In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2025, from the President to executive departments and agencies, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,”  1 this document temporarily delays the effective date of the rule titled, “Plant Records to Include Grade Label Butterfat Testing,” which was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2025 (90 FR 4585). The rule adopted amendments to the plant records requirement for the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Dairy Grading and Inspection Program. The amendments allow butterfat tests to be performed at an in-house or approved third party laboratory and add a requirement for plants to maintain and make such records available for examination by a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector. These amendments increase efficiency by conforming to current industry practice.

This action is exempt from notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 and is applicable immediately upon publication in the Federal Register , based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), respectively. Seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The temporary delay in effective date is necessary to give Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the President's memorandum of January 20, 2025. Given the imminence of the effective date, seeking prior public comment on this temporary delay would have been impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. The imminence of the effective date is also good cause for making this action effective immediately upon publication.

In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2025, from the President to executive departments and agencies, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,”  1 this document temporarily delays the effective date of the rule titled, “National Organic Program; Market Development for Mushrooms and Pet Food,” which was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2024 (89 FR 104367). The rule amended the USDA organic regulations to clarify standards for organic mushrooms and organic pet food. The topics addressed by the rule include mushroom substrate composition and sourcing of mushroom spawn in organic mushroom production; composting requirements for organic mushroom production; composition and labeling requirements for organic pet food; and the use of certain synthetic substances, including taurine, in organic pet food.

This action is exempt from notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 and is applicable immediately upon publication in the Federal Register , based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), respectively. Seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The temporary delay in effective date is necessary to give Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the President's memorandum of January 20, 2025. Given the imminence of the effective date, seeking prior public comment on this temporary delay would have been impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. The imminence of the effective date is also good cause for making this action effective immediately upon publication.

We are reopening the comment period for the final rule with request for comment that was published on November 27, 2024, (89 FR 93463-93470).

The comment period closed on January 27, 2025.

In the spirit of the Presidential Memorandum, titled Regulatory Freeze Pending Review, signed on January 20, 2025, we are providing an additional 30 days to allow the public to comment on this rule.

In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2025, from the President to executive departments and agencies, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,”  1 this document temporarily delays the effective date of the rule titled, “Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order; Clarifying Changes,” which was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 6779). The rule made multiple clarifying amendments to the Order to bring it up to date with current industry practices. These amendments included an added definition for partnership; clarification on the nomination process; clarification of language about in person and electronic voting for any Board meetings; an update of the timing of financial reporting; and revised requirements concerning when exemptions may be requested. The Board, which is composed of domestic manufacturers from across the country and importers, unanimously recommended the changes to the Order on August 19, 2023.

This action is exempt from notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 and is applicable immediately upon publication in the Federal Register , based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), respectively. Seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The temporary delay in effective date is necessary to give Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the President's memorandum of January 20, 2025. Given the imminence of the effective date, seeking prior public comment on this temporary delay would have been impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. The imminence of the effective date is also good cause for making this action effective immediately upon publication.

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-03-20, Amendment 39-19844 (85 FR 8717, February 18, 2020) (AD 2020-03-20). AD 2020-03-20 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11, MD-11F, and 717-200 airplanes; all Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes; all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes; certain Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes; certain Model 757 and 767 airplanes; and all Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2023 (88 FR 86073). The NPRM was prompted by reports from Boeing of simultaneous MMR resets related to an error in calculating UTC. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2020-03-20 and to require installing certain MMR OPS. The FAA is issuing this AD to address loss of GPS data and degraded GPS positional accuracy, which, during a high-precision approach with this GPS error, could result in controlled flight into terrain, and to address UTC calculation errors that could result in simultaneous MMR resets on multiple airplanes, increased air traffic control workload, and consequent reduction in airplane separation and potential for mid-air collision.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from ten commenters: American Airlines, Aviation Partners Boeing (APB), Boeing, Delta Air Lines (Delta), FedEx, Korean Air, Ryanair, SIA Engineering, United Parcel Service (UPS) Air, and an individual. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

American Airlines requested a revision to paragraph (c) of the proposed AD to clarify that only airplanes on which Collins GLU-2100 MMR having P/N 822-2532-100 and a software version earlier than COL4C-0087-0003 are installed are affected by the proposed requirements. American Airlines suggested revising the text of paragraph (c) of the proposed AD to specify only Collins GLU-2100 MMR part number and “34 MMR OPS” software versions that are earlier than the required software version.

The FAA agrees to clarify which airplane MMR and software configurations are affected by the requirements of this AD. The FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this AD to specify the Collins CLU-2100 MMR, having P/N 822-2532-100, with a software version earlier than COL4C-0087-0003.

FedEx requested revising paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of the proposed AD to add the phrase “having MMRs with OPS software shown in Figure 1 to Paragraph (g).” FedEx explained that without the proposed wording, the proposed applicability could lead to unnecessary work on airplanes that are already in compliance with the proposed requirements.

The FAA agrees to revise paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this AD to add clarity on affected airplanes. As stated previously, the FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this AD to specify that the applicability includes airplanes equipped with Collins GLU-2100 MMR, having P/N 822-2532-100, with a software version earlier than COL4C-0087-0003.

Korean Airlines requested a revision to the applicability of paragraphs (h) and (i) of the proposed AD to align it with the applicability of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Korean Airlines noted that paragraph (g) of AD 2020-03-20 was applicable to airplanes equipped with Collins GLU-2100 MMR having P/N 822-2532-100. Korean Airlines requested that the same applicability restriction be applied to paragraphs (h) and (i) of the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees with the request. Paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD are intended only for those airplanes equipped with a Collins GLU-2100 MMR having P/N 822-2532-100. Paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD have been revised to clarify airplane applicability.

