, Q-437 extended between the VILLS, NJ, WP and the LLUND, NY, WP. The FAA removes the airway segments between the VILLS WP and the LLUND WP and replaces them with the airway segments between the CRPLR, VA, WP and the PONCT, NY, WP due to high traffic density over the New York City area. These changes move aircraft from being directly over New York City to an area west of Newark, NJ. Additionally, these changes expand RNAV connectivity further to the south to the Norfolk, VA area, and further to the north to the Albany, NY area. As amended, the route extends between the CRPLR WP and the PONCT WP.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Challis Airport, Challis, ID.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2023-2491 in the Federal Register (89 FR 103719; December 19, 2024), proposing to establish Class E airspace at Challis Airport, Challis, ID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024 and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Challis Airport, Challis, ID, to support the airport's IFR transition.

The Class E airspace lies within a 6-mile radius of the airport with extensions to 5.9 miles north and .6 miles east of the arc. This configuration is designed to contain departing aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface to the north and east and arriving aircraft that descend below 1,500 feet above the surface to the south.

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 so 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.

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 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the route structure to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2024-2031 in the Federal Register (89 FR 64840; August 8, 2024), proposing to amend domestic VOR Federal Airways V-16, V-103, V-375, and V-473 in the eastern United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending domestic VOR Federal Airways V-16, V-103, V-375, and V-473 in the eastern United States. This action is due to the decommissioning of the Roanoke, VA (ROA), VOR/DME. The route changes are described below.

V-16: Prior to this final rule, V-16 extended between the Los Angeles, CA (LAX), VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Holly Springs, MS (HLI), VORTAC; between the Shelbyville, TN (SYI), VOR/DME, and the Richmond, VA (RIC), VORTAC; and between the Smyrna, DE (ENO), VORTAC and the intersection of the Calverton, NY (CCC), VOR/DME 044°, and the Madison, CT (MAD), VOR/DME 142° radials (CREAM Fix). The airspace within restricted areas R-5002A, R-5002C, and R-5002D is excluded during their times of use. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Pulaski, VA (PSK), VORTAC and the Lynchburg, VA (LYH), VOR/DME due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Roanoke, VA (ROA), VOR/DME.

Additionally, the FAA adds to the description that the airspace within restricted area R-5002F is excluded during its time of use as R-5002F is adjacent to VOR Federal Airway V-16 and must be excluded.

As amended, the route extends between the Los Angeles VORTAC and the Holly Springs VORTAC; between the Shelbyville VOR/DME and the Pulaski VORTAC; between the Lynchburg VOR/DME and the Richmond VORTAC; and between the Smyrna VORTAC and the CREAM Fix. The airspace within restricted areas R-5002A, R-5002C, R-5002D, and R-5002F is excluded during their times of use.

V-103: Prior to this final rule, V-103 extended between the Chesterfield, SC (CTF), VOR/DME and the Akron, OH (ACO), VOR/DME. In the description of V-103, the route segments between the Greensboro, NC (GSO), VORTAC and the Roanoke, VA (ROA), VOR/DME is further described as the Greensboro VORTAC 357° and the Roanoke VOR/DME 181° radials. The FAA removes the airway segments between the intersection of the Greensboro, NC (GSO), VORTAC 357° True (T)/360° Magnetic (M) and the South Boston, VA (SBV), VORTAC 247° T/252° M radials (MAYOS Fix) and the Elkins, WV (EKN), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Roanoke VOR/DME. As amended, the route extends between the Chesterfield VOR/DME and the MAYOS Fix; and between the Elkins VORTAC and the Akron VOR/DME.

V-375: Prior to this final rule, V-375 extended between the Roanoke, VA (ROA), VOR/DME and the intersection of the Gordonsville, VA (GVE), VORTAC 034° and Casanova, VA (CSN), VORTAC 142° radials (FLUKY Fix). The FAA removes the airway segments between the Roanoke VOR/DME and the Gordonsville VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Roanoke VOR/DME. As amended, the route extends between the Gordonsville VORTAC and the FLUKY Fix.

V-473: Prior to this final rule, V-473 extended between the Roanoke, VA (ROA), VOR/DME and the Gordonsville, VA (GVE), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Roanoke VOR/DME and the Montebello, VA (MOL), VOR/DME due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Roanoke VOR/DME. As amended, the route extends between the Montebello VOR/DME and the Gordonsville VORTAC.

The navigational aid radials listed in the VOR Federal airway description regulatory text of this final rule are stated in degrees True north.

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 so 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.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending domestic VOR Federal Airways V-16, V-103, V-375, and V-473 in the eastern United States, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ). . .”. As such, this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This action extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 112, title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), 91.1603, from March 20, 2025, to March 20, 2028. SFAR No. 112 prohibits certain flight operations in the territory and airspace of Libya 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 the continuing unacceptable safety-of-flight risks to U.S. civil aviation in the territory and airspace of Libya due to the unstable political and security environment in Libya. Consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, this action also republishes the approval process and exemption information for this flight prohibition SFAR.

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 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. 112, § 91.1603, from conducting flight operations in the territory and airspace of Libya due to the continuing hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations, as described in the preamble to this final rule.

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 anti-aircraft 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 over-restrictive, 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 under-restrictive, 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 territory and airspace of Libya.

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.

Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.

In its March 21, 2023, final rule amending and extending the prohibition against certain flights in the territory and airspace of Libya, the FAA continued to assess the situation in the territory and airspace of Libya as hazardous for U.S. civil aviation. 1 Representatives of the Libyan Army of the Government of National Accord (GNA) and the Libyan National Army (LNA) General Command of the Armed Forces signed a United Nations (UN)-backed ceasefire agreement on October 23, 2020. Among other things, the October 2020 ceasefire provided for: an immediate ceasefire, effective upon signature of the agreement; the departure of all mercenaries and foreign fighters from Libya, including its land, air, and sea territory; and the suspension of all military training agreements and departure of all training crews until a new unified government assumed its functions.

