This final rule is issued pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14284, “Strengthening Probationary Periods in the Federal Service” (90 FR 17729, April 29, 2025), which requires the Director of OPM to prepare and publish a rule rescinding subpart H of part 315 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and make conforming amendments. This action is taken under the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and sections 3301, 3302, and 3321 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), and delegated to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management by section 4(b) of E.O. 14284.

The E.O. underscores the expectation of a high-performing Federal workforce and affirms the principle that continued employment in the Federal service must advance the interests of the Federal Government and the American people. It creates a requirement that agency approval is needed before probationary employees become tenured instead of by default upon the expiration of probationary periods. The E.O. also removes inappropriate regulatory barriers that inhibit agencies from fully utilizing probationary periods. In doing so, the E.O. fulfills Congress's intention in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 that probationary periods be used as “an extension of the examining process to determine an employee's ability to actually perform the duties of the position.” S. Rep. 95-969, at 45 (1978), 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723, 2767. In passing the CSRA, Congress believed “[i]t is inappropriate to restrict an agency's authority to separate an employee who does not perform acceptably during this period,” id., and thus the E.O. removes such restrictions.

The E.O. establishes rules and policies for managing probationary periods in the competitive service and trial periods in the excepted services and supersedes the existing regulations in subpart H that limited agency discretion in evaluating employees. In doing so, it draws on the President's longstanding authority to create new Civil Service Rules governing probationary periods in the Federal service. See 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302, 3321. To that end, the E.O. repealed Civil Service Rule 2.4 on probationary periods, nullified the current provisions governing probationary periods in the competitive service, and established Civil Service Rule 11 to strengthen the use of probationary periods. In addition, Civil Service Rule 11 establishes a trial period for employees in the excepted service, requires employees to demonstrate their continued employment is in the public interest, requires agencies to certify continued employment meets the needs of the agency and advances the efficiency of Federal service, and allows OPM to establish an appeals process for probationary and trial period terminations under certain circumstances. In addition, it retains some of the current regulatory provisions governing the circumstances under which probationary or trial periods are required and crediting service toward the completion of a probationary or trial period.

This final rule removes the probationary period regulations in subpart H of part 315 of title 5 from the CFR and makes conforming edits to parts 301, 307, 315, 316, 351, and 720, which include references to provisions associated with probationary periods prescribed under subpart H ( i.e., §§ 315.801-315.806). These references have been removed and replaced with references to the Civil Service Rule 11, as applicable.

The E.O. “supersede[d] subpart H” and “rendered [it] inoperative and without effect.” With this action, OPM is removing the now inoperable text of subpart H from the CFR and making conforming edits. With these actions, the removal of subpart H of part 315 from the CFR eliminates the obstacles to terminating probationary employees and makes the Federal workforce more efficient and effective. The President has determined the prior regulations placed undue burdens on agencies in terminating probationary employees the Government does not need and deterred managers from undertaking that effort. Although OPM anticipates that there will be administrative costs associated with administering agency approvals of probationary employees, OPM anticipates the savings to the Government based on the efficiencies created by the new requirements for removing poor performers will outweigh any costs associated with transitioning to the new requirements of Civil Service Rule 11.

Agencies should be tracking employees' probationary periods and advising supervisors of their status; however, OPM recognizes that agencies will need to make some adjustments in response to the E.O. and these conforming changes. OPM estimates that this rulemaking will require individuals employed by approximately 90 federal agencies to modify their regulations, policies, and procedures to implement this rulemaking and train human resources (HR) practitioners and supervisors. For the purpose of this cost analysis, the assumed average salary rate of Federal employees performing this work will be the rate in 2025 for GS-14, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate). We assume that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $154.76 per hour.

To comply with the regulatory changes, affected agencies would need to review the final rule and update their regulations, policies, and procedures. We estimate that, in the first year following publication of the final rule, doing so will require an average of 40 hours of work by employees with an average hourly cost of $154.76. This work would result in estimated costs in that first year of implementation of about $6,190.40 per agency, and about $560,000 Governmentwide.

To retain a probationer as an employee, an agency must certify that finalizing the appointment advances the public interest. For probationers who will not be retained, the agency must provide written notice of the effective date of the termination action. Most agencies already have systems in place to advise supervisors as a probationary period is nearing its end, and supervisors provide information regarding whether the probationer is meeting expectations. Although the details of the review are changing and the resulting default action is reversed, OPM does not expect the new requirements to be meaningfully more burdensome than current processes. Similarly, supervisors should be conducting mid-term and final reviews for each of their probationary employees. Therefore, although a review is necessary for the agency to certify that finalizing the appointment advances the public interest, there should not be any new burden associated with conducting the review and making the determination.

Some agencies may choose to make changes to HR systems to facilitate compliance with the amended regulations through automation. These systems are specific to agencies, and OPM does not have information regarding potential costs to automate requirements from the E.O. and the revised regulations. While these costs may vary, OPM anticipates that the overall cost savings associated with the streamlined procedures for terminating probationary employees who have been determined not to be an asset to the Government and the long-term savings of retaining only the most productive and needed employees will exceed the costs of implementing new systems.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), OPM finds that there is good cause to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. In E.O. 14284, the President directed OPM to rescind subpart H of part 315 within 30 days. In the meantime, the E.O. has rendered subpart H inoperative and without effect. In addition, the E.O. removed Civil Service Rule 2.4, the key authority underlying subpart H. The E.O. also set forth the new Civil Service Rule 11, immediately implementing new requirements and policies for strengthening probationary and trial periods. This final rule merely effectuates the rules and policy established by the E.O., which is based on specific Presidential direction under his statutory and constitutional authority for the civil service. OPM lacks any discretion in this rulemaking action. Therefore, notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary.

Similarly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), OPM finds that there is good cause to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication. This rule merely effectuates the rules and policies established by the E.O. based on specific Presidential direction under his statutory and constitutional authority for the civil service. Removing the now inoperative regulations may reduce the confusion about the rules currently governing probationary and trial periods in the competitive and excepted services. Further, a delayed effective date serves no practical purpose here since the E.O. is effective immediately and agencies must not give force or effect to the provisions of the current regulations.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by E.O.s 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulations are necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold. This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory costs.

The Acting Director of OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to Federal agencies and employees.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Acting Director of OPM certifies that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

This rule does not affect any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR parts 301, 307, 315, 316, 351 and 720 as follows:

The NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed by two laws: (1) the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701); and (2) the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) (42 U.S.C. 2215). The IOAA authorizes and encourages Federal agencies to recover, to the fullest extent possible, costs attributable to services provided to identifiable recipients. Under NEIMA, the NRC must recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget, less the budget authority for excluded activities. Under section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA, “excluded activities” include any fee-relief activity as identified by the Commission, generic homeland security activities, waste incidental to reprocessing activities, Nuclear Waste Fund activities, advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, Inspector General (IG) services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, research and development at universities in areas relevant to the NRC's mission, and a nuclear science and engineering grant program. In fiscal year (FY) 2025, the fee-relief activities identified by the Commission are consistent with prior fee rules (see table I, “Excluded Activities,” of this document for the list of all excluded activities).

Under NEIMA, the NRC must use its IOAA authority first to collect service fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable recipients (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects). The NRC's regulations in part 170 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended,” explain how the agency collects service fees from specific beneficiaries. Because the NRC's fee recovery under the IOAA (10 CFR part 170) will not equal 100 percent of the agency's total budget authority for the FY (less the budget authority for excluded activities), the NRC also assesses “annual fees” under 10 CFR part 171, “Annual Fees for Reactor Licenses and Fuel Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses, Including Holders of Certificates of Compliance, Registrations, and Quality Assurance Program Approvals and Government Agencies Licensed by the NRC,” to recover the remaining amount necessary to comply with NEIMA.