Ryanair requested clarification on what configuration of Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes are affected by the proposed requirements of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Ryanair pointed out that paragraph (c)(4) of the proposed AD includes all of the Model 737-600, 700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes regardless of whether a Collins MMR was installed on those airplanes. Ryanair contrasted that with paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD, where paragraph (g) restricted the required actions to those airplane configurations equipped with the Collins GLU-2100 MMR, P/N 822-2532-100, with an applicable GLU-2100 OPS. Ryanair noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would require installation of the OPS P/N COL4C-0087-0003, on airplanes identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of the proposed AD, but paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD identified the Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes without specifying the Collins MMR configuration. Ryanair explained that OPS P/N COL4C-0087-0003 is applicable only to Collins MMRs.

The FAA agrees to revise the applicability for clarification. As stated previously, the FAA has revised paragraphs (c) and (h) of this AD to specify the affected Collins MMR hardware and software configuration. This change results in only that configuration being affected by the requirements of this AD.

SIA Engineering requested clarification on which Collins MMRs are affected by the proposed requirements of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. SIA Engineering stated that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would require installation of the MMR OPS P/N COL4C-0087-0003 or later-approved software version. SIA Engineering requested information on whether the requirements of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would apply only to Collins GLU-2100 MMR, P/N 822-2532-100, that are installed on the airplanes identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of the proposed AD, or if the requirements would apply to any other Collins MMR installed on those identified airplanes.

The FAA agrees to clarify. The requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD are intended to apply only to the Collins GLU-2100 MMR having P/N 822-2532-100 installed on the identified airplanes. As stated previously, the FAA has revised paragraphs (c) and (h) of this AD to specify the affected Collins MMR hardware and software configuration.

UPS Airlines requested that airplanes that were delivered with the Collins GLU-2100 MMU having OPS P/N COL4C-0087-0003 installed, or modified with the same MMU and OPS software via STC ST01943WI, be excluded from the applicability of the proposed AD. UPS Airlines also stated that if the request for exclusion cannot be granted, the FAA provide credit instead and also provide credit for the requirements of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD for airplanes if the AFM revision was previously removed as authorized via an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to AD 2020-03-20.

The FAA partially agrees with the request. The intent of this AD is to require the software update. The FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this AD to restrict the applicability to airplanes with the affected Collins MMR software configuration. This change results in having only airplanes with that configuration being affected by the requirements of this AD. Paragraph (k) of this AD provides for terminating the AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD after the software installation specified in paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD. Paragraph (f) of this AD provides relief for required actions that are accomplished before the effective date of this AD. In addition, Paragraph (m)(4) has been added to this AD to specify that AMOCs approved for AD 2020-03-20 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

American Airlines requested a revision to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions in paragraph (h) or (i) of the proposed AD would mean the AFM revision requirement specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD would not be required.

The FAA disagrees. The FAA considers paragraphs (f) and (k) of this AD to be equivalents to the requested change. Paragraph (f) of this AD provides relief for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD, and paragraph (k) of this AD specifies that the AFM revision may be removed. The AD has not been revised in this regard.

American Airlines requested a revision to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to add a phrase that describes the software version specified by the requirements bulletins. American Airlines stated that this would clarify that the required software for compliance with the proposed AD is installed by the steps specified in the requirement bulletins.

The FAA disagrees with revising the AD as suggested by American Airlines. This information is described in the Material Incorporated by Reference under 1 CFR part 51 section of both the proposed AD and this AD; that material is required by paragraph (i) of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE, ST01218SE, or ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that STCs ST00830SE, ST01218SE, and ST01920SE do not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE, ST01218SE, or ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Delta requested clarification on what methods would be approved by the Manager, AIR-520, FAA, to meet the requirements for installation and check of MMR OPS P/N COL4C-0087-0003 as proposed in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Delta requested that the installation and check procedures identified in STCs ST04436AT and ST04416AT be identified as approved methods. Delta suggested adding “in accordance with applicable STCs” in the second sentence of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD.

The FAA disagrees with the request to revise paragraph (h) of this AD to add the phrase “in accordance with applicable STCs.” The FAA would need to evaluate individual STCs to consider an STC to be an acceptable means of compliance that contains the necessary installation and check procedures. Operators may use the AMOC procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD to submit, for example, STC ST04436AT or ST04416AT as a proposed AMOC. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Delta requested clarification on whether all of the airplanes identified in paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD would be required to do the actions proposed in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Delta pointed out that, unlike paragraphs (h)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6) of the proposed AD, paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD does not identify Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes as being modified by an STC, specifically, STC ST04436AT. Delta also stated that it seems Model 737-900ER series airplanes have been omitted from paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD.

The FAA provides the following clarification of the airplanes affected by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Because there are Model 737-600, -700, -700C, 800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes that had the Rockwell Collins GLU-2100 installed by STC and Model 737-900ER series airplanes identified by Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-34A3572 RB, paragraphs (h)(3) and (i)(2) are intended to be applicable to these aircraft, respectively. Paragraph (h) of this AD requires the software to be installed in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA. Paragraph (h)(3) of this AD has been revised to include Model 737-900ER series airplanes that have been modified by STC ST04436AT. Operators may request an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

Delta requested clarification on the Model 737-8 and -9 series airplanes identified in paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD. Delta sought clarity on whether the proposed actions in paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD are applicable to Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-34A3572 only or applicable to any Model 737-8 or -9 series airplane that is equipped with a GLU-2100 MMR.

The FAA provides the following clarification. As indicated in the introductory text to paragraph (i) of this AD, paragraph (i)(1) of this AD is limited to Model 737-8 and -9 series airplanes equipped with a Collins GLU-2100 MMR, part number (P/N) 822-2532-100, having any applicable GLU-2100 operational software (OPS). No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Delta requested clarification on the Model 737-900ER series airplanes identified in paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD. Delta sought clarity on whether the proposed actions in paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD are applicable to Model 737-900ER series airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-34A3573 only or applicable to any Model 737-900ER series airplane that is equipped with a GLU-2100 MMR. Delta stated that it is concerned that the paragraph, as written, would only apply to a subset of 737-900ER series airplanes that are identified in the Boeing requirements bulletin and not to airplanes that would be modified by STC ST04436AT and subsequently have a GLU-2100 MMR installed.