Between the October 2020 ceasefire agreement and the issuance of the 2023 final rule, the FAA assessed combat operations in Libya had significantly decreased, with only intermittent ground clashes between opposing factions. In addition, Russian-backed Vagner Group (also referred to as private military company (PMC) Wagner) had reduced the number of its air defense systems and forces deployed in Libya, with more than 1,300 Vagner personnel having departed the country. However, protests and the intermittent clashes between the various armed factions in Libya continued. Unrest in the capital, in particular, was driven by militia infighting and multiple failed attempts by the Government of National Stability (GNS) to enter Tripoli and contributed to the lack of progress on key milestones set forth in the ceasefire agreement.

When the FAA issued the 2023 final rule, the provisions of the ceasefire agreement relating to departure of all mercenaries and foreign fighters from Libya and the suspension of all military training agreements and departure of all training crews until the Government of National Unity (GNU) assumed its functions had not been fully implemented. At the time the FAA issued the 2023 final rule, airspace deconfliction challenges also remained a safety of flight concern in the territory and airspace of Libya. Various armed groups operating in Libya continued to have access to advanced anti-aircraft weapons systems. The FAA assessed that these groups likely lacked comprehensive airspace awareness sufficient to enable effective aircraft identification and deconfliction of civil and military flights. These circumstances created the potential for localized operational control and use of anti-aircraft systems, rather than a coordinated air defense command and control structure, posing an enduring inadvertent risk to civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Libya. The FAA assessed that forces aligned with the GNA and the LNA could quickly increase force protection measures, such as global positioning system (GPS) jamming, air strikes, and the deployment of surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems capable of reaching as high as 49,000 feet. In addition to foreign-operated air defense capabilities, both GNA and LNA forces had access to anti-aircraft artillery and advanced man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), some of which have a maximum altitude of 25,000 feet.

In August 2022, LNA air defense forces claimed to have shot down a U.S. MQ-9 UAS operating in the vicinity of Benghazi during a period of increased tensions and threats of renewed violence between competing militias vying for control of Tripoli. The MQ-9 was operating in support of diplomatic engagements, and the operator had conducted pre-mission coordination with Libyan authorities. While this incident involved a military UAS, it demonstrates the potential for inadequate aircraft identification and deconfliction procedures leading to an inadvertent shoot down. In addition, despite a reduction in foreign presence, tensions in Libya remained elevated, and warring factions in Libya and their affiliated foreign sponsors maintained access to advanced weapons. Within their respective strongholds in various areas of the country, Libya's armed factions had either gained access to, or had foreign sponsors equipped with, tactical aircraft, long-range weaponized UAS, air defense systems, and GPS jammers.

Given the tenuous security environment in Libya at the time, the FAA remained concerned when it issued the 2023 final rule about the continued risk of rapid escalation involving these systems during spikes in tensions, which would pose safety-of-flight risks to U.S. civil aviation outside the capital region. As a result of the continuing unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in Libya's airspace at that time, the FAA maintained the prohibition on U.S. civil aviation operations at all altitudes in the territory and airspace of Libya and extended the expiration date of SFAR No. 112, 14 CFR 91.1603, from March 20, 2023, until March 20, 2025.

The FAA continues to assess the situation in the territory and airspace of Libya as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation. Since the 2023 final rule, U.S. civil aviation operations in Libya continue to be exposed to safety of flight risks associated with political and security instability and intermittent clashes between rival armed factions, including as recently as December 2024. Despite attempts to resolve the discord and implement the 2020 UN-brokered ceasefire between factions aligned with the Tripoli-based, UN-recognized GNU and the self-declared LNA based in eastern Libya, many terms of the ceasefire agreement have not been fulfilled and tensions remain elevated.

Prior to the 2020 ceasefire, forces supporting both the GNA, which preceded the GNU, and the LNA employed indirect fire to strike airfields and airports across northern Libya. Since the ceasefire, both sides have employed manned and unmanned aircraft, SAMs, and/or MANPADs, as well as electronic warfare capabilities, to target manned and unmanned aircraft and to target or protect airfields/airports and other strategic sites. Armed groups continue to compete for control of critical infrastructure and resources, such as Tripoli's Mitiga International Airport (HLLM), due to the facilities' strategic importance and utility for military operations and facilitating lucrative illicit activity. The political and security environment continues to spur factional clashes, which have been observed as recently as mid-December 2024, when clashes included rocket fire near Zawiya oil refinery in western Libya.

The FAA also remains concerned about the adequacy of deconfliction of anti-aircraft-capable weapons systems in the hands of various third parties with civil air traffic in the territory and airspace of Libya. Various third parties, including state actors such as Russia and Türkiye, continue to maintain a physical presence and operate their own anti-aircraft-capable weapons systems in Libya; however, the command and control of these systems, adequacy of airspace deconfliction, and to what extent Libyan authorities are involved in their employment is unclear. Russian private military contractors with questionable training and likely limited access to a complete airspace picture, operating advanced weapons systems—including anti-aircraft capabilities outside of state control—further contribute to the significant airspace deconfliction challenges and unacceptable level of risk to civil aviation operations in Libya's territorial airspace.

Additionally, in 2024, foreign entities continued to deploy and proliferate additional weapons systems into Libya, further demonstrating the complex security and safety environment for civil aviation in the country. For example, in July 2024, according to media reports, Italian authorities seized two large Chinese military-grade UAS that were being smuggled into Libya in violation of a United Nations arms embargo. Italian authorities reportedly stated that these UAS were over 10 meters (33 feet) long, had a wingspan of approximately 20 meters (66 feet), and weighed more than three tons. They may have been destined for a Libyan faction in eastern Libya.

Violent extremist organizations (VEOs), including the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS)-Libya and al-Qa'ida (AQ)-linked groups remain active in Libya, but they likely do not possess the capability to identify, track, and engage an aircraft at overflight cruising altitudes in the territory and airspace of Libya. Although the FAA assesses VEOs lack the resources and access to advanced weapons systems necessary to pose a risk to civil aircraft overflight operations, they likely maintain the intent to target civil aviation as a target of opportunity. Remaining VEOs are likely scattered in southwest Libya and focused on supporting Sahel-based associates but could pose a hazard to U.S. civil aviation operations in other parts of Libya. Nevertheless, VEOs pose a continued, though somewhat diminished, risk to low-altitude flight operations below 25,000 feet.