Additionally, on July 9, 2024, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act) was signed into law, and, among other things, it amended fee-related provisions in NEIMA. Specifically, the ADVANCE Act includes three fee-related provisions and provides an effective date of October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), for each of these provisions: (1) section 101, “International Nuclear Export and Innovation Activities,” establishes a new excluded activity for “[c]osts for international nuclear export and innovation activities described in section 101(a)” of the ADVANCE Act; (2) section 201, “Fees for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Application Review,” requires a reduced hourly rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicants for certain activities (Reduced Hourly Rate) and creates new excluded activities associated with the Reduced Hourly Rate; and (3) section 204, “Enabling Preparations for the Demonstration of Advanced Nuclear Reactors on Department of Energy Sites or Critical National Security Infrastructure Sites,” establishes two more excluded activities for costs for application reviews and pre-application activities for an early site permit to demonstrate an advanced nuclear reactor on a Department of Energy or “critical national security infrastructure” site.

This final rule includes revisions to 10 CFR part 170 to implement section 201 of the ADVANCE Act in preparation for October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), which is the statutory effective date for the Reduced Hourly Rate. In short, the NRC is establishing two hourly rates: (1) the professional hourly rate; and (2) the Reduced Hourly Rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants. The professional hourly rate will be effective August 25, 2025, coincident with the effective date for this rule, and the Reduced Hourly Rate will take effect separately on October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), consistent with the statutory effective date. The professional hourly rate is the typical full-cost professional hourly rate calculated using the NRC's established process, as described in Section II, “FY 2025 Fee Collection—Professional Hourly Rate” of this document. The revisions to 10 CFR part 170 to implement the Reduced Hourly Rate, as well as related changes to the rule upon consideration of public comments on the proposed rule, are further described in Section II, Discussion, “FY 2025—Policy Changes,” and in Section IV, Public Comments and NRC Responses of this document.

Because sections 101 and 204 of the ADVANCE Act completely remove certain activities from the fee recovery requirement as new excluded activities effective October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), these provisions do not present an implementation issue that would benefit from rule changes being developed in advance of the statutory effective date. As a result, the NRC plans to propose rule changes to implement sections 101 and 204 of the ADVANCE Act as part of the FY 2026 fee rule, consistent with the FY 2026 statutory effective date.

The NRC is issuing this FY 2025 final fee rule based on its enacted budget in Public Law 119-4, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (the Full-Year Continuing Resolution). The final fee rule reflects a total budget authority in the amount of $944.1 million, which did not change from FY 2024.

As explained previously, certain portions of the NRC's total budget authority are excluded from the fee recovery requirement under section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA. Based on the enacted budget, these exclusions total $137.1 million; this total amount for excluded activities did not change from FY 2024. These excluded activities consist of $96.8 million for fee-relief activities, $23.8 million for advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, $14.0 million for generic homeland security activities, $1.0 million for waste incidental to reprocessing activities, and $1.5 million for IG services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Table I of this document summarizes the excluded activities for the FY 2025 final fee rule. The FY 2024 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

After accounting for the exclusions from the fee recovery requirement and net billing adjustments ( i.e., for FY 2025 invoices that the NRC estimates will not be paid during the FY, less payments received in FY 2025 for prior-year invoices), the NRC must recover approximately $808.8 million in fees in FY 2025. 1 Of this amount, the NRC estimates that $205.4 million will be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 service fees and approximately $603.4 million will be recovered through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Table II of this document summarizes the fee recovery amounts for the FY 2025 final fee rule using the FY 2025 enacted budget and takes into account the budget authority for excluded activities and net billing adjustments; the FY 2024 amounts are provided for comparison purposes. For all information presented in this final rule, individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding. Please see the work papers, available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document, for more precise amounts.

In FY 2025, because the Full-Year Continuing Resolution appropriates FY 2025 funds at the FY 2024 enacted levels, does not contain provisions regarding the NRC's prior-year funds, and was not accompanied by an explanatory statement, the Full-Year Continuing Resolution does not provide direction for the NRC to use a specific amount of prior-year unobligated balances (carryover).

This section discusses the methodology for calculating the NRC's typical full-cost hourly rate. The methodology for calculating the Reduced Hourly Rate is discussed in Section II, Discussion, “FY 2025—Policy Change,” of this document.

The NRC uses a professional hourly rate to assess fees under 10 CFR part 170 for specific services it provides. The professional hourly rate also helps determine flat fees (which are used for the review of certain types of materials license applications). The full costs of fees under §§ 170.21, “Schedule of fees for production and utilization facilities, review of standard referenced design approvals, special projects, inspections and import and export licenses,” and 170.31, “Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services, including inspections, and import and export licenses,” will be determined based on either the professional hourly rate, effective on August 25, 2025, or the Reduced Hourly Rate, effective October 1, 2025 (FY 2026).

The NRC's professional hourly rate is derived by adding budgeted resources for: (1) mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and (3) agency support (corporate support and the IG). 2 The NRC then subtracts certain offsetting receipts and divides this total by the mission-direct full-time equivalent (FTE) converted to hours (the mission-direct FTE converted to hours is the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours). Consistent with OMB Circular A-25, “User Charges,” the professional hourly rate encompasses the “full cost” of NRC review and thus includes the NRC's budgetary resources for mission-direct program salaries and benefits, mission-indirect contract resources along with salaries and benefits plus the agency support program contract resources along with salaries and benefits. The only budgeted resources excluded from the professional hourly rate are those for mission-direct contract resources, which are generally billed to licensees separately. The following shows the professional hourly rate calculation:

For FY 2025, the NRC is increasing the professional hourly rate from $317 to $318. The approximately 0.3 percent increase in the professional hourly rate is primarily due to the change in mission-direct FTE compared to FY 2024. Based on the FY 2025 enacted budget, the number of mission-direct FTE is expected to decrease by approximately 17, primarily to support planned efficiencies in operating reactor license application reviews and the discontinuation of activities related to the Project Pele application. The professional hourly rate is inversely related to the mission-direct FTE amount; therefore, as the number of mission-direct FTE decreases, the professional hourly rate may increase.

The decrease in mission-direct FTE is partially offset by a reduction in the budgeted resources of approximately $1.2 million or 0.2 percent, along with the rise of seven hours in the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours or 0.5 percent.

The FY 2025 estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours is 1,507 hours, which is an increase from 1,500 hours in FY 2024. This estimate reflects the average number of hours that a mission-direct employee spends on mission-direct work annually. This estimate, therefore, excludes hours charged to annual leave, sick leave, holidays, training, and general administrative tasks. Table III of this document shows the professional hourly rate calculation methodology. The FY 2024 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

The NRC is amending the flat application fees it charges in its schedule of fees in § 170.31 to reflect the revised professional hourly rate of $318. The NRC charges these fees to applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services, as well as to holders of materials licenses. The NRC calculates these flat fees by multiplying the average professional staff hours needed to process the licensing actions by the professional hourly rate for FY 2025. As part of its calculations, the NRC analyzes the actual hours spent performing licensing actions and estimates the five-year average of professional staff hours that are needed to process licensing actions as part of its biennial review of fees. These actions are required by section 205(a) of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8)). The NRC performed this review for the FY 2025 fee rule and will perform this review again for the FY 2027 fee rule. The biennial review adjustment and the higher professional hourly rate of $318 is the primary reason for the increase in flat application fees (see the work papers).