The FAA provides the following clarification. Paragraph (i)(2) of this AD applies to those Model 737-900ER series airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-34A3572 RB. No change to this AD in this regard.

Delta requested clarification on how to show compliance with the proposed requirements in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Delta stated a concern for airplanes modified to be equipped with the approved part number (MMR OPS P/N COL4C-0087-0003 or later version) but were modified before the effective date of the AD. Delta requested revising the proposed AD to allow a review of airplane maintenance records.

The FAA provides the following clarification. Airplanes equipped with the approved part number (MMR OPS P/N COL4C-0087-0003 or later version) are in compliance with this AD. Paragraph (f) of this AD provides relief for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Boeing requested that Model 767-2C series airplanes be removed from the applicability and other paragraphs of the proposed AD such as in the Summary and Background of the NPRM, and figure 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Boeing explained that the GLU-2100 MMR had not been certified for installation or use on Model 767-2C series airplanes.

The FAA agrees to remove reference to Model 767-2C series airplanes from paragraph (c)(7) of this AD and figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. The FAA has revised paragraph (c)(7), figure 1 to paragraph (g), and paragraph (h)(6) of this AD.

UPS Airlines requested a clarification on the software requirements in the third sentence of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. UPS Airlines noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD referred to “Boeing software versions” when defining later-approved software versions. UPS Airlines asked if the FAA means MMR OPS software versions intended for Boeing airplane models or if the FAA means Boeing-approved software versions. UPS Airlines noted that operators who used the STCs are using OPS software under a Collins STC, not a Boeing STC. UPS Airlines suggested that the FAA either remove the reference to Boeing or change the reference to Boeing/Collins.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The proposed requirements would have meant only Boeing-approved software versions. The FAA has revised paragraph (h) of this AD to include Collins-approved software versions.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed the following Boeing requirements bulletins:

• Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-34A3572 RB, dated October 15, 2020.

• Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-34A3573 RB, dated August 5, 2020.

• Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-34A0385 RB, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2021.

This material specifies procedures for installation of MMR OPS part number (P/N) COL4C-0087-0003 (or later-approved software P/N) in MMR 1 and MMR 2, installation of MMR option selection software (OSS) P/N BCG27-U000-0730 or BCG48-U000-05W9, and software configuration checks. This material also specifies taking concurrent actions, including replacement of MMRs, replacement of GPS antennas, and installation of additional software.

These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models and configurations. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 409 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-25-07, Amendment 39-22263 (87 FR 77493, December 19, 2022) (AD 2022-25-07). AD 2022-25-07 applied to all Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, -200 STD, and -200 LL airplanes. AD 2022-25-07 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2022-25-07 to address fatigue cracking of various principal structural elements (PSEs); such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. AD 2022-25-07 addressed safety significant latent failures; such failures, in combination with one or more other specified failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems. Furthermore, AD 2022-25-07 addressed the potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions; such failures, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2024 (89 FR 58295). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-12-01, effective December 15, 2023, issued by ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil (ANAC AD 2023-12-01) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed for Part 1—Certification Maintenance Requirements, Part 2—Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)—Structures, Part 3—Fuel System Limitation Items, and Part 4—Life Limited Items of the EMBRAER 170/175 maintenance review board report (MRBR). The MCAI also stated that only airplanes with certain serial numbers are affected.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the airworthiness limitations specified in paragraphs (g) and (i) of AD 2022-25-07 until incorporation of the new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations and structural modifications, as specified in ANAC AD 2023-12-01 and required by paragraph (l) of this AD. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of various principal structural elements (PSEs); such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This AD also addresses safety significant latent failures; such failures, in combination with one or more other specified failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems. Furthermore, this AD addresses potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions; such failures, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1887.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Horizon Air. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Horizon Air requested that the FAA update the revision for Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations of EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), MRB-1621, Revision 14, dated September 27, 2018, to Revision 19, dated July 14, 2023, referenced in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) and (ii) of this AD. Horizon Air asserted that Revision 19 is required to be incorporated by the MCAI referenced in paragraph (l) of this AD.

FAA does not agree with the request. Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations of EMBRAER 170/175 MRBR, MRB-1621, Revision 19, dated July 14, 2023, is not explicitly referenced in this AD, since this AD directs operators to comply with the MCAI, which is incorporated by reference in this AD. Therefore, Revision 19 of that MRB is not incorporated by reference. The only MRBR document explicitly referenced in the AD requirements is Revision 14, as specified in the retained requirements in paragraph (g) of this AD. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

Horizon stated that since the issuance of the MCAI, which requires Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations of EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), MRB-1621, Revision 19, dated July 14, 2023, ANAC has issued two TRs, TR 19-1, dated October 31, 2023, and TR 19-2, dated March 21, 2024. Horizon requested that the FAA clarify whether paragraph (m)(2) of the proposed AD allows incorporating approved temporary revisions (TRs) of MRB-1621 subsequent to Revision 19, dated July 14, 2023. If TR 19-1 and 19-2 are not specifically allowed, Horizon requested that the proposed AD be revised to allow use of TR 19-1 and 19-2 and further revisions allowed by ANAC.

Paragraph (m)(2) of this AD allows the use of alternative inspections and intervals published in later ANAC-approved revisions. The operators are allowed to incorporate Revision 19 of the MRB as modified by TR 19-1 and TR 19-2. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

Horizon requested that the FAA terminate the exceptions paragraphs related to retained actions. Horizon stated that the new actions in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD terminate the retained actions in paragraphs (g) and (i) of the AD. Those paragraphs had their own exceptions paragraphs that also carried over from AD 2022-25-07. Those exceptions paragraphs are no longer applicable.

The FAA agrees the retained restrictions and exceptions are no longer applicable once the terminating action is accomplished. The FAA does not agree with the need to terminate paragraphs (h), (j), and (k) of the AD because those provisions no longer apply once the actions of paragraph (l) of this AD are accomplished. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

ANAC AD 2023-12-01, effective December 15, 2023, specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for certification maintenance requirements, airplane structures, fuel systems, and safe life limits.