Therefore, as a result of the continuing, unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Libya, the FAA extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, from March 20, 2025, until March 20, 2028. The ongoing political and security instability in Libya does not appear likely to subside in the reasonably foreseeable future and a three-year extension will provide ample time for observing any potential sustained changes and reassessment.

Further amendments to SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, 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 territory and airspace of Libya.

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. 112, § 91.1603.

In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the territory and airspace of Libya. 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. 112, § 91.1603, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo or conduct other operations in the territory and airspace of Libya, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, 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. 2 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. 112, § 91.1603, 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 territory and airspace of Libya 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 territory and airspace of Libya 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 pre-mission 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 territory and airspace of Libya. 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 territory and airspace of Libya. 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 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. 112, § 91.1603, 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.

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 territory and airspace of Libya; 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 territory and airspace of Libya.

(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.

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. 112, § 91.1603. 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 territory and airspace of Libya 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 territory and airspace of Libya 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. 112, § 91.1603. 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. 112, § 91.1603.

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.

This rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866. This rule continues to prohibit U.S. civil flights in the territory and airspace of Libya due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in this preamble. While alternative flight routes result in some additional fuel and operations costs to the operators, as well as some costs attributed to passenger time, the benefits of this rule in prohibiting unsafe flights will exceed the minimal flight deviation costs. Therefore, the FAA finds that the incremental costs of extending SFAR No. 112, § 91.1603, 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 territory and airspace of Libya.

This rule is exempt from Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) as it is a regulation issued with respect to a national security or homeland security function of the United States.

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.

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 territory and airspace of Libya, a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 on 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.

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/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The Commission is extending the compliance date for the Commission's 2023 amendments to rule 35d-1 under the Investment Company Act; amendments to Form N-1A [referenced in 17 CFR 239.15A and 17 CFR 274.11A], Form N-2 [referenced in 17 CFR 239.14 and 17 CFR 274.11a-1], Form N-8B-2 [referenced in 17 CFR 274.12], and Form S-6 [referenced in 17 CFR 239.16] under the Investment Company Act and the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. ]; amendments to Form N-PORT [referenced in 17 CFR 274.150] under the Investment Company Act; amendments to 17 CFR 232.11 (“rule 11 of Regulation S-T”) and 17 CFR 232.405 (“rule 405 of Regulation S-T”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. ].

On September 20, 2023, the Commission adopted amendments to rule 35d-1 under the Investment Company Act, the “names rule,” designed to modernize and enhance the protections that the rule provides. 1 This rule addresses the names of registered investment companies and business development companies (“BDCs”) that the Commission defines as materially misleading or deceptive. 2 The amendments broadened the scope of the requirement for certain funds to adopt a policy to invest at least 80 percent of the value of their assets in accordance with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests. 3 The Commission also adopted amendments that updated other names-related regulatory requirements, including by providing enhanced disclosure and reporting requirements related to terms used in fund names and by establishing additional recordkeeping requirements (collectively, “names rule amendments”). 4 The Commission established tiered compliance dates for the names rule amendments: December 11, 2025 for fund groups with net assets of $1 billion or more as of the end of their most recent fiscal year; and June 11, 2026 for fund groups with less than $1 billion in net assets as of the end of their most recent fiscal year (collectively, the “initial compliance dates”).

The Commission has become aware of certain challenges that funds and their service providers are experiencing associated with the timing of the initial compliance dates. As identified by two industry letters, these challenges include numerous and complex steps to implement the names rule amendments in an orderly manner by the initial compliance dates. 5 The industry letters also identified additional costs associated with coming into compliance in the context of an “off-cycle” disclosure amendment. In this regard, the industry groups have requested that the Commission (i) extend the compliance dates by a minimum of 18 months and (ii) base the compliance date on a fund's fiscal year-end. 6

We understand that determining the operational steps necessary to comply with the names rule amendments often requires coordination among multiple departments and parties, including fund service providers for those funds that determine to outsource certain names rule compliance activities. For instance, the development of a names rule compliance plan requires coordination among a fund's legal, compliance, and operations departments to review and make key compliance decisions, such as whether to change any fund names and strategies. We understand that, in determining whether name changes or strategy changes are necessary, certain funds had threshold questions associated with the names rule amendments. 7 The industry letters also identified examples of coordination and associated challenges. For instance, an industry letter indicated that the names rule amendments involve collaboration among multiple departments, including compliance, legal, portfolio management, reporting, distribution, and technology, along with third-party vendors. 8 These departments will execute numerous implementation steps—which often must be completed sequentially as well as concurrently with other workstreams—that include: drafting and adopting appropriate policies and procedures; building compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting processes; updating various disclosures; designing, building, and testing technological systems for trade management, compliance, and recordkeeping functions; and seeking board (along with, in some cases, shareholder) approvals. 9

While the initial compliance dates were designed in recognition of these implementation steps, we understand that funds' and service providers' actual experience in executing these steps has reflected developments that support the need for additional time to comply. 10 We understand, based on staff discussions with the industry, that many funds' processes for structuring the compliance apparatus of a fund's 80% investment policy, which require development, analysis, and back-testing, have been delayed because some technological systems and service providers' analysis to support these functions are still in development. This delay creates challenges for funds because they are unable to receive pricing and service quotations from those service providers in a timely manner (thus delaying the fund's determination about whether to outsource a function, and their ability to test compliance functions in anticipation of the compliance date). Furthermore, some legacy systems are not currently able to support certain aspects of the names rule amendments, such as enhanced recordkeeping. 11 We understand, based on staff discussions with the industry, that updated versions of these systems are under development, with some service providers anticipating new versions in summer 2025. We further understand, based on an industry letter and staff discussions with the industry, that the challenges of these implementation tasks (and related systems build-outs) are compounded for funds with subadvisers and derivatives holdings, and that implementation for registered closed-end funds, BDCs and unit investment trusts involves additional unique considerations. 12

After considering the request for a compliance date extension, we are extending by six months the initial compliance dates for all funds to comply with the names rule amendments so that the compliance date will be June 11, 2026 for larger entities and December 11, 2026 for smaller entities. 13 While the industry letters recommended a longer (18-month) extension, in our view, the six-month extension that we are adopting—combined with ability to make disclosure changes “on-cycle,” as discussed below—will appropriately balance the benefits to investors of the amended names rule framework with the needs of a fund for additional time to implement the rule and form amendments properly, as well as to continue to develop and finalize compliance systems and test the fund's compliance plan, which in turn will enhance the benefit to investors. Moreover, because we are also modifying the operation of the compliance dates based on funds' fiscal year-ends, as discussed below, most funds effectively will have additional time to comply with the names rule amendments (with some funds having close to an additional year to comply, depending on the timing of their fiscal year-ends).