To simplify billing, the NRC rounds these flat fees to a minimal degree. Specifically, the NRC rounds these flat fees (up or down) in such a way that ensures both convenience for its stakeholders and minimal effects due to rounding. Accordingly, fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10, fees between $1,000 and $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $100, and fees greater than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

The flat fees are applicable for certain materials licensing actions (see fee categories 1.C. through 1.D., 2.B. through 2.F., 3.A. through 3.S., 4.B. through 5.A., 6.A. through 9.D., 10.B., 15.A. through 15.L., 15.R., and 16 of § 170.31). Applications filed on or after the effective date of the FY 2025 final fee rule will be subject to the revised fees in the final rule.

Historically, flat fees were applicable to import and export licensing actions. However, in FY 2022, the Commission included the resources for import and export licensing actions within the “international activities” fee-relief activity. Under NEIMA, “excluded activities” include any fee-relief activity identified by the Commission as well as specific activities listed in the statute. Section 101 of the ADVANCE Act establishes an excluded activity for “[c]osts for international nuclear export and innovation activities described in section 101(a)” of the ADVANCE Act. The ADVANCE Act thus changed the treatment of this subset of international activities ( i.e., the “international nuclear export and innovation activities described in section 101(a)”) from being included within a fee-relief activity to being a separate excluded activity under NEIMA. Because both fee-relief activities identified by the Commission and the separate excluded activities identified in NEIMA are both excluded from the fee-recovery requirement, fees continue to not be assessed under 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 for import and export licensing actions.

The NRC is assessing a generic low-level waste (LLW) surcharge of $3.798 million. Disposal of LLW occurs at commercially-operated LLW disposal facilities that are licensed by either the NRC or an Agreement State. Four existing LLW disposal facilities in the United States accept various types of LLW. All these facilities are regulated by an Agreement State, rather than the NRC.

The NRC allocates this surcharge to its licensees based on data available in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Manifest Information Management System (MIMS). This database contains information on total LLW volumes disposed of by four generator classes: academic, industrial, medical, and utility. The ratio of waste volumes disposed of by these generator classes to total LLW volumes disposed over a period of time is used to estimate the portion of this surcharge that will be allocated to the operating power reactors, fuel facilities, and the materials users fee classes. The materials users fee class portion is adjusted to account for the large percentage of materials licensees that are licensed by the Agreement States rather than the NRC.

In March, DOE updated MIMS with 2025 data. Because of the update, the following changes occurred compared to the FY 2024 final fee rule: the LLW surcharge for the operating power reactors fee class increased from $3.204 million to $3.251 million; the LLW surcharge decreased from $0.449 million to $0.433 million for the fuel facilities fee class; and the LLW surcharge decreased from $0.117 million to $0.114 million for the materials users fee class.

Table IV of this document shows the allocation of the LLW surcharge and its allocation across the various fee classes.

In accordance with SECY-05-0164, “Annual Fee Calculation Method,” the NRC rebaselines its annual fees every year. “Rebaselining” entails analyzing the budgeted resources in detail and then allocating budgeted resources to various classes or subclasses of licensees. Rebaselining also includes updating the number of NRC licensees in its fee calculation methodology.

As shown in table II above, the NRC calculates the total amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees by first taking the annual budget (less the budget authority for excluded activities) and subtracting the estimated amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees. The NRC then makes certain billing adjustments to arrive at the total adjusted amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 171 fees.

The NRC is revising its annual fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 2025 enacted budget less the budget authority for excluded activities, and the estimated amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees.

Table V of this document shows the rebaselined fees for FY 2025 for a sample of licensee categories. The FY 2024 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

The work papers that support this final rule show in detail how the NRC allocates the budgeted resources for each class of licensees and calculates the fees.

Paragraphs a. through h. of this section describes the budgeted resources allocated to each class of licensees and the calculations of the rebaselined fees. For more information about detailed fee calculations for each class, please consult the accompanying work papers for this final rule.

The NRC will collect $500.0 million in annual fees from the operating power reactors fee class in FY 2025, as shown in table VI of this document. The FY 2024 operating power reactors fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2024, the FY 2025 annual fee for the operating power reactors fee class is decreasing 0.3 percent primarily due to the following: (1) an anticipated increase in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings; and (2) a decrease in the allocated generic transportation surcharge. The decrease in the annual fee for the operating power reactors fee class is partially offset due to the following: (1) a 0.6 percent increase in the budgeted resources that are allocated to the fee class; and (2) an increase in the 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustment.

In comparison to FY 2024, the amount recovered in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings increased primarily due to the $17 rise in the effective professional hourly rate (because the effective professional hourly during FY 2024 was $300 per hour until the FY 2024 final fee rule increased it to $317). This increase in the amount recovered in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings is partially offset by a reduction in the estimated billable hours for (1) the completion of construction inspection at Vogtle Unit 4, (2) reduced baseline inspection hours within the approximately 3 percent year-to-year variance, and (3) fewer licensing actions for operating reactors under review.

The increase in the budgeted resources for the operating power reactors fee class is primarily due to the following: (1) an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2024 due to a reduction in mission-direct FTE;  4 (2) an increase in resources for pre-application activities for upcoming early site permit and construction permit applications; and (3) an increase in resources to support licensing work related to the Palisades, Duane Arnold, and Crane Clean Energy Center restart projects. Restart projects require an increase in resources because they involve regulatory, technical, and operational activities necessary to safely bring a reactor back online. These efforts include thorough licensing reviews, compliance evaluations, and ensuring the facility meets current safety and operational standards. Additionally, restart projects often require dedicated staff time for pre-application activities and site-specific assessments, adding to the overall resource demand. The increase in the budgeted resources is partially offset by a decrease in resources due to planned efficiencies in license renewal application reviews.

The annual fee is also affected by: (1) an increase in the 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustment due to the timing of invoices issued in FY 2024; and (2) an increase in the generic transportation surcharge due to an increase in the overall budgeted resources for certificates of compliance (CoCs) for the operating power reactors fee class.

The fee-recoverable budgeted resources are divided equally among the 94 licensed operating power reactors, resulting in an annual fee of $5,319,000 per operating power reactor. Additionally, each licensed operating power reactor will be assessed the FY 2025 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee of $326,000 (see table VII of this document and the discussion that follows). The combined FY 2025 annual fee for each operating power reactor will be $5,645,000.

Section 102(b)(3)(B)(i) of NEIMA established a cap for the annual fees charged to operating reactor licensees; under this provision, the annual fee for an operating reactor licensee, to the maximum extent practicable, shall not exceed the annual fee amount per operating reactor licensee established in the FY 2015 final fee rule (80 FR 37432; June 30, 2015), adjusted for inflation. The NRC included an estimate of the operating power reactors fee class annual fee in appendix C, “Estimated Operating Power Reactors Annual Fee,” of the FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) to increase transparency for stakeholders. The NRC developed this estimate based on the allocation of the FY 2025 CBJ to fee classes under 10 CFR part 170, and allocations within the operating power reactors fee class under 10 CFR part 171. The fee estimate included in the FY 2025 CBJ assumed 94 operating power reactors in FY 2025 and applied various data assumptions from the FY 2023 final fee rule. Based on these allocations and assumptions, the operating power reactors fee class annual fee included in the FY 2025 CBJ was estimated to be $5.5 million, approximately $0.9 million below the FY 2015 operating power reactors annual fee amount adjusted for inflation of $6.4 million. The assumptions made between budget formulation and the development of this final rule have changed. The FY 2025 annual fee of $5,319,000 per reactor licensee nonetheless remains below the FY 2015 operating power reactors fee class annual fee amount, as adjusted for inflation.