This AD also requires ANAC AD 2022-02-01, effective February 9, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of January 23, 2023 (87 FR 77493, December 19, 2022).

This AD also requires Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations of EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), MRB-1621, Revision 14, dated September 27, 2018; and Embraer Temporary Revision (TR) 14-1, dated November 13, 2018, to Part 4—Life-Limited Items, of Appendix A of EMBRAER 170/175 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), MRB-1621, Revision 14, dated September 27, 2018; which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of February 10, 2020 (85 FR 453, January 6, 2020).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 662 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with the retained actions from AD 2022-25-07:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program from AD 2022-25-07 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2024 (89 FR 51861). The NPRM was prompted by a report of improper inner diameter grinding of landing gear outer cylinders, resulting in possible heat damage to the outer cylinder of the NLG, BLG, and WLG. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing any affected outer cylinders. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received one comment from The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received two additional comments from Boeing. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that an exception paragraph be added to clarify affected outer cylinder numbers. Boeing stated Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2535 RB, dated January 22, 2024, inadvertently lists nine serial numbers without the correct number of leading zeros. Boeing requested that the FAA add the following language to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, “Where Appendix B of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2535 RB, Original Issue dated January 22, 2024, specifies two-digit serial numbers, add two leading zeros ( e.g., serial number 47 should be 0047). Where Appendix B of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2535 RB, Original Issue dated January 22, 2024, specifies three-digit serial numbers, add one leading zero ( e.g., serial number 109 should be 0109).”

The FAA concurs with the comment. The serial numbers listed in Appendix B of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2535 RB, dated January 22, 2024, are part of the required action to find the parts affected by the unsafe condition. Furthermore, the two-digit and three-digit serial numbers listed in Appendix B of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2535 RB, dated January 22, 2024, do not exist and the request is for clarification only. The FAA has revised this AD accordingly.

Boeing requested that a parts installation prohibition paragraph be added to the proposed AD. Boeing stated the outer cylinders of the NLG, BLG, and WLG are rotable structural components which may be moved from one airplane to another. Boeing stated the applicability of the AD covers all in-service Model 747 airplanes noted in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2535 RB, dated January 22, 2024; however the parts installation prohibition is needed to prevent the affected outer cylinders from being moved onto airplanes which have already complied with the required actions of the AD.

The FAA agrees to clarify. 14 CFR 39.7 specifies that once an AD is issued, no person may operate a product to which the AD applies except in accordance with the requirements of that AD. Further, 14 CFR 39.9 imposes a continuing obligation to maintain compliance with an AD by establishing a separate violation for each time an aircraft is operated that fails to meet AD requirements. Thus, operators have an ongoing obligation to ensure that the AD-mandated configuration is maintained. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of the request.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2535 RB, dated January 22, 2024. This material specifies procedures for determining whether the outer cylinder of the NLG, the right and left WLG, and the right and left BLG have an affected part number and serial number and replacing all affected outer cylinders.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 168 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection or maintenance records check. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this replacement:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2023 (88 FR 51745). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracks found at the main deck cargo door forward and aft hinge attachment holes. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a maintenance records check for repairs at the forward and aft hinge areas of the main deck cargo door cutout; repetitive open-hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracks in the unrepaired areas of the bear strap, skin, doubler, and upper sill chord at the main deck cargo door forward and aft hinge attachment holes; and corrective actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the main deck cargo door hinge area, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2024 (89 FR 33294). The SNPRM was prompted by a determination that airplanes that have been modified from a passenger to a freighter configuration using VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VT MAE) Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST03562AT, ST03952AT, or ST04242AT were inadvertently omitted in the NPRM. The SNPRM proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received a comment from Boeing who supported the SNPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from FedEx Express (FedEx) and VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VT MAE). The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

FedEx stated that the FAA is placing an unrealistic timeline and burden, without any data, on operators with airplanes modified by VT MAE STC ST03562AT. Within paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD and paragraph 3, Compliance, of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0106 RB, dated January 3, 2023, the FAA is granting airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the proposed AD and paragraph 1, Effectivity, of Boeing Alert RB 757-53A0106 RB, dated January 3, 2023, a minimum of 2,800 flight cycles, but the modified VT MAE STC ST03562AT airplanes only get 30 days. FedEx stated that there is no way FedEx can comply with a 30-day maintenance record check on 118 airplanes. This unsubstantiated 30-day compliance time will end up grounding a majority of the FedEx 757-200 fleet. If the FAA keeps this proposed 30-day maintenance record check compliance, FedEx will immediately request approval to extend the compliance time via an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). However, AMOC processing by the FAA could take 30 days to approve and still result in a FedEx 757-200 fleet grounding, even if the FAA agrees to the extension.

Similarly, VT MAE stated that it is impossible for their operators to comply with the requirements within 30 days after the effective date of the AD. This is particularly true for FedEx, which operates 118 Boeing Model 757-200 special freighter airplanes converted per VT MAE STC ST03562AT (14 pallet configuration). VT MAE added that for the airplanes converted per VT MAE STC ST03562AT (14 Pallet Configuration), VT MAE STC ST03952AT (14 pallet configuration), and VT MAE STC ST04242AT (15 pallet configuration), the installation of the main deck cargo door hinge is identical to the Boeing 757-200 Special Freighter (SF) airplanes converted per Boeing STC ST00916WI-D. The installation of the main deck cargo door hinge in Drawing 657N3270 that is applicable to both Boeing Model 757-200SF series airplanes and modified VT MAE STC airplanes per VT MAE STC ST03562AT (14 pallet configuration), VT MAE STC ST03952AT (14 pallet configuration), and VT MAE STC ST04242AT (15 pallet configuration).

The FAA agrees with the requests. The FAA did not intend to require a maintenance record check for any repair at the forward and aft hinge areas of the main deck cargo door cutout in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD. The FAA has changed paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to require obtaining inspection instructions and applicable repair instructions using a method approved by the FAA. The FAA agrees that the Boeing Model 757 airplanes that have been modified by VT MAE STC ST03562AT (14 pallet configuration), ST03952AT (14 pallet configuration), and ST04242AT (15 pallet configuration) are affected by this AD, because these airplane configurations have the main deck cargo door cutouts.