Continuously-offered funds generally update their prospectuses on an annual cadence to comply with the requirement in the Securities Act that information in the fund's registration statement is no more than sixteen months old. 14 While funds that do not make continuous offerings are not subject to this same annual prospectus updating cadence, there are certain disclosure and reporting obligations for these funds that require similar annual action. 15

For open-end funds, if the fund's annual prospectus amendment makes material changes to the fund's registration statement, the amendment must be filed with the Commission at least 60 days before the time that the amendment is effective. 16 Consequently, most open-end funds filing an annual update with material changes will file at least 60 days before the four months following the fund's fiscal year-end. Post-effective amendments timed on this annual cadence are described as “on-cycle” amendments. We understand that there can be significant costs associated with “off-cycle” post-effective amendments, which may be borne by investors. 17

To avoid the additional costs associated with coming into compliance with the names rule amendments in the context of an “off-cycle” amendment, two industry groups have requested that the compliance date for the names rule amendments be based on the timing of a fund's “on-cycle” amendments. 18 To comply with the names rules amendments, funds must modify their prospectus disclosure and may have to change their names and/or investment policies and disclosure. In order for a fund's prospectus disclosure not to be misleading, the disclosure made in the fund's prospectus must reflect the fund's actual operations. Accordingly, if a fund's “on-cycle” amendment was due before the applicable initial compliance date, the fund would have to either comply early, to include accurate disclosure about the fund's 80% investment policy in that annual amendment, or take the full compliance period permitted but incur the costs of an off-cycle amendment on or before the compliance date. For example, a fund with a fiscal year-end of December 31 that is filing a post-effective amendment under rule 485(a) would have to file an “on-cycle” amendment to meet its annual disclosure obligations by March 2, 2025 to have an effective date 60 days later, on May 1, 2025. Effectively, under the initial compliance dates, many funds would have to choose between complying earlier than the initial compliance dates permitted, or taking the full compliance period but incurring the expense of an “off-cycle” amendment. 19

After considering the industry groups' requests, the Commission has determined to modify the operation of the compliance dates to allow for compliance based on the timing of certain annual disclosure and reporting obligations that are tied to the fund's fiscal year-end. Therefore, a new fund will be required to be in compliance with the names rule amendments at the time of the effective date of its initial registration statement that the fund files on or following the new compliance dates, that is, June 11, 2026 (for larger entities) or December 11, 2026 (for smaller entities). 20 An existing open-end fund (or other continuously-offered fund) will be required to be in compliance with the names rule amendments at the time of the effective date of its first “on-cycle” annual prospectus update that the fund files on or following June 11, 2026 (for larger entities) or December 11, 2026 (for smaller entities). 21 An existing registered closed-end fund that relies on rule 8b-16(b) will need to be in compliance at the time of the transmittal of its first annual report to shareholders on or following June 11, 2026 (for larger entities) or December 11, 2026 (for smaller entities). An existing BDC that is not engaged in a continuous offering will need to be in compliance at the time of the filing of its first annual report on Form 10-K on or following June 11, 2026 (for larger entities) or December 11, 2026 (for smaller entities).

Tying a continuously-offered fund's names rule compliance to the fund's annual prospectus update will allow the fund to take the full compliance period to comply with the names rule amendments without having to make an off-cycle amendment. Funds that are not continuously offered likewise will be able to take the full compliance period and maintain their normal disclosure and reporting practices. Investors will benefit by not bearing the costs associated with off-cycle amendments. 22

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this rule. The Department also invites comments that relate to the economic or federalism effects that might result from this rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Department in developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that supports such recommended change. Comments must be submitted in English or accompanied by an English translation.

Each submitted comment should include the agency name and reference RIN 1105-AB78 or Docket No. OLP-179 for this rulemaking. Please note that all properly received comments are considered part of the public record and generally may be made available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally identifying information (such as name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Department may, in its discretion, withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. But all submissions may be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, you may wish to limit the amount of personal information you include in your submission.

For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted. The redacted personally identifying information will be placed in the agency's public docket file but not posted online.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on www.regulations.gov. The redacted confidential business information will not be placed in the public docket file.

Federal law prohibits several categories of persons from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.” 18 U.S.C. 922(g). By statute, it also provides that any “person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from th[at] disabilit[y]” and that “the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” 18 U.S.C. 925(c).

The first version of these provisions was enacted in 1968, see Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (Jun. 19, 1968). Initially, the Secretary of the Treasury was empowered to provide relief only to a “person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (other than a crime involving the use of a firearm or other weapon or a violation of this chapter or of the National Firearms Act).” Id. at 233. Over time, however, that authority was transferred to the Attorney General and expanded to allow the Attorney General to provide relief to any “person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition” and to allow such a person to “make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws.” 18 U.S.C. 925(c).

Regulations establishing a process to implement the relief-from-disabilities provisions of 18 U.S.C. 925(c) were also first promulgated in 1968. See Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, 33 FR 18555 (Dec. 14, 1968). Initially, those regulations delegated the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to adjudicate applications to remove disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. See 26 CFR 178.144 (1968). Treasury Department Order 221 (June 6, 1972) created the forerunner of ATF, within the Department of the Treasury, effective July 1, 1972. See 37 FR 11696. In 1975, the Secretary of the Treasury “transfer[red] the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives” to this new entity. See Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 40 FR 16835 (Apr. 15, 1975).