In FY 2016, the NRC amended § 171.15 to establish a variable annual fee structure for light-water reactor (LWR) small modular reactors (SMRs) (81 FR 32617; May 24, 2016). In FY 2023, the NRC further amended § 171.5 to: (1) expand the applicability of the SMR variable fee structure to include non-LWR SMRs; and (2) establish an additional minimum fee and variable rate applicable to SMRs with a licensed thermal power rating of less than or equal to 250 megawatts-thermal (MWt) (88 FR 39120; June 15, 2023). This revision to the SMR variable annual fee structure retained the bundled unit concept for SMRs and the approach for calculating fees for reactors, or bundled units, with licensed thermal power ratings greater than 250 MWt.

Currently, there are no operating SMRs; therefore, the NRC will not assess an annual fee in FY 2025 for this type of licensee.

The NRC will collect $40.4 million in annual fees from 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 52 power reactor licensees, and from 10 CFR part 72 licensees that do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license or a 10 CFR part 52 combined license, to recover the budgeted resources for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class in FY 2025, as shown in table VII of this document. The FY 2024 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2024, the FY 2025 annual fee for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class remains the same as FY 2024. While the budgeted resources allocated to the fee class increased slightly from $50.4 million to $50.7 million, this increase was offset by a decrease in the allocated generic transportation costs, resulting in the annual fee per facility remaining the same as FY 2024.

The budgeted resources increased primarily due to an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2024.

Compared to FY 2024, the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings also remained stable. In FY 2025, while there was an increase in licensing activities for storage license amendments and an increase in inspections at storage facilities due to loading campaigns, these increases were offset by the following: (1) the withdrawal of two license termination plan applications, including the associated environmental reviews; (2) a decrease in decommissioning inspection activities at multiple sites; and (3) a reduction in the number of licensing activities for storage license renewals. Overall, this resulted in the FY 2025 estimated part 170 billings for the fee class remaining the same as FY 2024.

The required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among 124 licensees, resulting in a FY 2025 annual fee of $326,000 per licensee.

The NRC will collect $24.1 million in annual fees from the fuel facilities fee class in FY 2025, as shown in table VIII of this document. The FY 2024 fuel facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2024, the FY 2025 annual fee for the fuel facilities fee class is decreasing primarily due to the following: (1) an increase in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings; and (2) a decrease in the allocated generic transportation costs. The drivers for the decrease in the annual fee are offset by an increase in the budgeted resources allocated to the fuel facilities fee class.

The budgeted resources allocated to the fee class increased primarily to support the following: (1) an increase in licensing actions for 10 CFR parts 40 and 70 licensees; (2) development of environmental review guidance; and (3) an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2024.

The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings are anticipated to increase in comparison to FY 2024 primarily due to the following: (1) review of several expected licensing actions, including four major amendment requests that support new fuels ( i.e., two amendments to increase enrichment limits at Framatome, one amendment to increase enrichment limits at Urenco USA, one amendment for the American Centrifuge Plant extending operation of the HALEU Demonstration); (2) the continued review of the TRISO-X, LLC, fuel fabrication facility application; (3) pre-application activities for three new fuel facility applications and one major amendment request; and (4) the NRC's review of the Purdue University license renewal application for possession and use of special nuclear material. This increase is partially offset by the completion of several licensing actions that were completed in FY 2025 and not billed for a full year: (1) the license termination for the Lead Cascade Facility; (2) the Urenco USA amendment to increase its enrichment limit to 10 weight percent uranium-235; and (3) the NRC's review of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST's) license renewal application for possession and use of special nuclear material.

The NRC will continue allocating annual fees to individual fuel facility licensees based on the effort/fee determination matrix developed in the FY 1999 final fee rule (64 FR 31448; June 10, 1999). To briefly recap, the matrix groups licensees within this fee class into various fee categories. The matrix lists processes that are conducted at licensed sites and assigns effort factors for the safety and safeguards activities associated with each process (these effort levels are reflected in table IX of this document). The annual fees are then distributed across the fee class based on the regulatory effort assigned by the matrix. The effort factors in the matrix represent regulatory effort that is not recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees ( e.g., rulemaking, guidance). Regulatory effort for activities that are subject to 10 CFR part 170 fees, such as the number of inspections, is not applicable to the effort factor.

In FY 2025, the total remaining amount of the annual fees that the NRC estimates to be recovered, $24.1 million, is attributable to safety activities, safeguards activities, and the LLW surcharge. For FY 2025, the total budgeted resources to be recovered as annual fees for safety activities are approximately $12.7 million. To calculate the annual fee, the NRC allocates this amount to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for safety activities. Similarly, the NRC allocates the budgeted resources that the NRC estimates to be recovered as annual fees for safeguards activities, $11.0 million, to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for safeguards activities. Finally, the fuel facilities fee class portion of the LLW surcharge—$0.4 million—is allocated to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for both safety and safeguards activities. The annual fee per licensee is then calculated by dividing the estimated total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category. The annual fee for each facility is summarized in table X of this document.

The NRC will collect $0.2 million in annual fees from the uranium recovery facilities fee class in FY 2025, as shown in table XI of this document. The FY 2024 uranium recovery facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2024, the FY 2025 annual fee for the non-DOE licensee in the uranium recovery facilities fee class is decreasing primarily due to a rise in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings attributed to support the NRC's review of license renewal applications for: (1) Crow Butte Resources, Inc; (2) Powertech USA, Inc.; and (3) CrownPoint. The annual fee for the non-DOE licensee in this fee class is calculated by applying 90 percent of generic/other uranium recovery budgeted resources less the amounts specifically budgeted for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Title I and Title II activities, which is reflected in table XII. For more information on this calculation, please see the work papers.

The NRC regulates DOE's Title I and Title II activities under UMTRCA. 5 The annual fee assessed to DOE includes the resources specifically budgeted for the NRC's UMTRCA Title I and Title II activities, as well as 10 percent of the remaining budgeted resources for this fee class. The NRC described the overall methodology for determining fees for UMTRCA in the FY 2002 final fee rule (67 FR 42612; June 24, 2002), and the NRC continues to use this methodology.

The DOE's UMTRCA annual fee is decreasing compared to FY 2024 primarily due to (1) a decrease in budgeted resources; and (2) an increase in the amount recovered in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings due to a rise in the effective professional hourly rate. The increase in the amount recovered in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings is partially offset by a reduction in the estimated billable hours for deferred workload at various DOE UMTRCA sites.

Further, for any non-DOE licensees, the NRC will continue using a matrix to determine the effort levels associated with conducting generic regulatory actions for the different licensees in the uranium recovery facilities fee class; this is similar to the NRC's approach for fuel facilities, described previously. The matrix methodology for uranium recovery licensees first identifies the licensee categories included within this fee class (excluding DOE). These categories are conventional uranium mills and heap leach facilities, uranium in situ recovery (ISR) and resin ISR facilities, and mill tailings disposal facilities. The matrix identifies the types of operating activities that support and benefit these licensees, along with each activity's relative weight (see the work papers). Currently, there is only one non-DOE licensee, which is a basic ISR facility. Table XIII of this document displays the benefit factors for the non-DOE licensee in that fee category.