FedEx referred to paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD, which would require obtaining inspection instructions and applicable repair instructions using a method approved by the FAA. Boeing STC ST00916WI-D and VT MAE STC ST03562AT are identical. The VT MAE STC ST03562AT main deck cargo door hinge installation is done in accordance with Boeing Drawing 657N3270, which is applicable to Model Boeing 757-200SF airplanes. According to Boeing Letter FED-SU-1901571 and VT MAE Document No. 337/STR-100, both Boeing and VT MAE own the technical data for VT MAE STC ST03562AT. For repairs, service bulletins, ADs, etc., on Boeing Model 757-200 airplanes, Boeing and VT MAE provide direction and approval to FedEx. As stated in the initial comment period by FedEx and VTMAE, FedEx will be utilizing the Group 2 instructions in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0106 RB, dated January 3, 2023, to address the unsafe condition identified in the SNPRM. If this is not acceptable to the FAA, FedEx requested that the FAA provide a method of compliance (MOC) for VT MAE STC ST03562AT airplanes to comply with the SNPRM. According to FedEx and VT MAE (design approval holder), utilizing the Group 2 instructions in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0106 RB, dated January 3, 2023, will address the unsafe condition identified in the SNPRM.

Therefore, FedEx requested a change to the requirements for airplanes converted to a freighter configuration using VT MAE STC ST03562AT, ST03952AT, or ST04242AT. Specifically, FedEx requested that those airplanes be required to use instructions for Group 2 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0106 RB, dated January 3, 2023.

Similarly, VT MAE proposed to utilize the inspections, methods, and intervals  1 in Group 2 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0106 RB, dated January 3, 2023, for the modified airplanes per VT MAE STC ST03562AT (14 pallet configuration), VT MAE STC ST03952AT (14 pallet configuration), and VT MAE STC ST04242AT (15 pallet configuration).

The FAA does not agree with the requests. At this time, whether the VT MAE and Boeing STCs are identical in the areas affected by this proposed AD or using the compliance methods and times for Group 2 airplanes adequately address the identified unsafe condition has not been determined. FedEx and VT MAE are to request that the FAA provide a method of compliance (MOC) for airplanes with VT MAE STC ST03562AT (14 pallet configuration), VT MAE STC ST03952AT (14 pallet configuration), and VT MAE STC ST04242AT (15 pallet configuration) to comply with the SNPRM. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this request.

The FAA does not agree to change paragraph (g)(2) as FedEx specifically requested but has changed paragraph (g)(2) of this AD from a requirement to perform a maintenance record check for repairs to a requirement to obtain inspection instructions and applicable repair instructions.

FedEx stated that a 30-day compliance time is designated for emergency ADs. The commenter stated that as paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD is written, the FAA is forcing an emergency AD on VT MAE STC ST03562AT airplanes in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD with no substantiating data, while airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the proposed AD, Group 2 (Boeing STC ST00916WI-D airplanes) are allowed to maintain the original compliance time (27,500 flight cycles after conversion or 2,800 flight cycles after the AD's effective date, whichever occurs later). FedEx pointed out that the FAA is applying inconsistent compliance times for airplanes modified per Boeing STC ST00916WI-D and airplanes modified by VT MAE STC ST03562AT airplanes—and, as stated in a previous comment, these are identical STCs.

The FAA does not agree with this request. There is no merit to FedEx's statement that a 30-day compliance time is designated for emergency ADs. The compliance time does not determine the type of AD, and the AD type is not limited to a compliance time range. This is not an emergency AD. The 30-day compliance time is to allow for FedEx and VT MAE to request the FAA to provide a method of compliance (MOC) for airplanes modified with VT MAE STCs to comply with the AD. Boeing and VT MAE own the technical data, which can be provided for justification prior to the compliance time ending. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this request.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0106 RB, dated January 3, 2023. This material specifies procedures for a maintenance record check for repairs at the forward and aft hinge areas of the main deck cargo door cutout; repetitive open-hole HFEC inspections for cracks in the unrepaired areas of the bear strap, skin, doubler, and upper sill chord at the main deck cargo door forward and aft hinge attachment holes; and corrective actions including obtaining and following procedures for alternative inspections and crack repairs.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 564 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2024 (89 FR 67577). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-77, dated December 7, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-77) (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that during several in-service events, following a STAB TRIM FAULT advisory message and an autopilot disconnect, both pilot and co-pilot commands to trim the horizontal stabilizer nose-up resulted in a nose-down movement of the horizontal stabilizer. In some events, the horizontal stabilizer reached the full travel nose-down position before the crew recognized the nature of the problem, and quickly recovered control of the airplane for safe landing. An issue with the trim switch wiring installation was identified as the main cause of the in-service unintended horizontal stabilizer motion events. The current wiring of the system is such that, if trim is enabled via the copilot-side trim switch, and the pilot-side trim switch malfunctions, it is possible for trim to move uncommanded or opposite to the intended direction.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing the pitch/roll trim switch relays. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the problem with the trim switch wiring, which is the main cause of the uncommanded horizontal stabilizer motion. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in increased crew workload and reduced safety margins, and if the flightcrew is unable to regain control of the horizontal stabilizer, would result in loss of control of the airplane and high control forces.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2023.

The FAA received a comment from an individual. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

The commenter suggested that Bombardier should develop a preventive maintenance program to assess if the proposed AD would apply to the same airplanes of different serial numbers. The commenter referenced another AD (PA-28 wing spar), pointing out that operators were only required to repair the affected part if damage or failure was detected. The commenter noted that a preventive replacement of the affected part was not required, and that is something that Bombardier should consider researching. The commenter further asserted that this would only be considered if engineers and researchers can show with evidence that periodic inspections outweigh the cost of a preventive repair.