Under title XI, subtitle B, section 1111 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002) (“HSA”), the “authorities, functions, personnel, and assets” of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury were transferred to the Department, with the exception of certain enumerated authorities retained by the Department of the Treasury. Id. 1111(c)(2), (d). In short, the HSA created two separate agencies, ATF in the Department and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau in the Department of the Treasury.

Under 28 U.S.C. 509, “[a]ll functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General,” except for functions not relevant here. Moreover, the HSA expressly provided that “the Attorney General may make such provisions as the Attorney General determines appropriate to authorize the performance by any officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function transferred to the Attorney General under this section.” HSA 1111; see also 28 U.S.C. 510 (“The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General”). In doing so, the HSA made clear that the primary functions of ATF were investigating “criminal and regulatory violations of the Federal firearms, explosives, arson, alcohol, and tobacco smuggling laws” as well as other violent crimes and domestic terrorism as assigned by the Attorney General. HSA 1111(b). It also amended 18 U.S.C. 925(c) to make clear that an individual seeking relief from the disabilities related to firearms imposed by Federal laws must now seek relief from the Attorney General. Id. 1112(f)(6).

Pursuant to this statutory authority, and consistent with historical practice, the Attorney General delegated authority to adjudicate requests for relief from disabilities on the use of firearms as imposed by Federal law to ATF. See 27 CFR 478.144; Reorganization of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, 68 FR 3744 (Jan. 24, 2003). This delegation was effectuated through a final rule that took immediate effect and was exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking. 68 FR 3747.

In the early 1990s, Congress became concerned about the number of resources that ATF was using to adjudicate requests to relieve individual Americans from disabilities on their ownership of firearms. S. Rep. 102-353 (“The Committee believes that the approximately 40 man-years spent annually to investigate and act upon these investigations and applications would be better utilized to crack down on violent crime.”). Congressional reports also stated that judging whether applicants posed “a danger to public safety” was “a very difficult and subjective task,” id., and that “too many felons . . . whose gun ownership rights were restored went on to commit crimes with firearms,” H.R. Rep. 104-183 (1996). To allow ATF to return to its core function of investigating violations of federal firearms laws, see id. (“The Committee expects ATF to redeploy the positions and funding presently supporting firearms disability relief to the Armed Career Criminal program.”), Congress provided in 1992 that “none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).” Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102-393, 106 Stat 1729 (1992).

Since then, ATF has been unable to effectuate its regulatory authority to act on individual applications due to an identical appropriations rider enacted annually. See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-42, 138 Stat. 25, 139 (2024) (“ Provided, That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code”); see also Is there a way for a prohibited person to restore their right to receive or possess firearms and ammunition?, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/there-way-prohibited-person-restore-their-right-receive-or-possess-firearms-and (last visited February 15, 2025) (“Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities, ATF's annual appropriation since October 1992 has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.”).

ATF is, however, able to act on applications for relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) filed by corporations, which are historically far less common. See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-42, 138 Stat. 25, 139 (2024) (“ Provided further, That such funds shall be available to investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code”). It has not received such an application since 2018, rendering ATF's existing regulations effectively moribund.

Nevertheless, as noted above, when it passed the HSA, Congress chose to transfer authority to remove individual firearms disabilities from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Attorney General. As a result, 18 U.S.C. 925(c) continues to provide a remedy to remove disabilities from firearms possession for certain individuals even though ATF has been unable to act on any application for such relief since 1992 due to the annual appropriations rider. 1 This confusing state of affairs has taken on greater significance given developments in Second Amendment jurisprudence since 1992.

In Executive Order 14206 of February 6, 2025 ( Protecting Second Amendment Rights ), the President reaffirmed our national commitment to “[t]he Second Amendment [as] an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty,” and directed that “[w]ithin 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.” Consistent with this Order and with the Department's own strong support for all constitutional rights, including “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” enshrined in the Second Amendment, the Department has begun that review process in earnest and will provide the President with a plan as required by Order 14206. The Department simultaneously recognizes that no constitutional right is limitless; consequently, it also supports existing laws that ensure, for example, that violent and dangerous persons remain disabled from lawfully acquiring firearms. From the Department's perspective, regardless of whether the Second Amendment requires an individualized restoration process for persons subject to 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 18 U.S.C. 925(c) reflects an appropriate avenue to restore firearm rights to certain individuals who no longer warrant such disability based on a combination of the nature of their past criminal activity and their subsequent and current law-abiding behavior while screening out others for whom full restoration of firearm rights would not be appropriate.

However, ATF, which currently has regulatory authority to act on applications made under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), has been forbidden from utilizing any of its appropriated funds for staffing to process requests by individuals for over 30 years. The Department respects congressional appropriations prerogatives, and it expects its forthcoming plan under Executive Order 14206 to include legislative proposals to modify or rescind the rider. It is also undertaking a broader examination of how to address the drain on resources that caused Congress to impose the rider in the first instance, including by addressing any potential inefficiencies in the regulatory process created by 26 CFR 178.144. Although the specific contours of any new approach to the implementation of 18 U.S.C. 925(c) may be refined through future rulemaking, the Attorney General has determined, in an exercise of her discretion under the HSA and 28 U.S.C. 509-510, that the appropriate first step is to withdraw the delegation to ATF to administer section 925(c) and withdraw the moribund regulations governing individual applications to ATF for 18 U.S.C. 925(c) relief. Consistent with that rider, the process described under 27 CFR 178.144 will not be transferred to any other agency or Department. At the same time, the statute speaks clearly that the authority provided in 18 U.S.C. 925(c) is conferred on the Attorney General, and no applicable statute restricts the Attorney General's authority in these circumstances to delegate that authority or withdraw a prior delegation or amend prior rules. 2 Thus, the Attorney General is withdrawing her delegation of authority to ATF to implement 18 U.S.C. 925(c) by revising a delegation of authority in 28 CFR 0.130 and removing 27 CFR 478.144.

Revising 28 CFR 0.130 and removing 27 CFR 478.144 further provides the Department a clean slate on which to build a new approach to implementing 18 U.S.C. 925(c) without the baggage of no-longer-necessary procedures— e.g., a requirement to file an application “in triplicate,” 27 CFR 478.144(b). With such a clean slate, the Department anticipates future actions, including rulemaking consistent with applicable law, to give full effect to 18 U.S.C. 925(c) while simultaneously ensuring that violent or dangerous individuals remain disabled from lawfully acquiring firearms.