Given that there is only one non-DOE licensee in the fee class, the application of the matrix does not result in any adjustment to the licensee's annual fee. As such, the FY 2025 annual fee for the remaining non-DOE licensee is $27,700 (rounded), as shown in table XIV of this document.

The NRC will collect $0.194 million in annual fees from the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class in FY 2025, as shown in table XV of this document. The FY 2024 non-power production or utilization facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2024, the FY 2025 annual fee for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class is decreasing, primarily due to a 75.5 percent decrease in budgeted resources allocated to the fee class.

Compared to FY 2024, the budgeted resources decreased primarily due to the following: (1) the completion of the review of the Kairos construction permit application for the Hermes 2, Units 1 and 2 test reactors ahead of schedule; and (2) the completion of the review of the Kairos construction permit for the Hermes test reactor, issued on December 12, 2023. The decrease in budgeted resources is partially offset by the rise in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2024 due to a decrease in mission-direct FTE.

The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings for this fee class decreased compared to FY 2024 primarily due to the following: (1) the shutdown of the GE Hitachi Vallecitos Nuclear Center in FY 2024; (2) the completion of the NRC's review effort associated with the NIST fuel damage event and restart; and (3) expected delays in pre-application audits of construction permit submissions.

The total required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally between the two non-power production or utilization facilities licensees subject to annual fees and results in an FY 2025 annual fee of $96,800 for each licensee.

In FY 2025, the NRC has allocated approximately $0.05 million in budgeted resources to this fee class; however, because all the budgeted resources will be recovered through service fees assessed under 10 CFR part 170, the NRC will not assess or collect annual fees in FY 2025 for this fee class.

The NRC will collect $46.7 million in annual fees from materials users licensed under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 in FY 2025, as shown in table XVI of this document. The FY 2024 materials users fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2024, there is an increase in the total budgeted resources allocated to the materials users fee class. This increase is primarily due to: (1) an increase in mission information technology for multiple systems; and (2) an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2024.

To equitably and fairly allocate total required annual fee recovery of $46.7 million among approximately 2,300 diverse licensees in the fee class, the NRC continues to calculate the annual fees for each fee category based on the 10 CFR part 170 application fees and estimated inspection costs for each fee category. Because the application fees and inspection costs are indicative of the complexity of the materials license, this approach provides a proxy for allocating the generic and other regulatory costs to the diverse fee categories. This fee-calculation method also considers the inspection frequency (priority), which is indicative of the safety risk and resulting regulatory costs associated with the categories of licenses.

The methodology for calculating 10 CFR part 171 annual fees for the various categories of materials users in this fee class includes using a formula that is described in detail in the work papers. This formula considers application fees, inspection costs, inspection priority (or frequency), and unique category costs.

At a high level, this formula includes three main components: (1) recovery of general costs, (2) recovery of inspection costs, and (3) unique category costs. The total required annual fee recovery of $46.7 million for FY 2025, as shown in table XVI of this document, consists of $37.0 million for general costs (including the allocated generic transportation costs), and $9.6 million for inspection costs; there are no unique category costs for any fee categories in FY 2025. As part of calculating the recovery for the general costs and inspection costs, respectively, the NRC derives two multipliers: the constant multiplier and the inspection multiplier. Additional information concerning this formula can be found in the work papers.

A constant multiplier is established to recover the total general costs for the fee class ($37.0 million in FY 2025). To derive the constant multiplier, the general cost amount is divided by the sum of all fee categories (application fee plus the average inspection cost divided by inspection priority) then multiplied by the number of licensees. The average inspection cost is the average inspection hours for each fee category multiplied by the FY 2025 professional hourly rate of $318. The inspection priority is the interval between routine inspections, expressed in years. This calculation results in a constant multiplier of 1.38 for FY 2025.

The inspection multiplier is established to recover inspection costs for the fee class ($9.6 million in FY 2025). To derive the inspection multiplier, the inspection costs for the fee class are divided by the sum of all fee categories (average inspection cost divided by inspection priority) then multiplied by the number of licensees. This calculation results in an inspection multiplier of 1.88 for FY 2025.

Additionally, the unique category costs would recover costs unique to a particular fee category in FY 2025. As stated above, there are no unique category costs for FY 2025.

The annual fee being assessed to each licensee also takes into account a share of approximately $0.1 million in LLW surcharge costs allocated to the materials users fee class (see table IV, “Allocation of LLW Surcharge, FY 2025,” of this document). The LLW surcharge costs for the fee class are not included in the above-described formula; rather, the surcharge amount for the fee class is divided by the number of licensees and then assessed to each licensee. See the work papers for the LLW surcharge amount per licensee.

Based on the above-described calculations, the FY 2025 annual fees are decreasing for 8 fee categories and increasing for the remaining 48 of the fee categories within the materials users fee class. The increases for these fee categories range from approximately 1 percent to 24 percent compared to FY 2024. The increase for the 48 fee categories is primarily due to the following: (1) a decrease in the number of materials users licensees within those fee categories; and (2) an increase in the average inspection cost for these fee categories. The increase in the average inspection cost is due to an increase in the inspection hours for these fee categories based on the NRC's biennial review of inspection hours. The annual fee for each fee category is shown in the revision to § 171.16(d).

The NRC will collect $2.0 million in annual fees to recover generic transportation budgeted resources in FY 2025, as shown in table XVII of this document. The FY 2024 fees are shown for comparison purposes.

In comparison to FY 2024, the FY 2025 annual fee for the transportation fee class is decreasing primarily due to a decrease in the budgeted resources and an increase in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings.

In FY 2025, the budgeted resources decreased due to the discontinuation of activities related to the Project Pele application. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in budgeted resources to support the rise in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2024.

Furthermore, the annual fee is also partially offset by an increase in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings primarily due to the following: (1) to support the NRC's review of new and amended transportation packages; and (2) to conduct inspection activities.

Consistent with the policy established in the NRC's FY 2006 final fee rule (71 FR 30722; May 30, 2006), the NRC recovers generic transportation costs unrelated to DOE by including those costs in the annual fees for licensee fee classes. The NRC continues to assess a separate annual fee under § 171.16, fee category 18.A., for DOE transportation activities. The amount of the allocated generic resources is calculated by multiplying the percentage of total CoCs used by each fee class (and DOE) by the total generic transportation resources to be recovered.

This resource distribution to the licensee fee classes and DOE is shown in table XVIII of this document. Note that for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class, the NRC allocates the distribution to only those licensees that are subject to annual fees. Although five CoCs benefit the entire non-power production or utilization facilities fee class, only two out of 29 operating non-power production or utilization facilities licensees are subject to annual fees. Consequently, the number of CoCs used to determine the proportion of generic transportation resources allocated to annual fees for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class has been adjusted to 0.3 so these licensees are charged a fair and equitable portion of the total fees (see the work papers).

The NRC assesses an annual fee to DOE based on the number of 10 CFR part 71 CoCs held by DOE. The NRC, therefore, does not allocate these DOE-related resources to other licensees' annual fees because these resources specifically support DOE.

The NRC is making one policy change—establishing a Reduced Hourly Rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants for certain activities as required by section 201 of the ADVANCE Act—for FY 2025. As explained in the following discussion, based on the NRC's consideration of public comments on the proposed rule and the clearly demonstrated legislative intent of the ADVANCE Act, this final rule includes changes that expand the eligibility for the Reduced Hourly Rate.