The FAA does not agree. The NPRM specifically stated that “The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.” Bombardier has confirmed that airplanes having serial number 20937 and subsequent, also subject to the unsafe condition addressed in this AD, were modified in production. Further, this AD bypasses any type of preventive maintenance inspection prior to modifying the trim switches because Bombardier has determined that the trim switches have a problem with the wiring installation, which is why all affected trim switches must be rewired (not simply inspected and repaired only if damage or failure is found). No change has been made to this AD in this regard.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-27-22 and Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-27-012, both dated December 29, 2022. This material specifies procedures to install the pitch/roll trim switch relays. The installation includes reworking the plate assembly; installing relay bracket assemblies, relays, ground return stacks on the relay bracket assemblies, wires for the relays, and line replaceable units and trays on the left-side and right-side avionic racks; and performing operational testing. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 359 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2024 (89 FR 43792). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating cracks in the frame inner chord and web at STA 727 between S-11L and S-13L. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection for any repair installed, repetitive inspections of the frame inner chord and web at STA 727 for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks in the left and right frames at STA 727 before they reach a critical length. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, may result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit load, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from three commenters, including Aviation Partners Boeing, FlyPersia Airline, and Sudan Civil Aviation Authority. In addition, the FAA received a comment from an individual whose request is not specific to this AD or a request the FAA can act on. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

FlyPersia Airline requested that the area of inspection for any repair and repetitive high frequency eddy current inspection include the frame inner chord and web at STA 663.75 through STA 727 between stringers S-11 and S-13 left and right sides. The commenter stated that the mentioned crack on stringers S-11 and S-13 left and right might also exist on those stringers at STA 663.75 through STA 727, because on Model 737-300 airplanes there is a landing gear cavity, which impresses circumferential structure unity on STA 663.75.

The FAA disagrees with expanding the area of inspection in this AD. The Boeing service bulletin addresses only the frame inner chord and web at STA 727, between S-11 and S-13, left and right sides. STA 727 frame between S-11 and S-13, located at a bulkhead station, is different from other frames forward of STA 727, and therefore is the only area of inspection addressed in this AD. However, if additional data are presented that would justify extending the subject inspection area, the FAA might consider further rulemaking on this issue. No change has been made to this AD regarding this issue.

Sudan Civil Aviation Authority requested the grace period for the initial compliance time for the general visual inspection of STA 727 (within 4,500 flight cycles after the original issue date of the requirements bulletin) be reduced. Sudan Civil Aviation Authority stated that the compliance time for some Model 737-400 airplanes may fall beyond the 50,000 total flight cycles at which the crack has been found.

The FAA disagrees. After considering all the available information, the FAA has determined that the grace period, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. In developing an appropriate grace period, the FAA considered the safety implications, parts availability, normal maintenance schedules, and the manufacturer's recommendation for timely accomplishment of the modifications. To reduce the grace period of the proposed AD would necessitate (under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the notice, reopening the period for public comment, considering additional comments subsequently received, and eventually issuing a final rule. In light of this, and in consideration of the amount of time that has already elapsed since issuance of the original notice, the FAA has determined that further delay of this AD is not appropriate. However, if additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, the FAA may consider further rulemaking on this issue. No change has been made to this AD regarding this issue.

Sudan Civil Aviation Authority stated that Condition 2.2: No Crack Found in Group 2, Table 1: Inspection of Frame at STA 727 Between S-11 and S-13, Left and Right Side, 3. Compliance, of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1416RB, dated July 21, 2023, needs to be deleted. The commenter pointed out that Condition 2.2 (unrepaired areas) should be deleted because there is no repair found.

The FAA agrees to clarify. Condition 2 is accomplished for airplanes that have no repairs in the inspection area and requires high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the area before further flight. Condition 2.2 is then accomplished if no crack is found during the initial inspection (Condition 2), repeating the HFEC inspections of the unrepaired areas within 9,000 flight cycles. Condition 2.2 includes footnote (a) because a repair could be installed at any point prior to the repeat HFEC inspection, and that repair could terminate the repeat HFEC inspection. No change has been made to this AD regarding this issue.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1416 RB, dated July 21, 2023. This material specifies procedures for a general visual inspection for any repair and repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections of the frame inner chord and web at STA 727, between S-11 and S-13, left and right sides, for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include obtaining and following repair instructions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 245 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2024 (89 FR 64837). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-74, dated November 21, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-74) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states MHI RJ Aviation ULC discovered that ten ultrasound ( i.e., ultrasonic) inspection procedures in Part 4 of the non-destructive testing manual (NDTM), which is associated with AWL tasks and SDIR tasks, could potentially not detect cracks. The MCAI stated this is due to differences in sound attenuation between airplane structures assembled with faying surface sealant and the calibration reference standards used to calibrate the ultrasonic testing probes that were assembled without faying surface sealant.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive ultrasonic inspections of certain structural areas for cracking, and repair of cracking. The FAA also proposed to prohibit use of the previous revisions of certain procedures and mandate the use of the revised procedures when performing the inspections required by the associated AWL and SDIR tasks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address undetected cracks in certain structural areas. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2012.

The FAA received a comment from Air Wisconsin Airlines. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Air Wisconsin Airlines requested a clarification for AWL NDTM part 4 procedure 601R-51-53-61-345, temporary revision (TR) 51-028, per the MCAI. Air Wisconsin Airlines asked whether the proposed inspection would be required only for the repaired portion of the upper web, or for the lower web as well, if only a partial repair of the upper web was accomplished per repair engineering order (REO) 601R-53-61-345.