Notice and comment is unnecessary because this is a rule of management or personnel as well as a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (b)(A). For the same reasons, this rule is not subject to a 30-day delay in effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (d). The interim rule relates to an internal delegation of authority and relates to a matter of agency organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (b)(A).

Removing effectively defunct regulations addressing how the Attorney General's statutory authority will be exercised does not adversely affect members of the public and involves an agency management decision that is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 1991) (delegations of authority have “no legal impact on, or significance for, the general public,” and “simply effect[ ] a shifting of responsibilities wholly internal to the Treasury Department”); Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1446 (10th Cir. 1990) (“APA does not require publication of [rules] which internally delegate authority to enforce the Internal Revenue laws”); United States v. Goodman, 605 F.2d 870, 887-88 (5th Cir. 1979) (unpublished delegation of authority from Attorney General to Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency did not violate APA); Hogg v. United States, 428 F.2d 274, 280 (6th Cir. 1970) (where taxpayer would not be adversely affected by the internal delegations of authority from the Attorney General, APA does not require publication).

This rule is exempt from the usual requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effective date because it relates to a matter of agency organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). For similar reasons, the original rule delegating the Attorney General's 925(c) authority to ATF also did not go through a notice-and-comment process, see 68 FR at 3747, in contrast to the Department of the Treasury's 1968 rule that set forth substantive standards for consideration of 925(c) applications, see 33 FR 18555. Because ATF's existing rule was published, however, the Department nonetheless has—in the exercise of its discretion—deemed it appropriate to publish its revocation in the form of an IFR. Cf. 44 U.S.C. 1510(e) (noting that publication “shall be prima facie evidence of the text of the documents and of the fact that they are in effect on and after the date of publication”). Due to the significance of the removal of firearms disabilities process, it is also providing the public with opportunity for post-promulgation comment before the Department issues a final rule on these matters. Providing such an opportunity is not, however, committing the Department to waive its exemption from the APA's notice-and-comment process in this or future rulemakings regarding the removal of firearms disabilities under section 925(c). Accord Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 356 n.4 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding that an agency had waived its exemption to the extent that it bound itself to using APA procedures); Rodway v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 514 F.3d 809, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (same).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or other law. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). Because this is a rule of internal agency organization and therefore is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking, no RFA analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604 is required for this rule.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation), and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Nevertheless, the Department certifies that this regulation has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The benefits of this rule include providing the Department a clean slate to reconsider its approach to implementing a core constitutional right embodied by a statutory authorization that has largely lain dormant for over thirty years.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

This is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action pertains to agency organization, management, and personnel and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Therefore, the reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office specified by 5 U.S.C. 801 are not required.

Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(a) of Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that the new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. This interim final rule is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192 because it withdraws the Attorney General's delegation of authority to ATF to adjudicate applications for relief from the disabilities imposed by 18 U.S.C. 922 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(c).

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part 478 and 28 CFR part 0 are amended as follows:

Due to the receipt of adverse comment, the EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule titled, “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Legacy CCR Surface Impoundments; Correction,” published on January 16, 2025 (90 FR 4635). We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by March 17, 2025, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register . Because the EPA subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule, we are withdrawing the direct final rule.

The EPA published a parallel proposed rule (90 FR 4707, January 16, 2025) on the same day as the direct final rule. The proposed rule invited comment on the substance of the direct final rule. Notwithstanding this action to withdraw the direct final rule, the EPA will continue to accept comment on the parallel proposed rule through March 17, 2025, which is the deadline to submit comments. The EPA will respond to comments as part of any final action it takes on the parallel proposed rule.

I. General A. Potentially Affected Entities

This action amends existing regulations. Entities affected by this action are owners or operators of facilities that are direct emitters or suppliers of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or that sequester carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) gas underground. These entities are required to report certain activities under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (codified at 40 CFR part 98. Regulated categories and entities include, but are not limited to, those listed in table 1 of this preamble:

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. This table lists the types of facilities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of facilities than those listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you would be affected by this proposed action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A (General Provisions) and the subpart for each source category. Many facilities that are affected by 40 CFR part 98 have greenhouse gas emissions from multiple source categories listed in table 1 of this preamble. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

EPA is amending the reporting deadlines pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which also served as the basis of statutory authority for the underlying rule, 42 U.S.C. 7414. As noted in prior rulemakings for this program, EPA has interpreted CAA section 114(a)(1) to authorize reporting requirements related to EPA's CAA programs. Statutory authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section 553(b)(B), based on EPA's finding of good cause to forego notice and comment, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

EPA is amending subpart A (General Provisions) at 40 CFR 98.3(b) to extend the reporting deadline for annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports for reporting year 2024 from March 31, 2025, to May 30, 2025. This one-time extension of the reporting deadline will ensure that regulated entities have adequate time to interact with the reporting software to prepare and submit the annual GHG reports required under the existing rule. Facilities and suppliers are required to submit each GHG report “electronically in accordance with” specified regulatory requirements and in “a format specified by the Administrator” as stated at 40 CFR 98.5(a). EPA has required electronic reporting and provided an electronic reporting system, the electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (hereafter refer to as “e-GGRT”), for facilities and suppliers since 2010 to prepare and submit annual GHG reports.

Historically, EPA has launched the e-GGRT system in mid-February for a given reporting year. As a result, regulated entities have generally had a six-week period to work in the e-GGRT system to prepare and submit their annual GHG reports. As of March 2025, the e-GGRT system has not been launched, and as a result, facilities have not had adequate time to interact with the reporting system to prepare and submit their annual GHG reports for reporting year 2024. For this reason, EPA is extending the GHGRP reporting deadline for annual GHG reports for reporting year 2024 from March 31, 2025, to May 30, 2025.