As described in Section I, “Background; Statutory Authority” of this document, section 201 of the ADVANCE Act requires the NRC to assess a Reduced Hourly Rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants for certain activities. This section discusses the who, what, and how for the NRC's implementation of section 201, including a discussion of changes to the rule upon consideration of public comments on the proposed rule. Specifically, the discussion is organized to answer the following questions: (1) who qualifies for the Reduced Hourly Rate; (2) what activities qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate; and (3) how is the Reduced Hourly Rate calculated. As described in the FY 2025 proposed fee rule, the NRC is implementing section 201 in the FY 2025 fee rule to avoid burdens associated with having to delay billing for activities eligible for the Reduced Hourly Rate. This approach allowed for public notice and comment before the October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), statutory effective date, and aided NRC efforts to provide greater regulatory certainty to external stakeholders.

Section 201 of the ADVANCE Act amends NEIMA to require the NRC to assess a Reduced Hourly Rate to advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants for certain activities. Section 201 of the ADVANCE Act amends NEIMA to add new definitions for the terms “advanced nuclear reactor applicant” and “advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant.” These definitions are limited to provisions in NEIMA and do not alter the meaning of similar terms as used in other statutes, such as the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), or regulations implementing statutes other than NEIMA. The definition added to NEIMA for an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant is “an entity that has submitted to the [NRC] a licensing project plan for the purposes of submitting a future application for a license for an advanced nuclear reactor under the [AEA]. 6 The definition added to NEIMA for an advanced nuclear reactor applicant is “an entity that has submitted to the [NRC] an application for a license for an advanced nuclear reactor under the [AEA].”  7 After the NRC grants or denies the application or if the application is withdrawn, the entity would no longer qualify as an advanced nuclear reactor applicant for that application.

The definitions added to NEIMA for both an advanced nuclear reactor applicant and an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant are not limited to commercial licenses under AEA section 103. The definitions added to NEIMA for both an advanced nuclear reactor applicant and an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant apply to any advanced nuclear reactor, as defined by NEIMA section 3(1), for which an “application for a license” is pursued. Neither NEIMA nor the ADVANCE Act includes a definition for the term “license.”

In the FY 2025 proposed fee rule, the NRC proposed defining an advanced nuclear reactor applicant as an entity that has submitted an application for an operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license for an advanced nuclear reactor as defined in NEIMA. Under the proposed rule, other types of advanced nuclear reactor applications ( e.g., for construction permits and design certifications) could still have been able to qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate as advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicants. As discussed in Section IV, Public Comments and NRC Responses, the NRC received a number of comments encouraging the NRC to expand the proposed definition of advanced nuclear reactor applicant to include applicants for construction permits, early site permits, design certifications, limited work authorizations, and standard design approvals.

Upon further consideration and in response to these comments, the NRC has revised the definition of “advanced nuclear reactor applicant” to include applications that may be used as part of a phased approach to licensing. Under the revised definition, “advanced nuclear reactor applicant” means an entity that has submitted to the Commission a “qualifying application.” “Qualifying application” is defined as an application that (1) is for an advanced nuclear reactor, as defined in section 3 of NEIMA; and (2) is for an operating license, combined license, manufacturing license, construction permit, early site permit, limited work authorization, design certification, or standard design approval. Conforming changes were also made to the definition of advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant.

The NRC has determined that this broader approach is more consistent with the purpose of the statute and clearly demonstrated legislative intent. In particular, this broader approach is supported by the legislative history associated with the ADVANCE Act. This legislative history associated with the Reduced Hourly Rate provisions clearly demonstrates a legislative intent for the phrase “application for a license,” for purposes of the Reduced Hourly Rate provisions added by the ADVANCE Act to NEIMA, to cover an application that may be submitted to obtain a license or used as part of a phased approach to licensing. For example, the Senate Report associated with the ADVANCE Act specifically references vendors, which can submit applications for design certifications and standard design approvals that may be used by any entity as part of a phased approach to licensing, in the discussion of the Reduced Hourly Rate provisions: “For some nuclear energy vendors, especially those seeking to license very small nuclear power systems, the current rate under NEIMA is burdensome.” S. Rep. No. 118-182, at 6 (2024). The House Report associated with the House's precursor bill to the ADVANCE Act also contains language demonstrating that the Reduced Hourly Rate provisions were intended to apply to fees charged for applications that may be used as part of a phased approach to licensing: “Reducing fees charged in the licensing process for advanced technologies will reduce barriers to entry without removing the financial incentive to produce quality applications.” H.R. Rep. No. 118-391, pt. 1, at 28 (2024).

Accordingly, consistent with the clearly demonstrated purpose behind the Reduced Hourly Rate provisions added by the ADVANCE Act to NEIMA, advanced nuclear reactor applicants for these provisions include entities that submit applications for licenses under the AEA ( i.e., operating licenses, combined licenses, manufacturing licenses, construction permits, and early site permits) as well as applications that may be used as part of a phased approach to licensing ( i.e., limited work authorizations, design certifications, and standard design approvals). As such, the revised definition of advanced nuclear reactor applicant in this final rule allows for a broader set of applications to qualify under the definition of advanced nuclear reactor applicant.

While the revised definition of “advanced nuclear reactor applicant” is broader than in the proposed rule, like in the proposed rule, the revised definition continues to maintain that a qualifying application must still be for an “advanced nuclear reactor,” as defined in section 3 of NEIMA. Consistent with the text of NEIMA, the NRC intends to broadly apply the term “advanced nuclear reactor” to a wide variety of technologies for the purposes of determining eligibility for the Reduced Hourly Rate.

Therefore, consistent with the definitions added by section 201 of the ADVANCE Act to NEIMA, the NRC is amending § 170.3, “Definitions,” to include definitions for the terms “advanced nuclear reactor applicant,” “advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant,” and “qualifying application.” Specifically, the NRC is defining the term “advanced nuclear reactor applicant” in § 170.3, “Definitions,” as an entity that has submitted to the Commission a “qualifying application,” as defined in 10 CFR part 170. The NRC is defining the term “advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant” in § 170.3, “Definitions,” as an entity that has submitted to the Commission a licensing project plan for the purposes of submitting a future “qualifying application,” as defined in 10 CFR part 170. Finally, the NRC is defining the term “qualifying application” in § 170.3, “Definitions,” as an application that (1) is for an advanced nuclear reactor as defined in section 3 of NEIMA (42 U.S.C. 2215 note); and (2) is for an operating license, combined license, manufacturing license, construction permit, early site permit, limited work authorization, design certification, or standard design approval.

Section 201 of the ADVANCE Act amends NEIMA to require the NRC to assess the Reduced Hourly Rate only for certain activities. For advanced nuclear reactor applicants, section 201 requires the NRC to apply the Reduced Hourly Rate for fees assessed “relating to the review of [the] submitted application.” For advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicants, section 201 requires the NRC to apply the Reduced Hourly Rate for fees assessed “relating to the review of submitted materials as described in the licensing project plan.” Therefore, to qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate, an activity must relate to the review of (1) an advanced nuclear reactor applicant's qualifying application; or (2) an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant's submitted materials as described in its licensing project plan. As explained in Section IV, Public Comments and NRC Responses, many advanced nuclear reactor stakeholders commonly use the term “regulatory engagement plan” in lieu of the term “licensing project plan.” For the purposes of determining eligibility for the Reduced Hourly Rate, the NRC understands the terms “licensing project plan” and “regulatory engagement plan” to be synonymous, as both can satisfy the definition of a licensing project plan under section 3 of NEIMA.