The FAA provides the following clarification. This AD applies only to an existing repair location. Therefore, if only the upper web has a generic repair engineering order (GREO) per AWL 601R-53-61-345, the inspection task 51-53-61-345 is used to inspect the upper web. The lower web is inspected according to the intervals and inspection methods specified in the applicable maintenance repair manual (MRM), Part 2. The FAA has clarified this issue in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Transport Canada AD CF-2023-74 specifies procedures for repetitive ultrasonic inspections of certain structural areas for cracking. The structural areas include, but are not limited to, certain lateral beam web and lower cap flanges, engine support beam cap angles, engine support beams, webs, and doublers. Transport Canada AD CF-2023-74 also prohibits the use of the previous revisions of certain ultrasonic inspection procedures specified in Part 4 of the NDTM and mandates the use of revised procedures when performing the inspections required by the associated AWL and SDIR tasks.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 395 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the repairs specified in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-22-10, Amendment 39-22225 (87 FR 72374, November 25, 2022) (AD 2022-22-10). AD 2022-22-10 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2022-22-10 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2022-22-10 to address failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2024 (89 FR 79789). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0066, dated March 8, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0066) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require certain requirements of AD 2022-22-10. The FAA also proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0066. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2323.

The FAA received one comment from an individual who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA revised paragraph (m) of this AD to specify that previously approved AMOCs for AD 2022-22-10 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2022-0082, dated May 10, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0082), which are required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2024-0066, which are required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2024-0066 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness tasks and limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2022-0082, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 30, 2022 (87 FR 72374, November 25, 2022).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,857 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2022-22-10 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2024-1848 in the Federal Register (89 FR 58299; July 18, 2024), proposing to amend domestic VOR Federal Airways V-3, V-35, V-51, V-97, V-157, V-159, V-225, V-437, V-492, V-521, and V-537 and revoke VOR Federal Airways V-295, V-529, and V-601 in the eastern United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent the NPRM, the FAA identified that in the description of VOR Federal Airway V-3, the radials listed for the SMUGS, FL, Fix, proposed to replace the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC were incorrect. The SMUGS Fix was incorrectly listed as the intersection of the Palm Beach, FL (PBI), VORTAC 340° True (T)/343° Magnetic (M) and the Lee County, FL (RSW), VORTAC 063°T/065°M radials. The correct radials for the SMUGS Fix are the intersection of the Palm Beach, FL (PBI), VORTAC 340°T/343°M and the Melbourne, FL (MLB), VOR/DME 161°T/168°M radials. The corrected radials that form the SMUGS Fix are included in the V-3 preamble discussion and regulatory text section in this final rule.

Additionally, the FAA made minor editorial corrections to the airway descriptions to comply with ATS route formatting requirements.

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

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airways V-3, V-35, V-51, V-97, V-157, V-159, V-225, V-437, V-492, V-521, and V-537; and revoking VOR Federal Airways V-295, V-529, and V-601 in the eastern United States. This action is due to the decommissioning of the Cypress, FL (CYY), VOR/DME; the La Belle, FL (LBV), VORTAC; the Pahokee, FL (PHK), VOR/DME; and the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC. This action is in support of the FAA's VOR MON Program. The ATS route changes are described below.

V-3: Prior to this final rule, V-3 extended between the Key West, FL (EYW), VORTAC and the intersection of the Savannah, GA (SAV), VORTAC 028° and Allendale, SC (ALD), VOR 116° radials (OWENS Fix); between the Florence, SC (FLO), VORTAC and the Boston, MA (BOS), VOR/DME; and between the Presque Isle, ME (PQI), VOR/DME and the intersection of the Presque Isle VOR/DME 270° and the Millinocket, ME (MLT), VOR/DME 320° radials (LABRE Fix). The FAA removes the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC from the route and replaces it with the intersection of the Palm Beach, FL (PBI), VORTAC 340° T/343° M and the Melbourne, FL (MLB), VOR/DME 161°T/168°M radials (SMUGS, FL, Fix) due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Treasure VORTAC.

Additionally, the FAA removes the airway segment between the Presque Isle VOR/DME and the LABRE Fix near the United States (U.S.)/Canadian border. The airway structure that connected to the LABRE Fix on the Canadian side of the border has been removed so this airway segment was no longer needed for navigation. As amended, the route extends between the Key West VORTAC and the OWENS Fix; and between the Florence VORTAC and the Boston VOR/DME.

V-35: Prior to this final rule, V-35 extended between the Dolphin, FL (DHP), VORTAC and the Pecan, GA (PZD), VOR/DME; between the intersection of the Dublin, GA (DBN), VORTAC 309° and the Athens, GA (AHN), VOR/DME 195° radials (SINCA Fix) and the Morgantown, WV (MGW), VOR/DME; and between the Philipsburg, PA (PSB), VORTAC and the Stonyfork, PA (SFK), VOR/DME. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Dolphin VORTAC and the Lee County, FL (RSW), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Cypress, FL (CYY), VOR/DME. As amended, the route extends between the Lee County VORTAC and the Pecan VOR/DME, between the SINCA Fix and the Morgantown VOR/DME, and between the Philipsburg VORTAC and the Stonyfork VOR/DME.

V-51: Prior to this final rule, V-51 extended between the Pahokee, FL (PHK), VOR/DME and the Craig, FL (CRG), VORTAC; between the Hinch Mountain, TN (HCH), VOR/DME and the Louisville, KY (IIU), VORTAC; and between the Shelbyville, IN (SHB), VOR/DME and the Chicago Heights, IL (CGT), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Pahokee VOR/DME and the Ormond Beach, FL (OMN), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Pahokee VOR/DME and the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the Ormond Beach VORTAC and the Craig VORTAC; between the Hinch Mountain VOR/DME and the Louisville VORTAC; and between the Shelbyville VOR/DME and the Chicago Heights VORTAC.

V-97: Prior to this final rule, V-97 extended between the Dolphin, FL (DHP), VORTAC and the intersection of the Pecan, GA (PZD), VOR/DME 357° and Vienna, GA (VNA), VORTAC 300° radials (PRATZ Fix); between the intersection of the Rome, GA (RMG), VORTAC 060° and the Volunteer, TN (VXV), VORTAC 197° radials (NELLO Fix) and the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL (CGT), VORTAC 358° and DuPage, IL (DPA), VOR/DME 101° radials (NILES Fix); and between the Nodine, MN (ODI), VORTAC and the Gopher, MN (GEP), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Dolphin VORTAC and the St. Petersburg, FL (PIE), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the La Belle, FL (LBV), VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the St. Petersburg VORTAC and the PRATZ Fix; between the NELLO Fix and the NILES Fix; and between the Nodine VORTAC and the Gopher VORTAC.