EPA finds good cause to forego notice and comment for this action pursuant to APA section 553(b)(B) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. EPA is making a one-time, 60-day extension of the reporting deadline for submitting annual GHG reports for reporting year 2024. An immediate extension of the deadline for submitting annual GHG reports under Part 98 is necessary to ensure that regulated entities have sufficient time to interact with the e-GGRT system to prepare and submit accurate annual GHG reports. Given the existing regulatory deadline, it is impracticable for EPA to provide notice and comment on the deadline extension because EPA would not be able to finalize the amendment before the GHG reports for reporting year 2024 are currently due. Additionally, it would be contrary to the public interest to provide notice and comment on the deadline extension because it would likely result in submission of incomplete or inaccurate GHG reports for reporting year 2024 by the existing deadline. Regulated entities still have the option to prepare and submit reports sooner if they prefer that course of action. EPA notes that these revisions do not make any changes to the substance of what regulated entities must report to EPA.

The regulatory revisions made in this action will take effect immediately on March 20, 2025. Under APA section 553(d)(1), a final rule may be made effective on publication when it “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This action extends the reporting deadline for regulated entities by 60 days so that facilities have sufficient time to enter data into the e-GGRT system. Absent this action, regulated entities would have insufficient time to prepare and submit annual reports in the e-GGRT system, and this action relieves that restriction. Therefore, the normal 30-day minimum period between this action's dates of publication and effectiveness is not required. Moreover, EPA finds good cause to make the rule immediately effective pursuant to APA section 553(d)(3) because the existing reporting deadline is less than 30 days from publication. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Unless this action is effective before the reporting deadline, the regulatory revisions will not accomplish the objective of ensuring complete and accurate reporting by extending the reporting deadline 60 days to May 30, 2025.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action alleviates regulatory burden as described in Executive Order 14192.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulation and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0629, OMB control number 2060-0748, and OMB control number 2060-0751. This action extends the deadline for submitting annual GHG reports for reporting year 2024 data from March 31, 2025, to May 30, 2025. This rule does not change the requirements for what regulated entities must report.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because EPA has found good cause to forego notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or Tribal governments. Requirements for the private sector do not exceed $100 million in any one year.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The rule does not result in any changes to the requirements of Part 98 other than extending the reporting deadline for submitting annual GHG reports for reporting year 2024 data until May 30, 2025. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), any petition for review of this final rule must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 19, 2025. This rulemaking revises the submission deadline for submitting annual GHG reports for reporting year 2024, which applies to owners and operators of facilities and suppliers for all source categories of 40 CFR part 98. These facilities and suppliers are located across the United States and therefore this rulemaking is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. Executive Summary A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider, among other things, “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0848, in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 19, 2025.

EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), where the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings. See “Revised Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing”, dated June 22, 2023, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/2023-06-22%20-%20revised%20order%20urging%20electronic%20filing%20and%20service.pdf. Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. When submitting documents to the OALJ electronically, a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_Upload.nsf/HomePage?ReadForm.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you wish to include CBI in your request, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

In the Federal Register of November 17, 2022 (87 FR 68959, FRL 9410-07-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11696) by Rosen's Inc., 700 SW 291 Hwy. Suite 204, Liberty, MO 64068. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of potassium polyaspartate (CASRN 64723-18-8) when used as an inert ingredient (complexing agent) at a maximum of 10% in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest under 40 CFR 180.920. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Rosen's Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients in the pesticide, that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for potassium polyaspartate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with potassium polyaspartate follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by potassium polyaspartate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

The toxicological database of potassium polyaspartate is also supported by data regarding the analog sodium polyaspartate. EPA has determined that since sodium polyaspartate is likely to mimic the effects of sodium polyaspartate due to similarities in the functional groups/structure, composition, metabolism, and physical/chemical properties, it is appropriate to bridge sodium polyaspartate data to assess potassium polyaspartate.

Potassium polyaspartate is anticipated to exhibit low levels of acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not likely to be a skin or eye irritant or a skin sensitizer. No adverse effects were reported in the 14-day and 90-day study in rats at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Although developmental/reproductive toxicity studies were not available, the 90-day study did not show any adverse effects on reproductive parameters and there were no structural alerts for developmental/reproductive toxicity when evaluated using modeling. The 90-day study also performed a neurotoxicity screening, and no signs of neurotoxicity were reported. No evidence of immunotoxicity was seen in the studies. Furthermore, concern for carcinogenicity is low, based on negative results in mutagenicity studies, and the lack of structural alerts for carcinogenicity.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program.

The hazard profile of potassium polyaspartate is adequately defined. Overall, potassium polyaspartate is of low acute, subchronic, and developmental toxicity. No systemic toxicity is observed up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. Since signs of toxicity were not observed, no toxicological endpoints of concern or PODs were identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk assessment for potassium polyaspartate can be performed.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to potassium polyaspartate, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from potassium polyaspartate in food as follows:

Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to potassium polyaspartate may occur following ingestion of foods with residues from their use in accordance with this exemption. However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). Potassium polyaspartate may be present in pesticide and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. However, a quantitative residential exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.

3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found potassium polyaspartate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and potassium polyaspartate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that potassium polyaspartate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

Based on an assessment of potassium polyaspartate EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold effects and low toxicity in available studies associated with potassium polyaspartate, EPA conducted a qualitative assessment. As part of that qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to potassium polyaspartate residues.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of potassium polyaspartate in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of potassium polyaspartate that may be used in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest. This limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use that exceeds 10% potassium polyaspartate in the final pesticide formulation.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of potassium polyaspartate (CASRN 64723-18-8) when used as an inert ingredient (complexing agent) at a maximum of 10% in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest under 40 CFR 180.920.

This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

This action is subject to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a rule report to each the House of Congress, and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action does meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

Dates

EPA is taking this action as a final rule without prior proposal and public comment because EPA finds that the good cause exemption from the notice and comment rulemaking requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., applies here. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons thereof in the rule issued) that notice and comment public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment.