The following non-exhaustive list of examples illustrates the types of activities that may qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate. The following examples are simplified scenarios that assume each entity is pursuing only one licensing project before the NRC. The NRC acknowledges that an entity could also be in various stages of the licensing process for multiple projects, and as such, an entity could be an advanced nuclear reactor applicant for the purposes of one or more applications and an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant for other future applications.

Example 1: Entity A has submitted a qualifying application ( e.g., for a construction permit) for an advanced nuclear reactor as defined in NEIMA (Entity A's Qualifying Application). Entity A is thus an advanced nuclear reactor applicant for the purposes of determining eligibility for the Reduced Hourly Rate. If the NRC holds a public meeting to gather comments on the scope of the associated environmental review, fees assessed to Entity A for that public meeting would use the Reduced Hourly Rate because that public meeting relates to the review of Entity A's Qualifying Application.

Example 2: The same entity, Entity A, submits a topical report for NRC staff review to be incorporated in Entity A's Qualifying Application to address an underlying issue identified during NRC review of Entity A's Qualifying Application. Fees assessed to Entity A for the review of the topical report would be assessed at the Reduced Hourly Rate because the review of the topical report relates to the review of Entity A's Qualifying Application.

Example 3: The same entity, Entity A, submits a different topical report for NRC staff review that is unrelated to the review of Entity A's Qualifying Application. Fees assessed to Entity A for the review of the topical report would not be assessed at the Reduced Hourly Rate and would instead be assessed at the full-cost professional hourly rate. Although the review of the topical report could qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate if the entity also qualified as an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant, the examples assume each entity is pursuing only one licensing project before the NRC.

Example 4: Entity B has submitted a licensing project plan for the purpose of submitting a future qualifying application ( e.g., for an operating license) for an advanced nuclear reactor as defined in NEIMA. Entity B is thus an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant for the purposes of determining eligibility for the Reduced Hourly Rate. Entity B's licensing project plan includes sufficient information about a topical report that Entity B plans to submit for NRC staff review that it intends to reference in its future qualifying application. Entity B would be assessed fees at the Reduced Hourly Rate for the NRC staff's review of that topical report because it relates to the review of submitted material as described in Entity B's licensing project plan.

Example 5: The same entity, Entity B, submits a different topical report. However, Entity B's licensing project plan does not describe this topical report, nor does Entity B revise its licensing project plan to do so. Fees assessed to Entity B for the review of this topical report would not be assessed at the Reduced Hourly Rate and would instead be assessed at the full-cost professional hourly rate.

Consistent with the language added by section 201 of the ADVANCE Act to NEIMA, the NRC is including language in § 170.20, “Average cost per professional staff-hour,” to make clear what activities qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate. Consistent with the statutory effective date, the NRC is specifying in § 170.20(b)(2) that effective on October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), fees under § 170.21 relating to the review of the submitted application for the advanced nuclear reactor applicant will be calculated using the Reduced Hourly Rate. The NRC is specifying in § 170.20(c)(2) that effective on October 1, 2025 (FY 2026), fees under § 170.21 relating to the review of submitted materials as described in the licensing project plan for an advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant will be calculated using the Reduced Hourly Rate.

Section 201 of the ADVANCE Act amends NEIMA to specify that the Reduced Hourly Rate is the FTE rate for mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program, divided by the productive hours assumption, for that fiscal year. The methodology for calculating the Reduced Hourly Rate is similar to that of the professional hourly rate, discussed in Section II, Discussion, “FY 2025 Fee Collection—Professional Hourly Rate,” but with certain budgeted resources not included. Under section 201 of the ADVANCE Act, the Reduced Hourly Rate does not include mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program, mission-indirect program support for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program, and agency support.

The NRC's methodology for calculating the Reduced Hourly Rate in this final rule is the same as described in the proposed rule. Specifically, the NRC is calculating the Reduced Hourly Rate by taking the budgeted resources for the mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program, then dividing this total by the mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program converted to hours. This methodology follows section 201 of the ADVANCE Act because the FTE rate for mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program is derived by dividing the budgeted resources for the mission-direct program salaries and benefits for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program by the mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program. The mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program converted to hours is the product of the mission-direct FTE for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program multiplied by the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours. The productive hours assumption refers to the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours.

The following shows the Reduced Hourly Rate calculation:

Thus, the Reduced Hourly Rate is $148 per hour and represents an over 50 percent reduction from the full-cost professional hourly rate of $318 per hour. The following table shows the Reduced Hourly Rate calculation methodology.

The Coast Guard will enforce multiple safety zones for annual events in the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939, Table 1 to § 165.939 for events occurring in the month of July as listed in the Dates section. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the COTP Eastern Great Lakes via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of COTP Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR 165.931. This safety zone consists of all waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 41°53′23.3″ N, 087°36′04.5″ W; then south to 41°53′11.8″ N, 087°36′04.1″ W; then west to 41°53′12.1″ N, 087°35′40.5″ W; then north to 41°53′23.6″ N, 087°35′40.07″ W; then east back to the point of origin. This safety zone will be enforced during the following dates and times:

(1) From 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. each Saturday, from May 24, 2025, through August 30, 2025;

(2) From 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. each Wednesday, from May 28, 2025, through August 27, 2025; and

(3) From 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Sunday July 27, 2025.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan, or designated on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit this safety zone during the enforcement times listed in this notice of enforcement. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the COTP before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the COTP Lake Michigan or designated on-scene representative.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The COTP Lake Michigan may be reached by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan Command Center at (414) 747-7182. An on-scene designated representative may be reached via VHF-FM Channel 16.

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 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.”

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 the EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0503 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 August 25, 2025.

EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which 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 Filing and Service,” 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.

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 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 May 18, 2023 (96 FR 31667) (FRL-10579-04-OCSPP), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance exemption petition (PP 2F9022 by Valto BV, Leehove 81, 2678 MB De Lier Zuid-Holland, 2678-MB, Netherlands (c/o SciReg., Inc. 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192). The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the virucides Pepino mosaic virus, strain LP, isolate VX1 and Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate VC1 in or on all food commodities. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Valto BV and available in the docket via https://www.regulations.gov. EPA received a comment on the notice of filing. EPA's response to comment is discussed in Unit III.C.

EPA omitted the descriptor “virucides” from the tolerance exemption. The reasons for this change are explained in Unit III.D.

EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on Pepino mosaic virus, strain LP, isolate VX1 and Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate VC1 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Human Health Risk Assessment of Pepino mosaic virus strain LP isolate VX1 and Pepino mosaic virus strain CH2 isolate VC1, New Active Ingredients in (End-use Product) 100361-R V10 Proposed for Registration and an Associated Petition Requesting a Tolerance Exemption” (Pepino mosaic viruses human health risk assessment). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES .

The active ingredients are naturally occurring isolates of Pepino mosaic virus which have been found to colonize tomato plants without causing disease. These active ingredients are proposed for use in pesticide products to inoculate young tomato plants and elicit cross-protection from other potentially more virulent strains of Pepino mosaic virus. The active ingredients have no demonstrated infectivity to humans and low acute toxicity based on the results of the submitted data and information. In addition, Pepino mosaic viruses are unlikely to cause harm to humans given their host range and inability to grow and replicate within mammalian cells. Exposure to residues on food is expected to be negligible due to the limited use pattern and postharvest processing of food commodities. Drinking water exposure is expected to be negligible since exposure is limited to greenhouse application, and municipal drinking water processing should greatly reduce residues of the active ingredients. Other residential or non-occupational exposure is not expected due to the limited use pattern in greenhouses. EPA determined that no additional margin of safety is necessary to protect infants and children as part of the qualitative assessment conducted, as data and rationale demonstrated that these active ingredients are not toxic, pathogenic or infective.