V-157: Prior to this final rule, V-157 extended between the Key West, FL (EYW), VORTAC and the Waycross, GA (AYS), VORTAC; between the Florence, SC (FLO), VORTAC and the Tar River, NC (TYI), VORTAC; and between Robbinsville, NJ (RBV), VORTAC and the Albany, NY (ALB), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Dolphin, FL (DHP), VORTAC and the Lakeland, FL (LAL), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the La Belle, FL (LBV), VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the Key West VORTAC and the Dolphin VORTAC; between the Lakeland VORTAC and the Waycross VORTAC; between the Florence VORTAC and the Tar River VORTAC; and between the Robbinsville VORTAC and the Albany VORTAC.

V-159: Prior to this final rule, V-159 extended between the Virginia Key, FL (VKZ), VOR/DME and the Vulcan, AL (VUZ), VORTAC; and between the Holly Springs, MS (HLI), VORTAC and the Omaha, IA (OVR), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Virginia Key VOR/DME and the intersection of the Melbourne, FL (MLB), VOR/DME 269° T/276° M and the Orlando, FL (ORL), VORTAC 140° radials (DEARY Fix) due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the DEARY Fix and the Vulcan VORTAC; and between the Holly Springs VORTAC and the Omaha VORTAC.

V-225: Prior to this final rule, V-225 extended between the Key West, FL (EYW), VORTAC and the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Lee County, FL (RSW), VORTAC and the Treasure VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the La Belle, FL (LBV), VORTAC and the Treasure VORTAC. Additionally, the FAA removes the specified floor of controlled airspace along the route as it is no longer valid and removes the portion of the route's description that reads “The portion of V-225 E alternate outside of the United States has no upper limit”, as V-225 E alternate no longer exists. As amended, the route extends between the Key West VORTAC and the Lee County VORTAC.

V-295: Prior to this final rule, V-295 extended between the Virginia Key, FL (VKZ), VOR/DME and the Seminole, FL (SZW), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Virginia Key VOR/DME and the Orlando, FL (ORL), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC. Additionally, the FAA removes the airway segments between the Orlando VORTAC and the Seminole VORTAC due to redundant navigation capability provided by VOR Federal Airways V-159 and V-7. The FAA removes the route in its entirety.

V-437: Prior to this final rule, V-437 extended between the Dolphin, FL (DHP), VORTAC and the Florence, SC (FLO), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Dolphin VORTAC and the Melbourne, FL (MLB), VOR/DME due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Pahokee, FL (PHK), VOR/DME. As amended, the route extends between the Melbourne VOR/DME and the Florence VORTAC.

V-492: Prior to this final rule, V-492 extended between the La Belle, FL (LBV), VORTAC and the Melbourne, FL (MLB), VOR/DME. The FAA removes the airway segments between the La Belle VORTAC and the Palm Beach, FL (PBI), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the La Belle VORTAC and the Pahokee, FL (PHK), VOR/DME. As amended, the route extends between the Palm Beach VORTAC and the Melbourne VOR/DME.

V-521: Prior to this final rule, V-521 extended between the Dolphin, FL (DHP), VORTAC and the Vulcan, AL (VUZ), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Dolphin VORTAC and the Lee County, FL (RSW), VORTAC due to the scheduled decommissioning of the La Belle, FL (LBV), VORTAC. Additionally, the FAA removes the airway segments between the Lee County VORTAC and the Marianna, FL (MAI), VORTAC due to redundant navigation capability provided by VOR Federal Airways V-7 and V-198. As amended, the route extends between the Marianna VORTAC and the Vulcan VORTAC.

V-529: Prior to this final rule, V-529 extended between the intersection of the Miami, FL, VOR 222° and the La Belle, FL (LBV), VORTAC 158° radials (FAMIN Fix) and the La Belle, VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway in its entirety due to the scheduled decommissioning of the La Belle VORTAC.

V-537: Prior to this final rule, V-537 extended between the Palm Beach, FL (PBI), VORTAC and the Greenville, FL (GEF), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Palm Beach VORTAC and the intersection of the Melbourne, FL (MLB), VOR/DME 269° T/276° M and the Orlando, FL (ORL), VORTAC 140° T/140° M radials (DEARY Fix) due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Treasure, FL (TRV), VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the DEARY Fix and the Greenville VORTAC.

V-601: Prior to this final rule, V-601 extended between the Pahokee, FL (PHK), VOR/DME and the Key West, FL (EYW), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway in its entirety due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Pahokee VOR/DME.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending domestic VOR Federal Airways V-3, V-35, V-51, V-97, V-157, V-159, V-225, V-437, V-492, V-521, and V-537 and revoking VOR Federal Airways V-295, V-529, and V-601 in the eastern United States, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ) . . .”. As such, this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

A. Background

The Judicial Officer Department reviewed its rules for Debt Collection Act Petitions and found it necessary to make some revisions for the reader's ease of understanding. Some changes also reflect current practices.

The rule is revised for better ease of understanding and to reflect current practices.

The interim final rule, “Practices Before the Department of the Interior,” published on January 10, 2025, at 90 FR 2332, included a 30-day public comment period that ends on February 10, 2025. The effective date of the interim final rule is February 10, 2025. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is taking this action in response to Memorandum M-25-10 of January 20, 2025, from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Implementation of Regulatory Freeze, regarding the postponement of effective dates of certain published regulations. The memorandum directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to consider postponing for sixty days from the date of the memorandum the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register , or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rule may raise. OHA is delaying the effective date of the interim final rule published at 90 FR 2332 to March 21, 2025.

OHA is delaying the effective date of the interim final rule without opportunity for public comment and making the delay effective immediately, based on the good cause exemptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), in that seeking public comment on the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The delay in effective date until March 21, 2025, is necessary to give Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the memorandum of the President, dated January 20, 2025. Given the imminence of the effective date of the interim final rule, seeking prior public comment on this delay is impractical, and contrary to