EPA has determined that there is good cause for promulgating this final rule without prior proposal and opportunity for comment. Notice and comment procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as they would not allow for implementation of this action prior to removal of the 1-psi waiver on the existing April 28, 2025, deadline, which would severely constrain the availability of gasoline in Ohio and western South Dakota. As described in section III, a recent explosion at a refinery that supplies gasoline to western South Dakota and the absence of necessary infrastructure to distribute low-RVP gasoline in Ohio, along with Ohio's unique status of not bordering any of the other States that petitioned for removal of the 1-psi waiver, would lead to an insufficient supply of gasoline in these areas if the 1-psi waiver were to be removed on April 28, 2025. Without this final rule, refineries would be unable to supply gasoline to these areas that meets the regulatory requirements, resulting in an insufficient supply of gasoline to the areas. Therefore, EPA is promulgating this final rule without prior proposal and opportunity for comment in order to expeditiously change the requirements before refineries and distributors need to supply gasoline to these areas and so that there is sufficient supply of gasoline in these States for the summer of 2025.

Additionally, we are determining there is good cause to make this final rule immediately operational upon signature. When an agency grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. Here, the regulatory amendments to 40 CFR part 1090 relieve a restriction by extending the compliance deadline for the removal of the 1-psi waiver in Ohio and nine counties in South Dakota by one year ahead of the otherwise imminent deadline of April 28, 2025, thus providing refiners and distributors additional time to make the capital investments and physical changes to refineries and the fuel distribution system necessary to supply these areas with low-RVP gasoline and to ensure there is not an insufficient supply of gasoline in these areas. Because the rule revisions relieve a restriction and advance notice is not needed, this final rule is immediately operational upon signature.

Entities potentially affected by this final rule are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel. Potentially affected categories include:

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish in the Gulf includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel (Gulf king mackerel) apply as either round or gutted weight.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14172 to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. However, the Magnuson-Stevens Act contains several references to the Gulf of Mexico, including a provision at 16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(E) that establishes the “Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council” and specifies responsibilities vis-a-vis “fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico seaward of” specified States. In this action, NMFS is using terminology consistent with wording in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The commercial fishery for Gulf king mackerel is divided into western, northern, and southern zones. The southern zone for Gulf king mackerel encompasses an area of the Gulf EEZ off Collier and Monroe Counties in south Florida, south of a line extending due west from the boundary of Lee and Collier Counties on the Florida west coast, and south of a line extending due east from the boundary of Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties on the Florida east coast (50 CFR 622.369(a)(1)(iii)). For an illustration of the king mackerel zones, see Figure 1 in Appendix G to part 622 at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-VI/part-622/appendix-Appendix%20G%20to%20Part%20622.

The commercial ACL for Gulf king mackerel is divided into separate ACLs for hook-and-line and run-around gillnet gear. The use of run-around gillnets for king mackerel is restricted to the Gulf southern zone. For the 2024-2025 fishing year, the king mackerel commercial gillnet quota (equivalent to the commercial gillnet ACL) is 671,328 pounds (304,509 kilograms) (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(iii)(B)). The fishing year for the harvest of Gulf king mackerel in the southern zone is from July 1 through June 30 (50 CFR 622.7(b)(1)(i)).

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1) require NMFS to close any component of the king mackerel commercial sector when NMFS projects that commercial landings have reached or are projected to reach the applicable quota by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that for the 2024-2025 fishing year, landings have reached the commercial quota for Gulf king mackerel harvested by vessels using run-around gillnet gear in the southern zone. Accordingly, commercial fishing using such gear in the southern zone is closed at 12 p.m. local time on March 20, 2025. Vessel operators issued a Federal commercial permit to harvest Gulf king mackerel using run-around gillnet gear in the southern zone must have landed ashore and bartered, traded, or sold such king mackerel prior to 12 p.m. local time on March 20, 2025.

Persons on a vessel using hook-and-line gear in the southern zone for which a Federal commercial permit for Gulf king mackerel has been issued, except persons on such a vessel also issued a Federal commercial permit to harvest Gulf king mackerel using run-around gillnet gear, may fish for or retain Gulf king mackerel unless the southern zone commercial quota for hook-and-line gear has been met and the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector has been closed. In addition, as long as the recreational sector for Gulf king mackerel is open (50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)), a person on a vessel that has a valid Federal commercial gillnet permit for king mackerel may continue to retain king mackerel under the recreational bag and possession limits set forth in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2).

During the commercial closure, Gulf king mackerel harvested using run-around gillnet gear in the southern zone may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to Gulf king mackerel harvested using run-around gillnet gear in the southern zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor (50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedure is unnecessary because the regulations associated with the commercial quota and associated AM for Gulf king mackerel have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the closure to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource. The capacity of the commercial fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota, and any delay in the closure could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest that exceeds the commercial quota.

For the reasons just stated, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action.

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2) specify the 2025 recreational ACL for golden tilefish of 2,694 fish, and the recreational AM. The recreational AM states that NMFS will project the length of the recreational fishing season for golden tilefish based on catch rates from the previous fishing year and announce the end date of the recreational season [50 CFR 622.193(a)(2)]. The fishing year and season for recreational harvest of golden tilefish started on January 1, 2025. Data from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center informed NMFS' projection that recreational landings will reach the recreational ACL for 2025 by March 21. Therefore, NMFS announces that the last day of the recreational season for golden tilefish is March 20, 2025. The recreational season and harvest of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ is closed starting on March 21, 2025, and continues to be closed through the end of the calendar year. During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for golden tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. The next recreational fishing year and season for golden tilefish begins on January 1, 2026.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule that established the recreational ACL and AM for golden tilefish has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the end date of the recreational season. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the golden tilefish stock. The recreational ACL will soon be reached and prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require additional time, potentially resulting in a harvest well in excess of the established ACL.

For the reasons just stated, there is also good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season allowance of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,390 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024) and the inseason adjustment (89 FR 103698, December 19, 2024).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,190 mt and is setting aside the remaining 200 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 17, 2025.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season allowance of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,856 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024) and inseason adjustment (89 FR 103698, December 19, 2024).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,856 mt and is setting aside the remaining 0 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 17, 2025.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

The A season allowance of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 837 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024) and the inseason adjustment (89 FR 103698, December 19, 2024).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 637 mt and is setting aside the remaining 200 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using HAL gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 17, 2025.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season apportionment of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI is 966 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) and inseason adjustment (89 FR 105478, December 27, 2024).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A season apportionment of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by pot catcher/processors in the BSAI.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 17, 2025.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.