Based upon its evaluation in the Pepino mosaic viruses human health risk assessment, which concludes that there are no risks of concern from aggregate exposure to Pepino mosaic virus, strain LP, isolate VX1 and Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate VC1, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Pepino mosaic virus, strain LP, isolate VX1 and Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate VC1.

An analytical method is not required for Pepino mosaic virus, strain LP, isolate VX1 and Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate VC1 because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

One anonymous public comment was received and expressed concern with a different active ingredient and was therefore not relevant to this action.

The Agency is omitting the descriptor, “virucides,” from the tolerance exemption to conform with standard nomenclature and reduce any possible future regulatory burden.

Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established for residues of Pepino mosaic virus, strain LP, isolate VX1 and Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate VC1 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

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 exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 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.

Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any information collection activities.

This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 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 the APA but is subject to FFDCA section 408(d), which does not require notice and comment rulemaking to take this action in response to a petition.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (See Unit IV.A.), and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

However, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. This rule finalizes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under the FFDCA, which requires 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 . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is documented in Unit III.A.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

The annual management measures for the 2024-2025 ocean salmon fisheries (89 FR 44553, May 21, 2024; 89 FR 53529, June 27, 2024) govern the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the United States/Canada border to the United States/Mexico border, effective from 0001 hours Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), May 16, 2024, until the effective date of the 2025-2026 management measures, as published in the Federal Register . These measures include early season fisheries in March through mid-May of 2025 that may be adjusted through inseason action when abundance forecasts for 2025 salmon returns become available. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons, catch limits, and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunities while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions).

Management of the salmon fisheries is divided into two geographic areas: north of Cape Falcon (NOF) (United States/Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (SOF) (Cape Falcon, OR, to the United States/Mexico border). The action described in this document affects the NOF commercial salmon fishery, as set out under the heading Inseason Action below.

Consultation with the Council Chairman and representatives for the appropriate State Directors on this inseason action occurred on April 22, 2025. This consultation included representatives from NMFS, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Representatives from the Salmon Advisory Subpanel and the Salmon Technical Team (STT) were also present.

This inseason action was announced on NMFS' telephone hotline and U.S. Coast Guard radio broadcast when the action became effective. (50 CFR 660.411(a)(2)).

Reason and authorization for the action: The 2024-2025 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (89 FR 44553, May 21, 2024; 89 FR 53529, June 27, 2024) established a May-June commercial salmon fishery that included NOF subarea quotas that were based on information available at the time the 2024 management measures were adopted. The 2024 management measures allow for inseason action to adjust fisheries scheduled to occur from March 15, 2024, through May 15, 2025 (or until the effective date of the 2025 management measures), in response to new information on 2025 salmon stock abundance forecasts and northern salmon fisheries impacts, to keep fisheries impacts within management objectives and consistent with conservation needs. The inseason action includes: (1) revisions to the quota for the NOF May-June fishery to provide additional fishing opportunity in light of higher forecasted stock abundances in 2025; (2) adjustments to decrease landing and possession limits to account for the higher abundance and quota in this area for 2025 versus 2024 and the uncertainty in catch rates with higher forecasts, to preserve the quota for the length of the season, and to manage the quota based on the specifics of each subarea; and, (3) a management measure that allows Washington permitted vessels that catch fish south of Leadbetter to land all species of fish north of Leadbetter Point. This change supports the economics of the Washington permitted fleet by allowing additional fish buyer and moorage port selection and improving the logistics of fishing the subarea and making deliveries. Each of these actions provides greater access to the salmon resource for fishermen, increased stability for the fishery, and increases safety at sea by allowing fishermen to assess weather conditions and land in the closest available port, which is particularly important given the higher landing limits described above and anticipated higher effort levels. In addition, 2024 management measures provide a weekly landing and possession limit based on the calendar week (Thursday—Wednesday). In addition, with the 2025 season starting on May 16, 2025, the fishery week starting on Thursday May 15, 2025 would be reduced to 1 day. This inseason action adjusts the landing and possession limits and expands the land and delivery area for this single day to bridge the gap in the landing week and account for higher abundance levels in 2025. These inseason measures were superseded by the annual management measures for 2025, which published on May 15, 2025.

The Regional Administrator (RA) considered the abundance forecasts for Chinook salmon stocks, the timing of the action relative to the length of the season, and catch levels in the fishery to date which have been higher than anticipated, and determined that the inseason action described above is necessary to meet management and conservation goals set preseason. This inseason action modifies quotas, catch limits and/or fishing seasons, and landing boundaries under 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i) and (v).

Description of the action: Inseason action #20 modifies the ocean salmon troll commercial fishery from the United States/Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR.

Effective dates: Inseason action #20 takes effect for the following areas and dates, and remains in effect until superseded.

• Effective May 1, 2025, the quota for the May-June North of Falcon commercial ocean salmon troll fishery that opens May 1, 2025 will be modified to 36,800 Chinook salmon, no more than 8,000 of which may be caught in the area between the U.S./Canada border the Queets River and no more than 6,000 of which may be caught in the area between Leadbetter Point and Cape Falcon, Oregon.

• Effective May 1, 2025, vessels fishing or in possession of salmon while fishing south of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver all species of fish within the area south of Leadbetter Point, except that Oregon permitted vessels may also land all species of fish in Garibaldi, Oregon, and Washington permitted vessels may also land all species of fish north of Leadbetter Point.

• Effective May 1, 2025, through May 14, 2025, the landing and possession limit for the area between Cape Falcon, Oregon and the U.S./Canada border will be modified to 250 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

• Effective May 1, 2025, through May 14, 2025, the landing and possession limit in the area between the U.S./Canada border and the Queets River will be modified to 70 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

• Effective May 1, 2025, through May 14, 2025, the landing and possession limit in the area between the Queets River and Leadbetter Point will be modified to 250 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

• Effective May 1, 2025, through May 14, 2025, the landing and possession limit in the area between Leadbetter Point and Cape Falcon, Oregon, is 60 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

• Effective May 15, 2025, no overall landing and possession limit in effect for the entire area between the U.S./Canada border and Cape Falcon, Oregon, and no subarea limit for the subarea between the Queets River and Leadbetter Point.

• Effective May 15, 2025, the landing and possession limit for the subarea between the U.S./Canada border and the Queets River to 100 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

• Effective May 15, 2025, the landing and possession limit in the subarea between Leadbetter Point and Cape Falcon to 80 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2024-2025 ocean salmon fisheries (89 FR 44553, May 21, 2024; 89 FR 53529, June 27, 2024; 89 FR 61355, July 31, 2024; 89 FR 104895, December 26, 2024; 90 FR 13840, March 27, 2025; 90 FR 16090, April 17, 2025) except as previously modified by inseason actions.

As provided by the inseason notice procedures at 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the time the actions became effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the MSA. This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the MSA, and are 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. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action was impracticable because NMFS had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook and coho salmon abundance, catch, and effort information were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best scientific information available. Delaying this action to allow for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would result in an unnecessary loss of fishing opportunity as this action responds to higher stock abundance forecasts than those on which the measures in place were based. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory action was provided to fishers through telephone hotlines and radio notifications. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (88 FR 30235, May 11, 2024), the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and regulations implementing the FMP under 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would constrain fishing in a manner that is inconsistent with the goals of the FMP, the MSA, and the current management measures.